Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
The Arizona law invites violations of the 4th amendment, and it treats the effect rather than the cause of the immigration problem. I'm against this law. Illegal immigrants from Mexico come here as economic refugees. We can change this by putting political pressure on Mexico to crack down on economic inequities. We also need to minimize our impact on the Mexican economy. This includes phasing out corn subsidies and ending the pointless prohibition of marijuana. Implementing these changes would reduce the need of Mexican workers to move north to find work .
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
We need to cut off corporate welfare. Congress keeps giving money to immensely profitable corporations, creating to an unfair advantage over smaller companies and start-ups. There are fewer risks for start-ups when you have a truly level playing field.
It also wouldn't hurt to put more people to work, instead of into our judicial system, by legalizing marijuana.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
We need to stop teaching kids how to pass tests and start giving them the tools to pursue their passions. Teaching children to pass standardized tests will not help inspire the kind of innovators that have made this country great. I intend to push legislation that changes the goals our education system to value thinking over memorization. I envision an education system that creates more self-motivated entrepreneurs.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
Earmarks aren't inherently evil, but they are inherently prone to abuse. As my great-grandfather would say "where there's money there's larceny." As a member of the Progressive Party I cannot accept corporate donations. I can't image a lobbyist would believe they can sway me while I refuse their money.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
Did we reform healthcare? Isn't this "reform" just more of the same? Making everyone buy insurance doesn't solve any problems. It only creates more customers for insurance companies. I don't see any quick fixes or the possibility of sweeping reforms. We need to have series of discussion over small improvements, weighing the implications of each individually.
To test out different approaches we need to expand states' rights to regulate healthcare. More conservative states will be able to experiment with market-based strategies such as buying insurance across state lines, More liberal states can attempt to implement statewide universal healthcare without fear of being sued by insurance companies.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
To prevent future oil spills we need to use less oil. Regulation doesn't do enough to prevent accidents because those regulations are either not enforced or are knowingly violated when the potential profits are greater than the fines. Because of the oil companies' disregard for the rule of law, I would not trust them to drill off our shores or in our parks.
I will initiate legislation to ensure that taxpayers do not pick up any of the tab when there is an oil spill. We can ensure that the interests of the environment and corporate obligations to stockholders that are in sync by giving congress the power and the will to "foreclose" on drill sites that does not meet their contractual obligations.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
There is no conflict between protecting our civil rights and public safety. Most of these government overreaches have been used to harass political enemies instead of finding terrorists. I don't understand why we would respond to an attack on our freedoms by voluntarily giving away those very freedoms. That would be like taking all my money out of the bank and burning it as an anti-tax protest (not that I have much to burn but I'm painting a metaphor here).
Standard investigative tools are sufficient for catching terrorist. There is no evidence that excessive government monitoring would have prevented the Oklahoma City Bombing, the USS Cole attack, or even 9/11. After a disaster there will always be speculation about what could have been done differently. More importantly, no matter how many rights we give up we cannot guaranty that there will never again be an attack on American soil.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
Stop borrowing from the Federal Reserve. I think a lot of people assume the Fed is part of the government. It is not. I've purposed the creation of a new gold standard on my website. We must cut spending on programs that don't benefit society. Let's not give tax money to companies so they can export jobs. Let's not subsidize fossil fuels while energy companies are making record profits (or anytime really). Let's not waste money on the prohibition of marijuana ($14.1 BILLION in 2009).
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Social Security may seem philosophically wrong but is socially necessary. The most important thing is to protect those funds from the Congress. We need to ensure that government spending is never again obscured by raiding Social Security, the way Clinton did in the '90's. We can advance the goal of Social Security by requiring that a portion of our insurance premiums are placed in a transferable health savings plan.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Q&A with Nick Ladendorf
by Joe Daues, KSPR News
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: What I’m doing is I’m putting my agenda out there, my views. I’m hoping the voters will see that their values line up with mine. I’m not going to put my finger to the wind and try to get, you know, figure out what they want to hear.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: The closest thing I could see to a quick fix with all the economic issues we’re having is the legalization of marijuana and hemp. We just can’t continue to fund this war on drugs and lock up people, breaking up families and all the other issues that come up with it.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I’m neither a Republican or Democrat. I don’t really have anything invested in picking one side or the other. I’m interested in getting things done. Bickering is fine as long as people wrap it up at the end of the day and get through the issues.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: I think anybody who looks at what I’m proposing will see that I have thought about every issue. I’ve taken many sides of every issues and figured out, “If this is the right idea, why is it the right idea?” And then really examined everything. I think I have a more comprehensive view on it than a lot of people.
Learn more about Nick Ladendorf's campaign at his website
Find out where Nick Ladendorf stands on nine key issues.
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: What I’m doing is I’m putting my agenda out there, my views. I’m hoping the voters will see that their values line up with mine. I’m not going to put my finger to the wind and try to get, you know, figure out what they want to hear.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: The closest thing I could see to a quick fix with all the economic issues we’re having is the legalization of marijuana and hemp. We just can’t continue to fund this war on drugs and lock up people, breaking up families and all the other issues that come up with it.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I’m neither a Republican or Democrat. I don’t really have anything invested in picking one side or the other. I’m interested in getting things done. Bickering is fine as long as people wrap it up at the end of the day and get through the issues.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: I think anybody who looks at what I’m proposing will see that I have thought about every issue. I’ve taken many sides of every issues and figured out, “If this is the right idea, why is it the right idea?” And then really examined everything. I think I have a more comprehensive view on it than a lot of people.
Learn more about Nick Ladendorf's campaign at his website
Find out where Nick Ladendorf stands on nine key issues.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Where Jack Goodman stands on 9 key issues
Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
We must secure our borders. The failure to accomplish this is one of the biggest failures of the federal government and both political parties. Additionally, we must not grant amnesty to those who enterred this country illegally.
Due to the failure of the federal government to address the serious problem of illegal immigration, states have been forced to take action. I worked with my colleagues in the Missouri legislature to pass strong legislation on the issue in recent years. I support an aggressive approach to this problem, but we must also protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans who are in this great nation legally.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
By getting government out of the way. Government does not create beneficial jobs, it can only create a climate in which Americans have the confidence to take the necessary risks to create jobs for others in our communities. Washington must stop creating uncertainty among job creators and must stop pursuing policies that punish those who risk their own earnings to create jobs for others.
Washington must keep the tax burden low and leave more money in the hands of those who will create jobs with it. The burden of such flawed policies as the recent government takeover of healthcare and proposals like "cap & tax" leave job creators unable to grow, out of concern that the government will be taking the earnings that could be spent on additional payroll.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
The best thing that Congress could do is return education to the state and local level. The federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The people of our local communities know better than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., how to teach our kids and use our resources.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I am against Earmarks under the current appropriations process used by Congress. We have seen too many times that the system can be corrupted and lead to wasteful spending and projects. Last year, I called for a moratorium on all earmarks until the spending process can be reformed to bring openness, transparency and accountability.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
If elected to Congress I have pledged to fight to repeal the harmful components of the recently passed healthcare legislation. While we do need to work to make healthcare more affordable in America, we are still the best nation in the world for healthcare. We must work to solve our problems without destroying all of the parts that work so well.
We must restore patients to the driver's seat in their healthcare decisions, freeing them to shop the marketplace for the best quality care at the best price. The bureaucracies of government and insurance companies have displaced patient's from this position and hurt competition.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a terrible disaster with serious consequences, but we should not halt the domestic exploration for oil and natural gas based on this event. Gas prices are again inching toward $3 a gallon, and probably beyond. America must have an “all of the above strategy” to free ourselves from our current dependence on foreign oil. We cannot continue buying oil, sending money to people that hate us, or we will see ourselves facing much more severe problems down the road.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
It is important to be aggressive in discovering and preventing terrorist activity. It is also important to protect the fundamental freedoms of American citizens. The government must be careful to strike the appropriate balance to protect the safety and freedoms of Americans, which will be an ongoing, difficult task.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
In Missouri, we are forced by the State Constitution to have a balanced budget. During my service in the state legislature, I have worked through many tough choices to reach that balanced budget. Although it is difficult, the balanced budget requirement forces government to live within its means like many American families and businesses.
The federal government needs to remember that it does not earn the money it spends. It simply takes money from those who do earn it. The federal government must drastically cut spending and implement a balanced budget amendment on the federal level before we can even address our debt problem.
Next, we have to look at all aspects of the Federal Government and start making the tough choices like we have done in Missouri. Our debt is at such a level that is will soon be a national security risk. It will take generations to pay off our current levels of debt, but if we grow our economy and slash spending, it can be done.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Social Security must be treated as a trust fund. Washington politicians must stop robbing the fund to pay for other things. We must be sure there are resources to make good on the promise made to all who have been forced to pay into the system. I also support giving workers the choice to invest a portion of their withholdings into other programs that offer a better return.
We must secure our borders. The failure to accomplish this is one of the biggest failures of the federal government and both political parties. Additionally, we must not grant amnesty to those who enterred this country illegally.
Due to the failure of the federal government to address the serious problem of illegal immigration, states have been forced to take action. I worked with my colleagues in the Missouri legislature to pass strong legislation on the issue in recent years. I support an aggressive approach to this problem, but we must also protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans who are in this great nation legally.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
By getting government out of the way. Government does not create beneficial jobs, it can only create a climate in which Americans have the confidence to take the necessary risks to create jobs for others in our communities. Washington must stop creating uncertainty among job creators and must stop pursuing policies that punish those who risk their own earnings to create jobs for others.
Washington must keep the tax burden low and leave more money in the hands of those who will create jobs with it. The burden of such flawed policies as the recent government takeover of healthcare and proposals like "cap & tax" leave job creators unable to grow, out of concern that the government will be taking the earnings that could be spent on additional payroll.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
The best thing that Congress could do is return education to the state and local level. The federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The people of our local communities know better than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., how to teach our kids and use our resources.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I am against Earmarks under the current appropriations process used by Congress. We have seen too many times that the system can be corrupted and lead to wasteful spending and projects. Last year, I called for a moratorium on all earmarks until the spending process can be reformed to bring openness, transparency and accountability.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
If elected to Congress I have pledged to fight to repeal the harmful components of the recently passed healthcare legislation. While we do need to work to make healthcare more affordable in America, we are still the best nation in the world for healthcare. We must work to solve our problems without destroying all of the parts that work so well.
We must restore patients to the driver's seat in their healthcare decisions, freeing them to shop the marketplace for the best quality care at the best price. The bureaucracies of government and insurance companies have displaced patient's from this position and hurt competition.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a terrible disaster with serious consequences, but we should not halt the domestic exploration for oil and natural gas based on this event. Gas prices are again inching toward $3 a gallon, and probably beyond. America must have an “all of the above strategy” to free ourselves from our current dependence on foreign oil. We cannot continue buying oil, sending money to people that hate us, or we will see ourselves facing much more severe problems down the road.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
It is important to be aggressive in discovering and preventing terrorist activity. It is also important to protect the fundamental freedoms of American citizens. The government must be careful to strike the appropriate balance to protect the safety and freedoms of Americans, which will be an ongoing, difficult task.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
In Missouri, we are forced by the State Constitution to have a balanced budget. During my service in the state legislature, I have worked through many tough choices to reach that balanced budget. Although it is difficult, the balanced budget requirement forces government to live within its means like many American families and businesses.
The federal government needs to remember that it does not earn the money it spends. It simply takes money from those who do earn it. The federal government must drastically cut spending and implement a balanced budget amendment on the federal level before we can even address our debt problem.
Next, we have to look at all aspects of the Federal Government and start making the tough choices like we have done in Missouri. Our debt is at such a level that is will soon be a national security risk. It will take generations to pay off our current levels of debt, but if we grow our economy and slash spending, it can be done.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Social Security must be treated as a trust fund. Washington politicians must stop robbing the fund to pay for other things. We must be sure there are resources to make good on the promise made to all who have been forced to pay into the system. I also support giving workers the choice to invest a portion of their withholdings into other programs that offer a better return.
Q&A with Jack Goodman
by Joe Daues, KSPR News
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: You know, the same way that I went to the Missouri state legislature. I first got into public service because I was frustrated with problems in Missouri. And I very quickly became a member of the leadership team in the House – went on to do that in the Missouri Senate. Just by knowing your principles, sticking to your principles, clearly articulating your principles with real solutions to the problems that we face and being a person who’s known for their honesty.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: The biggest issue facing the people of the Ozarks is certainly the need for more jobs. We need to address that by getting government out of the way of those that want to take the risks in our communities to provide those jobs for the other people who live here. We’re looking at tax burdens, regulatory burdens and government intrusions from a federal government that is reaching far beyond what it should be doing, and actually discouraging people from creating the jobs we need.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: You have to recognize which people you work with who are really interested in solving problems. Some are there to push an agenda, but most are there to solve the same set of problems, just with a disagreement on how to solve those problems. You have to work with people. Earn their respect. Seek out those who you can respect and try to come to the truth of what the problems are and how best to solve them.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: I think I’m the person in this race that entered public service for the right reason and that has a real track record of fixing what’s broken. I got into public service at the state level just a few years ago because I was very frustrated with how Missouri was leading in the all the wrong directions. I believed that complaining about it wasn’t fixing it. I put myself out there to try to fix things. Missouri is much stronger than it was when I entered public service. I believe I come into this race as people’s neighbor who gets it but has a real track record of fixing what’s broken.
Learn more about Jack Goodman's campaign at his website.
Find out where Jack Goodman stands on nine key issues.
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: You know, the same way that I went to the Missouri state legislature. I first got into public service because I was frustrated with problems in Missouri. And I very quickly became a member of the leadership team in the House – went on to do that in the Missouri Senate. Just by knowing your principles, sticking to your principles, clearly articulating your principles with real solutions to the problems that we face and being a person who’s known for their honesty.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: The biggest issue facing the people of the Ozarks is certainly the need for more jobs. We need to address that by getting government out of the way of those that want to take the risks in our communities to provide those jobs for the other people who live here. We’re looking at tax burdens, regulatory burdens and government intrusions from a federal government that is reaching far beyond what it should be doing, and actually discouraging people from creating the jobs we need.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: You have to recognize which people you work with who are really interested in solving problems. Some are there to push an agenda, but most are there to solve the same set of problems, just with a disagreement on how to solve those problems. You have to work with people. Earn their respect. Seek out those who you can respect and try to come to the truth of what the problems are and how best to solve them.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: I think I’m the person in this race that entered public service for the right reason and that has a real track record of fixing what’s broken. I got into public service at the state level just a few years ago because I was very frustrated with how Missouri was leading in the all the wrong directions. I believed that complaining about it wasn’t fixing it. I put myself out there to try to fix things. Missouri is much stronger than it was when I entered public service. I believe I come into this race as people’s neighbor who gets it but has a real track record of fixing what’s broken.
Learn more about Jack Goodman's campaign at his website.
Find out where Jack Goodman stands on nine key issues.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tim Davis answers 9 policy questions
Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
There are distinct issues related to the influx of people from Mexico. Border crime is the most serious as violence from the Mexican cartels spills into the U.S. Enhanced border security, perhaps including the creation of a solid barrier, is a rational response to the violence.
Separately, undocumented Mexican laborers have become a staple of some American industries. This is a problem because the employment of illegal immigrants encourages tax evasion, puts workers at risk of exploitation and breeds contempt for the law. At the same time – imported workers create wealth and, to the extent they spend money in the U.S., they boost aggregate demand, thereby creating jobs for American citizens. U.S. immigration policy should adjust to ensure we have access to the labor the economy needs, without resort to illegal immigration.
The Arizona law mandates that state, county and municipal officials follow a policy of enforcing Federal immigration law to the fullest extent. On its face – the law requires every state, county and municipal officer to spend all day, every day, seeking out, detaining, and handing over illegal immigrants to Federal immigration officials, or, if they refuse, or feel their time might be better spent doing something else, these civil servants can face a penalty of up to $5,000 per day. Any legal resident of Arizona has standing to file a lawsuit to enforce the civil penalty in state court.
The law requires people who look like they might be illegal immigrants – meaning anyone of Hispanic descent – to carry government issued identification or face possible arrest. The law also forces state and local police to turn over to Federal authorities any illegal alien whom they contact. The unfortunate result of this requirement is that it automatically stops the 500,000 or so undocumented workers in Arizona from communicating with police about domestic violence, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes. The downside of Arizona’s law is steep: it deprives the police of vital information; it ensures that family violence in the immigrant community goes unchecked, and it diverts state resources from established uses to the capture and detention of undocumented but otherwise productive people.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
Other than adjourning for major holidays, there are at least four things Congress does to create growth and jobs:
(1) Congress funds law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military;
(2) Congress creates types of private property and the means to trade and protect such property;
(3) Congress funds the acquisition and protection of public property; and
(4) Congress makes investments in infrastructure, education, defense and other areas the private sector cannot handle adequately. In essence, smart government provides a framework that allows the private sector to create wealth and jobs.
That said -- what Congress cannot do, and should not attempt, is to manage American business. When it comes to business, the government has no profit motive, no means to assess whether it is using resources wisely, and therefore no rationality. The government take-over of any industry is accompanied by the law of unintended consequences; this tends to stymie innovation, limit consumer choice and drive up costs. When the government intrudes, management decisions cease to focus on the creation of wealth and instead become a function of politics. The collapse of the Soviet economy illustrates the outcome of central planning, pushed to the extreme.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
Inflation-adjusted spending on K-12 education has increased from an average of $4,000 per student in 1970 to more than $10,000 today. Despite this increase in real spending, reading scores for elementary, junior high and high school students remained steady. It seems that the quality of education must be a function of something other than aggregate spending.
The missing element is likely competition in the market for education. Federal and state initiatives that increase competition among schools have been shown to increase the quality of education. To improve competition Congress ought to encourage these programs:
(1) Public school choice – public school choice allows parents to choose the best public school for their children;
(2) Charter schools – charter schools are publicly funded, but privately managed schools; and
(3) Congress ought to permit state and local policy makers to chart their own course in education, without universal mandates from the U.S. Department of Education.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
Earmarks account for 1.5% of Federal spending. It is a trivial sum in the context of the overall deficit crises. Also – while people may chafe about their member of Congress appropriating funds for specific local projects, there is no guarantee that spending decisions by unelected bureaucrats in Washington would be any better.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
To be successful, government involvement in health care must accomplish one of three things: (1) it must reduce the real costs incurred by health care providers; (2) it must increase the capacity of the health care system; or (3) it must shift bargaining power to consumers. Given the novelty and complexity of the recent health care bill, it remains to be seen how effectively it accomplishes these objectives.
In the meantime – opponents of the bill have mounted a constitutional challenge that will take years to work through the Federal courts. Ultimately, I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the fee imposed on people who refuse to buy health insurance is a tax (and therefore authorized by the constitution) or a penalty. And, if it is a penalty, the Court must decide whether it is constitutional.
If the fee is declared unconstitutional, the health care system Congress just enacted will collapse because the system is predicated on putting young and healthy people into the same insurance pool as people who are older or in poor health. Without the cross-subsidy from young people who pay above-market insurance rates, the health insurance system must operate at a deficit. And, obviously, that is not sustainable.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
Through the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, the Federal government owns a combined 623 million acres – equivalent to the total land mass of France, Spain, German, Poland, Italy, the U.K., Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Productive use ought to be made of this land. Typically, however, the commercial use of public land results in the privatization of gains and the socialization of environmental costs. Private profits are reaped from oil and minerals exploration. But the environmental costs of cleaning up defunct mines or oil slicks are shifted to the public. This is no accident; it reflects circumspect lobbying by the mining and petroleum industries.
The oil slick in the Gulf is a case in point: Under current law, British Petroleum must pay the actual clean up costs of the spill. That is to say, BP must pay for the physical damage to real and personal property. But BP’s liability for economic injury – a separate category of damage in tort law – is capped at $75 million by reason of the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. The damage cap allows BP to partly shift the environmental costs of its lax safety measures to U.S. taxpayers. This is unfair. And it causes BP and other producers to be less careful about how they drill for oil, in that, the costs of their mistakes are certain to be borne by someone else. Removing the damage cap and/or forcing drilling firms to buy adequate insurance would put an end to the socialization of environmental costs.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
The restraint on police power built into Federal and state criminal procedures reflects a balance struck between individual rights and the need to protect the public from traditional types of crime. In reaching this balance, the potential crime the criminal justice system sought to prevent was of an isolated nature, affecting one or a handful of victims of any single criminal act.
The nihilistic mission of al Quaeda shifts this balance. The militants are not in business to commit isolated crimes. They seek death on an apocalyptic scale. Because of the potential for widespread catastrophe, state and local police and Federal intelligence services should be given latitude in their monitoring and pursuit of terror cells. Additional screening at airports is a necessary, albeit unwelcome, part of curbing terror.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
A deficit occurs when Federal spending exceeds tax revenues. Personal income and payroll taxes are the primary sources of tax revenues. These taxes, combined with a handful of others, have historically generated revenues at about 18.2% of GDP. Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are not affected by marginal tax rates. Stated another way – if Congress raises tax rates, people respond by tax evasion or avoidance so as to deprive the Treasury of whatever it hoped to gain.
Because of this limited ability to tax – the Federal deficit will only disappear if Federal spending falls to the range of 18% of GDP. Right now, Federal spending is approaching 25% of GDP, having increased by 32% in fiscal year 2009. The country is on an unsustainable course.
The sectors driving the increase in spending are (1st) housing – with an annual rate of increase of 79% from 2001 to 2009; (2nd) national defense – with an annual rate of increase of 8%; (3rd) social security – with an annual rate of increase of 3%; (4th) Medicare – with an annual rate of increase of 6%; and (5th) Medicaid – with an annual rate of increase of 6.3%. In light of these figures, the Federal government should stop intervening in the housing market; this would have saved us $760 billion in fiscal year 2009. Defense spending will continue at or above current levels. The entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are where the real crunch occurs: they are slated to absorb 75% of the Federal budget by 2030 and 100% of the Federal budget by 2050.
Simply put – we cannot meet our long term obligations under Social Security and Medicare unless the U.S. economy begins to grow more rapidly. Based on assumed growth of 2.5%, the Congressional Budget Office still puts the present value of our unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security at $37.9 trillion and $7.7 trillion, respectively.
My own estimate is that the economy must average annual growth of 4% or the Federal government goes into default. I believe this rate of growth is possible. But it will require competitive tax rates, a renewed commitment to market-based solutions, rational regulation of industries across the board, and the attraction of capital and entrepreneurial ability from abroad.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security? The fiscal pressures created by Social Security are small compared to those coming from Medicare. The U.S. government’s unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare and Social Security are $37.9 trillion and $7.7 trillion, respectively.
The future liabilities of Social Security can be reduced 40% simply by changing the index used to calculate the annual rate of increase in payments. The remaining 60% of unfunded liabilities can be handled, I think, by an increase in economic growth. Whether Medicare can be fully funded going forward depends on whether health care costs are brought under control. And that, of course, depends on whether Congress has the political will to challenge those with a vested interest in the status quo.
There are distinct issues related to the influx of people from Mexico. Border crime is the most serious as violence from the Mexican cartels spills into the U.S. Enhanced border security, perhaps including the creation of a solid barrier, is a rational response to the violence.
Separately, undocumented Mexican laborers have become a staple of some American industries. This is a problem because the employment of illegal immigrants encourages tax evasion, puts workers at risk of exploitation and breeds contempt for the law. At the same time – imported workers create wealth and, to the extent they spend money in the U.S., they boost aggregate demand, thereby creating jobs for American citizens. U.S. immigration policy should adjust to ensure we have access to the labor the economy needs, without resort to illegal immigration.
The Arizona law mandates that state, county and municipal officials follow a policy of enforcing Federal immigration law to the fullest extent. On its face – the law requires every state, county and municipal officer to spend all day, every day, seeking out, detaining, and handing over illegal immigrants to Federal immigration officials, or, if they refuse, or feel their time might be better spent doing something else, these civil servants can face a penalty of up to $5,000 per day. Any legal resident of Arizona has standing to file a lawsuit to enforce the civil penalty in state court.
The law requires people who look like they might be illegal immigrants – meaning anyone of Hispanic descent – to carry government issued identification or face possible arrest. The law also forces state and local police to turn over to Federal authorities any illegal alien whom they contact. The unfortunate result of this requirement is that it automatically stops the 500,000 or so undocumented workers in Arizona from communicating with police about domestic violence, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes. The downside of Arizona’s law is steep: it deprives the police of vital information; it ensures that family violence in the immigrant community goes unchecked, and it diverts state resources from established uses to the capture and detention of undocumented but otherwise productive people.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
Other than adjourning for major holidays, there are at least four things Congress does to create growth and jobs:
(1) Congress funds law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military;
(2) Congress creates types of private property and the means to trade and protect such property;
(3) Congress funds the acquisition and protection of public property; and
(4) Congress makes investments in infrastructure, education, defense and other areas the private sector cannot handle adequately. In essence, smart government provides a framework that allows the private sector to create wealth and jobs.
That said -- what Congress cannot do, and should not attempt, is to manage American business. When it comes to business, the government has no profit motive, no means to assess whether it is using resources wisely, and therefore no rationality. The government take-over of any industry is accompanied by the law of unintended consequences; this tends to stymie innovation, limit consumer choice and drive up costs. When the government intrudes, management decisions cease to focus on the creation of wealth and instead become a function of politics. The collapse of the Soviet economy illustrates the outcome of central planning, pushed to the extreme.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
Inflation-adjusted spending on K-12 education has increased from an average of $4,000 per student in 1970 to more than $10,000 today. Despite this increase in real spending, reading scores for elementary, junior high and high school students remained steady. It seems that the quality of education must be a function of something other than aggregate spending.
The missing element is likely competition in the market for education. Federal and state initiatives that increase competition among schools have been shown to increase the quality of education. To improve competition Congress ought to encourage these programs:
(1) Public school choice – public school choice allows parents to choose the best public school for their children;
(2) Charter schools – charter schools are publicly funded, but privately managed schools; and
(3) Congress ought to permit state and local policy makers to chart their own course in education, without universal mandates from the U.S. Department of Education.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
Earmarks account for 1.5% of Federal spending. It is a trivial sum in the context of the overall deficit crises. Also – while people may chafe about their member of Congress appropriating funds for specific local projects, there is no guarantee that spending decisions by unelected bureaucrats in Washington would be any better.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
To be successful, government involvement in health care must accomplish one of three things: (1) it must reduce the real costs incurred by health care providers; (2) it must increase the capacity of the health care system; or (3) it must shift bargaining power to consumers. Given the novelty and complexity of the recent health care bill, it remains to be seen how effectively it accomplishes these objectives.
In the meantime – opponents of the bill have mounted a constitutional challenge that will take years to work through the Federal courts. Ultimately, I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the fee imposed on people who refuse to buy health insurance is a tax (and therefore authorized by the constitution) or a penalty. And, if it is a penalty, the Court must decide whether it is constitutional.
If the fee is declared unconstitutional, the health care system Congress just enacted will collapse because the system is predicated on putting young and healthy people into the same insurance pool as people who are older or in poor health. Without the cross-subsidy from young people who pay above-market insurance rates, the health insurance system must operate at a deficit. And, obviously, that is not sustainable.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
Through the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, the Federal government owns a combined 623 million acres – equivalent to the total land mass of France, Spain, German, Poland, Italy, the U.K., Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Productive use ought to be made of this land. Typically, however, the commercial use of public land results in the privatization of gains and the socialization of environmental costs. Private profits are reaped from oil and minerals exploration. But the environmental costs of cleaning up defunct mines or oil slicks are shifted to the public. This is no accident; it reflects circumspect lobbying by the mining and petroleum industries.
The oil slick in the Gulf is a case in point: Under current law, British Petroleum must pay the actual clean up costs of the spill. That is to say, BP must pay for the physical damage to real and personal property. But BP’s liability for economic injury – a separate category of damage in tort law – is capped at $75 million by reason of the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. The damage cap allows BP to partly shift the environmental costs of its lax safety measures to U.S. taxpayers. This is unfair. And it causes BP and other producers to be less careful about how they drill for oil, in that, the costs of their mistakes are certain to be borne by someone else. Removing the damage cap and/or forcing drilling firms to buy adequate insurance would put an end to the socialization of environmental costs.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
The restraint on police power built into Federal and state criminal procedures reflects a balance struck between individual rights and the need to protect the public from traditional types of crime. In reaching this balance, the potential crime the criminal justice system sought to prevent was of an isolated nature, affecting one or a handful of victims of any single criminal act.
The nihilistic mission of al Quaeda shifts this balance. The militants are not in business to commit isolated crimes. They seek death on an apocalyptic scale. Because of the potential for widespread catastrophe, state and local police and Federal intelligence services should be given latitude in their monitoring and pursuit of terror cells. Additional screening at airports is a necessary, albeit unwelcome, part of curbing terror.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
A deficit occurs when Federal spending exceeds tax revenues. Personal income and payroll taxes are the primary sources of tax revenues. These taxes, combined with a handful of others, have historically generated revenues at about 18.2% of GDP. Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are not affected by marginal tax rates. Stated another way – if Congress raises tax rates, people respond by tax evasion or avoidance so as to deprive the Treasury of whatever it hoped to gain.
Because of this limited ability to tax – the Federal deficit will only disappear if Federal spending falls to the range of 18% of GDP. Right now, Federal spending is approaching 25% of GDP, having increased by 32% in fiscal year 2009. The country is on an unsustainable course.
The sectors driving the increase in spending are (1st) housing – with an annual rate of increase of 79% from 2001 to 2009; (2nd) national defense – with an annual rate of increase of 8%; (3rd) social security – with an annual rate of increase of 3%; (4th) Medicare – with an annual rate of increase of 6%; and (5th) Medicaid – with an annual rate of increase of 6.3%. In light of these figures, the Federal government should stop intervening in the housing market; this would have saved us $760 billion in fiscal year 2009. Defense spending will continue at or above current levels. The entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are where the real crunch occurs: they are slated to absorb 75% of the Federal budget by 2030 and 100% of the Federal budget by 2050.
Simply put – we cannot meet our long term obligations under Social Security and Medicare unless the U.S. economy begins to grow more rapidly. Based on assumed growth of 2.5%, the Congressional Budget Office still puts the present value of our unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security at $37.9 trillion and $7.7 trillion, respectively.
My own estimate is that the economy must average annual growth of 4% or the Federal government goes into default. I believe this rate of growth is possible. But it will require competitive tax rates, a renewed commitment to market-based solutions, rational regulation of industries across the board, and the attraction of capital and entrepreneurial ability from abroad.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security? The fiscal pressures created by Social Security are small compared to those coming from Medicare. The U.S. government’s unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare and Social Security are $37.9 trillion and $7.7 trillion, respectively.
The future liabilities of Social Security can be reduced 40% simply by changing the index used to calculate the annual rate of increase in payments. The remaining 60% of unfunded liabilities can be handled, I think, by an increase in economic growth. Whether Medicare can be fully funded going forward depends on whether health care costs are brought under control. And that, of course, depends on whether Congress has the political will to challenge those with a vested interest in the status quo.
Q&A with Tim Davis, Democratic Candidate for the Missouri 7th
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: Joe, it’s sometimes thought that one member of Congress can’t make a difference. But I know that’s not the case and I’ll tell you why. I was travelling recently in the Middle East as I try to get a handle on what’s going on there. And I was standing in the middle of a stadium in Ephesus where a craftsman named Demetrius was complaining about the apostle Paul. That one man and his handful of friends had come there to Ephesus and the craftsman said, “These people have turned the world upside down." That makes me think that one person committed to what they’re standing for can make a big difference.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: The most important issue we’re facing right now is the federal deficit. Here’s why it’s a problem: the deficit undermines the financial well-being that our children and grandchildren are going to face. It also tends to cause a net loss of jobs. Here’s how that happens: because the deficit is being financed by foreign borrowing mostly, the influx of foreign capital bids up the value of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies. It makes imports seem cheaper to us, makes our exports harder to send abroad and thereby destroys manufacturing. Also, to the extent the deficit is financed by domestic borrowing, it tends to crowd out capital that would otherwise go to small business. That’s why we see small businesses having such a hard time raising money right now.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: It’s not in my nature to be blindly partisan. Also, my policies tend to be middle-of-the-road. So they’re going to appeal to Democrats and moderate Republicans. For that reason, I don’t anticipate that I’ll get sucked into the partisan debate.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: There are criteria for real leadership. I meet those criteria better than anyone else. First of all, it is required of a leader that they be people of integrity. And with that in view, I have built into my life and into my schedule relationships that bring accountability to keep me on track. Also, in terms of expertise, I have a Ph.D. in economics. I have a law degree from Oxford. My research is published worldwide by Cambridge University Press. I know what it takes to create jobs. I know what it takes to get the economy going.
Learn more about Tim Davis' campaign at his website
Find out where Tim Davis stands on nine key issues.
A: Joe, it’s sometimes thought that one member of Congress can’t make a difference. But I know that’s not the case and I’ll tell you why. I was travelling recently in the Middle East as I try to get a handle on what’s going on there. And I was standing in the middle of a stadium in Ephesus where a craftsman named Demetrius was complaining about the apostle Paul. That one man and his handful of friends had come there to Ephesus and the craftsman said, “These people have turned the world upside down." That makes me think that one person committed to what they’re standing for can make a big difference.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: The most important issue we’re facing right now is the federal deficit. Here’s why it’s a problem: the deficit undermines the financial well-being that our children and grandchildren are going to face. It also tends to cause a net loss of jobs. Here’s how that happens: because the deficit is being financed by foreign borrowing mostly, the influx of foreign capital bids up the value of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies. It makes imports seem cheaper to us, makes our exports harder to send abroad and thereby destroys manufacturing. Also, to the extent the deficit is financed by domestic borrowing, it tends to crowd out capital that would otherwise go to small business. That’s why we see small businesses having such a hard time raising money right now.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: It’s not in my nature to be blindly partisan. Also, my policies tend to be middle-of-the-road. So they’re going to appeal to Democrats and moderate Republicans. For that reason, I don’t anticipate that I’ll get sucked into the partisan debate.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: There are criteria for real leadership. I meet those criteria better than anyone else. First of all, it is required of a leader that they be people of integrity. And with that in view, I have built into my life and into my schedule relationships that bring accountability to keep me on track. Also, in terms of expertise, I have a Ph.D. in economics. I have a law degree from Oxford. My research is published worldwide by Cambridge University Press. I know what it takes to create jobs. I know what it takes to get the economy going.
Learn more about Tim Davis' campaign at his website
Find out where Tim Davis stands on nine key issues.
Kevin Craig on 9 key issues
Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
The "immigration problem" is actually a federal government problem.
Immigration is good. The federal government is not.
Immigration always raises the national standard of living.
The Declaration of Independence criticizes King George III for restricting immigration.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to restrict immigration. It only provides that immigrants in Arizona would have the same requirements to become citizens as immigrants in California. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to build a fence or "secure the borders."
Mexicans are endowed by our Creator with a right to travel, to work, and to live in America.
Americans are endowed by their Creator with a right to hire Mexicans and make our businesses more competitive by lowering production costs.
Consumers have a God-given right to benefit from lower prices.
All the problems experienced in Arizona in connection with immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
• Government welfare lowers our national standard of living.
• Laws requiring drugs to be sold by criminals lower our standard of living.
• Laws requiring immigrant children to attend atheistic schools lower our standard of living.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
By getting out of the way of the Free Market.
Congress has no constitutional authority to try to "promote economic growth."
Congress can only impede economic growth.
If Congress shut down and went home, economic growth would begin.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to give a job to unskilled workers who cannot produce more than the minimum wage.
• Licensing laws make it illegal for consumers to hire the worker they want to employ, and stifle economic growth.
• Corporate taxes and regulation compete for the resources needed to create jobs.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
Get the federal government out of education.
The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tinker with education. We need "the separation of school and state."
Education, like groceries, computers, and clothing, should be produced by the Free Market, not the government.
If parents want Christian schools, they should be able to choose them. If parents want schools that don't teach morality, they should be free to choose such schools.
Most parents want their children to be taught that God says "Thou shalt not steal." The federal government denies them their choice.
When our current Congressman, Roy Blunt, was first elected to Congress in 1996, the Republican National Platform promised to abolish the federal Department of Education. Not only did Republicans fail to do this (when they controlled all three branches of government), they doubled federal education spending from what it was under Bill Clinton.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
"Earmarks" is a red herring.
Every penny of Congressionally-appropriated funds should be earmarked.
But Congress should not appropriate funds for unconstitutional projects.
If Congress (including representatives from Missouri's neighboring states) passes an unconstitutional transportation bill, Missouri's representative has a duty to earmark the funds in a way that does the least harm to Missouri.
Otherwise, the earmarking is done by the executive branch, which is even more unconstitutional, and serves political interests rather than the general welfare of Missouri.
I will vote against all unconstitutional spending, and to increase transparency will clearly earmark as many as possible of the funds unconstitutionally appropriated by Congress.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
The federal government has not reformed healthcare, but has further DEformed it.
All federal laws regulating health care should be repealed. They are unconstitutional.
States should "nullify" unconstitutional infringements of the Free Market by refusing to enforce unconstitutional federal mandates.
The Free Market gave us the best healthcare system in the world, until the goverment began meddling with it. More people get better quality healthcare under capitalism than under socialism.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
Congress has no constitutional authority to attempt to prevent oil slicks.
Oil slicks are best prevented by protecting private property and holding polluters liable for the damage they inflict on the private property of others.
Socialist governments have had a far more detrimental effect on the environment than capitalist businesses.
The federal government should stop subsidizing the oil industry and let a Free Market choose the clean energy it wants.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
Do we really have to choose between living in a Muslim state where women are forced to wear Burkas, or living in an Orwellian state where women can be seen naked by government airport screeners?
How about a nation of "Liberty Under God" where we enjoy the Fourth Amendment and the government does not invade and terrorize Muslim nations in order to pave the way for multinational oil pipelines?
Terrorism is "blowback" from unconstitutional U.S. foreign intervention. The answer to terrorism is not more unconstitutional domestic intervention. When Osama bin Laden declared a "fatwah" (holy war) on the U.S., he did so because the U.S. was killing Muslims. The U.S. should repent of its unconstitutional imperialism, even as Muslims should forgive the U.S.
for its sinful acts, rather than take vengeance on us.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
Cut federal spending. Abolish unconstitutional programs. Voters must stop demanding that the federal government steal from others and redistribute to the voters. This isn't rocket science.
The National Debt is also increased by the ability of the Federal Reserve System to engage in the "monetization of debt." This is a fancy phrase meaning "create money out of thin air." The new money is created into the hands of borrowers, whether private or public. The Constitution says that no state shall "make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts."
It is more difficult to create a gold debt than to create a paper debt. We must abolish the Fed.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
It can't. Abolish it. A Ponzi Scheme cannot be reformed.
It is an evil system, unethical and immoral.
If a private corporation administered its pension program the way the federal government administers Social Security, corporate officers would go to prison.
The Social Security system is Bernie Madoff on steroids.
Just like the last level of investors in a Ponzi Scheme are going to get ripped off, so an entire generation of Americans who expect Social Security benefits are going to lose. It is inevitable. Planning is better than denial.
The "immigration problem" is actually a federal government problem.
Immigration is good. The federal government is not.
Immigration always raises the national standard of living.
The Declaration of Independence criticizes King George III for restricting immigration.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to restrict immigration. It only provides that immigrants in Arizona would have the same requirements to become citizens as immigrants in California. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to build a fence or "secure the borders."
Mexicans are endowed by our Creator with a right to travel, to work, and to live in America.
Americans are endowed by their Creator with a right to hire Mexicans and make our businesses more competitive by lowering production costs.
Consumers have a God-given right to benefit from lower prices.
All the problems experienced in Arizona in connection with immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
• Government welfare lowers our national standard of living.
• Laws requiring drugs to be sold by criminals lower our standard of living.
• Laws requiring immigrant children to attend atheistic schools lower our standard of living.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
By getting out of the way of the Free Market.
Congress has no constitutional authority to try to "promote economic growth."
Congress can only impede economic growth.
If Congress shut down and went home, economic growth would begin.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to give a job to unskilled workers who cannot produce more than the minimum wage.
• Licensing laws make it illegal for consumers to hire the worker they want to employ, and stifle economic growth.
• Corporate taxes and regulation compete for the resources needed to create jobs.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
Get the federal government out of education.
The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tinker with education. We need "the separation of school and state."
Education, like groceries, computers, and clothing, should be produced by the Free Market, not the government.
If parents want Christian schools, they should be able to choose them. If parents want schools that don't teach morality, they should be free to choose such schools.
Most parents want their children to be taught that God says "Thou shalt not steal." The federal government denies them their choice.
When our current Congressman, Roy Blunt, was first elected to Congress in 1996, the Republican National Platform promised to abolish the federal Department of Education. Not only did Republicans fail to do this (when they controlled all three branches of government), they doubled federal education spending from what it was under Bill Clinton.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
"Earmarks" is a red herring.
Every penny of Congressionally-appropriated funds should be earmarked.
But Congress should not appropriate funds for unconstitutional projects.
If Congress (including representatives from Missouri's neighboring states) passes an unconstitutional transportation bill, Missouri's representative has a duty to earmark the funds in a way that does the least harm to Missouri.
Otherwise, the earmarking is done by the executive branch, which is even more unconstitutional, and serves political interests rather than the general welfare of Missouri.
I will vote against all unconstitutional spending, and to increase transparency will clearly earmark as many as possible of the funds unconstitutionally appropriated by Congress.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
The federal government has not reformed healthcare, but has further DEformed it.
All federal laws regulating health care should be repealed. They are unconstitutional.
States should "nullify" unconstitutional infringements of the Free Market by refusing to enforce unconstitutional federal mandates.
The Free Market gave us the best healthcare system in the world, until the goverment began meddling with it. More people get better quality healthcare under capitalism than under socialism.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
Congress has no constitutional authority to attempt to prevent oil slicks.
Oil slicks are best prevented by protecting private property and holding polluters liable for the damage they inflict on the private property of others.
Socialist governments have had a far more detrimental effect on the environment than capitalist businesses.
The federal government should stop subsidizing the oil industry and let a Free Market choose the clean energy it wants.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
Do we really have to choose between living in a Muslim state where women are forced to wear Burkas, or living in an Orwellian state where women can be seen naked by government airport screeners?
How about a nation of "Liberty Under God" where we enjoy the Fourth Amendment and the government does not invade and terrorize Muslim nations in order to pave the way for multinational oil pipelines?
Terrorism is "blowback" from unconstitutional U.S. foreign intervention. The answer to terrorism is not more unconstitutional domestic intervention. When Osama bin Laden declared a "fatwah" (holy war) on the U.S., he did so because the U.S. was killing Muslims. The U.S. should repent of its unconstitutional imperialism, even as Muslims should forgive the U.S.
for its sinful acts, rather than take vengeance on us.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
Cut federal spending. Abolish unconstitutional programs. Voters must stop demanding that the federal government steal from others and redistribute to the voters. This isn't rocket science.
The National Debt is also increased by the ability of the Federal Reserve System to engage in the "monetization of debt." This is a fancy phrase meaning "create money out of thin air." The new money is created into the hands of borrowers, whether private or public. The Constitution says that no state shall "make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts."
It is more difficult to create a gold debt than to create a paper debt. We must abolish the Fed.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
It can't. Abolish it. A Ponzi Scheme cannot be reformed.
It is an evil system, unethical and immoral.
If a private corporation administered its pension program the way the federal government administers Social Security, corporate officers would go to prison.
The Social Security system is Bernie Madoff on steroids.
Just like the last level of investors in a Ponzi Scheme are going to get ripped off, so an entire generation of Americans who expect Social Security benefits are going to lose. It is inevitable. Planning is better than denial.
Q&A with Kevin Craig, Libertarian canddiate for the Missouri 7th
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: Well, my only hope for being elected is if southwest Missouri’s voice is one for liberty. Too often I think our voters want security rather than liberty – which our founding fathers warned against. They think they can get something for nothing from Washington which is a real delusion. The Libertarian Party stands for liberty, the ideas of liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness and no government interference, personal responsibility (rather than government security). So unless that’s the voice of the voters, I won’t be the first Libertarian they send to Congress.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: Well, I think the most important issue is the big picture, not just one of these little issues. If the founding fathers were here, they would note that the Boston Tea Party – the tax was three pences per pound of tax – we pay ten times more on every gallon of gas. We pay 30 times more in taxes than they did in 1776 and I don’t think the Congress really represents us. We have what the founders would call a tyranny. The government they abolished in 1776 was nothing compared to the government we have today. And so we have to realize that we have a false god that we trust government rather than the divine providence that the Declaration of Independence talks about. That’s the big picture we need to shift to.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I think the rancor on Capitol Hill is caused by the Republicans and Democrats viewing politics as a competitive team sport. If the other team gets more pork for their constituents, we’ve got to get more pork for our constituents. They just ratchet up government spending and debt until we’re at the position we’re in now. Libertarians play the game of politics like golf. We play against the course: the Constitution. The Republicans and Democrats have handicaps of 100, 200. Libertarians are zero handicappers because we play the game of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: If the job is protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I’m the only one who is really committed to that principle. I think the other candidates, they want to bring home the bacon to the district, which means redistributing money from elsewhere, taking it here, which is an act of theft and only increases the size of our tyrannical government.
A: Well, my only hope for being elected is if southwest Missouri’s voice is one for liberty. Too often I think our voters want security rather than liberty – which our founding fathers warned against. They think they can get something for nothing from Washington which is a real delusion. The Libertarian Party stands for liberty, the ideas of liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness and no government interference, personal responsibility (rather than government security). So unless that’s the voice of the voters, I won’t be the first Libertarian they send to Congress.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: Well, I think the most important issue is the big picture, not just one of these little issues. If the founding fathers were here, they would note that the Boston Tea Party – the tax was three pences per pound of tax – we pay ten times more on every gallon of gas. We pay 30 times more in taxes than they did in 1776 and I don’t think the Congress really represents us. We have what the founders would call a tyranny. The government they abolished in 1776 was nothing compared to the government we have today. And so we have to realize that we have a false god that we trust government rather than the divine providence that the Declaration of Independence talks about. That’s the big picture we need to shift to.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I think the rancor on Capitol Hill is caused by the Republicans and Democrats viewing politics as a competitive team sport. If the other team gets more pork for their constituents, we’ve got to get more pork for our constituents. They just ratchet up government spending and debt until we’re at the position we’re in now. Libertarians play the game of politics like golf. We play against the course: the Constitution. The Republicans and Democrats have handicaps of 100, 200. Libertarians are zero handicappers because we play the game of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: If the job is protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I’m the only one who is really committed to that principle. I think the other candidates, they want to bring home the bacon to the district, which means redistributing money from elsewhere, taking it here, which is an act of theft and only increases the size of our tyrannical government.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Where Dean Moore stands on 8 key issues
Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
The border enforcement problem we have been facing for decades, is not really an “Immigration problem” - it’s a criminal alien problem. Immigrants are folks who immigrate to a country, folks who plan to make a life in their new country, assimilate to some extent and intend to become Americans. Those folks can still be proud of the old homeland, but expect to make their future as Americans. We are Blessed as a nation, that Freedom-loving people from every tribe and nation still want to come to these shores.
The people for whom the Arizona law is directed, are not those folks. Criminal aliens make their first impression upon the United States by breaking our laws, and have no intention of assimilating into our culture. I have no problem with folks wanting to become Americans, in fact I love it. I do have a problem with people trying to abuse the United States and the generosity of Americans.
I haven’t read the entire Arizona law yet, but it appears to be crafted to mirror existing federal law, only allowing law enforcement to ask legal status after being approached for something else. If so, it is entirely correct. Resident Aliens and visitors to the U.S. are already required to carry I.D. with them at all times while in the country, and anytime a citizen is stopped by law enforcement and questioned, it’s expected that we have to show I.D.
I agree that it’s a responsibility of the federal government to defend our national borders, The constitution requires the federal government to protect against invasion. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion... (Article 4 Section 4) Otherwise, the Constitution only really requires the federal government to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, section 8)
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a state cannot protect its own borders, in fact the assumption is that each state is sovereign and can work on its own behalf. I believe that in the Constitutional scheme of things, Arizona is fully within its sovereign rights to enforce its own border, and utilize for itself, existing federal laws for its own citizens welfare and protection.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
Restore manufacturing jobs, domestic energy, and lower taxes.
The single biggest force exporting jobs from the United States is the federal government and its overwhelming regulations and mandates (and taxes). We need to be encouraging manufacturing jobs here at home. How much of what you buy is still made in the USA? Not nearly as much as it was 30 years ago, I assure you. From light bulbs and wiper blades to appliances and sheetrock, much of what you buy is imported today, simply because it’s too expensive or even impossible to manufacture these items in the United States.
From the Zenith TV plant, here in Springfield, to textile plants, mining, the auto industry and all its suppliers are going overseas due to impossible overhead here in the states. The recent activity by the EPA over carbon dioxide is a key example. Moderate producers of carbon dioxide like small manufacturing companies are going to be treated as major polluters by the federal government. Small businesses will have to get permits and beg for the privilege of doing business. Energy-dependent industries such as agriculture, transportation and manufacturing will not be able to compete in a global economy, or in many cases even stay in business. We just cannot build things here as we used to, we need to build things here again if we are to grow our economy back to health.
Some industries have already seen the beginning of this unfolding tragedy. The EPA’s recently released, 125-page mandate on cement manufacturing regulation has all but locked down the industry in the United States. Cement companies have shut down plants due to the regulations that do not do anything for air or water quality above current regulations. As a result, hiring and investing will essentially be stopped, and imports of cement from overseas will increase.
If the upcoming greenhouse regulations are allowed to be put in place, any industry that relies on plants and factories that burn fuel will have to give up and relocate overseas for good. They will outsource what is left of our manufacturing economy not because of corporate greed but because Washington DC will have made it impossible to stay in business in the United States. Industries leave for Mexico or China, not because they want to, they leave because they cannot make a profit and compete when shackled by high taxes and often unreasonable regulations. I haven’t even gotten into the effects on agriculture, but these kinds of regulations will continue to drive our food supply overseas as well.
Today some people think that making a profit is somehow bad, but profit provides paychecks, raises, future growth for the company and dividends for your retirement accounts. Profits without morals is a bad thing, and States do have a legitimate duty to regulate, but we can have growth, without overbearing regulation, and need even less from the federal government.
We also need to be energy independent. There is simply no compelling reason to import as much oil as we do, and pay the going rate set by OPEC. We have all the necessary oil, coal and natural resources, as well as the best workforce in the world, and we squander it all by allowing the federal government to inject itself in areas that it does not have a clear Constitutional duty to do so. We need an “all of the above” energy policy to include coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and all the various other green sources where they make sense.
We also have serious infrastructure needs all over the United States. We need to be replacing power lines and gas lines for example. Utilities, governments and insurance companies spend billions each year on storm damage to power lines, I suggest that we encourage burying lines as much as possible, to avert storm damage, and even protect against possible attacks. This would create jobs for quite a while, and save money for years to come, as well as keep the power on for folks in times of need. We are Americans, and we can still do great things, but we don’t want or need the federal government to do it.
The House might start with lowering taxes on those that produce jobs, and lower taxes on those that work those jobs. Eliminating the many layers of regulatory agencies and bureaucracies would be another step in the right direction.
I would further suggest that repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing it with a consumption tax (such as the Fairtax), would go a long way towards working off our enormous debt and trade imbalance as well. Our current system is highly inefficient, and costly. It costs Americans Billions each year to comply with, and Trillions more in lost commerce and productivity. High taxes always stop or slow the affected activity, so why would you want to tax hard work? By taxing items only at the point of sale on new items, it allows families to decide when and where to pay their taxes, or to reduce their taxes by buying used items instead. I would oppose any VAT tax however, as it is regressive as well, and would be implemented on top of our current income tax.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
The federal government needs to get out of the education business altogether. At the most, it should perhaps establish grade level standards in association with the states, and administer a cheat-proof standardized test at various times during student’s educational career so parents can accurately judge their student’s education against other districts and states. The states need to administer education in conjunction with local schools and educators. Federal involvement in education has been a disastrous mistaken experiment, and has sentenced several generations of gifted Americans to a lower standard of living than they would have had otherwise. It has supported failing schools and beaurocrats and burdened the good schools unnecessarily as well.
As a former private school teacher, I have seen what a good student-parent-teacher relationship can produce, and what government top-down bureaucracy can produce. I think most parents want better for their kids than they are getting now, and most teachers do as well. Local control of schools puts the power where the interested parties are located, parents, students, local teachers and administrators.
A good teacher is a national treasure, and a resource not to be wasted. We spend about $9,300 per student per year nationally (about $235k per classroom of 25 kids) do you think we are getting our money’s worth? Do you like selling cookie dough and chocolate? I like my kid’s current schools here in Spokane, but how much better could they be if they had that money to use there on campus? Moreover, how much better could bad local schools get if parents and teachers had access to that amount at the campus level? It can be done better and cheaper, it happens every day in private schools all across the country. The school I taught at had an advertised tuition of $3500/yr, and many didn’t even pay that, yet with little money we outscored well funded government schools around us every year.
Currently our education system is over controlled, and under educating. We have smaller classes, bigger budgets and poorer results. Teachers and parents here at home know what works for their students, and should be the defining power, not bureaucrats in Virginia.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I do not support creating winners and losers with custom tailored regulations or with the tax code. An earmark is a legislative provision that directs funds to specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. While they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, creating regulations that favor one state over another is mentioned and prohibited. (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6) “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
I understand that this is how members of Congress bring home the pork for their home district, and that many people think it’s ok if their district benefits, but ALL Americans pay for these projects. Projects necessary to the United States need to be in the benefit of all of us, and if the best solution happens to be in your district, then great, we all benefit. I further understand that I may not bring home the pork to the 7th District as some may expect, but if we cut the special projects, everybody will benefit. Here in the 7th District we have so many great resources that don’t need back room deals to “help us out”.
I also support the idea of single-issue bills, no omnibus bills or add-on earmarks. All additions and amendments would have to have a direct and clear relation to the subject bill. All additions and amendments should also be clearly identifiable by author. Each congress has the ability and responsibility to set the rules for each session of congress, so I would support those kinds of rules..
I support the enumerated powers act, which would require every bill to show where in the Constitution that particular bill or idea is permitted. In Article 1 Section 8, the duties and responsibilities of the federal government are clearly spelled out, About 18 things. The general welfare clause and the supremacy clause also give the government some exclusive room to move on these things, but the 10th Amendment clearly limits the government to these things, and these things only. If we were focused on just these things, we would not be Trillions in debt.
I support the balanced budget Amendment, which would greatly limit spending sprees on our dime as well.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
States should nullify it as it is clearly beyond the scope of the federal government’s power, and then it should be repealed by a future congress, (despite Speaker Pelosi’s “cannot repeal” clause).
Healthcare should be between you and your doctor. Prices could be better controlled by several means, competition is one, listing prices for common procedures, and allowing people to change plans outside of open enrollment, as well as tort reform would do much more to control costs, this current plan will only reduce care, and increase costs. We also need to educate people on the difference between health insurance for catastrophic illnesses, and routine healthcare. Nobody is denied emergency care, and people without insurance do have the ability to pay for services on their own (which is sometimes cheaper anyway) Forcing citizens to buy insurance under penalty of fines and jail is moronic.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
Yes, drill anywhere it can be done cleanly, and with regard to state input. If we were drilling more on land, we wouldn’t need to drill in 5000 ft of water. We have trillions of barrels of oil on shore, and hundreds or thousands of years of natural resources on tap here, but since Congress has put most of it off-limits, oil companies must drill offshore where it’s harder and more expensive, the risk of disaster is also much higher. I don’t know how to prevent this from happening again. We have been drilling in the gulf for decades; this is our first incident of this scope. The rigs are supposed to have “Christmas trees” that cut the flow of oil in case of trouble; this was an exploratory drill I hear, so perhaps it wasn’t installed yet? This spill will have ramifications for decades to come, and must be addressed, it should have been ringed within hours, and a plan implemented to cap the well. At the time of this writing, the government and BP have both appeared to act horribly slow in this event.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
75% of the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, and should be repealed and nullified. Any attempt to read emails or tap into communications of any American citizen, should follow the guidance of the Constitution and 4th Amendment. However, I do not think that the 4th Amendment applies to criminal aliens, some foreign nationals, and terrorists in particular. The Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, legal visitors, and guests, Illegal visitors and enemy combatants do not have full Constitutional rights, they do have basic human rights, just not Constitutional rights.
That said, there is no right to get on an airplane, but the public has every reason to feel safe in a public place within the United States. Airport body scanners are a terrible invasion of personal privacy, and unnecessary if we would use common sense and proper use of profiling passengers.
The aversion to “profiling” is absurd, if Catholic nuns were blowing up planes, I wouldn’t support frisking the Amish. I understand that Muslims would be upset with being singled out, but I would be more sympathetic if they were more outraged by terrorist acts within their ranks. Flying Imams and dancing in the streets after 9-11 really isn’t helping their case. If Baptists were blowing up planes, I would understand it when I was stopped and checked at the airport. But stopping everyone so as not to offend one group I cannot tolerate.
If people enjoy their personal freedoms, they should realize that freedom comes with responsibility. However the real issue is not just freedom, its liberty. The liberties of any American citizen should never be infringed without the protections of Constitutional due process. Freedom and liberty are not free, they have been paid for with a very high price, and are worth defending. I am also opposed to a national ID, and any ID with biometric information included in it. I’m opposed to OBD III in our cars and any other mandatory tracking technology.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
Cut federal spending and grow the economy.
We realistically can only grow out of the hole we are in. This hole was dug pretty deep by many factors, but most of them had the government and bad policy in common. From Fannie and Freddie encouraging bad loans with our money, to the EPA running many manufacturing industries overseas and government agencies contracting out for $1800 hammers and $200 textbooks.
We need to drastically cut federal spending and eliminate entire federal agencies. The states are fully able to take on many of these activities, and in many cases are already doing many things concurrently with the federal government.
The people of the United States need lower taxes so the economy can grow; we need our manufacturing jobs to return to the United States, we need access to OUR stable domestic energy. Government jobs do not grow the economy; I understand that over a lifetime, a typical federal job requires 11 typical taxpayers to pay for it, which is simply not sustainable.
The federal government only has about 18 Constitutional responsibilities, if we were only doing 18 things, instead of 18,000 we wouldn’t be bankrupt. The 10th Amendment says that everything beyond those delegated to the federal government, are the responsibility of the states, or the people. As screwed up as Jeff City is, we have more control of the Public servants there, than we do the ones in Washington D.C.
The border enforcement problem we have been facing for decades, is not really an “Immigration problem” - it’s a criminal alien problem. Immigrants are folks who immigrate to a country, folks who plan to make a life in their new country, assimilate to some extent and intend to become Americans. Those folks can still be proud of the old homeland, but expect to make their future as Americans. We are Blessed as a nation, that Freedom-loving people from every tribe and nation still want to come to these shores.
The people for whom the Arizona law is directed, are not those folks. Criminal aliens make their first impression upon the United States by breaking our laws, and have no intention of assimilating into our culture. I have no problem with folks wanting to become Americans, in fact I love it. I do have a problem with people trying to abuse the United States and the generosity of Americans.
I haven’t read the entire Arizona law yet, but it appears to be crafted to mirror existing federal law, only allowing law enforcement to ask legal status after being approached for something else. If so, it is entirely correct. Resident Aliens and visitors to the U.S. are already required to carry I.D. with them at all times while in the country, and anytime a citizen is stopped by law enforcement and questioned, it’s expected that we have to show I.D.
I agree that it’s a responsibility of the federal government to defend our national borders, The constitution requires the federal government to protect against invasion. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion... (Article 4 Section 4) Otherwise, the Constitution only really requires the federal government to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, section 8)
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a state cannot protect its own borders, in fact the assumption is that each state is sovereign and can work on its own behalf. I believe that in the Constitutional scheme of things, Arizona is fully within its sovereign rights to enforce its own border, and utilize for itself, existing federal laws for its own citizens welfare and protection.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
Restore manufacturing jobs, domestic energy, and lower taxes.
The single biggest force exporting jobs from the United States is the federal government and its overwhelming regulations and mandates (and taxes). We need to be encouraging manufacturing jobs here at home. How much of what you buy is still made in the USA? Not nearly as much as it was 30 years ago, I assure you. From light bulbs and wiper blades to appliances and sheetrock, much of what you buy is imported today, simply because it’s too expensive or even impossible to manufacture these items in the United States.
From the Zenith TV plant, here in Springfield, to textile plants, mining, the auto industry and all its suppliers are going overseas due to impossible overhead here in the states. The recent activity by the EPA over carbon dioxide is a key example. Moderate producers of carbon dioxide like small manufacturing companies are going to be treated as major polluters by the federal government. Small businesses will have to get permits and beg for the privilege of doing business. Energy-dependent industries such as agriculture, transportation and manufacturing will not be able to compete in a global economy, or in many cases even stay in business. We just cannot build things here as we used to, we need to build things here again if we are to grow our economy back to health.
Some industries have already seen the beginning of this unfolding tragedy. The EPA’s recently released, 125-page mandate on cement manufacturing regulation has all but locked down the industry in the United States. Cement companies have shut down plants due to the regulations that do not do anything for air or water quality above current regulations. As a result, hiring and investing will essentially be stopped, and imports of cement from overseas will increase.
If the upcoming greenhouse regulations are allowed to be put in place, any industry that relies on plants and factories that burn fuel will have to give up and relocate overseas for good. They will outsource what is left of our manufacturing economy not because of corporate greed but because Washington DC will have made it impossible to stay in business in the United States. Industries leave for Mexico or China, not because they want to, they leave because they cannot make a profit and compete when shackled by high taxes and often unreasonable regulations. I haven’t even gotten into the effects on agriculture, but these kinds of regulations will continue to drive our food supply overseas as well.
Today some people think that making a profit is somehow bad, but profit provides paychecks, raises, future growth for the company and dividends for your retirement accounts. Profits without morals is a bad thing, and States do have a legitimate duty to regulate, but we can have growth, without overbearing regulation, and need even less from the federal government.
We also need to be energy independent. There is simply no compelling reason to import as much oil as we do, and pay the going rate set by OPEC. We have all the necessary oil, coal and natural resources, as well as the best workforce in the world, and we squander it all by allowing the federal government to inject itself in areas that it does not have a clear Constitutional duty to do so. We need an “all of the above” energy policy to include coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and all the various other green sources where they make sense.
We also have serious infrastructure needs all over the United States. We need to be replacing power lines and gas lines for example. Utilities, governments and insurance companies spend billions each year on storm damage to power lines, I suggest that we encourage burying lines as much as possible, to avert storm damage, and even protect against possible attacks. This would create jobs for quite a while, and save money for years to come, as well as keep the power on for folks in times of need. We are Americans, and we can still do great things, but we don’t want or need the federal government to do it.
The House might start with lowering taxes on those that produce jobs, and lower taxes on those that work those jobs. Eliminating the many layers of regulatory agencies and bureaucracies would be another step in the right direction.
I would further suggest that repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing it with a consumption tax (such as the Fairtax), would go a long way towards working off our enormous debt and trade imbalance as well. Our current system is highly inefficient, and costly. It costs Americans Billions each year to comply with, and Trillions more in lost commerce and productivity. High taxes always stop or slow the affected activity, so why would you want to tax hard work? By taxing items only at the point of sale on new items, it allows families to decide when and where to pay their taxes, or to reduce their taxes by buying used items instead. I would oppose any VAT tax however, as it is regressive as well, and would be implemented on top of our current income tax.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
The federal government needs to get out of the education business altogether. At the most, it should perhaps establish grade level standards in association with the states, and administer a cheat-proof standardized test at various times during student’s educational career so parents can accurately judge their student’s education against other districts and states. The states need to administer education in conjunction with local schools and educators. Federal involvement in education has been a disastrous mistaken experiment, and has sentenced several generations of gifted Americans to a lower standard of living than they would have had otherwise. It has supported failing schools and beaurocrats and burdened the good schools unnecessarily as well.
As a former private school teacher, I have seen what a good student-parent-teacher relationship can produce, and what government top-down bureaucracy can produce. I think most parents want better for their kids than they are getting now, and most teachers do as well. Local control of schools puts the power where the interested parties are located, parents, students, local teachers and administrators.
A good teacher is a national treasure, and a resource not to be wasted. We spend about $9,300 per student per year nationally (about $235k per classroom of 25 kids) do you think we are getting our money’s worth? Do you like selling cookie dough and chocolate? I like my kid’s current schools here in Spokane, but how much better could they be if they had that money to use there on campus? Moreover, how much better could bad local schools get if parents and teachers had access to that amount at the campus level? It can be done better and cheaper, it happens every day in private schools all across the country. The school I taught at had an advertised tuition of $3500/yr, and many didn’t even pay that, yet with little money we outscored well funded government schools around us every year.
Currently our education system is over controlled, and under educating. We have smaller classes, bigger budgets and poorer results. Teachers and parents here at home know what works for their students, and should be the defining power, not bureaucrats in Virginia.
Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I do not support creating winners and losers with custom tailored regulations or with the tax code. An earmark is a legislative provision that directs funds to specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. While they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, creating regulations that favor one state over another is mentioned and prohibited. (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6) “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
I understand that this is how members of Congress bring home the pork for their home district, and that many people think it’s ok if their district benefits, but ALL Americans pay for these projects. Projects necessary to the United States need to be in the benefit of all of us, and if the best solution happens to be in your district, then great, we all benefit. I further understand that I may not bring home the pork to the 7th District as some may expect, but if we cut the special projects, everybody will benefit. Here in the 7th District we have so many great resources that don’t need back room deals to “help us out”.
I also support the idea of single-issue bills, no omnibus bills or add-on earmarks. All additions and amendments would have to have a direct and clear relation to the subject bill. All additions and amendments should also be clearly identifiable by author. Each congress has the ability and responsibility to set the rules for each session of congress, so I would support those kinds of rules..
I support the enumerated powers act, which would require every bill to show where in the Constitution that particular bill or idea is permitted. In Article 1 Section 8, the duties and responsibilities of the federal government are clearly spelled out, About 18 things. The general welfare clause and the supremacy clause also give the government some exclusive room to move on these things, but the 10th Amendment clearly limits the government to these things, and these things only. If we were focused on just these things, we would not be Trillions in debt.
I support the balanced budget Amendment, which would greatly limit spending sprees on our dime as well.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
States should nullify it as it is clearly beyond the scope of the federal government’s power, and then it should be repealed by a future congress, (despite Speaker Pelosi’s “cannot repeal” clause).
Healthcare should be between you and your doctor. Prices could be better controlled by several means, competition is one, listing prices for common procedures, and allowing people to change plans outside of open enrollment, as well as tort reform would do much more to control costs, this current plan will only reduce care, and increase costs. We also need to educate people on the difference between health insurance for catastrophic illnesses, and routine healthcare. Nobody is denied emergency care, and people without insurance do have the ability to pay for services on their own (which is sometimes cheaper anyway) Forcing citizens to buy insurance under penalty of fines and jail is moronic.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
Yes, drill anywhere it can be done cleanly, and with regard to state input. If we were drilling more on land, we wouldn’t need to drill in 5000 ft of water. We have trillions of barrels of oil on shore, and hundreds or thousands of years of natural resources on tap here, but since Congress has put most of it off-limits, oil companies must drill offshore where it’s harder and more expensive, the risk of disaster is also much higher. I don’t know how to prevent this from happening again. We have been drilling in the gulf for decades; this is our first incident of this scope. The rigs are supposed to have “Christmas trees” that cut the flow of oil in case of trouble; this was an exploratory drill I hear, so perhaps it wasn’t installed yet? This spill will have ramifications for decades to come, and must be addressed, it should have been ringed within hours, and a plan implemented to cap the well. At the time of this writing, the government and BP have both appeared to act horribly slow in this event.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
75% of the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, and should be repealed and nullified. Any attempt to read emails or tap into communications of any American citizen, should follow the guidance of the Constitution and 4th Amendment. However, I do not think that the 4th Amendment applies to criminal aliens, some foreign nationals, and terrorists in particular. The Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, legal visitors, and guests, Illegal visitors and enemy combatants do not have full Constitutional rights, they do have basic human rights, just not Constitutional rights.
That said, there is no right to get on an airplane, but the public has every reason to feel safe in a public place within the United States. Airport body scanners are a terrible invasion of personal privacy, and unnecessary if we would use common sense and proper use of profiling passengers.
The aversion to “profiling” is absurd, if Catholic nuns were blowing up planes, I wouldn’t support frisking the Amish. I understand that Muslims would be upset with being singled out, but I would be more sympathetic if they were more outraged by terrorist acts within their ranks. Flying Imams and dancing in the streets after 9-11 really isn’t helping their case. If Baptists were blowing up planes, I would understand it when I was stopped and checked at the airport. But stopping everyone so as not to offend one group I cannot tolerate.
If people enjoy their personal freedoms, they should realize that freedom comes with responsibility. However the real issue is not just freedom, its liberty. The liberties of any American citizen should never be infringed without the protections of Constitutional due process. Freedom and liberty are not free, they have been paid for with a very high price, and are worth defending. I am also opposed to a national ID, and any ID with biometric information included in it. I’m opposed to OBD III in our cars and any other mandatory tracking technology.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
Cut federal spending and grow the economy.
We realistically can only grow out of the hole we are in. This hole was dug pretty deep by many factors, but most of them had the government and bad policy in common. From Fannie and Freddie encouraging bad loans with our money, to the EPA running many manufacturing industries overseas and government agencies contracting out for $1800 hammers and $200 textbooks.
We need to drastically cut federal spending and eliminate entire federal agencies. The states are fully able to take on many of these activities, and in many cases are already doing many things concurrently with the federal government.
The people of the United States need lower taxes so the economy can grow; we need our manufacturing jobs to return to the United States, we need access to OUR stable domestic energy. Government jobs do not grow the economy; I understand that over a lifetime, a typical federal job requires 11 typical taxpayers to pay for it, which is simply not sustainable.
The federal government only has about 18 Constitutional responsibilities, if we were only doing 18 things, instead of 18,000 we wouldn’t be bankrupt. The 10th Amendment says that everything beyond those delegated to the federal government, are the responsibility of the states, or the people. As screwed up as Jeff City is, we have more control of the Public servants there, than we do the ones in Washington D.C.
Q&A with Dean Moore, independent candidate for Congress
by Joe Daues, KSPR News
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: My whole platform is essentially the United States Constitution. It starts off with, "We the People." The people are in charge of our government. In our day and age, it’s more like the government lords it over the people. But the people really control the government. And as an independent, I’m not going to be sitting in some cubicle for the first two years raising money for a party. Representative Massa, when he left a few weeks, months ago, kind of let the cat out of the bag that as a freshman representative, for either party, you’re going to be sitting in a cubicle for 10 hours a day for most of your time, raising money for the party. As an independent, I won’t be doing that at all. I can go right out and try and enforce the Constitution.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: Jobs and the loss of our manufacturing base. The United States government is the number one source of our jobs leaving the United States for foreign countries. The EPA, overregulation, high taxes – all these things are things the government directly does that directly impacts the lack of jobs in our economy. By trimming government back to its Constitutional foundations, we can bring most of those jobs back.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: As an independent, I’m not bound by either party’s pet interest groups. I’m there to represent the people. I’m there to be a representative of the people in the 7th district and to enforce the Constitution which gives them the power, not the parties and not any political hierarchy or whatever.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: There’s a lot of good people in this race. I think I’ve been uniquely gifted. I’ve lived in California. I was a youth pastor out there. I taught Christian high school out there. I’ve seen where the wrong road goes. A lot of people are busy living their life here. They don’t understand where we’re going. Maybe they do but they haven’t lived it. I’ve seen where this goes and I know the people in the 7th district don’t want to go there.
Learn more about Dean Moore's campaign at his website.
Find out where Dean Moore stands on eight key issues.
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: My whole platform is essentially the United States Constitution. It starts off with, "We the People." The people are in charge of our government. In our day and age, it’s more like the government lords it over the people. But the people really control the government. And as an independent, I’m not going to be sitting in some cubicle for the first two years raising money for a party. Representative Massa, when he left a few weeks, months ago, kind of let the cat out of the bag that as a freshman representative, for either party, you’re going to be sitting in a cubicle for 10 hours a day for most of your time, raising money for the party. As an independent, I won’t be doing that at all. I can go right out and try and enforce the Constitution.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: Jobs and the loss of our manufacturing base. The United States government is the number one source of our jobs leaving the United States for foreign countries. The EPA, overregulation, high taxes – all these things are things the government directly does that directly impacts the lack of jobs in our economy. By trimming government back to its Constitutional foundations, we can bring most of those jobs back.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: As an independent, I’m not bound by either party’s pet interest groups. I’m there to represent the people. I’m there to be a representative of the people in the 7th district and to enforce the Constitution which gives them the power, not the parties and not any political hierarchy or whatever.
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: There’s a lot of good people in this race. I think I’ve been uniquely gifted. I’ve lived in California. I was a youth pastor out there. I taught Christian high school out there. I’ve seen where the wrong road goes. A lot of people are busy living their life here. They don’t understand where we’re going. Maybe they do but they haven’t lived it. I’ve seen where this goes and I know the people in the 7th district don’t want to go there.
Learn more about Dean Moore's campaign at his website.
Find out where Dean Moore stands on eight key issues.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Where Mike Moon stands on 9 key issues
A: Effective methods of immigration and naturalization are in place to provide opportunities for those desiring to become a citizen of the great United States. To offer complete amnesty to illegal immigrants, whether South American (Mexican), North American (Canadian), European, Asian, or otherwise would be a “slap in the face” to those who have completed the naturalization process. Anyone coming to the United States should have a purpose and every immigrant should have possession of proper credentials. Anyone found to be in the States illegally should be detained and ultimately deported. Anyone found to be providing employment to illegal immigrants should be fined and/or imprisoned. Anything short of this will only perpetuate the problem.
The Arizona law, although not “politically correct” is Constitutional and is already producing the desired results: illegals are threatening to leave the State (and the law is not expected to take effect until the summer of 2010).
Here’s a humorous, yet truthful, view of how some compare the U.S. with other nations:
If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded as a spy.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison.
If you cross the U.S border illegally, you get:
- a job;
- a driver’s license;
- a social security card
- welfare;
- food stamps;
- subsidized rent;
- free education;
- free health care;
- and the right to carry your country’s flag while you protest against the United States.
Lastly, prolific writer, Jeannie DeAngelis asks a pointed question: If someone 9 months pregnant broke into your house, gave birth in your living room and then claimed to own the house because the baby was born there, would you set up a nursery, move out of the top floor into the basement and keep paying the mortgage?
Sound familiar? This is a picture of what happens when illegal immigrants make their way to the States, deliver a baby and stake claim to our country! Let’s help them find their way back home! Kudos to Arizona!
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
People work to provide for themselves and their families’ needs; and to prosper: to save; to invest; and to increase personal wealth. Oppressive taxation and unnecessary regulation stifles production and punishes individual efforts to earn greater amounts of money. As a result, loop holes are searched for and created to circumvent the tax laws. While this “creates” jobs for some, especially those in the government sector, it chokes the life out of a healthy economy. The best thing the government can do to promote economic growth and private sector jobs is to allow business to do what it does best by taking a “laissez-faire” (leave it alone) approach, reduce taxation, and unnecessary regulation.
The Arizona law, although not “politically correct” is Constitutional and is already producing the desired results: illegals are threatening to leave the State (and the law is not expected to take effect until the summer of 2010).
Here’s a humorous, yet truthful, view of how some compare the U.S. with other nations:
If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded as a spy.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison.
If you cross the U.S border illegally, you get:
- a job;
- a driver’s license;
- a social security card
- welfare;
- food stamps;
- subsidized rent;
- free education;
- free health care;
- and the right to carry your country’s flag while you protest against the United States.
Lastly, prolific writer, Jeannie DeAngelis asks a pointed question: If someone 9 months pregnant broke into your house, gave birth in your living room and then claimed to own the house because the baby was born there, would you set up a nursery, move out of the top floor into the basement and keep paying the mortgage?
Sound familiar? This is a picture of what happens when illegal immigrants make their way to the States, deliver a baby and stake claim to our country! Let’s help them find their way back home! Kudos to Arizona!
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?
People work to provide for themselves and their families’ needs; and to prosper: to save; to invest; and to increase personal wealth. Oppressive taxation and unnecessary regulation stifles production and punishes individual efforts to earn greater amounts of money. As a result, loop holes are searched for and created to circumvent the tax laws. While this “creates” jobs for some, especially those in the government sector, it chokes the life out of a healthy economy. The best thing the government can do to promote economic growth and private sector jobs is to allow business to do what it does best by taking a “laissez-faire” (leave it alone) approach, reduce taxation, and unnecessary regulation.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
A: Eliminate the federal Department of Education and return complete control of education to the States. The primary responsibility of educating children lies with parents. Placing all education decisions under parental authority will allow parents to be in control of their children’s education. This renewed influence will foster more parental involvement, resulting in the student’s desire to learn, and stimulate competition between schools. In time, the United States will rise to the top when compared to the educational standards of competing nations.
A: Eliminate the federal Department of Education and return complete control of education to the States. The primary responsibility of educating children lies with parents. Placing all education decisions under parental authority will allow parents to be in control of their children’s education. This renewed influence will foster more parental involvement, resulting in the student’s desire to learn, and stimulate competition between schools. In time, the United States will rise to the top when compared to the educational standards of competing nations.
A: Article 1.8.1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to tax and … “promote the general welfare” of the United States. The word general refers to the whole as in all the States of the Union. The founder’s original intent was to distribute the money collected by taxation among the States according to population, not to a specific State, a specific district, a specific business, or a specific individual. The process of earmarking changes the original intent of the founding Fathers. Earmarking promotes a “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” mentality among elected officials, an approach of bringing home the “pork” to a specific district (despite the Nation’s economic condition), and breeds corruption.
According to the Republican Party Platform’s plan to control spending, “Earmarking must stop.” I agree.
According to the Republican Party Platform’s plan to control spending, “Earmarking must stop.” I agree.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
A: Repeal the healthcare law, pass tort reform, and allow individual citizens to make their own personal health care decisions.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
A: Article 1.8.17 of the Constitution gives the federal government authority to own a 10 square mile section of land, presently Washington, D.C., and “over all places purchased by consent of the State legislature… for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings….”
A: Repeal the healthcare law, pass tort reform, and allow individual citizens to make their own personal health care decisions.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
A: Article 1.8.17 of the Constitution gives the federal government authority to own a 10 square mile section of land, presently Washington, D.C., and “over all places purchased by consent of the State legislature… for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings….”
According to the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, when new territories were granted statehood, the people of the state would be given the opportunity to acquire all but a small area of land to be use by the federal government for the aforementioned purpose. The federal government owns 96% of Alaska, 87% of Nevada, and extremely large portions of other western states. These federally owned lands have not been used for the purposes authorized in the Constitution and, therefore, should be sold to the citizens of the respective states (proceeds from the sale could be use to reduce our national debt). The decision to drill for oil would then be in the hands of the legislature of the respective States. Energy independence is within our reach. This would be a step in that direction.
Oil companies should take every precaution to avoid an oil spill. If/when a spill occurs, the company should be held responsible for clean-up and restoration.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
Oil companies should take every precaution to avoid an oil spill. If/when a spill occurs, the company should be held responsible for clean-up and restoration.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
Americans, for the most part, appreciate the liberties and freedoms we have come to know and enjoy. Most realize trading security and protection for freedom and liberty results in a loss of freedom and liberty. It is also apparent that a fine line exists between the over-reaching arm of government and the private lives of U.S. citizens. The opportunity for abuse is ever present. The IV Amendment to the Constitution affords protection of our personal property from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Certainly, no freedom-loving U.S. citizen wants another 9/11. At the same time, no clear-thinking U.S. citizen wants intrusive government (including unbridled wire-tapping, the search of personal records, etc.). In the end, for our government to be able to fulfill its duty to “provide for the common defence” it appears that we must allow our military and law enforcement agencies some leeway in securing necessary intelligence of our enemies – both foreign and domestic. Still, there must be checks and balances between necessary government and the precious freedom of the people. To ensure the balance, we must elect representatives we trust to keep the government in check. Then, and only then, will we be able to rest easy, knowing that our freedoms are protected without unnecessary invasion.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
A: Many Cabinet-level positions could be eliminated to cut spending and in turn reduce the federal debt. I would begin with the Czars (in alphabetical order): Afghanistan, Aids, Auto Recovery, Border, Car, Domestic Violence, Drug, Economic, Energy and Environment, Faith-based, Great Lakes, Green Jobs, Guantanamo, Health, Information, International Climate, Mideast Peace, Regulatory, Science, Stimulus Accountability, Sudan, Tarp, Terrorism, Technology, Urban Affairs, Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The following is an incomplete list of departments and agencies to consider cutting:
Various agencies with the Department of Health and Human Services
Small Business Administration
Energy
Education
Ambassador to the United Nations (and dues paid to the U.N.)
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Housing and Urban Development
The Social Security Administration must be phased out to allow younger workers to plan and fund their retirement and pay promised benefits to older workers and those already retired.
The responsibility of welfare and other entitlements must also be returned to the States. Local controls will allow for better oversight and elimination of fraud.
There are hundreds of additional agencies which must be scrutinized for Constitutional authority, necessity, and effectiveness. The money saved from these programs should be used to pay down the debt.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Promises made to U. S. citizens must be honored. A plan to privatize Social Security without reneging on prior commitments is necessary because the plan, as it stands today, is not sustainable. Furthermore, the amount of money paid by the plan will not sustain individuals during retirement. Currently, there are three workers contributing to Social Security for each recipient. By 2030, it is estimated that there will be only two contributors for each recipient. Following retirement from regular employment, supplemental retirement plans are necessary for most individuals to maintain the chosen lifestyle. It is logical then, to allow workers, especially those just entering the workforce, to invest their earnings in an account of their choosing – and enjoy the freedom of taking full responsibility for their retirement earnings. This is the American way!
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
A: Many Cabinet-level positions could be eliminated to cut spending and in turn reduce the federal debt. I would begin with the Czars (in alphabetical order): Afghanistan, Aids, Auto Recovery, Border, Car, Domestic Violence, Drug, Economic, Energy and Environment, Faith-based, Great Lakes, Green Jobs, Guantanamo, Health, Information, International Climate, Mideast Peace, Regulatory, Science, Stimulus Accountability, Sudan, Tarp, Terrorism, Technology, Urban Affairs, Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The following is an incomplete list of departments and agencies to consider cutting:
Various agencies with the Department of Health and Human Services
Small Business Administration
Energy
Education
Ambassador to the United Nations (and dues paid to the U.N.)
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Housing and Urban Development
The Social Security Administration must be phased out to allow younger workers to plan and fund their retirement and pay promised benefits to older workers and those already retired.
The responsibility of welfare and other entitlements must also be returned to the States. Local controls will allow for better oversight and elimination of fraud.
There are hundreds of additional agencies which must be scrutinized for Constitutional authority, necessity, and effectiveness. The money saved from these programs should be used to pay down the debt.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Promises made to U. S. citizens must be honored. A plan to privatize Social Security without reneging on prior commitments is necessary because the plan, as it stands today, is not sustainable. Furthermore, the amount of money paid by the plan will not sustain individuals during retirement. Currently, there are three workers contributing to Social Security for each recipient. By 2030, it is estimated that there will be only two contributors for each recipient. Following retirement from regular employment, supplemental retirement plans are necessary for most individuals to maintain the chosen lifestyle. It is logical then, to allow workers, especially those just entering the workforce, to invest their earnings in an account of their choosing – and enjoy the freedom of taking full responsibility for their retirement earnings. This is the American way!
Q&A with Mike Moon, Republican candidate for Congress
By Joe Daues, KSPR News
Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?
A: 435 people in the Congress. As you probably realize Joe, freshmen Congressmen probably sit on the fringe of the floor and they’re probably not going to be given a lot of emphasis and floor time. In fact, at the end of each day, they will generally, as historically is done, give one minute to each Congressman to say whatever they want to during the last minute. Probably, not a whole lot on the floor. But I will be making friends and meeting all the other Congressional leaders.
In fact, right now, I’m doing some comparison, contrast each Monday morning where I’m able to take a look at some conservatives, some not-so conservatives Congressional leaders and just determine what their view points are to get to know them beforehand. So when I get there, I’ll be a step ahead.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: There are lots of issues. I believe that getting people back to work is one of them. How do we create jobs in southwest Missouri? Can the government in Washington, D.C., create jobs? Yes they can. In fact, in this economy, we’re losing jobs nationwide. But the government is increasing jobs – that’s kind of strange. They don’t produce a product; all they do is collect taxes. As long as they collect taxes, they’ll be able to employ people. When that’s stops, it’s going to be changed. I think (reducing) taxation and reducing the regulation on companies and individuals will be what produces jobs and brings that back to the district.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I’m not going to Congress to be popular. I think I’m going to add to it. But I’m going to do it from a constitutional standpoint. I believe the greatest charter ever written was the U.S. Constitution. It’s not being followed by the majority of Congressional leaders. So, I’m going to be holding my Constitution up just like I’ve got here right today and say, “Guys, we’ve got to follow it. It’s the rulebook we have to follow.”
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: I rub elbows and shoulders everyday with working people. I know their concerns. I’ve gained their trust. I probably don’t have the biggest name recognition but I’m meeting people who believe in what I’ve got to say. Mikemoonforcongress.dom is where you need go look.
Learn more about Mike Moon's campaign at his website.
Find out where Mike Moon stands on nine key issues.
A: 435 people in the Congress. As you probably realize Joe, freshmen Congressmen probably sit on the fringe of the floor and they’re probably not going to be given a lot of emphasis and floor time. In fact, at the end of each day, they will generally, as historically is done, give one minute to each Congressman to say whatever they want to during the last minute. Probably, not a whole lot on the floor. But I will be making friends and meeting all the other Congressional leaders.
In fact, right now, I’m doing some comparison, contrast each Monday morning where I’m able to take a look at some conservatives, some not-so conservatives Congressional leaders and just determine what their view points are to get to know them beforehand. So when I get there, I’ll be a step ahead.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?
A: There are lots of issues. I believe that getting people back to work is one of them. How do we create jobs in southwest Missouri? Can the government in Washington, D.C., create jobs? Yes they can. In fact, in this economy, we’re losing jobs nationwide. But the government is increasing jobs – that’s kind of strange. They don’t produce a product; all they do is collect taxes. As long as they collect taxes, they’ll be able to employ people. When that’s stops, it’s going to be changed. I think (reducing) taxation and reducing the regulation on companies and individuals will be what produces jobs and brings that back to the district.
Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I’m not going to Congress to be popular. I think I’m going to add to it. But I’m going to do it from a constitutional standpoint. I believe the greatest charter ever written was the U.S. Constitution. It’s not being followed by the majority of Congressional leaders. So, I’m going to be holding my Constitution up just like I’ve got here right today and say, “Guys, we’ve got to follow it. It’s the rulebook we have to follow.”
Q: What makes you the right person for this job?
A: I rub elbows and shoulders everyday with working people. I know their concerns. I’ve gained their trust. I probably don’t have the biggest name recognition but I’m meeting people who believe in what I’ve got to say. Mikemoonforcongress.dom is where you need go look.
Learn more about Mike Moon's campaign at his website.
Find out where Mike Moon stands on nine key issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)