10. I have discussed specific cuts that can and need to be made in Washington.
Jordan has offered platitudes, generic sound bytes, and vague proposals.
9. I have laid-out my goal on taxes as centering on permanently scrapping the current tax code in favor of a 10% Flat Tax as part of a 10-year (maximum) plan to transition toward the Fair Tax.
Jordan proposes making token, one-year tax cuts on a limited basis, which will do nothing to alleviate the market uncertainty that is squelching economic recovery.
8. I have made returning the federal government to its Constitutional constraints the focal point of my campaign.
Jordan never even uttered the word “Constitution” in any appearances we made together.
7. On legalization of marijuana, I laid out the case for it based on the fact it is clearly less dangerous than alcohol, can be taxed and regulated seamlessly under the same auspices as alcohol, and the ongoing prohibition against it is recreating the same disastrous results in our country as we witnessed historically with the 18th Amendment.
When asked to explain where he would “draw the line” when it comes to deciding which intoxicants should and should not be legal, Attorney Jordan ran with the literal definition of that phrase instead of differentiating between alcohol and marijuana, which was the obvious intent of the question.
6. I have been clear and unwavering in my opposition to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, arguing clearly on the grounds of its unconstitutionality.
Jordan is fully on board with it, which no real Libertarian – capital-L, small-L, or misspelled – can embrace with a clear conscience.
5. On immigration, I have outlined fortifying and completing the physical barrier along our southern border, drawing down the trillion-dollar war on drugs and redirecting much of those federal resources toward border security, coordination with state and local authorities, and reinstituting an Ellis Island-style format for entry into the United States by foreign nationals.
Jordan has rehashed completing the border fence (which all three of us running in this race favor) and then pumped us full of his feel-good story of witnessing a naturalization ceremony.
4. I have pointed out, in detail, that Jordan’s proposal for a 2008 baseline federal spending plan still leaves the United States with a roughly quarter-trillion-dollar deficit that risks driving the national debt well in excess of our GDP before we can reasonably expect to balance the budget.
Jordan has had nothing but silence in response.
3. I have explained thoroughly that within five years we are at severe risk of not only our payments on the national debt but also the staggering amount of interest resulting from it becoming the majority of federal expenditures if rapid reductions in spending are not made, as opposed to Jordan’s plan for a gradual phasing-out of deficit spending.
Jordan stared at me with a blank look on his face.
2. Rough and unpolished as I may be in my public appearances, I speak from the heart and tell you exactly what’s on my mind.
Jordan spits out tried-and-true talking points from the GOP campaigning play book.
1. I offer voters what the majority of us across Ohio and America have been craving: an opportunity to buck politics-as-usual by electing someone who will stand apart from Washington’s either-or setup that has seen both major parties trade places on growing government.
Jordan pledges to be a right-wing parrot who is perfectly content playing follow-the-leader behind John Boehner.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Jordan's economic ideas disappoint
Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) may be among the most conservative members of the U.S. House or Representatives. That does not automatically mean, however, that he can offer any viable ideas on turning around our economy or controlling federal spending.
Among his top proposals for reining-in deficit spending is for the federal government to return to fiscal year 2008 spending levels and freeze total federal expenditures at such an outlay (approx. $2.9 trillion) as a baseline for future fiscal year budgets for an undetermined length of time thereafter.
So, what Jordan is proposing as a gleaming example of fiscal conservatism is instead of the nearly $1-and-a-half trillion deficit we face in FY 2010, we should embrace nearly a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar deficit.
The first problem with this strategy is we still are measuring the federal deficit in terms of trillions-of-dollars. So, Jordan’s grand plan is to take the government from grotesquely unsustainable to only fairly unsustainable in its spending habits.
This leads us to the other major flaw in Jordan’s plan. Obviously what Jordan is trying to achieve in terms of fiscal policy is to prevent voter backlash against Republicans who start to promote cuts that are likely to prove to be unpopular over the course of the 112th Congress as well as freeze total federal spending at an amount that – in theory – should allow a steadily growing Gross Domestic Product to present enough of an opportunity to allow tax revenues to eventually eclipse total expenditures.
The prevailing logic is along the lines how the United States managed to enjoy several years of a surplus in the late 1990s, which topped-off at $122 billion.
However, one factor that was present 15 years ago which is absent today was our country’s rate of economic growth was much more robust at that time. And that was before the tax cuts in 2003 which appear to be set to expire in about two months.
The recent rates of GDP growth (which was 1.7% for the second quarter of calendar year 2010) have been as stagnant as America’s unemployment rate. Based on the latest economic outlooks, under Jordan’s plan we can at best anticipate bringing the U.S. government back to a balanced budget in 10 years.
In the meantime, we can expect to add roughly another $1.5 trillion of national debt on top of the $13.6 trillion presently accumulated – pushing the total beyond $15 trillion and likely leaving us with a national debt that will finally have eclipsed our GDP.
I also have to question how genuine Jordan’s pledge is to fight for real tax relief. During the October 12 debate, he mentioned supporting a number of temporary tax relief measures, including a one-year, 50% tax cut for independent business owners.
This also appears on the surface to make sense. But, in light of all the burdens being heaped onto the shoulders of business owners in America as a result of the legislative activity over the last 18 months, Jordan’s plan does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty stifling our markets.
Common sense dictates that a truly savvy business owner – trying to stay afloat during the current economic conditions – will hold-on to most of the money saved as a result of such a tax measure and put it in a rainy day fund in anticipation of when their taxes go back up. A healthy chunk of that money will go toward their personal finances. And, in the end, a very small portion will actually be applied toward hiring. Even then, most if not all of those who are hired during this time can expect to be laid-off again when those tax breaks expire at the end of the year as a result of those business owners trimming overhead costs in anticipation of the expected surge in taxes.
Businesses in America can have all the tax breaks imaginable, but they are not going to see real increases in revenue until the rest of us – those upon whom the independent business owner depends to walk through his or her door and spend our money in their establishments – have the financial wherewithal to perform that vital component of the economic cycle.
None of that can happen without two definitive courses of action taking place in Washington, D.C.: dramatic, across-the-board cuts in spending; massive, across-the-board reductions in taxation. This is how the crushing uncertainty preventing economic recovery in America must be dissipated.
Jordan has spoken at length about being the only member of the House of Representatives to have submitted a balanced budget during his time in office. He also mentioned that his budget proposal was shot-down by party leaders. What Jordan is short on when it comes to details is who in the Republican Party’s House leadership rejected his budget.
Where he disappoints me on that order of business is by only making the vaguest references in that comment – instead of calling-out his fellow members of Congress by name and pressuring them to do what is best for America – Jordan shows us that he has forgotten why he was sent to Capitol Hill in the first place. He was elected not to represent the interests of his party; he was elected to represent the people of the 4th District of Ohio.
Where he also is skimpy on details is when he discusses how to tackle federal spending reductions. In that first debate he mentioned the need to look through the various agencies and programs and assess where there are redundancies and inefficiencies. Can he give us any examples of such programs or agencies? After all, since he did submit a balanced budget for consideration, then surely he was aware of a number of specific cuts that his proposal would have made.
Honestly, he did read his own budget before sponsoring it, didn’t he?!
I’ve said this before and I’ll likely say it repeatedly between now and until God calls me home: no one in either major party is going to get into specifics on how they intend to turn around the federal government’s fiscal mess before, during, or even after the November 2 election. None of them – no matter how conservative they’re rated by various political analysis organizations – has the testicular fortitude to stick their neck out because of their inimitable fear of it ending up on the chopping block of public opinion.
I hold no such fear. I can tell you right now we can do without the departments of Labor and Energy as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Labor and environmental protection are redundant by virtue of the fact they are the rightful domain of the states to tackle.
The same holds true for the Department of Education. I stick by my platform of slashing its budget in half up front, set aside only the bare minimum ($1 billion, tops!) to pay for the administrative overhead needed to pool the remaining $80 billion and disburse it on a per capita basis to all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on their enrollment totals. Once that is set in motion, they have three years to make the necessary plans to continue forward once that well goes dry.
But, at the risk turning this into a circular discussion, the states, local school districts, and local governments will not have the room to take on the proper share of responsibility if federal taxes remain so oppressively high and the tax code remains so unnecessarily complex.
Predictably, though, Jordan will continue to present to his constituents the vaguest set of specifics he can conjure despite the undeniable truth that governmental size and spending two years ago, just like it is today, is thoroughly unsustainable.
So, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district have a rare opportunity this year to initiate the beginning of the end of politics as usual. Every two years you get to vote for someone to represent you – but on November 2 you can elect a candidate who is representative of you.
You need to decide who best fits that description. Is it someone who has worked on the assembly line, been employed at your local charitable organization, held down both jobs trying to make ends meet, and had to figure out how to do that during two layoffs – someone who has walked a mile in your shoes?
Or, is it someone who clearly demonstrates that his top priority is – when the 112th Congress is sworn-in – to do little more than play Follow-the-Leader behind John Boehner?
Among his top proposals for reining-in deficit spending is for the federal government to return to fiscal year 2008 spending levels and freeze total federal expenditures at such an outlay (approx. $2.9 trillion) as a baseline for future fiscal year budgets for an undetermined length of time thereafter.
So, what Jordan is proposing as a gleaming example of fiscal conservatism is instead of the nearly $1-and-a-half trillion deficit we face in FY 2010, we should embrace nearly a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar deficit.
The first problem with this strategy is we still are measuring the federal deficit in terms of trillions-of-dollars. So, Jordan’s grand plan is to take the government from grotesquely unsustainable to only fairly unsustainable in its spending habits.
This leads us to the other major flaw in Jordan’s plan. Obviously what Jordan is trying to achieve in terms of fiscal policy is to prevent voter backlash against Republicans who start to promote cuts that are likely to prove to be unpopular over the course of the 112th Congress as well as freeze total federal spending at an amount that – in theory – should allow a steadily growing Gross Domestic Product to present enough of an opportunity to allow tax revenues to eventually eclipse total expenditures.
The prevailing logic is along the lines how the United States managed to enjoy several years of a surplus in the late 1990s, which topped-off at $122 billion.
However, one factor that was present 15 years ago which is absent today was our country’s rate of economic growth was much more robust at that time. And that was before the tax cuts in 2003 which appear to be set to expire in about two months.
The recent rates of GDP growth (which was 1.7% for the second quarter of calendar year 2010) have been as stagnant as America’s unemployment rate. Based on the latest economic outlooks, under Jordan’s plan we can at best anticipate bringing the U.S. government back to a balanced budget in 10 years.
In the meantime, we can expect to add roughly another $1.5 trillion of national debt on top of the $13.6 trillion presently accumulated – pushing the total beyond $15 trillion and likely leaving us with a national debt that will finally have eclipsed our GDP.
I also have to question how genuine Jordan’s pledge is to fight for real tax relief. During the October 12 debate, he mentioned supporting a number of temporary tax relief measures, including a one-year, 50% tax cut for independent business owners.
This also appears on the surface to make sense. But, in light of all the burdens being heaped onto the shoulders of business owners in America as a result of the legislative activity over the last 18 months, Jordan’s plan does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty stifling our markets.
Common sense dictates that a truly savvy business owner – trying to stay afloat during the current economic conditions – will hold-on to most of the money saved as a result of such a tax measure and put it in a rainy day fund in anticipation of when their taxes go back up. A healthy chunk of that money will go toward their personal finances. And, in the end, a very small portion will actually be applied toward hiring. Even then, most if not all of those who are hired during this time can expect to be laid-off again when those tax breaks expire at the end of the year as a result of those business owners trimming overhead costs in anticipation of the expected surge in taxes.
Businesses in America can have all the tax breaks imaginable, but they are not going to see real increases in revenue until the rest of us – those upon whom the independent business owner depends to walk through his or her door and spend our money in their establishments – have the financial wherewithal to perform that vital component of the economic cycle.
None of that can happen without two definitive courses of action taking place in Washington, D.C.: dramatic, across-the-board cuts in spending; massive, across-the-board reductions in taxation. This is how the crushing uncertainty preventing economic recovery in America must be dissipated.
Jordan has spoken at length about being the only member of the House of Representatives to have submitted a balanced budget during his time in office. He also mentioned that his budget proposal was shot-down by party leaders. What Jordan is short on when it comes to details is who in the Republican Party’s House leadership rejected his budget.
Where he disappoints me on that order of business is by only making the vaguest references in that comment – instead of calling-out his fellow members of Congress by name and pressuring them to do what is best for America – Jordan shows us that he has forgotten why he was sent to Capitol Hill in the first place. He was elected not to represent the interests of his party; he was elected to represent the people of the 4th District of Ohio.
Where he also is skimpy on details is when he discusses how to tackle federal spending reductions. In that first debate he mentioned the need to look through the various agencies and programs and assess where there are redundancies and inefficiencies. Can he give us any examples of such programs or agencies? After all, since he did submit a balanced budget for consideration, then surely he was aware of a number of specific cuts that his proposal would have made.
Honestly, he did read his own budget before sponsoring it, didn’t he?!
I’ve said this before and I’ll likely say it repeatedly between now and until God calls me home: no one in either major party is going to get into specifics on how they intend to turn around the federal government’s fiscal mess before, during, or even after the November 2 election. None of them – no matter how conservative they’re rated by various political analysis organizations – has the testicular fortitude to stick their neck out because of their inimitable fear of it ending up on the chopping block of public opinion.
I hold no such fear. I can tell you right now we can do without the departments of Labor and Energy as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Labor and environmental protection are redundant by virtue of the fact they are the rightful domain of the states to tackle.
The same holds true for the Department of Education. I stick by my platform of slashing its budget in half up front, set aside only the bare minimum ($1 billion, tops!) to pay for the administrative overhead needed to pool the remaining $80 billion and disburse it on a per capita basis to all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on their enrollment totals. Once that is set in motion, they have three years to make the necessary plans to continue forward once that well goes dry.
But, at the risk turning this into a circular discussion, the states, local school districts, and local governments will not have the room to take on the proper share of responsibility if federal taxes remain so oppressively high and the tax code remains so unnecessarily complex.
Predictably, though, Jordan will continue to present to his constituents the vaguest set of specifics he can conjure despite the undeniable truth that governmental size and spending two years ago, just like it is today, is thoroughly unsustainable.
So, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district have a rare opportunity this year to initiate the beginning of the end of politics as usual. Every two years you get to vote for someone to represent you – but on November 2 you can elect a candidate who is representative of you.
You need to decide who best fits that description. Is it someone who has worked on the assembly line, been employed at your local charitable organization, held down both jobs trying to make ends meet, and had to figure out how to do that during two layoffs – someone who has walked a mile in your shoes?
Or, is it someone who clearly demonstrates that his top priority is – when the 112th Congress is sworn-in – to do little more than play Follow-the-Leader behind John Boehner?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Jim Jordan, why did you need to lie?
It is expected, if not guaranteed, that everyone who gets into elected office will at some point or another lie to their constituents in order to maintain short-term favor with them. Far more often than not, the falsehoods they utter or publish in press releases are aimed at those voters who are on the fence when it comes to how they will vote in whatever election may be forthcoming.
But that does not make the situation any less perplexing when a politician serves-up a bold-faced lie to those who typically can be counted-on to be his most dependable voters.
Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), who could not find it in his heart to be straightforward with the members of the local Tea Party organization based in Lima.
At the center of this story is Jordan’s lack of participation in the Abigail Adams Project. This is one of the grassroots efforts that sprung to life over the last year-and-a-half. Yet instead of involving demonstrations or protests, Abigail Adams Project is focused entirely on informing voters whether candidates for local, state, and federal offices support or oppose previous, current, or proposed legislative issues.
On September 9, Jordan showed up at the monthly meeting of the Allen County Ohio Patriots and accepted questions from members and anyone else in attendance. With the deadline for candidates’ responses to the Abigail Adams questionnaire looming, Jordan was asked whether or not he was going to participate in it. He told the members that evening that it was “under consideration.”
The problem with that reply involves a letter he sent to the Ohio organizers of the Abigail Adams Project dated September 7 – two days before the ACOP meeting. Jordan’s letter spells-out where he stands on matters of federal spending, abortion, and other issues commonly important to conservatives in America. The letter’s message, ultimately, was that he would not be going to their Website to answer their survey.
So if he knew on the 7th that he was not going to participate in that organization’s effort, why would he tell the membership of Allen County’s Tea Party group that in essence he was looking into it? Why not tell them the truth that he was letting it go by the wayside?
To the casual follower of such political affairs, this would seem like such a trivial matter and non-story. “So, he didn’t fill out a questionnaire.”
Here is the rub: as conservative as the majority of voters in West-Central and Northwestern Ohio tend to be and in light of the rise of the grassroots political action committee movement over the past 18 months, the Tea Party represents Jordan’s base. Much of the participation over the last eight to 10 months in the county organizations that have sprung-up comes from staunch conservatives – the people who would be considered his base supporters.
Why would any politician in his or her right mind so casually lie to their base?
And there still is more to this story.
At the October 11 meeting of the Auglaize County Patriots, which was a candidates night event, Ohio General Assembly incumbents Cliff Hite and John Adams – both Republicans – were straightforward in mentioning that the Ohio Republican Party had instructed its candidates specifically not to fill-out the Abigail Adams Project surveys. Also to their credit, Hite and Adams chose to tackle the Abigail Adams questions and not comply with party leaders.
In an election year when both the country and Ohio are expected to lean very heavily to the right at the polls, what could the strategy possibly be with refusing to cooperate with organizations playing a key role in bolstering the Republican Party’s expected large-scale gains in offices held?
One answer to that last question is the simple truth that Ohio Republicans have as little interest in acknowledging the legitimacy of or extending respect to the Tea Party movement as most Democrats.
We have seen this in Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted’s television ads which open with the Flag of Gadsden waving in the beginning and end with the narrator proclaiming him to share “your values.” Considering that Husted was Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives during the Bob Taft years – when state Republicans were running up spending and taxes like they were disciples of Jimmy Carter – such a claim is laughable and insulting.
Then there is the plight of would-be-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Steve Christopher. He would have been a bona fide Tea Party candidate had he been certified on the primary ballot as opposed to getting shafted eight ways to Sunday – when the Secretary of State’s office could not find the majority of the signatures Christopher had submitted (And this is not a baseless assertion. None of the signatures collected for him in Mercer County were counted – and I have spoken with Mercer County residents who circulated his candidate petitions and they still bristle when the subject comes up).
The ORP made no effort to investigate the situation and would not demonstrate the decency to even pay lip service to Christopher with any form of support.
And now, we have the same Republican Party establishment spitting in the face of an important Tea Party effort designed to help voters know more about how their candidates lean on various issues.
Jordan’s choice to lie outright about the situation has him falling right in line with his fellow Ohio GOP faithful.
As much as Jim Jordan likes to tout himself as standing apart from other Republicans when they are in the wrong, on this matter he certainly has proven himself to be a good little servant of the Party when they called on him to be one. What more could we expect from a lawyer turned career politician?
But that does not make the situation any less perplexing when a politician serves-up a bold-faced lie to those who typically can be counted-on to be his most dependable voters.
Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), who could not find it in his heart to be straightforward with the members of the local Tea Party organization based in Lima.
At the center of this story is Jordan’s lack of participation in the Abigail Adams Project. This is one of the grassroots efforts that sprung to life over the last year-and-a-half. Yet instead of involving demonstrations or protests, Abigail Adams Project is focused entirely on informing voters whether candidates for local, state, and federal offices support or oppose previous, current, or proposed legislative issues.
On September 9, Jordan showed up at the monthly meeting of the Allen County Ohio Patriots and accepted questions from members and anyone else in attendance. With the deadline for candidates’ responses to the Abigail Adams questionnaire looming, Jordan was asked whether or not he was going to participate in it. He told the members that evening that it was “under consideration.”
The problem with that reply involves a letter he sent to the Ohio organizers of the Abigail Adams Project dated September 7 – two days before the ACOP meeting. Jordan’s letter spells-out where he stands on matters of federal spending, abortion, and other issues commonly important to conservatives in America. The letter’s message, ultimately, was that he would not be going to their Website to answer their survey.
So if he knew on the 7th that he was not going to participate in that organization’s effort, why would he tell the membership of Allen County’s Tea Party group that in essence he was looking into it? Why not tell them the truth that he was letting it go by the wayside?
To the casual follower of such political affairs, this would seem like such a trivial matter and non-story. “So, he didn’t fill out a questionnaire.”
Here is the rub: as conservative as the majority of voters in West-Central and Northwestern Ohio tend to be and in light of the rise of the grassroots political action committee movement over the past 18 months, the Tea Party represents Jordan’s base. Much of the participation over the last eight to 10 months in the county organizations that have sprung-up comes from staunch conservatives – the people who would be considered his base supporters.
Why would any politician in his or her right mind so casually lie to their base?
And there still is more to this story.
At the October 11 meeting of the Auglaize County Patriots, which was a candidates night event, Ohio General Assembly incumbents Cliff Hite and John Adams – both Republicans – were straightforward in mentioning that the Ohio Republican Party had instructed its candidates specifically not to fill-out the Abigail Adams Project surveys. Also to their credit, Hite and Adams chose to tackle the Abigail Adams questions and not comply with party leaders.
In an election year when both the country and Ohio are expected to lean very heavily to the right at the polls, what could the strategy possibly be with refusing to cooperate with organizations playing a key role in bolstering the Republican Party’s expected large-scale gains in offices held?
One answer to that last question is the simple truth that Ohio Republicans have as little interest in acknowledging the legitimacy of or extending respect to the Tea Party movement as most Democrats.
We have seen this in Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted’s television ads which open with the Flag of Gadsden waving in the beginning and end with the narrator proclaiming him to share “your values.” Considering that Husted was Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives during the Bob Taft years – when state Republicans were running up spending and taxes like they were disciples of Jimmy Carter – such a claim is laughable and insulting.
Then there is the plight of would-be-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Steve Christopher. He would have been a bona fide Tea Party candidate had he been certified on the primary ballot as opposed to getting shafted eight ways to Sunday – when the Secretary of State’s office could not find the majority of the signatures Christopher had submitted (And this is not a baseless assertion. None of the signatures collected for him in Mercer County were counted – and I have spoken with Mercer County residents who circulated his candidate petitions and they still bristle when the subject comes up).
The ORP made no effort to investigate the situation and would not demonstrate the decency to even pay lip service to Christopher with any form of support.
And now, we have the same Republican Party establishment spitting in the face of an important Tea Party effort designed to help voters know more about how their candidates lean on various issues.
Jordan’s choice to lie outright about the situation has him falling right in line with his fellow Ohio GOP faithful.
As much as Jim Jordan likes to tout himself as standing apart from other Republicans when they are in the wrong, on this matter he certainly has proven himself to be a good little servant of the Party when they called on him to be one. What more could we expect from a lawyer turned career politician?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Government’s role in social and family values
On more than one occasion – especially when addressing area Tea Party organizations – I have been asked to explain my position on several social issues, highlighted by where I stand on alternative lifestyles and legalization of marijuana. For the most part, these questions are intended to create doubt about me as a candidate among conservative voters. Since I already have written at length about my platform on legalization – I would encourage everyone to read my blog archive on the subject – the focus here shall be on government policy for alternative lifestyles.
To summarize up front, government – especially the federal government – should hold no role in determining what constitutes proper values in society. Values are a matter to be decided by the individual and the family.
My incumbent opponent in this congressional race, Jim Jordan, has commented on more than one occasion that his platform includes defending traditional marriage. The problem here is his unwillingness to explain how he proposes to do that. Jordan is falling back on platitudes and generic, broad-sweeping comments designed to make the average social conservative feel good about voting for him.
What I’m curious if he can do is actually spell-out a legislative plan of action to achieve the above stated goal.
What I can do, in the meantime, is spell-out a host of reasons why government – especially the federal government – keeping its nose out of private citizens’ business is the best option in preserving the liberty of all Americans.
Honestly, none of the three candidates for this seat (Jordan, Doug Litt, or me) oppose traditional marriage. I believe in traditional marriage as much as either gentleman.
However, my challenge on most topics relating to privacy and keeping at bay government intrusion upon and scrutiny of personal behavior typically centers on arguments of a hypothetical nature. I commonly ask people on both ends of the (obsolete) linear political scale – liberal and conservative – if they can give me a guarantee that after the bills they advocate have been passed into law America will not elect to the White House someone with whom they so vehemently disagree that they would not want that legislation in the hands of such an administration.
When having this discussion with conservatives, I don’t need a hypothetical in light of the current composition of Washington’s ruling class.
So, if legislation existed today that put in the hands of the federal government the ability to affect a set of social values policies, are you perfectly comfortable entrusting that authority to a president like we have today who has made comments such as, “I wouldn’t want my daughter to be punished with a baby.”
Is that someone you want setting social values policy?
And then there are cabinet members with whom he has surrounded himself and are now in a position to potentially influence such policy. The list begins with Hillary Clinton who has long advocated for so-called children’s rights: children’s rights being nothing more than a code phrase for “eroding parental rights.”
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Next, we have Eric Holder who has established for himself a pattern of arbitrarily picking-and-choosing when and when not to prosecute federal cases for dubious reasons as well as filing suit against state governments in an effort to brush-aside the 10th Amendment.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
And then there is Janet Napolitano who thinks so highly of our veterans that she attempted to sweep under the rug the infamous MIAC report that suggested (among other outlandish conclusions) war veterans returning home from the Middle East were increasingly vulnerable to extreme right wing propaganda.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
The list doesn’t end with ranking Cabinet members. There is an assortment of midlevel White House staffers to examine, such as Kevin Jennings who has been recorded coaching 14-year-olds on deviant sexual activity.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Jordan’s assertion that he somehow can defend traditional marriage or any other component of Judeo-Christian values through an act of Congress is false on a purely Constitutional basis.
First and foremost, no where in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is Congress granted the enumerated power of regulating, sanctioning, or overseeing marriage.
Furthermore, as stipulated in the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In short, that means any law that may pertain to marriage strictly is the dominion of the states. Even then, I would reiterate my previous statement that marriage is a matter that rightfully falls under the essential American principle of individual and family sovereignty. In my opinion state governments have overreached with their respective authority by requiring all couples who wish to marry to procure state-issued marriage licenses.
The next point to be raised regarding Jordan’s rhetoric on marriage revolves around the potential for unintended consequences. My primary concern is the gradual relaxation of individual responsibility. We have seen this in all other aspects of “Nanny State” governance: the current welfare system has steadily drained millions of Americans of their drive and motivation to earn their income; modern public education has encouraged parents to lean on our schools for a source of absentee parenting; and, more and more industries in America have come to rely upon the myriad of federal subsidies in order to stay afloat as opposed to innovating new business models that actually work.
The same principle can easily overtake this aspect of parenting. If you believe in raising children to live their lives through traditional values, what will have a more lasting influence to those ends: once they’ve reached an appropriate age, talk to them and sustain an active dialogue with them about sex and sexuality as it relates to maintaining a healthy system of values; or simply fall back on the failsafe of decreeing, “You can’t marry someone of the same gender, the law won’t allow it.”
Such a change would not happen overnight. But, like the three examples listed above, the transformation of how people view this component of private, individual responsibility will come to pass before we’ve even realized it.
Last I knew, determining what is right and wrong for one’s children is not the place of any level of government. If God sees fit to bestow upon my wife, Marcy, and me the blessing of children it will be our responsibility as parents to raise them with traditional, Judeo-Christian values – not the government’s!
This is because we as a family, much like the individual, will be sovereign. As a result, the laws we pass must be written to respect the sovereignty of the individual and the family – not promote right wing big government.
Many of us today like to quote Thomas Jefferson’s piece of wisdom, “The government that can give you everything can take it all away.” The same logic applies to this discussion: the government that can mandate a particular set of values can turn around and deny you your right to live life and raise your family according to those values.
The simple truth is right wing big government is still just that: big government.
To summarize up front, government – especially the federal government – should hold no role in determining what constitutes proper values in society. Values are a matter to be decided by the individual and the family.
My incumbent opponent in this congressional race, Jim Jordan, has commented on more than one occasion that his platform includes defending traditional marriage. The problem here is his unwillingness to explain how he proposes to do that. Jordan is falling back on platitudes and generic, broad-sweeping comments designed to make the average social conservative feel good about voting for him.
What I’m curious if he can do is actually spell-out a legislative plan of action to achieve the above stated goal.
What I can do, in the meantime, is spell-out a host of reasons why government – especially the federal government – keeping its nose out of private citizens’ business is the best option in preserving the liberty of all Americans.
Honestly, none of the three candidates for this seat (Jordan, Doug Litt, or me) oppose traditional marriage. I believe in traditional marriage as much as either gentleman.
However, my challenge on most topics relating to privacy and keeping at bay government intrusion upon and scrutiny of personal behavior typically centers on arguments of a hypothetical nature. I commonly ask people on both ends of the (obsolete) linear political scale – liberal and conservative – if they can give me a guarantee that after the bills they advocate have been passed into law America will not elect to the White House someone with whom they so vehemently disagree that they would not want that legislation in the hands of such an administration.
When having this discussion with conservatives, I don’t need a hypothetical in light of the current composition of Washington’s ruling class.
So, if legislation existed today that put in the hands of the federal government the ability to affect a set of social values policies, are you perfectly comfortable entrusting that authority to a president like we have today who has made comments such as, “I wouldn’t want my daughter to be punished with a baby.”
Is that someone you want setting social values policy?
And then there are cabinet members with whom he has surrounded himself and are now in a position to potentially influence such policy. The list begins with Hillary Clinton who has long advocated for so-called children’s rights: children’s rights being nothing more than a code phrase for “eroding parental rights.”
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Next, we have Eric Holder who has established for himself a pattern of arbitrarily picking-and-choosing when and when not to prosecute federal cases for dubious reasons as well as filing suit against state governments in an effort to brush-aside the 10th Amendment.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
And then there is Janet Napolitano who thinks so highly of our veterans that she attempted to sweep under the rug the infamous MIAC report that suggested (among other outlandish conclusions) war veterans returning home from the Middle East were increasingly vulnerable to extreme right wing propaganda.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
The list doesn’t end with ranking Cabinet members. There is an assortment of midlevel White House staffers to examine, such as Kevin Jennings who has been recorded coaching 14-year-olds on deviant sexual activity.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Jordan’s assertion that he somehow can defend traditional marriage or any other component of Judeo-Christian values through an act of Congress is false on a purely Constitutional basis.
First and foremost, no where in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is Congress granted the enumerated power of regulating, sanctioning, or overseeing marriage.
Furthermore, as stipulated in the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In short, that means any law that may pertain to marriage strictly is the dominion of the states. Even then, I would reiterate my previous statement that marriage is a matter that rightfully falls under the essential American principle of individual and family sovereignty. In my opinion state governments have overreached with their respective authority by requiring all couples who wish to marry to procure state-issued marriage licenses.
The next point to be raised regarding Jordan’s rhetoric on marriage revolves around the potential for unintended consequences. My primary concern is the gradual relaxation of individual responsibility. We have seen this in all other aspects of “Nanny State” governance: the current welfare system has steadily drained millions of Americans of their drive and motivation to earn their income; modern public education has encouraged parents to lean on our schools for a source of absentee parenting; and, more and more industries in America have come to rely upon the myriad of federal subsidies in order to stay afloat as opposed to innovating new business models that actually work.
The same principle can easily overtake this aspect of parenting. If you believe in raising children to live their lives through traditional values, what will have a more lasting influence to those ends: once they’ve reached an appropriate age, talk to them and sustain an active dialogue with them about sex and sexuality as it relates to maintaining a healthy system of values; or simply fall back on the failsafe of decreeing, “You can’t marry someone of the same gender, the law won’t allow it.”
Such a change would not happen overnight. But, like the three examples listed above, the transformation of how people view this component of private, individual responsibility will come to pass before we’ve even realized it.
Last I knew, determining what is right and wrong for one’s children is not the place of any level of government. If God sees fit to bestow upon my wife, Marcy, and me the blessing of children it will be our responsibility as parents to raise them with traditional, Judeo-Christian values – not the government’s!
This is because we as a family, much like the individual, will be sovereign. As a result, the laws we pass must be written to respect the sovereignty of the individual and the family – not promote right wing big government.
Many of us today like to quote Thomas Jefferson’s piece of wisdom, “The government that can give you everything can take it all away.” The same logic applies to this discussion: the government that can mandate a particular set of values can turn around and deny you your right to live life and raise your family according to those values.
The simple truth is right wing big government is still just that: big government.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
A treatise on foreign policy and military spending
My latest blog entry, to be straight-forward, is simply too long to actually post directly onto this Website. And that is because tackling U.S. foreign policy cannot be done in snippets. An honest dissemination of the most important issues related to it – defense spending, the Global War on Terror, and radical Islamic terrorism – requires discussion at length on all points.
Much of that is due to my desire for all who read it to understand the context of each statement. Typing this composition took some time but making sure I had given it as much thought as I could was important to me.
Some passages may stand in contradiction to each other, however that was bound to happen if for no other reason than so many U.S. policies over the past 18 years have worked in contradiction to each other.
Also important was making sure the points presented in this blog were consistent with the platform I have posted on my Issues page. A significant amount of research needed to be done on a lot of the information included in this blog. A lot of what is contained in it I have given consideration again and again while mulling it all over at length in the time since I decided to run for office. I just needed to make sure the details were accurate.
The biggest challenge involved in forming my elongated platform was carefully weighing what constitutes the true libertarianism approach to foreign policy and military spending against what are the undeniable truths about what the current and potential threats are to America’s national security.
The only guarantee is that everyone will find something to dislike in it. But, as I said at Tuesday’s debate, I’m not trying to go to Congress so I can start winning popularity contests. My goal is to represent you, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district, in a manner that is consistent both with my conscience and what you want to see done for America, Ohio, and our future generations.
For the convenience of the readers, the treatise advertised above is available as a downloadable pdf file. Open it in a new tab so you can refer back to it as you go about Web surfing from time to time when you need a break.
Much of that is due to my desire for all who read it to understand the context of each statement. Typing this composition took some time but making sure I had given it as much thought as I could was important to me.
Some passages may stand in contradiction to each other, however that was bound to happen if for no other reason than so many U.S. policies over the past 18 years have worked in contradiction to each other.
Also important was making sure the points presented in this blog were consistent with the platform I have posted on my Issues page. A significant amount of research needed to be done on a lot of the information included in this blog. A lot of what is contained in it I have given consideration again and again while mulling it all over at length in the time since I decided to run for office. I just needed to make sure the details were accurate.
The biggest challenge involved in forming my elongated platform was carefully weighing what constitutes the true libertarianism approach to foreign policy and military spending against what are the undeniable truths about what the current and potential threats are to America’s national security.
The only guarantee is that everyone will find something to dislike in it. But, as I said at Tuesday’s debate, I’m not trying to go to Congress so I can start winning popularity contests. My goal is to represent you, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district, in a manner that is consistent both with my conscience and what you want to see done for America, Ohio, and our future generations.
For the convenience of the readers, the treatise advertised above is available as a downloadable pdf file. Open it in a new tab so you can refer back to it as you go about Web surfing from time to time when you need a break.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The chicken or the ham
This morning at Mass, the priest shared with us during his homily a story whose message is not limited to either the Catholic Church or Christianity at large. Its moral has deep and important application to so many aspects of our society.
The tale is about a chicken and a pig who are walking along together. At one point in their stroll, they happen upon a church which was abuzz with activity. As it turned out, the parishioners were putting together a very large charitable event and the church grounds had become a scene of great joy and celebration as everyone was gearing-up for this enormous affair.
As the two stopped and observed all the bustle taking place, the pig was very moved by the joyous nature of how the parishioners labored to put together their charity event.
“There must be something we can do to help the members of this church,” said the pig. “It would be good of us to aid them.”
“I agree,” replied the chicken
“We should give in some way to this work of charity and make it that much more special,” the pig added.
And the chicken pondered, for a brief moment, before offering his suggestion, “I tell you what: you can give these people ham, while I can give them…
“…Eggs!”
After a few seconds of dismay, the pig responded, “Now, wait a minute! What you propose to offer is merely a contribution. Laying eggs is something you can do most days and it is of no injury to you what becomes of those eggs.
“For me to give ham is a commitment. In order for the people of this church to have ham from me, it means my life must become one that has been committed to this moment and this event.”
Therein lies the crucial difference that distinguishes a contribution from a commitment, whether it be to one’s place of worship, marriage, community, or even society as a whole.
It also applies to the fight to retain and fully restore America’s founding principles.
While contributing to this endeavor always is a good and worthy undertaking, in order to be truly successful, restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America is going to require a great many of us to make that commitment. For the ideal of Libertarianism to return to America’s forefront we must have those among us who will devote significant expanses of our time and energy (and on occasion sacrifice our dignity in the face of barbs and marginalization by those in opposition) toward that goal.
That difference between contributing and committing to Libertarianism may mean the difference between restoration or transformation in America.
The tale is about a chicken and a pig who are walking along together. At one point in their stroll, they happen upon a church which was abuzz with activity. As it turned out, the parishioners were putting together a very large charitable event and the church grounds had become a scene of great joy and celebration as everyone was gearing-up for this enormous affair.
As the two stopped and observed all the bustle taking place, the pig was very moved by the joyous nature of how the parishioners labored to put together their charity event.
“There must be something we can do to help the members of this church,” said the pig. “It would be good of us to aid them.”
“I agree,” replied the chicken
“We should give in some way to this work of charity and make it that much more special,” the pig added.
And the chicken pondered, for a brief moment, before offering his suggestion, “I tell you what: you can give these people ham, while I can give them…
“…Eggs!”
After a few seconds of dismay, the pig responded, “Now, wait a minute! What you propose to offer is merely a contribution. Laying eggs is something you can do most days and it is of no injury to you what becomes of those eggs.
“For me to give ham is a commitment. In order for the people of this church to have ham from me, it means my life must become one that has been committed to this moment and this event.”
Therein lies the crucial difference that distinguishes a contribution from a commitment, whether it be to one’s place of worship, marriage, community, or even society as a whole.
It also applies to the fight to retain and fully restore America’s founding principles.
While contributing to this endeavor always is a good and worthy undertaking, in order to be truly successful, restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America is going to require a great many of us to make that commitment. For the ideal of Libertarianism to return to America’s forefront we must have those among us who will devote significant expanses of our time and energy (and on occasion sacrifice our dignity in the face of barbs and marginalization by those in opposition) toward that goal.
That difference between contributing and committing to Libertarianism may mean the difference between restoration or transformation in America.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Why I became a Libertarian
My journey toward the Libertarian Party began roughly 10 years ago, almost nine years before it would dawn on me to formally register with this political party. Like more and more Americans in recent years, I found myself unable to identify with either major party.
Once I finally shed the mental blur – to which I like to refer as “partisan derangement syndrome” – that binds us to one party or the other and began taking that hard, critical look at the one with which I used to agree, politically I felt as though I was an island unto myself.
And then, the Tea Party movement arose in our country. I saw, lo-and-behold, that I am not alone.
What is funny from my perspective is when Libertarians discuss the Tea Party. The vast majority of the party’s membership here in Ohio are people who have been registered with it for years and their debates center on whether or not to reach out to the Tea Party and what would be the best approach. A number of longtime Libertarians have joined local Tea Party groups over the last year-and-a-half.
I, meanwhile, am the oddball in these discussions: I joined the party after identifying myself as a Tea Partier. Within a span of several months last year I went from fed-up voter to Tea Party activist to registered Libertarian to candidate for elected office.
Now, with a month to go before the general election, it is time to shed the last of my long-embraced comfort zones. In addition to the pair of debates coming around the corner on the calendar, the time to begin giving speeches is in high gear.
I can’t make any guarantees as to how interesting any of my speeches will be. I have not needed to stand before a crowd in that manner in over 12 years – in a persuasive speaking class in college.
Of course, if anyone reading this is willing to donate a teleprompter that’s a corner my campaign ought to be able to turn.
But speaking of my time in college, one of the lessons I still remember today best explains why I joined the Libertarian Party.
In 1998 I signed-up for Ferris State University’s Humanities 220 course – more simply titled “Intro to Logic.” In that class, we learned about what’s called the Either-Or Fallacy – where in a given discussion we are expected choose between agreeing with either Idea # 1 or Idea # 2; to solve a problem means adopting either Option A or Option B.
For most of the 223 years since our Constitution was ratified, this very notion has been applied to America’s election processes. We have been persuaded time-and-again to limit our focus as voters to either Candidate # 1 or Candidate # 2, to either Party A or Party B.
As we’ve witnessed over these past two years, the Either-Or approach to our political system brought forth sweeping winds of change to the balance of power in Washington – winds of change which have emboldened Party A to believe they can herd us all like cattle into accepting their legislative efforts – 2,000 pages at a time – regardless of how enormously unpopular they may be.
Of course, let us not forget that during the preceding eight years, Party B interpreted their position as King of the Hill as a mandate to run up discretionary spending by 50 percent and nearly double our national debt to $10.6 trillion.
A great many of us who are part of the Tea Party movement have come to understand the folly of the Either-Or method in politics – more commonly known as the Two Party system.
In recent years, the legislative majorities we’ve seen have left those who would serve as voices of reason ignored and disregarded, “We’re in control now. Let us do as we see fit.”
Introducing a third party to the political equation and splitting that power three ways both in Washington and our state capitals will force those career politicians who have taken to “nesting” on Capitol Hill to debate their policies more honestly as well as remind them to again pay attention to their constituents: We the People.
Electing Libertarians at all levels of government will send a clear message to everyone who has gotten comfortable in their various offices: “we are not pleased and – more importantly – we are paying attention.”
While the Libertarian Party is dedicated to reducing spending by shrinking the size of government, there is more to our philosophy on government than money and taxation.
Libertarians understand it is the individual who makes America great. It is the individual who creates prosperity through innovation. And, it is the individual who can best decide for themselves what path to take in life and how to raise their family.
A smaller government means a government that retains less authority to be able to intrude upon our lives and our industries.
Libertarians understand the most effective way to defend those values – true Christian values – which most of us here in America hold dear to our hearts is not by enacting new and potentially poorly-written laws – laws that serve mainly to expand the size of government and its role in our lives – but to begin eliminating old and failed legislation that has been proven to exacerbate society’s problems instead of solve them.
For nearly a century – and particularly these past five decades – those who have sought to represent We the People in Washington have steadily strayed – further and further – from the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers – those principles that guided them as they penned the Constitution of the united States of America.
Many times it’s been done under the guise of seeking “a new direction for America.” Either we try something new or stick to “the old way” of business.
I disagree with this mindset wholeheartedly.
The truth is America does not need another new direction. My goal in seeking the seat of U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District of Ohio, is quite the opposite.
It is not about finding a new direction for America but rediscovering the original direction – established by our Founding Fathers – that made this country great in the first place.
Once I finally shed the mental blur – to which I like to refer as “partisan derangement syndrome” – that binds us to one party or the other and began taking that hard, critical look at the one with which I used to agree, politically I felt as though I was an island unto myself.
And then, the Tea Party movement arose in our country. I saw, lo-and-behold, that I am not alone.
What is funny from my perspective is when Libertarians discuss the Tea Party. The vast majority of the party’s membership here in Ohio are people who have been registered with it for years and their debates center on whether or not to reach out to the Tea Party and what would be the best approach. A number of longtime Libertarians have joined local Tea Party groups over the last year-and-a-half.
I, meanwhile, am the oddball in these discussions: I joined the party after identifying myself as a Tea Partier. Within a span of several months last year I went from fed-up voter to Tea Party activist to registered Libertarian to candidate for elected office.
Now, with a month to go before the general election, it is time to shed the last of my long-embraced comfort zones. In addition to the pair of debates coming around the corner on the calendar, the time to begin giving speeches is in high gear.
I can’t make any guarantees as to how interesting any of my speeches will be. I have not needed to stand before a crowd in that manner in over 12 years – in a persuasive speaking class in college.
Of course, if anyone reading this is willing to donate a teleprompter that’s a corner my campaign ought to be able to turn.
But speaking of my time in college, one of the lessons I still remember today best explains why I joined the Libertarian Party.
In 1998 I signed-up for Ferris State University’s Humanities 220 course – more simply titled “Intro to Logic.” In that class, we learned about what’s called the Either-Or Fallacy – where in a given discussion we are expected choose between agreeing with either Idea # 1 or Idea # 2; to solve a problem means adopting either Option A or Option B.
For most of the 223 years since our Constitution was ratified, this very notion has been applied to America’s election processes. We have been persuaded time-and-again to limit our focus as voters to either Candidate # 1 or Candidate # 2, to either Party A or Party B.
As we’ve witnessed over these past two years, the Either-Or approach to our political system brought forth sweeping winds of change to the balance of power in Washington – winds of change which have emboldened Party A to believe they can herd us all like cattle into accepting their legislative efforts – 2,000 pages at a time – regardless of how enormously unpopular they may be.
Of course, let us not forget that during the preceding eight years, Party B interpreted their position as King of the Hill as a mandate to run up discretionary spending by 50 percent and nearly double our national debt to $10.6 trillion.
A great many of us who are part of the Tea Party movement have come to understand the folly of the Either-Or method in politics – more commonly known as the Two Party system.
In recent years, the legislative majorities we’ve seen have left those who would serve as voices of reason ignored and disregarded, “We’re in control now. Let us do as we see fit.”
Introducing a third party to the political equation and splitting that power three ways both in Washington and our state capitals will force those career politicians who have taken to “nesting” on Capitol Hill to debate their policies more honestly as well as remind them to again pay attention to their constituents: We the People.
Electing Libertarians at all levels of government will send a clear message to everyone who has gotten comfortable in their various offices: “we are not pleased and – more importantly – we are paying attention.”
While the Libertarian Party is dedicated to reducing spending by shrinking the size of government, there is more to our philosophy on government than money and taxation.
Libertarians understand it is the individual who makes America great. It is the individual who creates prosperity through innovation. And, it is the individual who can best decide for themselves what path to take in life and how to raise their family.
A smaller government means a government that retains less authority to be able to intrude upon our lives and our industries.
Libertarians understand the most effective way to defend those values – true Christian values – which most of us here in America hold dear to our hearts is not by enacting new and potentially poorly-written laws – laws that serve mainly to expand the size of government and its role in our lives – but to begin eliminating old and failed legislation that has been proven to exacerbate society’s problems instead of solve them.
For nearly a century – and particularly these past five decades – those who have sought to represent We the People in Washington have steadily strayed – further and further – from the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers – those principles that guided them as they penned the Constitution of the united States of America.
Many times it’s been done under the guise of seeking “a new direction for America.” Either we try something new or stick to “the old way” of business.
I disagree with this mindset wholeheartedly.
The truth is America does not need another new direction. My goal in seeking the seat of U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District of Ohio, is quite the opposite.
It is not about finding a new direction for America but rediscovering the original direction – established by our Founding Fathers – that made this country great in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
