Vaughn for Congress Blog
Featured Blogs
Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
- There's a sercet about your post. ICTYBTIHTKY
- Frknaly I think that's absolutely good stuff.
- oEYUhA pcgodmhwabsd
With the complicity of our Congressman, Gerry Connolly, our nation has become addicted to deficit spending. In fact, we exhibit the 10 key signs to any addiction:
- 1. We have built up a tolerance – it now requires larger deficits to achieve the same simulative effect.
- 2. We have failed in attempts to break our addiction – As soon as we came close to having a balanced budget in the late 1990’s, we once again figured out new programs to spend money on.
- 3. We continue our addiction to avoid withdrawal symptoms – this is literally the argument being used to justify Obama’s jobs bill.
- 4. Our lives increasingly revolve around our addiction – nearly 50% of households now receive some sort of government benefit. A full 10% of our economy is now based on deficit spending.
- 5. We blame others for our addiction – Both political parties have contributed to our debt, and yet neither is willing to accept any blame. Ultimately, though, we the people are to blame for failing to elect more responsible politicians.
- 6. We lie about the problem – Even now, many of our politicians deny that there is a serious problem. They claim that if we just spend more now, we will be able to pay off the debt in the future. Yet, the CBO’s Long Term Budget Outlook proves this claim is false.
- 7. We continue our addiction even though we know it is dangerous – We know that the current problems in Europe are due solely to their uncontrolled spending and that we are not that far behind them, and yet we continue to spend.
- 8. We have changed our friends – We continue to tighten our bonds with China and the Middle East while distancing long-term allies such as Israel in order to encourage these other countries to buy our debt.
- 9. We have become increasingly secretive – The Federal Reserve has resisted revealing who was given bailouts over the last few years. We only recently discovered that the full extent of their intervention totaled $16 trillion, more than our annual economy!
- 10. We have lost control over our addiction – politicians promise to cut the deficit, but every agreement ends up putting off the real cuts to some point in the future.
- Big help, big help. And superlative news of crouse.
- iVL0Ql rekloeyhjsnm
- That's not even 10 mnieuts well spent!
 |
I never intended to seek public office.
But the exceptional thing about America is that it offers ordinary people like my wife Julie and me extraordinary opportunities to pursue careers, interests, and ministries that enable us to serve others. These opportunities are made possible by the economic and spiritual freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.
Our leaders are now jeopardizing these freedoms by allowing our nation to accrue unprecedented debt, held by countries like China, who do not provide such freedoms to their own citizens.
My father was a Marine reserve officer and a small businessman. My mother was a music teacher. They dreamed of a future where I could earn a great education and pursue the career of my choice in a free and prosperous nation without undue government intervention.
Thanks to their effort and example, I was fortunate to attend two excellent colleges, Tulane University (where I earned a Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering) and Texas A&M University (where I earned a Master’s degree in Civil Engineering).
After obtaining my master’s degree, I settled in the metro DC area to work in the private sector, raise a family, and eventually start my own business in northern Virginia.
As a career engineer, I am, by definition, interested in how things work. I feel compelled to try to fix things that do not work.
Washington is broken, and I would like to help fix it.
I’m running for Congress because we have too many career politicians and too few public servants. Unlike such career politicians, I will serve for a limited time, will support, protect, and defend the Constitution, will use my private sector experience to fix the mess we are in, and will return home to live under the laws that Congress passes.
As a previous president once said, “Our problems are man-made; therefore, they may be solved by man.”
 |
But they will not be solved by selfish career politicians in Washington who do not understand or who choose to ignore simple math.
My campaign motto is: “Not right, not left, just math.”
I cannot and will not stand by and watch the next generation inherit a country with a darker future and fewer opportunities than my generation was given.
Those who can, must. And given the chance, we will.
We can do better.
We must do better.
In Liberty,
http://www.vaughforcongress.com
P.S. Don’t forget to RSVP for our upcoming events!
- I will be putting this dazzling ingsiht to good use in no time.
- xy2MZI yyfravgisfub
- Fraknly I think that's absolutely good stuff.
Our real problems are not due to a lack of stimulus or over-taxation. They are due to over-regulation.
The Economic Freedom Network released its most recent annual report ranking the economic freedom of 141 countries around the world for 2009. Regulations in the U.S. are increasing while regulations in other parts of the world are decreasing, the result is that we are losing jobs.
 |
As the Dow plummets today, it is worth taking a moment to look at the bigger picture. While today's crisis is related to the situation in Europe and the inept management of the Federal Reserve, the real problems in our economy go much deeper. Our real problems are not due to a lack of stimulus or over-taxation. They are due to over-regulation.
The Economic Freedom Network released its most recent annual report ranking the economic freedom of 141 countries around the world for 2009. As any business owner likely knows, the regulations in the U.S. are increasing (raising both the cost and uncertainty of doing business), and, as a direct result, our economic freedom is decreasing. At the same time, economic freedom in other parts of the world, especially the Far East, is increasing.
Overall, the U.S. is ranked as the 10th most economically free nation, but we are quickly losing ground. The previous year, we were ranked 6th, and as recently as 2000, we were ranked 3rd. Perhaps even more disturbing is that we are now in the “pack.” In other words, if we lose the same amount of economic freedom in 2010 as we did in 2009, we will find ourselves in 40th place! This is totally unacceptable and unnecessary.
The report offered even more shocking details. Not surprisingly, the soundness of our money was downgraded, and the size of our government grew. But perhaps what is most troubling is that our credit markets are now among the most heavily regulated in the world, ranking 116th out of 141. The U.S. should not be among the MOST REGULATED economies in the world.
And remember, these rankings are for 2009; many new regulations have been added since, including the onerous Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill.
Clearly some regulations are necessary. No one wants to see our environment destroyed. We also need to protect human rights and intellectual property rights. But the level of regulation can be greatly reduced without harming these elements.
America has always been exceptional because America has always offered an unparalleled amount of freedom. If we regulate away our freedoms, we will lose our competitive advantage and continue to see our standard of living decline.
WILL YOU HELP ME STOP THE REGULATORY MADNESS?
Please consider contributing $25, $50, or $100 to help me advance the cause of liberty.
- If not for your writing this topic could be very cnovlouted and oblique.
- If you want to get read, this is how you suhlod write.
- 6tU3Nk tderjpwdlpgb
Several stories over the past week demonstrate how over-regulated our economy is. When combined with our free and favored trade policies with China and others, it should be no wonder that jobs continue to leave our country. The result is a totally unacceptable 9.1% national unemployment rate and even more who are marginally employed. We need leaders who will fix the imbalance that currently exists between our regulatory and trade policies so that jobs will return to America.
Several stories over the past week demonstrate how over-regulated our economy is, due to actions taken by the federal government. The result is a totally unacceptable 9.1% national unemployment rate, as compliance with burgeoning regulations drives up business costs, increases the risk to capital, and decreases private sector expansion and hiring.
 |
The most significant development is the EPA’s regulation of coal-fired power plants. The Congressional Research Service concluded that the flurry of recently released EPA regulations will result in an annual cost to the economy of roughly $35 billion.
But this is just one set of regulations among many being promoted by the current administration. The seven most expensive of these regulations are projected to cost a total of up to $100 billion to our economy annually, and there are another 200 plus regulations that will cost in excess of $100 million each. In other words, these regulations will negate the growth in our economy during the first 6 months of this year and add even more people to the unemployment lines.
Who thinks this is good for our economy?
It doesn’t stop there. The federal government is also imposing regulations on the smallest and most obscure businesses. For example, goat herders are now being required to provide separate sleeping units and cell phones for each worker.
As a small business owner, I am painfully aware of how every regulation is a disincentive for small businesses to operate. Even well-intended legislation that may sound reasonable ultimately ends up adding to the massive amounts of regulatory code that a business owner must read and adhere to. Adding this overhead increases the likelihood that a small business owner will freeze hiring, lay off personnel, or close their doors all together, resulting in less competition and higher prices for the consumer. Small businesses create more than 70% of all jobs, and these firms are being hurt most by these policies.
But large corporations are affected as well. For decades we have seen our manufacturing base move overseas. This has been almost entirely due to a heavily regulated environment in the U.S., combined with free trade policies with countries that do not have similar regulations. In particular, many of our jobs have gone to China, where environmental, human rights, and intellectual property regulations are largely either non-existent or ignored. As a result, America has gone from being the world’s largest creditor and exporter to the largest debtor and importer.
And yet the costs do not stop there. Excessive regulation increases costs for the government due to increased enforcement and legal expenses. Over-regulation also raises the potential for the government to selectively apply the law in order to target firms deemed adversarial to the government. In fact, Gibson Guitar is now claiming that they are being so targeted. Only time will tell if this is in fact the case, but in politics and business, perception often becomes reality.
To address these problems, we must restore integrity to Congress.
Integrity is more than doing what seems to be right at the moment. Integrity requires that we establish a consistent set of policies that will stand the test of time, just as a building with structural integrity will survive a hurricane. This means that whenever we decide to adopt a regulation, we must consider its impact on the competiveness of American firms in the global marketplace. If a regulation is deemed worthwhile, we must be willing to accept the costs – which may mean that we impose tariffs on those countries that do not adopt similar policies. We have ignored this issue for too long, and as a result, we have seen millions of domestic manufacturing jobs leave our country. It is time to reverse this trend.
I believe in America, but these policies are moving our country in the wrong direction.
By reducing over-regulation, taking the target off small businesses, and always considering American competitiveness in the global marketplace, we can get the federal government out of the way so the private sector can create good-paying jobs.
- Great post Ken. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
- Kudos to you! I hadn't thoghut of that!
- I found just what I was neeedd, and it was entertaining!
Today, I announced my support of the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. Several people have asked me why I have not also signed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge. I hope that this post clarifies my position while demonstrating how serious I take my commitments.
While I am largely in agreement with the Pledge, I am concerned that the requirement for a super-majority to raise taxes is, intentional or not, an unnecessary "poison pill" that will doom the Amendment and bill. Conceptually, I like the idea of making it more difficult to raise taxes; but a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3rds majority in each house of Congress along with approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. I am concerned that the super-majority requirement will be the excuse that many congressmen and legislators will use to vote no.
Ultimately, we must ask ourselves, is it better to have a balanced budget with a chance of higher taxes or a collapsed economy? I am willing to fight the tax issue at a later date. We must make real spending cuts immediately if we are to avoid financial collapse and for decades our Congress has demonstrated that they are unwilling to balance the budget on their own.
Because I am willing to support an amendment with or without super-majority requirement, I am unable to sign the Pledge with its current wording, but I am happy to support the bill introduced in the House.
In short, the pledge that I make to the 11th District is as follows (with red-line edits from the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge):
I pledge to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:
- 1. Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
- 2. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
- 3. Balance - Congressional passage a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - but only if it includes
botha spending limitationand a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.
- osoxpwbvhiogpsdpohsftt, qgijetxgnb , [url=http://www.gdjzbzroue.com]tgulvsndbn[/url], http://www.fgquhgnlxr.com qgijetxgnb
When President Obama came into office, the country was in the midst of the Great Recession. Congressman Gerry Connolly supported Obama’s efforts to fund a stimulus program, calling it a “must” – a claim that he still proudly posts on his congressional website.
Obviously, the government is able to borrow money from the future to give someone a public sector job today. However, simply doing that to “create or save” a job fails to account for the cost of taking such an action. Such an act steals money from our children and grandchildren just to create a better lifestyle today. To morally justify this sort of expenditure, one must be able to point to some additional benefit. For example, one idea proposed that the stimulus would strengthen the economy enough to enable the money to be repaid through higher tax revenues. In fact, this is exactly what Connolly and Obama claimed, based on Keynesian economics.
The Keynesian theory suggests that every dollar spent by the government will result in a dollar earned by a worker. This “creates or saves” a job while increasing the size of the economy. The theory further assumes that the worker will pay taxes on the income and then spend most of the remainder – creating additional jobs and expanding the economy. Known as the Keynesian multiplier, this premise is used to justify stealing money from the future. The logic is that spending the money now will improve the economy and allow the original stimulus money to be repaid over time.
Specifically, in 2009, Obama’s economic advisors (Romer and Bernstein) suggested that the stimulus would:
- Create between 3.3 and 4.1 million jobs.
- Increase the 2010 GDP by $550 billion (2010 dollars).
- Keep national unemployment below 8 percent (it’s now 9.1 percent).
Even these numbers were too weak to justify the stimulus. None of these predictions indicated that increased tax revenues would ever repay the stimulus amount. In short, the proponents of the stimulus, including Connolly, were supporting generational theft even with these optimistic predictions.
But the Obama administration has now released its analysis of the actual impact of the stimulus program, and the actual numbers are much worse. By its own best estimates, the stimulus has resulted in only 2 million additional jobs averaged over the duration of the program. Further, the employment effects seem to be waning, with 200,000 of these jobs lost since the peak employment of 2.6 million during the summer of 2010. Thus, the stimulus has created perhaps 1.5 million fewer jobs than predicted, and the stability of these jobs is now in question. Worse, the anticipated economic growth is virtually nonexistent. The Obama administration’s own estimates suggest that the added economic growth for 2010 was only $386 billion; the total added economic growth since the inception of the stimulus only amounts to $645 billion, less than the amount spent on the stimulus so far ($666 billion). In other words, we did not even get the full value of our money, let alone the disproven, yet predicted, Keynesian multiplier.
Unfortunately, both Connolly and Obama bought into this flawed economic theory – and taxpayers are left holding the bag. This is evident when you compare Obama’s 2010 budget to his 2012 budget. Between the two documents, the Obama administration had to revise the size of the economy downwards by $500 billion, the level of employment down by roughly 3 million jobs, and tax revenues down by $500 billion for the 2011 fiscal year alone. They believed that the stimulus was their Midas touch; in reality it has just been generational theft.
You do not create real wealth by going into debt. This policy failed during the Great Depression, and it has failed today. And yet, Connolly has not learned from his mistakes. He continues to boast about his support of this program, and he supports spending bills without providing any proposal to bring the budget back into balance. The time has come for a new leader – a leader who will fight to eliminate the debt while proposing real solutions to revitalize our economy. That leader is Ken Vaughn.
Our nation is at our debt limit of $14.3 trillion dollars without any plan to pay it off. Greece is once again facing a financial crisis and riots in the streets. Our president has engaged our troops in a war in Libya without Congressional approval. Violence is spreading throughout the Middle East and along our southern border.
Where is Gerry Connolly?
His big news release this week was a public request for President Obama to play golf in Lorton. We need a representative who will provide leadership during these difficult and serious times. I encourage you to come out and support the kick-off of my campaign to provide this leadership.
Our nation is at our debt limit of $14.3 trillion dollars without any plan to pay it off. Greece is once again facing a financial crisis and riots in the streets. Our president has engaged our troops in a war in Libya without Congressional approval. Violence is spreading throughout the Middle East and along our southern border.
Where is Gerry Connolly?
His big news release this week was a public request for President Obama to play golf in Lorton. We need a representative who will provide leadership during these difficult and serious times. I encourage you to come out and support the kick-off of my campaign to provide this leadership.
The Republicans are demanding even more tax cuts when less than half of workers pay any income tax currently. The Democrats refuse to accept any significant spending cuts despite the repeated warnings that our current spending is "unsustainable". In fact, rather than proposing any real solution, the Republican "leadership" decided to spend time proposing, debating, and voting on a bill that would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion even though they were against the measure and they knew it would not pass. This is not leadership, it is a cheap political ploy; our country deserves better.
Yes, the House should be talking about the debt ceiling, but the House debate should be focused on real solutions, such as bills that would:
- 1. Raise the debt ceiling to cover the 2011 budget. This requires raising the ceiling by roughly $700 billion.
- 2. Amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget starting in the 2012 fiscal year.
- 3. Define a 2012 budget that would begin to pay down the debt.
Unfortunately, none of the above proposals are seriously being considered. If we are to avoid a financial collapse, we must find new leaders and help them get elected. I promise to fight for real change that will restore fiscal integrity to our country, but I need your help. I encourage you to make a donation to my campaign so that we can begin addressing the real problems facing our country.
While there is much that I like about the Ryan budget resolution, I am concerned that it overreaches when it attempts to dictate how we achieve the goals of debt reduction. For example, it suggests that we should reduce Medicare spending by privatizing the Medicare system through a voucher approach. As a result, the Republicans essentially imply that this is the only way that we can reduce Medicare spending, and the Democrats then complain that the Republicans are just trying to line the pockets of the insurance companies. The end result is that we return to gridlock with a lot of finger-pointing across the aisle. This is so predictable, one has to wonder if either side is really that serious about the budget.
If we are to solve our country's spending problem, we must get beyond these tactics and standard talking points. We must identify our shared objectives, document them, and then have a debate as to how we reach them without demonizing the other side. This is why my budget proposal focuses on the budget numbers rather than the budget policies.
The vast majority of Americans believe that we have a moral obligation to eliminate our national debt so that we do not force our children to pay the interest on the money that we borrowed. Thus, these discussions should start with a resolution to eliminate the debt within a defined time frame (perhaps 20-40 years). We should then extend this resolution to identify debt targets for each year so that we can properly measure our progress to reach our goal. This will lead us to identify how large a deficit or surplus we will allow for the next fiscal year.
Once we know the target surplus or deficit, we can then determine the expected revenue for the year and then determine our total budget. Finally, once we know our total budget, we can assign amounts into each category. That produces the budget resolution of shared values. It forces us to define how much money is actually available without worrying about the details of how we get there (e.g., privatization, nationalization, etc.).
It really just comes down to priorities. My priority is based on my belief that we have a moral obligation to eliminate our debt so that we do not steal money from our children. I have preferences with regard to how we achieve that goal, but priority number one is to achieve that goal. My concern about the Ryan budget is that it proposes mechanisms that are opposed by half of Congress to achieve the goal. As a result, Representative Connolly is already attacking the proposal - without providing any alternative proposal. My approach would force Connolly, along with all members of the House, to first go on record as to whether they believe we should balance the budget and, if so, how much can we afford for Medicare. Then, once we have agreement on how much we will spend, we can then have the debate over how that money should be spent.
I hope you agree that this is a superior approach to developing a responsible bipartisan budget and encourage you to provide your comments. I also encourage you to donate to my campaign so that we can actually implement this sort of change in Congress.
- Wrap up operations, including taking advantage of the confusion that will likely ensue within the Al Qaeda organization
- Bring our troops home
This is not to say that I think everything will be peaceful from this point forward. I am very concerned that additional attacks will take place - but that is why we need to demonstrate that we are willing to leave now that we have achieved our stated goal. If they attack us after we leave (or even while we are clearly attempting to leave) the American public sentiment will be on our side and we will be able to overcome any such attack. However, if we do not quickly begin to withdraw, we will open ourselves up for another attack from which there is no good response. If we return the attack, we will still be seen as occupiers and will likely lose much American support; if we only begin to pull out after an attack, we risk being seen as weak and thereby invite additional attacks. The best approach is to immediately begin efforts to withdraw our troops and pray for their safety - while clearly stating that we are not afraid to return in a much more aggressive way if we are attacked again.
- Might want to do a spell check Ken... are you sure you didn't want to say Usama or Osama and not Obama
- The MWAA board decided (11-2) to mandate a Project Labor Agreement and therefore mandate union wages and benefits; this is expected to increase the costs for phase two by 12-18%, or $360 - $540 million.
- The MWAA board decided (9-4) to opt for an underground station at Dulles Airport rather than the less expensive above-ground option that all local counties favored. This increased cost by $300 - $600 million.
The result is that the tolls will continually rise until the round-trip toll reaches roughly $30! Not surprisingly, these studies also suggest that usage of the toll road will decrease by 15% with the extra traffic being added to other local roads, mainly Route 7 and I-66, both already at or near capacity during most of the day.
The solution to this sort of problem is simple. Fully return the decision-making and taxing authority to locally elected government officials. They will be the most sensitive to the needs and concerns of the people. It is a simple philosophy that our founding fathers knew well, but one that we have drifted away from.
- koazkwbvhiogpsdpohsftt, muhjzjqhof , [url=http://www.hqbguxuujs.com]fnjnbfmkak[/url], http://www.wssmzjvgir.com muhjzjqhof
- dnjenwbvhiogpsdpohsftt, eqygwxvrzi , [url=http://www.vsavwpkdbn.com]tflpbvlxqw[/url], http://www.meuxdbxqvk.com eqygwxvrzi
- xohtqwbvhiogpsdpohsftt, oahmziiwrt , [url=http://www.dzadvoynki.com]ggreemuddx[/url], http://www.faseplehtt.com oahmziiwrt
- The largest budget in American history - roughly $3.7 trillion.
- The largest deficit in American history - roughly $1.6 trillion.
- The largest budget in American history - roughly $3.7 trillion vs. roughly $3.5 trillion in 2010.
- The largest deficit in American history - roughly $1.6 trillion vs. roughly $1.4 trillion in 2009.
Both parties are to blame for this mess. The Democrats seemed unwilling to discuss any "cuts" more than those passed; the Republicans seemed unwilling to discuss cuts in anything but the programs they selected. If I had the opportunity to vote, I would have held firm on the $61 billion number but made clear that we could negotiate where the $61 billion in cuts could come from. If we are to reinstate responsible budgets, we must first establish our priorities (i.e., paying off the debt) and not let personal pet programs prevent us from reaching budgetary agreements.
Nonetheless, I encourage everyone to congratulate those who held firm to their principles in the debate.
The argument will now shift to raising the debt limit and the 2012 budget. I fail to see how any member of Congress would be able to reconcile voting for the 2011 budget without also supporting raising the debt limit, at least to get us through the end of FY 2011. Thus, I expect the real issue will be the 2012 budget. We can only hope that these same Congressmen will take a more serious look at the country's financial position before approving another $1.5+ trillion deficit. Failure to do so will mean that our debt will approach 110% of our GDP prior to our next election. If we do not get our next election right, our country will likely experience the same collapse that is currently occurring in Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain.
- Your joking right? The Tea Party movement is to cut spending and stop borrowing money. Our overall debt is over 14 trillion Dollars. Even with we sell all our gold to the Federal Reserve, oh wait a minute maybe we already have, anyway we still wouldn't pay off this debt. Senator Ron Paul has a REAL tax cutting budget for 2012, jump on his band wagon if you think your brave enough! Americans are waking up to this financial crisis and will be looking for Candidates to cut 40 - 60 percent of our current federal budget.
- I encourage you to look at my detailed budget proposal (http://www.vaughnforcongress.com/issues/budget-approach/). It is much more aggressive at cutting spending than even Paul Ryan's proposal. My point is simply that we have to negotiate (i.e., that is the form of government we have), but we should not negotiate on core principles (i.e., balanced budget). Instead, we should negotiate on where cuts are made while standing firm in demanding the cuts.
- 1. The President failed to ask for Congressional approval.
- 2. There is no clear American interest.
- 3. The rebels may be worse than Gaddafi.
- 4. We are prolonging the crisis and human suffering.
While the President is authorized to undertake immediate military action under certain situations, the Libyan crisis does not fall into this category.
The Arab League called for a no-fly zone on March 12; the U.N. approved this action on March 17 and military action started on March 19. President Obama had an entire week to ask Congress for authorization, but he failed to do so. The non-emergency deployment of our troops without Congressional approval is a serious violation of our Constitution - an issue that should concern us all.
No Clear American Interest
On Sunday, March 27, Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted on This Week that “it was not a vital national interest to the United States.” We are not the world’s police; we should only be involving ourselves in these crises when there is a clear American interest. Making our friends happy is not sufficient interest for us to start a third war.
When running for office, President Obama even admitted: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve staopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
The Rebels May Be Worse than Gaddafi
In reality, we do not know who the rebels are. I would have hoped that our nation’s leaders had an idea, but a recent mailing from Senator Webb states, “U.S. policymakers do not have a clear understanding of the opposition movement.”
It is amazingly dangerous to assist an unknown rebel group in overthrowing a regime. America should know better as we have already had experiences with Castro and Osama Bin Laden. What’s worse is that we have strong reason to believe that this group of rebels is just as bad as Osama Bin Laden. A recent report in The Telegraph states, "Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime."
We are Prolonging the Crisis
Even the stated reason for us becoming involved is highly questionable. By all accounts, the rebel army was about to lose the war. While Gaddafi was a horrible leader, there is little evidence that his attacks were focused on the population rather than the rebel armies. It is entirely likely that the conflict would have ended in March had the U.N. not become involved. Even Secretary Clinton suggested a death toll of only 10,000.
Instead, we are now directly responsible for deaths ourselves without any clear objectives or time horizon. Secretary Gates even admitted that we do not know how long we will be there.
Other Reasons
In addition to these primary concerns, there are additional reasons that should give us pause:
5. The mission is now unclear, because we are exceeding the U.N. mandate.
The U.N. mandate was to establish a no-fly zone; but from the very first day, this action has been designed to prevent any attacks from Gaddafi’s ground forces. Our forces are essentially serving as the rebel air force. I do not believe this is what our men and women in uniform signed up to do.
6. A successful outcome is unlikely without ground forces.
Had we not had any ground forces in Iraq, it would not have become a successful constitutional republic. Our stated policies and actions indicate that we are for a regime change in Libya, yet we are not taking any actions to produce a better regime. While I agree that Gaddafi is an awful dictator, it is foolhardy to believe that we will produce a better result by creating chaos in the country.
7. Our policies with various dictators are inconsistent.
There are many countries in the Middle East that are cracking down on their populations, yet Libya is the only one suffering our wrath. This implies that there are hidden motivations, which only results in further distrust of American policy in those countries.
Finally, I find it ironic that the left is initiating this conflict after their complaints about the Iraq war:
8. This war will cost money as well, and it is truly a war of choice.
9. The Libyan coalition is smaller than the Iraqi Coalition.
10. We have no exit strategy. There is already talk that the rebels will collapse despite our support. What then?
In short, this is an ill-advised war. At a time when we need to be focused on bringing our troops home and conserving our money, we are spending money creating additional unrest in the Middle East. I am concerned that this will be another endeavor that will backfire on us.
- Ken- All good points! I would just add that Obama subordinated U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. with this action. It is an exceedingly dangerous precedent.
Thank you for visiting our site. As a quick introduction, let me answer a few of the more common questions that I expect people will have:
The short answer to the question "Who are you?" is that I am a concerned citizen. I am an engineer. I own my own small (micro) business. I am a husband and a parent. I am a Christian. I am tired of the widespread use of partisan politics to avoid addressing real problems. And I am very concerned about our national debt and the country that we will leave to our children. All of these elements contribute to who I am. It is my goal to introduce myself to you further during the next year and a half; if you would like me to attend an event, please contact me.
"Why are you running?" I am an engineer. I know math and science, and I enjoy studying and solving technical issues. In the fall of 2008, America's financial markets collapsed, and while many pundits were happy to give their analysis, I decided to study the numbers myself. The more I studied, the more concerned I became about America's financial position. Although the TARP bailout, the Fed loans, the stimulus, the deficit spending, and the disregard of the rule of law (e.g., especially for GM bond-holders) may have temporarily assisted the economy, they have put our whole nation at incredible financial risk. Our country's financial experts regularly admit that our current path is "unsustainable," and yet few, if any, of our elected officials have stepped up to take serious action to change our course and put us back on the path to long-term economic stability.
I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where issues such as this can be settled with a simple election; but I am concerned that our debt is putting this freedom in jeopardy. That is why I am wiling to take that same pledge that our Founding Fathers did in the Declaration of Independence: I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to do what I can to preserve our freedoms for the next generation. I hope you will join me in this cause.
"What district are you running in?" Normally, this would be an easy question to answer. However, district boundaries are slated to be redrawn this year, so it's not yet clear which district I'll ultimately end up in. I live in Herndon, which is currently in Virginia's 10th district, represented by Frank Wolf, but I'm also near the 8th district, represented by Jim Moran, and the 11th district, represented by Gerry Connolly. Given that redistricting will likely result in less territory for the 10th district, it is difficult to predict which district I'll end up in. We probably won't know the final district boundaries until the fall. However, since I believe that Frank Wolf, Gerry Connolly, and Jim Moran all need to be replaced, the final district boundaries will not affect my decision to run. And I believe that in order to be effective, I need to start the campaign now.
"Why should I support you?" If you think Congress needs improvement, there's little chance you'll find it from 11- and 16-term incumbents. Frank Wolf has been in office for 30+ years; Jim Moran has been in office for 20+ years. A full 80% of our current national debt has been acquired since Jim Moran was elected, and over 90% since Frank Wolf was first elected; both have repeatedly approved increases to the debt ceiling without providing any plan for repaying it. I realize that a single Congressman cannot dictate the exact solution to our nation's problems, but a single person can help to bring focus and attention to a problem so that it can be fixed. We will not solve this problem by merely blaming a specific party or spending program. We will only solve the problem by accepting the concept of shared sacrifice. I am willing to deliver and act on this difficult message; my opponents have had the same opportunity over the last decades and have consistently neglected to do so.
- Best wishes to you! Your background in math, science and engineering is an asset to restore fiscal integrity to Virginia.
I encourage everyone to be in prayer for those in Japan. An 8.9 earthquake is truly devastating. I have personally experienced a 6.0 earthquake, which is enough to cause moderate damage to buildings and seriously rattle the nerves of those involved.
I encourage you to give to a charity of your choice to help those who have been affected by this event. Before giving to a charity, you should always investigate it and feel comfortable with its management and operations as a whole. For this reason, I generally recommend contributing to local charities in which you are personally involved. However, when it comes to international efforts, especially those related to immediate disaster response, it is generally better to give to the larger charities with strong connections in the affected country. One such charity that I have great respect for and which operates in Japan is World Vision. If you have other charities that you would like to see listed, please contact us and we will consider adding them to this list.
Most of our nation's economic problems can be traced back to our economic policies. The problematic policies tend to fall into two categories:
1. Policies that are desirable or necessary, but which are only imposed on American firms
2. Policies that are undesirable or are flat out unreasonable
The first category includes our Bill of Rights, child labor laws, reasonable pollution control laws, and others. Our society values these laws, as do I. However, our current international trade agreements betray these values when we allow for cheap imports from China and other countries that do not value these principles. We should not be surprised that China has such a large trade surplus when they are enslaving their people and destroying their environment. While their is merit to the current debate over China's manipulation of the currency market, the affect of these policies pale in comparison to the destructive policies our own Congress and its trade agreements with countries that do not respect our values. Fixing this problem will go a long way in restoring the American economy.
However, there are plenty of undesirable regulations as well. A prime example is the recent FDA decision to restrict the sale of any generic version of Makena, a drug that has been used for years to prevent preterm labor in high-risk pregnant women. The FDA has now authorized KV Pharmaceutical to be the exclusive maker of the drug. As everyone should know, when you give a firm a monopoly, the price goes up. In this case, the AP is reporting that a single dose of this drug will increase from its current $10 per dose to a whopping $1,500 per dose, meaning that the total cost during pregnancy could rise to $30,000 from a mere $200! This despite the fact that Aetna "was unaware of any quality concerns" with the existing providers. The net impact of this one decision is likely to be an increase in health insurance costs in the range of $600 million*, or $2 for every person in the United States.
The time has come to fix our broken economic policies.
* Based on Aetna's estimate of $30 million cost, and assuming that they have a 10% market share for private health insurance and that half of health care costs are covered by government health programs.
Heritage Action prepared an After Action Report that revealed how each Representative voted on 21 amendments that proposed to cut non-security spending prior to the passage of H.R. 1 in the House. Not surprisingly, Frank Wolf (R) was the lowest ranked Virginia Republican supporting only 33% of these amendments; only 8 out of 240 Republicans had a lower score.
In reality these proposals are just a drop in the bucket. They total less than $25 billion when our deficit is $1.6 trillion. Nonetheless, the failure of Congress to pass even these simple cuts reveal just how addicted our Congressmen are to their spending habits. The time has come for new leadership that will live up to our moral obligation to eliminate the national debt.
His votes were as follows:
YES - House Vote 51 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - National Drug Intelligence Center
February 16, 2011 - Flake, R-Ariz., amendment that would strike the $34 million that the bill would provide for the National Drug Intelligence Center at the Justice Department.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 262-169: R 217-22; D 45-147; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 52 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Research Facility Construction
February 16, 2011 - Latta, R-Ohio, amendment that would decrease funding for construction of research facilities at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology by $10 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 184-247: R 157-82; D 27-165; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 54 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Legal Services Corporation
February 16, 2011 - Duncan, R-S.C., amendment that would strike all funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which would be provided $324.4 million under the bill.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 171-259: R 170-68; D 1-191; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 55 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - ARPA-E Funding Reduction
February 16, 2011 - Biggert, R-Ill., amendment that would strike the $50 million in funding that the bill would make available for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) at the Energy Department.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 170-262: R 165-75; D 5-187; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 58 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Energy Efficiency Programs
February 16, 2011 - Latta, R-Ohio, amendment that would decrease funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs at the Energy Department by $70 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 137-293: R 135-103; D 2-190; I 0-0.
YES - House Vote 61 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Land Acquisition
February 16, 2011 - Lummis, R-Wyo., amendment that would strike all funding, including unobligated prior-year funds, that would be made available for the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service to buy new federal land. That funding totals $35 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 213-216: R 207-32; D 6-184; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 63 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - EPA Science and Technology
February 16, 2011 - Flake, R-Ariz., amendment that would reduce funding for EPA science and technology programs by $64 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 199-230: R 190-48; D 9-182; I 0-0.
YES - House Vote 64 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - EPA Environmental Programs and Management
February 16, 2011 - Pompeo, R-Kan., amendment that would reduce funding for EPA environmental programs and management by $8 million.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 239-185: R 228-9; D 11-176; I 0-0.
YES - House Vote 65 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - EPA State and Tribal Assistance
February 16, 2011 - Reed, R-N.Y., amendment that would reduce funding for EPA state and tribal assistance grants by $10 million.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 228-203: R 219-21; D 9-182; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 67 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - USDA Forestry Programs
February 17, 2011 - Pompeo, R-Kan., amendment that would reduce funding for state and private forestry programs of the U.S. Forest Service in the Agriculture Department by $7.4 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 171-256: R 168-70; D 3-186; I 0-0.
YES - House Vote 68 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - National Endowment for the Arts
Amendment to reduce funding forthe National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, Grants and Administration and increases the spending reduction account.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 217-209: R 214-22; D 3-187; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 69 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
February 17, 2011 - Canseco, R-Texas, amendment that would strike the $4.5 million in funding provided in the bill for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 248-177: R 223-13; D 25-164; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 70 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Presidio Trust Fund
February 17, 2011 - Reed, R-N.Y., amendment that would strike the $15 million in funding provided in the bill for the Presidio Trust Fund.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 239-186: R 224-10; D 15-176; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 72 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Community Service Block Grants
February 17, 2011 - Flake, R-Ariz., amendment that would reduce funding for payments under the Community Service Block Grant program by $100 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 115-316: R 115-124; D 0-192; I 0-0.
YES - House Vote 75 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - National Labor Relations Board
February 17, 2011 - Price, R-Ga., amendment that would strike the $233.4 million in funding provided in the bill for salaries and expenses at the National Labor Relations Board.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 176-250: R 176-60; D 0-190; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 76 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - U.S. Institute of Peace
February 17, 2011 - Weiner, D-N.Y., amendment that would strike the $42.7 million provided in the bill for the United States Institute of Peace.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 268-163: R 226-13; D 42-150; I 0-0.
YES - House Vote 77 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - East-West Center
February 17, 2011 - Canseco, R-Texas, amendment that would strike the $10.7 million provided in the the bill for the East-West Center.
Adopted in Committee of the Whole 274-155: R 230-7; D 44-148; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 78 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Multilateral Foreign Assistance
February 17, 2011 - Heller, R-Nev., amendment that would reduce funding for various accounts used for multilateral assistance through international financial institutions, organizations and programs by a total of $211.2 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 190-241: R 180-59; D 10-182; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 79 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Amtrak Grants
February 17, 2011 - Sessions, R-Texas, amendment that would decrease funding for capital and debt service grants to Amtrak by $446.9 million.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 176-250: R 176-60; D 0-190; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 103 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Overall Funding Cut
February 18, 2011 - Blackburn, R-Tenn., amendment that would reduce funding for the legislative branch by 11 percent and all other funding under the measure by 5.5 percent. Continuing appropriations for the Homeland Security Department, the Veterans Affairs Department, the State Department, and aid and funding for Israel would be exempt from these reductions.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 147-281: R 147-92; D 0-189; I 0-0.
NO - House Vote 143 - HR 1: Fiscal 2011 Continuing Appropriations - Fiscal 2006 Spending Levels
February 19, 2011 - Mulvaney, R-S.C., amendment that would bar funds made available in the bill from being used in excess of fiscal 2006 spending levels with some exemptions.
Rejected in Committee of the Whole 93-328: R 93-144; D 0-184; I 0-0.
Once again Congress has shown its lack of leadership. The Republicans were elected, in part, due to their Pledge to America that vowed to reduce spending by $100 billion. While this is a fraction of what must be cut to balance the budget, they have now gone back on even this simple promise. And lest you think that this was a compromise position, be aware that not a single Democrat voted for this bill. This is the Republican starting point and represents their approval of another $1.5 trillion deficit.
When the Republicans could not agree on exactly where to make cuts of more than $61 billion, the Republican Study Committee proposed to impose across-the-board spending cuts to trim an additional $22 billion (for a total that still would have been $17 billion shy of the promised amount of cuts). This was an exceptionally reasonable proposal; if you can't agree where the cuts need to be made, you must cut everywhere. Ninety-two Republicans joined every Democrat to block these cuts.
I commend Jim Jordan (OH), Marsha Blackburn (TN), and the Virginia supporters, Randy Forbes, Robert Goodlatte, Morgan Griffith, Robert Hurt, Scott Rigell, and Rob Wittman for having the courage to support this bill. Unfortunately, Eric Cantor and Frank Wolf joined with all of the Democrats in Congress to block this sensible amendment. By voting against these additional cuts while voting for the final spending bill, they have demonstrated their tacit support of another $1.5 trillion deficit. For the record, here are the positions of our local congressmen:
Frank Wolf (R) voted against the additional cuts and for this spending bill despite his pledge not to raise the debt ceiling. This obvious inconsistency is one more sign that his public statements are not backed up by his voting record.
Jim Moran (D) voted against the bill complaining that too many jobs would be lost; the reality is that the jobs are being lost due to poor government policies. But even so, our generation does not have the right to steal money from our children's future. Representative Moran has not provided any solution to even lower the deficit, let alone for achieving a balanced budget.
The time has come for leaders who are willing to tackle the tough issues rather than simply blaming the other party and voting along partisan lines.
Please volunteer to help our campaign. These are two long-term incumbents that have extensive fund-raising networks with deep pockets, but with your help, we will remove them from office and restore this country to a more sensible budget.
One has to wonder what goes through Representative Jim Moran's mind when he speaks. It apparently is not enough to insult the Jewish community and the military; he has now gone on Arabian television and insulted the majority of Americans who voted for change in 2010.
One would like to think that he is just being an unskilled partisan hack; but this does not quite make sense. Statistics show that the Jewish community tends to vote for Democrats, thus this interpretation does not seem to explain this chain of comments. The other side of the aisle may find it easy to just call him a bigot for trying to characterize large groups of people with one broad brush based on unfounded stereotypes. However, I think the real answer is simpler. He is merely an out-of-touch elitist.It happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. It happened because the Southern states, the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, I believe, don't want to be governed by an African American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. That's a basic philosophical clash.
Anyone who spends time studying an issue will form their own opinion and will tend to conclude that their opinion is right. I can understand someone aggressively defending their position on this basis; but these statements go further. They show a disdain for anyone who might disagree with him. These are not the words of someone trying to present an intelligent argument; they are words that demonstrate that he is trying to self-justify reasons for not even listening to the people. I would suggest that this is a major contributing factor to the divisive political atmosphere in our country today.
To be fair, this problem is not unique to Representative Moran or to the Democrat party. It is just the most recent glaring example that we see all too often with our long-term politicians from both sides of the aisle. Three weeks ago it was Representative Frank Wolf telling anyone who thought that the earmark ban should be permanent that they needed to take a course in Political Science 101. In other words, in his view, the common man just is not intelligent or educated enough to understand these things. They should just leave these things to him.
We should not be surprised. Throughout history, long-term rulers who have been given great powers have typically lost touch with the people. The elections in 2008 and 2010 were really about three things:
1. Fiscal responsibility, and yet we still have not seen a balanced budget proposal from either side.
2. Rule of law, and yet we still have an illegal immigration problem, a government that hands out special favors to connected campaign donors (e.g., banks under Bush and the unions under Obama), congressmen who flagrantly break the law, etc., etc.
3. A government that is willing to listen to the people.
The actions of these representatives, and many others, demonstrate that neither party has really gotten this simple message, demonstrating that we will need more change in 2012. I encourage you to join my Facebook fan page and Twitter page. One thing is clear: when Congressmen feel like their seats are in jeopardy, they become much more attentive to the will of the people. Joining these social media groups is an easy way to encourage these politicians to pay more attention.
- Ken Vaughn
