John Callahan, Charlie Dent and Jake Towne want to represent YOU.
(photo courtesy of Michael Laws)
(photo courtesy of Michael Laws)
Posted by: Noel Jones
It's official--I am a total nerd. As I filed in with other West Ward residents into fourth row center seats in the Oeschle Hall auditorium on Monday night, I got so excited about the impending candidates' debate that I had to breathe on my inhaler. Not a small part of the excitement was that in a normally rather apathetic town where local politics is concerned, the foyer to the auditorium had been packed half an hour before the doors opened, with citizens feverishly scribbling their questions for the candidates on the white cards handed out by volunteers from The League of Women Voters, who hosted the event along with the College Hill Neighborhood Association. Not only did the auditorium fill up immediately, but so did the overflow room, where I hear that residents, rather than leaving, patiently waited it out while the hosts ironed out technical difficulties. Perhaps this means that things are finally getting bad enough for citizens that engaging in one's democratic process is gradually bumping up the list of priorities for the average American? Somebody catch me, I'm swooning.
Once I stopped wheezing and the forum got underway, I whipped out my laptop and managed to take down this very loose attempt at transcription:
----------
Callahan comes out swinging. Says he’s balanced budgets and reduced debt in Bethlehem. Says Dent has driven us further into debt via supporting Wall Street bailouts.
Dent says the issue is jobs. Says Callahan supported Stimulus Bill, which hasn’t succeeded in creating enough jobs. Private sector must drive recovery.
Towne says while Dent was in office debt increased. While Callahan was in office they had $800K in debt. Towne is against all bail-outs. Says Callahan has stated that he would have supported the Wall Street bailout. He [Towne] will donate the majority of his salary to
nonprofits, and challenges his opponents to do the same.
- Hydrofracking for natural gas—will you support moratorium until studies are done?
Callahan—we have to include natural gas in our energy solutions. It needs more study, regulation and oversight. Says he understand the need for clean drinking water. [Did not answer on moratorium]
Dent—we need drilling for jobs. Believes DEP will have capacity to provide oversight. Concerned about the moratorium in the gulf—hurting jobs.
Towne—has asked Dent to co-sponsor the FRAC Act which eliminates the Halliburton Loophole [which has exempted natural gas companies from the Clean Water Act since 2005]. Towne feels it is ultimately a state issue, but that we need to sponsor the FRAC Act in Congress.
- Would you support continuation of research and development tax credits?
Dent—R&D is critical. The Health Care Act is going to create problems for R&D.
Towne—Sorbanes-Oxley Act regulations burden businesses and companies.
Callahan—In favor of R&D tax credit. If we’re going to create jobs, we have to be on the forefront of technology. He has a 5-point jobs plan. Says Dent gives tax credits to corporations who send jobs overseas. Callahan says small businesses are 2/3 of businesses in Lehigh Valley and he’d rather give the tax credit to them.
- Why do you feel that most Americans feel so disconnected or disaffected from their congressional representatives?
Towne—Transparency and accountability is key. If elected he will report every vote he makes and why. Says most candidates don’t do that.
Callahan—Corporate special interest money hurts citizen trust a lot. Says Dent accepts a lot of special interest money, so who is he representing? The Supreme Court decision to allow corporations unlimited contributions is dangerous.
Dent—Says he gets attacked by MoveOn.org, etc. and he doesn’t complain. People are upset when legislation like the Health Care Bill gets rammed through when they don’t approve. That’s why people feel disconnected. "You can’t bad-mouth businesses (corporations) and ask them to create jobs at the same time."
- If elected, will you vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House?
Callahan—“I don’t know who will be running for Speaker when I get there. When I agree with my party, I’ll let them know, and when I disagree with my party, I’ll let them know. Charlie is not running against Nancy Pelosi, he’s running against John Callahan.”
Dent—“Callahan didn’t answer the question. I will vote for Boehner. This is the most important vote that Congress will take. This was a soft ball question and he didn’t answer it. That’s obfuscation.”
Towne—“No, and my campaign is the only campaign that doesn’t take money from PACs.”
- Beyond block grants and Section 8, how can the federal government help cities such as Easton to retain its more affluent residents and businesses?
Dent—Says he supported brownfields law that got Bethlehem Steel site ready for development again, as well as funding for Easton’s Silk Mill and Larry Holmes Drive projects.
Towne—The best way to support business is to cut taxes.
Callahan—“I have experience in this as Mayor and City Councilman. The federal government can play an important role by providing federal money for police officers to make cities safer so that they are more attractive to businesses and residents.”
- Which entitlements would you vigorously seek to eliminate?
Towne--1/3 of money going to Social Security and Medicare and 1/3 to Defense. He will not cut Social Security or Medicare but would seek to cut Defense spending and military aid.
Dent—We are going to have to find ways of shoring up Medicare. The new Health Care Bill created a new entitlement for people not qualified for Medicare. Says he would privatize Social Security. Re: Defense—he voted “against the F22s.”
Callahan—He will not cut Social Security. 4th point of his 5 point plan addresses Social Security. Says he's in favor of zero bailouts and freezing spending. “Necessity is the mother of invention and we will see innovation if we cut waste. We need to go back to pay-as-you-go.” Says he will not vote for anything that is not paid for. Says Dent has voted against pay-as-you-go.
- What is your opinion of the renewal of the Bush tax cuts?
Callahan—roll them back for everyone but the wealthiest 2%.
Towne—in favor of the abolishment of income tax. The printing of money makes income tax unnecessary.
Dent—Pay-go leads to permanent taxes. Bush tax cuts should be extended for all. Says this is a massive tax increase on the small business sector of America. It will affect the economy and jobs. “We can’t ask companies to create jobs and then tax them so they can’t create jobs.”
- Do you defend the imperfect rescue of Wall Street, since bailouts also saved 401Ks, etc.
Dent—“We had to stop the panic. The credit markets were contracting. The infrastructure was at risk.” Says if the electrical power grid were at risk, you would expect the government to step in.
Towne—Does not support bailouts. Says we would not have gone into chaos if the banks were allowed to fail. Private industries must be allowed to fail. The real root of the crisis is spending.
Callahan—Says Dent was part of the congress that deregulated Wall Street, and voted against curbing CEO bonuses, and Dent has accepted hundreds of thousands of campaign donations from Wall Street firms.
- How do you feel about the drawdown of troops and deadline for complete withdrawal from Iraq?
Towne—In favor of pulling all troops home, and he will not approve one dollar for military spending and nation-building in foreign countries.
Dent—The drawdown and goal of leaving 50,000 troops are actually the residual plan of Bush administration. On bailouts—Says Geitner already has the authority to curb bonuses and won’t do it.
Callahan—“We need to make these decisions based on the recommendations of the generals.”
- In the past decade, both Dem and Rep majorities have seen the increase of debt and deficits to record levels. What would you do to correct that?
Callahan—Says Clinton left us with a surplus. Says he [Callahan] has a 5 point plan and has reduced debt in Bethlehem.
Towne—We cannot spend beyond our means. The government doesn’t understand this because they can print money. Congressmen make over double the median American income.
Dent—Bethlehem has an $8.5 mil deficit. We should cancel unspent Stimulus funds and cap discretionary federal spending to a pre-Stimulus level. He is in favor of a presidential line item veto to eliminate waste. We need to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- What will encourage job growth?
Dent—wants to give a 20% tax break to small businesses. Index the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Don’t raise the capital gains tax. We need a progressive trade policy—one that opens opportunities for our manufacturers and farmers. Bi-lateral trade agreements are important.
Towne—governments don’t create jobs, people do. Says we need to look at labor laws, regulatory laws and tax laws. End affirmative action. Temporary tax holiday. Government has 22.8 million employees—all paid by the taxpayer. FDIC is now bankrupt, and the government is printing money to fill the hole.
Callahan—He has a 5 point plan. Brought 5,000 new jobs to the city. Cut $60 mil in debt. Wants to close loop-holes on large corporations who are shipping our jobs overseas. Take the proceeds and give it to businesses hiring new employees in America. Money to community colleges to train the unemployed.
- Do you support same-sex marriage and federal funding stem cell research?
Callahan—yes and yes.
Dent—no and yes.
Towne—yes and no.
[I put the laptop away for closing arguments] Callahan emphasized that as a Mayor, he knows and represents Main Street. Dent humbly asked for the vote, and said he wants to represent us, not Wall Street. Towne said: "Your parties have failed for you. You may think that voting for me is to throw your vote away, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Nothing could be farther from the the truth."
-------------
Excuse the paraphrasing--my typing skills are decent, but not fast enough for real time transcription. Hopefully this is helpful to those who missed the forum. So, what do you think?
33 comments:
Dear Noel -
Thanks for writing this post, it is a pretty decent summary. I have a lot more info at my website, http://towneforcongress.com
If you can embed youtubes, I posted it here http://towneforcongress.com/economy/debate-video-footage/
If you have any further questions for me, please do not hesitate to ask - jaketowne AT gmail dot com or 610-392-8156.
Thanks for posting, Jake. And also thanks for attending the screening of GASLAND at the Bethlehem film festival and being the only candidate to publish a position paper on a campaign website. It is nice to see that at least one of our candidates for Congress is taking the hyrdrofracking issue and how it may impact the drinking water of 15 million people, as well as property rights/values of residents, seriously. It takes guts to stand up against Big Gas and ask for a moratorium so that we can complete studies on health risks before permitting more drilling for natural gas in the Delaware and Lehigh Watersheds.
It's also really nice to have a candidate reaching out into a public forum to engage with residents so that they can get to know him better--thanks again!
Re: hydrofracking--this just in from Karen Feridun of GasTruth:
Josh Fox, director of the award-willing documentary Gasland about the consequences of natural gas drilling, has just confirmed with me that he will keynote at the Pennsylvania Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living Festival in Kempton this Friday, September 17, at 6 p.m. just prior to a screening of his film. We have very little time to get the word out, so please feel free to forward this to your lists.
The talk and screening will take place on the Main Stage of the festival grounds located at 82 Community Drive, Kempton, PA 19529. Admission to the festival is $12/adults, $6/12-18, and free to those under 12.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 610-678-7726.
Thanks!!!!
Karen
The debate will be televised on RCN channel 97 tonight at 8:30 PM. You can also watch it online at 8:30 PM at the website below.
http://www.pcntv.com/streaming/streaming.html
Thanks, Alan!
I am copying and pasting a reader's comment below, that was recently posted on an old post about the debate--this from Ryan Champlin--so that it can be part of the ongoing conversation:
Candidate Towne's positions are definitely interesting. I like where he stands on the Hydrofracking issue, and I can understand the income tax abolishment as long as it is replaced by some other type of funding; but in general, his positions are way too extreme and not realistic.
For example, he wants to not only get rid of our social safety nets while also abolishing any security that workers have with wages and benefits (no minimum wage, no workman's comp, no unions). So, when businesses start paying their workers $4 an hour again, what are we going to do with all of our homeless and starving people? I'm sorry, but that is a position that only rich people can support and thrive under. The remaining 97% of us have to worry about the rich people that we are at the mercy of.
And without federal funding for education, guess what happens? Suburban schools continue to get better and urban schools continue to get worse. Schools have to be funded somehow, and if they are only tied to local property taxes and perhaps some state funding (though why is state funding any better than federal?), then the areas with the largest and most valuable properties (often the outer suburbs) will have the funding and the distressed areas will not. Under this proposal, I doubt any schools in the West Ward, and maybe not in Easton city limits, would have the funding to operate.
These are pie-in-the-sky, ultra-conservative fiscal proposals that sound good in theory but are devastating in reality. I'm sure Mr. Towne is a good person and means well, but I don't even want to think about what the Lehigh Valley could become under his proposed representation.
September 16, 2010 1:02 PM
-----
Jake, if you'r out there, this might be a golden opportunity to elaborate on some of your suggestions. Since they are not the sort of suggestions that most voters are used to hearing, it was your comments that spurred the most conversation at the local pub immediately following the debate...people are curious to know more about how such ideas could work. Ryan makes some good points here...
I am copying and pasting a reader's comment below, that was recently posted on an old post about the debate--this from Ryan Champlin--so that it can be part of the ongoing conversation:
Candidate Towne's positions are definitely interesting. I like where he stands on the Hydrofracking issue, and I can understand the income tax abolishment as long as it is replaced by some other type of funding; but in general, his positions are way too extreme and not realistic.
For example, he wants to not only get rid of our social safety nets while also abolishing any security that workers have with wages and benefits (no minimum wage, no workman's comp, no unions). So, when businesses start paying their workers $4 an hour again, what are we going to do with all of our homeless and starving people? I'm sorry, but that is a position that only rich people can support and thrive under. The remaining 97% of us have to worry about the rich people that we are at the mercy of.
And without federal funding for education, guess what happens? Suburban schools continue to get better and urban schools continue to get worse. Schools have to be funded somehow, and if they are only tied to local property taxes and perhaps some state funding (though why is state funding any better than federal?), then the areas with the largest and most valuable properties (often the outer suburbs) will have the funding and the distressed areas will not. Under this proposal, I doubt any schools in the West Ward, and maybe not in Easton city limits, would have the funding to operate.
These are pie-in-the-sky, ultra-conservative fiscal proposals that sound good in theory but are devastating in reality. I'm sure Mr. Towne is a good person and means well, but I don't even want to think about what the Lehigh Valley could become under his proposed representation.
September 16, 2010 1:02 PM
Jake, if you'r out there, this might be a golden opportunity to elaborate on some of your suggestions. Since they are not the sort of suggestions that most voters are used to hearing, it was your comments that spurred the most conversation at the local pub immediately following the debate...people are curious to know more about how such ideas could work. Ryan makes some good points here...
Noel,I am a strong supporter of Jake's and really believe in this guy. I worked the night shift and haven't read anything but the local media nonsense.You did a great job with the paraphrasing,I got exactly what I felt was the truth. The media loves The Chuckie,and Cally Show,Jerry Springer could get these guys on if the money was there, Jake is a straight up dude and You covered that in a honest,open minded, unbiased way. Thanks for filling the void for the truth seekers....
Thanks for reposting Noel. I look forward to Mr. Towne's comments.
isthatfunnny--thanks! I'm glad i could offer something a little bit different--especially if it's useful to voters and engages them in the election--this is not your average mid-term, and this race is really key to the whole picture of what our congress is going to looking like after Nov. 2nd...i think our area is going to be getting a lot of attention over this race during October...
most people i've talked to are very frustrated with the2-party system, but for an Independent to have a real shot, he's got to have crystal clear rationale for what are unusual suggestions to voters--he will have to engage a lot with regular people who are genuinely curious to get his message across. i think Jake currently has about 4% of the vote right now, but he's proven that he's engaging in a forum situation, and he will really need to engage the public on the ground through personal connection to grow that percentage--reaching out on blogs is one way to do that. speaking forums are even better--i think the next one will be at the state--i will post about when i find out.
there are states that have Independent reps in Congress--i think Vermont and Wisconsin are two--but 4% is a tough starting line and he will have to really engage the people if he wants a real shot at this. one thing going for him is that activists on the right and left are upset about the hydrofracking issue--the potential to lose property rights and property value to Big Gas, and drinkable public water...
I was unaware any more comments were made here, I'll work to address a subject at a time, and, I will add, all very good questions!!
"I can understand the income tax abolishment as long as it is replaced by some other type of funding;"
Well the federal income tax collected about $1 trillion dollars last year.
Our foreign policy costs close to $1.5 trillion per year, mainly military funding as highlighted in the "Guns or Health Care?" article below (I prefer healthcare :)
The stimulus plan of 2009 (which didn't work, as I predicted even before it was approved) cost $1.1 trillion, and the Banker Bailout cost close to a trillion when interest on the debt is accounted for.
So, my answer is if taxpayers WANT to keep funding over 760 military bases in 150 of the world's 194 countries, and WANT to keep bailing out insolvent banks, and WANT to keep plenty of ineffective and redundant departments, then yes, I'll agree we would need an taxation of some sort.
I am leery of flat tax and fairtax proposals as they are supposed to be "revenue-neutral" but its all too easy to see the gov't using such a change to increase taxes, but I would consider these options if people were OK with them and they result in an overall decrease in taxation, esp for the poor and middle class.
It's also impossible that the current Congress would approve of such a thing, but please understand me - 50% of Americans who pay income tax ONLY provide 3% of the revenue. This DOES NOT MEAN they are lightly taxed, and it would be insanely easy to remove the income tax for 50% of all Americans - wouldn't that be great?
Here is my Income Tax plank where I focus that the tax itself is 1) immoral and 2) unnecessary
http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/income-tax/
On military spending figures
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/guns-or-health-care/
On military bases figures
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/americas-military-empire
Also, anyone can contact my campaign at towneforcongress@gmail.com or 610-392-8156 with questions.
"For example, he wants to not only get rid of our social safety nets while also abolishing any security that workers have with wages and benefits (no minimum wage, no workman's comp, no unions)."
Some of my positions from my jobs plank are misunderstood. I do support workman's comp, unions, but they should all be voluntary and optional and not forced.
In the case of workman's comp, the typical worker could
1) enlist in the current program
2) take the 1.5% of pay and shop for workman's comp from another (poss. cheaper) provider
3) take the 1.5% of pay home and buy food/clothing/shelter or really anything they wish.
Just so it's clear, I absolutely defend the right of voluntary unions to exist.
On the minimum wage, if you will humor me, first off if the federal minimum wage is removed, nothing will change in PA since the state minimum wage is the same. What is so bad about allowing the states to decide? Now, removing the minimum wage is something that Congress would not support, but even reducing it slightly would alleviate all the unemployment currently out there.
If you think an area - to use a real-life situation - like American Samoa can support a minimum wage of $7.25/hr, that's fine, but the fact is they CANNOT economically sustain this - anyone can ask a lot of unemployed cannery workers there and find I am correct.
The most common rebuttal in support of minimum wage laws is that if you make less than minimum wage, you can’t sustain yourself. However, you must disperse the bad logic around minimum wage laws – the law really says its better for someone to be unemployed and paid nothing rather than be “exploited” and paid less than $7.25 an hour. Likewise, if raising minimum wage secures better jobs, why not raise it to $12 or $20 an hour?
Obviously, minimum wage laws can only increase unemployment.
This labor exploitation theory came from Karl Marx, the founder of communism, and completely overlooks the fact that there is no coercion in a market-based contract – an individual can just as easily decide not to accept less then $7.25 an hour by their own choice. Again, it is a question of mutual benefit for both the firm and the worker.
An individual can decide if they are willing to mow lawns or wash dishes for $5 an hour, tutor adults in the evenings or home school a friend’s child for a token $2 an hour, or sell a firm’s goods just for commission. A CEO should be able to decide to work for $1 a year if he believes he will turn around the firm and receive compensation later. A student or aspiring actor should be able to work a dream internship or prospective theater role for free – or even pay the firm to provide the opportunity – since they believe it will lead to greater opportunities later on.
Supporters of the minimum wage should also note the dramatic 41% rise in the minimum wage from July 2007 to July 2009 coincides with the rapid loss of American jobs.
A minimum wage is only sustainable if it happens to be above the market rate for labor - when its greater then the market rate, it becomes a job-killer.
Note that I write about the employer-employee contract - there is nothing forced here. http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/jobs/
A free labor market will result in the highest # of jobs at the highest possible wages.
Note that I write about the employer-employee contract - there is nothing forced here. http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/jobs/
A free labor market will result in the highest # of jobs at the highest possible wages.
This labor exploitation theory came from Karl Marx, the founder of communism, and completely overlooks the fact that there is no coercion in a market-based contract – an individual can just as easily decide not to accept less then $7.25 an hour by their own choice. Again, it is a question of mutual benefit for both the firm and the worker.
An individual can decide if they are willing to mow lawns or wash dishes for $5 an hour, tutor adults in the evenings or home school a friend’s child for a token $2 an hour, or sell a firm’s goods just for commission. A CEO should be able to decide to work for $1 a year if he believes he will turn around the firm and receive compensation later. A student or aspiring actor should be able to work a dream internship or prospective theater role for free – or even pay the firm to provide the opportunity – since they believe it will lead to greater opportunities later on.
Supporters of the minimum wage should also note the dramatic 41% rise in the minimum wage from July 2007 to July 2009 coincides with the rapid loss of American jobs.
A minimum wage is only sustainable if it happens to be above the market rate for labor - when its greater then the market rate, it becomes a job-killer.
Note that I write about the employer-employee contract - there is nothing forced here. http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/jobs/
A free labor market will result in the highest # of jobs at the highest possible wages.
"So, when businesses start paying their workers $4 an hour again, what are we going to do with all of our homeless and starving people?"
If the rate for labor is too low, well, for starters the businesses will fail as they will not have any customers. Again, this is the fallacy of the Marxian exploitation theory, which doesn't exist in reality unless there is gov't coercion. Employers will competitively price wages where they can make a profit and have the best employees.
Please understand -- firms do not impoverish wage earners/workers, but make it possible for people to BE wage earners. Firms are responsible for the very existence of wages in the production of products for sale. Without firms, the only way in which one could survive would be by means of producing and selling one's own products, namely, as a profit earner. But to produce and sell one's own products, one would have to own one's own land, and produce or have inherited one's own tools and materials. Relatively few people could survive in this way. The existence of firms makes it possible for people to live by SELLING their labor rather than attempting to sell the products of their OWN labor. Thus, between wage earners and firms there is in fact the closest possible harmony of interests, for firms create wages and the ability of people to survive and prosper as wage earners. And if wage earners want a larger relative share for wages and a smaller relative share for profits, they should want more effective and productive firms.
Likewise wages would be competitive and maintained at the highest possible rates -- the only way for the "evil" capitalists to reduce wages would be a monopolized cartel, which is mostly a fiction -- I would even say an impossibility -- if it were not for the massive 22.8 million work force of the gov't and the special benefits offered to "special" corporations.
The current cartels do have to be broken up, but for this to happen, all government has to do is remove the special privileges they unjustly grant to the corporations/lobbyists/Big Ag, Big Pharm, Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, etc.
Today's society is not a matter of selective production for the rich and powerful like medieval Italy or imperial Japan - it's mass production BY the masses FOR the masses. Take a look around and all the cars we drive, iPods, cell phones, etc. these are all available at relatively affordable prices that increase our standard of living not just for the super-rich, but for everyone.
"And without federal funding for education, guess what happens? Suburban schools continue to get better and urban schools continue to get worse. Schools have to be funded somehow, and if they are only tied to local property taxes and perhaps some state funding (though why is state funding any better than federal?), then the areas with the largest and most valuable properties (often the outer suburbs) will have the funding and the distressed areas will not. Under this proposal, I doubt any schools in the West Ward, and maybe not in Easton city limits, would have the funding to operate."
Without federal funding for education, the state, localities, and school districts of Pennsylvania would be better off as they would have more control over their own tax money.
Education is best handled on the local level between parents and teachers. Remember that when a Washington bureaucrat’s authority over the spending of funds is required, it is the child who suffers.
Any discrepancies between local areas could be handled on the state and even local levels. I agree that a property tax-funded school system itself creates the scenario created above.
One of the key questions to ask oneself is why are America's private universities still world-renown while the public K-12 system keeps regressing vs the rest of the world?
My beliefs are simple - 1) with colleges, the consumers are allowed to choose and 2) federal mandates on education has the effect of stifling local diversity and choking off competition. What we want is a healthy competition of “50 laboratories” from state-to-state and between local areas, not a universal “one-size-fits-all” education. The more self-rule and autonomy by local communities provides local diversity and overall greater satisfaction for individual families.
As far as the high cost of college, look no further than the government grants (and tremendous student DEBT) to colleges directly and in the form of student loans. While Perkins Loans and Pell Grants for the purpose of college education seem like the greatest invention since sliced bread, their overall effect is to put bureaucrats in charge of the decisions in who receives which loans. Ever hear a parent complain about the cost of their kid’s college tuition? By flooding the market with credit, these government programs lead to colleges to both charge more and also become less efficient on fund allocation.
"These are pie-in-the-sky, ultra-conservative fiscal proposals that sound good in theory but are devastating in reality. I'm sure Mr. Towne is a good person and means well, but I don't even want to think about what the Lehigh Valley could become under his proposed representation."
You are exactly right - just because someone acts with best intentions doesn't mean the results will be beneficial. Like CS Lewis once said:
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
It's also why I am very insistent on my Open Office idea - it will create a check and balance to my office and make me accountable solely to the people. http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/our-open-office-plank/
At the end of the day, some of my ideas are all about localization and eco-political decentralization. I happen to believe people locally will make far better decisions for the residents here than "moral busybodies" in DC.
I am not running for Congress to run your life. I am running to prevent an economic collapse of epic proportions and to make the gov't a servant of the people instead of vice versa.
Slightly off topic, but another of my ideas is here in this piece on social security, which is quite the Ponzi scheme. Wouldn't mind some feedback from the readers here. Please keep in mind that I've promised to cut just about everything in order to maintain the social contract which SocSec is, but everyone needs to realize this program is long-term insolvent, and Medicare is even worse. http://towneforcongress.com/economy/social-security-or-insecurity/
Jake, thanks for posting with such thorough answers to resident questions--I look forward to residents' responses--and possibly more questions. Just so you know, I deleted your 6:07 comment just because it was an accidental duplicate of the comment just before it.
@ Noel - my bad, I was having some serious problems posting for some reason.
All the debt accumulated is already having grievous effects on the economy - if we don't change courses real soon, we are sending our country over a waterfall. Here is a recent post from my website called "The Economy in Pictures"
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/the-economy-in-pictures-2/
Had some pretty funky errors when posting my replies -- sorry for the repeating text.
One mistake I made with the correction in CAPS
A minimum wage is only sustainable if it IS BELOW the market rate for labor - when its greater then the market rate, it becomes a job-killer.
anyone can contact my campaign at towneforcongress@gmail.com or 610-392-8156 with questions.
Another great way to get my attention quickly is this FB page
thanks for the visual aids! this will take a while to digest as i am a slow reader...
I am completely impressed with Jake’s comments. I am grateful that I attended the debate at Lafayette and had the chance to realize there is a “3rd choice” in this next election. I am so sick of the finger pointing back and forth between the republican and the democrat. The whole “you suck at this” oh yeah well “you suck at that”, gets all of us nowhere. Good luck Jake! Hope you are in it for the long run. Unfortunately it takes most people a long time to see the obvious (problems and/or answers). I feel you will gain many more supporters when people start to really listen and then think for themselves, rather than blindly rooting their political “team”.
Jake and Noel, Thanks for a great discussion. Jake's ideas are certainly interesting and thoughtful.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to missing the lesson of the Great Depression and the near collapse of the economy in 2008. Supply-side economics (relying on business to create jobs and general prosperity) only works if there is a reasonable distribution of wealth throughout the populace.
In 1929 and 2008 the economy became so unbalanced, with far too much wealth concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, that the general population didn't have the money to buy the products of the businesses.
Capitalism can only work efficiently if we recognize the interdependence of both the supply and demand sides of the system.
If you want to really support business, you cannot ignore the customers who make them profitable.
Thanks for posting Steve--(fyi-- I deleted your second comment because it was a duplicate).
I am really interested to see if Jake has a solution to offer to the dilemma that you're posing...
"Unfortunately, everyone seems to missing the lesson of the Great Depression and the near collapse of the economy in 2008."
Agreed.
"Supply-side economics (relying on business to create jobs and general prosperity) only works if there is a reasonable distribution of wealth throughout the populace."
Supply-side economic theory does not work, but it's not because Keynesian Paul Krugman once said - somewhat correctly - "supply-siders work for the vast right-wing conspiracy."
Perhaps the simplest (and most convincing!!) way to quickly demonstrate this is a 2006 debate between an Austrian economist (Schiff) and Art Laffer, king of the Keynesian supply-siders.
The Austrian, like it or not, was perfectly correct while Laffer was proven ridiculously wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o&feature=player_embedded
However, I am no Krugman fan. The school of economics I follow is Austrian, not Keynesian.
It might take too long to go into economic theory in a thread here, but supply-siders believes supply (ie production) drives prosperity, but that's ridiculous since if someone makes 100 million Nissan Altimas, it won't make society any wealthier if the demand for that type of car/device/good is exceeded. Human action - and subjective human preferences - drive all economic decisions.
A brief summary of Keynesian vs Austrian economics from my point of view is viewable on slides 47-48 of the below presentation.
"In 1929 and 2008 the economy became so unbalanced,..."
Agreed.
"...with far too much wealth concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, that the general population didn't have the money to buy the products of the businesses."
Here's where I respectfully disagree. The true root cause of the Great Depression - and the current "Greater" Depression if we don't get off the current path - is the massive money-printing and credit expansion of the central bank.
Documentation/summary of the money supply during the 1920s is covered in the middle of this article.
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/bernankes-great-lie-the-gold-standard-and-the-great-depression/
In this campaign presentation, I outline what these massive increases in the money supply create -- inflation, yes, but boom-bust cycles. See slides 36-40 on boom-bust cycles, and slides 47-48 on the differences between Austrian vs Keynesian economics.
http://towneforcongress.com/uploads/files/Campaign%20Presentations/Jake%20Towne%20for%20US%20Congress%20PA-15%20MASTER%20%28Aug%202009%29.pdf
Two other points real quickly - the same monetary/credit expansion that drove the housing boom created massive amounts of mal-investments -- investments incorrectly placed since individuals were acting under a false belief in future economic conditions - that demand would exist in the future, but after the factory/house/car/service is created, the demand is non-existent since there was not enough savings for consumers to consume these goods and services.
Second, the bank-insurance-investment firms were allowed to merge following the removal of Glass-Steagal provisions in 1999. I am definitely in favor of renewing this regulation as it leads to accounting manipulations and moral hazards.
Jake, Thanks for your responses to my post. Certainly inflation was a triggering mechanism in the Depression and is a threat in our current situation. But wasn't it prompted by the same imbalance in wealth distribution that I mentioned.
Inflation acts as an unproductive tax on wealth. An inflation rate of 100% cuts the wealth of the rich (and everybody else) by 50% in one year but doesn't provide resources for the government to support working people when they need it.
If we tax wealth now and use the money to eliminate our deficit, we can prevent the whole inflation cycle. Steve White
Thanks for your interest and writing back, and my pleasure!! I had a couple commemts on what you wrote that I'd like to share:
"An inflation rate of 100% cuts the wealth of the rich (and everybody else) by 50% in one year but doesn't provide resources for the government to support working people when they need it."
If the money supply doubled in an even manner (ie tooth fairy doubling everyones money overnight), then yes, everyone's dollars would have half the purchasing power.
However, inflation is a hidden, insidious tax that first profits the government's pet programs - the military-industrial complex, the banking cartel, etc - so yes, it temporarily benefits government as it is confiscating the people's wealth, and gov't very quickly wastes it on central economic planning projects. (TARP Banker Bailout and "Stimulus" plan to provide sustainable jobs)
"If we tax wealth now and use the money to eliminate our deficit, we can prevent the whole inflation cycle."
We could tax 100% of all income to everyone and still not really make a dent in the national debt. I do believe balancing the federal budget is key and so is individuals spending, so taxing - esp of the lower income brackets as is done right now - is suicidal to an economic recovery.
Let's please continue this comments for this conversation on my latest post:
Jake Towne: Who Is This Guy?
Noel, I was thinking about this question again.Who do you want to be your rep.in congress?I think the best and only choice is Jake,and here is my reasoning.I have been reading Jake's input here and actually it's been very educational,and I mean on education ,min.wage,or foreign policy.I have at 52, learned more in the last 9 months that I've followed Jake,than I did in high school.That is my story,but now I see the MC,PBS,and certain religious groups have excluded Jake from the "televised"debates.With that being said,I still believe that if we are paying a "REP" to be a leader that represents the people,then he should.He can't do that if he is beholden to a group or media control center. So that shows that the other two guys are not able to represent the people,they both received large sums of money from Private enterprise or individuals with deep pockets.Jake Towne is the only choice he has run his campaign out of his car ,he has offered to take his first year salary and only accept the median wage of his people(which is actually going down as I write)He has challenged the other two guys to do the same,and guess what?they didn't want to debate him so they said he wasn't getting the response to warrant his being there,and I say he's the only guy that should be there...They skipped two debates with Jake and if I was involved with the organization of those events,I would think the same way.The choice is very clear and you can't ignore that this race has "national" implications. Jake would send a message to DC,and to this whole establishment that the people do matter,Jake is running this great campaign on guts ,determination,and the strength he gets from his people. I forgot to mention that he is also running with no party,group or religious affiliation,but he is running as a "citizen",just like me and that's all good.
Post a Comment