Dan's Views on the Issues
Taxes and Spending
|
Income taxes create a disincentive to produce and invest, which decreases economic output, consumer spending and wages for working Americans. Phase out the personal income tax, capital gains tax, gift tax and inheritance/death tax. Balance the federal budget and pay down the national debt by reducing and ultimately eliminating unconstitutional federal government programs & spending. In a thriving economy, existing excise taxes and tariffs would be more than enough to fund the Department of Defense and the legal system. I support a national sales tax on consumption to REPLACE the current inefficient, complex income tax system. |
The Republican Spending Explosion
Simplifying Federal Taxes: The Advantages of Consumption-Based Taxation
Revolutionary Reform: The Transition to a National Retail Sales Tax |
Education
|
Government spending on K-12 schools in the United States is higher than in any other developed country, with an average per-pupil cost of $6,857. Yet 9-and-13-year-old American students rank last in mathematics and science among students from the seven large countries that administered the most recent International Assessment of Education Progress. Government-run schools are clearly failing to educate our children. That is particularly tragic for children in inner cities, where low test scores are accompanied by huge social problems: high dropout rates, teacher demoralization, illegitimacy and threats to teacher and student safety. Allow parents to choose private or other public schools using school vouchers (at the state or local level) or universal education tax credits (see Cato link below for more information). The Federal government, one-size-fits-all public school programs and regulations have caused more harm than good and should be replaced with local control. Moreover, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate education regulations over state legislatures and local school boards. Private schools are higher in quality, lower in cost and more accountable to parents than government run public schools. Savings generated through opting out of the local government schools will lower local property taxes and eliminate the need for new statewide taxes. School choice will increase innovation and quality since the private sector has a financial incentive to please its customers (parents and students). Good teachers would be paid higher salaries since schools would be competing for the best talent in order to improve quality and attract new students. We must remove the burden of locally funded federal mandates. Education funding is more accountable and fiscally prudent when controlled at the local level. |
Milton and Rose Freidman Foundation for School Choice
Increasing Parental Control of Education through
the Universal Education Credit |
Terrorism and the War in Iraq
|
I support a national defense based on strategic independence and diplomacy based on prudent nonintervention. The past and present administrations' attempts to unilaterally police the world have increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the U.S. while decreasing our national security and moral standing. I do not support a resolution authorizing force against Iraq and would not support initiating military action unless attacked. Continue to search for terrorists that did attack us and bring them to justice. |
Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record
Bush Hoping for Mass Amnesia |
Environment
|
Assess pollution user fees instead of corporate welfare subsidies to oil/gas/coal industries. This will more effectively protect the environment by creating financial incentives to use cleaner, renewable energy sources and will reduce our dependence and demand for foreign oil. Reduce pollution by enforcing strict liability for industrial and governmental offenders and by assessing significant pollution user fees commensurate with the potential environmental impact. The U.S. military is the nation's largest polluter and should compensate local communities for environmental damage caused. Re-legalize industrial hemp to:
Replace destructive income and capital gains taxes with user fees on consumption to help protect the environment, stimulate the economy and create high paying jobs. Higher take home pay would more than offset the increased costs of consuming products destructive to the environment (gasoline, oil, plastics, etc.). |
PERC, the Political Economy Research Center Vote Hemp on the Environment. |
Drug Policy
|
Reduce crime and corruption significantly by ending the War on Drugs, which will remove the incentive for addicts to steal for drug money or gangs to fight over territory. Pardon non-violent drug offenders from prison to make room for violent felons that are being released early. Allow doctors to decide which drugs to prescribe for their patients; for example, allowing medicinal marijuana to cancer and AIDS patients and methadone to heroine addicts under a doctor's care. |
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Gary Johnson Is Right by David Boaz |
Health Care
|
Increase quality, innovation and availability of health care services while significantly lowering costs by reducing government regulation and control over the industry. I support medical savings accounts to enable small businesses and individuals to purchase health care services tax-free. I propose the use of health care vouchers at the state or local level for those citizens who are unable to afford health care or prescription drugs. Significantly decrease the cost of prescription drugs by allowing independent private drug testing companies to compete with the inefficient FDA for approval of new drugs. Support efforts for drug reimportation to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans. Presently, U.S. taxpayers and patients pay for almost all research and development costs through higher prices while subsidizing foreign consumption of prescription drugs. |
Social Security
|
Would you rather invest a portion of your wages into a private retirement account, or be forced to contribute 12.4% of your compensation into the failing Social Security System, which according to its own Board of Trustees is projected to be bankrupt by the year 2032? Over the past 70 years, the stock market has returned an average of 7% a year. By contrast, the average return on money paid into the Social Security system is 1.2% a year. That means that, even with its ups and downs, over the long term, the stock market pays 5 TIMES as much as Social Security. Nevertheless, politicians, Democrats in particular, try to scare Americans into believing that individual retirement accounts are riskier than Social Security, that putting your money into the Social Security system is somehow the safer choice. The fact is Americans could invest their retirement money with almost no risk. Under my individual retirement account plan, participants would be able to avoid the stock market altogether, by directing their money into bonds, money markets, or other low-risk investments, all of which would STILL provide a higher rate of return, and a more secure retirement, than Social Security. No matter what the Democrats try to tell you, obligations to existing retirees would still be honored under this privatization plan, but YOU would be given the choice to opt out of a system that will pay you NOTHING by the time you retire. Other countries (including Australia, Great Britain, Chile, and Mexico) have successfully made the transition from failing social security systems to individual retirement accounts. It's time for America to follow their lead. |
Social Security Privatization and Reform, a Cato Institute Project
We Can't Ignore Social Security Reform Any Longer |
Term Limits
|
During the first 150 years of this country's history, term limits were unnecessary. Turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives was routinely over 50 percent. But in recent years, a desire for power has infiltrated our nation's legislature. Over the last decade we have experienced reelection rates averaging over 90 percent creating a class of career politicians who have insulated themselves from the public will and grown less and less representative of the people. Like the Founding Fathers, the American people recognize the need for new blood in government. They have decided that it is time for their elected officials to return home at regular intervals. Term limits have seized the hearts and minds of millions of Americans frustrated with an unresponsive and arrogant government. |
Campaign Finance Reform
|
Recently passed campaign finance laws protect incumbents from criticism and help ensure their 90% plus re-election rates. Respect free speech and promote more competitive elections by allowing individual citizens to contribute their own money in any amount to the campaigns or political organizations of their choice. Taxpayers should not be forced to support political campaigns. Corporations and unions should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns or organizations unless they receive permission from their shareholders or union members in advance. Favor instant runoff voting to correct the defects in plurality voting and encourage more voter participation and a wider selection of candidates. Would eliminate the wasted vote syndrome and the spoiler effect of 3rd party candidates. See fairvote.org for more information. Strongly support term limits for all federal congressional seats to introduce competition and citizen participation. See U.S. Term Limits for more information. |
Creating an Open Electoral Process |
Gun Control Laws
|
Gun control laws should be more accurately labeled victim disarmament laws since criminals will always be able to obtain guns illegally; only law abiding Americans will be restricted and inconvenienced by gun laws. Preserve second amendment and gun ownership rights. Support repeal of ineffective and unconstitutional federal gun laws. Encourage personal responsibility, accountability and public safety by focusing police efforts on violent criminals who use guns or other weapons to commit crimes. |
Gun Owners of New Hampshire Election Guide and Candidate Grades |
Foreign Policy / Military Issues
|
War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. Dan Belforti's foreign policy vision is guided by the wisdom expressed in Thomas Jefferson's credo: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Accordingly, Belforti supports the concepts of a national defense based on strategic independence and diplomacy based on prudent nonintervention. The past and present administrations' attempts to unilaterally police the world has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the U.S while decreasing our national security and moral standing. President Eisenhower, in his final address to the nation before leaving office in 1961, issues a rather extraordinary warning to the American people that the country "must guard against unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." |
For more detail on positions, please contact the campaign at vote@belforti.org.
Frequently Asked Questions
Name a labor law or policy you would change and how that change would affect business and labor.
What role should the government have in promoting energy efficiency?
What is the Objectivist view of Libertarianism?
What role should or could Congress play in further addressing corporate governance/accountability issues?
There are already laws against fraud, which need to be enforced to
protect and compensate employees and shareholders. Congress should
ensure adequate funding for prosecution of fraud and violations of
public disclosure laws. Set an example for accurate accounting
practices by significantly increasing the quality of federal budget
accounting practices. What role should or could Congress play in
addressing the issue of excessive executive compensation? None. It's a
matter best left to the corporation and its shareholders to increase
shareholder value and maintain the competitiveness of American
corporations.
Back to Top
What specifically could or would you do to lower the cost New Hampshire businesses are paying for health care coverage?
Restore market forces to the health care industry to significantly
lower costs to New Hampshire citizens and businesses. I'd propose
tax-free medical savings accounts for individuals and small
businesses. Providing the opportunity for a business or individual to
set aside funds for medical needs without the burden of taxation will
reintroduce price comparison shopping for non-emergency procedures,
providing an incentive for health care providers to cut costs in order
to attract customers and maintain profitability.
Back to Top
What environmental regulations do you consider to be a burden on business and how would you lessen that burden? Which regulations are working?
One such regulation is wetlands protection. You cannot dump leaves
and yard debris on your own property if it is deemed a wetland. It
requires an engineering study, done at landowner expense, the marking
off of the wetland border, and the restriction to not dump within 50
feet of this mark. Laws that provide for protection from real
polluters and enable compensation from the polluting parties are
appropriate.
Back to Top
Name a labor law or policy you would change and how that change would affect business and labor.
This is a state issue. I support current efforts to make NH a
right-to-work state, without compulsory unionization or automatic
withdrawals for union fees. Ending these practices would create more
jobs and stimulate business growth. Also, minimum wage laws hurt our
economy and they harm the most vulnerable members of society without
skills or education. Young people and those just starting careers in
the job market to make second incomes need jobs and training.
Back to Top
If you could accomplish one specific thing in Congress to aid New Hampshire businesses over the next two years, what would it be and why?
The best, most direct action that would aid New Hampshire businesses
is the reduction of the federal tax burden, for both individuals and
businesses. I'd work to lower the income tax and the capital gains tax
rates. I'd vote to extend the moratorium on Internet taxation and
double the current tax exemption for employer-provided educational
assistance. I'd also vote to permanently repeal the death tax to
ensure family businesses continue to the next generation.
Back to Top
What role should the government have in promoting energy efficiency?
As a candidate for U.S. Congress, I will have to swear an oath to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, if I am elected. The Tenth Amendment
says "powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The
Federal government has no Constitution authority to "promote energy
efficiency" and futile attempts usually amount to subsidizing one
energy source and prohibiting another and other unnecessary meddling
that harms energy production and conservation. If you want energy
efficiency, repeal the prohibition on renewable energy sources like
hemp, which can be used to make ethanol, and stop subsidies for oil
companies and other corporate welfare recipients. Private citizens,
coordinated by the free market, will better handle energy efficiency.
Back to Top
Should we open parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration? How about federal lands in the Rocky Mountain Front?
No. Even successful drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
will have little impact on the global oil market, which determines
prices, and only provide approximately 6 months of America's present
consumption. To ride all our hopes on drilling in the arctic and
elsewhere to achieve "energy independence" is illusory at best. My
preference with our domestic oil reserves is to save them for our
future. A much better solution is to reinvigorate the vanishing
American farmlands to grow hemp, which can be used to produce ethanol
to power our automobiles.
Back to Top
The president's energy plan calls for an expansion of nuclear power. Do you support that? Please explain.
The main problem with nuclear power is that it is one of the biggest
recipients of government subsidies. I oppose all direct and indirect
government participation in the nuclear energy industry, including
subsidies, research and development funds, guaranteed loans, waste
disposal subsidies, and federal uranium enrichment facilities. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished; full liability --
not government agencies -- should regulate nuclear power. The
Price-Anderson Act, through which the government limits liability for
nuclear accidents and furnishes partial payment at taxpayer expense,
should be repealed. Nuclear energy should be denationalized and the
industry's assets transferred to the private sector. I believe in a
free market, and energy is no exception.
Back to Top
Congress has chosen not to require increased average fuel efficiency for motor vehicles, now 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles and 20.7 mpg for SUVs, minivans and light trucks. Do you support a higher standard for SUVs and minivans? (If so, please specify.) How about for passenger cars? (Please specify.)
No. A better solution to improve average fuel efficiency is for
governments to end subsidies to the oil companies paid for with
federal and state income taxes and local property taxes. The cost of
building and maintaining roads could be paid at the pump through a
road user fee. When the cost of gasoline is allowed to reach the price
level at which it reflects the true cost of driving, consumers will
have a financial incentive to purchase fuel-efficient cars. There is
no free lunch in this world and our subsidizing the cost of gasoline
with income and property taxes has created a higher demand for oil
than the unfettered free market would lead us to. The resulting
decrease in demand due to more accurate gasoline prices would lower
the cost per barrel and amount of imported oil, decrease air
pollution, reduce traffic congestion, delay the need and expense of
building more highways and reduce greenhouse gases.
Back to Top
The Senate energy bill includes a requirement for utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity by 2019 from renewable fuels such as wind, solar energy, and forest and agricultural wastes. Should electricity suppliers be required to increase their proportion of renewable energy generation? What should the minimum standard be, if any?
Libertarians' belief in free markets precludes our advocating such requirements. Our platform reads: "We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, such as that imposed by the Department of Energy, state public utility commissions, and state pro-rationing agencies. We oppose all government subsidies for energy research, development, and operation."
I suggest we create market incentives to use non-polluting energy
sources by holding polluters financially accountable for the emissions
and environmental damage that they produce during production or
consumption. Eliminate corporate welfare subsidies to oil companies
and other energy producers that pollute without compensation to create
fair competition with non-polluting, renewable energy sources, such as
ethanol made from hemp or corn oil.
Back to Top
Does the federal government have an obligation or interest to maintain a national railroad system? Please explain.
No, the US Constitution does not authorize such a system, unless it
can be shown to be critical for the national defense. Given the large
network of highways in this country, it would be a stretch to claim
such a need. It is in the nation's interest to promote the private
ownership and usage of all transportation systems in the furtherance
of trade and free travel. The existing rail system should be auctioned
off to competing private transport companies, which would reduce
prices and increase efficiency and accountability (see the history of
the AMTRAK monstrosity to see how a system should NOT be run), as well
as the removal of government favors to the transportation industry.
Back to Top
Do you agree with the following proposals from Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta:
Ending federal operating subsidies.
Yes.
Allowing competition for passenger rail.
Yes.
Making states more responsible for paying for train service.
No. Government ownership of rail systems at the federal or state level is not ideal. We need to have government out of the rail business, by privatizing all government-owned railroads. The end users of a system, the customers, should be responsible for paying for it. Free competition in transportation systems drives down costs and increases quality of service from government enforced monopolies and special interest legislative protection.
Replacing Amtrak as owner of the Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor?
Yes. Privatize Amtrak. Sell it to the highest bidder.
Back to Top
Are there other changes you would propose with respect to Amtrak specifically or passenger rail service in general?
Yes. Government interference in transportation is characterized by
monopolistic restriction, corruption and gross inefficiency.
Libertarians call for the dissolution of all government agencies
concerned with transportation, including the Department of
Transportation, and the transfer of their legitimate functions to
competitive private firms.
Back to Top
Briefly discuss your proposed solutions for education funding, and please indicate your position on any broad-based tax to address this matter:
Allow parents to choose private or other public schools using school
vouchers or universal education credits. Private schools are higher in
quality, lower in cost and more accountable to parents than government
run public schools. Savings generated through opting out of the local
government schools will lower property taxes and eliminate the need
for new statewide taxes. School choice will increase innovation and
quality since the private sector has a financial incentive to please
its customers (parents and students). Good teachers would be paid
higher salaries since schools would be competing for the best talent
in order to improve quality and attract new students. We must remove
the burden of locally funded federal mandates. Education funding is
more accountable and fiscally prudent when controlled at the local
level. I do not support an income tax of any kind as this would hurt
the NH economy and drive out small businesses and jobs. I do not
support a statewide property tax, interest/dividends tax, sales tax or
business enterprise tax. I support legalized slot machines to generate
revenue for school voucher program.
Back to Top
Briefly explain why you would or would not support a constitutional amendment to keep the Supreme Court out of legislative issues:
I would support a constitutional amendment to keep the supreme court
out of legislative issues. There must be a separation of powers
between the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government
in order maintain a balance of government power.
Back to Top
Briefly explain how you feel about the court-ordered redistricting plan, and what changes you would like to see made if any:
The redistricting plan lowers the number of state house districts
from 195 to 88, forcing out representation for many small towns and
merging them with larger towns and cities. This generally goes against
the very representational system New Hampshire has had traditionally
and could lead us to an over-centralized state government that
emphasizes the cities over the towns, similar to Massachusetts. There
may be a silver lining for freedom, however, in that independent, 3rd
party candidates should have a greater chance of electoral success
since residents have several votes to cast in which they would be more
likely to support an alternative candidate in addition to their
favored major party candidate(s).
Back to Top
What is the Objectivist view of Libertarianism?
Please visit The Objectivist Center for an article regarding this.
Back to Top