We have a “progressive” tax system, not as a matter of policy, but of politics.
Keeping in mind that a politician must get 50.1% of the vote, its cynically pragmatic to inflict a burden on as few people as possible.  Thus, over the past several decades more and more of the revenue-generating responsibility has been shifted to fewer and fewer people.  Basically, it’s become a perverse form of Robin Hood, whereby politicians tell the 90% “Hey, elect me and we’ll get the other 10%”.

The flaw in this short-term vote-getting strategy is that those 10% are the ones who create jobs.
Too many politicians look at the most successful members of our society and target them through punitive taxes. Cynically, this is an easy approach, in that a short-sighted politician, whose only concern is the next election, tells his prospective constituents, “vote for me and I’ll sock it to the wealthy”.

The long-term problem with this approach is two-fold.  First, those “wealthy” constituents are often professionals and small business owners who employ our neighbors.  Attacking them into submission, to the point that they finally give in and close shop, doesn’t just hurt them, but the 5, 10, 100, or 1,000 people they employ.

Second, the top 1% wage-earners pay 25% of federal income taxes.  The top 5% pay over half!  What experience has shown in California and New Jersey is that more and more people are willing to say “enough”, and move.  Fortunately, they moved across a state border and not our national border, for now.  Imagine the fate of our country if more of the wealthy finally “opted out”.  We would lose not just the bigger part of our tax base, but more jobs..

In an economy of 10% unemployment, we need political leadership that encourages job growth, not crushes it.

As your Congressman, I will support the limited role of government as a steward to business, and help it to encourage business growth, which inevitably leads to job growth. The American people are suffering in this economy, and the sooner our government stops smothering us with bandages and the outrageous spending that accompanies them, the sooner Main Street can get back to the task it has been successfully fulfilling for 234 years, growing this great nation’s economy.

Capitalism is messy, but it’s better than all the alternatives. Our economic system has worked wonderfully for our country, and generation after generation has seen a greater standard-of-living. Occasionally, corporate greed offsets the genuine good of capitalism. Now is not the time to abandon what works. High taxes and entitlement spending are detrimental to the financial security of our country.

The business of America is still business. Although we’ve gone through tough transitions from a manufacturing power to the world’s leading service provider, our economic system is still the envy of the world.

Meaningful reform is a worthwhile goal and as your Congressman I will work with responsible members of both parties to promote legislation that supports our system of healthcare. What I will not do, however, is place 1/6th of the U.S. economy in the hands of the same people that brought us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the inefficient bureaucracies of Medicare and Medicaid.

Bundled into the current debate are three separate issues: Health, Health Care, and Health Care Insurance. Each must be addressed if we are to make any improvements in what is already the global standard of medicine.

Health is often an exclusively personal issue. With the exception of those who suffer from an affliction, many of those whose health is in jeopardy must take responsibility for their behavior, habits and activities. Any reform that asks all Americans to pay for the care of another must take into account the deliberate decisions of the recipient.

Health Care, our overall “system” of medical delivery, is without equal. In spite of punitive regulatory policies that stifle innovation and advances our researchers, practitioners and managers continue to deliver world-class treatment. Instead of focusing on what our system “needs”, Congress should focus on what it does NOT need. Tort reform that protects the patient and the providers will lower costs for all of us. With lower malpractice premiums and a reduction in “preventive” care to avoid lawsuits, the reduced costs of operating will be passed along to customers by providers seeking to compete with the reduced costs of other practices. Health Care Insurance, like other indemnity products, is something that we all dislike but that we all need. The question is how to best provide it. Although some decry the notion of “for profit” carriers, history and common sense dictate that the free market will continue to bring the most benefit to the most people. Competition will drive companies to offer better benefits, better customer service and be more responsive to our demands. When the government bureaucrats seek to provide a service, the inevitable tendency is higher costs and less satisfaction. I challenge those who trumpet a single-payer option to provide one example of a government agency outperforming the private sector. As your Congressman I will look for ways to improve the Health Care Insurance environment, but at the core of any approach will be my faith that American companies are the answer, not an administrator in Washington.

According to LG&E, “your energy costs will go up significantly and it hurts Kentucky families.” By spending more money on electricity, you will have less money to spend on other goods and services. If you spend less on other products, businesses will have to lay people off. People on fixed incomes will have to make a choice. Pay the higher utility bill or spend the money on food, medicine, or other essential items. I dread the thought of an elderly widow sitting in a cold home in the dark because of this legislation.

Businesses energy costs will go up or production will be capped (hence CAP & TRADE, the Democrats are desperately trying to find a new name for this legislation to try to make it sound less horrible). By spending more money on electricity, they will have less money to spend on expansion, inventory and payroll. Obviously they will have to lay people off.
Sometimes things are simple. This is one of those times.

I do not dispute the sincerity or honesty of those seeking to saddle the employers of American workers with Cap and Trade legislation. What I call into question is the nature of the problem it seeks to address and the manner in which it seeks to solve it.

At the heart of this proposal is climate change, both its existence and its degree. With the recent revelations that advocates at the movement’s premiere institution, the Climate Research Unit, falsified and/or buried scientific “evidence” regarding global warming, we are left wondering about this issue. Is there global warming? If so, is it natural? Whether cyclic or predominantly man-made, what are the consequences? Remember, we just had the coolest July in Louisville ever in recorded history.

Climate change has become such a politicized issue that any governmental action to address it would be either unguided or misguided or dominated by emotional response. Cap and Trade is no exception. Given the aforementioned lack of objective understanding, we do not need to stifle American industry with job-killing regulations at a time when 1 in 10 Americans are out of work and even more are underemployed.

A decision to commit troops into harm’s way must take into account the care that many will need when they return from battle.  If they’re prepared to give all, we must be prepared as well.

Because America’s healthcare system has enabled the greatest advances in medicine, many of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that would not have survived Vietnam have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. We as a nation are thankful for that.

Fortunate to have survived their wounds, these same men and women who would have died on the battlefields of wars past require treatment for months, years, and in some cases decades.  For those who prepared to give their lives for us, we must be prepared to fully honor their sacrifice.

In addition to strongly supporting administrative and substantive changes to VA benefits for our current recipients of care, I will pursue legislation that looks forward.

The next time Congress considers its Constitutional role to declare war, or the President weighs a decision to commit troops into harm’s way, the cost of caring for our wounded warriors must be taken into account.

Medics offload critically wounded personnel from Lally’s C-130 at Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan

As your Congressman I will continue to support a strong national security policy that provides for the world’s most dominant military, but one that also integrates the other instruments of national power into a cohesive, comprehensive and seamless defense strategy.

The United States will always be a target for freedom-hating people, and so long as evil men threaten our way of life we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our allies. I have traveled to nearly eighty countries and I can tell you without a doubt that there are people in this world who despise America and want to commit acts of extreme violence against the American people. There are schools, like one I visited in Iraq, that have murals in the lunchroom of good Muslim warriors cutting the head off a snake with USA written on it. This was an elementary school. Children are indoctrinated from a very young age, and it is a part of their culture.

Although peer or near-peer military forces loom on the horizon, America is uncontested in the realm of major, conventional warfare. But in an age where a handful of terrorists can potentially wield nuclear power, our approach to national security must encompass the broadest range of diplomatic, informational, and economic tools available to it.
As we continue to evolve our military to defeat both conventional forces and insurgents, we must augment the Department of Defense with the other skills and resources that will mitigate the terrorist threat. Only by finding and fighting our nation’s enemies across all domains can we truly provide national security.

This is a mural in an elementary school in Iraq. Its purpose is to indoctrinate young children that it is every Muslim's duty to take up arms against the United States and Israel. There are madrasahs (a place of study) all over the Middle East where radical Islamist prepare future terrorist to attack America. This is very ingrained into their culture and we must always be prepared to defeat emerging threats.

“Todd Lally is a member of the Air National Guard. Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Department of the Air Force or the Department of Defense.”

Restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to own guns would not solve the problem of gun violence. While strict rules against ownership would only be followed by those responsible members of society who obey the law, the criminals among us would violate guns laws in the same way they violate all the others.

I refuse to tell someone that they do not have the right to protect themselves in their own home, and I will not take away their ability to do so.

The Constitutional guarantee, via the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, has been argued as to its true intent.  At one end you have individuals who say that the government has no right to restrict their access or ownership of any weapon.  At the other end are people that the amendment’s reference to “well regulated militia” implies that private ownership of weapons isn’t absolute.
Restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to own guns would not solve the problem of gun violence. While strict rules against ownership would only be followed by those responsible members of society who obey the law, the criminals among us would violate guns laws in the same way they violate all the others.  I appreciate the sincerity and motivation of those who propose tougher regulations, but I refuse to believe that the same criminals who would commit robbery, assault, rape or murder would choose to follow the one law that would make their other crimes more difficult to commit.

The Founding Fathers were correct to protect our right to bear arms.  Either for sport or protection, responsible members in our community exercise responsible gun ownership and don’t need laws targeted against criminals to impede their ability to defend their homes and families.  In doing a police “ride-along” several years ago, it dawned on me that we were continually responding to events that had already transpired; by the time the 911 call was routed to dispatch, and from there to the police net, and for the nearest officer to arrive at the scene, the crime was over.  Good policing does preempt some crimes, but often our officers arrive afterwards.
I refuse to tell someone that they do not have the right to protect themselves in their own home, and I will not take away their ability to do so.

Q:  What about people who stockpile weapons?

A:  The great, great majority of responsible gun owners possess one or two handguns or rifles.  If some of those same law-abiding citizens chose to have more, I just remind myself that one person can only use one gun.  Again, logic dictates that if we passed a law limiting ownership, I’m not at all confident that a criminal would comply..

Q:  Do you think people should be allowed to carry weapons anywhere?

A:  Appropriate legislation strives to strike the proper balance between liberty and security.  Given that the purpose of carrying a weapon in public is for protection, then any venue that can limit everyone, including criminals, from carrying a gun should retain the authority to do so.

Card Check is a transparent attempt by labor unions to strong arm employees into supporting them.
Union membership has dropped precipitously in the preceding decades for two main reasons:

• First, sectors that traditionally employed union labor have been in general decline as America has moved from a manufacturing to a service-oriented economy.

• Second, the nature of the workplace is less conducive to union membership in that very few people work at the same factory for decades, as they did from the 1930s through the 1980s.

As a union member myself, I understand and support the right of laborers to freely associate, organize and engage in collective bargaining.  As a strong supporter of the First Amendment and the right to privacy, I also believe that each American is entitled to an opinion that he can choose to share or not share.

Card Check, in its essence, would remove from every employee the ability to vote their conscience without the oversight of a union boss.  Should individuals choose to lawfully unionize, so be it.  But they should be able to make that decision without undue influence from someone who stands to gain from their support.  Your election vote and mine are private, and I refuse to take that same right from employees.