A lot of people have already expressed what I feel on these issues. I am encouraged that there are other people out there who are interested in liberty.

Brooke Stevens

Thanks for writing back!! I can tell you have put a lot of thought into this, so let me try to expand on my point of view, and offer a couple of links at the end.

“As a commuter who makes use of the highways, the federal government is paying for many of our nation’s roads.”
Factually this is incorrect. The taxpayer – whether through taxes or inflation/money-printing – is paying for the same roads. Most of the funding comes from the state coffers, and one has to question that when federal money is used, why doesn’t it just stay at the state in the first place? There is no such thing as a federal road crew (yet).

“Furthermore, the federal government uses our taxes to give aid to states (in 2009, the federal government assisted PA with aid marked for agriculture, education, health and human services, transportation, and housing, to name a few you can find online in public records). So it is not as simple as you make it sound–the federal government is sometimes charged with filling in the gaps that our local and state taxes don’t cover.”
Again, not to sound simplistic, but why not keep all this funding at the state level? Localization of funds will serve the public a lot better. However, the bottom line is gov’t has NOTHING – everything it has it takes from the people, and it’s a zero-sum game.

“I agree with you that the postal service is now paying for itself, but it is another example of how federal dollars can be used to create services that the private market has not seen fit to provide (and if the organization branches off and starts paying for itself, so much the better).”
In the Constitution, way back in the days of the horse, post roads/offices were left to the federal gov’t, and for many people this WAS their only interaction with the federal gov’t all the way up to 1910 or so. What about UPS or FEDEX? They are private companies making profits from delivering packages – they cannot by law deliver “letters.” The USPS takes a loss every year, so instead of a profitable company, we have a unprofitable bureaucracy. Now, I am not saying to privatize the USPS as soon as possible – it’s a lower priority all things considered.

Also take a look at AMTRAK – the federal gov’t operates at a loss every year and as a result we do not have a viable passenger rail service in most of the country.

Gov’ts do not have profit/loss mechanisms, which frankly makes it impossible for them to make economics, and makes it all too susceptible to corruption, like lobbyist campaign dollars.

“High risk and innovative research can be both expensive and uncertain.”
Agree.

“Federal money provides the tools to engage in research that is not easy to make a profit off of but that has significant public health impacts.”
This is a nirvana fallacy. Since there is scarcity, it is not economically feasible for governments to decide what’s best. Is research on hot lava flows better than leaving money in someone’s pocket to buy food? This is also known as the “seen” vs. the “unseen” consequences which I describe in more detail here.
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/the-governments-war-on-main-street-1/

Private R&D and philanthropy are better alternatives than bureaucrats.

“I am grateful for my access to federal loans because the payment plans are more flexible and the interest rates are more moderate than my private loans. The answer to the issue of student debt is not to lessen federal money (and put students and parents in the hands of private loans with high interest rates).”
I have no objections to anyone taking advantage of the current system, but please understand — the fact that the feds pump more money into college tuition (and expand the money supply by inflation) is DIRECTLY responsible for the rising costs and inefficiencies in colleges.

This makes attending college all but impossible for folks who cannot access the federal money (subject to the whims of a bureaucrat). Obviously, phasing out gradually would likely be a better way of achieving less pain on all sides. I’ll also add that due to the students debt and lack of jobs, many are staying in college for longer time periods to defer the interest accrual – and racking up more debt. It is unsustainable in the long term, and bankruptcy is not exactly supposed to be part of starting a career.

“However, in terms of economics, I am hesitant to put my faith in a private market answer for everything (research, job creation, strengthening the economy, education)– especially since it was private market logic that helped create many of the problems leading to the current recession.”

I will have to strongly disagree that private market logic lead to this depression. It was the currency and credit expansion of the Federal Reserve ultimately, and this is really the antithesis of free markets. (“private” meaning corporatism/crony capitalism, you have a point).
As a student of the Austrian school, in this article there is a slide that highlights its differences with Keynesianism
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/the-governments-war-on-main-street-1/

On economic interventions, see also my note on political economic suppression. http://towneforcongress.com/economy/political-economic-suppression/

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the dialogue. I should have been more specific. As a commuter who makes use of the highways, the federal government is paying for many of our nation’s roads.

Furthermore, the federal government uses our taxes to give aid to states (in 2009, the federal government assisted PA with aid marked for agriculture, education, health and human services, transportation, and housing, to name a few you can find online in public records). So it is not as simple as you make it sound–the federal government is sometimes charged with filling in the gaps that our local and state taxes don’t cover. I agree with you that the postal service is now paying for itself, but it is another example of how federal dollars can be used to create services that the private market has not seen fit to provide (and if the organization branches off and starts paying for itself, so much the better).

As someone who is involved in publicly funded research, I have found that the private sector is looking to publicly funded research to provide them with the innovative leads that are too expensive and risky for profit enterprises to try. High risk and innovative research can be both expensive and uncertain. Federal money provides the tools to engage in research that is not easy to make a profit off of but that has significant public health impacts.

I am one of those students who financed my education with loans, both public and private, and I can tell you that while my loans are a burden, I am grateful for my access to federal loans because the payment plans are more flexible and the interest rates are more moderate than my private loans. The answer to the issue of student debt is not to lessen federal money (and put students and parents in the hands of private loans with high interest rates).

I definitely do not disagree with the concerns you raise about military spending; I think the war in Iraq was not the best decision for our country or the world. I also agree that there should be more real help to veterans and their families. And I certainly agree with your stance on more transparency in the government. However, in terms of economics, I am hesitant to put my faith in a private market answer for everything (research, job creation, strengthening the economy, education)– especially since it was private market logic that helped create many of the problems leading to the current recession.

But I do thank you for bringing these issue to the forefront for discussion. I respect your opinion on the topics we have discussed, and I wish you the best of luck in November. I think it is so important to get independent ideas and candidates out there in the midst of mainstream politics, so I thank you for running and taking the time to share your ideas.

Thanks for writing!!

“I am surprised at your views on removing the IRS. By your own description of how “[s]ome of our brightest minds – lawyers, accountants, and computer experts – pound away at keyboards trying to figure out either how to plunder more money from others or find loops in the tax code to “save costs” for their clients”, I would expect you would also be against Wall Street, investment banking or any other occupation where lawyers, accountants, and computer experts look for ways to plunder money from others. ”

No, speculators and investors – as long as they are not committing fraud – play a vital role in our society, and this is certainly value-added. Same with accountants at companies helping figure out whether a profit or loss is being made. However, paying people to fill out tax forms is not value-added.

“When the government collects taxes and redistributes them, it pays for the medical research occurring at hospitals all over the country, it covers the free education our children receive (or the grants and low interest loans our college students need to finance their education), the mail service we rely on to send notes and presents, the military we use to protect and defend us, and the roads we commute on everyday, to name a few.”

If only what you wrote was true. Roads are paid for by state taxes, not federal. The mail service should be paid for by its users, though you have a valid point since the USPS loses money every year. Elementary and secondary schools are paid for by state and local taxes, not federal. Ask any parent how “free” their child’s education is – there is no such thing as a free lunch, and many of those same college students are now saddled with unmanageable debt after graduation due to the bloated cost of college education due to federal subsidies.

Medical research would still take place, and likely would be more highly productive, with the private sector, instead of having the inevitable corruption of gov’t deciding where to dole out funds.

Defense, you have a valid point! However we are spending over $1 trillion a year on our foreign policy — which is about the same size as the income tax. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world COMBINED. However, we do not bother with securing our own borders, which is the constitutional duty of the military. This won’t cost >$1 trillion however.

The only true purpose of the income tax is to instill socioeconomic changes, feel free to read the list of items.

http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/income-tax/

While I have been campaigning, I still call for an income tax holiday or at least eliminating the tax for 50% of all Americans making the median household income or lower as they pay just 3% of the tax.

Thanks for your note!!