His father, Duncan Lee Hunter, represented California's 52nd district in Congress for 16 years, and unsuccessfully campaigned for president in 2008. He was my personal choice for President then.
Now, his son has succeeded him in the House of Representatives, and he, like his father, also represents true conservative principles.
Below is a list of Rep. Duncan D Hunter's principles:
1. Repeal the Obama/Pelosi healthcare takeover and replace it with common-sense, free-market reforms that will force health insurance companies to be accountable and transparent while, at the same time, increasing the quality and access of healthcare in America and reducing costs.
2. Maintain a strong national security policy that funds the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps at appropriate levels and doesn’t cut defense spending during wartime for the first time in American history. President Obama’s attempt to cut our military must be stopped. Islamofascism must be defeated.
3. Border Security that includes a COMPLETELY secure southern and northern border. Border security is national security. NO AMNESTY for those here illegally.
4. Real Economic Growth that comes from a vibrant private sector. Fight the Obama/Pelosi takeover of every industry in the United States. Implement reform that will incentivize hard working Americans and entrepreneurs to create jobs. Bring manufacturing BACK from China and India to the United States.
5. Tax cuts and fiscal responsibility are the keys to economic recovery and job growth. The American people are overtaxed and the government spends too much. We must have a balanced budget and every federal agency needs to be cut dramatically except for infrastructure and national defense.
6. Energy independence. The only way to free ourselves from terrorist despots who negotiate international policy using oil prices is to keep working on alternative energy while at the same time following an “all of the above” approach. We must build more oil refineries, build nuclear facilities, and drill.
7. Individual liberty and personal responsibility >are the cornerstones of our great nation. The federal government’s role should be limited to protecting and defending our God given freedoms.
I have no political influence, but if I did, I would start a grassroots movement to elect Duncan D. Hunter President in 2012.
He sounds good, but I'm always weary of putting someone in the Oval Office who has never held an executive position. He should run for governor and then set his eyes on President.
ReplyDeleteI agree with E. Mr. Hunter looks good on paper, but so did Obama to quite a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteI have to be third. I also liked his dad and I've heard "of" the kid, but not from him. Nonetheless, I think he's really good where he is and I'd like to see him assert himself and get more in the thick of things. His military service is another plus. Absolutely keep an eye on him, but can he do enough to warrant confidence as a prez candidate so soon? A tough task to be sure, but not impossible.
ReplyDeleteDuncan Lee Hunter no doubt heard the same kinds of objections when he ran for President. If he had had support from media pundits such as Hannity and Levin and Rush, he might have at least won the nomination. Ann Coulter said as much on Hannity's program.
ReplyDeleteObama ran with less experience than Duncan D and he was elected.
"Obama ran with less experience..."
ReplyDeleteAnd look where it got us! There's no evidence that I know of to suggest Mr. Hunter wouldn't make a bad president. But neither have I seen or heard anything to suggest he can handle the job of president. We've all come to realize, in stark unforgiving terms, what a man with no executive experience, in the Oval Office, is capable of... or NOT capable of.
Change that "wouldn't" to "would"
ReplyDeleteits good to see some a new generation of Republicans that have true Conservative ideals. One thing is for sure, we need to reward politicians like Hunters with our support.
ReplyDelete1. We've had "free market" solutions to health care up to now and look where it's got us. 40 million uninsured, recisions, refusal to cover people with pre-existing conditions and 10-20% cost increases year after year. And how does the government "force" accountability in the "free market"? Isn't that government interference? Looks like a disconnect to me.
ReplyDelete2. The administration is attempting to cut the growth in military spending. There are no cuts to actual spending levels.
3. Will this come out of the military budget? How will you fund six thousand miles of barbed wire and electric fencing or a wall. And guards to patrol same. The iron curtain returns!
4. "Fight the Obama/Pelosi takeover of every industry in the United States." Hyperbolic bulls**t! This is claim is fantasy. And how are you going to bring back jobs from China and India in a "free market"? Are you going to meddle in the business of business? Isn't that anti-thetical to the tea party creed?
5. According to the Cato Institute, the US is right in the middle in terms of tax "oppression" compared to other industrialized nations.
7. "The federal government’s role should be limited to protecting and defending our God given freedoms." Then how is it going to bring back jobs from Asia and force insurance companies to be accountable? No EPA, no FCC, no FAA, no NIH? Wow!
Jim,
ReplyDelete1. Our health care system has definitely NOT been able to function freely for some time. The insurance industry is inhibited by regulations that have driven up costs, such as being forced to cover what it wouldn't want to cover, being restricted from selling policies across state lines, and other gov't inflicted cost increasing practices. The ability to sue a doctor over that which is NOT true malpractice has caused them to insure at great cost which requires them to act in a manner that they wouldn't consider if they weren't pressured to cover their asses.
The numbers of uninsured are inflated to include both illegals and those who CHOOSE not to carry policies, not because they are unable, but simply because they feel other things are more important. Your understanding of the health care situation is a result of your sucking in everything Dems tell you. Try thinking for yourself and doing some real investigating.
2. It is the Constitutionally mandated duty of the federal gov't to properly maintain the military. The current level of spending on the military is small compared to other expenditures. It shouldn't be this way since much of the other spending is on things the feds have no mandate to cover.
3. Any part of the defense of the nation, including securing the border, is part of the federal gov't's Constitutional mandate, and thus a justifiable expense.
4. This is a stupid attempt at cleverness, Jim. The free market is more efficient at being competitive on a global scale without gov't interference. Conservatives seek to remove the handcuffs placed on the market by the boobs you support. Thus, the idea is to stop the meddling in business that the gov't is already engaged in. Try to pay attention.
5. The middle isn't good enough. What kind of defeatist are you? Our tax policy should be the most business friendly on the planet, not "middle of the road". The idea is to not only bring back our own businesses, but to attract foreign business. Tax policy is only part of the equation.
6. (Can't you count?) You stupidly seem to think that gov't over regulation and taxation actually helps protect our freedoms? You have a really warped view of how things work.
I can count, stupid. I chose not to respond to one.
ReplyDelete1. "The insurance industry is inhibited by regulations that have driven up costs, such as being forced to cover what it wouldn't want to cover, being restricted from selling policies across state lines, and other gov't inflicted cost increasing practices."
And yet the insurance companies make record profits, their stock prices soar and their executives make millions of dollars. Poor insurance companies.
By the way, the reason smart people resist interstate insurance it that, like the credit card companies, insurance companies will find the state with the loosest rules, move there, and further screw their "clients."
2. If you remove Social Security spending (which is completely self-funded), Defense spending is almost 28% of Federal spending in fiscal year 2009. That's the largest single component of the budget. The US spends as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.
I dare say there is room for some fiscal responsibility in trimming increases in Defense spending.
3. "Any part of the defense of the nation, including securing the border,"
Can't do that if you are spending trillions in the middle east.
4. "The free market is more efficient at being competitive on a global scale without gov't interference."
Debatable, but fine. But most people believe "being competitive" is not the only thing businesses should be concerned about. Being competitive mostly enriches company executives and majority stockholders. I favor a balance of competitiveness and responsibility.
5. "The middle isn't good enough. What kind of defeatist are you? "
Not a defeatist. I believe that the common welfare benefits by the government providing certain services and functions which cost money. If we want a high standard of living, we must be willing to pay for it.
6. What is "over regulation"? What is "over taxation"? More than you are willing to pay? ($1) I know full well how things work, and I'm willing to have the companies I own stock in be regulated to make sure that they provide fair and safe products and a safe and healthy environment.
You really have a warped view of how things work if you think the free market will do that for you. Or don't you care?
Jim,
ReplyDelete1. Record profits? Prove this allegation. If you meant they've made more than previous years, you could use the expression "record profits". But record profits does not translate to unjust profits. This article gives some perspective on those "record profits" and how the industry determines premium costs.
2. If SS is self-funded, then why does money get taken out of my paycheck? All federal expenditures come out of our pockets. It is then turned around and spent on things for which the party in power thinks best, of which SS payments is only one. And since the money that is taken out of our paychecks that is supposed to be for SS is used for whatever a given administration decides is best besides only SS, then one cannot in good faith take SS out of the equation to make a case against defense spending. In addition, when the subject of defense spending comes up, when or if spending on veterans is added to the equation, or other costs with any relation to the military whatsoever, is something not typically considered unless the issue is to demonize military spending so as to justify cuts. Certainly where there is waste, cuts may be justified. But don't act like money spent on some WWII vet is part of the numbers when some other lib jerk will use the same money spent to argue about health care costs. Defense spending is a bit more specific than that.
3. This goes to the point above. It's a matter of what you consider legitimate costs for defense. The wars we fight are obviously a defense cost as it is a direct cost of our military. Securing the border is a defense item as it is something that the federal gov't is mandated to protect. That's national defense. If you want to argue whether that or the wars are legitimate defense expenditures, that's worthy of its own debate. But be consistent about it. I see the wars as necessary for our self-interest. I see securing the borders as part of the same overall issue of national defense. Thus, both are federal responsibilities.
4. "But most people believe "being competitive" is not the only thing businesses should be concerned about."
I don't believe you have any idea what "most people" believe. More importantly is what any individual business believes its responsibilities are. They begin with providing a better product or service for the consumer in order to create a profit for those who run and fund the business. If you believe that the responsibilities run elsewhere, start your own freakin' business and do so accordingly.
"Being competitive mostly enriches company executives and majority stockholders."
The very point of being in business at all.
5. "I believe that the common welfare benefits by the government providing certain services and functions which cost money."
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean by this poorly constructed sentence. Sounds like the usual liberal misconception of "general welfare".
"If we want a high standard of living, we must be willing to pay for it."
I'm willing to pay for MY higher standard of living. As to yours, you're on your own. I want that everyone should have a higher standard of living. But I also want that everyone behave in a manner that results in the elevation of each person's own standard.
6. "What is "over regulation"?"
Part of that would be the federal gov't micromanaging business under the pretense of "consumer protection". An easy example is the costs to accomodate the mandate for most warning labels. Why is the the fault of a match manufacturer if the user doesn't close the cover before striking the match? Why must a company warn a consumer to keep their hands and feet from under the lawnmower? Why must a company warn the consumer that the contents of the cup of coffee might be hot? Too many regs are simply because too many people are stupid and stupid people will sue the company of the product they were too stupid to use properly. This constitutes the tip of the iceberg regarding "over regulation".
"What is "over taxation"?"
Any taxes levied for programs or spending for which the federal government has no Constitutional mandate.
"I'm willing to have the companies I own stock in be regulated to make sure that they provide fair and safe products and a safe and healthy environment."
A responsible company doesn't need regulation. A responsible adult doesn't deal with irresponsible companies. There are already laws that would hold a negligent company responsible, and responsible jurors and jurists can decide when a company is acting irresponsibly. Regulations penalize responsible companies and their consumers through the increase in costs the regs demand. A savvy consumer and a charitable public is all the regulation we need. Companies default to the market. If the market goes elsewhere, the company will adjust to the reasons for that drift. Companies acting unethically can be sued or put out of business by consumers patronizing better companies. If you withhold your patronage from a company or from the purchase of their stock, they will adjust their business practices in order to recapture your patronage. If I don't like the way a business operates, or if I think their product or service is dangerous, I take my business elsewhere. That's the best regulation there is.
The free market does that all the time. The only time it doesn't is when consumers don't take the time to do their due diligence. If you're among such people, then you likely deserve to learn the hard way. Instead, you're lazy and hope some gov't will care enough about you to force a business to provide what you want at prices you want to pay. YOU fail the system. It hasn't failed you.
"If SS is self-funded, then why does money get taken out of my paycheck?"
ReplyDeleteTo pay Social Security benefits, or course.
"And since the money that is taken out of our paychecks that is supposed to be for SS is used for whatever a given administration decides is best besides only SS".
No it's not. The money is used to pay out current benefits and the rest is put into the SS Trust Fund in the form of US Treasuries. The general fund thus borrows from the SS Trust Fund by issuing US Treasury notes.
Al Gore wanted to keep the SS trust fund "in a lockbox" so that the funds were NOT used for general expenses. But he never became president.
Why does the government (politicians both Left and Right) steal from the Social Security coffers? Why are we now, this very year, taking in less money in Social Security taxes, than we are paying out? Why should any American be forced to pay into a system, for the receipt of a boon that effectually does not exist for a great majority of Americans. Why should 20-somethings pay in today for something they themselves will not be able receive in turn?
ReplyDeleteOh, and a fence at our southern border can hardly be equated to the "Iron Curtain," unless, of course, you're equating America to a Marxist entity/government... I might have to agree with you on that score. As it is, America is on the brink of Marxism already.
"Why does the government (politicians both Left and Right) steal from the Social Security coffers?"
ReplyDeleteTechnically they don't. The SS Trust Fund invests in US Treasuries which help fund the government. I don't like it, but it's not stealing.
"Why are we now, this very year, taking in less money in Social Security taxes, than we are paying out?"
We're NOT. In 2009, revenues exceeded payouts by $120.9 Billion. Get your facts right.
"Why should any American be forced to pay into a system, for the receipt of a boon that effectually does not exist for a great majority of Americans."
Your premise is false.
"Why should 20-somethings pay in today for something they themselves will not be able receive in turn?"
They always have and they always will if Republicans don't take it away. SS is totally solvent through nearly 2040 and will be able to payout at least 75% of scheduled benefits (worst case) indefinitely without any adjustments whatsoever. Minor tweaks like raising cap or extending retirement age a year or so, and SS is totally solvent for many decades to come.
1) the US treasury doesn't invest in anything since the monies received into Social Security are immediately withdrawn to fund the general fund. What is in the Social Security trust fund are IOU's.
ReplyDelete2) We ARE, this very year, paying out more in social security payments than we are taking in:
Cato@Liberty.org, RealClearMarkets, ChristianScienceMonitor, MoneyNews.com, and, while not directly naming names or citing numbers this article from Bloomberg speaks to the general ignorance of the American taxpayer as to just how serious America's financial situation truly is. I'm not discounting your submission as an outright lie, but what is obvious, and known to anyone willing to listen, is that the numbers these kind of government reports present are based on budget and tax projections... what government BELIEVES the numbers (tax receipts and payment demands) will look like 5, 10, 20, 50 years out. It's not an outright lie, but it is deceitful to the extent that 'wishful thinking' is a lie, rather than self-delusion. The government can choose to delude itself if it wishes, but when it shapes policy based on those delusions the people it purports to represent (and care for) are hurt.
3) "Your premise is false" is not a refutation. You can do better.
4) If republicans do nothing, and democrats continue full steam ahead, NO ONE my age (50) will enjoy the benefits(?) of Social Security-- "enjoy" being the operative word. If I ever receive a social security check it will do nothing to help secure me a safe and healthy retirement; not when taxes will have to skyrocket in order to pay for everything Obama has already done. You don't honestly expect the government to NOT raise your taxes to pay for Obamacare, stimulus, and Cap and Trade, (and more to follow if Obama is left unchecked) simply because Obama says it won't, do you? Do you honestly think yearly deficits in the 1.4 trillion range can be ameliorated by increasingly taxing the rich? At what point do the rich, along with the rest of America rise up in revolt? Aren't we seeing the beginning of such now in the Tea Party Movement?
Look. I get that you disagree with us here. And that's fine. But I can agree with you in certain respects on Social Security. Can you not see the dangerous tack this administration has taken? I mean, it's one thing to make a course correction (steering away from the "failed Bush policy"), but it's quite another to over correct. Turn that wheel too sharply and the whole ship capsizes. Think it can't happen? Keep turning that wheel and we'll find out. But since you seem to insist on continuing to keep that wheel sharply spun to port, I'll stock up on ammunition and cheap booze-- the new currency of a seriously collapsed economy.
ReplyDeleteI may sound a little paranoid, but Prudence is a daughter best spoiled. Better safe than sorry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow does one fund a tax cut? Does a tax cut need to be funded?
ReplyDeleteHow does one budget a war? Wars are too unpredictable to budget. You spend what you need to accomplish the goal. You can't budget a war.
No. Tax cuts do not need to be funded. Congress needs to budget itself and its plethora of entitlements. Whatever happened to Pay|Go? Another democrat lie/smokescreen?
ReplyDeleteSide note: Did you hear what the British want to do with payroll? Employers would send YOUR paycheck to the government first, and after the government takes what it deems is theirs, they send YOU what's left. Instead of working for a private company YOU are actually working for the government. PRAY that this idea doesn't take hold over here. America would be utterly lost if this was ever implemented here.
I tell you what... Lately I've detected a distinct odor of revolution in the air. So imagine the stink if government got hold of our checks before we did? Would there ever be any stopping them then? Only the most colossal of idiots could believe there would be any stopping of government after such a power grab.
"How does one budget a war? Wars are too unpredictable to budget. You spend what you need to accomplish the goal. You can't budget a war."
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
Are you deleting my posts, because I've been having trouble posting them.
ReplyDeleteNo, Jim. Blogger's been a bit wonky lately. Sorry for your troubles.
ReplyDeleteOK, going to try again.
ReplyDelete"1) the US treasury doesn't invest in anything since the monies received into Social Security are immediately withdrawn to fund the general fund. What is in the Social Security trust fund are IOU's."
ReplyDeleteThis is simply NOT true. In 1983 SS tax rates and retirement ages were raised in order to create a surplus in anticipation of higher benefits to be paid as baby boomers retired. The surplus BY LAW must me invested in US Treasury bonds:
"By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in interest-bearing government securities or in securities guaranteed by the government as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government securities. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. All the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are special obligations."
You can call them IOUs, but the world calls them US Treasury Bonds and the US has never defaulted on a US Treasury obligation.
While the projection for 2010 as cited by your CATO link and others shows that slightly more will be paid out in benefits than is collected in taxes, SS has other sources of income and in fact the CATO link shows total income exceeds total outgo through 2020.
It is well-known that SS will have to start cashing in their Treasury Bonds. That was the design of creating the surplus. The surplus is currently conservatively estimated by the SSA to last until 2037. If you're 50, then you'll get full benefits until you're 77 IF NOTHING IS DONE. Past then you'll get 75% of scheduled benefits IF NOTHING IS DONE.
By the way, the SSA does not do "wishful thinking". They are Trustees. They do best, worst, and likely case scenarios and generally work off their worst case. Their estimates almost always end up being too conservative.
More to come...
"1) the US treasury doesn't invest in anything since the monies received into Social Security are immediately withdrawn to fund the general fund. What is in the Social Security trust fund are IOU's."
ReplyDeleteThis is simply NOT true. In 1983 SS tax rates and retirement ages were raised in order to create a surplus in anticipation of higher benefits to be paid as baby boomers retired. The surplus BY LAW must me invested in US Treasury bonds:
"By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in interest-bearing government securities or in securities guaranteed by the government as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government securities. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. All the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are special obligations."
You can call them IOUs, but the world calls them US Treasury Bonds and the US has never defaulted on a US Treasury obligation.
While the projection for 2010 as cited by your CATO link and others shows that slightly more will be paid out in benefits than is collected in taxes, SS has other sources of income and in fact the CATO link shows total income exceeds total outgo through 2020.
It is well-known that SS will have to start cashing in their Treasury Bonds. That was the design of creating the surplus. The surplus is currently conservatively estimated by the SSA to last until 2037. If you're 50, then you'll get full benefits until you're 77 IF NOTHING IS DONE. Past then you'll get 75% of scheduled benefits IF NOTHING IS DONE.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the SSA does not do "wishful thinking". They are Trustees. They do best, worst, and likely case scenarios and generally work off their worst case. Their estimates almost always end up being too conservative.
I understand that your philosophy dictates that nobody and nothing in the government is to be trusted, but if that's the way you have to live, then stock up on beans, rice and ammo. But you really should read the SSA site to understand how it really works instead of reading stuff like "In its place are IOUs from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank. $2.5 Trillion dollars worth of IOUs."
Your premise that a great many Americans will not receive SS benefits is simply false. The above information from the SSA is my "refutation".
ReplyDeleteYou can blame Obama and Pelosi/Reid all you want for the current and future deficits, but the fact is that other than the Recovery Act, there is nothing you can really pin on them. The biggest components of the federal deficit over the next 10 years are the unfunded Bush tax cuts, the unfunded Medicare Drug law, the unbudgeted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic downturn.
We aren't going to solve anything by arguing about taxes. You think the rich are being soaked. According to statistics, I'm rich but I wouldn't mind paying 4% more taxes AT THE MARGIN to help my country.
You may think that we don't need the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, but I do. Can they be more efficiently run? Sure. Will that alone end the deficit? No. We need to pay for what we have and you can't do that with TAX CUTS.
Social Security has NOTHING to do with the deficit. It DOES have to do with the national debt because the debt is funded by US Treasuries including those "bought" by the SS Trust Fund. So Social Security does not ADD TO THE DEBT. It funds it. The only thing you can do for the debt with Social Security is to default on US Treasuries. By the way, if you become disabled tomorrow, you won't have to wait until you're 66 to receive your benefits. Social Security is more than just retirement income.
Jim, you can continue to repeat yourself ad infinitum, it still isn't necessarily true.
ReplyDelete"Jim, you can continue to repeat yourself ad infinitum, it still isn't necessarily true."
ReplyDeleteHow profound! But linking to sources including the ones you provide that support my case does.
If I repeat that the sun rises in the East over and over again, that in and of itself doesn't make it true. However, the fact that the sun DOES rise in the East remains fact no matter what I say.