Background on why two questions were answered No, and No Answer:

Question #12. No. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states Congress shall have the power to “Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations”.

Question #68. No Answer. I am concerned that U.S. Forces & State Department employees could be taxed on “Consumption” of their salaries simply because they are stationed overseas.

Click on the Following Link to view a pdf copy of the Candidate Survey.

I-Caucus 80VettingQuestions-With Answers

A year has passed since we were told by news reporters and our Federal Government that if they did not take immediate and drastic action, the entire U.S. economy would collapse and “Martial Law” would be required to address the resulting civil turmoil. Our elected and appointed officials warned us of pending economic doom that would lead to a global depression, greater than the one our nation experienced in the 1930’s. We have experienced a deep and troubling recession over the last year, but have seen no proof released by the government concerning the economic doom predicted by Washington D.C. and Wall Street. Where is the evidence that was so sound and compelling that it required our elected House and Senate members to act so rapidly on numerous legislative bills that they could not even take the time to read them? Why does this compelling evidence remain hidden, rather than being widely disseminated to the American Public? Wouldn’t the public understand the dire threat to our country and unite to overcome this economic threat of chaos? Why are Americans not demanding this compelling evidence be released?

Twelve months ago our House and Senate enacted the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”, more commonly referred to as TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program).  They warned the public that the banking system was about to collapse and the funds would be used to buy up “Toxic Assets”.  Elected officials identified that this was a crisis driven bill that had to be acted upon immediately; there was no time for debate or deliberation. Polls at the time identified most Americans were opposed to this “Bail Out” bill. Congress enacted it against the will of the people. Looking back, it is not surprising that it has failed to accomplish its stated goals and that the banks and other institutions receiving the money did not use it as intended by Congress, and the average American can see no discernable improvement.

Seven months ago our House and Senate passed the $850 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, often referred to as the Stimulus Bill. This was not a group of capital construction projects to rebuild transportation infrastructure, bridges, ports, federal buildings, or other public facilities.  Instead it was a bill that grouped many proposals that had been put forward as pet projects by Congressional members each year, but had been removed each year in debate and deliberation. Polls showed that most Americans were opposed to the bill because they perceived it as nothing more than pork, yet our House and Senate were so compelled to take action that it was created and passed against the will of the people.

Six months ago there was tremendous anger and turmoil as it was revealed that the insurance company AIG was paying out large bonuses to executives.  Normally this would be of little to no consequence to the average American, but in this case they resented the bonuses because our House, Senate, and Administration had previously taken an 80% ownership stake in AIG using Taxpayer money. Once again the American populace had overwhelmingly been against bailing out AIG with tax dollars, but now they were irate at the AIG executives receiving bonuses while employed in a failed company, and also at Congress for being so inept at legislation and oversight that this event could happen.

Five months ago we saw the finalization of the Federal Government takeover of a significant portion of the U.S. automobile Industry. Only Ford survived since they had declined to take the multiple Federal loans that had been given out to the U.S. Automobile industry previously.  General Motors and Chrysler were declared insolvent and forced into bankruptcy court. Although today the names for both remain, in reality they ceased to exist as the courts forced settlements that favored the Federal Government and Unions over the holders of priority debt, disregarding 200 years of U.S. bankruptcy and contract law.  Once again the American people had been strongly against the use of Taxpayer funds for the loans and bail outs going to the automobile industry, but their elected officials knew better.

The last four months of fiscal year 2009 can best be labeled as “The Summer of Discontent”. Americans, who were never politically active before, began to attend Town Hall meetings where they demanded their Congressional Representatives and Senators explain themselves and their policies. They loudly demanded their personal opinions and observations concerning Health Care, and to a lesser extent on Cap and Trade pending legislation, be heard. No longer could elected representatives hide in Washington D.C. and ignore the polls, e-mails, letters, and phone calls expressing the American people’s disagreement with their elected officials. In reaction many Congressional Representatives and Senators canceled or refused to hold Town Hall meetings, in some cases they restricted attendance to invited constituents only. As summer faded and elected officials returned to Washington D.C. they breathed a sigh of relief, believing that with time the American populace would return to their couches and potato chips. But it was not to be, for the American People had planned a party.  It started in Sacramento California and over a few weeks many tens to hundreds of thousands shared a little time with each other at a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party. Some in the press reported that a few Right Wings Nuts arrived on 12 September 2009 at the Washington D.C. Mall. I suppose that the other unrecognized, but estimated at 2 million in attendance were simply God fearing, Tax Paying, and Patriotic Americans who were peacefully assembling and expressing their opinions.

During fiscal year 2009 many trillions of American Tax Payer dollars were taken from the middle class by the Federal Government who diverted these funds to Banks, Insurance and Car Companies, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and many other industries because each was “Too Big to Fail”. Our elected officials in Washington D.C. over the last 12 months actively decided to ignore the will of “We the People”. What are “We the People” going to do about it?

MAJORITY LEADER, UNITED STATES SENATE

September 24, 2009

Dear Senator Reid,

Four Marines were killed on September 8th as a direct result of the Administration’s  Rules of Engagement, because they were not given the air support they requested! A story appearing in McClatchy Newspapers, written by Jonathan S. Landay, provides a chilling account, detailing the circumstances surrounding the deaths of these four U.S. Marines.  A quote from that article follows:

“U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.

“Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander’s Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border. “

The full McClatchy Newspaper story can be read online at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/75036.html

Unbeknownst to the American public at the time these Marines were killed, General Stanley A. McChrystal, U.S. Commander for Afghanistan, had submitted his assessment of the Afghanistan war to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on August 30, 2009, nine days prior to these four Marines’ deaths.  Thanks to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, General McChrystal’s assessment was published in The Washington Post on September 21, 2009.  In that assessment, General McChrystal warns:

“…that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.”

The Washington Post describes General McChrystal’s assessment this way:  “The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.  The full Washington Post story can be read online at:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

I ask, what could possibly be more important than the very lives of our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan?  What issue before the Senate and House chambers could possibly take precedence over the lives of our service members serving in harm’s way?  In my humble opinion, absolutely nothing is more important.

The White House, House of Representatives and United States Senate must vigorously and immediately commence debate regarding our strategy in Afghanistan and make the determination as to whether or not our nation is going to support General McChrystal’s request for additional troops, additional equipment and additional funds to enable our service members to effectively and victoriously complete their mission in the Afghanistan, or whether we are going to withdraw our troops and conclude that they cannot succeed in their mission as defined by the Administration in March of 2009.  Time is critical in making this determination, and not one additional American service member should be sacrificed during this period of debate.  The situation in Afghanistan is of vital importance and is, literally, a matter of life and death.

I implore you to exercise your power as Senate Majority Leader to suspend all debate in the Senate on any issue other than resolving our national position in Afghanistan.  Health care reform, energy reform, climate change, financial reform, immigration reform … all issues currently considered urgent in Washington, D.C. … are all issues which, in reality, pale in comparison to determining how we most effectively protect the lives of our men and women serving in combat in Afghanistan.

My blood boiled listening to Mark Murray, NBC News Deputy Political Director, discussing the situation on Afghanistan on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, wherein he described the President as being in a “political box” as a result of the military’s assessment which requested additional troops versus the position held by many in his own political party.  Murray, unbelievably, went on to say “… you’re probably not going to get a decision until after health care is done, and that probably won’t be until November or so.”  That juxtaposition of priorities is wholly unacceptable, and I speak for the American people who do not believe nor want health care reform to take precedence over a determination that affects the lives of our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and brothers and sisters in uniform.  Our service members in combat deserve more attention from our elected officials and America will not stand for anything less.

I call upon you to show true leadership and immediately schedule Senate debate on the future strategy for the war in Afghanistan.  The lives of our service members must not be subject to political convenience; but rather, the decisions regarding our service members in combat are a matter of immediate national security.  The truth of the matter is, our service members in Afghanistan operate in unwarranted perilous danger due to lack of clarity from our leaders, and it is incumbent upon our elected officials to provide clarity at the earliest possible moment.

We must not repeat a Nixon-style “decent interval” where we allow our American troops to be sacrificed while a politically-palatable “defeat with honor” is contrived.   Our elected officials can either:  (1) support fully General McChrystal’s request in its entirety; (2) return all American forces to safe bases, establish a 35-mile perimeter around those bases and authorize unconstrained shoot-to kill engagement orders of anyone attempting to penetrate that perimeter; or (3) begin an immediate and orderly redeployment from Afghanistan.   We must not follow in the footsteps of policymakers from the Viet Nam era by deciding to lose in Afghanistan while, at the same time, continuing to feed our troops into a meat-grinder as a political foil.

This is your opportunity to do the right thing and call upon the United States Senate to honor those who serve in uniform and protect America.  If our elected officials in Washington, D.C. lack the commitment to wage and win this war, then we have a moral obligation to the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and children of those service members serving in Afghanistan to remove them from harm’s way.

Sincerely,

Bill Parson

Candidate for U.S. Senate 2010

]]> http://www.parsonforsenate2010.com/2009/10/03/240/feed/ 1 http://www.parsonforsenate2010.com/2009/09/18/just-a-few-people-at-the-washington-mall/ http://www.parsonforsenate2010.com/2009/09/18/just-a-few-people-at-the-washington-mall/#comments Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:43:18 +0000 billparson http://www.parsonforsenate2010.com/?p=233 Here are a couple of pictures from 9/12 march in Washington D.C.  As you can see, according to the press and politicians, only a few nuts showed up; the rest of the 1-2 million I guess were not nuts.

Click on the above image to see the full-sized version.

Signed Oath of Office

Click on it to see the full-size version.

1.) Why are you running?

Before I answer the question directly, I’d like to take the opportunity to point out that the answer to this question, as well as answers to many other questions, have appeared for more than four months on my campaign’s web site at http://www.parsonforsenate2010.com.  As a short response, allow me to quote the following from the front page of my web site:

This campaign is about restoring “We the People”. Our Federal government is not a group of elected officials in Washington D.C.; rather, it is the entirety of our citizenry. The people of Nevada, like many across our great nation, are angered that Nevada’s elected officials are no longer representing the interests and values of our State. Even worse; their agenda is driving our nation down a path of collectivism and implementing socialistic programs that threaten to destroy the very foundation of our country. We, our children, grandchildren and future generations will be enslaved by the tremendous debt that those same elected officials in Washington have saddled our great country with. They have used the national treasury to bribe the populace with “Free Money”; money they have borrowed from foreign governments that are not friendly to the United States, and can rescind those loans at their pleasure.  Elected officials even contemplate subordinating our National Sovereignty to International Courts and Organizations chartered by the United Nations. This must not stand.

In short, I believe that the Federal government is going down the wrong path and I believe I possess the necessary qualifications and, more importantly, Constitutionally-minded principles required to make an effective Senator.

2.) What are your qualifications?

I have expertise in the following areas: business with extensive budgeting and scheduling responsibilities, military planning and operations, international relations working with the U.S. State Department, telecommunications and information technology, energy, national security and intelligence, and national crisis and emergency management.

I served in the United States Marine Corps in both enlisted and commissioned capacities. During my career, I served with distinction in a variety of roles and theaters; my experience in the Marine Corps provided a sound foundation in leadership and planning that prepared me for a successful civilian career as a project manager with the Nevada Test Site. During my career with the Test Site, I was responsible for projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars requiring coordination with Federal, State and private organizations.  None of my projects ever came in late or over budget.

Due to my military and civilian careers, I have extensive experience working within and through government bureaucracy, as well as recognizing when projects are feasible and appropriately budgeted.  This is far more than can be said of many of our current elected officials, who currently believe it’s possible to reduce our deficit by spending a downpayment of over one trillion dollars on a health care scheme that a majority of Americans would prefer to do without.

3.) What campaign training programs have you attended?

This is an interesting question, since the author of these questions has a business focused on campaign training programs. I would point out that none of the founding fathers attended campaign training. In October, I will be attending one of the most important Campaign Training areas there is for a National Campaign, the Federal Election Commission’s Conference on Federal Campaign Finance Law for House and Senate Campaigns. I have also enlisted the help and assistance of like-minded individuals with greater experience in the campaign management process than my own.  One of the advantages of my project management experience is knowing when to delegate.

4.) How many votes do you need to win?

Glibly, the answer would be “more than the other guy”.  In all seriousness, though, this is an “off-year” election, I believe that, due to the economy and the Democrat’s craven attempts to “use the crisis” for their own advantage, we will probably experience a stronger than usual voter turnout.  If this forecast proves true, I will need approximately 350,000-400,000 votes to defeat Harry Reid.  This would be a larger vote requirement than the 322,472 votes John Ensign used to secure his seat in the 2006 election.

5.) What’s your “game plan” for winning?
As you have already pointed out, I enjoy neither the material advantages nor the name brand recognition that Reid currently enjoys – indeed, I’d argue that there isn’t a GOP candidate in the field that isn’t similarly handicapped at this time. For better or worse we, as a party, are contending against an individual who has recently spent the better part of his Senate term tending to the needs of his campaign instead of the needs of Nevadans.  Obviously, like every other candidate in the field, my job is to do everything within my power to overcome these deficiencies.  To that end, I have been scheduling appearances throughout the state – not just Las Vegas.  Name recognition is an element of a winning strategy, but a candidate with ideas and an educated voter base that understands where a candidate stands is also critical. “Anybody but Harry Reid” will not win an election. I have, and will continue to take, every opportunity to explain to my fellow Nevadans how I differ from Harry Reid and how I will put the people of Nevada and the Constitution first.

Though this probably doesn’t go into as much detail as some may prefer, due to the nature of our campaign, we will need to allow the finer detail of our strategy to reveal itself after the fact.  When operating under a material disadvantage, as the GOP is against Harry Reid, it’s rarely good tactics to openly state how and where you will address this disadvantage.

6.) What are you going to do differently from others who have run for this seat and lost?
Win, of course!  As much as I would enjoy going into specifics, I will have to address this question obtusely. Generally speaking I do not believe I’m compromising anything when I say that we are ready, willing, and able to take this campaign directly to the voters themselves.

7.) How much will your campaign cost?
According to FEC records, Reid has already raised over $7 million, and his campaign staff have indicated they will raise $25M. These are substantial sums. I do not foresee any GOP candidate in Nevada matching Reid dollar-for-dollar. Our campaign will be judicious and prudent with every single dollar spent, identifying tactical and strategic tipping points where the greatest impact can be achieved.

I do see a winning campaign requiring several million dollars over the next year to succeed, particularly in the last 120 days of the campaign. Interestingly, this will actually make it one of the smaller projects, budget-wise, that I’ve managed over the past decade.

8.) What will you spend the money on?
Media advertising will be exceedingly important, especially in the later stages of the campaign.  The bad news is that Reid has significantly stronger name recognition in Nevada than any other candidate, potential or otherwise, for the Senate in this state.  The good news is that much of Reid’s name recognition is negative – he was wrong about the Iraq war, he was wrong about the budget, and he was wrong when he declared that those who dared oppose his policies were “evil-mongers”.  I aim to increase his negative name recognition as much as possible while also getting positive name recognition for myself and for the GOP.

9.) How much have you raised so far?
A portion of our Campaign Strategy is behind us and now revealed. We had no intention of raising money during the first quarter, and in fact refused donations. Our objective in this phase was to interact with voters from across the State without the distraction of “Give me Money” as the first and last words they heard. My last report to the FEC identified actual campaign expenditures at just over $6,000.00. We recently enabled the campaign web site http://www.parsonforsenate2010.com/make-a-donation/ to accept credit card donations, and will be planning fundraising events throughout Nevada in the future.

10.) How much of your own money have you put into your campaign?
As I have already reported to the FEC, I committed over $13,000 in personal funds during the period of April – June 2009. As required by United States Code, Title 2, Chapter 14, Section434 (a)(6)(b)(i)(V), I have also filed notice to the FEC and registered Nevada Senatorial Primary Candidates (as of the filing this was only Sharon Angle and Robin Titus) of plans to spend $50,000.00 of personal funds.  This value may be adjusted at any time by filing a subsequent letter of intent.
11.) How do you expect to raise the balance?
I’m receiving small donations from individual Republicans of modest means who are willing to do everything possible to bring a Constitutionally-minded small government conservative into the US Senate. I have other sources that will be called upon as scheduled in our Campaign Plan.

12.) Who is working on your campaign (manager, consultants, advisers, etc.)?

I already have a set of managers and advisors and am presently looking to grow the number and scope of them significantly.  So far, I have secured a Telecommunications and Information Technology Director, who is responsible for the technical side of our web-related and communication contact efforts. A Director of Content, who is responsible for distributing content to our volunteers, and an Interim Campaign Media Director, who is responsible for our media outreach programs.  The campaign is looking to grow this significantly and we are already hard at work at finding suitable people to fill the gaps.

13.) Who is supporting your campaign (endorsements)?
Our focus is on finding financial and material support from individual Nevadans interested in reining in the growth and interference of the Federal government against our lives.  Though we’re not against receiving “angel financing”, that’s not our primary focus at this time.

14.) Are you going to campaign full time?
I already am and have been campaigning full-time for the last five months.  I have traveled extensively across the State numerous times over the last four months, engaging with Nevadans in a grass roots effort, which is more than can be said of any of the other GOP candidates at this time.

Our society has shifted its perception of health care services during the last fifty years away from a more narrowly focused but necessary reaction to wounds, injuries, and treating emerging illness. Today many Americans embrace health care as a means of maintaining a higher quality of life, identifying and addressing potential medical problems as early as feasible, and as an early intervention to support extending their lives as long as possible.   There is nothing wrong with this change in philosophy, but it comes with a price. This general shift has become a significant contributing factor to increased overall costs for health care within our nation.  If we are going to use greater and greater quantities of a commodity (even health care), then overall costs for expanding those services will escalate. In our personal lives, expanding choices for spending on health care must be offset by reduced spending elsewhere in our budgets.

We now have significant elements of our elected representatives in the House, Senate, and the Administration who advocate expanding even further the use of health care resources through wellness and early detection programs beyond that used today.  I am amazed that they postulate that expanding the use of a resource such as health care will result in a decreased cost. Of course I should keep in mind that these are the same people who continue to push our nation further and further into debt through deficit spending so we can once again become prosperous.  At best these supposed leaders are ignorant. At worst they are devious, deceptive, seek to bankrupt the country, and transform us into a Socialist Nation.

Controlling the expanded use of health care services by individual citizens through creation and administration of federal regulations and policies is not a sound solution. We will see the inevitable and wasteful dichotomies of federal government intervention emerge. A real example of this can be seen where one segment of the federal government subsidizes the growth and production of tobacco products, another rails about the evils of the product and the health impacts it brings, and yet another imposes huge taxes upon the product to enrich the federal coffers.  This is a single example from many where the federal government has proven repeatedly it cannot be trusted with the nation’s health care.

My strong commitment to Constitutional limitations on the Federal Government, State Sovereignty, and the Freedom and Liberty of individual American Citizens shapes the solutions I see available to us in this area.  Ideas for addressing the expanded use of health care services by Americans include:

• Recognize and honor that each citizen has freedom of choice to include decisions on how much, how little, and what type of health care is appropriate for themselves and their family without federal intervention
• Freedom requires responsibility, in the case of health care having choice means individuals must make the choices within their personal budgets and insurance options – there are no free health care lunches
• Attempts to federalize the health care system will result in fewer available services, rationing, and reduced satisfaction by individual citizens – there are no free health care lunches
• Prohibit the expansion of federal health care programs and services in any shape or form there are no free health care lunches
• Remove, reduce, and/or prohibit  regulatory barriers which inhibit entrepreneurs from entering the health care market to satisfy expanded health care services Americans seek, at reduced costs

Bill Parson