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 They should not be repealed.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.

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.