Why are you running for the U.S. Congress?
I am running to restore our liberty and the Constitution, which established a government limited to the protection of our rights.
What are the most pressing problems facing our country that you hope to address as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives?
A government that has usurped powers far beyond those delegated to it by us, the people. The result is a government that creates massive interference in the economy and in our personal lives. See answers to the other questions for more specifics.
As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives what specifically would you do to help the country recover from the recession?
Free the economy by significantly reducing taxes and regulations. Balance the budget and begin paying off the debt so more capital is available to the private sector. Audit the Federal Reserve and push for a return to sound money and free banking.
What do you think is the most egregious thing your Democratic opponent has done that you plan to oppose if elected in 2010?
His support of deficit spending, inflationary monetary policy, the nationalization of health care and legislation that would create special protections and privileges for some at the expense of others as well as his advocacy for restrictions on the Freedom of Speech and federal funding of election campaigns clearly show that he is not honoring his oath to the Constitution, working against economic recovery and prosperity and actively seeking to violate individual rights.
Has the Republican Party failed to live up to its stated ideals in the past several years? If so, how?
Yes. By nominating candidates that accept the ethical and political principles of Democrats and socialists. Too many candidates did not hesitate to use the power of government to pick winners and losers.
What do you bring to the job of a Representative that your primary opponents do not?
Strong, uncompromising support to the U.S. Constitution and government limited to the protection of individual rights combined with practical ideas for transitioning from the current status quo to constitutionally limited government where the principles of limited government are not compromised. I have proven leadership in business where I am responsible for a $100M a year software product line. Competitors and customers in my industry have recognized my leadership abilities by actively recruiting me to lead industry standards efforts and industry conferences.
What should the federal government’s role be in reducing the cost of healthcare? What specific things would you propose or support? What kind of laws would you oppose?
Congress can exercise its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce to eliminate state barriers to interstate sales of health insurance.
Congress can reform the tax system, without increasing anyone’s taxes, to eliminate the bias for employer provided health insurance, which creates portability issues.
Congress can act to reform our tort system by instituting the English Rule from common law that requires the loser in a civil lawsuit to pay the costs of the winner. This will encourage reasonable, out of court settlements without arbitrarily limiting or restricting valid lawsuits arising from egregious acts.
How are you going to deal with the federal government’s deficit spending? What specifically would you cut to balance the budget? Would you raise taxes?
The Congress will be raked over the coals for any perceived cut in budgets. If we are to take the heat, then let us take it for big changes not for timid 3% across the board cuts that allow all programs to survive to grow another day. A couple of quick examples: Department of Education, foreign aid and the NEA.
Fundamental reforms are required: balanced budget amendment, single subject legislation, a vote on every dollar spent each year, and enumerated constitutional authority for all legislation.
I would never vote for or advocate increasing taxes. Cutting spending is the only acceptable answer.
What type of energy policies would you promote or oppose as a member of Congress?
I reject the premise underlying the question. The government has no business and no authority to establish an energy policy, a software industry policy or a toothpick industry policy. In a free market, all energy options would be open and the most cost-effective solutions would prevail.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all headed for bankruptcy. What solutions do you support to fix this situation?
The re-establishment of constitutionally limited government will put these programs on a transition path to termination. That will put all young adults on notice that they are responsible for saving for their retirement and providing for their own needs. However, during the transition, current retirees will benefit from reforms, which are necessary to ensure the solvency of the program over the transition that will last a generation:
Medicare should be turned into a simple voucher program where individuals are free to purchase any health insurance plan they desire and the voucher can be used to pay premiums or out-of-pocket expenses. This will eliminate a huge bureaucracy.
The retirement age for Social Security must be raised to reflect the increase in life expectancy.
The transition period for Medicaid will be definite for able-bodied recipients. For disabled recipients (people unable to become independent), responsibility will be transferred to state and local governments, as these services are best provided locally and federal bureaucracies add overhead costs for no real value and are not constitutionally authorized. The percentage of disabled people relative to the total population is small and would not be a cause of fiscal crisis. In fact, I believe that voluntary charitable giving would cover all or the majority of the costs.
Do you think there is a Constitutional right to abortion? Explain your answer? Would you vote to make abortion illegal? Would you have exceptions?
Abortion is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. As such, Congress has no authority to regulate abortion, fund abortions or fund abortion education. There is no authority for Congress to make special cases based on medical procedure for abridging a parent’s responsibility to understand and approve medical services provided to their minor children.
I would not vote to make abortion illegal because to do so would be a violation of my oath to the Constitution, which does not empower Congress to act on this issue. As this issue currently divides the country, I will focus my energy on restoring the Constitution and our individual rights, which will significantly increase personal responsibility and decrease the situations that can lead to consideration of abortion.
Do you think government has an obligation to legally recognize same-sex relationships with a marriage license or some other form of official recognition? Explain your reasoning.
The government is obligated to recognize contracts entered freely by consenting adults whether those contracts are of a primarily social or commercial nature. The government further serves the impartial role of mediating and adjudicating the abrogation and dissolution of contracts. Otherwise, the government has no authority to pass judgment on a person’s exercise of their freedom to associate with whomever they choose and to enter contracts.
We do not need to increase the power of the federal government by giving it the power to establish official language dictionaries or to require couples to submit marriage licenses to Washington DC for approval.
What do you think is the most pressing foreign policy problem facing this country and what do you think the federal government should do about it?
Terrorism. The proper function of government is the protection of our individual rights. The government is responsible for eliminating objective threats, such as terrorists who have openly threatened and acted to harm Americans. When we exercise our right to self-defense, we need to minimize the cost to American treasury and American lives.
We have no obligation of “nation-building.” Our obligation ends with the protection of Americans.
How would you deal with illegal immigration? What do you think the government should do with all the illegal immigrants living in this country?
We need a rational immigration policy that ensures two things:
1. That anyone entering this country does not pose an objective threat to the people. That is, criminals, terrorists, spies and carriers of communicable diseases must be barred entry into the United States.
2. Once in this country legally, immigrants must be self-sufficient and not become a burden on others.
With a rational immigration policy, illegal immigrants currently in the country that meet the immigration criteria can re-enter the country as legal immigrants. This is not amnesty, as they must pass the screening process just as any immigrant. Any persons remaining in the country illegally can be assumed to have been unqualified to enter the country and would be deported. The country’s borders would be protected with anyone caught entering illegally assumed to either be unqualified for legal entry or conducting illegal activities such as smuggling or terrorism.
A guest worker program would be compatible with this solution.
Do you think gun ownership in this country is over regulated or under regulated? Explain your answer.
It is over regulated. The 2nd amendment is unconditional yet government agencies establish conditions and requirements for ownership and concealed carry permits. It is rational and acceptable to prohibit gun ownership to those who are objective threats to themselves (mentally ill) or others (mentally ill or convicted criminals). Otherwise, the 2nd amendment is unconditional and so is our right to self-defense.
These are excellent questions. Stephen’s responses show him to be a true conservative and his loyalty to our Constitution.
Mr. Bailey is correct in his positions on these questions and the constitution. This is the path of and to freedom, the people of this country need to walk this path if they want freedom restored to Americans. You have my support.
Dear Stephen:
The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All you have to ask yourself is this: is an unborn baby a person and do you support Amendment 62 on the Colorado ballot?
In fact, there is no difference between an unborn baby and the child which has emerged from the womb except time and the breathing apparatus. DNA is what marks us as human and the only thing separating us from conception to birth is the likelihood of death. But if that death is due to the deliberate act of another and not by natural means, that life that lived is no less human and no less a person just because we say it is not. The first step to eradicating a people is to say they are not worthy of being called citizens, then persons, then humans.
In the 14th Amendment, we have the continuation of the Declaration of Independence which announces that everyone has inalienable rights which are at least three: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But the last two are moot if the first is not given and upheld. And those rights do not come from us what we say they are. They are rights given by a Creator and that Creator, whether you want to call Him God, Jehovah, Allah or any other name, is certainly not any of us individually or collectively.
So the 14th Amendment talks about not depriving any person of life, whether they are a citizen or not. If you kill a baby in the womb, is it not the same as killing a human being and a person? Further, let me ask you, can you protect the California Condor by allowing people to break their eggs?
The point is, the egg IS the California Condor, assuming it is fertilized, because it has all the DNA to become a full grown Condor as long as death does not occur along the way. But woe to that person who would even accidentally kill it at any point along the way.
Now, if you think that, since abortion is legal, it is therefore legal by due process of law. First, that is circular reasoning and, second, I would hope you would believe, as a professing conservative, that the judicial branch of government has no business making law. And that is what they did. You said there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. And I absolutely agree with you, at least as far as justices deciding to make it legal and thereby nullifying so many laws on the books in states that made it illegal before Roe vs. Wade. They should not and really could not have made any decisions on it according to the Constition except to actually not decide or rule in favor of the states that made it illegal because of the “LIFE” clause and not for any type of shadow of “privacy” clause.
Stephen, Your response is slightly better than Bob Brancato’s regading illegal immigration, so I will give you my Rep Primary vote today. I don’t care for your idea of giving those living here illegally now any chance to get back in, so, if you win the election, you will be hearing my views frequently. Good luck, and think about these 4 ideas:
1. Stop the anchor baby policies
2. protect our borders
3. prosecute employers that hire illegal aliens
4. stop all federal funding to local municipalities that have sanctuary policies.
Stephen, your answers a clear and to the point, seldomly seem in political campains. I appreciate that you will attempt to limit our government to constitutional issues and I hope that you will get a chance to do so.
It is more than time for government to stop being our mommies and daddies; stop meddling in people’s and business’s business; and stop sneaking around the Constitution. I am hopeful these elections will convey that the people of this United States WILL hold its representatives–high and low–accountable for their behavior. Stephen, I hope you mean what you say and have the backbone to later stand up for it. Nice to hear responses that are not “glittering generalities” that answer nothing. Thank you for taking the time to write in detail and face the risk of standing up for SOMEthing.