Ernest Cleveland: The Gold Standard for District Two

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Friends, I come here today to say that I will run for Senate from District Two.

With the budget no longer a concern of the Senate, it is more imperative than ever that we have a sense of fiscal discipline in Nyman.  The return to a gold standard in Atlasian finance that I advocate in this campaign is but a tool to achieve that discipline.  Without that discipline our government is all too likely to churn out such extravagances of spending as to quickly make a dollar worth but 50 cents.  Send me to Nyman and you will help to provide an honest government that ensures honest money for honest work!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Attendance at the debate will depend on how it is conducted.  I have no interest in a debate over IM.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not only §, but also ¶, ‰, and ‽ will receive appropriate support from me should I be elected Senator.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not only §, but also ¶, ‰, and ‽ will receive appropriate support from me should I be elected Senator.

What about ™, ¢, º, ≠, œ, ∑, ®,†,ø, π, and ß?

I've already made use of ™, ¢, and º.

I'm in favor of eliminating inequality (≠) and empty rhetoric (ø).

Πis old fashioned and should be reformed.

My campaign theme is the ∑ of many small issues united in one overarching issue of good governance,

I oppose gun ®.

Religion (†) is a private matter not a government one.

Unlike some of my opponents, I won't promise π in the sky.

Plain old ss is good enough for me.  I see no need for either ß or ſs to be used at the end of words.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For those looking to see more of what I intend to accomplish as Senator, I invite them to look at the platform of the Bourbon Democratic Party.  I've been developing my policy there since it will hopefully apply for more than a single election.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lowell, MA



I come here today to the birthplace of Atlasian industry to discuss what should be done to revive our own industrial production.  I begin by considering why Lowell and not some other place was our industrial cradle.  Lowell was blessed with both abundant energy and good transportation.  However, neither was present by random luck.  The Pawtucket Falls Canal provided the needed hydropower while the Middlesex Canal provided a direct link to Boston.  We need to provide for the energy and transportation needs of Atlasia so as to ensure a rebirth of industry.

We can prepare for our energy needs while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by fostering the infrastructure needed for a rebirth of clean nuclear power.  Yucca Mountain must be made operational.  The permitting process for building new power plants must be streamlined.  Tort reform is required to ensure that lawsuits by environmental Luddites brought not because of their merits but only to delay and increase the cost of nuclear power cause those costs not to be borne by electricity users but by the Luddites who file their frivolous suits.  If only we could also cause them to have to pay back the time lost as well, but there are limits in what can be done without discouraging worthy torts as well as the worthless ones that need reigning in.

Power plants alone are not enough, we also need to build new transmission lines to carry not only nuclear power but also solar and wind power from where it will be generated to where it will be used.

In transportation we must also plan for our future.  We have too long neglected our infrastructure, delaying until tomorrow what we have been unwilling to pay today.  As what happened in Minnesota this past week has shown, tomorrow is today.  A high speed electric rail network in the south and east where population density is high enough to be affordable will help unclog our congested skyways and highways while at the same time reduce our use of polluting internal combustion engines and turbines.

New power and rail lines will require the assistance of government, especially in the use of its power of eminent domain to acquire the rights of way for these needed sinews of our future industrial muscle.

I hope that the voters of Massachusetts and the rest of District 2 will support me at the ballot box so that I can help bring a brighter future into our present as soon as possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Portsmouth, RI



This town holds a special place in the history of Atlasia.  Founded by Anne Hutchinson in 1638, this town is the cradle of religious tolerance in Atlasia, the birthplace of the separation of church and state.

I favor and endorse that separation, not because as some misguidedly believe that religion is bad for the state, but because the state is bad for religion.  The signers of the Portsmouth Charter were religious people who because of their experiences in Massachusetts had come to that same conclusion.  That does not mean that the state should have a rigid abhorrence of faith as the supporters of the Educational Funding Clarification Bill now being debated in the Senate would apparently conclude.  That proposal would favor one creed, that of irreligiousity, above others.  If the state chooses to fund the non-religious portion of the education of our youth via a voucher program, then it is discriminatory and anti-religious to bar parents from using a voucher to send there child to a school that can provide that non-religious education merely because it chooses to integrate religion into the lessons it provides.  Indeed, the ability to integrate faith into the classroom without having the state impose a specific faith is to me the key advantage of using vouchers to fund public education.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Canton, PA

I thought I'd come here to the site of the Pennsylvania Apple 'n Cheese Festival to answer a question that none of the candidates had sufficient time to answer at yesterday's debate:

What is your favorite kind of cheese?

Like my currency, I prefer my cheese to be hard and firm.  Golden cheddar and silvery parmesan are both found in my refrigerator.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Uncasville, CT (Outside the Mohegan Sun)

My opponent Mr. Moderate has an strange plan for dealing with the public finances.  He plans on getting the Federal government involved in running what should be a private business, namely gambling.  Using that same logic, one could argue we should have the government run gas stations, liquor stores, and bordellos as monopolies to raise revenue for the government.

I do not dispute the need for government to regulate gambling.  Nor am I adverse to the idea of using so called "sin taxes" to both raise revenue and discourage certain activities.  However, I challenge Mr. Moderate to come up with a reason why lotteries should remain government run monopolies instead of government regulated private businesses as is the case with other forms of gambling such as those provided here by the Mohegan Sun.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your reasons appear to be that the convenience of the government should take precedence over personal choice, an opinion I do not hold to.

(1) A state-run lottery is a better deal for taxpayers.  Atlasia gets to keep 40% of lottery revenues (plus the tax revenue on winnings).  And there's no associated major investment in compensatory infrastructure.  That's a tremendous deal for taxpayers.

And a terrible deal for consumers.  With competition, the bettors who prefer lottery-style gambling will be able to choose contests that have better payouts than the miserly ones state lotteries provide, or perhaps more entertaining games if that is what concerns them most.  I don't view gamblers as cash cows to be milked by the government, I view them as people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are subject to Federal law.  While Indian gaming is not subject to State regulation or taxation it is subject to Federal regulation and taxation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any large successful business or industry will generate traffic.  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts prefer banning shopping malls and large industrial plants so as keep traffic flows low?  I believe you see the absurdity of that.  The solution to the problem you mention here is to ensure that, just as with any other large business, the public costs created are recouped through an appropriate level of taxation or impact fees or if those costs prove high enough to cause such businesses to not open, then they will have served their purpose as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem drinking and other drug use also cause those problems.  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts support prohibition or state monopolies for the sale of alcohol and other drugs?  If not, why the difference between drugs and gambling?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Things are always simpler if you limit consumer choice.  Imagine how much more efficient and smaller supermarkets could be if there was only one brand of peanut butter, chicken soup, raisin bran, chocolate ice cream, etc., available.  That doesn't mean that government should step in and limit consumer choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd argue that they opposed it because they weren't offered the full value for their monopoly business.  That assumes that it should be a monopoly that limits consumer choice in the first place.  The schemes you mentioned would be akin to turning over collection of the State sales tax to private companies to operate a business, but I don't favor, despite the example of Matthew, of having modern day publicans.

Besides, I'm not arguing for turning the current public monopoly over lottery games into a private monopoly.  I want it to be a private competitive business, where the bettors will place their bets with the lottery of their choice that they believe gives them the most value, be it better odds or higher production values.  Why do you oppose consumer choice, Mr. Moderate?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

first and foremost, I need to hold the interests of the whole—the Atlasian taxpayer—over the interests of a special group—those who gamble.

What other groups do you consider "special"?  Gun owners? Small business owners?  People who don't speak English as a first language?  It's all too easy to say a group is special and therefore doesn't deserve to have their interests considered.  Why should gamblers be considered special?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually they don't run lotteries because existing Federal law makes running a private lottery illegal.  They can't use the mails, and banks and broadcasters are barred from having any association with lotteries unless they are government run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The real money maker for State lotteries are the scratch off tickets which offer that instant gratification you say is the distinction, not the daily or semi-weekly big prize drawings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most players perhaps, but most of the tickets are sold to a few players, who because they aren't concentrated in one place are easier to ignore than casino players, despite being just as vulnerable and subject to the dangers of gambling as those who frequent casinos.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are merely the public face for where the real money in State lotteries is made, scratch off tickets and the daily or twice daily pick3 and pick 4 games.  More people may buy the occasional big money ticket, but they account for a small fraction of lottery revenues.  They just happen to make the games respectable enough to cause people to not think where the money is really coming from.  Furthermore, if your inherent monoply argument held water, why do we have both Mega Millions and Powerball?  It is true that for those seeking big jackpot games, there appears to only be sufficient interest at present to allow for two such games in Atlasia that reach the nine digit mark in their jackpots, but that is a function of limited demand, not inherent monopoly.

Now, since you chose to skip over this question, let me ask it again:
Does the gentleman from Massachusetts support prohibition or state monopolies for the sale of alcohol and other drugs?  If not, why the difference between drugs and gambling?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What other groups do you consider "special"?  Gun owners? Small business owners?  People who don't speak English as a first language?  It's all too easy to say a group is special and therefore doesn't deserve to have their interests considered.  Why should gamblers be considered special?

Oh, lord.  You're the one who was insisting that gamblers deserve special consideration—that taxpayers, essentially, should settle for lower tax revenue to put more money in gamblers pockets.  I'm opposed to that.

A lottery is not a tax, not unless you're going to require the people of Atlasia to buy tickets in it.  The most favorable term one can use for it is "user fee".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already proposed bill that became law the last time I was in the Senate that provided considerable trimming in the Agriculture and Navy Departments, enough to easily account for that $7.5 billion, but I presume you want me to mention additional cuts.

Taking numbers from the 2008 FY U.S. Budget

~$5 billion the first year: 5 year plan to cut all the non research money of the Department Education and returning their funding to Regional efforts
~$6 billion the first year: 5 year plan to cut all the non research money of the Department Housing and Urban Development and returning their funding to Regional efforts
~$4 billion: ending the war on drugs (elimination of DEA, reduction in the Bureau of Prisons, plus other related programs in the DOJ and the State department)
~$4.5 billion: elimination of the Foreign Military Financing program
$1.8 billion the first year: 5 year plan to eliminate the Federal Transit Administration
~$4 billion: immediate cancellation of all International Space Station activities of NASA
~$30 billion: elimination of the Guaranteed Business Loans of the Small Business Administration
$0.1 billion elimination of the National Endowment of the Arts

Just from a cursory examination without going into specifics and considering quite a few other potential cuts, that's roughly $45 billion in FY 2008 and once the cuts I'd prefer to phase in over 5 years were made in full, that's over $100 billion a year (including savings on interest not paid on debt not incurred).  That's also not counting expenditures that could be saved by cutting back on our foreign military activities as the level of such savings will depend on the degree to which we cut those back, or even if we do cut back.  I believe we should follow a policy that would enable us to have a smaller military, but when it comes to defense I'm of the mind that once foreign and defense policy is set (keeping in mind the costs in blood, treasure, and reputation for the various policy options) then we must fully fund what that policy requires.  In the real world, the disconnect caused by an administration that failed to prepare for the costs of what its policy would require is what caused the real life mess in Iraq.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Salisbury, MD

I'm here today on the Eastern Shore to talk not about the crab pots, although contemplating going back to Nyman is enough to make anyone crabby.

(laughter)

Rather I'm here to talk about Federalism and local control of government.  Nyman needs to stop trying to do tasks that can be done local governments.  There are a whole slew of Federal programs that serve only to ensure that the bureaucrats of the Federal government receive a cut of the money spend to provide local services, whether or not the people in a locality would rather have lower taxes instead of the programs.

I pledge that if you send me to Nyman I will do my best to cut Nyman out of the loop, letting localities such as the Eastern Shore decide whether or not they would rather have such programs and the taxation needed to pay for them or not.  Only where a true need for national coordination exists will I support letting Nyman touch upon tasks best dealt with by College Park, Annapolis, or the good people of Salisbury themselves.

Even then, I shall support local control and local funding to the fullest extent practicable, an extent that those who favor greater government spending will no doubt oppose.  After all, they realize how difficult it would be to get some of their schemes passed if people were in a better position to notice the costs.  It's a lot easier to hide pork among the trillions spent by Nyman than it would be among the billions spent by College Park, the millions spent by Annapolis, or the thousands spent by Salisbury.

After all, the attitude in Nyman is too often exemplified by the quote attributed to Everett Dirksen: "A billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money."  I pledge to you I will consider a dollar to be real money.  Indeed, to help it be considered real money instead of Monopoly money, I will introduce legislation to bring Atlasia on the gold standard.  It's time to mint money again instead of printing it.