Mar 07

Update 03/07/10

Hello, Friends,

Matters are progressing well!  You may be aware that I made my formal public announcement of my candidady for the U.S. Senate on February 25th.  That clearly wasn't much time to be eligible for the Hartford Courant candidate debate which took place last evening at Hartford University.  However, I wasn't terribly concerned as, based on what I have observed, there may not be much excitement for the nature of the candidates and issue development which has been apparent.  The participants were Rob Simmons, a liberal Republican, Linda McMahon a neo-conservative and Peter Schiff, a libertarian conservative.

What I was expecting turned out to be.  Today's front-page headline in the Connecticut Post read "Questions tax GOP hopefuls".  Then after an introductory paragraph, staff writer Neil Vigdor said "The hour-long tilt, if one could call it that, elicited a barrage of criticism of the Obama administration and Democratic-controlled Congress, but few haymakers that many political junkies had been craving, particularly between bitter foes MaMahon and Simmons".  Clearly the stage is well set for more public emergence of my candidacy.

I will discuss here a couple aspects of my candidacy as it compares with what was reported of last evening's debate. 

One of the expected subjects was health care reform.  First, I will give you here my position on health care reform and then do what gives it impact, I'll explain the context!

For health care reform, I believe that the federal government is limited by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment for what it should even consider.  It is my view that it might consider certain limited and reasonable regulations.  Those could include the following:

  • Interstate offering of private insurance plans
  • Association health plans
  • Tort reform
  • Federal review of compensation packages for corporate health care executives
  • Broadening the practice of co-payment
  • Ending the antitrust exemption for insurance companies
  • Judicial reform

The point of judicial reform is important as our state and federal courts tend to be elitist to give advantage to larger more powerful entities such that less influential individuals often find the short end of justice.  Thus, judicial reform would address this to enable more individuals and families to afford their own private plans.  This is one point which I have not heard from other candidates.

Regarding health care programs, consideration for these should be done by the states.

The above is a good, solid approach to the health care issue, however I believe that the context for this gives it more impact.  First, as I mentioned above, federal action should be limited to what is authorized with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  In the near future, I will discuss this more.  Second, the previous point is presented in the context of a tendency of big government to overreach its authority and purpose to attempt to address people's desires which are more than needs suitable for government to satisfy.  In my announcement speech of February 25th, I quoted respected author Mike Murdock who said, "People never change what they believe until their belief system cannot produce something they want".  In other words, by government overreaching to help citizens in areas where the citizens are better suited, it is in effect suppressing the best individual development for education, production, investment and invention.  To add insult to injury, it wants to tax us to do this.  Third, while there may be cause for the federal government to consider some limited area of health care reform, it should not be done before effective steps toward Congressional reform.

There is a problem of good people being elected to Congress who, once they are elected, they become part of a pack that is easily influenced by vested interests.  It has been called the "beltway disease" and is part of why the quality of our representation has been lax and to some degree less effective than the public wants and deserves.  There are three particular points which I propose to address this.  First, there should be more strict attention and enforcement to political finance laws.  While such laws can and probably should be beefed up some, the real issue is simply enforcing what there is.  Second, it's time to enact term limits.  The fact that Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is about to complete 36 years in the Senate and New York Congressman Charles Rangel has completed 40 years in Congress, considering particularly the ethical problems that both have gotten themselves into, is a testament to the fact that reasonable limitations of service would likely improve the quality of our representation.  I propose for Senators a maximum of three six-year terms and for Congressman a maximum of four four-year terms.  In suggesting this, I am well aware that the current term for a Congressman is two years.  However, a two-year term means that a Congressman spends much of his or her time dealing with re-election with all the demands and pressures associated with that.  With a four-year term, a representative would have the space for more dedicated attention and fulfillment of public function.  Thus, the third point for Congressional reform is that the term for a Congressman should be increased from two years to four years.

This is just some of my platform.  I look foward to sharing more of myself and my positions as we walk down this road to the important goals of this candidacy.  For your information, one of the first key points is the Connecticut Republican Convention which will be on May 4 through 10.  That is when the Connecticut Republican Party will endorse its candidate for the U.S. Senate.  There is a reasonable and growing chance that I can get that endorsement.  If I do not and we still want to pursue this candidacy, then I would need about 9,000 signatures to force a primary election in August.  The general election is in November.  As I see it, it would be easier and it certainly is feasible for me to gain the Party endorsement in May.

I believe that God is willing.  However there is a saying in Spanish that "Es bueno poner pies a sus oraciones", which means that it is good to put feet to your prayers!  If you haven't yet accessed it, I invite you to check out my campaign website at    There will be more development of the site but Jon Dupree of Veritage Marketing in Danbury has made a very good start on it.  Also, if you like this message and you understand the significance of this candidacy, please forward this message to your friends.

There is a great opportunity before us!  The issues are right and the time is right!  I hope that I can count on you to support the effort as you are able.

May God bless you,


P.S.  An interesting emerging issue regarding the Tuesday debates is that when asked about economic stimulus, none of the other three candidates made any mention of the matter of re-establishmejnt of respect for the institution of marriage.

Add comment

Security code

Print PDF