A Congressman for you, not a political party.
Like so many in this District, I don’t just talk about supporting the troops;
I was the troops.
I own guns.
I worked hard to get where I am.
I am a victim of the Wall Street bankers.

Michael McCaul is;
A multi-millionaire who has never done anything except work the government jobs that his father-in-law got him.
Michael McCaul never served in the military.
Michael McCaul supports almost every piece of legislation that favors the Wall Street bankers.
Michael McCaul was asleep at the switch, allowing the only defense contractor in the district to lose it’s only contract, directly costing the district 3000 good jobs and untold other indirect jobs.

Congress is full of millionaires on the left and millionaires on the right who only do what their party leaders tell them and who have been bought and paid for by special interests. We’ve got to get our country back for regular people.

When I ran for Congress in 2006, I got 40% of the vote spending less than $64,000 — money contributed by the people of this district. Back then, the Austin American-Statesman newspaper endorsed McCaul saying “Ankrum is qualified for the job, but this district was drawn to have a Republican Representative and the people of the District deserve to have a Republican representing them”. Maybe so, but McCaul is now running for his fourth term and he still doesn‘t understand how to look after the people of his district. He is a bad Representative. He is still taking care of the special interests that fund his campaigns, while ignoring the interests of his constituents.

Isn’t it time to send a real patriot to Congress?

Back to top of page

Economy

We are in a deep recession. The economists tell us that the recession is technically over, but that doesn’t mean anything to the millions of people who are out of work. A real recovery means jobs, and that’s where our politicians need to focus.

For Americans to have jobs, we need to make things, and not just provide services to each other. That’s why I supported the bail out and takeover of General Motors. Not because I like GM, but because GM is one of the largest makers of things in America. If it takes temporary government action to oust the hidebound management of GM and get them back on the road to recovery, then so be it. The alternative was the failure of one of our largest manufacturers and employers.

This recession was caused by the big banks and financial institutions that were more interested in developing complex securities and selling them back and forth to each other, than in funding real businesses. The problem there wasn’t hidebound management. It was management that, in an absence of regulation, understood how to make billions in short-term profits, and then have taxpayers assume all the loses when the house of cards fell down.

I don’t blame the bankers for taking advantage of the rules, as they were. That’s their job, after all. I do blame 30 years of deregulation for making these crooked rules. I’m all for competition and free market capitalism, but that only works when the playing field is truly level. For a generation, the field has tilted more and more towards a few crafty individuals, while the rest of us pay the price.

Remember the deregulation frenzy of the 1980’s? It was supposed to bring us a more efficient economy. Instead, we had the huge Savings and Loan scandal. Then, utility deregulation brought us the Enron scandal, and now the great banking bust.

I have a fix for this. If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big to exist. Let’s break them up with better regulations. If bankers want to do stupid things, let them risk their own money, not taxpayers’ money. Michael McCaul has opposed meaningful regulation on the big banks at every step of the way.

Finally, we need to directly employ people to do necessary work, instead of giving out tax cuts in the hope that maybe, somehow, jobs will be created. George Bush gave us a huge tax cut early in his 8-year term; yet private sector job growth went from 2% per year in 2001 to 0% per year in 2009 in almost a straight line (New York Times, Aug 7, 2009), and it’s now negative. Private sector job growth decreased after Ronald Reagan’s personal tax cuts, as well. So, the idea that personal income tax cuts flow through to job growth is demonstrably false. But I do think that cuts in taxes on small business and cuts in employment taxes can produce jobs and I support them. We often hear that the US corporate tax rate of 35% is among the highest in developed nations. In fact, corporation’s lobbyists have bought and paid for so many loopholes, few pay at that rate. I’m all for a flat tax on corporate earnings. Let’s tax them all at the same, and probably lower rate, and end the back room lobbyist-inspired tax deals.

My father was the oldest of 6 children and he went into the CCC before WW II. He got to keep pocket money and the rest was sent home. He built things that we are still using! The WPA built things like bridges to give people jobs during the depression, and then the economic boom of the 50’s used all of that infrastructure. Are all the bridges needing repair being fixed? Are all the water and sewer systems needing improvement being fixed? No. Instead of paying for extensions of unemployment benefits, our tax dollars would be better spent building the infrastructure that we will need in this new century.

And I have a great idea where to get those tax dollars. Let’s tax all those financial transactions that the big banks are doing back and forth with each other, instead of making loans to real businesses. Let’s tax those huge bonuses that bankers are paying to each other for trading with each other, instead of making loans to real businesses. If they can’t make loans to real businesses that will employ people, then let’s tax them and fund jobs for real people. Michael McCaul has opposed every effort at directly stimulating new jobs, while opposing anything that would make the big bankers go back to the job bankers were always supposed to be doing — making loans to real American businesses.

Back to top of page

Health Care

In the 2006 Campaign I advocated a single-payer system for Universal Health Care. We all share the costs associated with Health Care anyway, may as well pay for it directly and with a lot more efficiency. The most efficient route would have been to allow a gradual method for employers and individuals to purchase coverage from one of the most efficient carriers around today, Medicare.

In the current political climate however this could not and did not happen.

The Health Care Reform bill that passed pushed up the time line for the long looming and drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates to primary doctors, physicians, specialists, for profit systems and rural non-profit hospitals alike. Private insurance carriers all base their rate of reimbursement on what Medicare pays. So in the midst of a recession, with rising costs of doing business and the medical industries own health care insurance costs rising this reform bill has placed greater stress on health care providers; your doctors, clinics, hospitals and specialists that we all rely on.

We needed a starting point however and it’s a good beginning. In Congressional District 10 the Health Care Reform bill will:

My opponent, Congressman McCaul voted against Health Care Reform and criticized the requirement for everyone to have health insurance. What he and others don’t understand is that we all pay for everyone’s health insurance whether we like it or not. We cannot disregard the $522 million of Harris County property taxes that went to the Harris County Hospital District to pay for other people’s care or ignore the $64 million collected by the Travis County Hospital District to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured there.

We all carry the burden of these costs. It’s no different than the requirement to have auto liability insurance.

You pay for insurance when you don’t need it, so that you aren’t bankrupted when you do.

We can lower the costs of health care by improving access to clinics, pediatricians, family practitioners and rural hospitals. Preventative care is not only more affordable, but it keeps our kids, parents and us out of the emergency room and lowers the costs for everyone.

The recently passed legislation continues to rely on a system with many private health insurers. Therefore the next Congress will have to carefully monitor the private health insurers to prevent them from evading the regulations in the reform. If not, employees will see fewer pay increases, higher deductibles and employers will continue to see their health care costs rise.

The backbone of our health care insurance is being provided through our employers. This is an accident of WWII. There was a labor shortage and the government put in wage controls to keep the “Arsenal of Democracy” affordable. Companies started to compete for scarce labor with fringe benefits and today’s health care insurance system began.

That was sustainable then, but not in today’s globalized economy; most industrialized countries provide universal health care paid for through government taxes, while American companies health insurance costs are passed on to the consumer. General Motors says that $2000 of the cost of every car they make goes to employee health insurance. That’s $2000 that foreign carmakers pocket at a disadvantage to American car manufacturers.

We’ve got to find a way to adapt our private health insurance system in a way that the costs of health care insurance isn’t placed on the backs of our companies. The future of many, many American jobs depends on this. The passage of the health care bill at this juncture in history is a good thing for the country. In time it will be tested, adjusted and be improved upon to help the greater good of the American people.

My opponent, Congressman McCaul wants to repeal the bill. This begs the question; which part does he want to repeal?

Does he support higher drug prices for the elderly? Insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions? Cancelling tax breaks for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage? Does he want to reinstate the ability of insurance companies to have unlimited profits while cancelling the policies of anyone who gets sick? Or is it just, “No, No. No.”

Mr. McCaul just continues to be “Mr. NO.”

Back to top of page

Energy

We need to reduce our foreign oil imports. It’s a matter of national security.

It’s not just “drill, baby, drill”. I worked in this area at the Department of Energy, so I recognize real solutions. The path to energy independence is to increase our use of renewable sources, such as wind energy, for electricity generation. It’s time to responsibly drill, as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as we transition to other sources.

Texas can lead the nation towards energy independence by requiring a minimum use of appropriate renewable resources. We need to increase the fuel economy of our cars and trucks through hybrid and plug-in technologies, accelerate the introduction of a new generation of safe nuclear power plants to provide the electricity for plug-ins, as well as processes for conversion of natural gas to liquid fuel substitutes for diesel to run our heavy trucks, locomotives, and airplanes.

We need to escalate our work on the clean burning and sequestration of carbon dioxide from coal and increase energy efficiency standards for our appliances and industrial processes.

Sooner or later, oil is going to become more and more expensive to find and extract. We need to prepare for the transition to greener alternatives.

Back to top of page

Terrorism

When I ran for this job in 2006, it wasn’t the Global War on Terror. It was the Iraq War. We now know that Iraq was not harboring Al-Qaeda terrorists and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But we still have Al-Qaeda terrorists. We’re phasing out of Iraq and gearing up in Afghanistan just as the latest attack on the American homeland has come from Yemen and we find that Al-Qaeda has left Afghanistan. I think we are always one war behind because we are focusing on “place” instead of “people”.

It’s supposed to be the Global War on Terrorists, not the Global War on Afghanistan, or the Global War on Pakistan, or the Global War on Yemen. Those countries are, to one extent or another, co operating with us. Somalia or the Sudan is next, and who knows where else. We should be focusing on the terrorists, wherever they are. Al Qaeda consists, in the main, of several hundred hard core terrorists in each of a handful of countries. It’s operational elements are based where the national governments are either non-existent, like Somalia, or where the local government has little sway, like the tribal areas in Pakistan or Yemen.

We fight these terrorists with Predator unmanned aircraft and highly mobile and deadly Special Forces, like the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s SEALS. Sending four-star generals with tens of thousands of troops to a country to fight Al Qaeda is like swatting gnats with a sledgehammer, and equally effective. Our conventional forces are not geared to hunt down a few hundred terrorists. Armies have always been intended to either occupy, or threaten to occupy, enemy territory. Al Qaeda doesn’t have territory, only hideouts. Our Army resolved Gulf War I because it was a war to liberate an invaded country, Kuwait. Our Army in Afghanistan is mostly fighting the Taliban–an indigenous Afghan and largely Pashtun tribal group that mostly just wants the US out of Afghanistan. What Al Qaeda we do fight are crossing the border from Pakistan, and going back–just like the North Vietnamese Army did in South Vietnam from Cambodia.

I don’t care who runs Afghanistan, as long as they are not providing a safe haven for Al Qaeda. And it breaks my heart that US troops are dying to prop up a corrupt government and feudal warlords, when it doesn’t seem to be getting at Al Qaeda. Given that they have this Tribal Chief/Warlord system, why don’t we do things the Afghan way and buy the Warlords? It’ll be a lot cheaper than the current cost of a million dollars per year per U.S. trooper in Afghanistan. We need to get away from this idea of sending tens of thousands of US troops to fight the indigenous populations of countries where Al Qaeda used to be. Send troops if countries need them to train their local forces, but make clear they are not there to be part of a civil war.

Lets make this a Special Forces war. Al Qaeda is a rag-tag bunch of terrorists not deserving of the status of being called “combatants” and tying up tens of thousands of US troops.

Back to top of page

Global Warming

I think Global Warming falls into the Cheney 1% paradigm. If something has even a 1% chance of happening, but the consequences are devastating, we are obligated to act. Vice President Cheney was actually referring to the chance of a terrorist getting a nuke, but the principle is the same. So how do we act? Limit worldwide production of greenhouse gases. A Global treaty seems to be out of reach, mainly because of the intransigence of China and India. Our President is working on a plan independently of a Global treaty and the focus seems to be on “Cap and Trade”.

Cap and Trade violates my maxim of “keep it simple“. It also is a wonderful vehicle for Congress to hand out special favors. I like the very simple carbon tax, but I’ll sign on to cap and trade with two wrinkles. First, the “carbon use permits” should be sold at auction and all of the proceeds rebated to American taxpayers with an annual check. The State of Alaska has a royalty on all oil production in the State. Those royalties are distributed back to the residents of Alaska by check, each year. So, the people that are paying the ultimate cost of the carbon tax through price increases get the money back each year. I would have suggested the same for a carbon tax.

Secondly, an import tariff should be added to the imports of any country not reducing carbon emissions by an amount equal to the cost incurred by American industry to reduce theirs. This levels the playing field so that any country not doing their part in reducing carbon emissions doesn’t gain any advantage. Use the proceeds of the tariff to pay down the national debt.

If we can’t do either of these, then we need to mandate increased fuel efficiency for our cars, appliances, and industrial practices. We need to increase the mandates for renewable energy use in generating electricity across the country, just as Texas has done. This will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Back to top of page

Equality

A small word for such a big topic. Equality is often thought of as the American way, but oh, how often we have fallen short. It took a civil war to abolish slavery. It took a Constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote. It took an act of Congress to give women access to regulations enforcing equal pay for equal work. And still today, we have state and federal laws denying our citizens equal protection under the law because of sexual orientation. I have a personal interest in this. Our oldest son, who has given permission to be cited, lives with his partner in a civil union in New Jersey.

In the days when Church law governed much of civil life in the west, marriage sanctified the rights and obligations of marriage partners. As time has passed, establishment and enforcement of the legal rights and obligations of civil life has moved to secular bodies. Through his civil union, the State of New Jersey has conferred a set of legal obligations and entitlements to our son and his partner which are equal to those of persons with a sanctified marriage, although he and his partner still aren’t able to participate in the 1100 or more rights and obligations granted to heterosexual married couples at the federal level. This is the natural evolution of a civil society which sees its role as preserving the well being of its citizens.

I believe, as do many other American citizens, in the separation of Church from matters of State and vice versa. For that reason, I believe it is vitally important to stress that the issue at hand is in the civil institution of marriage, which is far different from the religious institution. Just as all Americans should be allowed to participate fully in every aspect of citizenry, religious institutions should and will continue to choose the relationships they wish to join together in their faith’s religious marriages. The repeal of DOMA will have no impact on church’s rights to express their faith as they deem fit.

DOMA serves no useful public purpose, and is an unnecessary interference in the private lives of our citizens. I favor its repeal and I will favor all legislation which furthers equality among our citizens.

Back to top of page