Pro-Life | Pro-Gun | Limited Government | Lower Taxes
- I'm pro-life and no issue is closer to my heart. Dr. John (Jack) Willke, Family First PAC, Ohio Pro-Life PAC, and American Pro-Family PAC of Ohio have endorsed me in the past.
- Encourage unwed mothers to place "unplanned" infants up for adoption. That would discourage abortion, reduce the number of single parent homes, and be a blessing to many parents seeking to adopt.
- I've been a Life Member of the NRA since the early 1990s and a concealed carry permit holder since 2005. In previous elections, I've been endorsed by Buckeye Firearms ("A" rating), Ohio Gun PAC, and Ohioans for Concealed Carry.
- Abolish the Ohio Marriage Penalty.
- Reduce Ohio's nine tax brackets to a single bracket flat tax.
- Phase out the income, estate, and business taxes. This can be done over 10 years without increasing other taxes. I support HB 534
- Allow income tax credits for charitable organizations that operate in Ohio.
- Allow tax credits for qualifying healthcare expenses.
- The tax code can be restructured to encourage virtue rather than punishing success.
- Smaller and less government is better. I support HB 25. It reduces the administration from 24 to 11 cabinet departments and reduces state spending by $1 billion per year. Additionally, the 2009 Ohio Piglet Book reveals hundreds of millions of dollars that could be cut from the budget.
- Spending priorities should include public safety, infrastructure, and education.
- Abolish unfunded mandates for schools and local governments. State government should either pay 100 percent of mandates or drop them.
- The state must create the economic environment for people and business to achieve success.
- Cincinnati philanthropist and financier, Carl Lindner, has endorsed me in the past. I am very strongly pro-business and want Ohio to be more welcoming to business.
- Ohio should join the 46 other states and allow employers to shop around for workers' compensation insurance. Competition is a good thing.
- As a licensed school district treasurer, I have specialized knowledge of many of the problems and concerns faced by the public schools. As a home school dad (My wife does all the work.), I also understand the concerns of those who do not utilize the public schools.
- Competition is a good thing. I support vouchers and charter schools.
- Allow (with no additional strings attached) tuition and curriculum expense tax credits. This would apply to private, parochial, and home school parents.
I have taken a leadership position on this issue in the following ways:
- Prepared a floor amendment, for HB 59 (state budget), to abolish Common Core.
- The first to speak out against Common Core with my colleagues resulting in leadership's commitment to hold hearings.
- Co-sponsored HB 237 to abolish Common Core.
- Worked with Chairman Stebelton to get the bill a hearing in the Education Committee.
- Participated and was engaged at the hearing until it adjourned at 1:05 AM.
- Signed a letter, to Chairman Stebelton, requesting additional hearings. In my opinion, the only way to kill Common Core is to convince the governor. It is my understanding that he supports it but I don't know why or how strongly. If enough people can convince the governor to oppose Common Core, we'll be able to kill it.
- Marriage can only be between one man and one woman. (It really is that simple.)
Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits
I was recently asked to explain my position on extending the Bush tax cuts and continuing the federal funding of unemployment benefits: Tax policy is not spending. It is on the revenue side of the equation. Any theoretical reductions in revenue, as a result of tax cuts, are based on static analysis. That analysis assumes that changes in consumer, business, and investor behavior will not change. This is a fallacy. Therefore, dynamic analysis must be used. We know from history that tax cuts lead to economic growth. The best example is from the 1980s when Ronald Reagan convinced congress to enact massive tax cuts. Those cuts lead to an epic expansion of the economy. During that decade, revenues to the federal treasury doubled. Regarding federal unemployment benefits, it is clear from the 10th Amendment that the federal government should not even consider such spending. Furthermore, we know from dynamic analysis that when a government taxes something they get less of it. Likewise, when they subsidize something they get more of it. Therefore, logic dictates that subsidizing unemployment encourages and extends the unemployment problem. As an aside, I do not condemn the citizenry for accepting government welfare benefits. In my opinion, the government is at fault for offering benefits that violate the 10th Amendment. These types of policy decisions should be strictly within the domain of the states.
During a recent event, the topic of “social justice” came up: When most people think of social justice issues, it usually has to do with government benefits for the poor. Liberals like to feel good about themselves by being generous with other people’s money. Many feel that it is the "Christian" thing to do. As stated above, any federal benefits would be in violation of the 10th Amendment. Government sponsored redistribution of wealth is akin to sticking a gun to the head of a taxpayer, taking his money, and then handing it over to somebody else. I fail to see the Christianity in that. However, the Marxist philosophy is very clear. In my opinion, responsible social justice is when we as individuals and families voluntarily decide to generously contribute time, talent, and treasure to non-profit organizations such as churches, the United Way or a myriad of other worthwhile community organizations or simply act independently. The hierarchy for people reaching out for help should be as follows: 1) Themselves; 2) Their families; 3) Their churches 4) Community organizations; 5) Local government; and 6) State government. Ideally, the federal government should never be involved. (See the 10th Amendment). And local and state government should only be involved in a limited way (if at all).
Liberals have always appreciated estate taxes as a way to redistribute wealth. When pressed with the argument that it is a tax on wealth that has already been taxed, they retort that it is the heirs who are being taxed and not the dead person who has already been taxed. If that is true, then why does our society consider stealing from the dead the worst type of theft? Aren’t they just stealing from the dead person’s heirs?