Yesterday morning former US Senate candidate Christopher Reed announced his candidacy for the United States House of Representatives in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District. While his bid to unseat US Senator Tom Harking fell short, his experience from that campaign will most definitely benefit him in this new race. Wednesday afternoon I had an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that his campaign will focus on.
The biggest difference between Reed and his Democratic opponent is the fact that Reed wants to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America whereas incumbent Democrat Dave Loebsack cares not one whit for this founding document. The evidence of Loebsacks disregard for our nations founding principles was clearly on display during the August recess when he blatantly told constituents that he was supporting a bill that he admitted would be unconstitutional.
The bill in question is the health care bill being touted by Democratic leadership in Congress. Reed takes exception to the blatant expansion of government that this bill would entail. And that expansion of government is in direct violation of the US Constitution. Reed believes that the correct way to reform health care in our nation is for the government to get out of the way and let the market do the innovating. One of the methods he proposes to do this is to eliminate the policy of forbidding cross border purchasing of health insurance. Currently consumers can only purchase insurance from providers within their own state. So if there is a health plan that is cheaper in one state, you are out of luck if you don’t live there. By eliminating this policy it would create more competition amongst the insurance industry therefore driving costs down as providers begin to compete for customers. Furthermore to create competition we must encourage the purchase of health insurance by individuals rather than tying it to a person’s place of employment.
The topic of Cap and Trade was another subject that was inevitable to be discussed. In his view this legislation is just as dangerous as and quite possibly more dangerous than the health care bill currently being shoved done our throats. He believes that passage of this bill would stifle economic growth by driving costs up for businesses and ultimately drive manufacturing from our soil. One of the primary reasons behind this belief is that other emerging industrial nations such as China and India would not follow suit making it cheaper to manufacture overseas. In his opinion the best way to solve America’s dependence on foreign oil is through a policy of inclusiveness. Essentially American should invest in a variety of energy sources to determine the most practical form for our nation. Furthermore he doesn’t believe that the various forms of energy production should be subsidized, if they are going to succeed, they need to do so on their own. Although he has stated that it would be proper for the government to help get the development of these energy forms off the ground.
He was particularly harsh on President Obama’s foreign policy. In fact when questioned about it he stated that he didn’t know Obama had one. He pointed to the escalating violence in Afghanistan as evidence of Obama’s foreign policy failures. He stated that all Obama’s apology tour did was embolden America’s enemies to step up attacks. He believes that Obama has been ignoring the recommendations of the generals on the ground demonstrates Obama’s poor leadership abilities. Essentially he is saying that Obama’s foreign policy is all style and no substance.
As I talked with Christopher for almost an hour one thing struck. Through his experiences in his campaign for the US Senate he has learned valuable lessons that can and are being applied to this campaign. He is more knowledgeable of the issues and is a more polished speaker. For those of you out there that are counting on the rookie candidate that faced Tom Harkin in 2008 I think you will be quite surprised at the amount of growth this young man has gone through. It will not be so easy to defeat this patriot this year.
Filed under: Abregar, Politics | Tagged: Cap and Trade, Christopher Reed, Dave Loebsack, health care reform, US House of Representatives District 2
Christopher Reed is right
Cap and Trade is wrong
- and whether one is for or against emission control
The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.
Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global
temperature – and given the expense of emission reduction – the key is
to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020
typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on
electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles)
alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.
This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice)
and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all
else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or
immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid
distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills
for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other
energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition
advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement,
steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated
countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are
not just more limited, but also largely local.
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no
value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes
in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track,
and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures,
and can involve other industries if necessary.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial
loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state
guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect
on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and
predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business
continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared
expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions,
with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal
business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free
allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other
hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what
people can or can’t buy and use.
—————————————-
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need – or not – to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair
Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs –
Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In
Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions
.
I was reading the articles I found online about Reed’s campaign tour yesterday and I must say I am very impressed with his values and message. He sounds like the Conservative candidate of the district since Miller-Meeks is a RINO, yes everyone knows she is a moderate liberal.) She even tries to fool herself. I truly do not understand what Miller-Meeks is all about. She seems conflicted as to who she really is, a very wish washy candidate.
I wish Christopher well and will be voting for him in the primaries. I like that Chris is a Veteran and small business owner. He gets it and I’m confident he will be our next Congressman of the 2nd district.
We need someone with Christopher’s values and conservative ideals to come to AZ and run against John McCain! The Republican Party has become inundated with candidates and politicians who don’t stand for party principles. Christopher Reed would be a refreshing candidate for true government reform. I challenge Iowans in the 2nd district to support Christopher Reed in his quest to represent them in Congress.
No SE Iowa , Mariannette isn’t a pitchfork pounding Theocrat who thinks that the GOP platform is an addendum to add all thing necessary rules and regulations on moral behavior, virtue, and vice that the Constitution forgot to include. She actually believes in freedom, limited govt, and our founding documents, not the 457 commandments tacked on by the Order of Talibanic Pharisees of the Iowa Christian Puritan Movement.
I’m hearing that RTL money funneling scandal may drop real hard soon. How are you guys going to buy candidates now?
Does this sound like a limited government candidate?
http://millermeeks.com/doctorsnotes/economy/cash-for-clunkers/
MMM on Cash for Clunkers: “a tax cut that worked”
I believe Dustin she answered YOU and said she wouldn’t vote for it. The point she was trying to make is that in all the stimulus stupidity C for C was the best of the worst, closer to a tax cut than the rest, and since the govt can do this why can’t they just go all the way and just give us tax cuts?
So why are you lying?
Right, she says “I would vote against it” followed by all the reasons why it was good. That is what you call a moderate, wishy-washy politician.
Dustin, you’ve illustrated perfectly the pitchfork mentality of the uber theocrats of the GOP. If it’s not in a simple slogan, then they’re wishy washy. God forbid we’d have an intellectual discussion.
Tell me, what would be the difference between a tax credit or a check in the mail? Not much. The main difference is that one runs thru the bureaucracy and one doesn’t. Economically they have the same effect. Still, the tax credit is better, and that was her point.
Sorry you missed it. Sorry she didn’t bang the pitchfork and throw out the red meat. Sorry you can’t grasp it if it’s not done that way. I don’t know what to tell you.
Get A Clue, it seams you also have trouble distinguishing tax cuts from welfare. Just think of all the stimulus I am providing by giving up half my income so others can stay home and not work (or buy a car).