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.

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. 

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.

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.

Oil Policy

President Obama, like his predecessors, has no real oil or energy policy. Today's efforts to open up some restricted offshore drilling is purely political candy, lacking substance and effectiveness. Here's my complete plan that would work for everybody:
Current leases would be honored and grandfathered as they currently stand. This would please the oil companies.
No drilling allowed within 10 miles of shore, including the shores of populated outlying islands. This should please the tourist industry and environmentalists.
Between 10 and 50 miles off shore the choice would be left entirely to the appropriate state. Royalties and leases would be negotiated by that state, though no leases would be permitted to be sold to foreign owned companies. Any operations would be subject to regulation and inspection by both state and federal environmental authorities. The state and federal government would be allowed to declare certain vital areas (such as shipping lanes, fisheries, reefs, etc...) off limits. This should please the states.
From 50 to 200 miles off shore, royalties and leases would be negotiated by the U.S. Govt. Leases would be made available only to U.S. owned and taxpaying companies. The federal government would regulate and inspect all facilities/operations and would have the authority to declare certain vital areas off limits. This should please taxpayers, consumers, and oil companies.
Oil on federal lands (Think ANWAR) would not be made available for commercial drilling. Drilling for oil and gas reserves here would be exclusively done by the Army Corps of Engineers. Extracted oil and gas would be entirely sent to our national reserves. This should please the military and taxpayers.
As part of the national reserves, the Corps of Engineers would also operate refineries to turn that crude oil into the fuel needed for our military vehicles, planes, and ships. This would free up more commercial production capacity for consumer use and guarantee a fuel source for the military. Fuel for the military would be blended with biofuels. This should please the military, taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, and farmers.
Reserve policy would be to cease drilling for oil and buy foreign oil only when the price dropped below $50 a barrel as a means of propping up the price in a down market and protecting domestic supply. This would please oil companies. Furthermore, excess reserves would be sold when the price exceeded $100 per barrel as a means of lowering the price in an inflated market. This would please consumers and taxpayers.
A similar policy to curb volatile natural gas markets would be followed.

Health Care

The bill has passed, not a good thing. I admit the current system had to go. Our government (and therefore our current and future taxpayers) pays a LOT of money on the current health care system, and gets less for our money than most do. This, however, was not the answer. Like most of the congress voting on it, I haven't actually found the time to read it though. It makes valid criticism of the particulars difficult and even disingenuous. That doesn't mean it is exempt from valid criticism.
First of all, it is too big. A bill so large that a mainframe is required to download and store it is too big. That much memory wasn't required for the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. If carrying a hard copy necessitates the use of mechanical devices it is too big. If the bill is too big to read, it is to big to vote on, much less pass into law. No bill on any issue should ever be close to this big and complicated. It needs to be MUCH simpler, so the consequences (costs and benefits) are somewhat predictable.
Second, it is unpopular. REALLY unpopular. We live in a republic, not a democracy. This important distinction allows us to have a government that is not governed by mob rule and that can, when necessary, protect the minority from an oppressive majority. This was not one of those times where such protection was necessary. In this case the will of the overwhelming majority should have been listened to. We have once again crossed into the realm of a government becoming powerful enough to give us what ever we want and also therefore being powerful enough to take away everything we have. The country was founded and fought for by those that thought the people should be free from such a tyrannical government. It does not matter how benevolent or good intentioned that government is or thinks it is. It is just entirely un-American to pass a bill giving the government so much control over our should be private lives.
Third. It is really expensive. REALLY expensive. The GAO office says it might reduce the growth of our debt a decade from now provided there is a massive increase in taxes and tax revenues. It is an unrealistic assumption, and the debt is quickly becoming a burden that can never be paid. The Bush and Obama stimulus packages and record debts were probably already more debt than the country could bear. This is yet another nail in the corpse, and makes a real recovery next to impossible.
As for the particulars, I have no comment. No one really knows how this is going to shake out. Maybe overall health care will improve. Probably it won't. Time may or may not tell, but in the end those particulars don't really matter. The basic concept of the bill was flawed from the get-go, and we really can't afford it.