Sunday, August 24, 2014

Don't Waste Your Vote

It is a commonly accepted myth that voting for a third party candidate is a "wasted" vote. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is usually true.  The major party candidates tend to stray very little from the party line, so a vote for them is typically for nothing more than a vote for a talking head that represents the party power brokers. Add to that the fact that , despite the name calling and mud-slinging, there is little difference in practice between those two parties. Both Republicans and Democrats increase debt and taxes to increase their power and grow the government. The people are increasingly frustrated and unhappy with this. When Democrats are in control, they vote Republican to try and change things. When Republicans are in control the people vote Democrat to try and change things. The end result is that nothing changes, because there is no significant difference between them. That is why the President has such a low approval  rating, and why Congress' approval rating is far worse. At this point the majority of people have figured this out, and don't vote at all. They know voting for the Republican or Democrat is just a waste of time, and end up wasting their vote on no one. Less than half of eligible voters end up casting their ballot, and nearly all are frustrated with the end results.
If just those discouraged people would vote for the independent and third party candidates, things would change dramatically. Those votes would not be wasted.  Republicans and Democrats would have a very hard time winning elections. The establishment power brokers would not be able to control the government, and therefore the people. Independent and third party candidates owe no loyalty to these power brokers. They cannot be controlled by anyone but the electorate, the people that vote. That is what scares the establishment. That is why lawmakers and the two major parties work so hard to keep independent and third party candidates off the ballot and out of debates. That is why they work so hard to perpetuate the myth of the wasted vote.
Repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again, and somehow expecting the results to change is a definition of insanity. Yet this is exactly what we have been doing every election year. The results are always the same. It's time for REAL change, to stop the insanity. Stop wasting your vote. Vote for the independent or third party candidate that WILL make a difference. The candidate that votes his or her conscience, not what their party boss or campaign contributors tell them to. Our founding fathers set up a fantastic system of government where the power comes from the people. That system has been corrupted, but all is not lost. That corruption hinges entirely on believing that any vote for an independent or third part candidate is wasted. It is time for that myth to die. Take the power back, it's yours. Don't keep wasting your vote on the same establishment candidates that vary in little more than appearance or name. Don't waste your vote by staying at home. The establishment parties are depending on you to do just exactly that. Your country desperately needs you to dismiss that myth and fight back at the ballot box.
A vote for me isn't a wasted vote. The votes for me are the only ones not wasted. It only takes a few successes to bring down the myth, to dramatically change things for the better. You have the power to do that this November. Make your vote count. Vote for change. Vote for a difference. Vote for a Libertarian. Vote for an Independent. Vote for me. You can make a difference, you do have a voice.
 

Friday, August 15, 2014

Minimum Wage

There is a proposal to raise the minimum wage in Arkansas over the next few years. This is an issue that will have a clear divide between republicans and democrats. Both parties love this issue because they can use it in their election propaganda without having to worry about anything substantive occurring.  This simply isn't really an issue.  The minimum wage in Arkansas is currently well below the mandated federal minimum wage, and as such effects almost nobody. Raising the rate to the federal level will have absolutely no affect at all on anything other than allowing democrats and republicans to publically disagree with each other. Do we really need a law to accomplish that? Raising the rate in the future to something slightly above the federal level will still not have much of a net overall effect.  Some low paid workers will see a small increase in pay, but not enough to lift them out of poverty or provide a liveable wage. Some employers will end up hiring fewer workers, so those just entering the workforce will have an even harder time finding a job. Other employers will just pass on the increased labor costs resulting in inflation. This issue is insignificant to the point that I don't really care that much about it one way or the other. Generally I think the market can do a much better job of setting fair wages than the government can, but in this particular case the proposal is so miniscule that I don't think it really matters. As such, I would pass on my thoughts to the people in my district, and vote on such an issue in whichever way they thought best.   

Friday, July 25, 2014

Rural Ambulance Service

This issue has been taking up quite a bit of the county government's time and energy, not to mention a fair bit of reserve funds. Last night I attended the quorum court meeting to hear the 3rd reading and observe the vote. It was interesting. There were over a dozen people in attendance, with a handful that made their public comment. Each expressed a different opinion on what tax should be raised to support the ambulance service. The court itself was considering two options: a small millage increase for everyone in the county, and/or a  $40 fee for property owners in unincorporated areas. The jp's themselves couldn't agree on what to pass, as those representing incorporated areas wanted only the fee, and those representing rural areas wanted the millage. The end result was that neither proposal received the votes needed to have the issue on the ballot. I couldn't help thinking that even before the vote, all this energy was being wasted. People don't want their taxes raised. Either issue would have most likely failed at the ballot box in November. The quorum court can still get this on the ballot if they can find the votes needed in an early or special meeting next month, after that it'll have to wait another year. Again, I don't think it'll matter.
The voters are unlikely to pass a tax increase they feel is unnecessary, and rightfully so.  We pay an awful lot in taxes. So far, the county has not done a good job informing the voters why a tax increase is needed. I think we can all agree ambulance service is necessary, here's what the county needs to answer if they want us to pay more for it:
1. Explain why those using the ambulance in rural areas don't just pay for the service as needed. This is, after all, what insurance is for. Are there a lot of non-reimbursed ambulance runs? If so, what is the actual cost of those non-reimbursed runs. What is the added cost to the cities for just the rural runs they make?
2. If the cost is for the establishment and maintenance of the service and not the cost of the service itself, what is that cost and how is it calculated? Furthermore, how is the county's cost separate from the incorporated city's cost determined. The cities have submitted "bills" that the county is paying from reserve funds now, but how were those amounts arrived at? Is it reasonably a fair share? Can a better price be negotiated? If the county is paying for a certain percentage of the establishment, what percent of control would the county have in administering that service? How would that be determined and implemented? Doesn't the county have the right and responsibility to oversee and control costs for a service it is partially establishing?
3. What would it cost for the county to establish its own rural service? Or take over all service in the county, cities included. Is "renting" service from the city the most cost effective way? Is a private for profit service more cost effective or available?
4. Why do we need new taxes to cover this? Are there any other areas of the budget that can be cut
in order to provide this service? If so, what are they?  How much are we currently spending in each area of the county budget? Can all those expenditures be justified as necessary to the point of raising taxes for ambulance service?
These all need to be answered, made public, and most importantly, become common knowledge, before any tax hike is likely to be approved by the voters. Print this information in the local papers, a guest column shouldn't cost the county anything and it might help newspaper circulation. Publish the information on the county's website so anyone with internet access can read it. Have the JP's go to public meetings in their districts to get the information out and receive feedback. It doesn't have to be a special town hall; go to council meetings, farmers markets, organization meetings, churches, etc...
If it is determined that a tax increase is the best option, give the voters more than just two choices to choose from. Beyond the considered fee or millage increase, consider increasing sales tax, voluntary dues, pursue grants or private donations,  or anything else someone might come up with. This again would have to become public and common knowledge. Clearly explain the benefits, drawbacks, and costs for each option.  Listen to what tax option(s) the people are most agreeable to, and put that/those on the ballot.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Why Not A Republican

District 96 has been a solid republican district for a while now. For a decade or so, this position has been unopposed. There is good reason for this. The people of Northwest Arkansas are mostly good conservative people, and the leftist message typical of the democrat party is rightfully viewed poorly here. The conservative small government, low taxes, personal responsibility rhetoric common to the republican party resonates well with the sensible people of Benton County. So why am I not a republican, and why shouldn't we vote for one? Because they lie, and their message is all marketing with no substance.
The republicans took complete control of the legislature in the last election cycle, with veto proof control in both houses of the legislature.  The republicans had free reign to shrink the government, reduce spending, and cut taxes.  They did not.  Instead, last year they ADDED nearly 900 million dollars in spending. They supported Obamacare by expanding medicaid through the so called "private option."  They INCREASED taxes on everyone by increasing the state sales tax rate.  They claimed to cut taxes by reducing the income tax rate by 1/10th of one percent only for people earning less than $7,000 a year, and eliminating the tax on dividend income above $10,000,000.00.  This gave a tax cut to part time workers that was far less than the sales tax increase imposed on them.  The handful of people earning over 10 million dollars in dividend income got a nice tax cut, but a tax cut for less than .01 percent of the state population is hardly something to brag about.  The vast majority of us are paying more in taxes this year because of the republicans.
Furthermore, they are proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal current term limits. They deceptively worded it to make it appear that it would be setting rather than repealing term limits so that we would be tricked into voting for it this November.  They are also hoping to amend the constitution to make it easier to raise salaries for elected state representatives and senators without having to be held responsible for such actions.  They are deliberately working to increase the power of the government, not shrink it. 
That is why I cannot vote for, much less join, the republican party. They have no integrity, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the people they claim to represent.  I know it is cliché to call any politician a liar now, as we have come to accept it as commonplace. We should NOT accept this. That is why I am a Libertarian.  You may not agree with everything the party stands for, I certainly don't agree with it all, but you can be sure that the vast majority of Libertarians have integrity and mean what they say. There are no party bosses forcing me to vote the party line. The party has not been bought and paid for by special interests. If you're looking for a party that won't lie to you, the Libertarian party is your only option.      

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Medical Marijuana

The Libertarian Party is probably most known to the general public for its pro-marijuana stance. I am hoping to change this, as I find it to be an issue far less important than many others.  Unlike our last few presidents, I have never used and have no desire to ever use marijuana.  As a representative in our government, however, I have no right to impose my opinions on everyone else. This is an issue where democracy should prevail. Currently, most voters in Arkansas do not want to legalize marijuana for any reason, and I support the vote. This could change. Medical marijuana proponents will undoubtedly bring the measure back to the ballot for another vote. I will support the results of that vote too, regardless of the outcome.
My personal take on the issue is this:
Many of the supporters of medical marijuana do so to bring about legal recreational marijuana, as has been done recently in Colorado and Washington.  A majority of minors that illegally use marijuana get their first supply of the product from somebody's medical supply. Marijuana can be a dangerous drug, the federal government made it illegal for a reason. The drug trade involved in bringing marijuana to this state and country is violent and immoral involving everything from assault and theft to human trafficking and murder. Even if the state legalizes the drug, it will still be a federal crime to buy, sell, grow, or possess it.  These are all good reasons to continue keeping marijuana illegal in our state.
Conversely, marijuana was used for many years for medical purposes, and synthetic derivatives are currently legally available by prescription. As more research is done, benefits are becoming known. The dangerous effects may be less than those for currently legal drugs, including opiates. The prosecution and incarceration for marijuana possession is taxing our crowded prison system. Taxing marijuana sales could be a lucrative source of income for the state. These are good reasons to legalize it.
About one percent of the population is immune to the effects of opiates, rendering most available painkillers useless to them. I am one of that unlucky one percent. My last two  kidney stones were rather painful, and morphine provided absolutely no relief. Fortunately, the intense pain of kidney stones lasts only days. For people suffering chronic pain I understand the desire for an alternative medicine that might work. The negative effects of legalizing marijuana could be somewhat mitigated if the people desired to legalize it for medical use only. The compound most responsible for the beneficial effects of marijuana appears to be CBD. The compound most responsible for getting people "high" is THC. There are strains of marijuana that are higher in CBD and lower in THC.  These would be less likely to be abused.  Limiting sales of medical marijuana to these low THC strains grown only in this state could limit the abuse of the drug. I think those hoping to pass a medical marijuana ballot measure should consider something like this.  Any tax levied on the sale of this marijuana (combined with all of the taxes on tobacco and alcohol) could be used solely to fund healthcare measures in the state, eliminating the perceived need for obamacare/private option medicaid funding.
Those are my personal opinions. As I said, it really isn't an important issue to me so I will go with what the majority of voters approve. That is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Arkansas Income Tax

No tax is ever fair. No matter how you implement a tax, it will be unfair to somebody.  Almost nobody wants to pay taxes.  The easy solution would seem to be eliminating taxes. It's not that easy. We do not live in anarchy. Government must be paid for and government isn't cheap. That is why it is vital to limit the size and power of government to less than we are willing to endure and pay for.
Not every state has an income tax, including a couple of our bordering states.  This has many people (and most Libertarians) wondering why don't we get rid of our income tax completely. I am not one of those Libertarians.  The people of the state are not willing to cut services and spending to a level that would allow this.  There is, however, much we could do to improve things.  Currently the tax rate for almost all Arkansans is 7 percent of your income.  I would lower it to 5 percent. Currently there are pages of complex deductions, exceptions, credits, etc...  I would simplify that as well. If you make over $12,000 per year you must file. You would get a $10,000 income deduction for yourself, and a $5,000 deduction for any dependents. Persons aged 65 or older, US military, and persons who are blind, deaf, paralyzed, or missing a limb could claim an additional $5,000 deduction. Persons that adopt a child could claim an additional $5,000 deduction for the year in which the adoption was finalized. You could take another deduction up to 10% of income for charitable contributions, and an additional 10% deduction for health care expenses. That's it. The entire return, including instructions, would fit on one page. No need for a thick booklet. A tax cut for everyone, with less printing and administration costs for the government.
To ensure the money is well spent, all income taxes collected would be used for education spending and nothing else. This would be the sole source of state funding for K-12 schools. This way the taxpayers would know where their hard earned dollars are going. If the people decide they want more money for education, they would know that income taxes would have to be raised. If the people want lower income taxes, they would know that education funding would have to be cut. It would be simple and transparent.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

SWEPCO Power Lines

This is a local issue that has gathered a lot of attention among the people here.  It is a classic "not in my backyard" one.  We all want affordable and reliable electricity, myself included.  To provide that, SWEPCO says they need to build transmission lines and a substation.  The issue is the route of those transmission lines.  I do not have a personal stake in this issue as the lines will be near but not on my property; and while I may be able to see the lines, it is unlikely to be any more of an eyesore than the development already in my neighborhood. That said, it is an issue very important to many of my constituents, and when a for profit monopoly uses eminent domain to acquire the use of private lands it is a governmental responsibility to ensure it is necessary and justified. After reading through the docket of this case and talking to people from SWEPCO and interested parties opposing them, I have determined that there is no justification for routing these lines through this district. I have stated my case in more detail to the commission hearing arguments in this still open case. They can be viewed here:

http://www.apscservices.info/ReceivedDocs/1528_7_08132014_1_1.pdf

Simply put, SWEPCO has not made a case strong enough to justify infringement on the private property rights of affected landowners.

Friday, May 30, 2014

VA Health Care

The VA is in the news, so I thought I'd comment on that. As a state representative there won't be much I can do to fix the problems with this federal program, but I'll certainly use the pulpit to express my views and help affected vets when I can.  I am in the VA system, so I am familiar with how the system works or doesn't work. I do not have any disabilities, service connected or otherwise, and I have my own insurance, so any problems I have had are tiny compared to those that depend on the VA for vital care. I still feel qualified to comment.  The medical care available to me in the service was very low quality. The best doctor I saw while I was in was, no kidding, a DVM. Yes, a veterinarian. Medical care in the VA is no better. Some get good doctors and good care, but many do not. It is just luck of the draw. There simply aren't enough good doctors in the system to care for everyone, and the management system is so inefficient it makes quality care nearly impossible. The short term solution, I believe, is to scrap the system as it is entirely. Turn VA healthcare into an insurance program, and sell off all the physical assets with the possible exception of facilities to be used for long term/ hospice care. This will allow veterans to use any participating doctor of their choosing. Levels of insurance, deductibles, co-payments, etc... would be based on %disability and financial need, much as they currently are.  This would be a short term fix.  In the long term we have bigger problems. We simply aren't producing enough doctors to meet the needs of our population. The problems in the VA now will soon be plaguing everyone.  Until the healthcare system is drastically changed to adequately reward doctors for their efforts, and our education system is changed to produce people capable of becoming doctors, there will be nothing we can do to prevent this.   

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Constitutional Amendments

There are three amendments to our constitution on the ballot this year.  The primary purpose of these is to increase the power of government and limit the ability of the voters to challenge that power.  They are worded deceptively so as to trick the voters into supporting it. Included is a proposal that claims to set term limits that in fact repeals the term limits already in place so that legislators can serve much longer in the assembly.  Also included is a provision to allow an unelected new branch of government to increase salaries with no way to hold an elected official accountable. This is also disguised in its language to make it seem like legislators are constantly raising their salaries. Representatives currently earn less than $18,000 a year - fair I think and hardly excessive. Expect this salary to at least triple if the amendment passes.  There is also an attempt to make it harder for the people to petition the government. I generally oppose constitutional amendments because few should ever be needed. Regular changes should be handled by passing and repealing laws, not amendments.  In this case however, the content is also detrimental to a free people.  I hope everyone sees through the deliberate deceit of our previous assembly and votes "no" to these amendments.
For the record, I support term limits. We have them now. They should not be repealed.
Legislators should be required to vote on pay raises, so they can face the consequences of such a raise from the voters in the next election.
It should be easier for people to petition their government, not harder.

Gay Marriage

With the most recent court ruling striking down prohibitions to gay marriage, I felt the topic needed to be revisited. My opinion on the matter has not changed. Marriage is a religious institution, a vow between man and woman before God.  Homosexuality is forbidden by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths; therefore gay marriage is forbidden by these religions.  I'm not sure how it is viewed in other religions, but all of this is irrelevant for the current argument on gay marriage.  As a religious institution there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the government to be involved in marriage. The government should not be performing, taxing, licensing, prohibiting, rewarding, approving, or in any other way regulating or involving itself in marriage. It is not a function of government.  This is akin to feudal times when all marriages had to be approved by the king.  We overthrew he king precisely to gain the sort of religious and tax freedom from government that we now are currently arguing for to some extent or another. It is unconstitutional for the government to recognize gay marriage. It is unconstitutional for the government to prohibit gay marriage. It is a gross abuse of power for the government to be involved at all in marriage.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Eliminate Personal Property Taxes

Arkansas has a very high tax burden, highest in the south. This is bad for Arkansas, and needs to change quickly.  While almost all of our taxes need to be lowered, some can be completely eliminated.  The most glaring example is our tax on personal non-real estate property (vehicles).  This is the tax that requires us every year to go to the assessor's office and declare what we have so it can be appraised. You then have to go to a different office to actually pay the tax and yet another to register the vehicle. Even if you pay your taxes on time, if you appraise late you pay a tax penalty. Often, an entire day can be wasted just to register a car. Eliminating this tax eliminates an entire bureaucracy and the costs and inefficiencies associated with it.  All across the state there would no longer be a need to rent or build buildings to house assessors offices. Paperwork would be reduced. Workers from these offices could be transferred to DFAS offices, greatly reducing wait times to get a driver's license or register a vehicle. People would no longer have to take a day off work just to renew their license or tags. Eliminating this tax is a no brainer. I suspect most of the revenue it generates does nothing more than fund the bureaucracy that imposes it.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Arkansas Economy

Arkansas is a blessed place, and should be one of the most prosperous states in the union.  We have navigable waters in the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers. We have rail and major interstate highway routes, and are the headquarters for major trucking lines.  We have plentiful waters for agriculture, recreation, industry, transportation, and drinking. We have natural resources in timber, recreational land, agricultural land, and minerals.  We have the headquarters for the world's largest retailer. We should be the envy of 49 other states.
Unfortunately, we also have a very high tax burden.  The highest of any southern state. It makes it difficult to attract the businesses and industries we need to truly prosper. Instead of changing tax policy to attract businesses, the legislature attempts to play favorites for individual businesses based largely on their level of political support. A glaring example of this is the Big River steel deal, where the Koch brothers supported many politicians that turned around and paid them back by giving tax breaks to their steel company at the expense of Nucor steel. The legislators pat themselves on the back about bringing in new industry while failing to note that any new jobs created will merely be replacing the jobs lost at Nucor that was already here.  We should not be picking individual companies to show favoritism. We should be giving tax breaks to everyone, so we can attract companies like Big River without eliminating established companies like Nucor.
We need to establish a business friendly environment so we can bring manufacturing back to the US instead of sending those jobs overseas.  Most of the resources and infrastructure required is already here. All we need to do is fix the policy problems and we could become a very prosperous state.

Right to Life

All individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law. The question then is what constitutes individual life.  Roe v Wade was a very poorly written decision that danced around the issue without actually defining anything. At some point the supreme court will have to define life and settle the issue. At the point of conception the fetus has DNA that is unique to that individual. At this point it is a living individual entitled to protection under the law. There is already a large amount of precedence in various cases where DNA is used to positively uniquely identify an individual. 
Abortion, therefore, is the taking of an individual life.  In the case where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, she should keep the right to defend her life even at the expense of the unborn child. There is no other reason where terminating the life of that individual should be legal. 

Friday, March 28, 2014

The 2nd Amendment

The 2nd amendment is not at all vague about the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It is so important that the language prohibits even any infringement of that right.  There was good reason for this, and it has nothing to do with a person's need to hunt for food 200 years ago.  A well armed population makes it incredibly difficult for a government to gain tyrannical power.  The founding fathers knew this, and intended our people to be just as well armed (if not better armed) as the government.  These people would have little to fear from their own government. Furthermore, a well armed people would be integral to the national defense in the form of a well regulated militia. Instead of a large standing army, our country could be defended by a much less expensive militia.
Unfortunately, this right in particular has been greatly infringed upon. It is very inconvenient for a large powerful government to allow its people to be armed. An activist supreme court that views itself as the final authority in the country cannot allow the people themselves to wield such check and balance power. We need to elect a president that will appoint better justices. Ones that will protect the rights of the people as defined by our constitution instead of growing their own power.
As a state representative, I will have no control over this.  I will support state laws protecting open and concealed carry of firearms. This right should be extended to all American citizens in our state, regardless of their state of residency. This right would not, however, be extended to convicted felons, those judged by a court of law to be mentally unfit to own firearms, or non-citizens. A permit procedure should be in place to ensure this happens, but any cost should be very low and the process should be instant.
Any property owner would have the right to not allow weapons, concealed or otherwise, to be brought on his or her property.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

MK in 2014, Elect me Representative!

OK, I'm still not really running for president. (Even though I'd be a darn good one) I am, however, running a much more organized and serious campaign for Arkansas house of representatives. I am on the ballot this November as the Libertarian candidate for District 96.  Expect more regular posts on my blog, which has languished undisturbed for years now. Most of my previous posts are now entirely irrelevant, but I don't know how to erase them right now so enjoy a look into my various past opinions. I'll be updating the relevant ones soon enough.