Page 18 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • 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 electri- cal 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 contin- ues to flow to the people who spent their lives earning it, the banks continue to cash checks, the food stores and the gas stations are still open, and the hospitals and clinics con- tinue 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-sovereign 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 dis- tilled 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 American Revolution, were seen as using their estab- lished 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 Ameri- can 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 Urges approval of public question Dear Editor: Many veterans’ organizations in New Jersey, like your local American Legion post, are living from fundraiser to fundraiser, with little extra cash put away for a rainy day, so if a fire or hurricane destroys a local post’s building, reconstruction could be insurmountable. With many of these structures 50 to 60 years old, even paying for upkeep can be a challenge, as simply replacing an air conditioning unit can cost $10,000. The challenges of insufficient funds could cause some of these organizations to fold, taking away from the community a vital partner, supporter, and community center. To aid these organizations, voters will be asked to approve a constitutional a mendment on Nov. 5 which would allow veterans’ organizations to use the net pro- ceeds from games of chance to give them greater finan- cial flexibility to pay their bills. The legislation enabling the change, S-87, requires the approval of a constitutional amendment, proposed in SCR-11, to become effective. Approval of the a mendment would not cause any increase in taxes. “If a veterans’ association has to shut its doors because they can no longer pay their electric bill or afford the basic costs of their facilities, they won’t be able to continue to provide the valuable services that their community has come to depend upon,” said State Senator Dawn Marie Addiego (District 8), who sponsored the legislation with Kip Bateman (District 16). Some of those services include sponsoring Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops; sending local students to Boys State and Girls State; enhancing education in the schools with a patriotic coloring contest, safety essay contest, and an oratorical contest on the Constitution, scholarships, and school awards at graduation; supporting Hiring Our Heroes job fairs and events at veterans homes; and aiding local veterans or our troops. “This is a vital piece of legislation for the viability of many of our veterans’ posts,” said Jim Amos, state com- mander of the American Legion, Dept. of New Jersey. “The closure of a post would have a rippling negative effect throughout the community with the loss of programs, ser- vices, and events provided by the American Legion that residents have come to expect. We ask the citizens of New Jersey to support us by voting ‘yes’ on public question number 1.” The question that will appear on the ballot on Nov. 5 asks: “Do you approve amending the (state) constitution to allow veterans’ organizations to use money from existing games of chance to support their organization?” For God and country we continue to serve. Robert Salvini, Commander Bergen County American Legion Supports Hermansen for council Dear Editor: Rob Hermansen is the only candidate running for Mahwah Council who has ever run for political office and won. In 2006, Mahwah voters elected him to the council for a four-year term. During his last year on the council, his peers elected him vice president of the governing body. Rob then served as a county freeholder for three years. Now we have another chance to show our confidence in Rob by electing him again to the Mahwah Township Council. Rob has 22 years of experience as a certified financial advisor and understands budgets. As a freeholder, he served on the county’s Budget and Finance committees, where he put two zero percent increases through for the taxpayers. During the years he was on the Mahwah Council, he helped implement budgets that were lower than the year before, without cutting any services for our township. Finally, Rob has lived in Bergen County since 1983 and has been involved in numerous volunteer activities, from coaching youth sports to supporting the Mahwah Municipal Alliance. Rob’s long record of accomplishments shows that he’s dedicated to supporting the best interests of Mahwah, and that’s why he’s getting my vote on Nov. 5. Richard Klinzing Mahwah Voting for Sgambati Dear Editor: We live in acrimonious political times, due in no small part to stress resulting from the continuing grind of our (continued on page 19)