WHY SHOULD I RUN? ISNT EVERYTHING OKAY NOW?

The reason I am running is that the fiscal trend line of the past 70 years cannot
be maintained -- I am running to try to avert a fiscal disaster. We all know that the
government is running big deficits these days and that the national debt is so large as to
boggle ones mind. So what is wrong with that? How bad can it really be? We have
run deficits before and nothing really bad happened, right? Well, the time is coming
when we will all have to pay the piper (and it could be soon).

The biggest problem is that the mandatory spending (entitlement spending) is
on a trend line to grow to such an extent that very soon it alone will eclipse our total tax
revenues and will completely crowd out all other spending. No less an authority than
the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calls the current budgetary
situation "unsustainable". The CBO defines this mandatory spending as including
things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare payments to individuals, food
stamps, farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, veterans benefits, etc. The CBO defines
discretionary spending as everything else, including defense, all of the regulatory
agencies, police efforts (like the FBI), federal courts, Congress, foreign aid, etc. Let me
explain how the growth of mandatory spending threatens all we hold dear.

Since 1945, the tax revenue collected by the federal government has fluctuated
within a fairly narrow range, between about 15% and 21% of GDP (despite the fact that
tax rates have variedly quite widely over that span). In other words, no matter what our
tax rates have been since WWII (and the top income tax rate has exceeded 70% twice
over that period), we have never actually collected over 21% of GDP. When we are in
good times, the collections tend to be in the 20-21% range. When the economy is bad,
the collections tend dip to about 15% or so. The average over these past 67 years is
about 19% of GDP.

Unfortunately, the spending by the government is on a dangerous trend line. In
particular, spending on so-called mandatory expenditures is on a steadily increasing
trend line, while most of the other government spending (discretionary spending) is
holding steady or is in slight decline. As you can see from this simple chart below, in
which the green zone is the range of tax collections over the years, mandatory
spending has grown from less than 2% of GDP in 1945 to about 15% in 2011 and will
soon outpace all tax collections. Mandatory spending alone is projected to exceed 20%
of GDP in the next 10-15 years. That means that mandatory spending will consume
ALL of the tax revenue the federal government can reasonably count on in good years.
Obviously, that kind of budgeting is not sustainable (as the CBO has correctly noted).





Now, while mandatory spending has been steadily growing over the past 6 or 7
decades, discretionary spending, including defense, has actually been i
(as a percentage of GDP, the only handy way of comparing spending patterns across
time in light of inflation and other factors). Moreover, approximately 60% of all federal
spending is on mandatory expenditures, so to get control of
have to get some control over

The increasing mandatory spending added to the relatively stable (by
comparison) discretionary spending has driven the total annual spending into large
deficits. Thus, the big budget deficits are largely a result of the mandatory spending
growing steadily over time. With the trend line being strongly upward, the outlook is
bleak if we dont do something to change course.


WHAT IS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN? CANT WE JUST WAIT AND

As I see it we are traveling at high speed on the road to ruin
breakdown of the government and society is possible if we don't fix the budgetary
problems. The government is spending so much more than what it takes in that it
lead to a complete collapse, not just a 1930s
happened to Germany after WWI. We need to do all we can to stave off such a
0
3
10
13
20
23
1943 1930 1933 1960 1963 1970
I
e
d
e
r
a
|

1
a
x

k
e
v
e
n
u
e

C
o
|
|
e
c
t
e
d

a
s

o
f

G
D

Growth of Mandatory Government Spend|ng

(Lnt|t|ements) Compared to 1ota| 1ax kevenues
Spendlng
upper LlmlL
Lower LlmlL
Now, while mandatory spending has been steadily growing over the past 6 or 7
decades, discretionary spending, including defense, has actually been i
(as a percentage of GDP, the only handy way of comparing spending patterns across
time in light of inflation and other factors). Moreover, approximately 60% of all federal
spending is on mandatory expenditures, so to get control of the budget
over our mandatory spending.
The increasing mandatory spending added to the relatively stable (by
comparison) discretionary spending has driven the total annual spending into large
et deficits are largely a result of the mandatory spending
growing steadily over time. With the trend line being strongly upward, the outlook is
bleak if we dont do something to change course.
WHAT IS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN? CANT WE JUST WAIT AND
traveling at high speed on the road to ruin
breakdown of the government and society is possible if we don't fix the budgetary
problems. The government is spending so much more than what it takes in that it
llapse, not just a 1930s-style Depression, but more like what
happened to Germany after WWI. We need to do all we can to stave off such a
1970 1973 1980 1983 1990 1993 2000 2003 2010 2013 2020
"Mandatory" (Lnt|t|ement) Spend|ng
Growth of Mandatory Government Spend|ng
(Lnt|t|ements) Compared to 1ota| 1ax kevenues
Co||ected
upper LlmlL
Lower LlmlL

Now, while mandatory spending has been steadily growing over the past 6 or 7
decades, discretionary spending, including defense, has actually been in slight decline
(as a percentage of GDP, the only handy way of comparing spending patterns across
time in light of inflation and other factors). Moreover, approximately 60% of all federal
budget problem, we
The increasing mandatory spending added to the relatively stable (by
comparison) discretionary spending has driven the total annual spending into large
et deficits are largely a result of the mandatory spending
growing steadily over time. With the trend line being strongly upward, the outlook is
WHAT IS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN? CANT WE JUST WAIT AND SEE?
traveling at high speed on the road to ruin -- a complete
breakdown of the government and society is possible if we don't fix the budgetary
problems. The government is spending so much more than what it takes in that it could
epression, but more like what
happened to Germany after WWI. We need to do all we can to stave off such a
2020 2023 2030 2033
Growth of Mandatory Government Spend|ng
(Lnt|t|ements) Compared to 1ota| 1ax kevenues
disaster. Unlike Germany in the 1920s, we have millions of people who are totally
dependent on government checks for their very survival.

The system will collapse under its own weight if we don't fix the problem. We
(the US government) can't take in $2T (trillion) and pay out $3.5T (what happened in
2012). We can't safely carry $17T of debt (more than 7 years of federal revenue in
debt!). Speaking of the debt, dont be fooled by comparisons of the debt to GDP it is
nonsensical to compare the debt to the size of the economy. Instead, compare the debt
to the size of the governments income (tax revenues). It is seven years worth of tax
collections! It is like a person having a $100,000 per year income and $700,000 in
unsecured credit card debt. Wouldnt you think such a person is crazy to do that and to
keep adding on to it? Federal spending is out of control any way you look at it.

We can't spend 60% of the tax revenue on entitlements alone (and the
percentage is going up and up). We can't allow the trend lines of the last 70 years to
continue on their current path (one in which more and more people are becoming
dependent on the government and fewer and fewer people are supporting those
government dependents). At some point, the dependents will swallow the whole
economy. I don't know how much longer we can do what we have been doing before
the system implodes.

Now, many will say "What problem? I don't see any problem." But just because
most people don't recognize the danger yet doesn't mean the danger isn't there. It is
sort of like a train barreling down the track and a bridge is out up ahead. The
passengers in the dining car have no idea of any danger. The passengers in the lounge
car are happy and unconcerned. Many passengers are relaxing in their seats or
compartments. Nearly everyone thinks everything is okay and that because the train
has never crashed before, it can't possibly crash now. Meanwhile, the bridge is still out
just ahead and no one is putting on the brakes or throwing a switch to get us onto a
different track. It is sort of like that. Once we start to go over the bridge, it will be
apparent to everyone that something terrible is happening. But by then it will be too late
to keep us from plunging into the abyss.

The collapse could start seemingly innocuously. Some other country will default
on its debts, probably some smaller, less well-off country. It could be Greece, Spain, or
France or even some smaller country. It doesn't matter which country or even that a
sovereign default is the trigger. But let's run with the sovereign default as a likely
triggering event. That default will cause investors the world over to re-think investing in
government securities. They will immediately view such bonds and notes as riskier than
they did the day before. So they will demand higher interest rates on new bonds. In
fact, interest rates on new bonds will go up a lot. Right now, the U.S. is able to sell its
bonds for a 2% interest rate. That interest, coupled with the debt of about $17T, is
manageable at 2% and consumes only some 9% or so of the federal tax revenues. But
if the interest rate jumps to 6% or so, we could see the interest payments grow to
become a third or more of the tax revenue. That would lead to ever greater deficits and
a bigger debt, which would cause the interest rate on the debt to go up even more. The
net effect is that the interest costs could spiral out of control very quickly and
compromise the government's ability to pay its debts. The government would probably
print and circulate boat-loads of new money to float the debt, but that would only slow
the inevitable collapse, not prevent it. It would, however, ensure that your paper
holdings (stocks, bonds, and cash) suddenly would be worth a lot less.


WHY ISNT CONGRESS FIXING THE PROBLEM ALREADY?

The Congress isnt really addressing the problem in a meaningful way. Presently,
we have not only a numerical stalemate in the House and Senate, but an atmosphere
that punishes compromising with the opposing party. That sort of stalemate nearly
ensures that the deficit will continue to be bloated in historically-epic dimensions and
that the government debt will continue to grow unabated. The very thought of the
budget bringing down the government scares the heck out of me.

Many on the left argue that the solution isnt to cut spending, but simply to raise
taxes, arguing that we are under-taxed. Usually, this comes from folks who want to
make the other guy pay more in taxes and typically this is justified first by demonizing
folks who make high incomes or have high net worth. But there is nothing wrong with
making money or having a lot of it saved up. Rich people are not the enemy (just the
opposite). More importantly, there are practical limits to how high the tax rates can go.
Indeed, just raising the tax rates doesnt necessarily mean that the government will
collect more revenue. As made plain by economist Arthur Laffer and his now-famous
napkin drawing, if you raise the tax rate to 100%, revenue will go down, not up, since
you will remove all incentive to work or invest.

Some argue that the solution is to control the growth of the discretionary
spending and to leave the mandatory spending alone nobody wants to take away your
grandmothers Social Security check, after all. This often takes the form of championing
rooting out waste in the government spending. But none of that will get the job done. In
fact, the discretionary spending generally has been falling as a percentage of GDP
since WWII, including defense spending. If you eliminated defense spending
altogether, it still wouldnt fix the problem! You cant solve the problem by cutting out
waste (which needs to be done whenever you find it) or reducing the discretionary
spending (which also needs to be done). The mandatory spending is most of the
spending, so you cant cut spending enough in the other areas alone and solve the
problem.




SO HOW DO WE FIX THE PROBLEM?

Since it is a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem, we need to cut
spending and in a substantial way. We need to actually reduce spending substantially,
not just slow down the growth of spending, before excess spending ruins our precious
democracy and way of life.

Unlike the other candidates, I will be proposing specific spending cuts that are
badly needed. The medicine we all know deep down that we need to take doesn't taste
good, but we desperately need to take the medicine. The other candidates will shy
away from this and instead will say pretty things that they think the voters want to hear,
in order to try curry favor with the voters. But I am running as a leader to make a
difference, not as a demagogue telling people what they want to hear.

I have been working on a budget proposal that cuts spending in a substantial,
meaningful way. It will be hard to get such a plan through the House and Senate and
signed by the President. But it is worth fighting for. Essentially, the plan is to treat
entitlements rather equally in assessing the cuts, as most have a noble idea behind the
program. So the fairest way to share the burden of fixing our problems is to spread the
burden around rather equally. The discretionary spending programs would face cuts
also. But since the entitlement programs are already 60% of the total budget (and
growing), it is impossible to make needed cuts without cutting spending on entitlements.
Any politician who tells you we can fix the problem without touching the entitlement
programs is simply wrong and is fibbing to you.

Thus, I am trying to fix the fiscal problems and am doing my utmost to make it
happen. I am not a career politician seeking to get elected yet again. I am not
crusading to push a social agenda of the left or the right. I am not trying to tip the
balance of power in favor of one political party over the other. Quite simply, I am
upsetting my comfortable life in order to try to make a difference on what I think is the
single most important issue of our age. That is it in a nutshell.


WHERE DO I STAND ON THINGS?

FISCAL ISSUES: We need to make real, substantial cuts in spending, not just slow the
growth of spending. I will be pushing a specific budget cutting plan during the
campaign. A balanced budget amendment that requires a balanced budget in non-
recessionary years and permits deficit spending during recessions would be a big help.
(As noted above, solving the fiscal problem is my reason for running).

TERM LIMITS: I am very much for term limits. Id like to see a two-term limit for
Senators and a six-term limit for Congressmen. For me, I prefer to serve only one term,
but would seek a second term if my goals are not met in the first term. I promise not to
seek a third term.


TAXES: The tax system is awful. It unfairly gives ridiculous benefits to many who dont
need them. For example, many large corporations pay nothing in income taxes, while
we wage-earners pay a substantial amount in tax. It just isnt equitable that you and I
pay a lot more in income tax than a profitable multi-billion dollar corporation. Now, those
corporations are not the bad guy in this -- the tax system is what is wrong. Oftentimes,
those who lobby the most effectively get the most favorable tax treatment, while folks
not represented by a strong lobbying effort get the worst tax treatment thats just not
right, in my view. Id like to see some real reform of our tax system to make taxes more
transparent, more uniformly applied, simpler to understand, and easier to collect. So I
am in favor of lowering rates and eliminating virtually all deductions.

GUN RIGHTS/2
ND
AMENDMENT: I am a strong proponent of gun ownership rights
under the Second Amendment, as the Second Amendment is the ultimate check
against tyranny.

IMMIGRATION AND ILLEGAL ALIENS: We have millions of illegal aliens and it seems
impractical to try to round them all up and deport them, as some would urge. So the
practical solution is to secure our borders first and then transition the current illegal
aliens and others in the underground economy into the mainstream economy (become
taxpayers, not just benefit recipients). Citizenship would be granted only to those
illegal aliens who serve for 5 years in the military and earn an honorable discharge,
while the others would get some sort of residency status.

LEGISLATIVE COMPROMISES AND STALEMATE: I promise to seek bi-partisanship
wherever possible. The alternative, trying to get all three parts of the law-making
government (House, Senate, President) under one party's control and then ram home
one's own version as a fix is the wrong way to govern. We need compromise and bi-
partisanship, not absolute rule by one party or the other. The parties need to work
together to pass legislation that is in the best interests of the country. The stalemate we
are seeing appears to be intentional, it is not what we need, and we the people are sick
of it.



WHO IS ARTHUR A. (ART) GARDNER?

I have been working in the private sector for more than 40 years. In fact, I have
been a patent attorney for 25 years, I was a manufacturing engineer for Lockheed for 5
years, and I was a German car mechanic for 10 years (how I worked my way through
Georgia Tech!). I am not wealthy and am not a household name. But I am an
accomplished public speaker, am squeaky clean (my only vice is antique Cadillac's),
and feel called to do all I can to help turn things in the right direction. Unlike most of the
others in the race, I am not a career politician looking to get elected one more time yet
again. Instead, I am a concerned citizen with the right background to make a real
difference.

I have a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from Georgia Tech and a
law degree from Georgia State. I have lived in Marietta, Georgia since 1984. I have
been married for 32 years to the former Anita Reed (also a Georgia Tech grad) and we
have three grown children.


WHAT IS THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK FOR MY CANDIDACY?

The other candidates either dont recognize the seriousness of the problems or
wont want to address them in a meaningful way because they are afraid it will cost
them votes. Indeed, if you look at the fiscal data in a non-partisan way, you will become
convinced that government spending is on an unsustainable path and that the obvious
solution is to reduce spending substantially. The other candidates will turn a blind eye
to this, fearing that even mentioning the possibility of cutting spending for specific
sacred cow programs will cost them votes. Most politicians, after all, conduct polls to
see what positions will give them the most votes and then adjust their positions to match
the polls. So advocating cutting spending on particular programs is seen as politically
dangerous. As stated earlier, I will not run such a campaign. I will run to lead (not
follow), to solve problems and avoid disaster. Many voters are tired of the same old
poll-driven platitudes from politicians and recent media coverage about the problem has
raised awareness and both will work in my favor.
My background also gives me an edge in the race. In my work as a patent
attorney, I often describe myself as a professional explainer of complex ideas. So I am
confident that I can explain these problems to Georgians in a way that they will
understand. My public speaking skills, technical understanding, and legal backgrounds
will be assets in any public debate.
My fiscal conservative/social moderate positions will make me stand out from the
other candidates. My moderate and tolerant social positions are based on the idea that
it is wrong for the morality of some to be imposed on the rest through government
action. I try to live my life as ethically and morally as possible, but dont want my moral
code of conduct imposed on you or the moral code of conduct of others imposed on me.
The other candidates in the race are likely to gravitate to the far right on most social
issues. Indeed, I dont expect any of the other candidates to match my positions. In
fact, I expect the others will strongly criticize my positions. But that is alright by me.
The GOP needs candidates like me if it is to remain competitive, as there are a lot of
folks in the GOP who think this way but havent had much of a choice lately. In recent
years the GOP has mostly produced candidates who are far right on most social issues
and have paid lip-service to the idea of cutting spending. There are a lot of voters
longing for my kind of candidacy. In fact, if the GOP doesnt start producing more
candidates like me, it may be in trouble in the future.
Finally, the other candidates are largely me-too type of candidates saying and
doing the same things to attract votes from the far right. But there are only so many of
those voters and they will be splitting those votes among several candidates. I, on the
other hand, expect to capture a large percentage of the rest of the GOP voters. I
believe that mine is the winning position. Given my resolute commitment to solve the
serious financial problems and my moderate stance on social issues, if I win the
primary, my chances of winning the general election are higher than any other primary
candidate.
So there you have it. A prolonged fight is needed to make a dent in our serious
fiscal problems. I promise to fight and to fight hard to fix the fiscal problems. Please do
all you can to help me.


Thanking you in advance for your support, I remain,
very truly yours,

- .~~.

2018 Powers Ferry Road,
Suite 800
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
678.370.0067