Finkenstadt Outlines Plans for Change; Nixon, Hulshof Promises Same Old Bigger Government Story
September 14, 2008 | Announcements, Positions, Press Releases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Missouri Press Association Gubernatorial Debate
Finkenstadt Outlines Plans for Change; Nixon, Hulshof Promises Same Old Bigger Government Story
“We should not be burning our food! And taxpayers should not be paying for the privilege”
COLUMBIA, Mo. - September 14, 2008 — In the gubernatorial debate, hosted by the Missouri Press Association, Libertarian Andrew Finkenstadt outlined his plans to change the direction of the state, while Attorney General Jay Nixon and Congressman Kenny Hulshof continued to embrace the same failed policies from the Democratic and Republican parties that have resulted in bigger government budgets, bigger government taxation, and bigger government interference.
“I am a computer software engineer. Engineers do not create a blue-ribbon panel to study an issue. Engineers solve the problems put before them,” Finkenstadt said in opening remarks. “A lawyer looks at a problem and tends to say, ‘There ought to be a law.‘ I say in response, ‘We have too many laws already, we don’t need any more.‘ A politician looks at a problem and tends to say, ‘Hey, we should study that.‘ Computer programmers see a problem and address it in a more direct and methodical way, we actually solve it.”
Libertarian Andy Finkenstadt went on to say, “I will reduce taxes for everyone (not just the rich, not just the middle class), and I’ll do it by reducing the size of our government. Reducing taxes leaves more money in your pocket to spend as YOU see fit, without some government middleman getting in the way. After all, who knows best how to spend your hard-earned money: you, or the legion of legislators and rule makers who work in our state government?”
During the question and answer portion of the debate, both Nixon and Hulshof reiterated their campaign issues: bigger government spending on health care and insurance products, expanded government spending on educational programs, and more government control over alternative energy sources.
Libertarian Andy Finkenstadt advocated for the government to get out of the way of the free market solutions available for each of these issues:
1. Health care choices are, ultimately, the choice of each family. The choice of what kind of health insurance they want, what level of health care they want, the care providers they want, and the medicines and treatments they will use. For those families who are unable to pay for necessary health care, Finkenstadt holds that private organizations and charities whose mission it is to provide these services should be contacted for their assistance. (Finkenstadt’s family contributes a significant amount of its annual income to just such local charities.)
2. Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we should return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.
Finkenstadt did not advocate vouchers that go to private institutions, despite Nixon’s misunderstanding during the debate. Perhaps it is just this common misunderstanding that prevents governmental leaders from coming up with the right solution: multiple school choices in an area, each supported exclusively by the publicly-funded dollars following the student.
3. Energy, especially clean energy, is the proper domain of the free market. The government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy.
Ethanol: Both Nixon and Hulshof support taxpayer-funded subsidizing of ethanol producers. Replies Finkenstadt, “We should not be burning our food! And taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for the privilege; that just adds insult to injury.”
Working a regular “day job” to support his family, Finkenstadt, 42, is a full-time software engineer for Simutronics Corp., a St. Charles, Missouri-based online persistent-world computer game company. He is also a music minister for St. Joseph Catholic Church in Cottleville, Missouri. His wife, Carol, is an administrative assistant at First United Methodist Church in St. Charles. Finkenstadt attended Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio) 1983-1987, where he majored in Mathematics and Computer Science.
Andrew (Andy) Finkenstadt is the Missouri Libertarian Party Gubernatorial candidate in the general election on November 4th. He was unopposed in the primary election. More information can be found at http://andy4governor.com.
The Missouri Libertarian Party is one of three established political parties in Missouri. More information can be found at http://lpmo.org.
# # #
2 Responses to “Finkenstadt Outlines Plans for Change; Nixon, Hulshof Promises Same Old Bigger Government Story”
Concerning the following statement found at:http://www.andy4governor.com/information/2008/09/finkenstadt-outlines-plans-for-change-nixon-hulshof-promises-same-old-bigger-government-story/
“In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.”
To expand upon this direction…What are your thoughts on some sort of ‘adjustment’ for individuals without children? For example, I have 5 but my sister has none and never will have. She and others like her are somewhat disgruntled with the fact that such a large portion of their taxes are promised (not necessary delivered) to an ill-managed education system.
By Sherry on Oct 14, 2008
What sort of adjustment would you propose for individuals without children?
The facts of our educational system’s funding means that there is a blend of money sources: federal dollars (taxes we all paid coming back to our district, with strings attached), state dollars (again, taxes we all paid coming back to our district, with strings attached), and property tax dollars (and again, taxes we paid that stayed in our district, this time with voter-selected school board strings).
No matter which kind of dollars it was, ultimately all of us, with or without children, help pay for the education of all the children.
It is, in some ways, a choice we make to live in the place we do. If we own a home, the property tax we pay helps support the local schools. If we rent our home, then the rent we pay helps the landlord pay the property tax. I speak as both a home owner, a renter before I owned a home, and a landlord: I chose to buy properties or live in an apartment in the places I did precisely because good schools yields stable housing values, which yields reliable funding for schools, which yields good schools, … lather, rinse, repeat.
If I wanted to lower my school-based property taxes, I could choose to move somewhere else. Of course, that has more ramifications than merely property tax: I might pay more or less to commute to work, to travel for shopping; I might have to uproot my family from their local ties and build new ones. And it’s always a big pain to move.
–
As to taxes promised but not necessarily delivered — vote out the politicians that did not deliver on their promises. Vote out of office the people that mismanaged the education system.
By andy on Oct 22, 2008