March 2006


If only we had more “Davy Crockett” -like Congressmen today…

In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:

Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, “I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.” Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions.”

“I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

“The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People.”

“I could not answer him,” said Crockett. “I was so fully convinced that he was right.” I said to him, “Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.”

After finishing the story, Crockett said, “Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

This letter appeared in today’s Kingsport Times News. You’ll find the response I submitted at the end.

“I’d like to reply to Tim Paquette’s letter by saying that even right-wing zealots such as Robert Bork acknowledge that the Second Amendment is ambiguous. There have always been restrictions on private gun ownership, and recent events have manifested the need for more. I agree with Ronnie Van Zant’s theory that handguns are made for killing and are good for nothing else. I had a friend who was murdered last year by a punk who just so happened to have a gun and thought he would prove his dominance. He is now awaiting trial and is pleading self-defense. I’m confident that the jury will see through this common cry and that he will be convicted. I have never owned a gun in my life and never will. I don’t need to run around shooting animals or people to feel like a man. If I were that insecure I’d go ahead and hand in my check. The availability of guns increases the probability of violence, murder and suicide. I think we’d be better off without them.”
Joseph A. Lawson
Rogersville

This is in response to Joseph Lawson’s letter from March 30 (“Second Amendment is Ambiguous”). Making guns illegal or merely more difficult to legally obtain does one thing and one thing only – it ensures that only criminals have guns. Law-abiding citizens aren’t going to break the law in order to obtain a weapon, but criminals who, by definition, are lawbreakers, will break the law and obtain guns by any means possible. I feel much more comfortable knowing that, if faced with an armed criminal, I have the legal means to shoot back. As a woman who legally carries a firearm, I know that, if attacked, I will not be a victim – my pity on the poor sap who tries to hurt me or my family.

Fred Phillips has decided to run against Matthew Hill for the 7th district seat…seriously. (Although Fred hasn’t “officially” announced his candidacy, the fact that the Press was notified when he picked up his papers is a rather obvious political stunt…nice try, though, with the “I haven’t decided for certain if I’m going to run.”)

The man who recently resigned his post as State Commissioner of Safety amid such scandal as (from the JC Press) “a number of Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers [who] had criminal records that range from aggravated assault to reckless endangerment, allegations of political favoritism in the THP and the resignation of THP Commander Col. Lynn Pitts — all of which occurred on Phillips’ watch.” We should not let the public forget the poor leadership demonstrated by Phillips. Political favoritism? That’s the last thing we need (anymore of) in Nashville. An inability to run a staff isn’t exactly a good indicator of an ability to effectively represent a large number of people, either.

Sorry, Fred Phillips, but I do believe its time to hang up your desire for public office. The people in this area are too smart to elect someone who has already so utterly disgraced the state.

I should have been studying, but instead I was reading the newspapers (I’m such a news-junkie!) and I came across a letter to the editor that I just couldn’t let slide by without a response. I’m not publishing the original letter, but you should be able to get the idea from the quotes I’ve included in my response.

This is in response to Dorothy Johnson’s letter published March 23:
“You cannot trust Republicans with your money, health care or retirement security…(Proud of Democratic Leadership, Dorothy Johnson, March 23)”
One cannot trust ANY government official with his or her money, health care, or retirement security. This, Dorothy, is why we need to take responsibility for our own well-being. This country was founded on the ideal that American citizens could take care of themselves; the key to our governmental structure SELF-governance. If you think that you can trust Democrats to care for you any more than Republicans, you are sorely mistaken.

“Values are great, but they do not put food on the table, educate our children or fill up the tank (Johnson, March 23).”
That’s right – you need to put your own food on the table, educate your own children, and fill up your own tank, rather than relying on the government to do it for you. We need to elect those officials who are going to allow us to care for ourselves, rather than those who will try to institute a “Nanny Society.” Why is the national deficit so high? Why is Social Security bankrupt? Why are public schools failing? Because politicians – both Democrats and Republicans – have overstepped their bounds and attempted to do those things we should be doing for ourselves.

“We need real plans, based on real facts to produce real results (Johnson, March 23)”
The plan is to care for yourself, rather than letting the government do it for you. The facts are that anything the government can do, the public sector can do better. And the real results will be a happy, healthy society in which politicians don’t have the power – the people do.

Something that was discussed in my American Public Policy class last semester is finally hitting home with the riots in France. When comparing American labor law with that of European countries, we discussed the dramatic unemployment rates among young people in Europe due, in large part, to the strict laws forbidding termination of workers. If one is lucky enough to find a job – no matter how lazy they may be – he or she cannot be fired. This, in turn, keeps businesses from hiring new workers for fear that they may end up with a bum that won’t do his/her job and have absolutely no way to get rid of this person.

The riots in France started when French leaders enacted a law that would allow businesses to fire workers without cause during a two-year “probationary period.” This, French leaders believe, will encourage hiring, which is, for obvious reasons, lagging in the country. So, when one finds a job (which, it seems, will be easier now that businesses can actually get rid of someone who is not doing a satisfactory job), he or she actually has to work in order to keep it. What a concept…

French young people, however, are, shall we say, “displeased” with the idea of the probationary period and would rather keep the system that is currently in place. You know, the system in which the only way to find a job is if someone dies and wills it to you.

So, French students are afraid that they will be fired (again, if they can find a job) and, I don’t know, still be unemployed? The unemployment rates are astronomical in France, and this law is a way to increase hiring…I can’t quite figure out what the problem is, other than, maybe, French young people are holding out for that job where they don’t have to work and can’t be fired. Maybe that’s it. Not having a job is better than having one at which you’re actually going to have to work…

This, my friends, is the product of Socialism. It was the Socialist regime in France that instituted these “can’t get fired clauses,” leading to an entire generation of people who would rather be unemployed (and, by the way, receive generous welfare benefits) than have a job at which they actually have to work for a living. And when someone finally stands up for change, what do these lazy young people do? They riot. They beat each other up, burn down buildings and clash with police. Why? Because it’s so much easier than working for a living.

I’ve been reading op-ed pieces in The Tennessean concerning the proposal to raise the minimum wage in Tennessee, and I am dismayed at both the utter lack of business sense and logical ability of those writing these pieces. I first read a letter to the editor from a woman who compared raising the minimum wage to Henry Ford’s policy of paying his workers a wage that would allow them to buy his cars. There is a very distinct difference between a business owner making the informed decision to pay his workers a fair wage and the government forcing him to do so…and this is a distinction the author clearly did not see. Today I read that arguments against the minimum wage increase were “shallow” and unpersuasive. What this writer failed to mention is probably the most persuasive argument against the increase (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has simply not heard this argument, despite the fact that it is a favorite of those of us who oppose the increase and has been presented on talk radio shows across the state…)

The major reason that many of us oppose the minimum wage increase, in addition to the fear that we will be running businesses out of the state, is that business owners do not merely “eat” the cost of increased wages. If business owners are forced to increase wages, they are simply going to pass those costs on to the consumer. Keep in mind that many low wage jobs are in sectors of business that provide things like groceries, agricultural goods, and the like. So, while we’re trying to help out the lowest wage earners in the state we are actually hurting them by forcing business to increase prices in order to cover their losses. What good is $7 an hour if milk is $5 a gallon?

I certainly don’t want people – especially those who are actually working for a living – to live in poverty. But the solution is not to pass the burden on to the private sector. What needs to happen is an effort by our government to decrease the tax burden. How much further would a minimum wage income go if business owners did not suffer under such burdensome tax responsibilities and if workers actually brought home their entire paycheck (here’s my plug for the fairtax…www.fairtax.org)

This minimum wage increase is not founded in actual goodwill toward those who are working for low wages. It is really an attempt to give the appearance of helping those poor, unfortunate souls of the lower class without actually having to make any sacrifices to help them. If our government would cut spending and lower taxes, private business owners would raise wages in order to attract higher quality workers – it’s simply good business sense to operate in this way. As it stands, however, they are unable to do so, and any attempt to force the hand of the business sector will merely result in price increases.

Keep in mind that this is an election year, and the Democrats are desperate for the votes from those in the lower class (those very same people who were most hurt by the TennCare debacle…) So do not be fooled by a government that gives the impression of helpfulness. In the words of the great Ronald Reagan, “The nine scariest words in the English language are, ‘ I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

I’m not even considering Bob Corker…too liberal for my blood. But Bryant and Van seem to be of the same cloth, so I decided to check their records. Take a look for yourself, and note my comments in italics…

Former Republican Representative (TN-4):
Van Hilleary on the Issues

Van Hilleary on Abortion
Oppose abortion-on-demand & protect innocent life. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Van Hilleary on Budget & Economy
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Civil Rights
Traditional marriage must be preserved. (Jan 2006) Why is this the business of the government? See my earlier blog on this issue
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001) Two words. Free speech. While I would never desecrate a flag, the fact remains that it is a form of political expression and the government would be overstepping its bounds to make it illegal.

Van Hilleary on Corporations
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

Van Hilleary on Crime
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Drugs
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Van Hilleary on Education
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Let schools display the words “God Bless America”. (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) I need more clarification on this one…exactly what would this amendment entail?

Van Hilleary on Energy & Oil
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Van Hilleary on Environment
No stance on record.

Van Hilleary on Families & Children
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Foreign Policy
Never delegate to the UN or the European Union. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)

Van Hilleary on Free Trade
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on ‘Fast Track’ authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)

Van Hilleary on Government Reform
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Gun Control
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) Um, what? Why?

Van Hilleary on Health Care
Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on Prescription drug coverage under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)

Van Hilleary on Homeland Security
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Immigration
We MUST STOP the massive illegal immigration. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Van Hilleary on Jobs
Voted YES on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) Are you kidding me???? What happened to this decreased spending he supports? Geez…
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA’s Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Principles & Values
Religious affiliation: Presbyterian. (Nov 2000) PCA or PCUSA?? This is a HUGE distinction…
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)

Van Hilleary on Social Security
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994) How ’bout chucking the system altogether?

Van Hilleary on Tax Reform
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax (“death tax”). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994) Two words…FAIR TAX!!! He’s supposed to be getting back with me on this issue, so I’ll let you know what I find out.

Van Hilleary on War & Peace
Give troops the equipment they need. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Van Hilleary on Welfare & Poverty
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
Limit welfare to 2 years & cut welfare spending. (Sep 1994) Like Social Security, how’ bout chucking the whole, dang thing?

And now for Ed Bryant…

Ed Bryant on Abortion
Do everything to help protect the sanctity of life. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Ed Bryant on Budget & Economy
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Civil Rights
Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001) See my comment on Hilleary’s support of this amendment. Give it a rest, would ya?
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999) Same as above. Free speech. I don’t like it, but don’t outlaw it.
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

Ed Bryant on Corporations
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

Ed Bryant on Crime
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Drugs
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Ed Bryant on Education
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Let schools display the words “God Bless America”. (Oct 2001)

Ed Bryant on Energy & Oil
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

E Bryant on Environment
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Ed Bryant on Families & Children
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Foreign Policy
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)

Ed Bryant on Free Trade Finally, a distinction between Hilleary and Bryant…
Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on ‘Fast Track’ authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)

Ed Bryant on Government Reform
Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Gun Control
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) Yay!! Good job, Bryant. And another point of division between B and H

Ed Bryant on Health Care
Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on Prescription Drug Coverage under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)

Ed Bryant on Homeland Security
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Immigration
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998) Curious…

Ed Bryant on Jobs
Voted YES on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) Grrr…see my comments for H on this issue.
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA’s Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Principles & Values
Religious affiliation: Protestant. (Nov 2000) Protestant? What the heck does that mean?
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Social Security
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994)

Ed Bryant on Tax Reform
Voted YES on $99.5B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax Cut Package of $958B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on repealing the estate tax (“death tax”). (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994) Again, how ’bout the Fair Tax?

Ed Bryant on Technology
Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming. (Feb 2001) Seriously? Why?

Ed Bryant on War & Peace
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
Solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. (Apr 2002)

Ed Bryant on Welfare & Poverty
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
Limit welfare to 2 years & cut welfare spending. (Sep 1994)

I’m still unsure. I wish there was a Constitution Party candidate running – that would make my decision a lot easier. There are a few questions that I wanted to ask the candidates today, but they skipped out too quickly. I’m hoping they will be contacting me soon, in which case I’ll let you know what I decide.

Next Page »