Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Jonathan Simpson
Jonathan Simpson (Republican Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent North Carolina's 14th Congressional District. He lost in the Republican primary on May 17, 2022.
Simpson completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Jonathan Simpson was born in Knoxville, Tennessee. Simpson has served in the U.S. Army since 2010. He earned a bachelor's degree from Baylor University and a graduate degree from Wake Forest University. Simpson's career experience includes working as an entrepreneur.[1]
Elections
2022
See also: North Carolina's 14th Congressional District election, 2022
North Carolina's 14th Congressional District election, 2022 (May 17 Democratic primary)
North Carolina's 14th Congressional District election, 2022 (May 17 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House North Carolina District 14
Jeff Jackson defeated Pat Harrigan in the general election for U.S. House North Carolina District 14 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Jeff Jackson (D) | 57.7 | 148,738 |
 | Pat Harrigan (R)  | 42.3 | 109,014 | |
| Total votes: 257,752 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House North Carolina District 14
Jeff Jackson defeated Ramin Mammadov in the Democratic primary for U.S. House North Carolina District 14 on May 17, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Jeff Jackson | 86.1 | 34,724 |
 | Ramin Mammadov | 13.9 | 5,598 | |
| Total votes: 40,322 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Eric Gash (D)
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House North Carolina District 14
Pat Harrigan defeated Jonathan Simpson in the Republican primary for U.S. House North Carolina District 14 on May 17, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Pat Harrigan | 75.6 | 27,638 |
 | Jonathan Simpson | 24.4 | 8,909 | |
| Total votes: 36,547 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Campaign themes
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Jonathan Simpson completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Simpson's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
- Universal education choice
- Term limits for Congress
- Small and efficient government
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Simpson's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Education The government-run education system is beyond saving, we need a new system that is built on competition and choice Get government out of education. The government monopoly on education has failed — it’s time to make every school compete Our education system has failed It’s common knowledge that our education system is in complete disarray. School buildings crumble, money is mismanaged, our most gifted students have no chance to reach their potential, and our struggling students get left behind. Politicians don’t seem to understand that a one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure.
A government monopoly is the problem For parents, whether a school is failing to meet their child’s needs, or is indoctrinating them in beliefs that they fully reject, they have no say in their child’s education. Government schools are completely unaccountable. They exist and operate with or without the approval of parents. Think of anywhere the government maintains a monopoly, be it the DMV, the Social Security Administration, or the Post Office, is there any efficiency, any innovation, any care for the customer, or any efforts to improve? No, there isn’t, and why would there be? There is absolutely no incentive to improve and no ability to overcome the bureaucracy. This lack of competition breeds complacency and stagnation.
Privatize the entire system There is no one piece of legislation or reform idea that will make education in our country better. Every school is different, every community is different, every teacher is different, and every student is different. The only way to effectively run our education system is by pushing down control to the individual schools, teachers, and, ultimately, parents. Privately operated, publicly funded — parents don’t pay, but schools have to compete We can create a system that allows for all the benefits of market competition and private operation while ensuring that a family’s financial resources have no bearing on access. We do this by offering a universal, fully-funding voucher that parents can take to any participating private school.
An open market education system would change everything Imagine if parents could send their children to whatever school they felt would serve them best, without any concern for cost. Imagine if there was a wide variety of school options for parents to choose from — some religious, some with a robust fine arts program, some with more hands-on science, or whatever else the market demanded. In an open market, publicly funded system, we will see new schools starting all the time and existing schools differentiating and improving themselves. What was once controlled by government bureaucrats will now be controlled by parents, with principals, teachers, and businesses empowered to innovate and improve. FAQ’s How can we afford this? Total annual education spending in the United States is around $720 billion, or roughly $15,000 per pupil, which includes combined federal (7.7%), state (46.7%), and local (45.6%) spending. Keeping the average per-pupil voucher amount at around $15,000 means no net tax increase. As students leave government schools to attend federal voucher funded schools, state and local taxes will decrease proportionally. This means that taxes to fund education will now be collected predominantly from the national tax base, rather than the state or local tax base, but that total taxes will not increase. The United States only spends 11.6% of public funding on education, below the international standard of 15%, so there is certainly an argument to be made for increasing education spending. One of the many benefits of this plan is that any such increase would not be lost in the government bureaucracy nor would politicians dictate how schools should spend it. The market would ensure that any increase in funding, or existing funding, is used efficiently. Can we ensure there are adequate standards? One of the pillars of this plan is that it keeps the government at arm’s distance from the education of our children. In a free society, having the government exercise monopoly control over the education of its citizens is the surest way to ensure the end of that free society. We are seeing this on full display today, with government schools being more concerned about pushing political messages than improving math or reading skills. Under this plan, the government will set basic standards and requirements for schools participating in the program, like a minimum number of instructional days, school meal requirements, and instructional standards. These standards will be broad, and the government will not dictate how teachers must teach or how schools must operate, nor will it maintain standardized testing requirements. The government will not create a massive regulatory bureaucracy, but rather will certify private, non-profit accrediting agencies which will be responsible for accrediting these schools. These agencies may have different standards, with some having higher standards in the arts, or sciences, for example, or some having religious requirements or other specialized requirements, but each agency offering a full accreditation will ensure compliance with the minimum standards at the very least. Schools would be able to choose which agency to seek accreditation from, and could seek accreditation from multiple. Organizations offering partial accreditation or specific certifications would also emerge, giving parents even more information to make informed decisions about their child’s education. Ultimately, though, parents, empowered with clear information, are the best regulators of the system. How will this impact teachers? It’s important to state clearly that our wonderful teachers are not the reason the system has failed. Sure, it is certainly true that there are terrible teachers that need to be fired but never will be in this system, and that good teachers aren’t rewarded, are let go, or can’t be hired in the first place because of tenure preference. But, the vast majority of teachers are incredible Americans that don’t want to indoctrinate their students, aren’t afraid of being held accountable, and would do anything for their students. With high teacher turnover rates, widespread teacher shortages, and salaries that average almost 20% less than private sector employees with similar skills and education, it is impossible to argue that this system works well for teachers either. An open market system would serve them far better. It wouldn’t take a literal act of congress to raise teacher’s pay. While it’s true that teacher’s unions would be destroyed, it’s important to note that, even though they are among the most powerful unions remaining in the United States, they still have not been able to earn their members the kind of salaries that they would command in an open market system. With schools competing for students, schools would also be competing for the best teachers. This does two things. First, it drives up salaries, and, second, it creates an incentive for teachers to improve and rewards them for doing so. Right now, teachers are in a bureaucratic system. They have an assigned spot and function, and no matter how well or poorly they perform (not just measured by test scores, but measured by subjective criteria), it is nearly impossible for them to be fired, and they certainly will not receive any additional financial compensation for a job well done. Bureaucracies destroy professions. An open market system would bring new life into the teaching profession, along with better compensation. Will parents have a say in how their child's school operates? There is a bit of an irrational fear in some around the idea of privatization. To some, they feel that it means that businesses will now be in charge of their child’s education. They aren’t exactly wrong, but is there really a reason to be concerned? First, let’s examine the alternative. If the education system is not run by numerous private for-profit and nonprofit entities, it will be run entirely by the government. Essentially it is between having many private entities competing for your business, or giving the government complete control over all of it. Which is scarier? Second, you at least get a democratic say in your child’s education now, right? Well, not really. It is true that many school boards, though not all, are elected. However, that means that parents get one vote, out of sometimes hundreds of thousands, for one board member, out of many. Parents can go and speak, for about 60 seconds, at a board meeting, but who is actually listening? What kind of power does an individual parent have? On top of that, federal law, state, law, and even local ordinance impacts how these schools are run, further diluting what little say parents had in the first place. Finally, it’s important to remember that in an open market system, parents would have more than just a symbolic vote or 60 seconds to speak at a crowded board meeting, they would have the status of paying customer, with plenty of other options at their disposal. That gives them far more power. What about existing private schools? Existing private schools will be able to participate in the program right away, so long as they are accredited. If current tuition is currently lower than the voucher amount, the school can still receive the full voucher amount. If the current tuition is higher than the voucher amount, the school would not be able to accept the voucher. However, in this case, the school could use the full voucher amount to supplement financial aid or merit scholarships, so long as the recipient is not required to pay anything additional out of pocket to attend the school. In other words, if a school receives a voucher from a student, they would not be permitted to charge any additional tuition or fees to that student. This ensures that vouchers wouldn’t be used just to offset expensive private school tuition, but would only be part of a program giving the public free access to private education. Private schools, regardless of where they set their tuition or how many vouchers they accept, would be able to participate in the government’s capital loan programs, meaning every accredited private school would be eligible for financial support for things like new buildings, expansions and renovations, and more. What about existing government schools? Nothing in this plan will require that government schools close down, nor will we halt federal funding. Things will continue as normal for government schools. The only thing that will change for them is that they will now have real competition, and a lot of it. The most probable scenario is that new schools will start up at a rapid rate, likely putting great pressure on government schools to adapt. As students leave government schools in favor of better performing, privately operated schools, government schools will have to reduce staff, close buildings, and reorganize. Demand for teachers should remain consistent, or even grow. As new private schools gain students, they will also need more teachers, so as students shift to private schools, so will teachers, principals, and some administrators. Ultimately, it is highly unlikely that a government bureaucracy will be able to compete against privately run, competitively driven schools, and they will likely all but cease to exist. Make no mistake, this plan represents nothing short of a revolutionary change in our K-12 education system. Is this a federal takeover of education? It seems counterintuitive to hear a Republican propose expanding the United States Department of Education, potentially making it the department in the federal government with the largest budget, even perhaps surpassing the Department of Defense one day. Some Republicans have even called for the dismantling of the Department entirely. It certainly appears like this plan would take state and local government out of the education picture. But is this an accurate way to look at things? Is this the full picture? Does this plan federalize education? The answer is not really. In one sense, yes, all education funding and legislation would lie with the federal government. But the law would create broad guidelines for schools to operate within, and would entrust their oversight to private, nonprofit agencies. The increase in funding for the Department would not be to fund a large government agency or bureaucracy, which is the case with all government education spending now, but it would be transferred directly to private schools when parents choose to enroll their children there. Some may be concerned that our politicians can’t help themselves from meddling in private sector affairs, so what would stop them from enacting more and more regulations? The short answer is voters. Politicians can and have and are still overreaching into the education system, making things worse and worse. While this could technically happen in any system, it is much less likely that it would happen under this open market plan as the very nature of the legislation seeks to put the government at a distance from the education system, serving predominantly as a source of funding, devoid of any real means of direct regulation. This is not a federal takeover of education, it is a citizen takeover; it is a consumer takeover. Who can start new schools and how? Anyone can start a new school — churches, groups of parents, for-profit corporations, nonprofits, philanthropists, and anyone else. Existing private schools would be able to expand operations, starting sister schools in new communities, cities, and even states. It truly will be an open market. While there will likely be more than enough private investment and donations available to start new schools and expand existing ones, the government can play a helpful role in expediting the shift from government schools to private schools by subsidizing capital expenditure loans, guaranteeing working capital loans, and engaging in direct public-private partnerships. Will children have to apply to attend these schools? Any application process would be left up to each individual school. Some schools may have strict requirements, others may have no application process at all. It’s important to remember, however, that every school will be competing for students to enroll. Will parents be able to send their children to religious schools? Yes. So long as schools meet the basic program requirements, they can be accredited. The government would not discriminate against religious schools in any way. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and even more recently Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue uphold the constitutionality of school voucher programs funding religious schools.
Our income tax code is a burden on businesses and families; a national sales tax is a smart replacement Replace the income tax completely. The income tax code is unacceptably complicated, burdensome, and frankly outdated Our income tax code is a mess Americans have a long history of despising taxes, but there is little doubt now that we have created the most onerous, complicated, and wasteful systems of taxation imaginable. Whether or not you think Americans should be paying more or less in taxes, what is beyond argument is that the manner in which we collect these taxes is a disaster.
Taxing consumption is superior The major culprit behind the failure of our income tax code is found right in the name itself — income. Taxing income presents a few major problems. For one, income is extremely difficult to pin down. It remains an open question as to what should be deducted from taxable income, giving lobbyists and politicians too much to tinker with. Income is also easy to hide, at least for big businesses and the wealthy, through tricky business decisions or offshore accounts. It’s also unfair. Just because someone earns more income does not mean they should be taxed more. There are plenty of situations where people choose to work more, and harder, to earn more income, and there are plenty of situations where, instead of buying new cars or boats, people choose to save money to invest in things like starting a new business. Taxing income punishes these people unfairly. Taxing consumption obliterates these issues. Instead of a burdensome income tax scheme, a consumption tax simply means everyone pays one simple tax on all of their purchases. It’s just like a sales tax, but it is embedded in the cost of goods and services. One sales tax to replace all others With a national sales tax at a rate of about 17% to 30%, we can completely replace our complicated income tax. This means no more personal income tax, capital gains tax, corporate taxes, estate taxes, no more loopholes, no more tax evasion, no more complicated tax returns, and no more unfair tax treatment. What a national consumption tax means for all of us Businesses would collect federal sales tax at the point of consumption, just like they already do for state and local taxes in 45 states and the District of Columbia. Studies have shown that a switch to a consumption tax will be enormously beneficial.
More fair than any income tax scheme imaginable Replacing our income tax with a consumption tax means you only pay taxes when you choose to spend money. You pay more tax when you choose to consume more, and you pay less when you choose to consume less. The amount of taxes you pay is entirely up to you. FAQ’s Aren’t sales taxes regressive? The short answer is yes, but this one will be different, and we actually need to rethink our definition of progressivity as it relates to the tax code anyway. Generally, a progressive tax means that people with higher incomes pay higher taxes. But, why income? Income does not directly improve anyone’s material condition. Suppose that someone earned $1 million in annual income, but only chose to spend $30,000. Their material quality of life would be at a $30,000 spending level, but they would owe a lot in taxes. Now let’s say another person earned $100,000 a year and spent all of it. They would be enjoying a material quality of life at a $100,000 spending level, significantly above the first person, and yet they would owe far less in taxes. This disparity underscores the problem with looking at income levels as the moral indicator of who should contribute more to the government in taxes. Income taxes tax the ability to consume, an ability which may or may not be exercised, but a consumption tax taxes the actual consumption itself. This means that a consumption tax requires people who actually have more to pay more. Beyond this, though, it is true that poor Americans might spend a larger percentage of their income than do wealthy Americans, oftentimes spending 100% of it, and a certain minimum level of spending is unavoidable. To address this, we can do one of two things. We could either provide every American with a prebate check each month for the amount of taxes that would be paid on spending up to the poverty level. This would ensure that no one would pay taxes on the basic necessities of life. Alternatively, we could institute a negative income tax, thus ensuring that our tax code is extremely progressive. Wouldn’t a flat income tax be better? A flat tax certainly would be better and more fair than the situation that we have now. However, it still would not provide nearly all the benefits that a consumption based tax structure would, such as the foreign trade benefits, investment benefits, investment and locality benefits, and more. Will this really bring in enough revenue for the federal government? Yes. Depending on how we structure the tax, and what, if any, items are exempt, the tax-inclusive rate would be around 17% to 30%. Has this ever been tried before? Absolutely. 45 states, the District of Columbia, and over 140 countries, including all of Europe, have consumption taxes in place. Eight U.S. states don’t even have an earned income tax but rely on a sales tax instead. Shouldn’t corporations be paying more, not consumers? The idea of corporate taxes is really a myth. Corporations do not pay the taxes imposed on them, their customers and their employees do. Corporate taxes are a cost of doing business. If costs rise for businesses, they raise their prices, or, worse, research shows that employees often bear the brunt, not profits. How will this impact foreign trade? Unlike nearly every other industrialized country in the world, the cost of U.S. taxes are embedded in the price of our exports. All income taxes, corporate taxes, and more are baked into the cost of the goods and services we sell overseas. Those taxes are a cost of doing business, and, as such, show up in the prices of our exports. With a consumption tax, the tax burden is applied only at the point of sale in the United States. With a consumption tax, our exports do not carry a price increase caused by taxation, making them less expensive and more competitive. Conversely, imports will be subject to the consumption tax as they are being consumed in the United States. It’s estimated that foreign goods and services enjoy at least an 18% price advantage over domestically produced goods. A consumption tax fixes this automatically. Will anything be exempt from the sales tax? This will need to be debated and researched further. However, as no industry or sector is currently exempt from the burden of our income tax code, and all of those taxes are already embedded in the costs of goods and services, there is likely no need or rationale for exempting any industry or item. Furthermore, once one exemption is made, the lobbying will be unstoppable.
By improving and requiring E-Verify, and eliminating the paper dollar, only legal immigration, and immigrants, will remain We are a land of immigrants and laws. We can both welcome immigrants and control the immigration process Uncontrolled immigration is the problem, not immigrants America is a land of immigrants. This statement, as trite and overused as it may be, is still one of the most foundational truths about who we are. Throughout our history, countless soles have made the decision to leave their places of birth behind and start a new life in a land that promised them hope, freedom, and opportunity. We are better because of them. We are them. They are us. Immigration both in the past and now is a great source of national pride and strength, but unbridled, illegal immigration undermines this reality. In a modern world, immigration is a process that must be managed. It must be controlled for the sake of security, economic prosperity, and cultural cohesion.
Assimilation is critical With the foreign-born population reaching 44.4 million people in 2017, the highest percentage of any nation, the need to ensure national unity is only increasing in importance. Immigration and immigrants are good, but in order for our country to maintain a robust system of immigration, immigrants must be committed to assimilation, and we must take steps to help immigrants be fully knit into our society. Our culture and language must be unified, and our immigration policy should support that goal. Remove the incentive to immigrate illegally The number one priority regarding immigration must be to get illegal immigration under control. We have to first stop the flow, then we have to bring out of hiding every illegal alien currently residing in the country, then we must compassionately decided what to do with them. Thankfully, we can do that with relative ease by removing the incentive to immigrate or stay here illegally in the first place. Strengthen, streamline, and require E-Verify for all E-Verify is a tool that has been around since 1996 and has helped countless businesses determine if the workers they are hiring are legally eligible to work in the United States. The tool checks the potential employee’s data against records in the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security immigration databases and delivers accurate results within seconds. E-Verify is optional for most employers, and the penalties and enforcement related to its proper use are weak. If we mandate the use of E-Verify for all employers, improve the identification process, and strengthen enforcement, we will be able to effectively remove any reason or ability to come to the United States or stay in the United States illegally. If it is not possible for illegal aliens to earn any income in the United States, it will make life here impossible for them as well. Assimilate or deport the immigrant population here illegally With a strong, mandatory E-Verify system in place, illegal immigration will be largely contained, and, with retroactive verification requirements for existing employees, every illegal alien will no longer be able to work in the United States without special approval from the government. Employers would either be forced to terminate the employee and report findings to the government or the employee would have to file a petition with the United States government. We could grant extended worker privileges on an industry-by-industry and case-by-case basis, we could require the payment of back taxes as a condition of staying, or we could require the passage of an English language test within a certain timeframe in order to keep extended stay status. The point is that the ball is now firmly in our court and we can decide exactly who stays, under what conditions, and who gets deported. There will be no more hiding in the shadows, and our immigration system will once again be under control and back to being one of our greatest sources of strength. FAQ’s Would this really stop the flow of illegal immigration? Yes. Hardly anyone would try immigrating to the United States if they could not survive here. As long as we do not enable illegal immigration with government welfare or private charity, this will all but entirely fix the problem of illegal immigration. Will we really be able to deport almost 15 million illegal aliens? The first question we have to answer is whether or not we would want to. With a strong E-Verify program in place, illegal aliens would not be able to earn money in the United States. Mandatory E-Verify with a retroactive requirement would mean that every current employee would have to be run through the program by their employer. This could be automated. Once checked, illegal aliens would be flagged, automatically reported to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and barred from receiving any further payment from their employer. At this point, an illegal alien will need to file for a deferred action status with the government and would be permitted to continue to earn income on a temporary basis for a limited time. During this time, one of two things will happen. One option is that the illegal alien and/or the business could file a petition with the government requesting an extension. At this point, the government would either deny or grant the request subject to certain conditions. These conditions would include things like the payment of back taxes, maintaining no criminal record, and passing an English fluency test by a certain date. If they fail any of these conditions, they will be left with only the other option, which is self-deportation. Self-deportation would essentially involve an illegal alien driving a car across the border or catching a one-way flight to another country. The United States government could potentially help facilitate this if need be. The main point here is that we now have things under control, and we now have the ability to firmly, but compassionately, and with great deference to our economy, determine what to do with the existing population of illegal aliens. Many will be able to stay, many will self-deport, but no one will be hiding in the shadows of our society any longer. Isn’t E-Verify easy to get around? The answer to that is not clear at the moment. But, what is clear is that we need to strengthen the program. This means taking a hard look at our national identification standards and documentation, but it also means we focus on enforcing the correct use of E-Verify for employers. Tough penalties for violators, whistleblower provisions, and active enforcement would mean that employers would likely not subject themselves to heavy regulatory penalties, and even criminal charges, just to have access to slightly cheaper, tax-free labor. Will this be a burden on employers? E-Verify currently takes only a few seconds to run. However, we can make it even faster and easier by working directly with private HR software companies to integrate the E-Verify system seamlessly with their applications. Essentially, running a potential new hire through E-Verify would be as easy as a click of a button. What about asylum seekers and legal immigration? Legal immigration is of great benefit to our nation, and the United States never has and never should turn its back on those in need. What we have to realize, though, is that opening our borders is not the most effective way to help people or to honor legal immigrants. We should bring our legal immigration numbers down to more historical levels, rather than well over the one million immigrating legally today. We need to focus our efforts on reforming family-based immigration qualification and ending chain migration. Isn’t it the moral thing to do to open up our country to anyone in need? It is not. There are countless people around the world who would be better off individually if they lived in the United States. Allowing those who just happen to be geographically located near our borders into our country is not a logical solution to any global, or even regional, problem. Our government should prioritize the development of Latin America in the form of direct investment, partnerships, and trade deals, and we must work to defeat the drug trade effectively and in a way that does not exacerbate the problems it already causes. Our main priority in helping those in need around the globe should be to spread democracy and to spread capitalism. These two forces are by far the most effective in helping people improve their conditions.
We need an approach to health care reform that leverages the power of the free market to achieve universal coverage The market is the path to universal coverage. The way toward universal, quality coverage does not include socialism, but the opposite Our mess of a system One of the great misconceptions about the American healthcare system is that we have a market-based insurance system and the only way to reform it is to “socialize” it. Both of these statements are incorrect. The United States does have a market-based insurance system, but we also have a single-payer system, called Medicare, but it is only for the aged. We also have a government-operated system, like the United Kingdom’s NHS, but it is only for veterans. We also have government-subsidized insurance, called Medicaid, but it is only for the poor. Some insurance for people who do not fall into any of these categories is provided by their employer, and some purchase it on their own. This patchwork system is one of the greatest problems in the American healthcare system. Universal doesn’t have to mean a government takeover Universal health care does not require a national single-payer, Medicare-for-all proposal. In fact, many countries that have achieved universal health care coverage have done so with private insurance, private doctors, and private hospitals, and some even have a smaller government role in healthcare than we do in the United States. We need one unified system For too long, the Republican Party has been the party of “no” when it comes to healthcare reform. It’s time we worked toward an actual solution. We spend the highest percentage of our GDP on healthcare out of any other industrialized nation, and we do not have better results to show for it. We need to create a cohesive, unified system and shrink the role that the government plays in the health care of its citizens. We need a system that works the same for the elderly as it does for children, for those working full-time as it does for the veteran. Price transparency, minimum coverage standards, large risk pools, and streamlined data are the cornerstones A unified health care system should encompass a few key elements. First, price transparency is critical. If you go into a doctor’s office and they tell you that you will need an x-ray, it is unlikely that they will be able to tell you how much it will cost. The price will be determined by what type of insurance you have and what rates were negotiated with the insurance company. When you receive your medical bill much later after the x-ray, you may find yourself shocked at the price and perhaps a bit confused by the bill. This lack of price transparency means that the typical market forces that drive down costs no longer apply. Next, we need to have minimum coverage standards in place. Every insurance plan should have a minimum set of procedures and services covered, and insurance providers should not be able to deny people because of pre-existing conditions. This was one of the more popular features of the Affordable Care Act. Bringing everyone into the same insurance market will allow us to spread this risk and lower costs for Americans. Finally, medical records should be standardized and made electronic. One way to easily gain efficiency in our healthcare system is by streamlining the record-keeping process, which would include medical records as well as insurance claims processing. The ratio of doctors to administrative staff in the United States is about 1:10, the highest in any industrialized nation. Software, automation, and better data management has a huge role to play in lowering overall costs and increasing efficiency. A regulated free market It is important to remember that our current healthcare system is already highly regulated, but poorly regulated. We already have a single-payer system for a portion of the population, a government-operated one for another portion, and a public option available to the poor. We need one system, and it needs to be a market-based system, created through simple but effective regulation.
The modern welfare state traps people in poverty; a negative income tax is a conservative, and effective, alternative It’s time to make welfare obsolete. We need an economic policy that make needs-based welfare unnecessary and ends poverty Welfare isn’t working Since president Johnson announced his war on poverty in the mid-60’s, the United States has spent over $20 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Despite this, the poverty rate has barely budged. There are well over 100 federal welfare programs operating today, and not one of them has been able to effectively deal with poverty in our country. In a nation as wealthy as ours, we can all agree that poverty should be a thing of the past. The welfare state is harmful One major problem with welfare is that it often times has the exact opposite effect as was intended. Instead of helping people get out of poverty, the welfare state traps people in it. It does this in a few ways. The welfare system is made up of a huge number of different programs administered and funded by many different agencies. As with everything involving the government, it is unnecessarily complicated and difficult. Families needing assistance are faced with a daunting amount of paperwork and often time rely on government caseworkers to help them navigate the vast buffet of assistance programs. Getting on welfare is such a task that it creates a disincentive to ever get back off it. Furthermore, the programs themselves provide direct incentives for people to remain on them. It’s true that many of these programs have work requirements, job seeking requirements, and many other strings attached, but that’s actually part of the problem. If people get a job and begin to earn too much, they are in danger of loosing all of their benefits immediately when they no longer qualify. In fact, in many states, a welfare recipient could receive more in benefits than a full-time worker could in pay. But even if someone would break even after taxes, the comparison is a choice between working full-time or doing nothing but fill out government paperwork to earn a comparable amount of money. How much more is free money worth than money that costs time and effort to gain? This provides a massive disincentive to improve one’s condition. And beyond that, the welfare state is at least partly responsible for the destruction of the American family. The structure of these programs is such that they provide a strong economic incentive to keep fathers out of the home. Single mothers have been entitled to far greater benefits from the government than if the father was in the home fulfilling his responsibilities. As a basic rule of economics, when you financially incentivize something, you will see more of it.
A negative income tax to end poverty once and for all Instead of a needs-based welfare program, we need an economic program that does more and doesn’t require a massive beaurocracy. A negative income tax is the solution, and it’s actually quite simple. Every family would be entitled to a certain tax deduction amount, let’s say $20,000. That means if someone makes $30,000, under our current income tax scheme, they would owe income taxes on $10,000 (Income – Deduction = Taxable Income). If someone makes $20,000, they would have no taxable income because of the deduction. But what if someone earned less than $20,000? This is where the negative income tax comes in. Let’s say someone only earns $10,000, but they are entitled to a $20,000 deduction. This means that their taxable income is -$10,000. The idea of a negative income tax is to give a portion, perhaps 50%, of that “negative” amount to that individual as cash. We can see how this would look when we plot it out on the chart below. The purple line represents the actual earnings of an individual, before the negative income tax. If they don’t work, their earnings are zero. The blue line represents the actual amount given to that individual from the negative income tax. If the individual does not work, they would receive the maximum amount of the negative income tax available, presumably an amount the would reach the poverty line or a little higher. As they earn more, they receive less from the negative income tax. The green line represents the individual’s earnings plus the amount of the negative income tax that they receive. The blue line is added to the purple line to create the green line. In essence, the green line is the absolute floor for how much income an individual will earn, and it becomes one in the same with the earnings line once the negative income tax phases out. As we can see by this graph, no one in America will ever have less than a basic amount available to them for consumption. In other words, with this graph, no one in America will live in poverty. A negative income tax creates a sturdy economic floor, not a sprawling beaurocracy The welfare beaurocracy costs hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars each year, and with little to show for it. Unlike the current welfare state, the negative income tax is virtually free to administer and does not trap anyone. No matter how much people work, they will always be improving their condition, thus creating a powerful work incentive. As an overarching conservative principle, it is always better to give more to individuals than a government beaurocracy. Private charity is better equipped to pick up the slack It is not the federal government’s role to reach into the individual lives of American citizens and fix every problem. It is not equipped to do that, nor could the federal bureaucracy ever be. The federal government is not suited for addressing local issues or personal issues like housing, drug abuse, or mental health directly. While there certainly are broad policies, from health care reform, to policies directed at the international drug trade, the more intricate needs of individuals and communities should be left up to local governments and, what’s even more effective, private charities. Private charities, unlike federal bureaucrats, are able to tailor their solutions and services to the individual needs of their community. A federal bureaucrat can only administer policy through procedure, but a private charity can cut through the tape to address the real physical, mental, and spiritual needs of people in a way the government never could. The government should get out of the way and let these private institutions do what they do best, not compete with them. FAQ’s Won’t this cause people to stop working It turns out, the answer is no. Numerous, extensive studies on the effects of unconditional cash programs, like Alaska’s Permanent Fund and other trial programs, have concluded that these kinds of cash payments have no overall effect on the number of people working. In fact, unlike our current welfare system, because working will always make people better off, there will always be an incentive to work. And with a negative income tax constructed to achieve a minimum level of income around the poverty line, the amount of money people have will ensure they are not living in poverty, but it certainly won’t be a preferable way of life for many. Working will always be attractive for this reason. Does this fix wealth inequality? Wealth inequality is not necessarily something that requires fixing. In a free market society, individuals will possess an unequal amount of wealth. The objective of our government should not be to equal out income, but it should be to ensure an economic floor that no one can fall through. Won’t this be extremely expensive? A study of the question shows that a negative income tax that would ensure absolutely no family lives in poverty would cost around $219 billion. That’s about the same as the total cost of the EITC, Supplemental Security Income, cash welfare programs, school meal programs, housing subsidies, and food stamps. We could replace those programs with a negative income tax and end poverty, all while shrinking the size of government. Has this ever been tried before? Many unconditional cash programs have been tried, tested, and some are even currently being implemented. Take the Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, it has been giving Alaskan citizens cash for decades, and the results have been clearly positive. We also have evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit. While the EITC is much smaller than what the negative income tax would be, and only offers a flat credit amount within a certain income range, it is still responsible for pulling millions of people out of poverty each year and has been proven to increase workforce participation. It’s also important to remember that our current welfare state gives out resources and cash as well, but the difference is that welfare assistance comes with counterproductive strings attached and is administered by a massive and expensive government bureaucracy.
Republicans have a long history of fighting for the environment and the economy; nuclear power will allow us to do both The clean energy future is atomic. Nuclear power isn’t just an environmental solution, it’s a strategic opportunity Clean energy and independence Global energy demand is expected to grow by nearly half worldwide by 2040. Fossil fuel consumption is expected to grow by 38%, making up 78% of total global energy demand. What is clear is that global appetite for energy is not slowing; it’s accelerating.
The shortcomings of current proposals Wind and solar power are often cited as the leading solutions to our energy problems, but will they really solve anything? It is clear that they certainly will play an important part in our energy mix in the future, but do they actually have a chance at fixing any environmental or energy problem? The short answer is no, they do not. The first issue with wind and solar is intermittency. The sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. In order to make these sources of electricity viable replacements for fossil fuels, we would need to be able to capture electricity during peak collection times and store it, probably in some kind of battery facility. We simply do not have the technology or capacity for something like this, and we simply will not for the foreseeable future. What’s worse, even if the United States made a complete shift to wind and solar, a proposition which seems highly implausible, there is almost no chance that the rest of the world will. So at a cost of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, even with the most optimistic outcome, success in the United States still wouldn’t matter if even part of our goal is to lower global carbon emissions to a sustainable level. Nuclear power is the only real solution Nuclear power is clean, safe, it doesn’t require massive battery facilities, and it doesn’t require a tremendous amount of land. While countries like Germany invested heavily in wind and solar, their cost of power skyrocketed, and they weren’t even able to achieve zero emissions. After a $580 billion investment, Germany still sourced only 38% of its energy from low-carbon sources. Further study has concluded that had Germany invested the $580 billion into nuclear power instead of wind and solar, it would have been enough to replace 100% of all its fossil fuel production and 100% of all fossil fuels used to power its cars and light trucks. Clean, safe, and affordable While the word “nuclear” can seem scary, the science just doesn’t support that feeling. Nuclear power is the single safest source of energy available, and this is especially true when comparing it to the harmful health effects of burning fossil fuels. In addition to an already better track record, new reactor designs and new fuels make it virtually, if not physically, impossible for a meltdown to ever happen. Nuclear waste is also the most ideal form of waste product from power production as it can quite literally be captured and stored in barrels. This process is safe and secure, and far preferable to spewing 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide and equivalents into the atmosphere each year. The cost of constructing nuclear power facilities is indeed high in the United States, but this is largely because of bad regulation and the absence of a robust industry and all of the technical skills, supply chains, and efficiencies that would go along with that. The cost of nuclear power is much less in other countries that are prioritizing its development. Limitless and American One of the single greatest advantages of a nuclear energy strategy is the chance for the United States to become the premier supplier of global energy and energy technology. Among other scientific advancements, two technologies could make this happen. First, small modular reactor designs have the potential to make the export of fully-functioning nuclear power plants a possibility. Small modular reactors could be manufactured in the United States and shipped not just all across the United States, but all across the world. Next are breeder reactors. Breeder reactors are not a new technology, we have tested them successfully as early as the 1950s. A breeder reactor makes nuclear fuel, more of it than it consumes. If the United States fully develops this technology and accompanying reactors to use the fuel, we would have an essentially limitless supply of energy that could be used domestically or exported all over the world. The strategic importance of the United States possessing this technology and the infrastructure to produce and export it at scale cannot be overstated. The future of nuclear energy is bright Even with current technology, nuclear power is certainly the path forward to clean energy independence, but when we take into account the possible future of the technology, there really is no comparison. There are new designs in the works that use different fuels, like Thorium, which is abundant and does not produce the plutonium needed to make weapons. Other designs create more nuclear fuel than they use. Others use new coolants, like molten salt, which could reduce the large, expensive containment structures needed in traditional reactors. It’s impossible to imagine the future of energy if we prioritize the development of a thriving nuclear energy sector. This is why the United States government should divert its investments in energy to nuclear power. The federal government should invest heavily in public-private partnerships and seek to reform outdated regulatory constraints burdening the sector. With this investment and reform, maybe we will finally realize the promise of nuclear energy, and maybe we will finally see energy too cheap to meter.
We must honor the commitments we have made to hard-working Americans, but we must give a new generation new options Investment provides retirement security. Our Social Security retirement system is on the verge of collapse; to save it, we must change it Social Security will collapse Few other topics seem to cause more fear in politicians than Social Security. The reason for that is because people quite literally depend on it, but, not only that, people have earned it by paying into it. Politicians are scared to talk about reforming it because they’re scared that people will be scared of losing it. FDR had something to say about that kind of fear. The reality of Social Security is that inaction is the absolute worst course of action. Since 2010, payroll taxes have not been enough to cover Social Security benefits; that means that the surplus built up over years past has to be drained in order to keep sending checks to retirees. By 2034, or now sooner, the trust fund will be depleted. If nothing is done, the Social Security system will not have enough to pay out what retirees are owed. Inaction, not action, should be cause for worry. The design of the system is terrible Social Security has become a de facto retirement scheme, but it is a terribly constructed one. For one, we have demonstrated that it is indeed not secure, in any sense, but is completely vulnerable to something so probable as political inaction or gridlock. One of the bigger problems, though, is that it also provides a terrible return. With normal investments and savings, people set aside money to use later. When that money is set aside, it grows, because it is invested appropriately in things like stocks and bonds that earn at least a decent rate of return. This is not what happens to the Social Security dollars that are taken from taxpayers. Those dollars go directly into the pockets of beneficiaries, right away, without any time to grow. It’s true that any surplus was placed in a trust fund, but that trust fund invests entirely in U.S. Treasury securities, which provide extremely low returns. Furthermore, the trust fund will be depleted by 2034 or earlier, meaning that Social Security dollars will experience zero growth before being used by beneficiaries. Contrast this with how you would normally invest a dollar for retirement. That normally invested dollar would have decades to grow in the stock and bond markets, meaning that it would be substantially larger by the time you were going to use it. The Social Security retirement system completely destroys that growth, and for absolutely no tradeoff. People need a better option In the late 1990’s, president Bill Clinton proposed investing funds in the Social Security trust fund into the stock market. The goal was to use the higher returns from the stock market to allow the program to remain solvent through the baby boomer retirement. Republicans and others were concerned that this would give the federal government too much power to influence the securities market, so they countered with a proposal to allow individuals to place a portion of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. President Clinton countered with a proposal that would give every American an equal amount of money to invest in private investment accounts. Unfortunately, none of these proposals succeeded. If they had, the Social Security system would not be doomed to fail at this point. Either personal account option would have been beneficial, and the past dialogue proves that both Republicans and Democrats understand that. There are only three options for Social Security Social Security will fail, unless we do something. The only three options are to either raise taxes, cut benefits, or switch to personal accounts. Raising taxes would be disastrous for our economy and cutting benefits would be immoral. Both of those options also overlook the simple fact that Social Security stupidly robs people of any chance of earning even a moderate return on their retirement investment, meaning it will always require people to pay in more now to get out less than they could later. Private accounts fix these issues. They allow people to earn a good rate of return on their investment, they allow people to control their investment, they would ensure that everyone would have a safe and secure retirement, they would give people more money at retirement than the current system, and they would allow people to pass along their unused savings to the next generation. FAQ’s How would this work? There are many ways to approach private retirement accounts, but the general concept would be that working Americans, or even simply every American, would be able to invest in the equity and bond markets instead of being forced to pay into a low-return Social Security scheme. The amount for investing could be diverted from their payroll taxes for Social Security, or it could be provided in equal amounts by the government, as with president Clinton’s proposal. It could either entirely replace the Social Security retirement plan, or supplement it. This will all be influenced by the transition process and could be influenced by other potential factors, like tax reform or the implementation of a negative income tax. Aren't private investments accounts risky? It is true that equity investments carry more risk than bonds, and most bonds carry more risk than Treasury Bills, but this risk can be mitigated in many ways. Original private account proposals suggested allowing only investment in relatively stable and secure index funds. We could also require that investment mixes switch to more stable assets as individuals move closer to retirement, protecting them against the risk of short-term market downturns. Ultimately, though, even in worst-case scenarios, research shows that market investment always produces greater returns than Social Security. How could we make this transition? There will be a transition period, and it will likely be one which requires an internal deficit in the system along with a sort of transition tax. The reason for this is that many Americans have already paid a great deal into the Social Security system and are nearing retirement. There simply wouldn’t be enough time move these people to private accounts. Everyone who has paid into Social Security will be entitled to receive exactly what they would expect to receive from the system as if we change nothing. This ensures fairness and stability. Younger Americans would be the ones who would primarily be enrolled in private accounts and who should expect them to be the dominant source of their retirement income over Social Security. Why do so many politicians talk about privatizing social security as if it's bad? As a general rule of thumb, political talking points shouldn’t be taken at face value. Modern Democrats always favor bigger government and higher taxes, even though those two things have been proven to be ineffective and destructive, and that is exactly what they will get if we do not reform Social Security. Talking about “privatizing” as a bad thing is just a way to frighten voters, and thus Republican politicians, and they have so far been successful with that. When rational Americans examine the issue objectively, however, the benefits of Social Security reform will be undeniable. What about disability insurance? This plan does not impact disability insurance. That will remain a separate and necessary program. Social Security reform will certainly alleviate some pressures on that program, but it will not directly alter it in any way.
Life is sacred, and innocent life must be protected; there are compassionate approaches to limiting abortions Life is precious. We have an obligation to protect the most innocent of life, but that’s just the beginning Abortion isn’t about pro-life or pro-choice As a society we must take collective stands against things which do not comport with our values. One of these values is the protection of innocent life. Unrestricted abortion is an afront to that. Supporting common-sense restrictions on abortion isn’t about restricting a woman’s right to make her own health chocies. The fact is, protecting an innocent life takes precedence over personal choices. This is true in every case of murder. The only way someone is ever able to justify taking someone else’s life is because, if they didn’t, their life would be in jeopardy. Extreme psychological pain, physical discomfort, financial trouble, verbal abuse, fear, convenience; nothing justifies an individual taking another human life, except if it is for the preservation of their own. Understanding this logic reveals how intentionally misleading the argument about restricting a woman’s right to a healthcare choice truly is. The only real debate is about when life actually begins. The question about when life begins is admittedly a challenging one for a secular government to tackle. What we can conclude, and what we can fight for, is further restrictions. The United States currently ranks among the countries with the most permissive abortion regulations, allowing elective abortion beyond 20 weeks gestation, in the company with the likes of China and North Korea. The more common limitation of elective abortions is 12 weeks. We should fight for a national standard here that brings our practices more in line with international norms. This would be a reasonable starting point for bringing the procedure into a more sensible place in our society. Something as serious and with such grave moral implications as abortion should never be used as a carefree form of birth control. Limiting elective abortions could be an important first step in changing our society’s view of children, marriage, and personal responsibility. However, we have an obligation to remain compassionate in our approach. Health care reform will be necessary to ensure no mother has financial worries caused by her and her baby’s medical care. The government should also make efforts to support private organizations that offer supportive services to young mothers or mothers who wish to place a baby up for adoption. Education, above all else though, is the greatest tool we have to lower the number of abortions. Roughly 75% of abortion patients are poor or low-income. The objective of reasonable abortion restrictions is not to punish anyone, it is to protect innocent life that has no voice yet, and it is to hopefully help shift our collective perspective as to the importance of life, marriage, responsibility, and commitment. Term Limits Politicians will do whatever it takes to remain in office and hold on to their careers; we must amend the Constitution Term limits will restore our democracy. The cause of all inaction and bad policy is the desire for politicians to remain in office The wrong influence creates the wrong policies and wrong climate Congress does not work. Politicians can’t seem to pass basic, common-sense legislation that a majority of Americans would support. Congress enjoys approval ratings barely in the double digits, yet the incumbent reelection rate is over 90%. This discrepancy highlights the misalignment with what politicians must do to get elected and what they must do in order to do a good job. Politicians will do what it takes to get elected. Sometimes that lines up with what is best for the country, but sometimes, oftentimes, perhaps most of the time, it does not. Instead of just doing what is right, which is something most reasonably competent people should be able to deceren, politicians look at things like polling, what big donors are interested in, or what prominent figures might back them or reject them. Too often all of these calculations get computed at the party level and members of Congress are just expected to toe the line. Any argument for campaign finance reform fails to realize that term limits would accomplish so much more. The only reason donors and special interests have power over any candidate is because of what they can do to them in the next election. If there isn’t a next election, they have no power. Term limits would mean new and fresh ideas coming to congress. It would mean that politicians could focus exclusively on doing what’s right for the country, not what they calculate gives them the best chances of reelection. It would mean that committed citizens would be representing all of us in Washington, not career politicians. Term limits should be the absolute highest priority for the United States Congress.
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution; we can protect both American lives and liberties We can protect freedom and lives. Protecting the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean we throw out common sense Freedom over security, but both when you can have it Gun ownership is a federally afforded constitutional right, so it should be a federally protected and managed one. Too many states and localities have passed restrictive and conflicting gun control measures, with some being sensible and others being too restrictive or ineffective. We need a national standard to protect the right to own weapons, but also balance that right with common-sense safety measures. Every American who isn’t a criminal or suffering from certain mental illnesses should have the ability to own a weapon. Universal background check requirements and fixing the patchwork of laws across the country would go a long way to ensure this, and that has the support of nearly three-quarters of Republicans. We must protect the right to keep and bear arms, but we can also help protect innocent life from gun violence. This is a sensible position for the Republican Party and for every American.
We spend billions on massive institutions with little to show for it; knowledge can be syndicated for a tiny fraction of the cost College is important, but we can do better. We should prioritize innovative ways to bring a college education to everyone, for less College is expensive for the wrong reasons A college education is critically important for many Americans. Some estimates suggest that over 60% of jobs require some form of college degree, and that number is only expected to rise. As automation quickly displaces low-skilled labor, higher education will become even more necessary. But, are we doing college education right? College is expensive for many reasons, but it shouldn’t be. Federal loan subsidies have drastically increased the demand for college and thus the cost. Colleges invest heavily in things that don’t actually provide any real educational benefit. Massive facilities, beautiful fountains on campus grounds, rock climbing walls, indoor pools, athletic centers, and magnificent dining halls all serve to increase costs and attract students, but they do nothing for improving educational outcomes. We can do college better and for much less. Take most introductory college courses for example, they are usually taught as a seminar course, with the professor lecturing from the front. Students take notes, read the textbook, and complete multiple-choice tests that are graded automatically online or by scanning bubbled-in sheets of paper. Sometimes 150 to 300 students fill these auditoriums, each at a cost of an average of nearly $1,700, plus fees and room and board. There is no way imaginable that a class like that should cost that much. The lessons could be recorded once and distributed through an online platform side-by-side with textbook material, automated learning checks, and online tutor support, all for a tiny fraction of that sort of cost. Plus, students would be able to work on something like that at their own pace. This type of syndication potential isn’t just limited to traditional seminar classes, but nearly all classes. College courses could be produced in an extremely high quality, virtual format and distributed online for a small fraction of the current cost, perhaps even something as low as $100, $50, or even $30 a course. A college education could be made available to every American, no matter where they live, possibly at their own pace, and at a nearly negligible cost. Standardized tests, like the Advanced Placement tests, could be developed for nearly all courses to ensure adequate evaluation of educational achievement. Through a coordinated national effort, most college degrees could be made available online for every American at a radical cost savings. Degrees that require hands-on practice could utilize community colleges to facilitate those types of lessons. But for the vast majority of degrees, they can be obtained entirely online. Now, it is true that some people may prefer to listen to a live human instructor instead of a well-produced recording of a live human instructor with engaging graphics and visuals (that they could watch and re-watch if something was missed), but the critical point is that if we have the goal of making college available to everyone at a significantly lower cost, if not free, then we must realize that we will not be able to achieve that with the current model of educating college students. We can no longer spend billions of dollars sending young people to expensive colleges when there is a way to achieve the same thing for far, far less. The federal government should lead the effort in the form of direct public-private partnerships to create national standards for every degree from business to computer engineering, construction science to biology, and to create multiple, competing, high-quality online degree programs that could be made available to all Americans at little cost. This new alternative could eventually replace the massive loan subsidies offered to attend expensive universities.
Time is running out, and if we are not first to form a digital currency, we may lose our place as a world economic power The race to a digital currency has begun. A digital currency is the greatest threat to, and opportunity for, the American dollar A global digital currency is inevitable, we have to be first Right now, at least 85% of central banks around the world are experimenting with digital currencies. The European Central Bank plans on launching a digital euro by 2025, and China has already launched a digital yuan. In true modern American fashion, the Federal Reserve is only just now exploring the topic. Their development and use is inevitable, and their private versions are already widespread. It is crucial that the United States takes the lead on this. A central bank digital currency, or CBDC, is simply a blockchain digital dollar backed by the Federal Reserve. Think of it as a secure, electronic dollar with no paper version behind it. Private companies have already been extremely successful with the concept, but it is important that the U.S. dollar moves in this direction as well. For one, if we do not, others will. China is already far ahead of us on this path, and that could spell trouble for the U.S. dollar’s status as the global currency of choice. But more than out of worry, we should pursue a CBDC because of the benefits it could and would offer us. A CBDC would provide more aggregate economic activity data, more transparency, making illegal activity all but impossible with a CBDC, more economic efficiency both in domestic and international transactions, and lower the cost of tax collection on businesses and the taxpayer. There are many approaches we can take to the implantation of a CBDC, and many benefits we can design the CBDC to capture, but we have to get moving on this. Most economic transactions take place electronically already, and the vast majority of wealth is already stored electronically; we need a currency that works better in a modern economy.
Government is wasteful and inefficient, and the Department of Defense is no different; servicemembers deserve better Defense needs a modern approach. Too much efficiency is lost in the defense beaurocracy — we need an updated approach Our servicemembers deserve a better organizational structure The United States military is the most powerful fighting force in human history. The men and women who serve in it are among the bravest and most competent in human history. The defense bureaucracy itself, however, is riddled with all the same problems that a typical government organization suffers from, and our servicemembers and taxpayers deserve better. One major problem facing our military is its organization — not the organization of troops on a battlefield, but the organization of the bureaucracy, the paperwork; the personnel and accounting. The military spends a tremendous amount of time and money on things that it doesn’t need to. For instance, personnel management. The military has thousands and thousands of staff dedicated to doing things that simple computer software can handle better. And regarding computer software, the military’s personnel interface software, from training management to email to payroll and more, is not on any kind of unified system. This creates massive amounts of additional paperwork, confusion, and inaccuracy, which has a real impact on readiness and soldier turnover. The military should prioritize streamlining its bureaucracy and should develop a single, user-friendly software system to manage all personnel and logistics related tasks. This will lead to extreme cost savings, allow the reclassification of certain support functions into combat functions, reduce the need for additional civilian personnel, save money, improve soldier morale, and increase efficiency.
As the party of Lincoln, Republicans have a high bar; we must pursue an honorable, compassionate, and inclusive party The Republican Party is the future. As our nation is at a crossroads, our best hope is a strong political movement committed to America We need a unified political movement that welcomes many There are many opinions about the Republican Party now, but there need not be. The reality is that conservative principles offer the best solutions for our toughest problems — from health care to education; poverty to immigration. The only problem is how this political party communicates, how it chooses to take a stand, and how committed it is to these principles. Take immigration, for example. Republicans have been described as anti-immigrant, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican Party deeply values legal immgration and the contributions of legal immigrants, and it understands that illegal immigration undermines legal immigration and immigrants. Or, take the economy as another example. Republicans aren’t for the rich over the middle class, Republicans are for a strong and free economy where investment thrives, because that is the best case for everyone. But some of these are not just misunderstandings or poor communication, sometimes the Republican Party has failed to not just articulate, but define a clear and effective position. Take health care, for example. The Republican Party spent years chanting “repeal and replace” in response to the Affordable Care Act, but when the time came, the party delivered nothing but a modest repeal which only further exacerbated the problems in our healthcare system. Or, in regards to the environment, voters have no alternative in the Republican Party to the Democrat’s immoderate environmental plan which threatens our very society and does little if anything to solve environmental challenges. It is time that the Republican Party puts forth bold ideas and a clear, conservative vision that actually addresses all the needs of Americans. We must become a party with a big tent, one that is compassionate, and one that is consistently responsive to the needs of Americans. A new generation of Republicans needs to stand up in the party and carry it forward into the future.[2] |
” |
| —Jonathan Simpson's campaign website (2022)[3] | ||
See also
2022 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on February 28, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Jonathan Simpson, “A New Vision,” accessed April 11, 2022
