Senator George Allen Victory NH Interview

Here's a link of an interview with George Allen with the Victory New Hampshire citizen activist group. Far too long to post.

Senator George Allen - The Victory NH Interview

In our ongoing effort to bring you the facts in the fight for freedom, Victory NH is proud to be joined by one of freedom's greatest defenders in Washington — The junior Senator from the great State of Virginia... George Allen...

VNH: Good morning, Senator. Ambassador Petrone sends his warm regards, and asked me to welcome you personally to our Friends of Freedom Series.

Allen: Good to be with you. I love the name; it fits in with your great license plates.

VNH: That it does. As you know, Victory NH is a network of activist groups that have united around
4 common areas of agreement: lower taxes, smaller government, a strong national defense, & the free enterprise system. The common thread of these issues is freedom, which we’ve heard you talk about as one of your guiding principles. So to get started, tell us a bit about your thoughts on freedom, and
how it impacts the decisions you make as a Senator?

Allen: It is one of those absolutely foundational principles that I always stand for. In fact, I end almost every speech with “stand strong for freedom.” Regardless of what the speech is about, I probably use the word freedom more than any other word.

And what it connotes is that to me, every human being has God given rights, and with those rights come individual freedoms. Not withstanding somebody’s religion, their ethnicity, their race, or their gender; we all have these same individual freedoms.

And it gets into a lot of areas: One, on tax policy — it’s a matter of freedom that an individual that works hard, is diligent, and earns money for whatever their creative endeavor may be; ought to be able to keep more of what they earn. That is individual freedom, as opposed to the government taking more of what they earn.

"...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” And I think that’s still the sum of good government."

Freedom also to me is the concept that you don’t need a “nanny government” — a meddling government telling people what to do. That’s why I think of myself as a Common Sense Jeffersonian Conservative. In his 1801 Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson defined the sum of good government as
“a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” And I think that’s still the sum of good government.

The question is, on the concept of freedom, how do you measure it? I believe that a free and just society would be made up of four pillars:

First would be freedom of religion, where peoples’ rights are not enhanced nor diminished on account of their religious beliefs.

Second would be freedom of expression. People should be able to express their views without the fear of facing retribution.

Third would be private ownership of property. The individual owns their property. The obverse, of course, is that a monarch or a government owns the property. The fact is that the individual will care more about their property and their community, because they own it.

And fourth is the rule of law — the fair adjudication of disputes by judges who understand that their role is to apply the law, not invent the law.

Freedom and liberty are the primary principles that our country was founded on, so we always have to be responsible and wary to make sure that our freedoms are not being taken away. And of course, we want to advance freedom for people all over the world. And to the extent that we are able to do so, it is beneficial to those fellow human beings; but I think it’s also beneficial for our own security and prosperity.

VNH: Let’s turn to taxes — always a big issue in New Hampshire. Now, you have been out front in leading the charge to prevent taxation of the Internet. Given that New Hampshire has a growing small business community, it would be helpful to hear why you believe this is so important.

Allen: In my view, the Internet is the greatest invention since the Guttenberg Press for the dissemination of information and ideas. Think of it as an “individualized empowerment zone.” The individual determines what they want to read, how they want to communicate, and how they access information. It’s important for businesses (large and small), it’s important for education, for tele-medicine, and for all sorts of advances that have improved our lives, and made our country much more competitive.

"... Ronald Reagan once described the way government operates: “If something moves, you tax it. If it keeps moving, government regulates it. And if
it stops, they subsidize it.”

The policy of our country, thank goodness, has been not to tax it. Ronald Reagan once described the way government operates: “If something moves, you tax it. If it keeps moving, government regulates it. And if it stops, they subsidize it.” Well, from the very beginning of the Internet — even when I was one of only four Governors who was opposed to having taxes on Internet access — I believed that this clearly “Interstate” (and in fact, international) architecture should not be subjected to these avaricious state and local tax commissars who want to impose, on average, 18% taxes on Internet access. It is my view that we should want to have the right incentives for broadband to be built out into small towns and rural areas, and to bridge the so-called “economic and digital divide.”

Well, if you put an 18% tax on Internet access that just means that lower income people can’t afford it, and companies will not build it out to small towns in rural areas because they won’t be able to get a return on their investment. So by leaving the Internet free of burdensome taxes and regulations, we’ll be able to have it reach more people, regardless of where they live.

"Believe it or not, there was a luxury tax put on telephone service in 1898 to finance the Spanish American War. Well, guess what? If you look at your telephone, you’ll see you’re still paying that tax.”

And the reason that I’ve fought so hard to keep these taxes off at the federal, state, and local levels, is that once taxes are put on, it is nearly impossible to take them off. And the prime example is telephone service. Believe it or not, there was a luxury tax put on telephone service in 1898 to finance the Spanish American War. Well, guess what? If you look at your telephone, you’ll see you’re still paying that tax.

VNH: Before we move on to other issues, let’s look at tax policy as a whole. Where do you stand on taxing Capital Gains, as well as moving to a National Sales Tax or Flat Tax?

Allen: First of all, there are taxes that are unfair and there are taxes that I think harm the competitiveness and initiative that one would want in a country. I want America to be the world capital of innovation, and so taxes that harm innovation, investment, job creation, and competitiveness need to be addressed.

"There should be no taxation without respiration.”

Then you have taxes that are clearly just unfair. Number one is the Death Tax. Death should not be a taxable event. Let me paraphrase Virginia’s first Governor (I actually got permission from his great, great, great granddaughter, just the other day to use this phrase) “There should be no taxation without respiration.”

So we should get rid of the death tax because I think it’s so unfair to small businesses, especially family-run businesses, family farms, and forestry property. So, that tax ought to be flat out repealed. And when the asset is sold by the heirs, then a Capital Gains Tax ought to be applied at the sale of the asset, but death should not be a taxable event.

When it comes to Capital Gains Taxes, I wouldn’t mind indexing Capital Gains, so that the longer one holds an asset, the less the tax is on it. A lower Capital Gains Tax will make this country and individuals more likely to invest and makes the country more conducive to investment.

With ideas like a Consumption or National Sales Tax, there’s a desire for simplicity which has appeal to me, but my worry is that if you go to a National Sales Tax, unless we repealed the 16th Amendment that allows the Federal Government to impose an Income Tax, I think we’ll end up with an Income Tax and a National Sales Tax, which is not what we want.

As for the Flat Tax, one needs to be careful that if a change is made, that those who have made investments based on current law are not switched into that new tax, unless they so desire. If one looks back at 1986 when the tax laws were changed (and maybe these tax laws made good sense), there were a lot of people who had invested in commercial real estate who all of a sudden had real estate that wasn’t worth as much; and that led us to the Savings & Loan Crisis.

Now I was talking with Steve Moore about one way to do this. He said that if you wanted to stay under the current system you could, but if you want to pay under the Flat Tax system and file on one page you’d have that choice. And if you want the complicated system because it makes sense because of the investments you’ve made, you can stay under it and have all that bookkeeping and accounting if it makes good economic sense for you. But I think the individual tax payer should be able to decide which way works best for them.

Overall, I’d like to have a basic underlying tax and regulatory policy that is so good that people say this is the best place in the world to invest, with the best tax laws, the promptest permitting, reasonable regulations, and well-educated people. If you have those conditions precedent, then you don’t need to be doing so much tweaking on hundreds of different tax deductions.

VNH: Let’s touch on the ongoing battle over the judges, for a moment. As you know, Victory NH signed onto a letter encouraging the Senate to give the President’s nominees a straight up or down vote.

Allen: I agree with Victory NH, wholeheartedly!

VNH: Now, I know you’re not on the Judiciary Committee, but can you give us a sense of where we are in this process, and how you see things playing out this summer?

"...I don’t think it’s too much to ask a United States Senator to get off his haunches, show some backbone and spine, and vote “yes” or vote “no.” And then explain to their constituents why they voted the way they did on a judge..”

Allen: Nothing is settled on what this is ultimately about, and that is what happens when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I’m glad that some of these judges that have been held up for over three and four years have been finally accorded the fairness of an up or down vote. They always had a majority of support and they were being held up by these obstructionist tactics. I feel that I have a responsibility, as does every United States Senator, to advise and consent, or withhold consent but vote. And I don’t think it’s too much to ask a United States Senator to get off his haunches, show some backbone and spine, and vote “yes” or vote “no.” And then explain to their constituents why they voted the way they did on a judge. Now I think it’s unfortunate and troubling to me that apparently some of these nominees have been thrown overboard in this so-called settlement. I’d like to see this move as quickly as possible to Bill Myers (who is one of those apparently thrown overboard); he’s been nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit is Exhibit A of activist judges who ignore the will of the people, who are reversed more than any other court by far in this country. This is the court, for example, that struck down the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the words “under God.” This is a court that is in dire need of some common sense and judges who understand that their role is to apply the law, not to invent it or act as a super legislature. So I’d like see that nomination of Bill Myers addressed before we get to the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I was very much in favor, and still am, of the Constitutional Option, because I think what the Democrats have done for the last 3 years is to subvert the intent of The Constitution by requiring a 60-vote super majority confirmation for a judge. It’s supposed to be a majority vote. And beyond all the Constitutional aspects, to me, it’s a matter of keeping our promises to the American people who have accorded us this strengthened Republican majority. I was Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in the last election cycle. And everywhere I campaigned with our candidates, this issue of the Democrats obstruction of judges fired people up more than any other issue. It was clearly one of the key issues that motivated people to strengthen our majority in the Senate. And since I believe in keeping the promises to those that elected us, we should not be timid, we should not be hesitant, we need to go for it. And I think we should have gone for it earlier. As soon as Harry Reid made these threats, we should have called his bluff.

By the way, the other threats from the Democrats that “Oh gosh, if you use this Constitutional option, we won’t be cooperative on other issues,” strikes me as an idle threat. I don’t see any difference in what they’re doing now than before this deal was made. They’re not helpful on making tax cuts permanent, they dragged abortion into the bankruptcy bill, they’re not for medical liability reform, they’re not for strengthening Social Security; so I don’t see any difference.

VNH: One of our great concerns with the tone in Washington getting shriller and shriller on seemingly all of the issues you just mentioned, is that it has the potential to begin to effect the morale of our troops. And now with these latest comments from Senator Durbin on the Senate floor yesterday, likening American servicemen to the Nazis, the Soviets, and even Pol Pot; there is a tremendous concern up here that this is going to have an impact.

Allen: That is a concern that I have as well, having visited our troops in Iraq, particularly with Guard and Reserve members. These men and women are America’s best. They’re dedicated, they’re focused, they’re risking their lives to bring freedom for the first time ever to people in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They’re taking time away from their families, their loved ones, and their jobs for our security. They deserve better than this from their elected officials.

We’ve seen it not just from Senator Durbin, we saw this last year even with Senator Kennedy just making outrageous statements, blaming America first, casting absurd and deplorable analogies to the work and dedication of our troops. They’re putting partisanship and apparent hatred for either President Bush or the Republicans ahead of being responsible leaders.

Our troops need to have the support of the American people. There was once a time when America was engaged in a conflict anywhere in the world, partisanship ended at the water’s edge. Unfortunately, these intemperate, absolutely deplorable remarks from leaders in this country have an effect not only on the troops but on their families back home. They are praying every day that their husband or their father or their brother or their sister is going to come home alive. And here you have leaders making statements like this, you have to wonder what the impact is on those loved ones back home.

"This undoubtedly cheers them up to say, “Oh look. Even United States Senators are criticizing what the United States is doing. “So it’s deplorable on many fronts for our troops and their families, and I think bolstering the vile hatred of our enemies.”

And then you also think about what the impact could be on terrorists, and those who are not friends of the United States who would love to see us destroyed, or see another 9/11. This undoubtedly cheers them up to say, “Oh look. Even United States Senators are criticizing what the United States is doing." So it’s deplorable on many fronts for our troops and their families, and, I think, bolstering the vile hatred of our enemies.

VNH: Apparently, as of this morning anyway, Senator Durbin has refused to even apologize. What do you think he should do?

Allen: I’m not one who asks people in this situation to apologize. What he needs to do is not necessarily apologize, he needs to ask forgiveness for his intemperate, harmful, remarks. He needs to ask forgiveness from the troops and the families. This is so extremely harmful to what we’re trying to do for both the security of our country and the advancement of freedom around the world, that he should ask for forgiveness. Whether he will or not, I don’t know. But it’s what we are seeing out of the Democrat leadership lately, and it’s similar to what Governor Dean has said in the past, as well.

VNH: Before we wrap things up, I’d like to talk a bit about Veterans. Because of the leadership of Ambassador Petrone and our good friend Paul Chevalier, we have a sizeable Veterans coalition as part of our network. Can you talk a bit about the bill you introduced to increase the death benefit for the families of those who lose loved ones defending our country?

Allen: Let me talk about two different things as far as our Veterans. The Death Gratuity was a paltry, miserly — and in my view — insulting amount of only $12,000 if someone dies while serving our country. I looked in Virginia, and our police and our firefighters receive a Death Gratuity of $75,000. It seemed to me that a grateful nation would want to assist those family members who have also made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and our security. So, that was the first bill I introduced in the first hour of the first day of this Congress; it was made a part of the Supplemental Spending Bill and it’s retroactive to October of 2001 when the military action began.

The other measure I’ve introduced, working with Mary Landrieu, has to do with the pay gap for those in the Guard and Reserve when they get called up. They're being called up much more frequently now and for longer durations these days. Over half that get called up end up losing money because their active duty pay is less than what they would be receiving in their private sector job. And if we’re going to be able to retain and recruit people to stay in the Guard and Reserves, we’re going to have to assist in this way. So I’d like to give tax incentives for private employers to make up that pay differential. And I think this is a case where the Federal Government should lead by example, and do the same.

When I was in Iraq, there were some who were on their 3rd, 4th, and 5th tours of duty; and some were saying, “I just can’t do this to my family any more.” So I think we need to show this appreciation if we expect to retain and recruit Guard and Reserve members.

VNH: Before we go, let’s talk for a moment about the importance of citizen activists.

"There is a responsibility on the part of citizens to be as informed as possible and act. It’s their government. They are the owners of the government. It’s not the elites', it is the peoples’. And the world is controlled by those who show up.”

Allen: It is the most important! Look, we’re in a representative democracy; it does not run on automatic pilot. There is a responsibility on the part of citizens to be as informed as possible and act. It’s their government. They are the owners of the government. It’s not the elites', it is the peoples’. And the world is controlled by those who show up.

That’s why I think Victory NH is so important. It makes sure that the owners of the government — the people — have access to the information and ideas they need to make their own decisions and then gives them the tools they need to take action. Thomas Jefferson would love it. Patrick Henry would love it. Ronald Reagan would love it. And I think it’s just fantastic!

In New Hampshire with your motto, “Live Free or Die,” the point is we do want to live free, we do want to control our own destiny, we want to be informed; and Victory NH is just a truly fantastic resource of information for the ultimate leaders and owners of the government.

VNH: Thank you. A lot of very good people have worked very hard to make Victory NH possible, so I’m sure your saying this will mean a lot to them. The best way that we can truly repay your kind words is to do everything we can to help you, along with our other Friends of Freedom, fight the battles for the ideas we all believe in. With this in mind, is there one thing we can do as activists to have the greatest impact?

Allen: You need to do it all. Emails matter, we get thousands of emails. Telephone calls matter. Faxes matter. I would say that with all the security now, because of worrying about anthrax, a fax is better than mail, because mail gets delayed. And when it gets irradiated, sometimes it wrecks what’s being sent in. Letters to the Editor are great. And if you can show up at town hall meetings, even better. Every tool in the arsenal to express ones view ought to be utilized. There are many, many tools available to our free citizens in our free country. Use them all.

VNH: Any last thoughts or ideas for our readers?

Allen: The last thing I’ll say is that it is not enough for just you as one person to be motivated. The key is to try and motivate and inspire others towards an idea, principle, or goal. And the key is to get others involved. Our target, as the group I like to call Common Sense Conservatives, is not just Republicans. It is anybody who pays taxes, who works for a living, who cares about their families; they ought to be on our side and they should motivate others to join our team.

Ready to take action? Click here to sign up for our free activist alerts, today!

Victory NH — 497 Hooksett Road, #162, Manchester, NH 03104 — 603-624-8253 — VictoryNewHampshire@VictoryNH.com
Copyright © 2005 by Victory New Hampshire
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.