Serious Issues,
Thoughtful Solutions!
The
critical domestic issues facing our nation developed over a long
period. Public education didn't break down in a decade, our energy
infrastructure didn't atrophy in the last eight years, and the tax
code didn't just start to incentivize businesses to outsource
overseas. Moving forward requires us to honestly
recognize the cause of our problems and cooperatively field real
solutions in the American tradition.
Domestically, the economy, education
system, energy infrastructure and environmental protection are a
single, highly linked system focused on the people. Domestic policy
must recognize the power of Americans to act out of enlightened
self-interest as good citizens and responsible for the economy
and environment. While Conservatives know the citizenry
stewards the economy and environment, Liberal and Progressive
politicians see the federal government in that role--
and responsible for public education, too. Given that
government should do for us only those things we can't do for
ourselves, government properly ensures a level playing field
domestically; it does not exercise central control through
commissioners and committees. The federal government must also
actively protect U.S. interests internationally.
As a
member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I will support policies
to enable an industrial renaissance:
- An
efficient, reliable energy infrastructure;
- An
education system that equally enables all children to achieve
their academic potential, if they put in the effort;
- A responsible environmental policy based
on science, the scientific method, and measurement;
- An
economic policy that does not incentivize stagnant production
facilities, offshoring intellectual jobs and manufacturing, and
delaying automation.
I seek solutions using a systems engineering
approach, very similar to that used by Newt Gingrich's American
Solutions organization. While I have no ties to this organization or
its founder, I find our conclusions are similar for common
goals.
|
A healthy
economy enables an average citizen to afford health care,
housing and food. The solution to affordable housing is not
legislative magic to lower housing prices; but an economy that
can bountifully employ people so they can afford housing. A
healthy economy solves health care, hunger and poverty
problems. A strong economy enables medical and pharmacological
advances. A strong economy increases private philanthropy.
In a strong, 21st century economy, no
able-minded worker should be employed in less than living wage
jobs; the elimination of labor intensive tasks by technical
innovation over the next decade can transform our
society. A task that requires 3 minimum wage laborers
should be accomplished by one person with the proper
tools--saving business the overhead of two extra employees,
preserving the health of the employee who is now an operator,
not a laborer, and saving society from underwriting
under-employed, low-wage citizens.
Sheldon Richman
of the Future of Freedom Foundation summarized conservative
economic principles very well:
"Far from being
a machine, the economy consists of people who save, invest,
produce, trade, and consume. Left free, they work and
cooperate with others to improve their lot in life. Since the
future is always undisclosed, they necessarily take risks in
hopes of better lives. In a proper and stable legal
environment, most people can manage and prosper to varying
degrees, depending on their ingenuity, ambition, and energy.
Such an environment consists of secure property rights, sound
money, the rule of law, and strict limits on government power.
Any departure from these conditions impedes people’s ability
to create wealth.
The problem is
that the politicians constantly harass and plunder productive
people. To get reelected government leaders systematically
transfer wealth from those who produce it to those who do not.
They concoct tax rules that no one can decipher. They pass
regulations that upset long-standing plans. All this distorts
economic decision-making and retards the creation of wealth.
When the government at any time can enact unpredictable
measures in the name of guiding the economy, the resulting
uncertainty makes us poorer than we’d otherwise be."
Governor O'Malley's proposed tax
increases endanger Maryland's economy. We must recognize the
need to build private sector business here; reliance on
federal government employment (like the jobs associated with
the BRAC moves) does not fully and equitably employ our
citizens. Maryland needs a healthy mix of agriculture,
manufacturing, service, and government jobs. The O'Malley tax
increases negatively affect manufacturing and service
employees. I can help by reforming the federal tax code and
eliminating the Us vs Them mentality of tax policy
debates. |
|
Why should a
Maryland Democratic voter support a Republican for
Congress?
To solve our
problems! Years of Democratic Party control of Maryland
and Congress have stagnated public services in Maryland.
Republicans in Congress have traditionally supported top
performing members who have great ideas; Democrats follow a
much more structured, seniority-based hierarchy. If you
like my ideas, meet me, support me, vote for me! Your support
translates directly into my effectiveness in
office.
Democratic Party policies have so
destroyed our nuclear power industry, we have to rely on a
French company to add to a nuclear power plant in
Maryland. Democrat control of leadership and policies
has nearly destroyed the effectiveness of public
education in Baltimore City and other urban areas.
I support
the values of Maryland citizens. I share your concern for the
future of our state, nation, and children. I know the failed
policies of the past 50 years can't continue. Voting against
John Sarbanes is difficult for many Democratic
voters, but I ask you to recognize the failure
of the policies he supports and do something
uncomfortable - vote
Republican. |
While as a society we recognize people
are politically and legally equal regardless of race, economic
equity eludes us. Slavery is a regrettable institution of our
history. Through the power of the human spirit and our innate
understanding that all people are created equal, society has moved
beyond social segregation and racial
oppression. However, many Americans of African descent
have essentially been consigned to socially dysfunctional cities,
ineffective school systems, and servile, subsistence wage jobs.
Government social policies encourage broken families and discourage
personal achievement. Those who succeed are often viewed as
benefiting from the largesse of affirmative action, not recognized
for the exceptional, hardworking people they are. Conservative
solutions to empower the economy, fight crime, and fix education
provide real solutions to urban problems, not just near-term
symptomatic fixes. A fully employed city is a prosperous, safe city.
While I know affirmative action is not a
handout, it is not effective without the underlying support of a
strong economy and effective education system. The beneficiaries of
affirmative action must be recognized for their accomplishments
and feedback their success to the community. What good is it to
have a handful of minority business leaders (who ensure
discriminatory barriers are removed) if there aren't enough
qualified minority applicants for jobs? The focus of near term
actions for racial equity should be medium to high wage
private sector jobs in urban areas and education system reform.
Educated citizens drive our economy as
consumers, innovators, managers, and employees. Educated citizens
help protect the rights of others and secure the blessings of
liberty for future generations. Educated citizens make informed
decisions about environmental stewardship in their personal and
economic activities. Empowered students and parents drive quality in
education.
Primary and secondary education in the United
states consists of two, parallel systems: a collection of
large-centralized education collectives financed through taxation
and many smaller, leaner, responsive institutions primarily financed
by student fees and charitable donations. There are a few
hybrids, public charter schools, grudgingly financed by the public
education establishment and administered locally. A myriad of
economic effectiveness studies indicate the education collective
trails in cost effectiveness compared to the smaller institutions.
As far as mission (educational) effectiveness, I have my opinions
and you should form your own.
Borrowing from Sheldon Richman, when the
administration, staff, and customers of a school are left free to
work, cooperate and improve their educational environment, schools
can prosper to varying degrees, depending on their ingenuity,
ambition, and energy. More effective administrative and educational
methods can freely be exchanged in the arena of ideas, adapted and
implemented by underachieving schools on an individual basis.
As an aside, I am at a loss why the same
public administrative systems are used for primary and secondary
education. The differences between primary and secondary
education should naturally drive different methods, standards and
practices. Secondary schools should provide feedback to the
primary system about the quality of entering students. The
Archdiocese of Philadelphia ran schools this way when I was
educated, and it was very effective.
While the American innovator, entreprenuer and
worker have been the primary drivers of our economy, the
availability of raw materials and natural resources enabled our
economic achievements. The availability of low cost energy
from wood, coal, and oil enabled both the development of our
industrial base and the American standard of living.
Historically the price of oil reflected the cost of acquisition,
maintenance, exploration, risk and moderate profit. The current
world oil economy has driven the profit up, while enviro-political
and geo-political forces have driven up the risk and speculation
component of the cost.
National energy policy must be geared to
driving down risk to energy supplies, bolstering exploration and
exploitation of domestic energy reserves, deployment of modern
fission power generation, and development of advanced power
generation from nuclear fusion. Clean-coal technologies and
environmentally responsible domestic oil exploration and extraction
can see us through a modernization of our nuclear
infrastructure.
Wind power, bio-fuels, hydrogen, and solar
cannot scale to meet the energy needs of a growing economy: wind and
solar power are limited by the availability of farm sites; bio-fuels
are essentially subsistence techniques that can fill certain niches
or make use of resources which would otherwise go to waste; hydrogen
is a carrier (a dangerous carrier) chemical species that must be
produced from some other energy source. Conservation techniques are
good, and must be economically viable. Conservation alone cannot
support an expanding, 21st century economy.
In the near term, I support the
environmentally responsible use of domestic clean-coal technologies,
imported liquefied natural gas, and expanded domestic oil
production. I support the deployment of modern fission power plants
and the development of fusion energy sources, including increased
research of the Bussard inertial electrostatic confinement fusion
generator through public and private funding.
Nobody wants toxic air, water and land.
Nobody wants gray air, water and land. Nobody wants air, water and
land that endangers the health of children. We all want clean air,
pure water, and fertile land. The role of government is to provide
stable, fair, and predictable environmental regulations for economic
and personal activities. Government should also provide monitoring
of air, water and land resources and lead in the reclamation of
previously contaminated sites.
Responsible economic activity encompasses
stewardship of the environment, minimizing waste and eliminating or
controlling pollution from processes. The consumer eventually pays
all environmental costs, whether it is a scrubber on a power plant,
solvent substitution or cleanup of a Super Fund site. It is cheaper
to pay for prevention than cleanup.
The current furor over carbon dioxide is an
example of regulatory instability. For decades combustion
engineering has focused on improving combustion efficiency
(production of CO2 and H2O) while minimizing nitrogen oxides and
sulfur containing chemicals. Never before has CO2 been consider a
pollutant. Now, CO2, an essential product of hydrocarbon
combustion, is the subject of a witch hunt under the guise of
anthropogenic (human-influenced) global warming.
Human influence on global warming has not
been proven and more research is needed. Scientists don't
know enough about out planet's environmental history on a geological
scale to support the conclusions of the Global Warming alarmists.
Many reputable sources claimed the climate was on the
verge of a new ice age in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Earth is
not (nor ever will be) in balance; but rather, it is a constantly
changing, fluid dynamic system that always challenges our
understanding.
Lawyers and amateur environmental
"scientists" actually know very little about global warming
processes, the greenhouse effect, and validating complex
environmental models. Lawyers form theories, seek data
supporting the desired theory, and present this data as evidence in
the most convincing manner possible to a group of people in order to
attain a consensus supporting the original theory; the truth is
what the jury decides. The objective truth of the original theory is
of little consequence. Scientific theories are not proven based on a
consensus; the objective truth is always the goal of science. The
lawyers should get out of the science of global climate
dynamics.
The analysis and discussion of data should
continue among those of us with some background in planetary
physics, fluid dynamics, and scientific analysis, independently of
energy and environmental politics.
We should stay in the United Nations.
The United Nations headquarters should remain in the United
States. While some elements of the U.N. are clearly
dysfunctional, it is in our national interest to remain engaged and
out maneuver those who would usurp control of the UN. We should
remain engaged with all nations of the world, but we must also
foster special relationships with nations that protect individual
rights, strive to provide equal protection under law, and are built
on representative government institutions.
During the Cold War we supported repressive
regimes in the name of our own national interests. While this may
have supported short-term goals, it has not served our long-term
interests. While foreign policy really is the purview of the
President and Senate, I will do whatever I can to foster my goal of
securing our nation by promoting freedom in other nations through
our foreign policy and trade policy. I will always ensure the
U.S. maintains positions of economic, military, and moral
strength in world affairs.
Our nation must remain engaged in uplifting
the economies of our hemisphere. Free and fair trade can help
Central and South American countries develop stable and strong
economies. The goal of the 19th century was to eliminate European
influence in the Americas (culminating in the Spanish-American War);
the goal of the 20th century was to keep the Americas from falling
under fascist and communist control. The goal of the
21st century should be prosperity and free republics throughout
the Americas.
I said it in my previous campaign in 2006,
and it is still true, we are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and
Syria in Iraq. We must remain engaged in Iraq until civil order is
established and a stable, functioning, representative government is
established.
Not succeeding in Iraq will embolden the
repressive regimes in Iran and Syria. Not succeeding in Iraq will
encourage the repressive elements seeking more political power in
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Those who support withdrawing from
Iraq and letting the sectarian forces fight it out, will doom a
generation of Iraqis to violence, hunger, and poverty.
Cowards and bigots say the concepts of
individual liberty, representative government and economic freedom
are western (American) concepts that can't be applied to people in
the Middle East; I believe all people have been created equal and
freedom is a universal human goal. I'd rather believe this and be
wrong than give in to the alternative.
If you think the world would be better if the
U.S. lost in Iraq, don't vote for me. I see a U.S. 'loss' in Iraq
as: a loss of freedom for the people of Iraq, including the Kurds; a
victory emboldening totalitarian regimes (secular and Islamic) in
Asia; a problem put off for another generation (like North Korea and
Iran). The wars of the 20th century (WWI, WWII, Cold War)
defeated European totalitarianism and I see our current conflicts as
battles in defeating Afro-Asian totalitarianism.
There is a growing reform movement in Iran
that can eventually overturn the religious totalitarians.
Direct military action against Iran will not serve this reform
movement. General economic sanctions have been proven to
punish the citizenry of these thugs states, while providing the
governments more control over the people and promotes corruption in
international organizations (as in the U.N. Oil for Food program in
Iraq).
We need to deal the Iranian government
setbacks in it's foreign engagements: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon,
and the Palestinian Territories. We need to embargo all military and
technical aid to Iran from other nations, improve control of
dual-use technology imports, and actively interfere with Iran's
nuclear and missile programs.
We need to keep those in power in Iran afraid
of U.S. military action. We must maintain the capability to strike
at Iranian military and nuclear targets and deploy anti-missile
systems into the region to negate Iranian surprise-strike
effectiveness against U.S. assets, Europe, and Israel.
I firmly believe the current government of
Iran would destroy the nation of Israel if it had the
capability. It must never gain this capability.
UPDATE: The
latest news reports of national intelligence estimate (NIE)
assessment that Iran halted it weapons program in 2003 is good news.
Iran either got the message, like Libya, that things have changed;
or, they reached a point in development where they needed enriched
uranium. Either way, Iran needs to allow international monitoring
and provide proof that its weapons program was shut down. Iran has a
long way to go to earn the "trust, but verify" treatment.
Israel is a republic committed to protecting
the rights of its citizens, coming to terms with its grounding in
Jewish tradition and Jewish law but its secular dedication to the
rights of people to choose which religion and traditions to
practice. Most Americans would be surprised at the divisions
of Judaism within Israel (Orthodox, Progressive, Conservative,
Haredi, etc).
While it is a Jewish state, there are gentile
Israelis. These non-Jewish Israelis have equal rights under the law,
freedom of worship, freedom to hold public office and economic
freedom. Just as in this nation, Israel has work to do on
actually protecting and ensuring minority rights.
I support Israel's right to exist, defend
itself, and secure its borders. I value the traditional support
provided to Israel by the United States and the special security
arrangements enjoyed by both nations. I stand with all Israelis
against the enemies of Israel and I stand with the Jewish people
against all enemies of Judaism.
Is Islam compatible with a society that
recognizes freedom of religion is a human right? Given that Muslims
have voluntarily migrated here, fought and died upholding the
Constitution of the United States of America, I have to say Islam is
compatible with American values.
American Muslims have chosen to come to a
nation that espouses religious freedom and equality and to fit into
a society that allows people to exercise free will with respect to
styles of dress, consumption of alcohol, and association. I look
forward to American Muslims leading their brethren in other
countries in the full realization of Islam as a religion of peace,
existing peacefully in a multi-religious world. I say this
from the perspective of an American Catholic, recognizing that
American values of individual freedom have positively affected my
Church.
If any member of the American Muslim
community commits a crime out of hatred of Judaism or Christianity,
justice demands prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, just
as would be done to any American Christian or American Jew. The
American Muslim community must accept the religious freedom of this
nation, and accept the responsibility as an American to practice
religious tolerance and refrain from violence.
My support for Israel does not preclude me
from supporting states with Islamic traditions. The recent attempt
by the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a resolution regarding
the genocide by the Ottoman Empire of Armenians nearly 90 years ago
(H.RES.106)
attempts to embarrass the government of Turkey, a nation with an
Islamic tradition, democratic institutions, and relations with
Israel. As any free republic matures part of that process is for the
citizenry to recognize the flaws of the past (including atrocities)
and to seek to make amends civilly. This should be an internal
process, not one subject to foreign pressures. I am not
commenting on the historical event, just that the U.S. House of
Representatives once again attempted to exceed its authority in the
name of politics.
Killing of innocents is wrong. I believe that
our children are humans from the time of conception, entitled to all
natural rights due to humans, including the right to life and the
expectation to be protected by its parents. I am opposed to abortion
on demand. Therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother is a
medical choice made by women with their families and doctors and
should not require government sanction, nor be subject to government
interference.
The law (as interpreted by lawyers) does not
generally recognize humanity before birth. This erroneous
interpretation can only be neutralized by a constitutional amendment
recognizing the humanity and affording protection of law to humans
in the womb. Relying on judicial appointments and a patchwork
of laws does not properly right an injustice; history has shown a
constitutional amendment is needed.
Maryland's Democratic leaders have seen fit
to put the controversial issue of Slot Machine Gambling out to the
public as a constitutional change. Doesn't the controversial issue
of when human life begins deserve the same treatment?
While I am sure the law should provide
protection to humans in the womb, I recognize the legal difficulty
in providing these protections to fertilized embryos in the clinical
environment. Some people believe that fertilization outside of the
womb should not be allowed; they view this action as an offense
against nature and nature's God. More people believe that fertilized
embryos are human and deserve all protections normally afforded to
humans.
Given the diversity of thought with
respect to this aspect of biological science, I support respecting
the views of our fellow citizens and the potential humanity of the
fertilized embryos by not exploiting fertilized embryos for
research. The goal of obtaining pluripotent cells for research
should be met with more widely acceptable means.
Politics eliminates the uncertainty inherent
in all scientific research. The promise of embryonic stem cell
research has been overblown by the politics of the debate.
Therapeutic Cloning
I see scientific, ethical and moral
differences in fertilizing an egg with sperm in the lab and
culturing cells obtained from a person in a denucleated egg (somatic
cell nuclear transfer). I believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer
is sufficiently different from normal fertilization with an egg and
spermatozoa that a human person does not come into existence during
therapeutic cloning.
There is no evidence this cultured human cell
group can viably develop into a human. Pragmatically, large scale
use of therapeutic cloning is unlikely due to the availability of
human eggs--so this approach is really just a crutch. The scientific
challenge of how to ethically culture a patient's stem cells into
pluripotent cells for therapeutic use should be the focus of
research efforts.
Most organized religions have a traditionally
condemned homosexual practices. In our secular society the important
question related to homosexuality is whether it is a choice or
whether it is innate. If it is innate, a condition of nature,
then under American values homosexuals deserve equal protection
under the law. If homosexuality is innate, then I don't see how our
society has any alternative than to provide a contractual
alternative for the union of two and only two individuals as civil
partners, with equal protection and responsibilities as civil
marriage. Our society traditionally (and rightly) protects
individuals from discrimination based on innate characteristics. I
don't know if homosexuality is innate.
Civil marriage has evolved from religious
marriage, and as such the state should not redefine traditional
marriage from the union of man and woman (and in our tradition, one
man and one woman). The state cannot force religious organizations
to sanctify any marriage that does not conform to religious
precepts.
Maryland has been Oh-Mallied, subject to
outrageous changes in state tax strategy to hide a major tax
increase. The subterfuge of a property tax cut and "progressive" tax
rate increase masks a tobacco tax increase, sales tax increase,
business tax increase, and motor fuel tax increase on the people of
Maryland.
As tax law becomes more complex, those who
are taxed unfairly strive to legally minimize tax liability, often
to the detriment of the general economy and state tax revenue.
As tax law becomes more complex, those who are taxed more attempt to
influence law makers to change tax strategy to minimize tax
liability.
Taxes should be simple, hard to change
legislatively, and not interfere with growth of the economy. A
majority of all taxes, even business taxes, are eventually paid by
the residents of the nation. Take a look at your phone bill,
cable bill, or utility bill and you will see taxes directly passed
through to you, the consumer. You may also see a regulatory
fee pass through; you are paying the cost of the company to follow
government regulations. As a citizen, I would rather directly see
the taxes I pay.
I would like an economy in which there is no
tax incentive for businesses to outsource manufacturing and services
outside the country. I would like a tax policy which does not
incentivize cheating and influencing law makers. I would like a tax
code that does not require a paid tax preparer to assist the average
wage earner/small investor. I would like a tax code that looks
like a flat-rate income tax or a Fair Tax consumption tax.
While I detest tobacco consumption, smoking
and chewing, the combined sin tax on tobacco seems to far exceed the
public cost of tobacco use. I use my own economic power to avoid
places of business that allow smoking. Tobacco consumers
should not be treated as an income source to fund education, schools
or health insurance.
My Tax
Plan: I will support minor changes to the current tax
code, especially tax cuts and reform of the Alternative Minimum
Tax. I will not support extensive modifications to the current
tax code because it is the source of undo influence of special
interests in Congress and is ultimately detrimental to our economy
and nation. I support transition of the current tax system to
a Flat Tax system for personal income and replacement of the
corporate tax with a national retail sales tax. (Now I will never
get an endorsement from the Baltimore Sun.)
After a full transition to a revenue neutral Flat Tax/Retail Sales
Tax system consideration should be given to replacing the Flat Tax
on personal income with a fully implemented retail sales Fair Tax.
Corporations pay taxes based on the sales
they make, eventually paid for by the consumers in our
economy. My proposal removes the middle man and associated
overhead in this system. Consider the corporation that only sells to
government organizations. Today they make all their profits from the
payments from government, government gets its money through taxes,
and the corporation pays taxes back to the government. There is a
certain amount of money that only ever exchanges hands, and each
hand keeps some of it, while the public pays for all of this,
including the loss. Consider the retail corporation that
only sells to the public, like a market. The market pays taxes
to the government, but only makes money by sales to the public; as
such, the taxes paid by the market come directly from the consuming
public. Most businesses fall in between these two examples, but the
source of all income is ultimately the consuming public.
Doesn't it just make sense to eliminate the drag on the economy and
just tell us, the public, how much we really are paying to all
levels of government!
Tell me what you think using the CONTACT link
above.
Paul Spause and the Howard County Senior Tax
Credit: http://www.theviewnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=9063&paper=1&cat=193
I have a radical theory, based on extensive
reading, life experience, and an urban upbringing: Criminals commit most crimes.
Wanted criminals commit crimes when they are
in the community. The single most effective crime lowering policy
is to round up wanted fugitives. Who can argue with taking
wanted felons off the street? To this end, I propose fielding an
e-Wanted Poster system throughout high crime urban areas, beginning
with Baltimore. A facial recognition system deployed in liquor and
convenience stores, managed from a central location, has the
potential to provide intelligence on the whereabouts of fugitives
while protecting the privacy of good citizens by only reporting
fugitive-matching intelligence. Facial recognition technology has
failed in high traffic areas like city streets and airports, but
deployed properly, tuned to search for wanted felons (not
necessarily the brightest of the population), managed by law
enforcement and supported by a university-based technical staff,
this technology has the potential to improve the effectiveness of
police fugitive squads.
I also support funding the DNA processing of
stored sexual assault kits. As a society we owe it to victims of
crime to exploit the evidence in cold cases with new techniques.
Will this be costly? Yes. Why do this? A primary purpose of
government is to protect citizens by enforcing the law, arresting
and trying criminal suspects, and punishing those convicted of
crimes. If government does not do this, why have a government?
Affordable health care depends on a
knowledgeable, choosey consumer. Consumers must be able to choose
the level of timely service they need, the providers they want, and
treatment plans that meet their needs. There are many potential
solutions, including Health Savings Accounts. There are two
undeniable factors to make health care more affordable: government
induced overhead must be reduced and consumers must be gainfully
employed.
Philanthropic and market-based health care in
the United States has raised the level of world health. To deny this
is to deny the investment and efforts three generations of Americans
have made to get us to where we are today. Changing our health care
system in the name of social equity will eliminate the incentive to
improve all levels of health care, and start us on a rapidly
declining vector.
Illegal immigration endangers those crossing
the border illegally, the Border Patrol officers on the border, and
residents (citizens and resident aliens) who live near the
border. Illegal immigrants are exploited by the coyotes who help them cross, employers who
pay them less than a fair wage, and advocacy groups using their
plight for domestic political power. The exploitation of illegal
immigrants is a drain on the economy, public education system, and
social safety network.
The answer: enforce current laws and seal the
border. Stopping the coyote industry,
drug trafficking, and illegal weapons trade should be the goal of
border enforcement at the Southern and Northern borders.
Additionally, people overstaying their visas should be adjudicated
according to the law and granted extensions or expelled, as
determined by appropriate authorities.
As a nation we need to thoughtfully consider
a form of amnesty for those brought to this nation illegally
as children, but reared as Americans. The various versions of the
"Dream Act" have had serious flaws, but the concept of granting
amnesty to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school, lived
within our laws as adults, and swear allegiance to the United States
is worth consideration. Not their parents or families, just the
child who is now a law-abiding adult. Those granted residency status
under this program would have to wait until attaining citizenship
before they could sponsor additional immigrants into the
country. I support expedited amnesty for those who seek
to serve in uniform and citizenship for those who serve honorably in
a uniformed service for four years or in a combat zone for 9 months
upon return to their home station (or granted as a recognition for
acts of bravery and sacrifice).
I support the proposed liquefied natural gas
terminal at Sparrows Point. The siting is safe; the plant is modern;
and the benefits to the local, state, and national economies are
real.
Maryland's current slate of elected officials
have lost the battle of Sparrows Point without the enemy taking any
action. One reason they have given for opposing the Sparrows Point
liquefied natural gas terminal is the possibility of terrorist action. If they
really feel this way, they are cowards who are not willing to
perform the primary duty of government, to oppose the enemies of our
society. These politicians are also ignorant of the properties of
LNG and natural gas. The safety concerns they express are not real;
LNG and natural gas are chemicals which are handled safely every
day. The fire and explosive concerns referenced don't apply to
LNG accidents, but they do apply to hydrogen. The unfounded safety
concerns are very real for hydrogen plants (which rely on natural
gas) in the theoretical hydrogen economy.
Another point raised against the project is
concern that Maryland will not benefit from the energy supplies
processed at the plant. Constructive negotiation with AES has
the potential to benefit us with a clean, natural gas power plant.
Detailed Map: http://www.mdp.state.md.us/redistrict/download_map/CongDist/District/Color_Map/CongDist3_col.pdf
(6 mb size)
Maryland's Third Congressional District includes some of the most economically advantaged, well educated people in our nation, and some of the poorest and most disadvantaged. It includes many people dedicated to local, state, national and international law enforcement; and some of our nation's worst predators. It includes farm land and industrial parks; low density rural areas and cities; Ravens fans and Redskin fans. Some say this district is a bad example of political gerrymandering; I consider it an excellent slice of America. As your representative I won't be able to write off challenges as not applicable to my district. I will have to be engaged in every fight and every solution. I won't have the luxury of being a stealth member of Congress or act like the freshman representative from Maryland. The stakes are too high for this district to not be represented by a congressional leader. We have had low-key representation long enough!
Anne Arundel County is an economic behemoth.
Its combination of industry, retailers, state government agencies,
federal agencies, and national corporations makes it more
economically productive than most nations. Its natural beauty and
geographic diversity make it a wonderful place to live. An its
government is at the beginning of a renewal cycle, under the
leadership of County Executive John Leopold. Anne Arundel faces the
challenges of increased crime, increasing difference of the poorest
and wealthiest citizens, and, inexplicably, under-performing
schools.
The expansion of Fort Meade will put stress
on Anne Arundel County. In office I will work to ensure the federal
government pays its fair share to ensure the essential county
services are ready to support Fort Meade and its tenant
organizations. I also pledge to support environmental restoral
programs and sensible, scientific environmental regulations for
protection of the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries.
Baltimore County is an economic
powerhouse, with nearly 25% of its economy based on manufacturing,
trade, transport and utilities. While the 3rd district elements of
Baltimore County don't include the port facilities, these are
important to all of the county's residents. Integrity of the port is
important for the county, state and nation. Security at the port
must be implemented in a way to accommodate high processing rates and
highly reliable methods to find dangerous cargo. I support the
liquefied natural gas facility at Sparrows Point (more on this
below) and improving the energy infrastructure of the county.
The county faces increasing crime from
Baltimore City criminal migration and increased gang activity. A
comprehensive, regional crime plan for Baltimore City and
surrounding counties is needed among local, state and federal
agencies.
Howard County (my home) is a small county
incorporating dense suburban communities, rural areas, and
everything in between. Howard County has a growing business and
manufacturing community. It faces similar challenges to Anne Arundel
County from the expansion of Fort Meade. From Elkridge to Columbia
and Ellicott City, the 3rd district portion of Howard County
includes many traditional families, small businesses, and
transportation-related businesses.
Baltimore City is a smaller jurisdiction in
the 3rd district, but its impact on the entire district is immense.
Baltimore City was once the economic power house of the state. It is
now an deep monetary hole for the entire state. The city drug and
crime problems are migrating into other areas of the 3rd district.
The Baltimore City public school system is a money pit that is not
properly preparing the student body for higher education and the
work force. I look forward to advancements under the leadership of
CEO Andrés A. Alonso.
The crime problem in Baltimore must be
addressed by comprehensively taking career criminals and violent
offenders off the street. City residents and visitors
rightly have the expectation for security from the city and
justice system. Baltimore City needs an economic renewal; it needs
more businesses with good paying jobs. Baltimore students and their
families deserve effective schools and school choice. Baltimore City
will benefit from a thriving charter school environment supplemented by
a voucher program similar to that in Washington, D.C.
The base realignment and closure (BRAC)
expansion at Fort Meade presents challenges and opportunities to this
district, requiring action from Maryland's congressional delegation.
I will ensure the federal government provides its fair share of
funds and resources to prepare the civil infrastructure in support
of the expanded mission of Fort Meade. I will also ensure the
promises of BRAC are kept. This region is investing in the federal
government's plan--the federal government must follow through with
the realignment.
BRAC also represents a problem for this
region. We are too economically dependent on federal spending. The
federal government normally pays decent wages, is environmentally
responsible, and doesn't compete with others. Private businesses
don't behave as well, but provide a stronger economic base than the
federal government. As we prepare for BRAC, we must also entice
non-related private enterprise into this region to preserve our
economic diversity.
The rights we enjoy in this nation don't come
from the government, the constitution or each other. Our rights come
from the nature of who and what we are; we are
intelligent humans with free will. Many of use also
believe we are created in the image of God by God. Before
governments, telescopes, microphones and language, humans built
shelter to protect themselves from the environment, predatory
threats, and other people. Any parent knows (or will soon learn)
that the desire for privacy is natural, and authority
figures have a tendency to impede it. Unlike many
conservatives, I don't think a right to privacy needs to be in the
constitution. I do think we need to define our expectations of
privacy through legislative action. This will establish a basis is
law.
Americans have a reasonable expectation
of privacy when they use their own telecommunications equipment and
services for domestic communications. Americans have a
reasonable expectation of privacy when using commercially
available, state-of -the-art encryption methods for domestic
communications. Americans should not reasonably expect that
communications outside the country are private. Foreign governments
and companies don't follow U.S. privacy standards. The U.S.
government does have an interest in monitoring worldwide
communications, and this may capture communications involving U.S.
persons who are not the intended targets of monitoring. Americans can
expect that if they are the intended target of U.S. government
communications monitoring that the government has obtained a warrant
for its actions.
We must continue to actively protect our
rights as technologies evolve. Law enforcement has advanced
thermal surveillance equipment that enables monitoring movement
within a residence. I consider uncontrolled use of this technology a significant violation of
privacy rights; such surveillance should be done under warrant or in
support of otherwise authorized tactical operations.
Self
Defense Rights
Just as with privacy, humans have defended
themselves long before the concept of government evolved. Humans have
used lethal and less-lethal means for self protection for millennia.
Iron age humans had the option to use a spear for self defense or
the less lethal club. With the development of firearms, less lethal
means of protection became significantly less effective.
Our constitution limits the power of
government to infringe on our right to keep firearms and bear them
for protection. It really is that simple; further dissembling simply
supports control of the individual, not any real effort to ensure
individual rights. Governments have also started to regulate (and by
regulate I mean ban) less lethal methods of self defense. Why should
any government limit one's ability for self defense with chemical
spray devices or electric stun devices? Some will say these are not
firearms and not protected by the constitution. I argue that the
reasonable authors of the Bill of Rights saw no reason to limit
government's ability to regulate less lethal weapons because they
made it clear firearms were protected. I am also sure it never
occurred to them that some fools in government would even try
such a thing. Governments have banned ownership of less-lethal
weapons to prevent their use in crimes. Why would a person
willing to commit a robbery care about legally obtaining pepper
spray or a stun wand? These laws only control the power of the
citizenry to exercise self defense rights.
I will fight to restore our firearms rights
and our rights to choose less-lethal means of protection. Safety
certification is a reasonable expectation we should have of our
fellow citizens, but banning another law-abiding citizen from owning
a firearm, pepper spray, or stun gun is unreasonable. Since
government cannot always protect us from predators in our
society, we must be free to exercise this right ourselves, in a
manner we choose.
Religious Freedom, the Wall of Separation
between Church and State
Let's be honest, it is clear that religious
expression in the public sphere is significantly different now than
it was in the late 1700's and early 1800's; but aren't we still
operating under the same first amendment? The first amendment
protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression
from government infringement; it doesn't protect the government from
religion any more than it protects it from freedom of expression.
The establishment clause clearly applies to the institutions of
Church and State; there should not be any direct support
of single religious denomination by the government, nor
should there be repression. Laws respecting religious concepts and
organizations (such as Sunday "blue laws", zoning to keep
certain businesses away from places of worship, support of parochial
schools, tax breaks for places of worship) have passed
constitutional muster.
The current issues regarding Church and
State spring from the misconception by some Americans that
they are free from religion in the public sphere. There is no such
protection. Americans are free to pursue laws that respect their
religious precepts, such as banning alcohol, criminalizing abortion,
or requiring Sabbath elevators in all public buildings. While
some of these desires might infringe on other individual rights,
there is no prohibition against pursuing these actions. While I
would never support a law or rule banning pork products, I
recognize the rights of others to pursue such actions. Our nation is
the place where people of good will of all faiths can come together
and continually shape a society that respects the diversity of our
world's faiths and individual liberties.
I am troubled by what I see as attempts to
isolate and regulate religious institutions: limiting government
funds to religiously affiliated organizations (the concern about
school vouchers being used at religious-affiliated schools),
requiring religious institutions to support things in the public
sphere which are against it precepts (like requiring Catholic
Charities to provide birth control coverage to its employees), and
banning traditional symbols which recognize religious occasions or
tradition (nativity scenes, cross monuments). I will
fight to preserve our nation's traditional respect for religion
and recognition that spirituality is a natural part of
humanity.
Torture
I view this very simply: Torture is wrong.
Inciting fear of death into one who is your prisoner is wrong.
Causing pain in one who is your prisoner is wrong. I accept
psychological methods and physical discomfort to disorient a
prisoner. I accept non-damaging pharmaceutical techniques for
interrogation. Having been an Air Force officer and respecting the
citizen-soldier concept, I would never support any
American torturing a prisoner on behalf of the American
people. I support the use approved interrogation techniques;
violations of the laws regarding torture should be prosecuted up the
chain of command.
I oppose the concept of "rendition" if the
intent is to contract-out torture to other nations.
My position against torture is not primarily
motivated by the prisoner; but rather, by the effect on the
individuals performing the torture and the institutions that
sanction torture. I would never ask my child to torture
another person, nor would I ever ask any other American's child to
be a torturer.
Government Oversight
Congress has a responsibility to perform
oversight of the executive branch. This current congress, and
Representative Sarbanes, have performed this duty in the style of an
inquisition--setting perjury traps for any executive (read
Republican) official they don't like. This betrays the intent of the
Constitution and demeans the office.
I see oversight as a duty to be performed in
an open, cooperative atmosphere. Only after there is compelling
evidence of witness or Executive Branch obfuscation should an
adversarial approach be used. Politics in the Government Oversight and Reform Committee
have replaced duty; Representative Sarbanes should be
embarrassed.
Campaign Finances, Reform, and Free Speech
McCain-Feingold campaign reform has been a
failure. The only good point in this mess has been the "stand by
your ad" provision. Money is still key and the politicians have
proven they know how to raise it one way or another. All campaign
finance reform has done is define a new "another". Reform has also
had a chilling affect on free speech by concerned citizens close to
an election.
I do not support government financing of
campaigns and I do not support the restrictions on advertising
placed on non-candidates. I will work to fully restore our free
speech and political association rights.
|
Congressman John Sarbanes cannot even
start to solve the economic and energy problems facing our
region, state and nation due to his political philosophy. The
economy must be expanded by supporting business development
and reducing tax rates. The nation's energy supply must be
secured by expanding domestic oil and coal production in the
near term and moving to modern nuclear fission and fusion
technology in the long term.
Sarbanes' political
philosophy does not recognize the possibility of increasing
public revenues through policies that support an expanding
economy or ensuring the integrity of the environment by
modernizing the fossil fuel branch of the energy sector. I'd
like to think he would support the concept of fighting crime
by jailing wanted criminals. He also played a part in the
Maryland-Baltimore education establishment, and having
listened to him during his last campaign, I don't think he can
be part of a needed public education overhaul.
While Congressman Sarbanes
should be lauded for his legislation to help disabled veterans
with social security benefits, I would have also asked the
question: Why does Social Security pay benefits to disabled
veterans? While the veterans are entitled to the benefit, the
cost of the benefit should not come from Social Security, it
should come from the Defense/Veterans budget. The social
safety net should not be relied upon to pay for
military-related benefits. This hides the true cost of defense
from the public.
While Congressman Sarbanes
has taken legislative action to address "nature-deficit"
disorder in public school students and environmental literacy
(we used to call this earth science when I was a student),
this is not in the normal purview of the Congress. Sarbanes
and his party should be addressing: illegal trafficking at the
border; rising crime in U.S. metropolitan areas; Iranian
arms killing U.S. personnel in Iraq; tax laws that encourage
businesses to leave the country; and rising energy costs
derailing the U.S. economy.
Congressman Sarbanes represents the latest
generation of politicians who have been running Baltimore and
Maryland for the last 50 years. While he wasn't directly
involved in the policies that have devastated Baltimore's
civil order, education and economy, he represents the same
political philosophy. Sarbanes is not the candidate for change
and solutions to our most challenging problems. While I
will not even attempt to address nature-deficit disorder in
other people's children, I will work for a growing economy,
growing energy infrastructure, secure environment, and
effective education policies in a nation actively defending
itself from its enemies. The Sarbanes standard and its antiquated
concepts of providing fairness and opportunity through
government programs is not good enough for the exceptional solutions needed in
the 21st century.
When you compare Sarbane's view on the most critical issue facing the 3rd District
and my answer to the same question, you see the critical difference.
Sarbane's sees education, the environment and health care as the most urgent problems facing the district. I see energy and the economy as the most urgent problems. All Sarbane's
priorities are actually the fruits of a successful economy, the social benefits of capitalism. There is no way he will ever support pro-growth, pro-business policies; but he wants the tax revenue that
comes from a robust economy.
|
|
