Thursday, May 8, 2014

Debt and the Federal Budget

     The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

     Yes, I will vote against any and all proposed budgets that would increase the nation's debt, and in times when no annual budget is passed, I will also vote against large omnibus spending bills.
     The people of the United States do not need a federal government spending a quarter of the wealth produced in the nation annually. The 21% of GDP spent under the 2013 budget is an improvement over this, but more work has yet to be done. The costs of having a federal government would be cut immediately upon the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which two-thirds of the states now want for themselves.
     I will support efforts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I will urge all states to do the same as soon as possible. I will seriously consider supporting any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance type legislation, although I will not support any such legislation which does not go far enough towards achieving balanced budgets.
     The federal government should close all remaining tax loopholes, and reduce spending. Proposed budgets in the near future will likely need to have $600 to $700 billion trimmed from them, and $1 trillion will likely need to be cut from the White House's requested spending total. Any surpluses resulting after such cuts should go first towards paying off foreign and public debt, and then towards tax decreases.
     The attitudes that we should or can increase government spending during a recession, or set spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government programs, reflect a lack of principles about the proper role, size, and scope of government, and compound the risk that a lack of fiscal restraint will lead to unfunded liabilities, deficits, and debt.
     All of this is possible as long as the Department of Commerce, national defense (the single largest discretionary spending item), the Departments of Homeland Security and State and the intelligence programs; the medical entitlements; the Departments of Education, H.U.D., Justice, Energy, and Interior; the E.P.A., and the Departments of Transportation and Labor are considered the primary targets for spending cuts (in that order).
     This could be done without cutting Social Security, and even without completely abolishing any federal department besides the Department of Commerce. However, I believe that no progress on taxation can be made unless and until the federal government cedes all of its land back to the states and the people therein, so that states may fully tax the unimproved value of that land, instead of taxing (and effectively discouraging) productivity occurring on the land, such as sales and income earnings.




For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:

Indefinite Detention and the 2012 N.D.A.A.

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



13. Will you support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to the NDAA of 2012, which would prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens and would ensure full Fifth Amendment rights to due process?

     Yes, I will support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces - under Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, and pursuant to a 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force – from detaining persons suspected of terrorism indefinitely and without legal representation.
     Neither the president nor the secretary of defense should have the authority to detain individuals – let alone indefinitely, without trial, without being allowed to meet with attorneys or family members, anywhere in the world, and for any reason - regardless of the N.D.A.A.'s requirement that the secretary of defense must certify to Congress that such a detention would be in the interest of national security. Any presidential objection to such detention legislation will only be likely to come in the form of signing statements expressing the sentiment that the president already wields this authority himself.
     Furthermore, the aforementioned sections of the 2012 N.D.A.A. are undesirable altogether because they authorize the indefinite detention of individuals suspected of directly supporting hostilities against not just the United States, but its “coalition partners”. If apprehension of foreign nations' direct enemies must occur in the U.S., it can and should be done without denying the suspect the right to a fair trial, and without denying the public the right to exert meaningful influence on how such a person (if found guilty) should be punished.
     Whether citizen or not - and whether (if guilty) they are the enemy of the U.S. or of a foreign nation – domestic terror suspects are innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be denied legal representation, nor the right to a speedy trial within the jurisdiction wherein some real crime was committed. I will support any and all efforts to strengthen the civil liberties enumerated in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution; and I will sponsor legislation augmenting the enumerated rights of the accused.




For more entries on homeland security and terrorism, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/identification-and-travel-documents.html

For more entries on high-profile corruption and conspiracy theories, please visit:

Cap and Trade Legislation

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



12. Will you oppose so-called “Cap and Trade” legislation?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed federal “Cap and Trade” legislation.
     I will oppose all federal legislation to regulate carbon emissions and carbon offset exchanges – and the environment in general – in the United States (outside of the District of Columbia and the overseas territories) without a constitutional amendment authorizing such regulation.
     The federal government cannot afford the $100 to $200 billion in annual spending which such a nationwide scheme would entail, nor to risk corruption through the personal and business favors which would inevitably be involved in such an expensive undertaking.
     However, I believe that climate change is an imminent threat to civilization, and I agree with the narrow majority of Americans who believe that the environment is more important than employment and the economy. This majority has communicated signals on the marketplace for environmental goods and services and policy that fossil fuel use is not an ordinary “market good” because it is a “market bad” which must be discouraged; legislators must heed these signals.
     I will encourage state and local governments to discourage pollution through enacting their own Cap and Trade type legislation, while fully taxing the unimproved value of land. This will empower governments to punish those who pollute and cause the blighting of landed property, and allow it to fall into disrepair (resulting in a loss of value) and moreover could eventually allow states to eliminate taxes on income and sales while fully funding government.

     I will support legislation providing for the regulation of carbon emissions only in areas over which the federal government has constitutionally authorized exclusive jurisdiction. I will also urge all governments of the world to achieve zero carbon emissions (which are not offset) within fifteen years, and I will urge U.S. states to become unilateral signatories to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol on pollution.




For more entries on environment and climate change, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

Foreign Occupation and Declaration of War

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

     Yes, I will oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war. Although the War Powers Act authorizes the president to deploy limited numbers of troops for limited times, the president cannot authorize attacks or strikes without the approval of the American people through Congress, unless there is imminent danger to the United States.
     The U.S. military should primarily be focused on defending the American people rather than acting in a militant manner and spending as much on so-called defense as the next 15 to 20 nations combined. Our military and intelligence forces should not intervene in the domestic affairs (including elections) of national governments unless refraining from doing so enables such a government's official apparati to inflict imminent harm upon America, and upon law-abiding American people and agencies abroad.
     Although I will to promote diplomacy, trade, and peace with all nations, I do not believe that this should involve formal military alliances, as I believe that we should heed George Washington's advice avoiding entangling alliances with foreign nations. I will support efforts to end formal military alliances with all nations, and to end U.S. membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
     I believe that our membership in N.A.T.O. - and our close relationships with the State of Israel and Saudi Arabia – only increase the chance of the United States fighting in more wars without congressional approval, and of the U.S. being expected by the international community to fight other nations' battles for them. This only diminishes the independence and military strength of such nations, while allowing them to fund their governments while the U.S. bears much of the costs of their protection.
     I will vote to cut foreign aid completely, but until that time, any foreign aid budget the federal government maintains should not reflect the kind of favoritism towards particular governments and peoples which has been suggested by the recent trends of vastly disproportionate disbursements to Israel and Egypt (which combined contain just over one percent of the world's population).
     Additionally, the U.S. military should not use drone planes to spy in other countries (either to collect information or to attack enemies of the United States) without the approval of Congress and without the authorization of the nation within whose borders and air space the use of such drones occurs.




For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

The Transportation Security Administration

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



9. Will you support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration and place airport security back into private hands?

     Yes, I will support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration, and support legislation to transition the T.S.A.'s administration to non-public hands, including private hands.
     I will urge commercial airports to apply to the T.S.A.'s Screening Partnership Program in order to transition to private screening while maintaining T.S.A. oversight. Also, I will sponsor constitutional amendments to strengthen the 4th Amendment, and legislation to prohibit any and all activities of the T.S.A. and its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (V.I.P.R.) teams which violate the civil liberties enumerated therein. I will also oppose efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the T.S.A. to additional and new forms of transportation.
      I will additionally support legislation to transition the responsibility to collect funds and to provide for the administration of transportation security at the state and local levels of government, as well as to private hands. Local and market-based alternatives should be free to compete against the federal government to provide better transportation security services – and policy thereof - leaving consumers and taxpayers more free to convey their preferences about local airports' security measures.
      It is for this reason that I will support legislation to introduce even more alternatives to private and local authority, including egalitarian enterprises and non-governmental and quasi-governmental entities. I will sponsor amendments to T.S.A. legislation providing for the options of transitioning of the administration of transportation security to a wider set of alternatives than simply public governmental departments and bureaus, private enterprises, or public-private partnerships; namely, worker-consumer-cooperatives, social purpose enterprises, and non-ministerial quasi-governmental departments.





For more entries on homeland security and terrorism, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html

U.S. Withdrawal from the United Nations

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

     No; although I support demilitarization of the United Nations, and will support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command, I am not at this time willing to support total withdrawal from the United Nations.
     However, I will not support the adoption of any international standards in manners which subverts the the national sovereignty of the United States of America. Additionally, I will support legislation to scale back and eliminate U.S. military coordination with – and service under – the United Nations.
     I do not believe that there is any urgent or pressing need to remove the U.N. headquarters from the United States, nor to end our involvement in the U.N. for domestic or diplomatic non-military purposes.
     I do not support recalling our ambassadors from the U.N.. America should utilize its presence at the United Nations Organization in order to urge Pakistan, India, and the State of Israel to join the U.N.'s nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspections by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I will support efforts to allow states to apply for U.N. membership in order to achieve this if the federal government will not do so.

     The United States can and should continue to co-exist with the United Nations, provided that it remains an optional framework for international law and multilateral diplomacy, and under the condition that the United Nations become demilitarized. The United Nations is but one of the frameworks for international law, and U.N. membership should not be compulsory upon any nation.




For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html

For more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, please visit:

The Tenth Amendment

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?

     Yes, I support and will vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment.
     The federal government has broken its constitutional agreement with the states to exercise the Enumerated Powers. Overly broad and sweeping interpretations and applications of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Interstate Commerce Clause have all contributed to the justification of federal intervention in economic and civic life in the states.
     So too have executive orders which authorized – under the otherwise constitutional presidential power to re-organize the cabinet - the “reorganization” of entire industries, and sectors of industrial relations and of the economy, under the federal government's jurisdiction (as represented in the cabinet and in cabinet-level agencies), without the approval of Congress.
     Furthermore, the federal government has broken its agreement to only exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the nation's overseas territories, and over the lands and policy matters explicitly granted to it by the states in Article I, Section 8. The federal government's ownership of vast land areas within the states impedes the ability of each state to tax the unimproved value of land as fully as it finds necessary in order to afford to be in a financial relationship with the federal government.
     I fully support the rights of states to nullify and interpose unconstitutional federal laws; to enjoin federal authorities against enforcing such laws; and to exercise Article 5 powers. I believe that more Americans would support the rights of states if they knew that during the Civil War, the State of Wisconsin nullified federal legislation to return freed slaves to their former masters.




For more entries on states' rights, the Tenth Amendment, and other states' issues, please visit:

U.S. Military Service Under United Nations Command

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?

     Yes, I will support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command. The United Nations is just one of many frameworks for multilateral coordination of military efforts among nations. I will support legislation to scale back and eliminate all U.S. military coordination with the United Nations, and service of U.S. troops under the U.N..
     We cannot allow the five nations of the U.N. Security Council to send nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the Eastern Mediterranean without the permission and awareness of the taxpaying people within those nations. Nor can we continue to tolerate an overly militarized United Nations that functions as little more than a joint tyranny wielded by five nuclear-powered nations over the developing, impoverished, and less sufficiently armed nations of the world.
     The United States can and should continue to co-exist with the United Nations, on the conditions that U.S. troops do not serve under the command of the U.N., that the organization remains an optional framework for international law and multilateral diplomacy and military coordination, and that the organization become demilitarized.




For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

The General Welfare Clause

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #12.



12. C
   (Congress's power to provide for the general welfare means that the federal government should exercise power over issues that affect the entire U.S. population; not that business interests, social welfare, nor any light and transient cause that might help some indeterminate number or group of people, should justify federal spending)
   Congress's power to provide for general welfare means that (C) the federal government should exercise power over issues that jeopardize the safety of the entire U.S. population.
   There is no explicit power of Congress to “provide for the common good”, and the power to provide for the “general welfare” is often misinterpreted. “General welfare” does not mean vague welfare; that is, it does not mean (D) any government that can help citizens.
    It does also not mean (A) protecting, bailing out, and giving favors to businesses and industries or (B) providing all citizens with a minimum income. The “general welfare” means “the good of all (or nearly all) people in the country”.
    This interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is essential to preventing runaway federal spending on national projects that benefit only one area of the nation, or customers and owners of - and investors in – certain businesses.

    A bridge that would only be used by a handful of people a day in Alaska, and a public transit system in Madison, Wisconsin that would be used by a hundred thousand people a dayet cetera, do not benefit all or nearly all American citizens. How those projects are funded should reflect that fact, as well as the principles of local and decentralized government upon which our structure of government was based.





For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...