Categories
General

Abolish Earmarks


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

photo credit: Skrewtape

For some time I have been internally conflicted on the issue of congressional earmarking. Many people, including such diverse characters as President Obama and Congressman Chaffetz, have been vocal about calling for an end to earmarks. Others such as my own Congressman, Rob Bishop, reply that earmarks are not an addition to the total size of our federal expenditures – but simply a direction regarding the spending of money already appropriated. Believers in small government who make that argument say that our focus should be on reducing total expenditures rather than shutting down the earmarking process. Personally, I would like to see an end to earmarking and a significant reduction in total spending. (Earmarks alone are an insignificant portion of our spending.)

Categories
National

Strong National Defense for the American Dream


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Regarding strong national defense in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz reminds us:

The men and women serving in our armed forces are the best in the world. They can accomplish anything they are asked to do, if they are given the proper resources and clear rules of engagement.

He believes that we should be working towards:

Imagine the best equipped strategic strike forces rapidly deployed at a moment's notice to respond to the national security interests of the United States of America. Also, imagine a well compensated military that cares for the military families, now, in the future, and especially when wounded.

He thinks this will take us there:

  • Dedicate at least 4% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for national defense spending.
  • Secure our borders, enforce our current immigration laws, and reject amnesty for those who are here illegally.
  • Adopt a “Go Big or Go Home” approach to our overseas military presence. We must have the best foreign intelligence, human and electronic.
  • Support an “all of the above” national energy policy that advocates rapid development of renewable energy, clean/green energy, and the use of our various natural resources and nuclear capabilities. Recognize that energy independence is vital to our national security.
  • Keep Guantanamo Bay open and continue with military tribunals.
  • Sustain the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
  • Support Veterans by honoring all commitments made to them.

My reactions:

  • Having a flat rate dedicated to defense might be better than our current what-can-we-get-away-with approach. Whether 4% is the right rate is up for debate.
  • We need to secure our borders, but that will probably require a long discussion about what we believe about immigration and then a complete overhaul of our immigration laws. Then we would need to strictly enforce those immigration laws once they are in line with our immigration beliefs.
  • “Go Big or Go Home” might help us be more careful about when and where we “go.”
  • “All of the above” is definitely the right energy policy.
  • Keeping Guantanamo Bay open is not helping our national security in any measurable way.
  • We should sustain basic rights – obviously including the Second Amendment.
  • We should honor all our commitments and our veterans have done the most to warrant making those commitments to them than any other group – certainly they have done more than most of our members of Congress.
Categories
National

Accountability for the American Dream


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

As far as Accountability in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz lists our sitation as:

Americans have lost confidence in their elected leaders and the direction of the country as a whole. We are being governed by a “nanny state” mentality that is blanketing the country with the misconception that the government can and should solve all problems.

He envisions the goal as:

Imagine an atmosphere of personal responsibility where individuals took control of their future and worked hard to improve their lives. Restoration of confidence in the government is possible through true openness and transparency in all facets of government operations.

To achieve that goal he proposes:

  • Fire the Czars and adhere to the procedures under the Constitution requiring Senate confirmation for such leadership positions.
  • Apply all laws equally to Congress.
  • Require Committees to post all proceedings on the Internet within 24 hours. Allow 72 hours for Bills and Conference Reports to be publicly online prior to a vote on the House Floor.
  • Prohibit Members of Congress serving on Appropriations and Ways & Means from seeking earmarks.
  • Require that 100% of all campaign donations be filed with the Federal Election Commission for public review.
  • Attack the rampant waste, fraud, and abuses in Medicare and Medicaid.
  • Deny the passage of “card check” and participate in labor law reform.
  • Ensure that E-Verify is fully deployed and mandatory for hiring an employee.

My thoughts on his steps toward the goal:

  • Sounds more like a sound bite than an real effective step in the right direction.
  • What does this mean?
  • This couldn’t hurt.
  • This would make those committee assignments much less desirable but if the rest of our Representatives can still seek earmarks little will have been accomplished.
  • I like it.
  • Vague.
  • Vague.
  • I’m not sure that E-Verify is all that it is cracked up to be. I fear that it will be more expense than value.
Categories
National

Limited Government for the American Dream


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

On Limited Government in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz lists our situation as:

The government is omnipresent in our lives, restricting our basic liberties. The proper role of government is a strictly limited one. We recognize that the States created the federal government. The federal government did not create the States. Further, it is not the government that will create jobs, wealth, or propel the United States of America to reach its fullest potential. It is the American people who will drive America forward.

He suggests that our goal should be:

Imagine a federal government that recognized it could not solve every problem. Imagine a government focused instead on the most important federal roles, such as national defense. Individuals should have the freedom to succeed or fail in this country. It is not the government’s role to stand in the way of either outcome or to choose winners and losers.

To achieve this goal he recommends:

  • Repeal TARP and commit to no more “stimulus” bills that are merely a ruse to grow government.
  • Appoint a bi-partisan “Sunset Commission” to identify at least 100 federal departments or programs recommended for elimination by December 31, 2011.
  • Reduce the corporate income tax to a flat 10%. This will eliminate the wide array of corporate loopholes, incentivize business in the U.S.A., and simplify the tax code.
  • Reject the “Cap & Trade” scheme and repeal all EPA funding related to carbon policy.
  • Sell back to private ownership the three million acres of federal land identified under the Clinton Administration as having no federal purpose.

My thoughts on those steps is as follows:

  • No more stimulus is a great idea.
  • A bipartisan commission would only identify 100 departments by having half the commission identify at least 49 departments or programs and then trade those with the 49 other “crucial” departments or programs identified by the other half of the commission as recommended for elimination. Added to the two departments or programs that the majority could honestly agree on they would scrape together the recommended 100 – none of which will actually get eliminated. Mmmm, sausage.
  • As I said before, a flat tax rate without loopholes allows the private portion of the economy to act with more confidence.
  • All of our government “green” legislation and policies are more political than scientific. It’s too bad that our government can’t stick to facts and let opinions sort themselves out instead of the other way around.
  • The government should sell off any federal land that has no federal purpose.
Categories
National

Fiscal Discipline for the American Dream


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) has proposed a Congressional Action Plan (CAP) called the Contract for the American Dream which he is inviting members of Congress and candidates for Congress to sign. While I agree with his CAP generally I thought I would take the time to break out the four sections of the plan and evaluating what I agree or disagree with more specifically. This post focuses on Fiscal Discipline. Later posts will focus on Limited Government, Accountability, and Strong National Defense.

Congressman Chaffetz describes our current fiscal discipline situation as:

Our national debt exceeds $12 trillion, with our annual deficit in excess of $1.4 trillion. Federal spending as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is roughly 25%, when historically it has been roughly 19-20%. We pay approximately $600 million per day in interest payments. In short, the current government spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much of the people's money. It is unacceptable and unsustainable. No longer can we run this government on a credit card. We are not going to borrow and spend our way out of these challenges.

He suggests a goal to work for as:

Imagine a federal government that treats the national treasure with respect and responsibility by living within its means-where every American pays a fair share.

Here are the steps he proposes to achieve that goal:

  • Reduce total federal payroll and workforce by 10%, except for military. This action will force all federal departments to identify and eliminate waste.
  • Support a balanced budget amendment.
  • Require 2/3 majority vote for any tax increase.
  • Cut non-defense discretionary spending by inflation minus 3% across the board.
  • Impose a moratorium on all appropriations earmarks until the process is reformed legislatively. Work to maximize openness and transparency with filters, to ensure only expenditures with a federal nexus, and prohibit allocations to for-profit companies.
  • Reduce the capital gains rate to 10%. This will lead to increased receipts to the federal treasury and will also increase investment in the USA.
  • Engage in entitlement reform.

Here are my thoughts in a point-by-point format:

  • The idea to reduce government spending and bureaucracy is right but he seems to be using a very blunt instrument to perform this surgical operation.
  • Sounds good to me but show me the proposed amendment.
  • I’m not sure what drawbacks this might have.
  • Why 3%? (Plus, show me the math so that I’m clear on the meaning here.)
  • Sounds like politician-speak for “earmarks are bad but we can’t really get rid of them – let me show you that I want to fix the system.”
  • I favor flat tax rates without loopholes – that provides predictability so that people know what to expect on tax day. That certainty allows businesses to more confidently make decisions.
  • Vague but promising.
Categories
State

Why Bob Bennett?


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I went to the organizing convention for the Utah Republican Party on Saturday. While I was there in the nidst of hundreds of people campaigning for candidates and causes among the state delegates I made a point to talk to a variety of people sporting Bob Bennett t-shirts. With four primary challengers at present it is easy to see that the discontent with our incumbent is widespread. I believe that the reasons for supporting a challenger are not substantially different between those supporting Mark ShurtleffJames Williams, Cherilyn Eagar,  or Tim Bridgewater (in the order they will have officially announced) – I understand some of those generic reasons for seeking a change. What I wanted to understand was what motivated those who were actively supporting an embattled incumbent. I tried to present the question in a way that would get them to try to sell the candidate to me rather than leaving them feeling as if they (or their candidate) were being attacked.

I have to say that I was not very surprised by the answers that I received. I talked to more than two people and I always talked to them one-on-one so that one person would not influence the answers of another but they offered only two distinct reasons between them.  The first reason was the same one I heard from Senator Bennett back in February at a town hall breakfast meeting – seniority. (Some said experience but it amounts to the same argument.) The other answer I heard – and this would likely be even more disconcerting to many conservatives than seniority – was Bennett’s ability to work with Democrats. Personally I would rather support someone who would drown while trying to swim against the current than support someone who would stay afload by swimming with the current that was swiftly running away from the desired destination. Thankfully I think that we have candidates already in the race who can stay afloat while swimming upstream.

For those who are convinced that seniority is everything we can look to the freshman representative in Utah’s 3rd congressional district. Rep. Chaffetz has done quite a job of defending his positions and even getting bills passed without an ounce of seniority – and he’s earning quite a reputation for standing firm in his convictions which probably helps him to do more than if he were more prone to going along with the crowd. Some would argue that seniority is more important in the Senate than in the House – for those I would point to the example of a freshman senator from New York who was probably more influential in the Republican controlled senate of 2000 than our own two term Republican senator in that same senate. Seniority is not everything – it’s simply useful if you are headed in the right direction.

Categories
State

A Fresh Face in Congress


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I really don’t mind so much if the voters in Utah always choose Republicans to represent them in Congress so long as they replace at least one incumbent on a regular basis (I’d say at least one new face every other election cycle). For that reason, if for no other, I was happy to hear that Jason Chaffetz ousted Chris Cannon in the Republican primary yesterday. District 3 will have a new face and we are guaranteed to have another new face by 2012 with the addition of District 4.