Millennial Politics
Why not vote for conservatives?
In order to reach out to a new generation of voters, the Republican Party and its hopefully conservative candidates will need to promote our beliefs in a way that appeals to millennials, such as the college students reading this post. However, according to 2012 exit polls, those in the 18-24 age group supported President Obama by a margin of 60 to 36 percent. To triumph in elections, we will have to emphasize that leftist policies harm everyone, increasing discrimination and compromising chances of success, as well as reducing our freedoms and our security simultaneously.
As a result, I have written a letter to those in this age group, explaining that conservative policies exceed, in quality, those put forward by the so-called liberals in government today.
Dear Millennials,
The Left promotes onerous policies of taxation and spending, bankrupting your future and encouraging dependence rather than productivity, it spies on you, and it is gradually reducing your overall constitutional freedoms as a rapid pace. Why, then, would you vote for its candidates?
With a Fiscal Year 2014 proposed budget of $3.77 trillion, the Obama Administration has put forward a plan with a $744 billion deficit, adding to our nearly $17 trillion debt (not counting unfunded liabilities reaching the hundreds of trillions - yes, you read that correctly). As a result of this, our nation must spend more to service that debt through interest, in addition to the possible default and massive devaluation of our dollar, decreasing your ability to spend, save, and invest.
Furthermore, our nation is following down the path of increasing dependence on government, with programs like Social Security and Medicare that have fundamental flaws, despite massive expenditures. These programs, also, are headed to impending insolvency, with Medicare projected to exhaust its funds in 2026, resulting in decreased benefits to those enrolled in the program, as well as care providers who Medicare is supposed to compensate. If you’re planning to be a doctor, you will not be adequately compensated by the government for the care that you work hard to provide. Is this fair? Social Security will follow in Medicare’s footsteps, reaching insolvency by 2033, based on current projections.
Consider these tax plans this way: why should you be forced to put money away for retirement when, if that money had been invested privately, it would exceed your government benefits? According to Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute, stocks would provide a medium earner with more than $2,500, on a monthly basis; this is contrasted with Social Security, which would provide less than $1,500.
With a progressive tax system, our government punishes the most successful among society, limiting their ability to participate in the economy as a whole, instead confiscating hard-earned money for these programs that don’t have any net positive impact on the nation.
We have veered away from the principles of constitutional, limited government, instead embracing a view that the Constitution means whatever a group of unelected judges want it to mean. This completely undermines a central republican principle, that of rule of law. In a nation ruled by its people, with basic safeguards in place to prevent tyranny, rule of law ensures that legal guidelines are followed, rather than having the citizens subject to arbitrary dictates coming from the state. That’s why we must return to the Constitution as interpreted by the early Americans, one in which basic protections are maintained at all costs.
In contrast to these harmful trends, I, as a conservative, put forth a plan of equality, strength, prosperity, and, most importantly, liberty. First and foremost, the government will be removed from meddling interference in daily affairs. It has a legitimate role in society, as articulated in Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution. Rather than bankrupting our national treasury, we will spend responsibly, maintaining a budget surplus, with all money not allocated to the budget being used for debt reduction. Under these reforms, we will institute a ten-percent flat tax rate across incomes at the federal level. Most notably, this will cause an explosion in prosperity. From 1920 onward, Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush pursued plans with tax cuts being a central component. These were all massively successful.
From 1922 to 1929, GNP expanded by 4.7 percent annually, and unemployment plummeted, from 6.7 to 3.2 percent. Reagan, too, believed in cutting taxes. Unemployment experienced a net decrease, from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.4 percent in 1989. By 1986, the tax code consisted of two rates: 28 and 15 percent. From 2001 to 2007, under Bush, tax revenues increased by 47 percent. These are just a few examples of benefits resulting from conservative, commonsense fiscal policies.
Allow me to illustrate the effects of tax cuts this way:
Consider that, before reforms are implemented, taxes are high, especially for those at the upper earning levels. After the rates are reduced, income-earners will have more to spend. If history is a guide, Americans will avail themselves of that opportunity, increasing their consumption of goods and services. This, in turn, increases business revenues, as well as demand, meaning that firms, to meet this requirement, hire more workers and invest in expanded means of production. In short, more people have jobs, with more money available to them.
This also means that Americans, the most charitable people in the world, will have more to invest in such endeavors, helping those in need more than soon-to-be insolvent state programs like Social Security.
Conservatives like myself believe in a better health system, as well. Obama’s plan will require that employers provide coverage when their full-time tally reaches 50 workers. This has already begun a process of layoffs, and it discourages additional hiring, to use only one example of the policy’s failings.
To reduce health costs, we need a multifaceted plan. First, insurance should be returned to its basic purpose; namely, it provides protection from unexpected, high-cost events. When predictable expenditures like doctor’s appointments are covered, people are encouraged to use that ability unwisely, artificially increasing demand and, consequently, prices. Instead, we should promote responsibility, such that consumers spend when necessary, but not recklessly. People will save money, instead. They will have the option to invest a portion of their incomes in health-savings accounts, enabling them to create accounts that contain funds accruing interest over time.
We also desire increased competition through the option to sell across state lines. Currently, insurance firms are prohibited from doing this, meaning that consumers in one state with high premiums are denied access to insurance plans in states with lower premiums. By creating a nationwide market, insurance consumers will be able to choose from a much wider range of plans, suiting their individual needs, rather than being constricted by government. I thought that those on the Left embrace choice, as they argue for a right to choose, yet they oppose this scheme.
Sources:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/302719-social-security-insolvent-by-2033
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/06/why-america-is-going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
