Congressman Ryan was Mitt Romney’s first hire. As the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, a disciple of the late Jack Kemp, and the author of the Republican budget which promises to reform our unsustainable system of entitlements, Ryan will be an articulate spokesman for serious solutions to our fiscal problems. Congressman Ryan also represents a full frontal assault on the President’s failed ideology of higher taxes, more spending, bigger government and smaller people.

In this November’s election, President Obama obviously can’t run on his record. And prior to Romney’s selection, President Obama has made it clear he had no intention to do so. In spite of a near monopoly in Congress during much of his term, there have been no measurable achievements to which the President can point.

Yes, President Obama inherited a struggling economy. The American people hired him to fix it.

President Obama’s campaign had indicated they would avoid their record in favor of a smear campaign on Mitt Romney. They even went so far as to falsely accuse Romney of being both responsible for, and unmoved by, the death of a spouse of a former employee. Particularly embarrassing considering President Obama ran as a candidate who promised results, accountability, and a new tone of civility.

But after a failed stimulus which created debt instead of jobs, a wildly unpopular healthcare plan heavy on rhetoric but low on quality, and a tax program which relies on raising the burden on the productive but never comes close to decreasing our debt, the case cannot be made that America is better off under President Obama’s stewardship.

America is in a bad way. Voters deserves a real choice, and leaders who will take responsibility and lead. Pointing out the President’s many failures won’t inspire Americans, and it won’t create jobs. It won’t foster an educational system where low income citizens can thrive, and it won’t empower entrepreneurs. Most importantly, it won’t ensure our children enjoy a higher standard of living than we currently enjoy. But Congressman Ryan’s budget will, and it’s time Americans were told the truth.

The federal government currently borrows more than 40% of every dollar it spends. And in 2013, 60% of federal spending is mandatory, primarily comprising unsustainable entitlements. Our debt is now roughly equal to our gross domestic product. These numbers are bad, and our trajectory is for them to get worse.

President Obama’s solution is to do nothing about existing entitlements, and add the Affordable Care Act to the back of the American taxpayer. Instead of simplifying the federal tax code which confuses small businesses, he suggests raising taxes on the most productive Americans, who already pay the lion’s share. Even if his tax increases were to pass, and even if we pretend that tax revenues wouldn’t decline as a result, our trajectory is unchanged.

Paul Ryan is serious about fixing the problems we face. And by selecting him, Mitt Romney is betting that the American people are serious about fixing them, too.

The media will paint the pick of Paul Ryan as a guaranteed loser in the general election, just as they claim all Republican ideas are unelectable. They believe Americans want an unsustainable system of entitlements at the expense of future generations. But the media is wrong. Republican ideals are American ideals. They have won in the strongest of Democratic precincts, and they will win again. Even in Maryland.

When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was recalled, the national media predicted a huge win for unions at the expense of taxpayers. But Governor Walker proved that voters want results more than rhetoric. He kept his job by telling the voters the truth, by confronting reckless spending, and by delivering on promises.

Medicare will be insolvent by 2024. But as a nation, we have made promises to our seniors. So Congressman Ryan’s proposed Medicare reforms would take effect only for those under 55 years of age. To control costs, he would empower citizens to choose their healthcare providers similar to Health Savings Accounts. He would block grant more entitlement spending to the states, who know best how to allocate money to their citizens. And he would create a tax environment which would encourage investment, grow our economy, create jobs, and empower all Americans.

In 2010, when I sought the Republican nominee for Maryland governor, my platform of real reform mirrored that of Congressman Ryan, Governor Walker, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. In fact, many in the media compared my campaign to theirs. These men were elected by traditionally Democratic precincts to fix problems, proving that Republican ideas, if well articulated, will draw voters from across the political spectrum.

And after I lost the Republican gubernatorial primary to Governor Robert Ehrlich, I endorsed him and he asked me to speak at a campaign rally featuring Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It was an honor to do so, and at the event Ehrlich repeatedly referred to me as the “future of the party.” Certainly high praise coming from one of the only Republicans in recent history to win statewide office in Maryland. But I know that Governor Ehrlich meant that label is transferrable to any Republican with the courage to challenge the failed economic policies of the left and articulately defend our shared view of America.

Voters in the United States, and in Maryland, are hungry for leaders who will fix our budgets, and who will inspire Americans to rise up and to do great things. No matter what the media may tell you, Mitt Romney will win the White House this November, just as Maryland Republican senatorial candidate Dan Bongino will win a seat in the United States Senate. And it will not be because they ran away from the real reforms we desperately need. It will be because they fearlessly and passionately championed them.

On issues ranging from healthcare and tax reform to enforcing our citizenship laws, our President is one of the most subjective in history. But subjectivity is antithetical to our nation’s founding. Our Constitution was brilliant in its simplicity. All people are free. Laws are simple, and universal. And government coercion should be limited.

But to our President, these principles are unreasonable. Laws need to be constantly adjusted to counterbalance the unfairness of the world.  America is a mean place, and Americans are not charitable. To hear him tell it, every illegal immigrant is nothing more than a 21^st Century version of Jean Valjean from Hugo’s Les Miserables, and their only crime is the theft of a loaf of bread to feed their starving family.

But our citizens are the most charitable in the history of the world. We should all be insulted that an administration which accuses honest, hard-working, charitable Americans of being heartless racists for the simple crime of asking our Executive Branch to fulfill its charter and enforce our laws.

When framing the issue on immigration, the left relies on the same sophomoric tactics as our current president. They paint the story of the illegal immigrant as a helpless child, brought to this nation by their noble parents in search of a better life. And after years of ‘residence’, the citizenship born of lawlessness should be legitimized. And those new citizens are the future of our nation.

Time magazine recently featured illegal immigrants on the cover of its June 25^th issue, with a focus on  Jose Antonio Vargas, a Filipino adult who has been living in the United States illegally since his childhood. The left uses figures like Mr. Vargas to evoke heavy emotions in order to persuade Americans that their various causes are just.  We should all be deeply insulted when those who oppose amnesty are accused of racism. But in the court of public opinion, this was the left’s closing defense. Mr. Vargas was their star witness. And the defense fell flat.

While great attention is paid to the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding Arizona’s desire to enforce its borders with Mexico, an estimated 60% of our 12 million illegal immigrants come to the United States by plane. There are an estimated 30,000 illegal immigrants in Boston of Irish decent. This is not exclusively a Hispanic issue. This is a law enforcement issue.

Mr. Vargas was brought to the United States at the age of 12 with a forged passport. He and his family forged documents, ignored the law, and have been lying about his status ever since. And now, after all these years, Mr. Vargas has the audacity to compare his accomplices to the Underground Railroad. Does he realize the insanity of implying the remaining 94 million residents of the Philippines are slaves?

Mr. Vargas’s claims he is an undocumented citizen, but this is also incorrect. He has documents, they are just forgeries. And his only request is that the United States create a “process” for people like him. We already have a the most expansive and inclusive immigration processes in history. Just apparently not expansive and inclusive enough for him. He and his family chose to disregard our process and the millions of people in the midst of it, and to forge documents.

Famed economist Thomas Sowell, like Milton Friedman before him, has a way of disarming the folly of the political left with wit and reason. Dr. Sowell is principled, matter-of-fact, and on-point. When dealing with silly arguments such as Mr. Vargas, Dr. Sowell often asks his one simple question: “Why do you insist on starting your story in the middle?”

Let’s pretend Mr. Vargas’s journey as an illegal immigrant is starting today, June 26, 2012. I would like to hear President Obama defend his family’s decision to smuggle a child into our nation with forged documents. It is an insult to the United States, to our laws, and to the millions of people who have the decency to respect them.

But for obvious reasons, Mr. Vargas prefers to start this story in the middle. He seems to think it far easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. But the American people are not easily fooled. And if this is the best the left can do, they have a pitiful argument indeed.

The past few years have been devastating for our nation. Every day we are all confronted with empty storefronts, homes for sale, and continued economic uncertainty. But even in the darkest of times, including the Great Depression, both World Wars, and the time following the terrorist attacks of September, 2001, Americans have been known for our unwavering faith that tomorrow will be better than today.

If America is home to the sunny disposition, no one personified that image more perfectly than the late Ronald Reagan. Reagan was credited with winning the Cold War without firing a shot, and his speeches, toasts, and musings were a perfect forum for him to share his thoughts on the America he loved. He was compassionate. He was charismatic. He was optimistic. And he was funny. But he was given plenty of good material.

Like Reagan, Republicans see America as a land filled with noble and honorable people.  Prosperity is the byproduct of virtuous people being left to pursue happiness, however they define it, and the only impediment we face is a centralized government which limits personal freedom. Big government programs may be well-intentioned, but that makes their completely predictable failure no less comical. In fact, it makes it more so. The core of Republican humor is the silly notion that coercion could ever generate better results than free people making their own choices.

By contrast, Democrats believe America is a dangerous and unfair place. Without constant government intervention, the rich and powerful will exploit the poor and helpless.  Yet they conveniently omit the fact that the only nations in the history of the world where the poor and helpless have had no chance at upward mobility are the ones with limited personal freedom and powerful centralized governments. There’s nothing funny about tyranny.

Whether the topic is healthcare, public education, or collective bargaining power, Republicans err on the side of the American person, and Democrats err on the side of a grand government solution. Republicans poke fun at inefficient systems, and Democrats poke fun at the individuals who disagree. The former makes for good comedy. The latter makes for awkward cocktail parties.

Nowhere was this more apparent than at last year’s DC’s Funniest Celebrity Contest. While most of the contestants in the bipartisan field shied away from direct political attacks, Joy and I were appalled at the relentless personal attacks on Grover Norquist, whose only crime is his belief that taxes are high enough, and the government would do us all a great service by learning to live within its means. We were sitting at a table with Samah Norquist, Grover’s wife, and the attacks on her husband made the entire room cringe. Not only were they bad comedy, they were in poor taste.

But when Grover got his chance at the microphone, instead of returning fire, he made lighthearted jokes about his own interfaith marriage, his poor fashion choices, and raising two daughters.  The contrast may seem trivial, but it also paints a larger picture.

Traditionally, Republicans have taken the high road, as we aspire to be virtuous people, and we celebrate virtue in others. We shy away from personal attacks. America only succeeds if citizens are treated, and treat others, with voluntary dignity.

Because Americans are inherently distrustful of centralized power, Democrats know that the only way to convince the American people to surrender power is by making them even more afraid of the alternative. They are always in search of the boogeyman, some faceless oil company or insurance company to blame for the world’s ills. A free society is nothing to be afraid of, and free people should be trusted to make their own decisions.

The Declaration of Independence has been called Freedom’s Love Story, and the Constitution has been called its Operators Manual. But to fully understand our founders disdain for coercion and centralized power, I look to the Bill of Rights, which I call our federal government’s Cease and Desist Order. The Bill of Rights is a list of negative liberties: things the federal government may never force any of us to do.

While private oil and insurance companies make for convenient scapegoats, the government run alternatives in Venezuela and Europe are no laughing matter. Milton Friedman was credited in saying that when one speaks of freedom, one must do it with a smile. It’s time we reclaimed our principles, and our sense of humor, and fought to put decisions back in the hands of the individual.

Last summer, our family made the decision to leave Montgomery County, and to return to Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Our town has many educational options, including public and private, religious and secular, but we chose to enroll our children in our county’s public schools. And our children are thriving.

No two students are alike, and neither are their educational needs nor their potential career paths. I attended public elementary, middle and high school in Talbot County, a public university in Prince George’s County, a private graduate school in Philadelphia, and for the last decade I worked and lived in the urban areas of Baltimore City, Washington, DC, and Montgomery County.

Throughout my education, and throughout my career, I have been able to choose the path which best suited my needs. Now that we have children of our own, my wife and I take their education very, very seriously.

While we have nothing but positive things to say about the education provided by our county, we reserve the right to make the final decision when it comes to our children’s education. Were we displeased with our county’s public schools, we would not hesitate to move our children into an environment which best met their needs.

This morning, as I do on most mornings, I had the privilege of dropping off my children at the bus stop. They know their bus driver’s name, and the bus driver knows theirs. Their school is a safe place, and the teachers deliver results consistent with our expectations.

As I watched the bus pull away, I reflected on the state of education in Maryland, and in our nation. What parent could imagine sending their child to a school with metal detectors and armed police, and where students are more likely to drop out than to graduate? This nightmare, made famous by films such as “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ”, is the reality too many parents face right here in Maryland. And it’s time we had an honest discussion regarding the antiquated model by which we educate our children.

Article VIII of Maryland’s Constitution provides for the establishment and funding of public education. Of Maryland’s $36 billion budget, more than $12.6 billion, or 35%, is devoted to education. While Maryland ranks at or near the top of every list when it comes to our public schools, the rankings tell only part of the story.

The education level and median income of parents are primary drivers in educational performance of children. Does it really surprise anyone that, on average, educated, wealthy parents tend to have successful children?

Maryland is one of the wealthiest states in the nation, and Maryland has among the highest percentage of residents with high school diplomas and advanced degrees. So it stands to reason that Maryland students excel relative to their peers in other states.

In 2011, Educational Week ranked Maryland’s public schools as the best in the nation. But buried in the report is a statistic which should alarm us all. According to NAEP (the National Association for Educational Progress, the division within the Department of Education which measures student achievement), when comparing the disparity in results between the students who qualify for free lunch to those who do not, Maryland ranks 35^th in reading, and 50^th in math.

In summary, Maryland has a record budget for education, our most affluent children are thriving, and our lower income students are being left behind.

Like every well-intentioned but failed government program, the champions of our current monopoly system refuse to concede the model is broken, and insist the only problem is inadequate funding. But there is a better way. And it comes down to proven economic principles, and to one of the fundamental strengths of our nation: parents know what’s best for their children.

The next time you are at the grocery store, count the number of choices you have when it comes to bread. Then count the number of toothpastes. Then count the number of kinds of orange juice. Then count the number of public school options available for children in Baltimore City. When you think of it in practical terms, an educational monopoly is not just indefensible, it’s actually comical.

The idea that parents should have the final say when educating their children has been a driving force in the US Senate campaign of Dan Bongino. I am proud to chair his campaign, and I know Dan understands the importance of revisiting our failed system. Not surprisingly, some on the left know Dan is a serious threat to Senator Cardin, and to the educational monopoly he represents. They care more about preserving union control than they do about closing the education gap among lower income and minority students.

One of the key selling points in President Obama’s healthcare overhaul was, “if you like you your healthcare, you can keep it.” Not surprisingly, we are now discovering that promise was not entirely accurate. But the reason he made it is that it plays into our fundamental belief as Americans that we should get the final say when it comes to our healthcare.

Dan makes the same promise when it comes to education. If you like your child’s current education, you can keep it. That promise tells us a lot about Dan and his priorities. But perhaps the fact that Senator Cardin will not make a similar promise tells us even more about him.

Mr. Limbaugh’s words were inappropriate, and he has formally apologized, but they were no worse than those used by pundits on the left. While bad behavior never excuses bad behavior, the entire debate is missing the larger point. Ms. Fluke should not only offer to pay for her own health care needs, she should be willing to foot the bill for other, ‘less fortunate’ Americans.

For a moment, let’s pretend that the individual mandate is Constitutional, that it’s wise for the government to be involved in health care, and that the care Ms. Fluke sought was for something less controversial, such as kidney dialysis. I have no reason to believe that Ms. Fluke is insincere in her belief that birth control pills are just as important as kidney dialysis. But her argument is lacking in basic economics.

Ms. Fluke is a student at Georgetown University Law Center, where tuition alone is almost $45,000 per year. The median income for the average American family is $49,000, and, according to the Princeton Review, the average starting salary for Georgetown law graduates is $160,000.

Everything has a cost. If it didn’t, then there would be no significance in providing it ‘for free.’ So if a university, an insurance company, or a government agency were to provide Ms. Fluke with a service for which she did not pay, no matter how vital the service was, someone else would be required to subsidize it. Period.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently said the ‘most fortunate’ Americans should pay more in taxes for the ‘privilege of being an American.’  But that type of conviction is a two-way street. If Secretary Geithner wasn’t referring to students at prestigious law schools, with expected starting salaries more than three times the national average household income, to whom, precisely, was he referring?

Per the IRS, the top 1% of Americans earns $380,000 a year, and the top 5% earns $159,000, just shy of the expected income for the average first-year graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Fluke will likely soon find herself in the top 5% of all wage earners, which means that for every Ms. Fluke, there will be 19 less fortunate citizens. Not only should Ms. Fluke offer to pay $1,000 for her own contraceptives, the government should charge her $19,000 per year to support the same level of care for 19 less fortunate Americans.

This issue is not gender specific, and those who argue otherwise do so to cloud the math or distract the electorate. This argument can be made for any demographic, any medical treatment or any government service. If a service is worth receiving, then it’s worth paying for. And if medicine should be socialized, then the wealthiest should bear the costs. One can’t support socialism only when they find themselves on the receiving end.

Some will argue that because Ms. Fluke is on financial aid, or that she may choose a career of pro bono work, she should be exempt from providing for 19 other Americans, and her $20,000 obligation. But socialism is ideal for averages. For every student who chooses pro bono work, there will be another student who earns five or ten times the average. And being a pro bono lawyer would be her choice. If Ms. Fluke is sincere,  she should gladly pay for necessary services for other Americans who never even get to make that choice at all.

Whether a service is provided by a private company or a government agency, someone must be charged. It’s time for Ms. Fluke, Secretary Geithner, and all who favor socialized medicine to take responsibility for their ‘privilege.’ One cannot claim a moral high ground, divide the world into haves and have nots, and then ignore economics. They will gain credibility the moment they stop asking other people to pay for that which they specifically refuse to pay for themselves.

Marylanders are divided on the redefinition of marriage, with polls showing that any majority either side may claim is well within the margin of error. At stake is the power of the legislature to redefine our most fundamental social structure by legislative fiat, absent the expressed will of the people. In 2008, candidate Obama affirmed his belief that marriage was between one man and one woman, as did Maryland’s Governor O’Malley in 2010. Well, until O’Malley changed his mind.

Maryland is experiencing an alarming increase in public dependence, high minority and urban unemployment, increased educational disparities in our urban centers, and a rise in crime and incarceration among our minority populations. And from a purely economic perspective, a compelling case can be made that preserving traditional marriage is the single most important issue to counter these statistics and to help Maryland’s children.

Participants in traditional marriages are less likely to be incarcerated, they live longer, and they make more money than those in other relationships. And children from traditional marriages enjoy the same benefits at an even greater percentage.

Marriage is a religious institution, but it is also the cornerstone of our society. The success of our society depends on the success of our children, and children who come from traditional marriages are significantly more likely to succeed in every measure than their peers who do not.

While the United States was founded with the knowledge that all people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, and our motto is “In God We Trust,” the First Amendment prevents our government from proactively creating a religion in the public square. The government has no power to regulate my deeply held religious beliefs, or those of my neighbor, even if those beliefs are at odds with one another.

Our founders understood that we as a people would differ in our religious beliefs, so our republic was designed with the intention that government would be as inactive as possible in areas such as this. Families and individuals were to be the final authority in areas of faith. But our founders never envisioned a legislative attack on the nature of the family itself.

First Ladies Michelle Obama and Katie O’Malley have used their public profiles to promote healthy eating and to bring attention to childhood obesity. Although some criticize their advocacy, I do not. Childhood malnutrition and obesity are real problems, and just as former First Lady Nancy Reagan told kids to, “Just say no!”, Mrs. Obama and Mrs. O’Malley are doing right by our kids by bringing attention to these issues.

Our First Ladies have no more right to mandate the affairs of adults than they do to dictate the diets of children. But, for the sake of our most important and vulnerable demographic, our children, perhaps our First Ladies should spend more time promoting traditional marriage and its overwhelming societal benefits.

In Maryland, approximately 10,000 same sex couples cohabitate, or approximately .3% of our population. By comparison, more than 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock. This statistic is even more alarming in Maryland, where the black community represents 30% of all Maryland residents, nearly three times the national average.

A primary benefit of marriage is the stability it promotes, so the advocates for redefining marriage do so under the guise of promoting all marriages. If that were their true motivation, I would still disagree with the legislative overreach, but I would respect their consistency. But their argument rings hollow. And a lesson from business school proves the point.

To help companies perform more accurate market research, professors at the Wharton School developed a technique known as conjoint analysis. Conjoint analysis asks customers to compare different product attributes in order to uncover the customer’s relative preferences. For example, you may say you like a thin TV, with a great picture, at a good price. But if you were forced to choose, which feature is the most important? And by using conjoint analysis in this instance, we are able to determine the real motivations of those who advocate redefining marriage by legislative decree.

If promoting stability were really the ultimate goal, those who promote legislative redefinition of marriage would also speak out against single parent homes, they would speak out against cohabitation outside of marriage, and they would go on record to suggest that all couples should get married, and stay married, for the sake of our children. But they don’t.  They do the opposite, so marriage and stability are not their real intent. Rather, they are advocating an erosion of our foundations and a loosening of our social mores for convenience.

We can’t have a powerful government and powerful families. Legislative overreach erodes the strength of families, the very institutions upon which our society’s future depends. Maryland children from single parent homes face real hurdles in their attempts to obtain the American dream of autonomy, prosperity, and of one day having a family of their own. For the sake of our society, and for
the sake of our children, all Americans should stand together in upholding the value of the traditional American family.

Our governor and our president reject free market solutions at every turn, and we have the record unemployment and public dependence to prove it. Since 2008, national dependence on food stamps has increased by 46%, and Maryland spending on state assistance has increased by 56%. Over the same period, Maryland spending on transportation and public safety decreased by 11% and 1%, respectively.

I mention these facts not to disparage those on public assistance, but to shed light on a failed ideology.  America is the land of the individual, and growing dependence is a sign of government failure. Even my friends on the left concede that a life spent on public assistance does not represent the American dream.

The policies pursued by Messrs. Obama and O’Malley leave clear-thinking executives from both parties scratching our heads. In fact, our president and governor are so lacking in private sector experience, some muse the two gentlemen have never even run a lemonade stand.

But that is precisely the problem: all our governor and our president have ever known are lemonade stands. And they are attempting to create jobs by turning Maryland and the United States into lemonade stand economies.

A job is nothing more than an agreement between two free people, in which one provides a good or a service, and the other provides compensation. The number of jobs is limitless, but a government can no more create a job than a referee can score a touchdown.

Lemonade stands are often held up as a symbol for American entrepreneurship. But as a proxy for business, lemonade stands teach the economics of dependency. When starting a lemonade stand, children typically approach their parents to obtain the necessary commercial space, signage, glasses, pitchers, tables, and ingredients. All revenues are counted as pure profits, and no account is taken for such unpleasant realities as zoning, permits, working capital, taxes, or unemployment insurance. Even patronage is a function of philanthropy instead of thirst.

Federal lemonade stands include bank bail-outs, auto bail-outs, and crony capitalism such as the now infamous Solyndra case. These lemonade stands have eroded the public trust, have increased our debt, and have done nothing for our shared prosperity. Maryland’s lemonade stands include subsidies for off-shore wind projects, wasteful government contracts, and burdensome environmental regulations which reward failing enterprises, inflate the price of energy and curtail job creation.

On every level of government, lemonade stands are strangling the private sector by increasing uncertainty, public debt and taxes. Our government leaders must change course, and cap public sector growth to that of the private sector. And to promote private sector growth, they must avoid the very regulations which prevent the private sector from developing. An obvious first step is in energy policy.

While affordable, abundant energy is the core of our economy, our president and our governor stand in the way of safe and dependable energy expansion in the form of the Keystone Pipeline and natural gas fracking, respectively.  They fiddle, while the price of energy increases, our economy sputters, and public dependence grows.

Domestic energy expansion would create jobs immediately, it would decrease our current account deficit by lowering imports and increasing exports, and it would have a positive impact on every level of the private sector. Private sector growth means jobs, which would decrease the need for public assistance.

Instead of spending their careers running lemonade stands, perhaps we would be better served with executives who had once had paper routes. Paper routes represent actual contracts with paying customers. The employee is expected to deliver a product, in good condition, to a paying customer. Poor performance carries consequences. And good performance carries rewards.

Although foreign to our president and our governor, the hard work required to operate a business is known by the majority of Americans. Seven out of ten Americans either own or work for a small business. Americans understand the difference between lemonade stands and paper routes. And we would be well served if our executives did as well.

All the American business owner has ever asked for is a fair and level playing field, with predictable rules. The promise of opportunity, not of dependence, has been enough to draw immigrants from all over the world. And these immigrants in turn have created prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world.

Shackling millions of Americans and Marylanders in generational dependence is immoral. Entrepreneurs are ready and waiting to grow our economy. All we ask is for a government which supports the private sector, and which doesn’t continually ask those of us with paper routes to subsidize government lemonade stands.

The United States tax code is so backward that billionaire investor Warren Buffett pays only 17 percent in income taxes, a rate even lower than that of his secretary. Or so he claims. While I have great respect for Mr. Buffett, and while I agree that our tax code could benefit from major adjustments, Mr. Buffett’s statement is misleading. And he knows it.

Even worse, when Mr. Buffett implies that wealthier Americans are under-taxed, it gives public officials cover to pursue disastrous policies such as Maryland’s failed millionaire’s tax, and the pending sales tax on interstate Internet purchases known as the “Amazon tax.” Taxing the rich and protectionism may poll well, but these policies demonstrably hurt the same middle class and lower-income citizens they purport to protect.

Throughout his career, Mr. Buffett has been influential in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in wealth, and he has directly and indirectly paid billions of dollars in taxes. But Mr. Buffett is an equity owner in the companies he has created. As such, Mr. Buffett takes all of the risks and gets paid last: after his employees, after his creditors, after every form of government. While he is partially correct that his “income” is only taxed at 17 percent, Mr. Buffett is also guilty of some sleight of hand. A simple example will illustrate the point.

Let’s pretend one of Mr. Buffett’s companies is in Baltimore. Assuming his secretary makes $36,000 per year, excluding payroll taxes (which are ostensibly reserved for the employee’s direct benefit), and after certain standard deductions and personal exemptions, the secretary’s combined state, local and federal tax rate would be about 19 percent.

Unlike Mr. Buffett’s secretary, the capital representing Mr. Buffett’s “income” would have already been taxed at the average combined corporate local and state rate of 7 percent, and the federal rate of 35 percent, before it ever reaches Mr. Buffett, and at 22 percent thereafter. (For simplicity’s sake, I am rounding several tax rates and making assumptions about deductions.) A more accurate comparison of tax rates would find that Mr. Buffett’s capital has an effective tax rate of about 50 percent, while his secretary pays a rate of about 19 percent.

Perhaps an argument can be made that the corporate rate should be lowered in order to raise the personal rate for Mr. Buffett, but no credible argument can be made that the effective tax rate for Mr. Buffett’s capital is too low. And in addition to the misleading math, Mr. Buffett’s argument lays the groundwork for tax policies that punish high earners and companies, and opens the door for protectionism, which shrinks our economy and hurts lower-income earners.

Arguments such as Mr. Buffett’s were part of the rationale that gave Maryland the millionaire’s tax in 2008, which not only failed to realize the projected $106 million increase in tax receipts, but saw a 33 percent decline in millionaires and netted a $100 million decrease from the prior year. (I can’t claim with certainty that the tax caused the decline, and I admit that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I do know more than a dozen people who changed residences just to minimize their tax bill. Ironically, several are committed Democrats who supported the tax increase.)

More embarrassing than the disappearing revenues was the fact that politicians already spent the money they were expecting, so lower income Marylanders were left to foot the bill through increased debt, cuts to services, and higher taxes elsewhere.

One would think our Maryland politicians have learned their lesson, but as we speak they are lining up to support a tax on online merchants that would no doubt be a similarly spectacular failure. Storefronts across Maryland are suffering from high rents, high taxes and diminished consumer confidence. At the same time, online merchants from across the country are able to sell goods to Maryland consumers without paying our 6 percent sales tax. Instead of looking for ways to help Maryland companies compete for Maryland consumers, our politicians are suggesting we raise the sales tax to include online purchases.

But how will Maryland consumers benefit if they have to pay more for online purchases? And how are Maryland shopkeepers better off if we punish online consumers and retailers? Prices in Maryland will still be high, and consumers will still be motivated to find ways to shop less or to get cheaper goods elsewhere. Public policy should focus on consumers and businesses. And this policy does neither.

History has proved that tax increased are speed bumps to economic growth. At a time when our nation and state are in desperate need of private-sector growth and job creation, our politicians insist on the folly of building better mousetraps in which to catch millionaires and businesses, all in the name of claiming higher shares of phantom revenues. Their time is better spent in locating and minimizing impediments to private sector growth. And on that point, I am confident Mr. Buffett and I are in complete agreement.

Brian H. Murphy is a former Republican candidate for governor of Maryland. His email is bhm@dailyfullback.com.

Like the rest of America, I am watching the protests in Madison, Wis., with the expectation that they could very soon be occurring in our beloved Maryland — that is, if we had a governor who understood the perilous fiscal condition of our state and had the conviction to propose lasting solutions. Our governor would have you believe he has been making the same difficult choices as governors such as Chris Christie of New Jersey, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Maryland, like Wisconsin, is on the brink of a self-inflicted fiscal catastrophe. For the last four years, Gov. Martin O’Malley has balanced our budget using record tax increases, record federal fund transfers, and record transfers of internal reserves. This year, Maryland’s budget will again be balanced through a combination of fund transfers and tax increases. Maryland’s taxable base is finite, and history is littered with once-great societies brought to their knees by profligate spending.

Last year, Maryland’s budget was $32.4 billion, the largest in our history. This year, spending is expected to increase by more than 5 percent. Funding for education, health and human resources totals 71 percent of all spending and has grown at more than double the rate of inflation.

Moreover, our spending appears to be driven by political clout, not necessity. Transportation spending has declined in nominal dollars over the past six years, and public safety spending has barely kept pace with inflation. Are not transportation and public safety worthy functions of our government? Perhaps it’s time to revisit the way our state allocates resources.

Like Wisconsin, Maryland has a structural deficit. Instead of enacting sustainable solutions to curb spending, Maryland’s officials are content to delay our problems for the next election cycle. For example, recent legislation requiring those who receive state services (excluding emergency medical care) to show proof of citizenship was greeted with hostility. America will always be a nation of immigrants, with the most respected “path to citizenship” in the world. Is it unreasonable to ask that those who receive state services from Maryland taxpayers be citizens of this country?

Unlike Governor O’Malley, Governor Walker has decided to deal with Wisconsin’s problems directly. Governor Walker has asked public employees to increase their benefit contributions (which they have indicated they would accept), and proposed limiting their collective bargaining power (which they have indicated they would not accept).

Some claim Governor Walker’s actions constitute the government going back on its word. That is only partially true. A budget is also a promise, and Wisconsin’s 5.5 million residents were promised their taxes would procure certain public services. This year, because tax receipts were less than state expenses, Wisconsin could either raise taxes or lower spending. If Wisconsin were a private company, the employees would understand their dire circumstances. Instead, representatives of Wisconsin’s 300,000 state employees stormed the capital, demanding the government break its promise with the state’s 5.5 million residents. Wisconsin private sector employees, it must be noted, receive salary and benefit packages that are, on average, less than those of the striking state workers. Remember, even FDR called public sector strikes “unthinkable and intolerable.”

My first reaction was to reject the emotive claims of the protesters in Wisconsin. But perhaps I am thinking about this all wrong. In Maryland, we ignore economic truth and we scoff at austerity measures. While the rest of the nation scrambles to balance budgets honestly, we in Maryland borrow from reserve funds as though we have limitless resources. So, for you Jonathan Swift fans, I have a “modest proposal.” Governor O’Malley, please call the Wisconsin protesters and tell them to go home. The good citizens of Maryland will assume their pension liabilities.

Maryland already has an estimated $35 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, and potentially unlimited obligations to noncitizens. If we are willing to pay for non-essential services for those who made the decision to enter the country illegally, how could we deny the wants and desires of our neighbors in the Badger State? Since Maryland apparently possesses infinite resources, and those resources are made available to people from all over the world, then certainly our resources should be shared with the good people of Wisconsin.