Position Statements:

In an effort to keep my positions focused on the areas I believe the voters most care about, I have outlined the following topics and will comment on each.

The Challenge:

• First and foremost this campaign represents a new approach by challenging voters to engage and by refusing any campaign contributions. The fundamental premise is that votes beat dollars at the ballot box every time. We are all equal and we should not let the political insiders convince us that we have no chance of changing the system. It is in their best interest that nothing changes, not the voters.

The Target:

• This campaign targets citizens that still believe in American values, are not afraid to talk about their faith, don’t believe in a new world order, and believe the American way of life is worth fighting for. Securing borders is not racist or xenophobic, English is our common language, although we respect people’s right to be bi-lingual, still believe all government communication should be in English. Burning our flag is not “free speech” it is disrespectful of the men and women that have died for it and us. Our military is the greatest in the world and should always be given the benefit of - innocent until proven guilty, particularly in a time of war. Church’s can be compassionate, government can’t, so don’t ask the government to do things that it is incapable of doing effectively. This is still a government elected by the people, which the supporters of this campaign plan on doing!

The Issues:

Voluntary Campaign Finance

• By not accepting political contributions, this campaign has placed its own campaign finance reform at the forefront. This campaign is making no promises to support any campaign finance bills that might be introduced in Congress. Actually, the belief of this campaign is that by trying to limit contributions and spending for political campaigns, the laws are actually making the process more convoluted, making it difficult for campaigns to remain within the law, because of the confusing maze of regulations, and has actually increased the influence that special interests have had on political campaigns.

Term Limits

• 8 – years Representatives in the House; 12 - years for Senators
• In the past I have apposed term limits and still am in theory, because the ballot box is fundamentally the mechanism for voters to change their representation. But based on the reality of the political system and the influence, power, and insulation from opposition incumbent candidates enjoy, I believe we need to swing the balance of power back in favor of the competitive “market”. In analysis of the Founding Father’s intentions, they envisioned that members of the community would go to Washington D.C for a short period of time, and then return to their position within the community they “served”. They were very suspicious, and aware of the result of individuals granted too much power in the government. Further analysis of the way things work now, “career” politicians lose touch with the people they represent and start spending too much time with powerful lobbyists. They stop representing their district and jettison off to “retreats” designed to influence their votes on matters before their committees. By limiting the terms, therefore rotating the power currently held by long term committee chairs, we will reduce the opportunity for corruption and undue influence on our representatives. I understand for those that believe a representative’s key role is to “bring home the bacon”; this seems like an uncomfortable position. But we need representation that has their districts interests in the forefront, but does not abuse the system by adding wasteful spending on monuments to themselves, bridges to nowhere, or repaving roads that do not need it just to “create” jobs for campaign contributors. There is a measured and balanced approach we must take and by increasing the number of individuals able to represent the district through term limits, we will have greater opportunity to reform pork barrel, and earmark spending.  

National Security

• I can’t underline this enough, without a strong commitment to funding our military in the areas of troops, equipment, intelligence, and research and development to stay one step ahead of our enemies, we will have nothing. We only need to remember how we felt on September 11^th to understand the importance of our Nation’s Security. I will support our Military Budget with a passion. As with any government program there must be strong oversight, but don’t expect any support here for reductions in this area of the budget. It is one of the only constitutionally sanctioned responsibilities of our federal government and deserves unwavering commitment from our congress.

Immigration

• Protecting our borders goes hand in hand with our National Security. We need to secure our borders now. We need to commit the funds to repairing and improving the fence that currently exists in many areas of the southern border. I will propose and support funding for additional fencing along with improvements to the current fences. I believe the money needed is minimal compared to the billions we are spending on services to illegal aliens, the negative impact they are having on our minority communities, schools, hospitals, social services, and the hard working Americans in the building trades. Our labor market is negatively impacted by this unfair competition in our trades. There are no jobs Americans won’t do for a fair wage. Competition is fine but it must be a level playing field. US businesses should be held accountable and prosecuted for the hiring of illegal aliens. Not all that come across our borders are the hard working individuals being portrayed by the open border supporters. Many crimes are being committed by these illegal aliens, gang members are terrorizing our cities and towns, and individuals with no intention to assimilate into our culture are pouring in straining law enforcement resources. The debate about “comprehensive” reform can not move forward in earnest without secure borders first, period.

Budget Reform

• Fiscal responsibility in government is challenging because many politicians find it hard to resist spending on “good intentions” rather than focusing on results. I know it is often said that government needs to be run like a business, but in all fairness, government has a different role than private business. That being said, accountability and fiscal restraint are a must in order to keep our economy sound. The federal budget is so large right now, and entwined with the private sector economy that we need to incorporate predictable policy. We need legislation that makes the budgeting process less political and more practical. We need to have limitation indexes for overall expenses tied to inflation. I will support and or propose legislation that imposes limitations to overall spending not to exceed inflation. All federal program budget proposals with the exceptions of the Military, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, need to provide proof of success through audits every 3 years. All new proposals for government programs will be required to provide metrics for success which can be measured to determine if the program is successful or needs to be adjusted or eliminated. Proof that any new program is not a duplicate of another program will be required for new programs and phased in for all existing programs with the above exceptions. The Military, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid budgets must be addressed individually because of their scope and importance.  

• Social Security must be reformed by eliminating the use of “surplus” revenue to offset other deficit spending within the general fund of the federal budget. The accounts should be tied to individuals and the “surplus” invested in conservative/balanced investments.

• Medicare/Medicaid reform needs to be part of the larger reform needed in the private sector healthcare industry overall. Third party insurance is insulating the impact and awareness of the true cost of medical treatment. Market forces must be introduced in the more common services of healthcare like, doctor visits, common prescriptions, lab tests, to promote competition and efficiency. Insurance for “catastrophic” illness will be necessary but is the least costly based on probability. The current Self – Employed Healthcare Affordability Act of 2006 is an attempt to put some of these market measures in place but there is huge resistance from the insurance industry and I presume some in healthcare but we must do what is right for all not just some.

• I believe we need a strong defense budget that includes fair benefits for our veterans, active and reserve personnel, along with equipment, as well as research and development. We need to be prepared for current needs and anticipated threats in the future. This is truly an area in the budget where we can not afford to put our nation at risk.   

Elimination of “Earmarks”

• As related to budget reform, Earmarks attached to a budget must be eliminated. This is an avenue for unaccountable and wasteful spending. For those of you that don’t know what “Earmarks” are, they are additional spending requests tacked on to major spending bills, often the congressman sponsoring them do not put their name on them because of the embarrassment it could bring if they are challenged. This is where we get the bridges to nowhere, monuments to egotistical politicians, studies on the black bellied spider and so on. Again, they must end; a million here a billion there, pretty soon we’re talking real money.

In no way are these all the issues that are important, or the only ones that will be faced during the next Congress. These position statements should give you a good indication of my values and focus. For further detail or to explore additional issues I will be campaigning in late 2007 early 2008. I will be glad to speak to you or your group about my new book or upcoming campaign strategy. Contact me @ rhand@thinkhdi.com.