Ernest / Bacon King - Simplicity in Motion

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wish to thank the assembled press here today.  I have decided that I will indeed be running for President and with the encouragement of my intended Vice President, Bacon King, it will be serious campaign.

The theme we have chosen for our campaign is Simplicity in Motion.  We both believe that government has become far too complicated for anyone who does not devote their full attention to it to comprehend all that it does.  This is not good for society and therefore we intend to simplify it and make it easier to understand.

We intend to start with our byzantine tax code, a creature so complex that even tax lawyers and accountants cannot hope to understand it.  Therefore as the three principal policy goals for the first Senate we have the pleasure of working with, we hope to achieve the following:

1. Corporate Tax Reform
We hope to scrap the current corporate income tax code with all its special purpose deductions and loopholes and replace it with a flat corporate sales tax with no deductions or loopholes whatsoever.

2. Capital Gains Tax Reform
Too many people hold on to non-productive assets for the sole purpose of selling them at a time of their choosing so as to produce a capital loss to offset a capital gain.  We intend to eliminate the tax credit for capital losses and use the revenue obtained from that to reduce the tax rate on capital gains itself, thereby keeping the amount of revenue raised by taxing capital gains the same.

3. Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Taxes
We intend to establish a sensible set of Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Taxes that are high enough to raise revenue without being so high as to needlessly encourage organized crime to profit from engaging in tax fraud.  This will be combined with an overhaul of our current patchwork of drug legalizations in Atlasia, that have kept some drug that are easy to produce illegal while conversely legalizing others such as LSD for which strict scrutiny of the precursor chemicals could severely restrict their availability without requiring massive quantities of policing,

We hope to have a campaign banner available shortly for those who wish to support our campaign.

[Хahar 🤔]

Interesting ticket. I can't say I expected it, though it makes sense. #1 sort of drives me off.

So this'll be a technocratic sort of campaign?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So this'll be a technocratic sort of campaign?

We won't be dealing with constitutional issues much.  While I do hope to also apply the theme of simplifying our complex government to other issues such as national defense, social security, and the budget, we decided that rather than attempt everything at once and achieve nothing it would be better to set out a few clear coals and work to achieve them before proceeding to others.

[King of the Bench]

Shoulda a chosen a diff king

[Colin]

Excellent ticket. This will likely have my full support.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Excellent ticket.

I couldn't agree more with the former President of the Republic. Both Ernest and Speedy would make excellent Presidents and if the trend continued, hopefully more excellent candidates will run this June.

[AndrewTX]

Awsome...awsome to the max.

[Bacon King]

I'd like to personally thank everyone for their support thus far.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Mr. Moderate has called for an end to "all federal requirements for ethanol in gasoline."  While I agree that ethanol mandates for the sole sake of replacing fossil fuel with bio fuel are unwise, that is not the sole reason for such mandates, nor even the primary reason with current gasoline blends.  Ethanol also serves as an oxygenate to combat urban smog.  For use as an oxygenate, the only cost effective alternative to ethanol at present is MTBE which has even worse problems for the environment.

Thus while I can and will support a bill that removes mandates that a minimum portion of our motor fuel requirements come from biofuels, mandates for ethanol that arise from the need to combat air pollution would remain in place under an Ernest administration.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Mr. Moderate has called for an end to "all federal requirements for ethanol in gasoline."  While I agree that ethanol mandates for the sole sake of replacing fossil fuel with bio fuel are unwise, that is not the sole reason for such mandates, nor even the primary reason with current gasoline blends.  Ethanol also serves as an oxygenate to combat urban smog.  For use as an oxygenate, the only cost effective alternative to ethanol at present is MTBE which has even worse problems for the environment.

Thus while I can and will support a bill that removes mandates that a minimum portion of our motor fuel requirements come from biofuels, mandates for ethanol that arise from the need to combat air pollution would remain in place under an Ernest administration.

Since corn is a heavy user of nitrogen-based fertilizers, our increased use of ethanol in fuels is only exacerbating the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  Further, corn requires a terrible amount of pesticides and leads to significantly more soil erosion than other crops.

And the addition of ethanol increases the volatility of gasoline, which is key in the formation of smog in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm no MBTA cheerleader, but we're trading off one environmental problem for another, essentially.

I'm calling for the elimination of federal standards requiring the 10% ethanol use.  Regions and cities, however, shall retain the option to continue to require said ethanol use if they so desire.

(I do wish to remind voters that Atlasia has cut farm subsidies, which makes the use of Ethanol in Atlasian gasoline significantly more expensive than the fantasyland hypothetical American gasoline.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(I do wish to remind voters that Atlasia has cut farm subsidies, which makes the use of Ethanol in Atlasian gasoline significantly more expensive than the fantasyland hypothetical American gasoline.)

Not particularly more expensive when you take into account the South American Free Trade Act which means that Atlasia does not have the hypothetical American high tariffs on Brazilian sugar cane-based ethanol.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

National Press Club - Nyman, DC

I come here today to speak on a topic I hadn't particularly expected to during this campaign, structural reform.  At least this one won't involve any constitutional amendments or similar nonsense to enact, just a change to the Senate Rules.

All of the major presidential candidate have put forth proposals that they would like to see enacted, but given the nature of the pace of the Senate calendar, it certainly won't be until at least their second Senate and could well be their second term before any of them reach the Senate floor.  Such a glacial pace makes a mockery of the Presidency.  The rules provide for specific slots for specific purposes, and it would be fitting that one of the general slots be set aside for bills selected by the President.

This Presidential slot could be controlled either directly by the President, or by having a slot that would programmable at the sole discretion of the Vice President, if the Senate does not desire to give the executive branch direct access to the Senate queue.   The latter option has its advantages as it would give Presidential candidates additional reasons to pick a running mate because of similar political views and not because of a desire to pick up a machine endorsement.

I am willing to take some questions now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From a campaign speech at an automobile plant in Michigan:

"Mr. Moderate seems to believe in having his cake and eating yours too when it comes to separation of powers.  He derides my proposal for improving the ability of a President to get his legislation passed as an impingement upon the separation of powers but then goes on to talk about installing a PPT that he finds agreeable to himself.  Install?  A PPT is chosen by the Senate, not the President, and I in no way seek to erode that separation of power.

"Nor does my proposal require a breaching of the walls between the legislative and the executive any more than it already is.  Recognizing the separation of powers concern, I put forth an alternative version in which the Vice President who is elected with the President and serves as the President of the Senate would be the person charged with representing the President's agenda in the Senate.

"Given his choice of a running mate with an eye to collecting votes more than to selecting someone with political views similar to those he propounds, I can well understand why he neglects that alternative.  A Vice Presidential slot for bills in the Senate might well end up doing more to impede the President's agenda than helping it if the Mr. Moderate/Ebowed ticket is elected this June."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

From a campaign speech at an automobile plant in Michigan:

"Mr. Moderate seems to believe in having his cake and eating yours too when it comes to separation of powers.  He derides my proposal for improving the ability of a President to get his legislation passed as an impingement upon the separation of powers but then goes on to talk about installing a PPT that he finds agreeable to himself.  Install?  A PPT is chosen by the Senate, not the President, and I in no way seek to erode that separation of power.

Though I do find cake to be most tasty and enjoyable, that's a bit of a misinterpretation of my words.  I am not saying that I would act outside the bounds of the rules to get things done, or otherwise change these rules.  My main point is that historically, at least so far as recent history goes, the president has had very little contact or involvement with legislative leaders.  I would certainly change that.

And, given my time in the Senate (especially as the first person to take office there as a member of the NLC), I feel as though I have a good enough working relationship with the NLC plurality/majority to get things done.  And if such efforts are restricted or hindered by the existing leadership for some reason, I would work with the NLC caucus to get this change without first resorting to a major change to the fundamental way the Senate works.

"Given his choice of a running mate with an eye to collecting votes more than to selecting someone with political views similar to those he propounds, I can well understand why he neglects that alternative.  A Vice Presidential slot for bills in the Senate might well end up doing more to impede the President's agenda than helping it if the Mr. Moderate/Ebowed ticket is elected this June."

I suppose this is worth addressing too, since the bulk of Justice Ernest's proposal seems to be directed at criticizing my choice for Vice President, and not at creating real change where change is needed.

I reject the notion that the Vice President should be seen as a "partisan" position.  The point, as best I can understand, is not to pick the person closest to a mirror image of myself.  The point is to pick someone capable of assuming the presidency should an emergency arise (which I have no doubt in VP Ebowed's ability to do) and someone capable of assisting the PPT should a problem arise in the Senate (again, given his past work as PPT of the Senate, Ebowed is capable on this front, as well).

I seek to send out a message that my administration will not be an iron-fisted one of uncompromising moderation.  As president, I'm more interested in bridging the gap between ideologies.  Senator Ebowed is a strong progressive voice, and I feel it is important for the sizable progressive contingent in Atlasia to have such recognition on a national level.  (Just as I feel it is important for conservatives to be represented, which I hope to do through competent cabinet appointments.)

It should be clear to any casual observer that Atlasia is struggling with declining interest, and the presence of (in the words of Sen. Rocky Republican) a "do-nothing Senate" only compounds matters.  This most definitely is not the time to try and consolidate the NLC's power (especially when the NLC already has a great amount of power as it is in the Senate, and with either Ernest or myself, Atlasia would have a NLC as executive as well).  This is the time for an aggresively active executive who is, first and foremost, intent on throwing Atlasia a much needed life jacket and rebuilding our common institutions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My proposal was not made for the purpose of scoring political points, but I am not so non-partisan as to ignore them when they are there to be had.  While I sadly agree with Mr. Moderate's diagnosis of the ills that Atlasia faces, I strongly disagree with his prescription.  Campaigns are waged around political issues, not structural minutiae.  Atlasia needs more politics, not less as Mr. Moderate contends.  Strongly held and contested positions on the issues before us will make Atlasia more vibrant again, and my proposal was put forth so that issues raised by the President would be certain to be considered in a timely fashion by the Senate.

I am a centrist by temperament, but it is not a centrism born of the idea that politics should be a pottage in which all ideas are stewed together until they form a mushy mixture of uniform flavor.  You will definitely be able to tell what is what in the stew of policy initiatives I put forth.

My campaign's theme of simplicity is not born from the idea that simplicity is in and of itself a virtue.  Rather, government needs to be simplified so as to be understandable by the electorate and so that it can concentrate on its core competences of securing our national defense, providing the foundations for a prosperous modern economy, and securing equality of opportunity for all.

Our drug laws do none of these things.  Indeed, our current drug laws serve only to weaken our national defense, undermine the foundations for a prosperous modern economy, and secure equality of opportunity for violent criminals.  That is why overhauling Atlasia's drug policy will be one of the central tasks an Ernest administration will undertake.  Because taxation will play a significant part in the overhaul of drug policy, simplifying other forms of taxation is also something my administration will seek to achieve at the same time, so as to produce a coherent, simplified, and equitable tax code.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of my opponents in this campaign has chosen to make education one of his central campaign themes, presenting the radical idea of nationalizing the education system.  While Supersoulty no doubt hopes to break through the funding and organizational inequities that exist in the current system of public education at the primary and secondary levels,  I fear that trading local monopolies in this area for a national monopoly is all too likely to cause a national system to degenerate down to the conditions found in our worst public schools, not our best.

That does not mean that doing nothing is desirable either.  However, there is no need to develop an untested new system to address the current problems in our public education system.  There is an alternative, that while no less radical in scope in its effect on the education industry, utilizes an existing model of national support of education in our tertiary education system.  There students are free to choose the school that presents the curriculum that is best adapted to their interests, and national funding is provided in a student-centered rather than institution-centered approach.  There are no monopolies to encourage complacency at the tertiary education level.

A similar approach for secondary education that provides for student-centered funding through loans and need-based grants to attend the accredited secondary school of their choice, is also more easily implemented at the national level rather than at the local level, because it need not require much displacement of existing funding and educational systems.  Federal spending per pupil has traditionally been a small part of the funding of the overall secondary education system.  As such, a national effort can leave the existing system in place for those institutions that are unable to adapt in a timely fashion to the end of local educational monopolies, while providing new alternatives for those students that have been failed by the current system.  This proposed new system will not be inexpensive.  There are approximately 25 million people of secondary school age (grades 7-12). $4,000 per student in average funding would cost the Federal Government $100 billion in new spending, assuming that the existing institution-centered Federal programs for the funding of lower education remain unchanged until the effect of the new student-centered funding programs are ascertained.

However, as expensive as this proposal is, a complete takeover of the education system by the Federal bureaucracy will be even more expensive. $4,000 per student is meager, but it assumes that the existing sources for funding public education remain in place, and that at first, only secondary education will be subject to such a radical reform.  A complete Federal takeover of K-12 education would require half a trillion dollars in annual Federal spending, plus the one-time cost of acquiring the facilities of the public school systems, or building new Federal facilities to replace them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Baltimore National Cemetery

I come here today to reflect on the brave sacrifices that the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen of the armed forces of Atlasia have made over the years in defense of liberty.  All too often, we forget that battles are not fought by weapons, not fought by strategy, not even fought by ideals.  They are fought by people  and it is the responsibility of those faced with the grim decision of deciding where and when they fight that they have the ideals, strategy, and weapons needed to ensure that when they do fight they have both the might and the right to victory.

Lamentably, basic human nature ensures that there will always be some sparks ready to ignite the flames of war.  Whether the cardinal sins that attempt to spark combat are naked or clothed in some ideology, the effect is the same, and we would do well to not let our desire for peace be sidetracked into quixotic quests to defeat the ideology currently used by some to justify their lust for battle.

Far better for the cause of peace, is to take steps to remove the fuel that can make the flames of war grow hot and to provide an effective means to douse sparks before they can rise up into conflagrations.  As has been the case too often in the past, the primary fuel for war today is natural resources.  Riches from petroleum provide the funding to quite a number of tin-pot tyrants.  Mineral wealth has fueled numerous bloody civil wars in Africa in the past two decades. Developing alternatives to these resources will be the best way to curb war, or at least render those who would wage it impotent to harm us.

Yet, no matter how effective we may prove to be in reducing the fuel of war, we will still need to keep an effective force to stamp out the sparks that do find tinder and kindling.  To that aim, we need several different types of force.  The primary need of our armed forces is at present more trained boots to put on the ground.  The low intensity warfare we are currently engaged in needs people in a wide number of disciplines, not just those that involve firepower.  The battles we are fighting now cannot be won if the only way we have to save a village is to destroy it.

We must not give into the temptation to secure liberty by surrendering it.  Unless we wish to become conquerors and tyrants ourselves, we must acknowledge the basic humanity of even those who oppose us.  We need to to do this not for their sake, nor out of any hope that decent behavior on our part will cause them to adopt humanity instead of inhumanity.  Rather, for our own sacred honor, we must uphold the standards we established to effect our safety and happiness.

And now I ask you to join me in a moment of silence in memoriam for the honored dead who have given their all to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to whom this day is dedicated.






Thank you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For reasons that elude me, divorce has been raised as an issue in this election.  Still, since it has been raised, it is only proper that I address it.

Providing uniform rules for Marriage and Divorce is one of the powers granted to the Senate, but not only has the Senate failed to provide uniformity in divorce proceedings, it has chosen to abolish marriage and recreate it as a civil union.  While I realize and sympathize with the desire to separate religious marriage from civil marriage, that does not mean that the government should turn away from its responsibilities.

Therefore, if you elect me as your next President, I promise that I will work with the Senate to end the sham known as "civil union" and restore Marriage to its proper place of honor and respect in our civil society.  As part of that I will seek to ensure that the Senate provides the uniform rules for Divorce that our Constitution calls for.  Not only that, but addressing the full range of Clause 5 powers shall be one of the principal tasks that I shall assign my Attorney General to undertake during my first term.  This delegation will help to make that post more than just a sinecure charged with updating the wiki.

[Meeker]

How the hell is Gporter shaping the debate of this campaign? Something is very, very wrong in Atlasia.