Saturday, January 19, 2008
Ken Arnold White Paper on Iraq War
[ Editor’s Note (from Arnold): The below is the written details of a plan that Mr. Arnold first publicly outlined in 2005 – the early part of the War in Iraq. It was detailed then in newspaper questionnaires, public forums, and other venues. The below is merely a written outline of Ken Arnold’s prophetic proposal. He knew then of the very heavy financial drains on the taxpayers that would occur with the current, Iraq effort – and feared about future ones which would have similar, financial consequences…]
The Arnold Doctrine: Navigating Iraq and Future “Nation Building” Defense Initiatives
Background and Problem:
The early stage of the Iraq War held such promise that allied Nations of the world would help “bear the burden” with us in this effort. At the start, President Bush called upon many such Nations to GRANT Iraq monies for various costs of the War and the nation building/reconstruction efforts to come. America put forth initial sums to set the example – but little monies from other nations ended up coming in. So America all too quickly has picked up almost all the tab.
America does need to stay in the current course of efforts on all fronts regarding the War on Terror and the military theatre we call The War in Iraq. This is so not only because of the dire consequences to world stability, at this point, if we were to withdraw precipitously -- but because one need only look at history to determine that it takes time to sustain a stable and friendly regime in Iraq or anywhere else.
Effectively, it took ten years after WWII for Germany and all of Europe to stabilize. American troops were still being shot several years after 1945 by Nazi holdovers. And we and European country's troops and attentions are still engaged in the Balkans 15 years after that Balkan War broke out. Iraq will likely be no different in reaching the objectives of stability and security so that political institutions, and democracy, have at least a chance to take hold. So we need to keep engaged to the task and, more importantly, let our enemies not even question our resolve! Incumbent Melissa Bean's recent vote endorsing "timetables to surrender" run directly counter to both our current efforts and our historical efforts as cited above.
American taxpayers have paid approximately 1 Trillion dollars in direct expense (to date) on the Iraq War and its aftermath. And there’s more to come… One has to ask: Why should WE pay – and pay twice! Americans are paying once with their tax dollars now – and once later at the gas pump when purchasing Iraq’s oil products.
Whether one agrees with the specific reasons for the start of the Iraq War or not, this very pertinent question of financing such defense and nation building efforts must surely be raised and is a uniting question across America. This questioning of America financing Iraq must be raised anytime – but it is even truer with the precipitous decline in the strength of the U.S. dollar, the weakness of our overall economy/economic status, and the distinct possibility of the U.S. being currently being in a recession.
In addition to trying to “stop the drain” on taxpayer funds, this question of financing such War on Terror initiatives must also be asked presently - with a firm doctrine established - for another simple reason:
“What do we do in the NEXT Iraq War situation?”
Rather than stumbling into the same, old, financially draining policy of Uncle Sam paying everything, it makes sense to look “two steps ahead of ourselves…”
Analysis and Solutions:
While Ken Arnold supports the War in Iraq along with his Republican opponents – he is the ONLY candidate (Democrat or Republican) in this race, or in all of Congress, that condemns the means of financing this War and nation building effort!
He asks:
“Does America need to pick up the tab for defense and nation building for the second richest country in the world? Unlike post World War II Germany and Japan whose wealth (i.e. their industrial might) was totally destroyed, Iraq’s wealth (i.e. its oil) has been undisturbed and is still in the ground. With the stability being provided by America’s presence, moreover, Iraq will now be able to greatly increase their oil sales from even its previous levels of production."
If Ken Arnold were the Congressman today, he’d be in the galleries of Congress shouting: “What about long term LOANS!” And he would have done that at the very early start of that war.
It is amazing that no one has uttered such words in Washington! Instead, taxpayers are paying twice: Once in their taxes now…and once at the gas pump for the next 75 years. Why are America’s taxpayers paying this burden without question? Is it not enough that we pay in the blood and broken bodies of our youths? The national attention that this effort consumes? Candidate Ken Arnold surely thinks so!
For Iraq (going forward) and for all future nation-building activities to come, it is suggested that “The Arnold Doctrine” (if you will) would be firmly established. It would simply proclaim:
“Where Nations have the financial wherewithal, it shall be they – thru long-term loans – who pay for all such military and nation-building costs.”
In Iraq’s case, Iraq would be given long-term, 75-year loans – not grants. Such loans would be paid off by taking 25% of the net profit revenues from oil sales to the United States and elsewhere and applying it to such loans given. By doing so, Americans will no longer be asked to pay twice. And Iraq cannot complain since not only are we helping them rebuild their country and infrastructure – but we’re willing to give them ample business to repay whatever monies we’ve loaned them!
Yes…Nations who are on the lower half of GDP in the world would not have such policy applied to them should we decide our national interests dictate we assist them or get involved. Afghanistan quickly comes to mind… However: All countries will henceforth know they can no longer look toward Uncle Sam to be “Daddy Sorebucks” paying every expense – without question. We, frankly, never should have been placed in that position historically - and we can absolutely no longer afford to be now.
CONCLUSION
The above “Arnold Doctrine”, if immediately established, may likely save U.S. taxpayers another trillion dollars in Iraq expenses in the long run. And perhaps some of the most recent expenditures already made can be characterized between Iraq and the United States under this long term loan program, too. But this idea and initiative is equally out of concern for both our current financial drains and future ones that could very well occur in our continuing War on Terror. And we better set firm policy now before, once again, hearing that “giant sucking sound” on the pocketbooks of the American taxpayer.
Initiating this doctrine not only restores a sense of financial fairness to things, but it allows America to help improve its current, economic problems. Moreover, with Iraq paying for these type costs, we could ensure that our military medical benefits for Iraq veterans are totally adequate for both their short term and long term care. This initiative just makes sense… And it also puts the world on notice that America will not longer attempt to be “the world’s banker” to come to for one’s every need.
“The Arnold Doctrine” is one of now many areas where citizens have already said to me:
“Gee…Why haven’t THEY thought of that before!”My commitment to the people of the 8th District is to always think “outside of the box” on such matters like I have here. When it comes to government, I believe in thinking smarter – not larger… And I do not think that American taxpayers should always be the FIRST source of funds – they should always be the last source of funds. Created and submitted by: Ken Arnold, Candidate
8th Congressional District of Illinois
Email: Ken@Arnoldforyou.com
January 16, 2008
ARNOLD FOR CONGRESS
“ Strong, Creative Leadership . . . for the 21 st Century ! “
Labels: 8th Congressional District, Iraq War, Ken Arnold, Melissa Bean
Ken Arnold White Paper on American Marytr Day's Replacing Martin Luther King's Birthday
AMERICAN MARTYR DAY
Every third Monday in January, America now celebrates “Martin Luther King Day”. This Holiday, however, is still not a universally recognized holiday nationwide. This holiday is also relatively new celebrating its 22nd anniversary this year. But in establishing this day, there remains several movements to establish ADDITIONAL Holidays to recognize various other ethnic groups and their proud martyrs who have either given their lives - or been otherwise punished - for standing up for what later came to be recognized as “the universal good…”.
America cannot continue to add holiday onto holiday. America needs to therefore have holidays that recognize the GENERAL principles one wishes to emphasize…“Universal truths” as one can term them. In the case of Martin Luther King Day, such principles of equality, peaceful non-violent protest against injustice, and general brotherhood of man are some of the guiding principles he espoused. And given Martin Luther King was a common citizen and not some military hero, one can also add the emphasis that these qualities were illustrated by common civilians like you and I.
ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION:
Like Armistice Day became the broader Veteran's Day, and Washington and Lincoln's birthdays were combined into "President's Day", the United States should enact within the U.S. Congress a bill to expand Martin Luther King Day. It would be henceforth called: "American Martyr Day". This day would be a day of commemoration for all civilian Americans who gave their lives or suffered grave harm in the pursuit of the noblest of American ideals.
Such civilians would include not only people such as Martin Luther King and Bobbie Kennedy -- but Sitting Bull and 9/11 hero Todd Beamer. It would be the opposite of Veteran's Day in that it commemorates civilians who sacrificed their wealth, health, physical comfort or safety, or even their very lives for a greater, American cause. And perhaps each year, in a Presidential pronouncement dated on this day (still Martin Luther King’s birthday), one more American (present or past) can be solemnly named an American Martyr with the details as to what principles they most embodied within the ideals representing America.
ADVANTAGES:
This initiative would address the desires of many other ethnic groups who would also wish to have commemorations for their civilian heroes. And in true American fashion, it would emphasize that such heroes come in all shapes, sizes, and colors – all representing good and decent American ideals. By hereby addressing these desires for broader recognition of Americans, this initiative would forestall increasing the number of National Holidays even more over time because it would address all of these interests and concerns.
And by broadening such Holiday into the full scope of American ideals, people, and nationalities, it is likely that such day would garner the full adoption and observance of a National Holiday that it would then deserve.
Martin Luther King wished to include ALL races and all peoples as one in peace and harmony. What better way than to consider making this day in January one where all those honored are judged: “…not by the color of their skin – but by the content of their character!”
Ken Arnold, Candidate for U.S. Congress8th Congressional District of Illinois
Originally Written: January 16, 2006 Updated Publication: January 18, 2008
Labels: Ken Arnold, Martin Luther King's Birthday
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Dry run of Ersel Schuster's Daily Herald Questionnairde
Name: Ersel C. Schuster (including middle initial)
Date of birth August / 04 / 1939 (month/day/year) Gender (please circle) M F
Address (Please include town and zip code) 15214 Kishwaukee Valley Road
Woodstock, IL 60098 County of residence McHenry
Phone #’s(not for publication) Home: 815-338-2207 Wk.: 815-337-2650 Cell:
e-mail address ersel@sbcglobal.net Campaign Web address
Office you are seeking (be specific): McHenry County Board Incumbent? Yes No X
How long have you lived in this district? 35 years
Occupation(s) Self employed - Printing / graphics business (for how many years) 20+ yrs.
Employer and work address Home business
Education: high school Graduate College Bachelors Degree Major Masters in Counseling
Spouse’s name: Edward Children (names and ages) None
Prior experience as candidate: (Please list prior offices – be specific – for which you have run, successfully or not)
1. Seneca Township Supervisor (won) Election date: March 2005
Outcome (circle one): Won Lost If won, dates served in that office
2. McHenry County Board (lost- 2006) Election date:
Outcome (circle one): Won Lost If won, dates served in that office
3. McHenry County board (won) Election date: 1996-2000
Outcome (circle one): Won Lost If won, dates served in that office
Political experience other than as candidate: (include appointments to municipal, library, park or school boards or committees; campaign work for candidates; other political activities)
1. Precinct Committeeman – Seneca Township Date: 1993-2004
2. Illinois Excellence In Public Service Series Date: 1995-2005
3. Date:
Civic, church and community activities of recent years:
1. Valley Hi Nursing Home Foundation Date: 5 - 6 years
2. Date:
3. Date:
Military services and honors: None
Answer next questions only if it applies to office you are seeking:
Incumbents: How many meetings did you miss last year: N/A How many years have you held this post? 0
Non-incumbents: How many meetings of this board have you attended in the past year? 8 or 9
Do you currently hold any elected office other than the one you’re running for in this election? Yes
If so, what office? Supervisor – Seneca Township If nominated in March and elected in November, will you resign from or remain in your other elected position? (Please circle one) Resign - Remain – I will fulfill my commitment
Please answer the following questions in 150 or fewer words per question on this form, or, given the tight space on this page, a separate page if you’d like. Some answers might be published in the Daily Herald. All answers are subject to editing for length and clarity.
1. Why are you running for this office, whether for re-election or election the first time? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what is that? What will be your main priority in office?
“I have served 2 terms in this position, ’86/’90 & ‘96/’00.” I am running because
District 6 needs strong representation on this board; I have the time to do the job; and, I have the experience to be an effective advocate for our constituents.”
2. For incumbents and non-incumbents:
If you are an incumbent, describe your main contributions. Tell us of important initiatives you’ve led.
If you are not an incumbent, tell us what contribution you would make.
“During my ‘96/’00 term in office, I was recognized as having played a key role in bringing about fiscal and management responsibility in McHenry County government. I took the lead in eliminating what was poised to become another full blown, heavily staffed, county department. We hired the right person as finance manager and the results speak for themselves. Another example: I proposed a method by which a year-long standoff between a number of county board members and the Auditor’s office was resolved, thus ending a messy situation and avoiding a lawsuit.”
3. The county board this year sold about $50 million in bonds to fund road improvements with plans to repay the loan with future motor-fuel tax revenue, a reversal of a longstanding policy to wait until the money was in place before initiating a construction project. Do/did you agree with that policy shift and what are some of the specific projects upon which you believe the money should be spent?
“I do not agree with the policy shift. I would repay the borrowed funds and stick to the original policy of paying for these road projects as the funds are available. Since our greatest need for major road projects is created by municipal governments via annexations, it is essential that we work to make future development more responsible for the cash impact it will have on local residents.”
4. 2006 is the last of the county’s three-year, roughly $300,000, contract with a federal lobbyist hired to represent McHenry County’s interests in Washington, DC. Do you believe this is a wise use of taxpayer money and should the county renew the contract, retain another lobbyist or drop the idea entirely next year?
“I do not support the lobbyist concept. Drop the idea.”
5. The board is exploring the creation of a multi-million dollar county campus near its courthouse and administration building in Woodstock. Do you support the concept of a county campus and if so, what new facilities should be built on it?
“I support the concept of setting-aside land for the future needs of county government and support the centralized campus theory. Future building projects would include a long overdue need for the Coroner’s offices, Sheriff Department fleet maintenance facility and the health department.”
6. County board Chairman Ken Koehler recently said the county will help fund a study for a Fox River crossing along Longmeadow Parkway in Kane County, but that’s where the county’s financial contribution to the project would end. Given the likelihood the bridge would serve thousands of McHenry County residents and ease traffic in downtown Algonquin, do you believe the county should contribute more to the project or do you believe, like Koehler, the county needs to spend its road dollars in the county? Explain your answer.
“I agree with Chairman Koehler, McHenry County has plenty of road/transportation projects needing our tax dollars.”
7. Transportation continues to be a major concern throughout McHenry County, primarily in the southeastern and northeastern corners. If elected, what, specifically, would you do to expedite improved transportation funding for the county? What would you do that’s different from what’s previously been done? Be specific.
“It is my experience that elected officials “study” issues when they want to avoid controversy. Needed road projects in southeastern McHenry County, specifically a bridge over the Fox River comes to mind. This project was first “studied” in 1965 with a consulting firm being paid $25,000 for their services. Since then, millions have been spent dancing around the hard decision to cut the road path and get the project done. It is long past the time when that project is accomplished. The proposed western bypass is simply a costly diversion to again avoid making the final decision to move on with the bridge.
We need decision makers who can act rather than procrastinate. That alone will move projects forward and at a lesser cost to the public.”
8. Experts predict portions of McHenry County will not have adequate water supplies by 2030. If elected, how will you ensure the region has enough water? Be specific.
“Ignoring the documented facts, thinking that water will always be there, is irresponsible. To ensure adequate water supplies for our region, McHenry County Officials can take a huge step by pledging to protect our remaining agricultural base. It is this base where local food supplies can be met and where our aquifiers/groundwater is most effectively replenished. Second, the water authority concept, as a separate entity, devoid of county, state, federal and municipal power struggles, is a tested tool that works. It is the only way we will ensure sustainable water supplies for future generations.”
9. What, if anything, should the McHenry County Board do to ease growing concerns about the immigration issues which have turned volatile in so many communities. If elected, what, specifically, would you do about the increasing number of illegal immigrants in McHenry County?
“As a county board member, my role would be to make sure the Sheriff’s Department has funds necessary to properly train personnel in enforcing existing laws relating to this issue.”
10. Please list the names of all relatives employed by or involved in contracts with McHenry County, their relationship to you and their position or area of business.
“None.”
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Kristen Foley Petitions for McHenry County State's Attorney Candidate Dan Regna
Labels: Dan Regna, Kristen Foley, McHenry County State's Attorney
Friday, January 11, 2008
Jim Krenz Poll Questions and Results
(Click to Enlarge.)Good evening … My name is Susan Anderson. We are conducting a brief survey of Illinois residents in your area about our Illinois government. I’d appreciate very much if you would take approximately a minute to answer two series of brief questions. You can let me know your answers by pressing buttons on the phone.
First, I'd like your opinion of three individuals involved in Kane County politics.
1. The first individual is Dennis Hastert.
If you have a positive opinion of Mr. Hastert… press 1.
If you have a negative opinion… press 2.
If you have no opinion… press 3.
Or if you have a never heard of Mr. Hastert… press 4.
2. The second individual is Tim Schmitz.
If you have a positive opinion of Mr. Schmitz… press 1.
If you have a negative opinion… press 2.
If you have no opinion… press 3.
Or if you have a never heard of Mr. Schmitz… press 4
3. The last individual is Jim Krenz.
If you have a positive opinion of Mr. Krenz… press 1.
If you have a negative opinion… press 2.
If you have no opinion… press 3.
Or if you have a never heard of Mr. Krenz… press 4.
Finally, I would like to ask your opinion on three current issues in Kane County.
4. What is your opinion of discounted, in-state college tuition rates for non-citizens?
If you support giving discounted, in-state college tuition rates for non-citizens … press 1.
If you do not support giving discounted, in-state college tuition rates for non-citizens … press 2.
If you have no opinion… press 3.
5. What is your opinion on limiting the number of consecutive terms one person can hold in office like state representative… known as term limits?
If you support the idea of limiting the number of terms one person can hold office … press 1.
If you do not support the idea of limiting the number of terms one person can hold office … press 2.
If you have no opinion… press 3.
6. Lastly, what do you feel is the top issue concerning Kane County?
If immigration … Press 1.
If education Reform … Press 2.
If taxes … Press 3.
If ethics in Government … Press 4.
Thank you very much for your time. I hope you have a pleasant evening.
Labels: 49th District, Jim Krenz, Poll, Tim Schmitz
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Steve Greenberg Letter on Canadian National Purchase of EJ&E RR
STEVE GREENBERG
Secretary Vernon Williams
U.S. Surface Transportation Board
395 E Street SW
Washington DC
Dear Secretary Williams:
I am writing to express my staunch opposition to Canadian National Railroad’s proposed acquisition of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) because of the disastrous consequences this deal would have on Chicago’s northwest suburbs (Docket #35087).
Canadian National has publicly stated that they intend to use the EJ&E tracks to bypass Chicago. By Canadian National’s own estimates, this will result in 20 trains per day using those tracks, as opposed to the 3-5 trains per day now. That is a 400-500% increase in freight train traffic going through such busy and populated areas as Barrington and Lake Zurich.
The automobile traffic situation in these areas is already dire. Thousands of vehicles, including school buses, ambulances and fire engines cross EJ&E tracks every day. According to the Illinois Commerce Commission there are 133 public highway-rail grade crossings on the EJ&E line. Many of the crossings are at major roads that will come to a screeching halt for up to 10 minutes over 20 times a day if the sale goes through.
Such a drastic increase in freight train traffic would not only cause an already terrible traffic situation to seriously deteriorate, but it could cost lives when first responders are stuck waiting for a freight train to pass. Please also consider the potentially tragic consequence of combining street-level railroad crossings, 20 high speed freight trains daily and the hundreds of young children who live near the railroad tracks and cross them on a routine basis.
In addition to safety and traffic concerns, such a drastic increase in freight traffic would hurt the area via noise and environmental pollution. Freight trains are very loud and would disturb quiet neighborhoods throughout all hours of the day and night. A significant increase in the number of freight trains moving through the area per day, as well as the increase in emissions from stopped cars while they wait for the trains to pass would also seriously diminish the region’s air quality.
With all of the aforementioned negative consequences of Canadian National’s purchase of the EJ&E, the value of local houses and businesses will certainly diminish if the deal is approved.
Finally, the long planned and much needed commuter rail Metra “STAR” line is slated to use the EJ&E tracks. The Metra “STAR” line would ease the region’s constant traffic congestion by providing 1.2 million wage-earners with an alternative to driving to work. Fewer cars on the road would greatly decrease the amount of carbon emissions and enhance the region’s air quality. Allowing Canadian National to purchase the predominantly single-tracked EJ&E would jeopardize the STAR line’s viability and effectiveness. Cramming over 20 freight trains and numerous commuter trains a day onto a single track is nearly impossible and would certainly result in long delays for both the STAR line and the freight trains.
As I detailed above, allowing Canadian National to purchase the EJ&E line would be disastrous for the public safety, environment and traffic flow of the neighborhoods the EJ&E passes through. I implore you not to approve this deal. Mindless growth and expansion that benefits a company’s (a foreign company nonetheless) bottom line at the expense of the safety and quality of life of entire communities is a terrible policy that sets a dangerous precedent.
Thank you for inviting public comment on this matter. Such an important decision should not be made behind closed doors, but out in public for all to see. Again, I urge you to refuse to approve Canadian National’s acquisition of the EJ&E due to the incredibly negative impact this deal would have on Chicago’s northwest suburbs.
Sincerely,
Steve Greenberg
4730 Westbury Drive
Long Grove, Illinois 60047
Labels: Canadian National, CN, EJ and E RR, Elgin Joliet and Eastern Railroad
Monday, January 07, 2008
Ken Arnold Proposes Congresional Reform
THE 21st Century Congress Act
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM:
Our Congressional representation and voting systems are stuck in the 19th century! At the start of our Republic, legislators had to be physically present to cast their votes and represent their Districts. In these early times, voting was via a raising of hands, compilation of voting forms, or shouting of voice. In later times legislators physically flip switches or push buttons to then have their vote show up on lighted panels. But why must they always be physically present to cast their vote?
In our modern age, citizens do not have to travel to Wall Street and deal with a floor trader to buy or sell a security. Nor do they have to physically go to their bank’s teller window to ask what their bank balance is. Today…using computers, high speed data links, passwords and encryption, and other tools, we Americans can do just about anything virtually that we can do physically. One American recently even went so far to prove this point as to lock himself in an empty apartment and then commence to live for months on end with merely a computer and a communications link to the internet to tend to his every need. Interesting to note on this experiment … it worked!
If we Americans are now so advanced…why aren’t our United States House of Representatives and Senate? These government bodies are still not much better than the horse and buggy era when - then as now - a Congressman or Senator away or unavailable due to many understandable events (e.g. death in the family, major event in the District, or even personal illness), CAUSED THEIR ENTIRE DISTRICT TO BE DISENFRANCHISED! Basically, the District suddenly has no voice when their legislator simply cannot get himself into the chambers to physically transact his vote. This observation causes one to ask the important question:
“Should the floor of Congress truly be that much different
than the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in transacting the Peoples’ business?
ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION:
It can, indeed, be argued that there IS a difference between the floor of Congress and the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and other venues where totally electronic, remote communications happen every day. When one transacts a stock sale, one doesn’t need to lobby for anybody’s support, or outline all of the reasons why one is either buying or selling a security. But in Congress, this interaction is certainly desirable, necessary and advisable in most instances. Being physically together as a legislative body allows for this interaction even when one can, today, use email lists and telephones for much of that interaction as well.
But like corporate businesses who hold physical meetings periodically to decide various policies and initiatives among the staff despite all the interim communications via emails and telephones, there is a desirability to encourage physical interaction between our Federal legislators.
Even today, however, one does not see this interaction on a continuous basis. One need only tune into CSPAN many times to see a relatively empty chamber and know that the legislators are away and ensconced within their offices or other buildings around Washington. Only when there’s an actual vote do they, many times, physically scurry to the floor to simply transact such vote – and leave. So even today, legislator to legislator interaction is certainly there – but it is not there 100 percent of the time.
To solve the very serious issue of disenfranchising a District’s citizens by virtue of understandable, physical absences – and to more fully utilize modern technology within the Congress – it is highly reasonable and desirable to at least allow a portion of all votes to be transacted remotely. The number of remote votes would not be so often as to isolate Congressmen and Senators from one another or encourage them not to be in physical proximity to one another -- but it would be often enough that most all unavoidable absences would never cause a legislator from not registering their vote on behalf of their constituents.
This 21st Century Congress Act would attempt to strike the right balance between continuous representation and desired interaction. Additionally, after being implemented, the Congress would be free to somewhat adjust the percentage quota specified below based upon its experience with the new capability. The Act would be implemented as follows:
1) The total number of all votes cast in the prior session of Congress shall be determined and a number representing ten percent (10%) of such votes previously cast shall be determined. This will be called the “Maximum Remote Vote Quota”.
2) Each legislator in the new session of Congress shall have a right to remotely cast their vote up to the Maximum Remote Vote Quota for that session of Congress. The Maximum Remote Vote Quota shall not be cumulative over multiple sessions of Congress but are only applicable to the specific session of Congress in question.
3) When a legislator wishes to cast their vote remotely, they may do so via any of the below means (more may be added by Congress as well):
a) Via existing secure link computers within their Washington and local District offices.
b) Via existing secure link computer systems operated by the Department of Defense at designated facilities throughout the world.
4) Over a period of four (4) years from enactment, a geographically disbursed number of these designated computers would also be equipped with video conferencing capability (i.e. video camera and software).
After enactment of this initiative, Federal legislators would be issued user identifications and passwords for additional security purposes. Additionally, within one week of their remote vote, the Representative or Senator would receive a paper confirmation of such vote. Lastly, although a very remote possibility: If there were any occasion of a falsely cast vote, the legislator could amend their vote via written affidavit at that time and a full, FBI investigation into such breach would then be commenced.
ADVANTAGES:
The overall advantage of The 21st Century Congress initiative is that our country will now use the technology of the 21st century to allow Congressmen and Senators (along with their constituents) to avoid being without a voice at all times. Additionally, the 21st Century Congress initiative:
1) Allows those legislators living far away from Washington (e.g. California, Alaska, etc.) to be a bit more with their families and constituents for a multiple of legitimate needs than is presently able to be arranged.
2) Should make for common citizens to see their Federal legislators a bit more often and be more physically involved within the District when important local events must demand their attentions.
3) Allows a legislator to no longer have to be totally disrupted in the middle of a committee or other business meeting around Washington merely to race down to the chambers to cast a 1 minute vote and leave. If they now so choose, they can simply go to a nearby secure computer in these offices, transact their vote, and return to their meeting four or five minutes later.
4) Still encourages necessary, physical interaction among the legislators by only allowing a modest percentage of votes to be cast remotely.
5) In case of heightened terrorist threat or physical destruction of the Capitol Building, provides a ready made method of conducting the business of Congress - including vote taking - while either the facilities are unavailable or it is advisable to not assemble the body together (due to the physical concentration of members and resultant security concerns).
CONCLUSION:
Yes…transacting the business of Congress may be a bit different than transacting many other items of business within our society. However: It is not so much different that we have to still totally be lashed to the horse and buggy era. No. We should take advantage of our Nation’s technology to properly balance our present practical needs and potential national security needs. For in this process, we not only ensure that no citizen’s voice is lost at any time within Congress – we also lay the operational groundwork to ensure the continuing operation of Congress - and the Nation.
Ken Arnold – Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress
8th District of Illinois
Written: January 4, 2008
ARNOLD FOR CONGRESS
“ Strong, Creative Leadership . . . for the 21 st Century ! “
Labels: 8th Congressional District, Congressional Reform, Ken Arnold
Ken Arnold Issues Paper on Foreign Trade
THE FAIR TRADE ACT (FTA)
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM:
For far too long, the United States has allowed itself to agree to trade treaties that are CLEARLY lopsided in their terms and lack of mutuality and fairness. During the Soviet menace period, perhaps one could argue such was necessary to get certain countries into our “sphere of influence”. But those times have passed and America is not economically as able to give away all of the consequent jobs it once did – particularly in the manufacturing area.
There are many problems with the decline of our manufacturing base which results from trade terms that don’t apply equally between countries. Besides the massive loss of jobs overseas, there is the increasing tax burden to both retrain and provide welfare to those unable then to find gainful employment. And these negative fiancial impacts say nothing about the negative social impacts of lives disrupted, families shattered, and other social events.
Of last note is that the quality of our college systems in this country will decline as one of the major sources for its revenues moves overseas – research and development dollars from manufacturers such as DuPont and General Motors. Such quality decline in education can have “downward spiral effect” in the coming decades regarding our even retaining the jobs we have.
ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION:
The key areas of current disparity among most of our trading partners overseas are in three areas:
1) Enforcement of our Intellectual Property Rights.
2) Labor Laws.
3) Pollution Laws.
The first of these (i.e. enforcement of intellectual property rights) is a simple matter since most all countries have laws on the books now to prevent such behaviors that undermine risk taking and research and development because the rewards for such would be greatly diminished. Countries need only enforce the laws they have.
The last two above are ones where several countries may need to enact more stringent laws or greatly increase the enforcement of what is already on their books. But whereas today they, of course, can make lower cost goods because they dump their effluents and employ child / slave labor; the trade environment of tomorrow would simply demand that developing countries merely have 70% of the level of such labor law and pollution protections that we ourselves have.
Failing to comply with the above standards would NOT bar a country's goods from our Nation. They are still free to conduct commerce. However: Not being declared a “Fair Trade Partner” can potentially have its negative aspects. If a country, because of disparate provisions between we and their country, runs a material trade surplus in the prior year (say, 20%), then their “Trade Equalization Tax” applied to all goods the following year is – you guessed it – 20 percent.
This “Trade Equalization Tax” is not only any incentive to comply with these very minimal and fair terms – but would compensate government for all the costs of retraining and welfare payments that would be made on account of the disruption and unemployment to the American worker.
CONCLUSION:
The above Fair Trade Act (FTA) is a modest proposal. It only asks of others SEVENTY PERCENT of what we ask of ourselves. And it appeals to our American sense of fairness. Yes, we will lose jobs – and win jobs. But do we presently have to give away jobs?
Our country is late in “setting the culture” among all Nations of the world regarding foreign trade. To date, we have been played for saps. We can wait no longer. If America does not immediately set the culture and terms for such world trade – it will shortly be CHINA who does so. And given China’s past behaviors in the trade area – their terms will be far less fair to all parties concerned than America with her even-handedness and good will she as always exhibited among the Nations of the world.
Ken Arnold – Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress
8th District of Illinois
Written: March 20, 2006 Updated Publication: December 26, 2007
ARNOLD FOR CONGRESS
D:\Congress\Issues\Trade\Fair Trade Act.doc
Labels: 8th Congressional District, Fair Trade, Ken Arnold
Ken Arnold on Budget Cutting
THE “3-2-1” FEDERAL SAVINGS DEPLOYMENT PROGRAMg
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM:
Our Federal government’s present budgeting and spending processes can best be characterized as:
“The ill informed, voting on the unknown, who
place others in debt into infinity…”
This status quo is a perversion to what our founders desired of “Congressional oversight” to all operations of the Federal government and as well as the wise and frugal use of such tax monies. Far too often, modern special interests allow the continuation of spending that should not occur and the starting of spending that should never be allowed to happen.
Too often today – most recently in very late December, 2007 - legislators vote on “omnibus packages” that are handed to them just hours before a vote. These packages are more known for the number of pounds they weigh than the number of problems they solve. Much of this can be argued as caused by the shear growth in the unwieldy size and scope of the Federal government. But some of this is simply the nature of the present Congressional processes handling such budgetary matters.
This current environment of spending and lack of congressional oversight can be well remedied by many of Ken Arnold’s “White Paper Solution” innovations such as The Fly Spec Budgeting Act (FSBA). FSBA structures future budget cycles in a way to allow Congress to well review all operations -- and places an initial assumption on a Departments that they receive nothing until they justify their missions, recent spending, and successes with such spending. But with FSBA, initiatives in healthcare and retirement income plan reform, the innovative improvements in federal highway construction and funding, and many other innovations and initiatives of Ken Arnold, one has to then ask the question:
“What shall be done with the hundreds of billions
in annual savings from these many Arnold initiatives?”
That, indeed, is the challenging question to be answered within this white paper. In a sense, the “problem” that arises with Ken Arnold’s numerous creative initiatives is due to various competing interests (which most certainly, we hope, includes the taxpayers too often forgotten in the process) who would wish to then employ such budgetary savings for their own uses. We last saw these conflicts arise in the late 1990s during the last budgetary surplus situation.
Obviously, Democrats would love to take 100% of such monies and place them in all sorts of new Federal programs -- leaving the taxpayers continuing to suffer heavy tax burdens. In contrast, traditional conservative Republicans (which include Ken Arnold) would have loved to return 100% of such savings to the taxpayer and/or toward reducing the Federal debt. However: Due to admittedly practical and patriotic - not political – considerations, neither view must prevail for the national good. All must presently realize that a middle alternative is best to ensure that, politically, all of these money saving initiatives of Ken Arnold are signed onto and passed by a majority in Congress, and, from a public policy standpoint, that real and very neglected infrastructure needs are addressed by the employing some of these funds saved by the various Federal initiatives.
ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION:
Our country’s government has, for far too long, been living in a fantasy. Too many have believed that we could turn into a “Nanny State” where all our wants and needs are satisfied and that the financial tab for this would, miraculously, somehow not ever come due. And in many ways it hasn’t come due – until now.
As the late Senator Barry M. Goldwater once said: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away!” And while some have strived for the Federal government to attempt to give us everything we want, it is already becoming apparent that it may end up having to take much of it away in huge tax increases, collapsing financial and currency markets, and brutal reductions in some of the very prorams intended to sustain some Americans. In essence: The “house of cards” we have built is starting to fall down. An important part of this “sentinel cry” came to us in the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge in 2007. It literally exposed the now weak underpinnings of our entire country’s infrastructure.
Sadly, we Americans have been living on the legacy built by our parents and grandparents – far too often taking of our national infrastructure without putting back into it an equal amount, and more, for the next generation. Just some examples of this “rot from within” are the following:
A) Our planes flying across our country are controlled by air traffic control systems still stuck inYes…we sadly HAVE lived on the coattails of our parents and grandparents! And although we could presently analyze the full causes of such short-sighted, self indulgent behavior by the baby boomer generation (a generation that includes this writer), that would do nothing to remedy these problems. So we will not dwell on the causes. Instead: We must face the facts that we HAVE for far too long been “living off our laurels”, we’ve now gone about as far as we could ever hope to go on them, and we must now “pay the piper” and embark on repairing, restoring, and renovating the various infrastructure that our economy, society, and future generations depend on.
B) Our inland waterway systems of locks and dams have not had substantial renovation or building since they were constructed in the 1930s under the Works Project Administration (WPA) – and it shows.
C) Our interstate highway system, much of it built from the mid 1960s to the late 1970s, is now deteriorating due to lack of reasonable maintenance.
D) A majority of our bridges on Federal, State and local highways are rated as highly deficient or materially deficient in their present condition.
E) Nowhere but in a very narrow corridor of the Eastern Seaboard of the United States is there any high speed rail capabilities to help relieve congestion on our highways as well as our airports.
F) The list could go on and on…
This need to spend on infrastructure is what makes, as previously mentioned, neither historical position of the two major Parties currently appropriate when it comes to deploying newly available Federal funds.. Even without the pressing needs of infrastructure – its rebuilding as well as enhancement for future generations – there would never be a time to apply any material Federal budget savings toward new and grand health and welfare programs like the Democrat Party would love to do. Taxpayers are simply too overburdened and the budget and deficits have ballooned to too large of levels for any such initiative to even be dreamed of.
Likewise, however: What even Ken Arnold would have insisted on (i.e. total return to taxpayers of such monies and/or pay down of the Federal deficit) in the 1970s, 1980s, and even 1990s with such savings - can no longer be 100% adopted with today’s realities. There is simply too much unmet infrastructure need to fully adopt that route, either. So “An American Compromise” must be had – a compromise having more to do with true public needs rather than politics or even political philosophies.
Ken Arnold proposes The 3-2-1 Federal Savings Deployment Program. This program would be a pact adopted by the Congress that would essentially have the following elements:
1) The total Federal budget in the year of adoption would be fully assessed and noted as to the various spending programs and amounts. This shall be called the “Basis Year”.CONCLUSION:
2) Starting with the next budget cycle and continuing thereafter, the “Basis Year” shall only have a Consumer Price Index adjustment applied to it for purposes of the Act.
3) From the following budget year and thereafter, any and all spending reduction initiatives and operational efficiencies that cause the total Federal budget to decline relative to the “Basis Year” (as adjusted annually) shall be considered to be the pool of money to which “The 3-2-1 Plan” shall be applied in the budget year thereafter.
4) The Federal budget savings had from all employed money saving initiatives and efficiencies (had from not only Ken Arnold’s many “white paper solutions” but the ones from many other Congressmen now strongly motivated to provide such initiatives by this 3-2-1 Plan), hereafter called the “savings pool”, shall then be allocated by Congress into three categories:
For every six (6) dollars placed in the “savings pool”…* THREE (3) dollars shall be applied and spent on reducing the Federal taxation burdens of the people of the United States of America. “Tax Reduction Dollars”.
* TWO (2) dollars shall be applied and spent on various national infrastructure projects needed in the national interest. “Infrastructure Dollars”
* ONE (1) dollar shall be applied and spent to pay down the Federal deficit. “Deficit Reduction Dollars”
Historically and objectively, one has to say that there is no more fiscally conservative Republican than Ken Arnold. I have led the way in being “a friend of the taxpayer” both locally and on national issues. Moreover: I continue to be fully dedicated to this “Goldwater Republican” philosophy of a minimum of government – and a maximum of liberty by that fine instrument we call the U.S. Constitution.
Miraculously, however, what all would initially see as a quagmire of national infrastructure problems I see, politically, as also being our Nation’s ticket to getting a grip on government spending, lowering Federal taxation rates, and reducing Federal deficits. Throughout my travels in the Congressional District, ALL voters acknowledge that we’ve for far too long lived on the laurels of our past American generations and not invested what we should have in maintaining - let alone expanding – such infrastructure. And these same Americans know that they are already overburdened in taxes. This is what gave birth to this “3-2-1 Plan” idea – an initiative that looks with the cold eye of reality in seeing true, National needs and thereafter adjusts what is a true Republican’s normal inclination of returning all savings back to the citizens. Unfortunately, until this infrastructure is restored, and our deficits reduced, not all of these Federal savings can realistically be returned to the Federal taxpayers. From such door to door work, it is already known that taxpayers surely are accepting of this situation -- if Congress is under these guidelines and strictures. With the taxpayers solidly accepting of such “American Compromise”, moreover, both Democrat and Republican leaders will surely follow.
With our Federal spending seen as out of control, our debt swelling to inconceivable levels on a per capita basis, and the increasing demands upon the Federal treasury; developing a disciplined and tight budgeting/spending process with Ken Arnold’s many innovative and documented initiatives is an imperative. However: We must ensure that all such initiatives are adopted via a wide range of support within Congress. For this reason, and to honestly and clearly see thru the politics and dogma and toward the national need for various investments to be made in our infrastructure, this “3-2-1 Plan” would be adopted.
The 3-2-1 Federal Savings Deployment Program is truly the carrot that all members of Congress can be given while also adopting the various sticks to fiscal sanity that Ken Arnold will initiate within Congress. Congressmen can return to their voters and point to not only significant public works being performed and tax rates being reduced – but all of their material and innovative savings initiatives that helped make these happen! It can be a concrete “win” for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Truly for Democrats and Republicans alike - Americans all: The “3-2-1 Plan” is a “grand American compact” and very real win/win for the Nation. Future American generations will both admire its initiation and greatly benefit from it very real results.
Ken Arnold – Republican Candidate
U.S. Congress – 8th District of Illinois
Ken@Arnoldforyou.com
www.ArnoldforCongress.com
Written: January 1, 2008
ARNOLD FOR CONGRESS
“ Strong, Creative Leadership . . . for the 21 st Century ! “
D:\Congress\Issues\Taxes\The 3-2-1 Federal Savings Deployment Program.doc
Labels: 8th Congressional District, Ken Arnold
