Kern on the Issues

Federal Issues: (State Issues)

Asset Forfeiture Laws

Asset forfeiture laws give the government the authority to confiscate property if it is found to be connected with a crime. However, there's a problem: the burden of proof. Property can be confiscated from people who have not even been charged with a criminal offense (much less convicted). In short, the government can seize property without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has even been committed.

Property that has been taken is extremely difficult to get back, and what doesn't get returned is usually auctioned off for the benefit of law enforcement agencies that originally took it- no wonder why billions of dollars worth of property is forfeited each year. It's a racket that occurs at both the federal and state levels and makes a mockery of our Bill of Rights.

Asset forfeiture laws have been shown to be recipes for government abuse. I will sponsor legislation that will repeal asset forfeiture laws at the federal level.

---

War and Foreign Policy

Harry Browne said it best: Libertarians know that the government’s role isn’t to police the world – or even to win wars. The government’s role is to keep us out of wars – and to protect us from foreign enemies, not create them. The United States is in no position to be the world's police or the world's example of morality. Our government doesn't even respect the rights of its own citizens– how can anyone expect it to successfully wage peace in other nations? We have problems on our own shores far more deserving of our attention, and I could list any number of places I’d rather see our tax dollars go to than overseas- like back into the pockets of people who earned them.

No one should have her tax money spent outside of our borders for any reason, especially to prop up foreign governments or take sides in Middle Eastern conflicts. I oppose using any American's money to give military or economic aid to foreign countries, period.

---

Iraq and Afghanistan

In 2002, Congress uthorized President Bush to invade Iraq without declaring war. Any representative who voted in favor of this measure should have been ejected from office immediately. To attack a nation without just cause is among the highest atrocities that can be committed by a government. Even though you don't contemplate the horrors of war as often as you drive to work, it doesn't mean the tragedy is any less real. Thousands upon thousands of human lives have been stamped out because of this obscene abuse of power.

I am vehemently opposed to risking the lives of our soldiers in any military conflict where the United States is not directly threatened. If we should be doing anything at all in Iraq, it should be no more than to rebuild any of its infrastructure we destroyed when we dropped bombs on its cities, which I’d like to be funded out of the pay of anyone who initially voted for the invasion. Barring that, the troops should be brought home immediately, since no amount of meddling in foreign affairs is worth the lives of American soldiers. I don't know what kind of victory we could achieve that could possibly vindicate the loss of life suffered by families here and abroad

I will oppose all measures designed to continue military operations in the Middle East.

---

The Federal Reserve

Many people believe the Federal Reserve to be a mysterious but crucial barrier between the American financial system and total economic collapse. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, the Fed is little more than a glorified press which runs off money for the government to spend on its pet projects. What happens when money is created out of thin air and circulates through the economy? Because the more money there is, the less each dollar is worth, and so the result is seen as rising prices. As you read this sentence, the cash in your wallet and the savings in your safe are literally losing their value because of the actions of government.

Obviously, the people who get the newly-minted money benefit from this in the short term. But everyone else is helpless to watch their savings erode and the product of their labor get sapped away by Ben Bernanke. The Federal Reserve is the vehicle by which the government can fund anything it wants (such as war and jobs to buy votes) at your expense, regardless of whether you actually go through the motion of sending them a check.

The ability to print money is an awesome power that knows no limits, and is not something the American government was ever supposed to have (indeed, no government should have such a stranglehold on its citizens). The government must be forced to live within its means just like the rest of us, and so long as it doesn’t have to, you and I will never be free. The Fed needs to be abolished and sound currency needs to be restored to the United States.

This is a condensed version of what is a complex subject, but one worth taking the time to understand. If the nation comprehended what was going on with the Federal Reserve and its money, every citizen would demand to know what their representatives were going to do about the situation, and many elections would be decided on this issue alone.

See the video series Dollars and $ense for an excellent introduction to the evils of the Fed.

---

Taxes

I want to see the income tax abolished and the 16th Amendment repealed. I want to see everybody at the IRS get a real job that produces something other than headaches and suffering for hardworking Americans and ten-thousand-page rulebooks.

Think it's impossible? Ask yourself what your favorite federal programs are. Then, ask yourself whether those programs worth the income tax you will pay over your entire lifetime. There's your answer as to whether the country could function without the federal income tax. It most certainly could, as it did for over a century of its existence- and so could you, if you were permitted to keep your money instead of forfeiting it to Washington.

The reason the American government wouldn't crumble without the income tax is because it would be so small- small enough to fit within the confines delineated by the Constitution. It could easily be funded by a flat tax on all imports like in the old days when the federal government knew its place and Americans were free to keep what they earned.

I’m not interested in playing games or rewriting the rules for something that merely sounds better; I want results that will unequivocally improve the lives of all Americans. I pledge my commitment to work towards revoking the federal government's ability to directly tax its citizens.

---

Federal Budget

Imagine being so bankrupt that you were out on the street, owning nothing but the clothes on your back. The United States had the luxury of living like that back in the 1990s. Today, we’re not so fortunate.

You see, every dollar we earn which is destined to go to D.C. has already been spent long ago. All the money the federal government throws around bailing out company X or subsidizing program Y isn’t our money at all; it’s all loans that we'll be paying back. By April 15, when you send your next check to the IRS, it will not go toward government services. It will go to pay the interest on projects have already been underway since well before you even got that money.

Living on credit doesn’t last forever, and the federal government has guaranteed a reduced standard of living for all Americans for generations to come. Still, all we get is talk about what wonderful new projects the federal government can embark on, heedless of the noose it’s putting around our posterity’s neck. The insane spending trend needs to be reversed, and Congress should be discussing ways to set its constituents free from cradle-to-grave dependence on government. The challenge is not how to spend wisely, but how to eliminate spending in a way that won’t collapse the economy.

I will oppose any open-ended "budget" bills without balancing measures in place.

---

The Second Amendment

The right to defend oneself is not a right granted by the Constitution- it is a right we possess as free human beings, and not something that can lawfully be legislated out of existence by any state or federal lawmakers. Luckily for us, the Founders happened to put this one in writing.

I am a gun owner, and I carry whenever I may legally do so. In the spirit of maintaining freedom, I will always favor respecting any individual's rights over falling for the mirage of safety offered by trying to curb everybody's rights. This view is summed up well in Article 1 of the Texas Constitution 2000, and is supported by an excellent article written by Jeffrey R. Snyder: A Nation of Cowards.

I will vote against any federal bills that infringe on the rights of Americans to own any type of firearm they deem necessary to protect themselves.

---

Border Policy

I understand that the United States is a nation of immigrants, but I also understand that immigration needs to be reformed. While an influx of immigrants might be good for business by supplying labor, it takes its toll on American citizens by lowering wages and posing potential security threats. I want to be clear that my immigration position is based on liberty, respect for the law, and economics; not xenophobia.

At a minimum, I want birthright citizenship abolished. I want to send the message that this is a nation of laws, and that to enjoy benefits of citizenship one must demonstrate a certain level of commitment to America's cultural identity. This, of course, means I oppose any sort of amnesty. I also oppose any measures that would impose federal legal requirements to accommodate non-English speakers to any extent. The states can handle that as they see fit.

Our government doesn't have much chance of stopping unwanted immigration without striking at the root of its cause. Attempting to deal with the issue with a border fence will only delay it at best. I can easily see our multi-billion-dollar wall reduced to rubble in less than ten years. Though I'm tempted to say that maybe if a fraction of the resources we spend on "securing" Iraq and Afghanistan were used to secure our own country and enforce our current immigration laws, this issue might not even be an issue.

---

Global Warming

I, like many of you (unless you’re a scientist), am at the mercy of what others tell me on the subject of global warming. I’ve heard enough information to make me believe that the earth is experiencing a warming trend, but I have yet to be convinced that the change in temperature is so accelerated by human activity that we’re headed for an irreversible worldwide catastrophe. Has any hysterical environmental scare story ever come to pass?

When politicians take the floor and declare some doomsday scenario to be an open and shut case, it makes me have doubts. When Al Gore tells the world that there’s an overwhelming consensus and that debate is over, it arouses my suspicion. And then when Congress suggests saving the planet through taxing schemes, i.e. subsidizing industry X at the expense of industry Y, that sends up a red flag that this whole issue is just a convenient fictional platform for political grandstanding. Regardless of whether it is science, it’s politics at its finest.

So long as there are legitimate people out there making noise and contradicting the hysteria, I will continue to err on the side of smaller government by voting against any taxing measures that would hamper any energy industry or subsidize any other industry.

---

Trade

I am an unapologetic advocate of free trade, and so do not subscribe to the "us versus them" attitude towards trade/manufacturing/jobs. Americans should have unrestricted access to any good or service from anybody anywhere. Import/export quotas and trade "agreements" are not open trade; they're managed trade, and they can be political weapons that distort the market for the benefit of special interests.

Simply put, the government should not be in the business of bestowing "protective" benefits on certain industries, nor should it be erecting barriers to trade with other nations for political reasons. The power to selectively meddle with trade policy is the power to play more political games with the economy. Only the politically connected benefit from these policies- the rest of us pay for it in real ways that are hard to detect: higher prices, fewer options, and lower quality goods than we would otherwise have. This automatically puts a squeeze on consumers and frustrates economic activity.

Rather than play games with protectionist policy, I support a uniform tariff on all imports across the board. This will remove power from politicians and put it back in the hands of the American consumer. Moreover, I will push for unfettered free trade with all nations. I will vote against any legislation that imposes a barrier to free trade with any nation, including sanctions, quotas, and embargoes.

---

The 17th Amendment

Until 1913, United States Senators were elected by state legislatures. It was structured this way so that the states had some control over Washington. The 17th Amendment took that elective power away from the state legislatures and put it in the hands of the voting public. This was a mistake in two ways.

One was that it pushed the United States that much more towards being a democracy, which the Founders knew was just as bad as a monarchy. The second was that it upset the balance of power; the Senate should be beholden to the state governments as a check against federal influence.

I am in favor of amending the Constitution to repeal the 17th Amendment.

---

Term Limits

It has been said that we already have term limits, and that they’re called "elections." While true to an extent, incumbents do have resources that enable them to keep their positions, sometimes indefinitely. Have a look at these charts for reelection rates in Congress from 1964 through 2006. What do you believe accounts for such high reelection rates? Stellar records of public service?

Imposing term limits won’t be a magic bullet for the country’s problems, and will be a temporary solution at best. The real answer is to deny government officials the ability to use their political power to enrich themselves and their friends and to punish their enemies. However, until we get a government like that, I will commit to cosponsoring legislation to limit the number of terms members of Congress may serve. For more on this, please see my blog entry on term limits.

---

Decentralization (Bring Home the Politicians)

I support the decentralization of federal power by relocating members of Congress from their offices in Washington to their respective home-state districts for the majority their time on the job. By relegating the representatives to their home districts, they will be more easily available to their constituents and still capable of fulfilling their constitutional obligations. Details on the many benefits of decentralization can be found at BringHomeThePoliticians.com.

State Sovereignty Issues

State Issues: (Federal Issues)



The Tenth Amendment states that if actions are not specifically authorized by the Constitution, the federal government is barred from doing them. There was a time in our history when the Tenth Amendment actually meant something, and presidents vetoed legislation for contradicting it. Imagine that. I wonder how many times your congressman has voted against a bill on constitutional grounds.

Today, there is more federal control over the states (and, by extension, us) than ever before and it shows no sign of slowing down. An overbearing national government is exactly what the Constitution was supposed to preclude. I fully support any legislation that checks federal power, and very much look forward to cosponsoring bills such as the Enumerated Powers Act.

Below are issues and areas which the federal government has no constitutional business regulating, and so should be dealt with at the state level.

---

Education

American education has turned into the adopted child of the federal government and teacher unions. Can you imagine a more sinister alliance?

In spite of all the money thrown at public education over the years, America's schools continue to be plagued with many problems. On an international scale, our eighth graders are ranked about ninth in mathematics and eleventh in science. There is pitifully little time devoted to the Constitution. We are not producing graduates who are ready to face the next round of classes, much less the challenges that await in the real world. Clearly, the one-size-fits-all approach to American education provided by Washington has failed our children.

Much of what is wrong with our country is at least partially rooted in public education and extends back over many years. These issues include poverty, drug abuse, crime, unemployment, and a loss of independence and freedom for Americans. The first step to rescuing American education is to de-federalize it and put the power back in the hands of the states where it belongs.

I will vote against any bill that funds the Department of Education or otherwise plays politics with schools through Washington.

---

The War on Drugs

Presumably, the purpose of America’s war on drugs is to keep people from obtaining and using drugs. But do you think one has to go any further than one of our nation’s schools to buy them? Assemble any group of teenagers and ask them if they have the means to obtain illegal drugs. Their answer will tell the story of the success of our drug war. What's remarkable is that, in spite of the persisting wide availability of illegal drugs, the sky hasn't fallen. Could it be that Americans have the ability to behave responsibly without guidance from their parents in D.C.?

Temporarily leaving aside arguments against the drug war based on personal and economic freedom (which abound), the war’s cost to Americans has still been immense. It takes a lot of resources to fight this war- resources that could be put to much more productive use. For all the time, money, and manpower we’ve spent enforcing federal drug laws; tying up the court systems; using up prison space; writing laws pushing for mandatory minimum sentences; and destroying the lives of innocent people*, one would think we’d have a noticeably better world to show for it.

However, we don’t. The constitutional solution is to leave this issue in the hands of the states. I will vote against all legislation aiming to further any part of America’s unconstitutional federal drug war agenda.

*Here are websites showcasing some of the people whose lives were ruined by the War on Drugs:

Prisoners of the Drug War

Drug War Victims

---

Healthcare

It is true that there is work to be done (or undone, as the case may be) with healthcare and insurance in this country, but a workable solution will not come out of Congress written in a two thousand-page bill that nobody read; real solutions never have. Politicians who decide to play doctor simply aren't capable of coming up with a plan that will sufficiently service the nation's health needs. It is shocking that so many people still have that much faith in government.

Congress' power to "regulate interstate commerce" isn’t a grant of unmitigated authority to do whatever it wants however it likes whenever a sale takes place across state lines. At most, the industry would need a short list of simple mandates that are practical and easy to understand. The "solution" concocted by Congress will cost more than we have and still fall short of its intended goals, like so many other programs of this magnitude. I have faith in the competitive market’s ability to cater to the needs of more people on its own when unhampered by Washington’s regulatory interference.

I oppose any legislation aiming to increase the federal government’s role in the field of medicine- the less Washington is involved, the better.

---

Jobs

Many have been taught to believe there should be federal measures in place to control unemployment. We're told about how many new jobs the latest government initiative will create, and how the job market is sure to improve because of it.

I contend that it is not the federal government's job to create jobs. Understand that programs created/funded by federal stimuli necessarily divert resources from private enterprises- enterprises whose existence depends on their ability to produce things that people want. It is not employment that is important, but production, which, by its nature, the government is ill-equipped to provide. It is private businesses- not governments- that produce things people want to buy, thereby creating jobs worth having and increasing our standard of living.

When the federal government gets in the business of keeping people employed, what typically results are things like auto industry bailouts, the IRS, jobs build on a foundation of politics, and any number of other wasteful/fraudulent programs that exist at the expense of every taxpaying American. Had we never strayed from our constitutional principles, the consequences of government meddling in employment affairs might be local in scope instead of disastrous on a national level. I will vote against any legislation that would put the job market under the influence of the federal government.

---

Social Security

While Social Security may not be the best way to retire, it's a fantastic way to buy votes from people who have learned to depend on it.

For anyone who doesn't know, Social Security is not a retirement program; it is a government spending program. The funds you pay into it are not invested and do not produce any wealth for anybody. The money goes right out the door to pay for someone else's current benefits (less a transaction fee, of course). Depending on your age, you might one day be receiving the money your future grandchildren are paying into the system. Or you might be unlucky enough to retire after the system collapses.

Social Security is a legal ponzi scheme which stays afloat only because the government can force people to keep funding it. I oppose it on the grounds that it is legalized theft, unconstitutional, and trains the recipients to be that much more dependent on the government.

While I am against the system and I feel that people should plan their own retirement, under no circumstances would I suggest abandoning the program for those who are nearing (or past) retirement age. People who paid into it all their lives deserve what they were promised. By reallocating money from any number of useless government programs, selling off government assets, or reducing pay for federal officials, we will keep that promise. Think about your kids. Young people just now starting to work deserve the freedom to keep their money and retire on their own terms. Finally, the people between these extremes must be afforded a balance of reduced benefits and reduced payments.

I will cosponsor any legislation which aims to free Americans from any government retirement scheme. I don't want it "fixed", I want it gone.

---

Marriage

Regulating marriage (between any number of people regardless of gender) is simply not a function of the federal government, as any Congressman should be able to tell you. To this extent, as a federal legislator, I will vote against any bills bearing any mention of the word "marriage." Any attempts by Washington to promote, prohibit, or define marriage are simply unconstitutional.

---

Abortion

If I am to remain true to the oath of office and my claims to respect the tenth amendment, my having to defer to the states on this issue is inescapable. I disagree with the pro-choice Roe v. Wade decision. However, pro-life legislation coming from the federal government is just as constitutionally unjustifiable. As such, my votes will go against any bills that would subvert the absolute neutrality of the federal government with regards to abortion.

---

Entitlements

All the federal programs that transfer wealth from the people to earn it to the people who don't are not only unconstitutional, they're morally repugnant. I firmly believe such measures aren't intended to genuinely help people, but to buy votes. They play on the ignorance of the people who were born into the system and have little idea of what ill social and economic effects these programs have. All they produce is dependence on the federal government. But now, not only have people learned to depend on the government to take care of them when they're unemployed, retired, or sick, they demand it.

Do not misconstrue my words to mean that people should be left for dead when they fall on hard times. Many people need to be helped, but it is not the job of the federal government to do so. We as a nation have a lot of unlearning to do before we can comprehend this for what it truly is. Charity is a moral imperative incumbent on all of us- in fact, it (among other things) is far too important a responsibility to be left in the hands of powerful politicians, who only see the poor as a loyal voting bloc.

Consider these questions: Is it so difficult to believe that individuals and private charities can provide money for the needy at least as well as politicians? Is theft really the best means at our disposal? How much more would you be willing to give if you both kept more of what you earned and knew the government wasn't relieving you of the responsibility? We seriously need to change our attitudes toward charitable giving if we hope to effect a real reduction in poverty, and the first step is looking around us. If we learn to depend on ourselves, one another, family, and church instead of the government, we will all leave the world in better shape than that in which we found it.

In sum, I favor the phasing-out of federal programs that legalize theft in the name of charity and reelection campaigns. Like so much else, this is a process that will take many years, but will be well worth it for the economic freedom we can realize for future generations.

LIBERTY CANDIDATES


BLOGROLL


OTHER




Paid for by Kern for Congress
©2010 Kern for Congress