<p>This summer I arrived in Washington, D.C., zealous in my political beliefs and keen to effect change in Washington. I was confident in my beliefs when I left my small Iowa hometown. What I didn't plan for was a readjustment of my entire political philosophy.</p>
<p>In Washington, I worked for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to limited government principles. I had known for years that I was a conservative Republican, but not much else. I figured I had a reasonable grasp on policy; I'd usually focus on issues such as gay marriage and flag burning rather than complicated economic issues.</p>
<p>Boy, was I wrong.</p>
<p>While in Washington, I looked deeper into those sound bites. I examined the philosophical underpinnings of the conservative movement. Taxes, health care and Social Security are all matters that will affect my generation now and in the future. The funny thing is I didn't know anything about these topics before I came to Washington. I didn't know about them because my party wasn't talking about these issues, and this is the heart of the problem.</p>
<p>The Republican Party has lost its way. It collectively celebrates Ronald Reagan, but has forgotten his limited government values. Over the past eight years, congressional Republicans have grown the government to unfathomable heights, disregarding Reagan's maxim: "Government isn't the solution to the problem; government is the problem."</p>
<p>This is where my generation enters the discussion. I think that we are confused in our political beliefs. We are fierce advocates for personal freedoms, yet possess a general distrust of the large, intrusive federal government, a unique mix.</p>
<p>We can trace this political lineage back to our grandparents. The Greatest Generation worked hard, with a premium on personal responsibility. However, it was their generation who brought about the massive welfare state of the New Deal and stifled individuality throughout the 1950s. This influenced the Baby Boomers, who sloughed off conformity in favor of total liberty.</p>
<p>The only problem was that they left personal responsibility behind in the pursuit of that liberty. It's my generation's duty to exploit the best of both generations - the responsibility of the 1950s with the freedoms of the 1960s. The past two generations have laid the groundwork and made the mistakes. It's my generation's obligation to rediscover the nexus between personal responsibility and economic and personal liberty.</p>
<p>The previous generations' young aspired to positions in the federal bureaucracy. They trusted the government and their ability to shape it. Unfortunately, their influence has only made government bigger.</p>
<p>Quite simply, my generation is not inclined to trust the government like our predecessors. When we want to make a difference, we join nonprofit organizations. We seldom exclaim, "I want to change the world ... as a bureaucrat!"</p>
<p>We should be a natural audience for limited government conservatives. We have realized that bureaucracy is inefficient and that Social Security is nothing but an unfunded promise. Because Republicans have allowed so much of this needless government, the Democrats now appear the party of small government.</p>
<p>We are an idealistic generation that wants to make a positive impact on the world. But it's not just idealism that we are looking for; we need entrepreneurial policy solutions to long-term problems. We are the generation that will have to pay for the large government programs created by the Baby Boomers to serve the needs of the Baby Boomers.</p>
<p>The Republican Party has an opportunity to win back younger voters by dealing with the big issues, such as Social Security and health care, but not asking us to pay for all the fixes. Like our parents, we should have the opportunity to enjoy a growing economy and not be saddled with higher taxes to pay for new programs. The opportunity is there for conservative candidates to win us back, but they better do it soon or they will lose this generation.</p>
<p>MATTHEW HITTLE is a resident of Sioux City, a graduate of Bishop Heelan High School and a senior at the University of South Dakota. He spent the summer as an intern at the grass-roots organization FreedomWorks.</p>

<p>As presidential candidates crisscross Iowa in coming months, one of the few things they will all have in common is an unwillingness to defend our disgraceful federal income-tax system. It penalizes workers, savers, the poor, the elderly, American farmers and manufacturers, small businesses, entrepreneurs - just about everyone except tax lobbyists and their well-heeled clients.</p>
<p>But will presidential hopefuls embrace a real alternative? Two primary substitutes have been put forth: The FairTax Plan and the flat tax. The FairTax would replace all federal income and payroll-based taxes with a national retail sales tax of 23 percent. A monthly rebate paid to all citizens in advance would, in essence, cancel out taxes on spending up to the poverty level.</p>
<p>Both the FairTax and flat tax would reduce marginal tax rates and the destructive tax bias against earnings, savings, and investment. Both end double and triple taxation of savings and investment. Both systems are better than our current broken mess, but the FairTax is hands down better economically and politically than the flat tax. Fundamental tax reform is not going to be accomplished twice in our lifetimes, so we should choose wisely.</p>
<p>As a former chief of staff to the congressman who was the flat tax's most vocal supporter, I was a strong flat-tax proponent until the FairTax was developed. The flat tax is a vast improvement, but I want the best possible system. And that's the FairTax.</p>
<p>The flat tax strives for transparency but retains the corporate income tax and payroll taxes, which embed invisible federal taxes in everything we buy. It strives to encourage work, but retains a direct tax on labor. The FairTax abolishes the income tax, payroll tax, corporate income tax, gift and estate taxes and all federal taxes based on income. The FairTax broadens the taxpayer base by capturing the underground economy, illegal immigrants and those who have bought their way out of the tax code. The flat tax does not.</p>
<p>The FairTax eliminates the intrusive, inefficient IRS; the flat tax retains it. The FairTax abolishes individual income-tax forms; the flat tax does not. The FairTax untaxes education; the flat tax does not. The FairTax imposes no tax on small businesses or farms, but the flat tax may tax small businesses and farms even if they are losing money.</p>
<p>International competitiveness is another key area of difference. Our tax system actually subsidizes foreign products by exempting them from taxes, but it penalizes American farmers, manufacturers and other exporting businesses by imposing taxes on our exports. The flat tax makes this even worse. The FairTax stops this senseless, self-inflicted economic damage.</p>
<p>Unlike most tax proposals, the FairTax does not pit one income or political group against another because it offers advantages across the economic and political spectrums. It abolishes all federal taxes on the poor, raises real wages, promotes the "Made in America" label and American jobs and untaxes pensions and Social Security. It taxes accumulated wealth when spent and is highly pro-growth because it untaxes earnings, savings and productivity; repeals corporate income taxes and estate taxes; and promotes investment and capital formation. It reduces marginal tax rates for most Americans.</p>
<p>The flat tax is not as progressive, not as pro-growth and not as transparent. The flat tax retains the same vulnerability to politics that will let lobbyists and politicians again create the very same complex, loophole-filled, unfair system we have today.</p>
<p>More co-sponsors endorsed the FairTax in the first two weeks of the 110th Congress than endorsed the flat tax in the past five congressional sessions combined. The FairTax has hundreds of thousands of supporters across all party lines. On the merits, the FairTax is truly best for America in the 21st century and beyond.</p>
<p>DENIS CALABRESE, chief strategist for FairTax.org., is a public policy and communications professional and the former chief of staff to Congressman Dick Armey.</p>

<p>Republican Dick Armey, the former U.S. House majority leader, was interviewed with former Sen. Tom Daschle on PBS's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer." Here's an excerpt that makes clear Armey's thoughts about Iowa:</p>
<p>Lehrer: All right. Yes-or-no question for each of you. I'm reading up about each of you. Are you seriously considering running for president in 2008?</p>
<p>Daschle: I'm going to make a decision sometime next year. </p>
<p>Lehrer to Armey: Are you thinking about it?</p>
<p>Armey: I've never wanted to die in Iowa.</p>
<p>Lehrer: That's a no?</p>
<p>Armey: That's a no. </p>