Excerpt: Prepared Remarks for Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner

Excerpt: Prepared Remarks for Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner
By Fred Thompson
Saturday, May 5, 2007

So we meet again, and I'm honored, because I know we're here for the
same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future.

A lot of Americans have these concerns tonight. They are concerned
about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we
may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk
before.

Of course Iraq is a large part of it. Not only is it tough going, but
the effort is besieged on all sides. From those playing the most crass
kind of politics with it at home to criticism from around the world.

Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies
we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about
global competition or a growing economic disparity among our
citizens.

These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than
the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to
withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the
hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade
policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing
the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have
consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all
about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in
Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They
confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our
nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many
governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the
country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off.
At best they simply move money from the private sector to the
government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they
discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks.
Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar
collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the
private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as
possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some
great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax
cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut
taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in
America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining
economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the
NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to
target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle
class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great
if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could
work together on how to make the pie bigger?

On globalization -- we're not afraid of it. It works to our benefit.
We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere
else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are
increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have
done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever
dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want
to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in
government?

I'd say cash flow to the government is already going quite well. Over
the past year our current tax structure generated record levels of
revenue for Washington. In fact it's time to seriously consider what
we're getting for our "investment" in government.

For many years, several functions of the federal government have been
descending into a sorry state of mismanagement and lack of
accountability. I published a 68-page report on government's waste,
duplication and inability to carry out some of its basic
responsibilities. That was back in 2001 before 9-11, and it got little
attention. Now the government's shortcomings are affecting our
national security and are getting a lot of attention.

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a
lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a
level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty
soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a
department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted
confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington
making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with
their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you
start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit,
computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in
over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate
at the national level more and more aspects of American society --
things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local
level. We must remember that we have states to serve as policy
laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare
reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country.
Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is
supposed to be doing -- competently. Then maybe we will give it
something else to do.

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A
sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is
secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security
issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive
solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million
illegals later, we're being told that same thing again. I don't
believe most Americans are as concerned about the 12 million that are
here as they are about the next 12 million and the next 12 million
after that. I think they're thinking: "Prove you can secure the border
and then people of good will can sit down and work out the rest of it,
while protecting those folks who play by the rules."

Speaking of reforms and our economy, there is nothing more urgent than
the fate that is awaiting our Social Security and Medicare programs.
The good news is that we are living longer. However, we don't have
enough young working people to finance these programs from their
taxes.

People say the programs are going bankrupt. They won't go bankrupt.
Even as these programs sap every dime of the government's revenue, the
folks in Washington will raise the taxes necessary to cover the
problem. At this rate the federal government is going to wind up as
nothing more than a transfer agent -- transferring wealth from one
generation to another. It will devastate our economy.

Sometimes I think that I'm the last guy around who still thinks term
limits is a good idea. The professionalization of politics saps
people's courage. Their desire to keep their job and not upset anybody
overrides all else -- even if it hurts the country.

So the entitlement problem gets kicked a little further down the road.
This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy
to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If
grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their
grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have
children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice
-- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some
government black hole.

I am going to quote my friend, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I don't
think he'll mind, even though it was a private conversation. He said,
"People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue
facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next
generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we
could make a difference for generations to come."

It's clear with close numbers in the House and the Senate we need
bipartisanship to have any chance at real reform in any of these
areas. And there are many responsible people who are willing to try to
make it happen. But the level of bipartisanship needed for real
progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the
American people are demanding it. That's why leaders of reform and
hopefully our next President, will have a mandate to go directly to
the American people with truth and clarity.

These days in Washington, there's an awful lot of talk about the need
for conversation -- that we should talk more to our nation's enemies;
that we should speak "truth to power." However the speakers are
usually turned in the wrong direction. Instead of talking to each
other, leaders need to be speaking more to the American people.

The message would be simple: "My friends we have entered a new era. We
are going to be tested in many ways, possibly under attack and for a
long time. It's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're
going to have to do a lot of things better. Here's what we need to do
and here's why. I know that, now that you're being called upon, you
will do whatever is necessary for the sake of our country and for
future generations. You always have."

When the American people respond to that, as I know they will, you
will have your bipartisanship.


Fred Thompson is an actor and former Senator. His radio commentary
airs on the ABC Radio Network and be blogs on The Fred Thompson Report.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Clinton Money Bosses Break Campaign Finance Laws?
    ... ALL taxes are eventually passed on to the consumer, and I think way to many corporate decisions are too heavily influenced by the IRS. ... I would declare AMERICAN as the official language of America, but I would NOT create a department of American Language purity, however there WOULD be a Standard American dictionary and style book issued with every census and that would be the official government language for all federal level communications and writings. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Will Clinton Money Bosses Break Campaign Finance Laws?
    ... ALL taxes are eventually passed on to the consumer, and I think way to many corporate decisions are too heavily influenced by the IRS. ... I would declare AMERICAN as the official language of America, but I would NOT create a department of American Language purity, however there WOULD be a Standard American dictionary and style book issued with every census and that would be the official government language for all federal level communications and writings. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Barack Obama, The Black Messiah
    ... government down to a core of essentials. ... Our economy and military have been severely ... I do not believe in imposing charitable duties on the American ... countries, specifically, our country should pursue intermationally. ...
    (rec.music.opera)
  • Re: Charles Murray "The Plan" ends poverty
    ... It is endless rows of Indian women who are answering the phones these days because the government has outsourced these services to the lowest bidder, ignoring the potential multiplier effect of paying Americans to do these jobs. ... Outsourcing call center jobs to India is more efficient and cost ... Taxpayers pay taxes for services and that money is drawn from the local economy. ... These companies extract a small profit and send the remainder of the money to India where it is used to pay salaries and taxes in that country. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Here Comes Socialism
    ... years that will permanently change our government, ... America. ... system and the economy. ... And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle ...
    (soc.retirement)