Len Munsil » Tax/Fiscal

YOU HAD ME AT ‘MAXIMUM ECONOMIC FREEDOM’

Tracy Munsil — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 02:20:24 +0000

So, what does the Republican Party stand for? The first line of the GOP 2012 Platform (after the Preamble) states: “We are the party of maximum economic freedom and the prosperity freedom makes possible …” The 2012 GOP Platform clearly reflects our nation’s founding principles of economic and political liberty.

Our Founders specifically designed our political system to maximize economic liberty, protect private property and establish a context for economic flourishing. Economic liberty was universally seen as the foundation for individual political liberty. Thinkers from John Locke to Adam Smith informed and reinforced this fundamental American idea. In fact, America is exceptional among nations in how its Constitution protects and promotes economic liberty.

The U.S. Constitution specifically protected private property, encouraged free trade, restored public credit and protected American interests abroad. In essence it established the “rules of the game” for our free market system, insisting on the rule of law, protecting contractual obligations, devising a sound currency, and encouraging economic competition.

Just a few specifics: Article 1, Section 10 protects private contracts. Private property is protected from government “taking” without just compensation (Fifth Amendment). The Constitution established a stable currency through a number of measures. Finally, the Constitution encouraged innovation by empowering Congress “To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries“(Article I, Section 8). From 1850 to 1860, patents for inventions exploded from 1,000 to almost 4,500. Among these were key inventions in transportation and communication – the steam engine, the railroad and the telegraph – which provided powerful catalysts for Western expansion and the unparalleled economic growth of the 19th Century.

And in what might have been the most important — and revolutionary — act of his political career, Thomas Jefferson in 1785 insisted that all new U.S. territory be surveyed in the Public Land Survey System (PLSS). In other words, parcels of private property had to be identifiable and protected. When the United States opened the Northwest Territory (1787) and later, lands stretching to the Pacific Ocean, settlers knew their property was surveyed and secure.

America’s exceptional economic growth and enduring economic power flowed directly from these provisions for economic liberty. In the decade between 1880 and 1890 – during our nation’s infancy – the United States overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power. And we’ve never looked back.

We live today in a very different America, with a highly over-regulated economic system – high taxes, disincentives to entrepreneurialism, endless bureaucratic red tape, and a stranglehold on small businesses.

I’m not sure what the 2016 Platform will say, but insisting on “maximum economic freedom” would be a breath of fresh air.

MY TURN

Len Munsil — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:02:49 +0000

Thanks to the Arizona Republic for allowing me a brief opportunity to present an unvarnished response to their editorial endorsement of Janet Napolitano. Please read it and send the link to others!

TAXATION WITHOUT MISREPRESENTATION

Len Munsil — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:53:14 +0000

More than a decade ago Gov. Fife Symington proposed eliminating the state income tax. While that goal was not accomplished, the consistent downward pressure on individual taxes resulted in a booming economy and increased revenue for the state.
Siimilar federal tax cuts by John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush contributed to substantial economic growth for our nation. In fact, Janet Napolitano has been the beneficiary of federal tax policy, which has led to job growth nationally and in Arizona.
Unfortunately, she does not understand these simple economic principles.
When she was running for office four years ago she hoped to create new sales taxes and eliminate tax credits — two ways to raise taxes without sounding like you are raising taxes.
Fortunately for Arizona, her polices were never followed.
Meanwhile, she opposed every across the board tax cut proposed by the legislature. This year, she was willing to allow $100 million in “targeted” tax cuts — meaning she wanted to pick and choose who should get tax relief. And she was insistent on one thing — no individual income tax rate cuts.
Instead, the legislature forced her to accept $500 million in tax cuts, including a 10 percent income tax rate cut. Now she is taking credit for these tax cuts that she opposed.
I have proposed another 10 percent next year, and the next, and beyond. Saturday’s Republic wrote a story analyzing the proposed cuts.
Here is what you need to know for this election: Janet Napolitano will continue to oppose tax cuts and grow the size of Arizona government to the point where she will be forced to seek tax increases to balance the budget.
I will push for lower taxes and more efficient government.

FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE?

Len Munsil — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:38:38 +0000

We may already have an answer on whether Janet Napolitano will attempt to take political credit for tax cuts she opposed in this story from today’s Business Journal:

Napolitano’s camp stresses that the governor supported tax cuts throughout the budget process and that she wanted to make sure the final product was fiscally responsible and included spending on key areas such as education and roads.

Well, c’mon, now. She never supported broad-based income or property tax cuts, as I pointed out earlier today. She did support rebate checks she could send to voters with her name on them right before the election, but only under pressure.
But the funniest thing about her comment is the notion that her proposed 23 percent spending increase somehow represents fiscal responsibility.

BLOATED BUDGET

Len Munsil — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:01:13 +0000

Criticism of the budget deal reached last week between legislative leaders and Gov. Napolitano has been somewhat muted. That is because when your state has a substantial surplus, you can essentially buy everyone’s agreement. Conservatives are pleased to get a tax cut and some school choice provisions. Liberals are happy to get a ton of new spending without accountability.
Here is what voters should remember in November — with a huge budget surplus she did nothing to create, Janet Napolitano started from the position that we should spend virtually all of the surplus. She consistently fought against returning to us any of our tax overpayment. She opposed permanent property tax relief and she opposed income tax rate cuts. She eventually gave in, but only in exchange for astronomical new spending.
She should take credit for all the new spending she has imposed. But if she is honest, she will not try to take political credit for tax cuts she did everything in her power to block. We’ll be watching.

SHE WON’T GIVE YOUR MONEY BACK

Len Munsil — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:51:17 +0000

Janet Napolitano has stood firmly against tax relief for Arizona families and businesses, despite the fact that Arizona taxpayers overpaid by more than a billion dollars this year. She proposed a 23 percent spending increase that puts our state back into a deficit.
In expressing her continued opposition to tax cuts, she is now trying a new spin, according to a news story:

“This tax cut, in my view, is a raid on Arizona’s savings accounts,” she said.

In Janet Napolitano’s mind, your overpayment of taxes is now her money. Her budget proposes to spend your overpayment. Since that approach was proving to be unpopular, she’s now decided to call it her “savings” account. Either way, she does not want to give it back to you.

YOU CAN’T OUTBID LIBERALS ON SPENDING

Len Munsil — Sun, 21 May 2006 16:40:20 +0000

Republican control of the presidency and Congress has accomplished two significant things — an aggressive war on Islamic terror, and judges who understand the rule of law. Those accomplishments are significant.
But President Bush and Congress have ignored conservative principles on spending, trying to curry favor with the media and liberal Democrats by going along with their desire for increased funding. The result — influence-peddling scandals, a growing deficit, and guess what — the attacks on President Bush and Congress by liberal Democrats are more vicious than ever.
Here in Arizona, Janet Napolitano proposed a completely irresponsible budget with a whopping 23 percent spending increase. According to Republic columnist Bob Robb, the Republican budget is a 19 percent increase. And how will this battle play out? The Republicans will be presented as cheapskates who don’t care about education or children. Democrats will be presented as compassionate and caring. The two sides will compromise and we will have a budget deficit next year. And just like in Washington, Democrats will blame Republicans for the deficit.
Republicans in Arizona could propose doubling the budget for education, and Democrats would scream it is not enough. And the media would present it the same way — Democrats care about the children, Republicans don’t. Republicans here must learn from Washington — prepare a budget that makes sense, that is commensurate with the state’s population growth, that funds the state’s legitimate priorities, and no more. Return the excess to the taxpayers.
Because no matter how much you spend, liberal Democrats will do two things: accuse you of not caring about the children, and demand that you spend more. So you might as well get it right.

CLEAR CONTRAST

Len Munsil — Fri, 19 May 2006 10:30:51 +0000

A liberal looks at a budget surplus and sees an opportunity to spend more of other people’s money. A conservative looks at a budget surplus and sees taxpayer money that was not needed and should be returned.
Janet Napolitano can pretend to be something other than a liberal, but her own words continue to betray her. With a billion-dollar budget surplus — which only exists because Janet Napolitano’s previous spending proposals have been completely ignored — Napolitano sees an opportunity to spend more money. Here is her email update from yesterday:

“This year, Arizona is faced with an unprecedented opportunity: a nearly $1 billion budget surplus. Because of smart fiscal policies in recent years and a vibrant economy, our state’s revenue is up, and we need to decide how we should spend this money.”

Of course she fails to mention that those “smart fiscal policies” were not hers. But more importantly, the thought of returning our overpayment of taxes to the taxpayer apparently does not even cross her mind. It’s all about how to spend more money.
There is nothing moderate in Janet Napolitano’s liberal approach to government spending.

PINCH RUNNER

Len Munsil — Sat, 06 May 2006 20:35:38 +0000

Doug MacEachern of the Republic gets it right it today:

“The economy is humming. Donald Luskin of National Review sets the real start of the boom at April 2003. What happened then? The [Republican] tax cuts took hold.”

Because of Republican tax cuts — of the type criticized by Janet Napolitano – our economy began to take off a few months after Janet took office. Arizona’s budget surplus and strong economy occurred because Republican tax cuts, both federal and state, took hold, and because Arizona ignored Janet Napolitano’s spending proposals.
Anne Richards famously said that George Bush was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. In Janet Napolitano’s case, Republicans hit a triple — and she came in to pinch-run at third base. Now she wants us to give her credit for the three-bagger.

TWO OUT OF THREE AIN’T BAD

Len Munsil — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:55:59 +0000

Under our constitutional system, the legislative branch controls the government pursestrings. The executive branch has an opportunity to weigh in on spending issues through the power to sign or veto legislative bills. But in Arizona, the executive branch — led by Janet Napolitano — has given the judiciary the authority to spend state money. She has done so because she can’t get the legislature to do her bidding on the issue of educating English Language Learners. So she has acquiesced in allowing an unelected judge to make spending decisions for the state of Arizona.
This is not about whether you agree with Janet Napolitano, Judge Collins or the legislature about the best way to teach English in our public schools. This is about a Governor who is happy to go along with a judicial power grab so long as she gets the result she wants. This ends-justify-the-means approach to public policy is a serious threat to the liberty provided by our constitutional separation of powers.
I am thankful for Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who has challenged the notion that a federal judge can take away spending authority from the elected representatives of the people of Arizona.