<div dir="ltr"><div>Fellow LNC members:</div><div><br></div><div>I am sad that I will not be in New Orleans this weekend, both because I'm missing the meeting and because I've heard it's a fun town. </div><div><br></div>As I am not present in person, I would like to make one last argument against a proposal to modify the Policy Manual to eliminate or lower the requirement to pay down mortgage principal in odd-numbered years.<div><br></div><div>I understand that the purchase of the "building," to many, was seen as a way to enhance cash-flow. But this benefit still exists in even-numbered years. In any event, I view picturing a mortgage that way as an act of financial irresponsibility. </div><div><br></div><div>We serve 2 year terms on the LNC. If this provision is changed, it is likely that many of us will not be on the LNC when the balloon payment comes due. For us to kick to a future board responsibility for a large payment, because we didn't want to chip away at it previously, seems to me to be on par, at a smaller scale, with precisely the way the Democrats and Republicans write this nation's budget. We promise to be different, to be better. Why should any voter believe us that we will manage this nation's resources in a better way if we choose to kick our own expenses down the road?</div><div><br></div><div>The financial aspects should be clear. We're not just talking about a balloon payment vs. chipping away at the amount owed. We're also talking about a large difference in interest payments. A reduction in the principal every odd-numbered year will make a dramatic difference to this party long-term. Do we intend for this party to be around for the long-haul, or to fold up and disappear? I intend for the former, and think we should look at the long-term health of this party rather than short-term cash-flow. Even those who want this modification agree with this in principle - every time we decide to spend money on ballot access, advertising, or much anything else, while in a cash-flow crunch, we are prioritizing the growth of the party over current cash flow. Why should taking care of our debts be the only victim of a need for more cash?</div><div><br></div><div>America did not get into its financial hole in one fell swoop. It happened over time - it happened by, one time after another, pushing the can down the road, raising the debt ceiling, and so on. As a voter, I am supposed to believe that the Libertarian Party can do better after watching us walk down the same path?</div><div><br></div><div>To eliminate this policy manual provision is to put ourselves in the position of the credit card user who, realizing he has spent too much money, decides to make only the minimum payment. We all know this is not financially wise.</div><div><br></div><div>I disagree with the basic premise that the "building" should be used as an ATM in the first place, but at least this policy manual limits our use of it that way to even-numbered years. </div><div><br></div><div>The most successful Libertarian campaigns, such as Aaron Starr for Oxnard, have focused precisely on financial responsibility. If we were talking about a newly-purchased federal park or building, and Congress exempted itself from making principal payments that had helped secure passage, Libertarians would be lining up around the block to denounce this action as yet another reason not to trust the two old parties and to elect Libertarians. We'd be absolutely right to do so. </div><div><br></div><div>Yes, eliminating this would make it easier to have a balanced (or even surplus) budget - and we really need a surplus budget to build reserves going into a Presidential year. I understand that. I urge that we find other ways, find other expenses to cut, before we consider not paying a self-imposed financial responsibility. There is little fat to cut, so balancing the budget, or creating a surplus, requires cutting into muscle. You will say, correctly, that I'm not there for these hard choices. I have passed suggestions about difficult decisions to LNC members who will be there. I urge that we make these hard choices now, not in 10 years.</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
</div></div>