.

Election 2012: Timothy Wolfe

Wolfe, a Republican, is running for Congress in Illinois' 9th District, challenging incumbent Jan Schakowsky.

 

Name: Timothy C Wolfe    

Running For: US House of Representatives Ninth Congressional District of Illinois    

Website:   www.TimWolfeforCongress.com

Email:        info@TimWolfeforCongress.com

Phone:       (847) 834-4157

Facebook:  www.facebook.com/IL9thDist
Twitter:      www.TimforCongress
Mailing address:  Tim Wolfe for Congress
                        119 S. Emerson St. #212
                        Mount Prospect, IL  60056

Age and birthdate:   58, 9/20/1953    

Family: I have been a resident of Arlington Heights for over 30 years with my wife, Kyle. We have two daughters. I am originally from Bloomington, IL.

Education:   Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Illinois Wesleyan University 1975
Bachelor of Science in Accounting, Illinois State University 1978
Masters of Taxation, Northern Illinois University 2003
Certified Public Accountant, 1980
Certified Financial Planner, 1993    

Occupation: I have my own tax and accounting practice in Mt. Prospect, IL. I have been self-employed for approximately 20 years. Prior to that, I was a senior audit manager with the firm of Altschuler, Melvoin and Glasser. I am a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Certified Financial Planner (CFP).

Political party: Republican  

Name of your campaign committee: Timothy C. Wolfe for Congress     

Previous elected or appointed offices: I have not previously run for political office before, nor have I held elected or appointed office. However, I am a public-spirited citizen who is concerned about a variety of issues that we presently face.  It is my understanding that this is exactly who the Founding Fathers would have seek elected office.  On the other hand, I am running against someone who is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers wanted - that is, a professional politician more interested in helping cronies than pursuing the general good.   

Is there any additional experience you believe qualifies you for the position? If your race is contested, how does this set you apart from other candidates? My accounting background of over 20 years as a small business owner and as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA)  and Certified Financial Planner (CFP) shows that I am concerned with fiscal responsibility and inclined to look at the numbers.  Specifically, I will look at the funds going into the Federal government and the funds expended.  I believe that keeping the rate of taxation down will inevitably mean more tax dollars for the Federal government because more people will have jobs with higher incomes.  I also believe in properly prioritizing the expenditures of the Federal government to provide for the common defense, protect the needy, and deal with issues that are beyond the capacity of the states to address.    

What would your priorities be if elected to this office? My priorities are to reduce the federal debt and the irresponsible spending policies that have created it, to create jobs and economic growth through tax reductions and, generally, to preserve and expand our freedoms. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is critical to protecting our freedoms.     

The Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year. Do you believe that all of the cuts should be extended, some, or none? Explain. Increasing taxes can only cripple the economy further and cost jobs.  Increasing taxes when we require economic recovery from a severe recession is doubly ill-advised.  The President agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010 for good reasons and, accordingly, my position is that all of the Bush tax cuts should remain in place.

As a CPA, I understand our tax system, and am passionate about changing it. First, the US tax code should be simplified, in order to reduce its burden on citizens and on the economy.  I will support tax system proposals that make income taxes more logical and easier to complete.  Transparency to citizens should be a high priority.  I am also open to considering an alternative tax system, like the FAIR Tax (national sales tax) or the Flat Tax, with the proviso that there be only one tax system. 

We currently expect to have troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and 30,000 troops were being brought home this year. Do you agree with the timetable for the Afghanistan war troop drawdown? Why or why not? And how should the U.S. continue to combat terrorism going forward? The United States cannot fight everyone’s wars.  We must be prepared to help countries like Afghanistan but these countries must make a significant commitment to developing their own security.

We seem to have met our basic goals in Afghanistan and we should leave as soon as we can safely do so.  I support a withdrawal from Afghanistan, but not in the fashion President Obama has laid out, telling our enemies what we are planning, as it allows the enemies of Afghan freedom to simply wait until we leave.

With terrorism being one of the major world problems, the effectiveness of traditional military forces can be limited.  We must extend the technological tools and improve the intelligence resources needed to fight terrorism.  In all of these areas, we must stop the casual divulgence of information and the politically-oriented purposeful leaks that have characterized the current administration.  Such irresponsible actions place our people, and those who would work with them, at unnecessary risk.

Do you believe the Affordable Care Act should be repealed? If so, what measures for health care reform would you support? If not, why not? This law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, must be repealed completely.  This is a bad law that works against its own stated objectives!   

Remember Nancy Pelosi saying that, “you have to pass it to see what is in it”? When any law is passed without a proper understanding of what is in the bill, and without Congress having the time or opportunity to even read it, you are obviously inviting trouble. With a 2,700-page bill, it would be naive to believe that such a bill would not be incredibly beneficial to cronies of those who passed it and, as a result, seriously detrimental to the country.  And that is exactly the current situation. We only need to look to Europe and see that moving further in the direction of state-controlled health care is not the nswer!. And with 16,000 new IRS agents to insure your compliance with this law, it is indisputable that excessive government oversight and control over our lives is the goal of this administration.

In order to arrive at policies that are more appropriate and effective, Congress must require coverage of pre-existing conditions, interstate sales of health insurance policies to stimulate competition and tort reform. The insurance industry must then design new and innovative products. It is up to each state to determine if it wants to require health insurance similar to the requirement to have auto insurance.

The U.S. annual budget deficit for fiscal year 2013 is projected to be $901 billion, down from $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009. About 82 percent of the federal budget in 2011 was related to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, defense spending, and mandatory spending such as interest payments on existing debt. This leaves only about 18 percent of the federal budget as discretionary spending. What should be done to further reduce the budget deficit? It is impossible to provide specific numbers. However, a valid argument can be made that by lowering tax rates, tax receipts do not drop, and often increase. This is because lower rates generate more economic activity. However, in contrast, increased government spending does require more taxes, and trying to force rates higher is likely to exacerbate our current economic problems.

My opponent suggests tax rates should be raised to as high as 49% and that the “Fairness in Taxation Act” would bring in $78 billion in new revenue, which is enough money to fund the government at current spending levels for less than 8 days. This example clearly illustrates that we cannot tax our way out of this mess. The solution must be to cut spending dramatically.

Raising taxes on job creators would also be a job killer because people who invest in businesses and jobs are taking a risk in return for the opportunity of being rewarded.  When tax rates are raised, there is a tendency for there to be less tax collected than had been expected.  When the economy begins to improve, there will be a significant increase in revenue collections. With that in mind, deficit reduction should focus on controlling spending.

Spending priorities need to be set.  We need to deal with this bloated government and insure that government pay, including benefits, is in line with similar jobs in the private sector.  In 2011, the General Accounting Office issued a report (Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue) outlining a number of ideas to help reduce the nation’s deficit. Rather than largely ignoring this report, Congress should specifically act on this report in a way that implements the best of its proposals, and makes the public aware of the issues that it raises.

There is no area in the Federal government that would not benefit from spending cuts because of duplication, bloated and excessive salaries/wages and benefits, inefficiencies and fraud. Every representative in Congress and the President should agree with this. Efficiency experts should be hired with payment made from savings. We must then prioritize spending and eliminate non-critical spending and spending more properly delegated to state or local governments or the private sector. Congress must minimize the excessively negative impact the Federal government is placing on private market businesses. Among other policy reforms, we need to remove heavy-handed controls on the energy sector to help the country work towards energy independence and strongly reduce reliance on foreign sources.  This will also hold down inflation and create jobs, thereby advancing the recovery in economically responsible ways.

In 2010 the federal government war on drugs cost about $15 billion, according to a report by the Cato Institute. FBI crime statistics state that 1.6 million people were arrested for drug offenses. Some public officials such as Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle have publicly stated that our approach regarding drug crimes wastes law enforcement resources on non-violent offenders. What do you think of our federal policies regarding the war on drugs? I believe that many of our laws need to be modernized, with antiquated and ineffective laws taken off the books. It is likely that some drug laws need to be
changed. However, I would be cautious about decriminalizing drugs. I believe that all laws should include penalties that are directly related to compensatory damages to victims and the court system costs.  This is an approach that might work well for lower level drug offenses.

Name one policy that the leaders of your party supported that you disagree with and name one decision or policy from the opposing party that you did agree with and why? A policy I agree with on the Democratic side is President Obama agreeing to extend the tax rate status quo in 2010. One policy I disagree with of the Republican leadership is in not being more specific in how best to replace Obamacare.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something