Elections are about issues, or at least they should be.  Voters deserve to know the differences between where the challengers and incumbents stand on the issues they care about.  In the State of Washington’s First congressional district, far-left Democrat, Jay Inslee is the long-term incumbent.  Inslee is being challenged by James Watkins and myself on the Republican side, and Dr. David Schirle, who very recently entered the race as an Independent.  Because of Dr. Schirle’s late entrance into the race, I’m not familiar enough with his issues to make a fair comparison; therefore, I haven’t addressed them.

Most people know where Jay Inslee stands on the issues.  Just take the furthest left position, the ones with the maximum government intervention, the most government spending, and the highest taxes, and you’ll be very accurate.  Inslee comes from the Socialist viewpoint that politicians and bureaucrats can solve all of society’s problems by throwing unending taxpayer money at them.  He and the rest of the political class, want to micro-manage, regulate, and tax every minute area of our lives.

The stark differences between my Republican primary opponent, Watkins and myself, haven’t been widely communicated (especially by the media).  The purpose of this article is to explain these differences, which are as I see them.  If pointing out these differences is seen as “attacking”, “mean-spirited”, or breaking Reagan’s (my hero) eleventh commandment (Reagan hit Gerald Ford hard on the issues during their primary), then we’ll continue to elect people who talk a good game, but who aren’t true, Constitutional Conservatives.

Below are some of the important issues where James Watkins’ and I have very different viewpoints, and in many cases, where Watkins’ positions are similar to Jay Inslee’s:

Upholding the Constitution: There are major differences between my primary opponent, James Watkins, and myself in regards to respect of and dedication to upholding the U. S. Constitution. I have been told by numerous, credible people that during a speech at a Campaign for Liberty meeting, Watkins was quoted as saying that"he would like to support the Constitution, but if there was unconstitutional legislation packaged with say, an education bill, then he would have to vote for it."  This type of unprincipled, flimsy, and dangerous disrespect and disregard for the Constitution has led to the out of control, virtually unlimited and near bankrupt federal government we have today. This type of unprincipled attitude towards the Constitution should not be tolerated in our elected officials or candidates. I am a Constitutional Conservative and I would never vote for an unconstitutional bill.  My position is that if part of a law is unconstitutional, all of it is.  To restore our greatness, we must return to the time-honored, constitutional principles of limited government, individual rights and responsibilities, and free markets.   

Department of Education:  The federal Department of Education boondoggle, started by Jimmy Carter, has exploded from an annual budget of $30 billion in 2000, to over $100 billion in 2010.  Federal education spending has more than tripled in just ten short years without any corresponding improvement in the quality of our children’s education. I am pro-education, which is why I support abolishing the failed, bureaucratic Department of Education, and returning education to where it belongs, the local level.  Education is not an “enumerated power” (authorized power) of the federal government in the Constitution, and therefore should be eliminated, along with all other unconstitutional bureaucracies.  James Watkins wants to keep the failed Department of Education.                                                                                       

Fannie, Freddie, and The Federal Reserve: 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two toxic government-created mortgage behemoths, are directly culpable for the disastrous economic conditions we’re experiencing.  Their failure is costing taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.  In fact, the prior bailout limit of $400 billion was eliminated on Christmas Eve 2009 while no one, including most of the press, was looking.  Corrupt Fannie and Freddie must be privatized to take them out of the hands of politicians who are hell-bent on socializing our free market system (or what’s left of it). Both James Watkins and Jay Inslee want to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The secretive, privately owned, banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve, has the duty to level out the fluctuations in the economic cycle, provide full employment, and protect the value of the dollar.  Since, its creation in 1913, the unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats at “The Fed”, have failed miserably on all accounts, actually being the main cause of every boom/bust economic cycle since its founding, including the one we’re now experiencing. The Fed kept interest rates artificially lower than what they would have been in a free market, thereby enticing people to take out mortgages and debt they otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.  We are now paying the consequences of the housing bubble bursting.

Thomas Jefferson properly warned about the dangers of a “central bank”:

“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution.” If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

Both Watkins and I are for auditing the Fed, however, there is a major difference. I also support Ron Paul’s“End the Fed.” BothJames Watkins and Jay Inslee want to keep the corrupt, unconstitutional, and economically damaging Federal Reserve. 

Stimulus:   Watkins supports the government’s “Stimulus” plan, stating only that he would have “spent it differently” .  The government’s printing, borrowing, and spending money we don’t have DOES NOT stimulate the economy.  The quack economic “theory” of “Keynesianism” has never worked anywhere but in liberal textbooks.  Prior to The Great Depression, none of America’s economic downturns lasted more than four years and most of them were over in just two. The government’s attempts to “stimulate” the economy were thoroughly tested, from the beginning to the end of the Great Depression and the results were disastrous.  This resulted in the longest depression in American history which lasted from 1929 until the mid-1940’s. The depression of 1920, when unemployment tripled and GNP plummeted 18.7%, was over in only two years because government spending was cut in half and tax rates were drastically reduced.  Japan has attempted to “stimulate” their economy in every possible way for over 20 years.  Their economy is still terrible and their debt-to-GDP is over 200%! 

Protecting Life:  Because of my clear, unabashed pro-life position, I’ve earned the endorsement of Human Life PAC.  Watkins was given the opportunity to answer the group’s candidate questionnaire, but chose not to.  Instead, he issued a statement focusing on the economy.  When Watkins is publicly asked about his position on abortion, he quickly changes the topic to the economy by saying that it’s not an important issue for a U.S. House race. See “And the Real Pro-life Candidate(s) Are…”, which objectively compares our positions. 

Immigration:  Although, Watkins states that he is against amnesty, he states his support of a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens.  This is nothing more than closet amnesty and is the same position as President Obama takes.  Watkins re-confirmed his position during the John Carlson radio debate.  I am pro-legal immigration.  My position is that we are a nation of laws, and we cannot reward lawbreakers.  It’s not fair to immigrants who became American citizens legally to see lawbreakers given preferential treatment.  We must enforce the rule of law, do whatever it takes to secure our borders, and have a “no free stuff” policy to non-U.S. citizens.

Taxes:   When the federal income tax was established in 1913, the tax return consisted of only one page.  The entire tax code itself consisted of only 14 pages with a minimum tax of one-percent and a maximum "soak the rich" tax of only seven-percent. Today, with more than 67,500 pages (over 22 feet high) of income tax regulations, compliance costs of more than $300 billion, top tax rates for both individuals and businesses of 35%, the federal tax system is increasingly very good for lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and a depressing economic nightmare for the rest of us.

Federal government spending has doubled in ten short years.  If we just reduced the size of government back to the year 2000 levels, we could eliminate the income tax entirely!  Can you imagine what a boon this would be to the economy?  The political reality is that the chances of reducing spending to this degree are unfortunately, highly unlikely, unless we elect a super majority of true, Constitutional Conservatives. Therefore, I strongly support, as a REPLACEMENT of the current corrupt federal income tax system (including the IRS), the FairTax(not to be confused with the V.A.T – Value Added Tax!).While there are going to be drawbacks to any tax system and there is no such thing as a perfect tax, the well-researched FairTax (HR25 & S296) is the fairest, simplest (HR25 is 131 pgs, as opposed to 67,500 IRS pgs.), least intrusive, and most easily administered replacement to our destructive current system. 

James Watkins is in favor of keeping the IRS, but offers no specifics. Granted, he says he wants to simplify the tax code, an empty, nice-sounding, political sound bite that has never been effectively done for any prolonged period of time.  Political promises of simplification have historically and consistently resulted in more complexity. How do you simplify 67,500 pages of IRS code?  You can’t get the toothpaste back in that tube.  Watkins also favors “targeted tax cuts” for small businesses and his flyer states he’s for tax cuts for “job creators”.  What’s a small business?  Ten employees, 25, or 50?  Or do you base it on some arbitrary annual sales figure?  And, if the business reaches the politically charged threshold, what happens then?  What if business is so bad (very common), that they aren’t able to hire additional workers?  Would this disqualify them under Watkins definition of what is, and what isn’t, “job creators”?  Do they quit growing so they won’t lose the special favors?  Or, do the politicians “target” favored industries? 

I am against government picking winners and losers.  Business is business, period.  I am against government favoritism, business welfare, business subsidies, and bailouts of any kind.  This money, like all government programs, has to come from somewhere, and it’s the taxpayers who ultimately get the shaft. I am for free markets, with the opportunity and freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail; not an economy that is controlled by the “intellectual” centralized political class in Washington, DC.  In the numerous same events that we’ve spoken at, I have not heard Watkins speak out to do anything any differently than the current cronyism running amok in DC.

National Debt/Government Spending: 

One of James Watkins’ radio commercials says that he will, “trim” government spending. We have a $13 trillion national debt and back-to-back $1.4 trillion annual deficits (more than triple 2008’s then record of $459 billion), a debt-to-GDP ratio approaching that of Greece, and Watkins wants to only “trim” government spending?  This reminds me of then candidate Obama saying that he would take a “scalpel” to the federal budget. 

Watkins and I have both spoken at numerous events, and I’ve never heard him name  one specific government program that he would cut, eliminate, or as he puts it, “trim”.  During our recent debate on John Carlson’s radio program, he was asked by Carlson three times to name just one item he’d cut, and he would not directly answer the question, saying that “there are so many”. Surprisingly, Carlson endorsed Watkins after the debate despite his constant refusal to directly answer questions.  Although, Carlson did endorse Congressman Dave Reichert, who had an abysmal 24% rating (out of 100%) last year from Citizens Against Government Waste, so maybe it’s not all that surprising.  

I stand for a systematic elimination of all unconstitutional bureaucracies, including, for starters, the Departments of Agriculture (we still pay farmers not to farm!), Commerce, Energy (It was started under Carter to eliminate dependence on foreign oil, when we received over 40% from foreign sources.  Now it’s almost 2/3, and reducing dependence on foreign energy isn’t even one of the department’s stated goals.), Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation. The annual savings on just these few bureaucracies would be $458 billion, and their budgets grow dramatically regardless of which party is in power.  Almost all politicians give generic lip service to reducing government spending, without showing the courage to name specifics.  The result is` a $13 trillion national debt. We must restore the constitutional mandate of a limited government with enumerated powers, with all remaining reserved to the states and the people as stated in the Tenth Amendment. 

Global Warming:  As the Seattle Times correctly reported, both James Watkins and Jay Inslee believe in man-made global warming and that politicians and bureaucrats can solve it.  Specifically, Watkins was so clear in his Seattle Times editorial board interview (I was there as well), that they said in their endorsement statement:  “Watkins also scores points for believing global warming is real”.  

Experience and Background: 

Watkins repeats ad nauseam that he’s the only candidate to cut government spending on the federal level and create “thousands” of jobs in the private sector.  Both claims are gross exaggerations at best.  Watkins spent four years as a bureaucrat with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in Washington, DC.  In 1995, the year Watkins left the FDIC, there were 9,941 banks. As of March 31 or this year, because of massive bank consolidation (mergers, acquisitions, failures), the number of banks had reduced to 6,772 (source: FDIC).  As the number of banks the FDIC covers declines, so does their staffing.  The FDIC bases their staffing largely on the number of banks they cover.  When two banks merge, there is one less bank to insure, monitor and audit.  This reduction of employment would have happened with or without Watkins and his taking credit for it is the equivalent of a weather forecaster taking credit when the sun comes out. 

Watkins claims that he “created thousands of jobs”, working with “thousands” of small businesses, during his 6 ½ years working at Microsoft.  Being involved in the management of a software program that was sold to small businesses created “thousands of jobs”?  Microsoft employees familiar with Watkins’ position see this claim as laughable.  I consider it on par with Al Gore saying that he invented the internet.

Watkins also makes the claim that he managed a bank with $40 million in assets at the age of 22.  However, when his wife speaks, she describes the position as an “operations manager”.  Did he actually manage the entire bank, as his statement infers?  Was he a branch manager, or an operations manager of a branch of the bank?  I was in banking from age 17 through 26, and I can tell you that the title of “operations manager” of a bank branch is often no more than a head teller. Managing an entire bank at age 22 without much prior experience, training, or education would be highly unusual.

The aggrandizement doesn’t stop there.  In the just released State of Washington Voters’ Guide, under “Community Service”, Watkins includes that he’s an active cyclist and motorcyclist, and that he’s been married for 25 years and has two children.  How can riding bicycles, riding motorcycles, being married, and having children qualify as community service. Under the topic of “Elected Experience”, a section obviously asking about prior political offices held, he lists, “Elected to Vestry at Holy Cross Church, and Board of Redmond Lacrosse Club.”  

I have 30 years of continuous financial services experience, a financial advisor since 1987, and a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™since 1995.  I advise regular families one-on-one, creating personalized financial plans and investment strategies to assist them in reaching their important financial goals, while navigating through the ill-conceived economic roadblocks Washington DC inflicts.  When I met with a member of Financial Services Committee in Congress, he said that it would be great having me on the committee, someone with some actual, real world, financial services experience.  The people writing our financial laws have zero experience in the financial world.  I would fill that need at a time when the majority of our nation’s problems are financial and economic in nature. 

I have been the subject of a dirty smear campaign that includes “anonymous” hateful email blasts and a phony “press release” sent to the media and the political establishment personally attacking my character and lying about my past. The “press release” was made to look like it was sent out by our campaign.  Recently, James Watkins has told people face-to-face that I’ve dropped out of the race. He’s also told people that I had a drug problem and that I’d filed for bankruptcy.  All are lies and he knows it. I would expect these kind of sleazy tactics from the opposition party, but from a fellow “Republican”?  Unfortunately, Watkins’ attack campaign has been influential in obtaining the endorsements of the local party establishment.   

I have been open, honest, and accurate about my background, both personally and professionally, including some things that I’m not very proud of that are embarrassing to make public.  I’m not running for office because of some unfulfilled desire to obtain status, power, notoriety, personal gain, or to inflate my resume’.  I’m running because I love this country.  I love its founding principles, its history, and its greatness. I want our country to return to prosperity, and I know too much about economic matters, and the financial ruin the political class is taking us to, to sit idly by and watch in happen. 

More Government = Less Freedom is the unwavering principle that will guide every decision I make should you decide to elect me as your Congressman in Washington State’s First congressional district.  Far-left incumbent, Jay Inslee, is very defeatable, but we can’t afford to replace him with more “politics as usual”.  One need not look further than James Watkins’ endorsements to see that he is the establishment candidate. Because of his early entry into the race, and because of the vicious personal attack against me that the party brass accepted as truth, he has garnered the endorsement of the local party establishment.

On the other hand, I’ve been endorsed by non-establishment groups such as Human Life PAC, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Conservative Congress, and Change the Congress in 2010. But this election is not about endorsements, who has the most money, who has the most yard signs, who’s marched in the most parades, or who’s gotten in Inslee’s face the most.  It’s about issues, principles, and who has the conviction to clearly state and adhere to them. During the John Carlson radio debate, I referred to James Watkins as a progressive.  I stand by that statement which is based on the progressive stance he takes on a variety of issues.  It is not meant to be a personal attack.

Although he fails to mention me, Steve Beren’s lengthy article in support of Watkins offers an alternative viewpoint on Watkins’ positions. Beren (running as a “write-in” candidate against Jim McDermott) endorsed Watkins prior to my entry into the race and continues to support his candidacy. 

Do you homework, folks.  Our nation is at the tipping point and it’s now or never!  In order to save our Republic, restore constitutionally limited government, and secure our prosperity, we must elect the right people.  There are clear differences in this race.  Vote your conscience and your principles.  Don’t let anyone tell you who to vote for. We cannot afford another round of politics as usual and Republicans in name only (RINO’s).