Entitlement Question to Rep. King

This is one of the questions from the call referenced in the previous post.

One question to Mr. King was '...You say reducing capital gains taxes is the right way to rebuild the economy. David Walker and the Peter G Peterson Foundation say that the upcoming unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are the bigger threat.' "Do you propose to cut spending in the area of entitlement programs and how are you going to address that?"

Mr. King's answer was to say that Mr. Bush had expended his political capital in attempting to remove some entitlement spending during his administration to no avail. He said he would be supportive of what could be brought to reform Medicare, social security and others, but he's turned his focus more on real tax reform. He then went on to say that we are in a crisis and leaping off the brink of the abyss into a socialist economy. He wants to know how we can get this thing to the point where we can make some positive changes.
He believes two "transformational" changes would put us back on the road to fiscal responsibility: a fair tax, and giving parents school choice.

First, I don't believe a fair tax (by which I think he may be referring to a flat tax or the consumer based sales tax model - but he didn't say really, so perhaps he, or someone in his office will correct this if I am mistaken) will ever be passed because the tax code as it stands is such an excellent tool in the hands of government/law enforcement. If we cannot stop some criminal in any other way, we have the get-them-through-their-taxes option. The current tax code is longer than the Bible. I believe that it is now, nearly impossible for anyone to file their taxes in a way that is above reproach. It's a catch - 22 in the system, a sword of Damocles, if you will. It does need to be changed, but I don't think anyone who currently holds an ounce of power in the government will really vote to change it to a simple and easily understood system. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong at Congress' earliest possible convenience.

Second, school choice is a wonderful thing. I am currently utilizing a school choice program for my own son. Yay to school choice. So what? Federal funding of education is an entitlement program. One does not get rid of entitlement programs by continuing to fund adapted forms of them.

Put the states in charge of their educational systems and have a federal competency test. Education is important, but from all that I've seen and read, the two most important factors in a child's education are parental involvement and good teachers. Not extracurriculars, not fancy facilities, not athletic programs, not the many bureaucratic layers necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidelines, not even community support - parental involvement and good teachers.
Putting the states in charge of their own educational systems brings the choices closer to home and begets parental involvement. Here's a really revolutionary and transformational idea for Mr. King, let schools fire teachers when they need to be fired. The NEA has been holding this country hostage long enough. Teaching is not any more noble than any other job which serves it's community.

A national competency test would assure us that when a student has obtained a high school diploma he/she will be able to read, write and do math with a certain level of competence whether they were taught in Maine or Hawaii. That would be transformational and reduce a large entitlement program.

Thirdly, yes, I agree we, as a nation, appear to be ecstatically leaping off the edge of fiscal irresponsibility and into the abyss of socialism. However, refusing to address the entitlement programs we have on the basis of pointing out the fiscally and philosophically perilous entitlement programs we are about to be adding is illogical. Don't vote to add the new ones and tackle the old ones head on. Yes, that means you risk being labeled as heartless and voted out of office in the next election. That's what character is, doing the right thing regardless of popular opinion and personal risk. We are a republic, not a democracy, for just that reason. Because popular opinion is not always right. While a congressman/woman does need to be responsive to their constituency, they also need to be aware that their constituencies do not have all the information they need to make good decisions in all matters legislative-that's why they hired you-to do the right thing for them and the country, to oppose their wishes when your information is better.

I thank you Mr. King for taking that question. My observations are not those of a republican, just a conservative. I thank you for making yourself available for the conference and for your service to the country as an elected Representative.

I'll get to more of the questions from this call in another post.

"And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle."~1 Sam 17:28