Page 14 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • October 23, 2013 Where’s our refund? Here is the question all of America should be asking about the federal shutdown: Are our refund checks in the mail? I mean this quite seriously. When we recently switched insurance coverage at home -- the Obamacare program had nothing to do with it -- the company that was covering us before the switch sent us a refund check for the small amount of money that was not consumed when the policy changed hands. When we lost telephone power and electrical power during the line collapses of 2012 and 2011, we did not have to pay that portion of the bill. Why should federal taxpayers be billed for time when the government is not working for us? Theoretically, it is tough not be able to go to the National Parks any time you want to, but since a lot of people have been downsized at work, those who were not pensioned off are probably working two jobs or so circumscribed in their spending capacity that they do not have time anyway. I heard a far worse story. When five service personnel were killed in Afghanistan, the federal government came through with their contracted G.I. insurance polices, but flopped on the travel funds to allow their relatives to fly to the port of entry to pick up the caskets and bring the bodies home for burial. A private philanthropy for service person- nel reportedly put up the money so the grieving relatives got to take their kids home, and in some cases go on eating until the insurance policies come through. This could open up the floor to a wider question: Why were the service personnel still there? They were still there because they had a binding contract with the government and, in all likelihood, because they felt responsible to their buddies and their units. Did the government that subsidized their presence feel any responsibility for the fact that they lost their lives in a war most Americans no longer support? Did it feel any need to explain why they had to be where they were killed? The flop of the first couple of threatened federal shut- downs may have convinced the mountebank politicians they had better do a real one or face ridicule as they did when the previously threatened shutdowns never happened. Now that we’ve got the shutdown, what changes have you, personally, noted in your lifestyle? Social Security continues to flow to the people who spent their lives earning it, the banks con- tinue to cash checks, the food stores and the gas stations are still open, and the hospitals and clinics continue to accept patients. This is not anything even close to the end of the world. Once upon a time, there was almost no federal govern- ment. Most of the people who served in Congress were rich self-supporters with small staffs, the tiny U.S. Army manned forts in the harbors and on our borders with the still-sov- ereign Indian tribes, and the whole thing was so relatively inexpensive that the federal government paid its own bills with a tax on imported goods and a tax on distilled liquor -- and often enjoyed an annual surplus. Both of the taxes made a certain amount of sense in what was called “the era of good feeling.” The British, miffed at having lost their bid to subdue unruly colonists in the Amer- ican Revolution, were seen as using their established factory system to produce manufactured goods in England that could be sold far cheaper than those made in America. The young United States had a constant factory labor shortage because land was so cheap that most healthy men preferred to be independent farmers than to work in noisy, dank factories producing the same items day after day. English laborers lived in an island nation where farm land was expensive and wages made saving all but impossible. They had no choice but to work for whatever the traffic would bear. They could produce goods to flood the Amer- ican market and to make American industry unprofitable. The American answer was the tariff, a tax on imports of manufactured goods. The American tariff was made high enough so English goods could not be “dumped” in the United States without the English manufacturers under- cutting their own profits, protecting the growth of Ameri- can manufacturing. Revenue cutters, armed federal ships, prowled the Atlantic coast looking for smugglers who tried to evade the duties on British goods. The tariff became an increasingly serious problem for Americans, however, when New England and New York became largely indus- trial and the South became largely agricultural. The South wanted a low tariff and the North wanted a high tariff. This debate dominated politics until a renewal of religious faith increasingly made slavery unpopular with people who did not own slaves, and even some who did. The excise tax, the tax on whiskey, was the other pri- mary source of federal income. Benjamin Rush, the great- est physician in the early United States, believed excessive consumption of distilled liquor led to major national health problems. Daniel Webster, the famous orator, is believed to have died when a fall from his horse was complicated by cirrhosis of the liver. He was not the only statesman who had a drinking problem. Rush and other health advocates supported a reduction in drinking during the early years of the Republic, and this fell in line with the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. Rather than tell people how much they could drink, it made more sense to tax them when they tippled. The system of raising money by taxing luxuries and minor vices continued to subsidize the entire federal gov- ernment until the Civil War, which required a massive army and expanded navy of ironclad ships, a short-lived income tax, and a short-lived military draft by both the South and the North. But the United States avoided a full-time federal income tax until 1913, when members of Congress com- promised on a taxation scheme. Individuals and corpora- tions were each taxed one percent, with an exemption for single taxpayers who earned less than $3,000, which was about the wage needed for a life that was comfortable, but not luxurious. A graduated surtax was levied on incomes of over $20,000, which meant only about two percent of U.S. wage-earners paid federal income taxes. Most of the federal budget came from taxes on consumption and from tariffs on foreign-made goods. What changed all that, of course, was the Great Depres- sion preceded by World War I and followed by World War II, which was followed by the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and in Afghani- stan. Not even the additional excise taxes on the lethal vice of cigarette smoking could cover the expense of all those wars, plus that of a federal government that invented often useful federal jobs in response to a labor glut and then took up the idea that we should serve as the world’s policeman and send every kid to college whether or not he or she wanted to be there. The effects on the present tax structure can be seen as looting or diminishing savings by those who are still gain- fully employed, while encouraging politicians to build enormous paid staffs that do not produce manufactured or agricultural goods. How much government can we all afford? Probably a lot less than what we have right now. Maybe the real answer is to tell the federal politicians of both parties to start coming through with our refund checks until they can pay to have the casualties of our protracted wars buried with the dignity and decorum they deserve. Maybe we should turn John F. Kennedy’s idealistic maxim on its head and ask not what we can do for the government, but what the government can do for us. Right now, it isn’t worth the taxation. Letters to the Editor Support for Schwartz Dear Editor: Please join me in supporting Kathie Schwartz for the Franklin Lakes Board of Education. Schwartz’s experi- ence is needed now more than ever. As a mother of young children, a proud Franklin Lakes resident, and an educa- tor, I have watched in dismay the decisions made by the board this past year. What is most disconcerting to me is the lack of facts supporting some of these decisions. I feel these decisions have hurt our district’s reputation. We need Kathie Schwartz to put us back on track. Her proven track record of respect and thoughtfulness is not only substantive, it is admirable. Most importantly, Schwartz understands the role and responsibility of a board member. In addition, she is mindful of all stake- holders. The decisions the board will make in the coming year will have a lasting effect on our children and our town’s ability to attract young families. With Kathie Schwartz, there will be no surprises and no grandstanding. Her record of community service has been consistently respectful, open-minded, and in the best interests of all parties. I want people like Kathie Schwartz representing our town. I thank her for stepping up and being willing to help our district through this time of transition. I am confident that Kathie Schwartz will be an asset to the Franklin Lakes Board of Education. Andrea Anzaldo Franklin Lakes Christopoul & Schwartz offer stability and experience Dear Editor: No one needs to remind the parents of school-age chil- dren in Franklin Lakes how truly difficult this past year has been. As we all saw, when things get that contentious, it is difficult not to get swept away in the conflict and in the ideas of winning and exerting control. The end result was a painful year of instability and a costly diminution of our collective credibility, all to the detriment of our schools and all a disservice to our children. It is time to stop drawing lines in the sand, or the sand- box, as it were. It is time to end the personal attacks. It is time to end the puerile and divisive anonymous e-mails. It is time for adults to start acting like adults. We as a town, and the BOE as an institution, cannot withstand another year of conflict and upheaval. Now, more than ever, the prudent course for our schools to follow is the path of sta- bility and experience. It is for those reasons that I support Christine Christopoul and Kathie Schwartz for election to the board of education. Christine and Kathie have served on the board with dis- tinction for three and four years, respectively. Both have been diligent and conscientious public servants, serving with dignity and passion, motivated only by what is best for our school system and our children. These women bring a wealth of experience and rational, right-thinking judgment to the board that is sorely in need of stability and measured consideration. I strongly believe that Christine and Kathie have been, and will continue to be, assets to our educa- tional system and responsible advocates for the best inter- ests of our children. I urge you to join me in support of their re-election to the board. David Catuogno Franklin Lakes Elections must remain civil Dear Editor: Over the summer, I had the pleasure of sitting around a table with Mayor Bivona and the candidates running for the Franklin Lakes Board of Education this November. Chris- tine Christopoul, who organized the meeting, invited all to sit together to collaborate on ground rules for campaigning in an attempt to avoid the destructive tone of last year’s election. Bravo! I raised, as my main concern, the past use of anony- mous e-mails filled with personal attacks and slanderous remarks, inciting destructive divisions in our community. We agreed as a group that any campaign materials distrib- uted by candidates and their supporters should have the author’s name attached. Yesterday, I received the first (and I pray last) ugly anon- ymous e-blast of our campaign season. Candidate Kathie Schwartz bore the brunt of it this time. Who is next? These ridiculous anonymous e-mails have got to stop! I ask the candidates to stand up and make their own statements discouraging this type of hateful behavior. If (continued on page 15)