CS-Are there specific taxes you would change (increase, decrease, or eliminate) in order to increase revenue to the government? The tax code has grown so over-complicated, is it politically feasible - even possible - to just throw it out entirely and start over from scratch?  Is it possible to significantly reform it without making it more complex and difficult to understand & implement?

RR-I like the concept of a flat tax but I don’t know if it is feasible to scrap the entire system and start over from scratch. Even Reagan’s ‘simplification’ of the tax code when he was President where he closed loopholes and other items added thousands of pages to the code. I don’t think the simplification of the code is the primary issue though, it’s the end result that matters. Are the American people paying more or less to the federal government? Are they allowed more or less personal freedom to determine their own options? Is the federal government more or less intrusive into the lives of the American people or not? Those are the important issues at the end of the process, not the length of the legislation. Would I like for a bill to be short and clear and easy to understand in order to reach those end objectives? Absolutely. But would I be willing to put up with a longer and more complex piece of legislation that creates the expansion of personal liberty? Absolutely.  

CS-Is there any way to make the tax code simpler and easier to use, while still generating increased revenue?

RR-Sure, as I mentioned above a flat tax would improve the citizens understanding of tax law, increase revenue to the government, and minimize special interest money’s impact on policy. Right now the tax code is hopelessly complex. The complexity was highlighted recently as we watched first hand one Obama appointee after another having tax reviews that came back unfavorably. If the Secretary of the Treasury couldn’t do his taxes correctly what does that say about the system? Or even worse, right now the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee in Congress that literally is in charge of writing this nation’s tax laws, is under investigation for not paying his taxes! It’s astounding.  I do not believe that all of these people were trying to cheat the government. They, along with millions of Americans each year have been trapped by an IRS interpretation of a tax code that is understood by all to be unreadable. I think that it is essential to good government that any law, tax related or otherwise be written in simple language, and easily understandable by anyone who does not have a law degree.

As the tax code gets simplified, the number of deductions and special interest give backs is reduced. There is a net increase in revenue to the government that for the first time is fairly applied to all tax payers.

Right now Speaker Pelosi is sending out trial balloons about a VAT tax. This is a bad idea on so many levels. VAT taxes are insidious because most of the tax is hidden, they raise costs on all products and services dramatically, and it is by nature regressive. VAT taxes hurt consumers and business alike and will only serve to further damage a fragile economy.

CS-On the spending side or the ledger, how would you cut spending - by eliminating entire programs, or reducing all programs by a certain percentage, or some combination of approaches?

RR-A combination of both approaches as appropriate. I much prefer cutting spending and eliminating programs instead of increasing taxes.  Right now the citizens of this country pay for duplication of services across the board. City, county, state and federal governments all want to control everything. Taxpayers end up paying for this duplication over and over. For example, we have local school boards, state departments of education and a federal department of education. Do we really need this much oversight? If so how come the results are so discouraging? It’s time for all of us to start thinking critically of how to maximize efficiency and reduce duplication.

CS-You’ve criticized the President’s “Stimulus” program for not reviving the economy.  Can the government revitalize the economy, or should it just get out of the way and let the economy recover?

RR-Your question is somewhat humorous to me because the Democrats ‘Stimulus’ plan has essentially done both—gotten the federal government technically involved while still letting the economy run on its own. They passed a massive spending bill, called it ‘stimulus’ and mortgaged our children’s future to pay for it. But while Washington DC passed a trillion dollars of special interest spending they did incredibly little to create jobs.  If elected officials are going to spend these obscene amounts of money in the name of job creation well at least create jobs out of it. The vast majority of the stimulus money is coming next year (coincidentally right before all these politicians are up for election again). We don’t need jobs a year from now, we need jobs right now.

Economies ebb and flow naturally. I believe that the economy is best able to grow when the government takes less out of it. Each dollar the government “redirects” is a dollar that would have naturally been used in the free market system to improve productivity, employ people and provide a service. Government’s intrusion into the natural flow of the markets does little to make economies grow and in fact can get in the way and make matters worse.

CS-One of Wisconsin’s other Congressmen, David Obey, is champion of using earmarks & pork in Federal spending, but you have criticized earmarks as simply wasteful spending.  Are you willing to take a pledge not to ask for or accept any earmarks? 

RR-Wisconsin money staying right here at home and not going to the federal government in the first place is the best option for Wisconsin residents. According to the Tax Foundation we’re a donor state--we pay more to Washington DC in tax revenue than we get each year. I would rather that Wisconsin money stay here in our communities than be sent to Arkansas or some other place.

Let me be clear, I do not believe that all earmarks are wasteful - some are egregiously wasteful but others may have a genuine need they are resolving. The problem I have is not with the earmark itself but with the process. The idea of “I’ll give you yours if you give me mine” is at the heart of the wasteful process in congress. If an earmark is so important and legitimate, then let’s make the process transparent and have a vote on each one instead of hiding them in some bill that is totally unrelated to the earmark. Refusing to accept earmarks doesn’t really reduce spending if other Congressmen still accept earmarks and support others who do the same.  Is there any way to convince enough Congressmen to vote against earmarks? I am not sure, but that does not mean I shouldn’t try. I plan on joining other conservative legislators to work hard at changing the process to reduce wasteful spending and bring all spending into the light of day with accountability and transparency.

CS-While on the subject of pledges, are you willing to take a pledge to not raise taxes?

RR-Yes. I’ve signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to underscore my commitment to the hardworking American taxpayer. As I mentioned earlier, regardless of the economic times the federal government is always looking for more money; politicians will always spend as much as they can and raising taxes would just be like pouring gasoline on an out of control fire. We don’t need gasoline, we need to extinguish the runaway spending spree in Washington. 

CS-Congressmen use pork projects to win votes in their district, reward donors & supports, and bribe other Congressmen to vote for dubious legislation.  Can this abusive practice be stopped without a whole scale change in leadership, or is the current GOP leadership in need of changing?

RR-I think many in the new Republican leadership have learned from the past mistakes that came during the Bush Administration, and I certainly hope that they have. Fiscal restraint is not just important, it’s critical. The budgetary insanity that is going on in Congress today is not the ‘Change’ this nation needed in the last election. Many Republicans are prepared to hold the line on spending and put our nation’s fiscal house back in order before it is taken too far down the wrong track like we’re seeing happen today. What I plan on doing when I arrive in DC is partner with any conservative minded legislator that is willing and work hard at helping build strong alliances that can effect real change.

CS-What is your opinion of the “Cap and Trade” bill passed by the U.S. House?

RR-It would hurt Wisconsin and would hurt our nation. The fact that the Obama administration was looking to raise money from the bill to spend on other liberal programs underscores that it was a tax. Just recently even the Treasury Department admitted that this energy tax would cost each American family upwards of $1,700 per year. The American people can’t afford that and businesses can’t afford that. Unemployment keeps going higher and higher and the Democrats in Congress are actually wanting to add costs to businesses. This behavior by Congress has become decoupled from reality. This bill may have been better titled “Pack and move” because that is exactly what I think many businesses will do.

CS-Is there any way to achieve “Cap and Trade’s” stated goal of reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions without the huge detrimental effects it would have on our economy?

RR-Incentivize and continue to invest in research and technology development.  I hear the phrase often that “The Stone Age didn’t end because they ran out of Stones and the Carbon age isn’t going to end because we run out of oil, coal or gas.”  Alternatives will be adopted and widely used as soon as they are economically feasible. The costs of solar, wind and other alternatives continue to decline and with additional development of technology it should not be too long before they are economically competitive with traditional energy sources.

CS-Now that gasoline prices have stabilized at reasonable levels, we don’t hear or read much about energy policy in the media.  But that could change at any moment if some international crisis caused the price of oil to suddenly spike.  What policies would you support implementing as part of our national energy policy?  (For example, drilling in ANWAR, off shore drilling, nuclear energy, and conservation measures?)

RR-All of the above. Our reliance on foreign oil is not only an environmental issue, it’s an economic and national security issue as well. Our economy is heavily dependent on the resources held in places of the world that aren’t always hospitable to the United States or our interests. Eliminating this dependence needs to be a priority. But not just through lip service, we’ve had that since the Jimmy Carter administration. And you don’t become energy independent by eliminating other options that might be available. We need to safely explore all options to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. A comprehensive approach that starts now makes sense. Unfortunately what we hear from Washington is too dependent on future technologies and as a result I fear that in five years we may just be in the same place as we find ourselves today.

CS-I know your foreign policy positions are not fully formulated yet, but could you give our readers your general position on the biggest problems facing US foreign policy:  North Korea, Iran policy, the war in Afghanistan and relations with Pakistan?

RR-There are some serious and growing foreign policy issues in the world today. Many of these problems did not arise quickly or suddenly and they will not be fixed quickly or easily. To the extent possible the United States needs to work with other nations in the respective regions to accomplish the goals desired.  Just as we have a closer relationship with Canada than we do Chile, so too do other nations have closer relationships with their neighbors than we might have. Turkey, for example, has been and can continue to be a valuable ally in the Muslim world and China’s engagement with North Korea is critical to achieving lasting resolution on the Korean Peninsula. We need to defend our sovereignty and our right to defend ourselves and our allies—the safety of the American people will always be first and foremost in my book--but we need to respect the sovereignty of other nations as well.

CS-How has the response been to the early stage of your campaign?

RR-It’s been very encouraging. The voters are worried about what they see happening in Washington DC today and they are enthusiastic about my candidacy and the real world, pragmatic approach that I bring to issues facing our state and nation today. Voters appear to be ready to embrace a candidate who is genuine, gives honest straight forward answers, and one that they feel they can trust. I have heard time and again how important it is to not just “promote” some politician already in the system. Voters have told me that they want new ideas, new energy and new voices in congress. The days of promoting career politicians may be coming to an end and with it a new generation of civil servants committed to improving things in American instead of improving their own career path is starting.

CS-Are you still on schedule to hand over control of your businesses to your successor in mid December, so you can campaign full time?

RR-Yes, I’m working overtime to expedite the transfer even earlier so I can focus fulltime on this campaign.

CS-How do you respond to criticism that you are not an 8^th District resident, and are moving into the 8^th District just to run for Congress?

RR-I think it’s an attempted distraction by those who don’t want to discuss the issues affecting District 8 residents. I currently live just a couple miles outside the district. (And who knows, with all the gerrymandering that goes on I may be smack dab in the middle of it after the next census) I grew up in the 8th district, went to high school in the district, my business is in the district, most of my work and projects are in the district, I coached high school volleyball for 20 years in the district. As a lifelong resident of this area, I know this district and the issues facing it, and I have a vision for Wisconsin and America that I believe matches this district’s.

More importantly Steve Kagen doesn’t. Steve Kagen votes with Nancy Pelosi over 98% of the time. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi’s values are what District 8 residents want or expect from their representative regardless of which side of Appleton they live in. I have the background and roots in this district that make me exceptionally qualified to serve the residents of District 8 and that is what I will do each and every day in Congress. Additionally, if the U.S. Constitution isn’t concerned where I sleep at night I think the voters might not be concerned either.

CS-On your website and when speaking, you’re not shy about asking people to donate money if they support you.  Almost everyone - politicians (especially “reformers”) the media, the public - complains about money having too much influence in politics.  Why don’t you?

RR-I do think money has too much influence and your characterization that I don’t isn’t accurate. But yet money is necessary to communicate in any campaign. The district is large and getting the message out about my campaign will require funds. The reason I am not shy is because I believe in the cause of my campaign, and I believe when someone donates money to my campaign, they have some “skin in the game” and are more likely to hold me accountable in how I represent them. Would you prefer that we just have the super rich as our representatives? Should only those with enough of their own money to buy media and hire the best advertising agencies be the only ones who run? Sounds like what we have now.

Yet, it’s taken some getting used to for me to ask for campaign contributions, but this is not about Reid Ribble it’s about the future of our nation. It’s about what kind of world my grandson is going to grow up in, so if it takes me asking for donations to help fund this effort, I can live with that. 

CS-Since Congressional campaigns are so expensive ($2 million), do you anticipate, or are willing to if necessary, self-finance your campaign, at least partially?

RR-I am sure I will do some modest funding. It is my campaign isn’t it? But if I fund it all or a large part of it I leave the voters out of the equation. By not self funding I must build into my campaign the discipline to do the hard work of talking with voters and asking for their support. Representatives who mostly self fund can often find their support a mile wide and an inch deep and as such are accountable to no one but themselves. This is in part why we have so many elitists in government now.  As I mentioned above, I am going to involve people in the process and although I am at the beginning of the campaign I believe that as a result I will see a more engaged volunteer base and stronger, deeper support.

CS-Besides visiting your website, do you have any “meet and greets” or speaking events coming soon for those wishing to learn more about your campaign?

RR-We have a number of them scheduled and more and more getting booked all the time. The best place to find out time/location information is on our website or you can email Krystal Tucker at krystalt@ribbleforcongress.com  to sign up to host an event or attend an event that’s already scheduled. I plan to talk with as many voters as I can so the more the better.

CS-Thanks again for taking time to chat with The Inside Scoop.  Good luck in the campaign.