"I have not been able the find any candidate who I feel that I can trust to represent, support, and protect the valuable assets (most of my life) that I have invested in this Republic.
If you want something done right, you might consider doing it yourself.
I know that I don't trust my present representatives and from what I have seen of current candidates, I feel that I could do a much better job."
— Submitted by the candidate
How can the federal government best stimulate the economy?
"In order to stimulate the economy, the business environment must be stabilized for businesses to regain confidence in the environment.
The federal government plays a large part in this. Frequently changing rules, regulations, and laws governing taxes and the processes of doing business keeps the business environment in turmoil. Businesses cannot assess the risks involved in investment as they are unsure of what the regulations and taxes will be in the future.
Regulations will change to some degree at various times, but the more stable the environment, the more confidence businesses will have in their risk assessments. With confidence in the environment and thus their risk assessment, they will be able to confidently invest in expansion and thus growing the economy.
The federal government must set the tax rates and business regulations and leave them alone. Small changes may be required from time to time, but major upheavals must be avoided. Once the business environment stabilizes confidence, business will expand and thus the economy.
The more favorable the taxes and regulations are to business, the faster the economy will strengthen and grow. Less regulation and lower taxes are always favorable to growth."
Bush tax cuts
Will you vote to continue the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush for the top 3% of earners?
"Yes. There should be no increase in any taxes until the economy strengthens and stabilizes."
If the bipartisan deficit commission says that both spending reductions and revenue increases, including tax hikes, are necessary to reduce the federal deficit to a sustainable level, would you support such a package?
"I would support most spending reductions any time.
The government spending is the most significant cause of the federal deficit. An expanding economy would increase revenues without raising any tax rates.
I cannot visualize any situation where increasing tax rates would encourage economic expansion. At this point in the economic cycle, I cannot see that tax increases would be anything but economically counterproductive.
So yes, I would support spending cuts, and no, I would not support tax increases until the economy strengthens and is stabilized. I would actually favor cutting taxes in order to encourage expansion."
Health care law
What is your view of the national health care law?
"Besides being terrible legislation that will weaken the economy, overall health care, and the well-being of the population, and severely weaken the Republic, I consider it unconstitutional.
I know that this legislation was not written by our elected legislators, but by special interest groups over a period of several years. A 2,400-page piece of legislation could not be read in just a few weeks, much less be researched and written by Congress in a couple of weeks. This had to have been in the works for probably several years just waiting to be delivered."
Do you agree with Arizona's new immigration law? If not, what should the country do about illegal immigration?
"I do not agree with the fact that any state should have to write and pass any such law.
There is a law in place (Illegal Immigration Act of 1996) that Democrat, Republican, and now Democrat administrations have refused to enforce.
I would agree that immigration reform is needed, but at the present time, the administration is constitutionally required to enforce any and all federal laws in place whether they agree with them or not.
It is becoming quite common for this administration to pick and choose which laws that they want to refuse to enforce or actually break (flagrant disregard of bankruptcy law, civil rights voter law ... should be considered breaking the law).
As far as the problems along our southern border are concerned, I consider the situation in Mexico a much greater threat to our national security than the phantom WMDs in Iraq ever were.
The first problem that must be corrected is the physical security of the border that has been violated primarily by the unabated operations of the drug cartels in northern Mexico.
Since our armed forces cannot legally operate militarily within the borders of the US, I would support the deployment of the 101st Airborne (we have already overstayed in Afghanistan and our military should not be involved in nation-building as they are trained specifically to destroy an enemy) along the border in Mexico.
When they have eliminated the cartels and set up a 50- to 100-mile-wide safe zone corridor, the Navy SeaBees could be brought in to use indigenous labor and aid money already targeted for Mexico to build schools and medical clinics that would be the pride of Mexico.
There would probably be a serious reverse immigration situation started that would probably include US citizens going illegally into Mexico to earn money to send back to the US.
Since the government of Mexico has demonstrated that they cannot control the situation along our border, this would be considered a police action and aid mission."
Do you support free trade or fair trade? Why?
"I support free trade with no government interference in order to allow prices and costs to stabilize where they will.
The exporter will then determine the price they want to cover their cost of production and the amount that they want for a profit. The importer will then decide if they want the product for that price.
If they can get the same or similar product for a lower cost elsewhere, that is their choice. It is a totally free-will transaction with no coercion on either end of the transaction and everyone is happy.
This situation will never be realized as long as the governments are involved.
There will be groups in the importer country that have greater costs to produce the product and will insist that the government put a tariff on it to raise the cost of import to protect them.
The export country may see that the import country needs the product and sees that they can put an export tax on the product to raise more money for the government.
There is also the situation of currency manipulation by either country in order to encourage or discourage the general overall trade balance. This is still a somewhat free trade situation, as the importer and exporter still have the freedom to accept or decline the transaction.
Fair trade is the situation where an outside group is involved to set what they consider a fair price, which generally favors the poorer country and has the power to coerce the importer country into accepting the product at that price. In this situation, there are numerous parties that are unhappy with the transaction."
What specific changes would you support to make Social Security and Medicare sustainable over the long term?
"For Social Security and Medicare, the first thing to be done would be to raise the eligibility age for benefits.
People 55 and older would not be affected.
For people 50-55, all age eligibility requirements are raised 1 year.
For people 40-50, all age eligibility requirements are raised 2 years.
For people 30-40, all age eligibility requirements are raised 3 years.
For people 20-30, all age eligibility requirements are raised 4 years.
For people under 20, all age eligibility requirements are raised 5 years.
Beginning in 2012, the $106,000 Social Security wage cap should be removed so that no earned income will be excluded from Social Security tax.
Once these changes have been stabilized and the results have been assessed, I would favor readjusting the payroll tax assessment to 3% employee and 3% employer (from the 6% employee and 6% employer assessment now in place) in order to begin the process of closing it down and encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own social net and retirement.
This process would have to be accomplished over many years (possibly 50; it has taken 75 years to get where we now find ourselves).
All revenues will be segregated from the general funds. US Treasury bonds may be purchased from the funds, but pillage of these funds for general spending will cease. Previously pillaged funds will be computed and repaid into the system over time. I have heard from various sources that there should be around $2.5 trillion in the fund at this time."