Sure, a tax break would be nice, Kaawa says.
But he insists it is more important for the White House and Congress to downsize government and to reduce government spending.
Coming Wednesday:
A complete preview
"With tax cuts, you know that special interests are going to come in and get their breaks," asserts Kaawa, who says he pays about $500 a month in federal and state taxes.
"Things are never going to get better until we decrease spending."
Lowell Kalapa, executive director of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, concurs.
"If you cut taxes, you've got to cut spending concurrently," he said. "Reagan supply-side tax cuts to stimulate economic growth is a real 'chancy' situation. It's not a hard fact that growth will occur.
"Our concern about any and all candidates at the federal, state or local level who promise tax cuts is that unless they also promise concurrent spending reductions, nothing they say should be taken seriously. That's especially true at the federal level, where the government prints the money."
Furthermore, election-year promises to ease federal tax burdens can simply shift costs elsewhere, Kalapa says. Take, for instance, Clinton's proposal of a $1,500-a-year tax credit for the first two years of college. To what degree would such a tax credit artificially inflate the cost of college tuition, Kalapa wonders.
The reasoning behind that tax break is to reward people for going to college, Kalapa notes. But, he insists, "The tax system is to raise money for government, period. There should not be exemptions."
Today, the United States has the world's largest debt - $3.7 trillion. That's the equivalent of every American man, woman and child owing $20,163.
If the government's Social Security liabilities are also considered, the nation's debt soars to $5.2 trillion.
After Republicans took control of Congress following the 1994 election, they pushed hard to balance the budget. But their zeal led to an ugly partisan fight and the shutdown of the federal government for 28 days. This year's election will point where the balanced-budget battle is headed.
For Kaawa and Pearl City clerk Sidney Eperas, 36, cutting the Pentagon's budget is a priority - even if means reducing military spending in Hawaii, which has strategic value because of its location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
"War is not a big thing now," said Eperas, an Army veteran who served six years.
Kaawa, a nine-year Army veteran, said the nation should have a strong military, but he questioned the cost-effectiveness of the Pentagon's emphasis on high-tech weaponry.
Foreign aid also should be reduced, Kaawa says.
"We can't help the whole world," said Kaawa, who is critical of the United States' backing of Contra rebels in the 1980s Nicaraguan civil war.
Kailua businessman John Poehler, 46, said he would impose "big-time" cuts on what he considers to be arcane federal studies that are duplicative or that don't have an immediate practical purpose.
He also said lawmakers need to change their thinking about bringing home "the bacon." Bringing home federal projects or grants may benefit their district or their state, but that doesn't mean they benefit the nation, Poehler said. The greater good may be to simply have the funds from the projects or grants used to reduce the national debt, Poehler says.
Poehler and Hawaii Kai physical therapist Cindy Geiger, 47, cited the Republican welfare reform bill, which Clinton signed into law, as the sort of spending restrictions they support.
The measure, expected to save $54 billion over six years, ends six decades of guaranteed federal cash assistance for the needy, limits assistance to families to five years and requires those getting assistance to find work after two years.
"Welfare has been very much abused," Geiger said.
She also would like to see government land - but not national parks - sold to the private sector. Fort DeRussy land, for example, can be sold, she said.