Bob Hubbard - 2008 Platform.

[Bob Hubbard]

Rich,
I'll address this after I get some sleep so I can give this the in depth read and reply it deserves.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich,
I'll address this after I get some sleep so I can give this the in depth read and reply it deserves.

Bob,

We have time. Take your time and answer what you want as you can.

I made my comments as a friend, so you can better articulate your points. Also if this ever gets serious, sch as backers and or being on a ballot then you will have some of this ironed out.

Thanks

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm serious now, just have no chance to win, no warchest to reach and no organization pounding the beat for me. But if an out of shape stick jock like me can put this much thought and effort into clearly stating where I stand, and focus on issues that matter, why can't many of those "real" candidates?

Food for thought.

 

[grydth]

Because they do not clearly stand anywhere or for anything.

 

[Kacey]

I'm serious now, just have no chance to win, no warchest to reach and no organization pounding the beat for me. But if an out of shape stick jock like me can put this much thought and effort into clearly stating where I stand, and focus on issues that matter, why can't many of those "real" candidates?

Food for thought.

Because they are too busy trying to please as many voters as possible, instead of truly saying where they stand.

 

[arnisador]

State Fiscal Crisis:
- Encourage States to get "Lean and Mean". Cut the fat and reduce "do-Nothing" patronage jobs.

What tools does a president have to encourage this?

Education:
- Revamp existing funding structure and encourage private investment into education.

What is the private sector's reason for investing? What dividends would their investment 'pay'?

I saw words like 'increase' and 'fund' a lot overall. But where is the money to pay for these things coming from? Aren't you hiding a tax increase in all that?

 

[morph4me]

How do I get a Bob Hubbard for President banner?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How would you "FORCE" the changes? But line item vetos" or by some other method?

Create a commission who's purpose is to audit government under good business guidelines, then look for ways to make government run at business efficiency. Business runs to make a profit, so should government. Hammers shouldn't cost $900. Start cutting out middlemen and buying direct. This step alone can save billions in taxpayer dollars.

While I support the right of choice. Where do you stand on men bringing suit for their rights as a father? Such as requesting to be able to take care of the child with no expected support form the mother as she does not or did not wish to carry the baby to term.

The court systems now are heavily biased against such things. They like to punish people and allow chances for judges to look tough, with the welfare of the child a distant true priority.

This brings up the issue of non-custodial parent rights, something I want examined and reformed.

Today we have a system that allows a woman to goto an anonymous sperm bank, pick a vial, have a kid, then sue for the donor's ID, then successfully sue for support. That system is wrong.

Today we have a family court system that allows death threats in court with no action. Broken.

I would form a commission to examine the family court systems, and make strong recommendations for balancing out the rights and responsibilities of parents for the betterment of the child.

In the examples you gave, it's hard because 5 years later the mother would still get a 'tap back' should she change her mind.

Much of the Family Law area is at the state or lower level and I don't believe the federal government should be directly involved to that extent. I've often said in the past that it was a womans right, and I'll leave that final decision with her, with the hope that a couple would make that decision together.

Would you give tax breaks to those who did the research or would you give money in grants or some other manner of support?

Both are options, the use would depend on the circumstances I think.

What type of punishment? Fines or jail time? As you do not support the death penalty.

Fines and/or jail time.

Sin taxes on drugs? Sin taxes on existing drugs such as alcohol or cigarettes? What drugs would the sin taxes be on?

The final determinations would be based on expert recomendation.
There are already sin taxes on legal drugs and alcohol (non-medicinal).
Given the amount of research done into Marijuana and my own findings, I would seek to legalize it, tax it, put into place quality controls for a safer product, and limit it's use under similar guidelines as alcohol. (ie no smokin up while driving).

I am for the death penalty as I stated in a thread on this site about the topic. Yet, I support your decision to be against it.

The United States is the only major nation in this hemisphere to still maintain it. It has been abolished in Europe, Canada, Australia, and more.

Executions are known to have been carried out in the following 25 countries in 2006:
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, North Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, the United States of America, Vietnam, Yemen

Look at the company we keep here. Iran. Iraq. Somalia. Uganda. North Korea. And there, the Land of the Free, Defender of Rights, the United States of America.

Something is wrong with that picture.

Would this be for the Supreme Court or for Federal positions? How would you do a better job than is being done today? I am sure the judges start out being committed to the law.

One would think that party lines wouldn't apply, however they do. Decisions are made in Congress and the President's office knowing that so many judges will allow it to stand. Judges should be selected who will enforce the constitution, and not allow continued erosion of the Constitution, and who should instead seek to strengthen and reinforce those protections. I would start with the Supreme Court and seek to push through reforms to all federal judiciary levels.

This is kind of weak. To say you encourage, this means you stay on the sides lines and cheer. How would you encourage? Would you ask the states to take over existing funding projects? Would you penalize states that did not follow your encouragement?

Do you have an example of a "do-Nothing" patronage job?

Jobs where you got it because you were related to/good friends with someone in power. Jobs where you report to work and do word puzzles all day and get paid. Jobs where you don't even have to show up to work to get paid. These happen everywhere, and do nothing to add to the efficiency of government and simply waste tax payer dollars. I would seek the establishment of guidelines, which would include requirements to justify the staffing of any position, as well as the selection of employees. If someone picks cousin Larry over Rose, Larry better have the better qualifications. Those who continue to reward lackies with high paying do little jobs will find their own jobs in jeopardy, budgets cut, and increased scrutiny and auditing.

I support the flat tax. One could implement a low end position for singles and or head of house and also for families. Then once above the minimum have a simple flat tax, with no deductions.

Considering the IRS has proven that even they do not understand their own rules and regulations, I would do away with that organization and replace it with an efficiently run sales tax collection unit. The simplest way is a flat national sales tax on all items bought/sold (except unprepared food and baby needs), collected at the point of sale, and forwarded by the merchant to a central agency on a regular basis. This is something they are used to now due to dealing with state and local sales taxes.

How would you handle the Social Security? Would you continue with SS Tax as it is today or as a separate Flat Tax? Would you take the special interests that collect SS out of the program? If so would you have a separate Flat Tax for the funding of them?

I support the idea of privatization of SS, as an option. Keep the requirement that it be paid into, but allow you to choose to whom you pay into.

SS is supposed to fund the retirement (in part) of our citizens, not pay for a pig farm in Nebraska. The government would be barred from using it as an interest free cash source, and it's monies would only go from operating the fund, and supporting the people as was originally intended. Payments would continue as they are, just to different agencies, possibly tied into 401k type programs.

The SI can raise private capital to fund their initiatives and stop drinking at the taxpayer's well.

This also might lead to a line item Flat Tax for health care. It could be mandatory to lower and share costs to get a minimum coverage plan for everyone. Or it could be optional, but this would lower the number and possible most likely raise the cost per person involved.

I understand the No Tax Cut line. If there is a function or a benefit someone has to pay for it eventually.

True. Unfortunately too often things are done because they can, not because they should.

While I respect the Run the government as a business comment. Dr. Deming has some books and articles and other publications about over optimizing or sub optimizing to save a penny here in one location or one group but it ends up costing one dollar some place else. How would you try to get tighter controls today? What type of improvements can you offer? I know today that some office managers have the option of buying the approved computers on the approved list, but this list is old they could get a cheaper computer at a local store. But since they want to upgrade a group of computers it is above the spending approval so they have to submit a capital expenditure request. How would you address this issue?

I support the special interest removal from budgets and from getting kick backs in people getting put into certain positions.

I'm not seeking to eek out every penny or account for each paperclip. As I mentioned earlier, more controls would be placed to limit and eliminate high paying no-work patronage jobs, and hold people accountable for their spending. The maze of buying requirements would be simplified with the idea that best bang for the buck is in order. Rather than lists of approved items, in most cases I would go with approved vendors and -minimum- acceptable specs. The approved vendors would already be aware of these and have been preapproved. If you needed a new PC you could contact Dell or IBM for example directly, who would provide a system that meets interoperability guidelines with existing hardware yet isn't limited to outdated specs. You shouldn't be buying a P3 today just because "that's all that's approved". You also shouldn't be going through 12 layers of middlemen (with each adding markup) so that your $600 PC is suddenly $6,000.

What type of increased controls would implement on Lobbyists, PAC's, and SIG's? Would you create a committee to investigate?

Committee to investigate and seek stronger controls on what they can and cannot do. Limit the "here's $10k, now it be nice if you'd vote in our favor" crap.

By Denouce would you just say it is not good to do this? Or if elected would set up some rules stating that insults were not allowed? And how would you determine an insult?

I wouldn't stand for it myself. I would encourage reforms that would focus more on the positive than negative.

I support the "third" Party leveling you propose. Would you give them all the same amount? Would it be based upon votes in the last election? (* Trying to improve voter turn out? *) Would it be nothing to all as the only way to make sure it was equal?

I would lower the requirements to get a party on the ballot. Once on there, it would be up to the party to build it's support. Funding would in part be based on a base, plus a % of a total pool based on previous years votes. First year parties would receive a starter amount, under strict anti-abuse guidelines.

BTW: A. Lincoln took a third party to the White House. The Republican Party was a third party of the day. The two major being Whig and Democratic. Of Course the Republican party grew out of the Democratic Party, but it was a third party.

True.

Private investment into education? For Elementary & Secondary, or Collegiate only?

All of the above. Bill Gates can donate money to Harvard and have a building named for him. Why not encourage him to do the same for PS 28 and buy them a new computer lab? Niagara Falls NY built a new high school, with the funding coming from outside sources. It is a state of the art facility, where each student got their own computer. The model is duplicatable all across the country.

Tougher standards for teachers? What would be tougher? Education levels? Requirements on teaching? i.e. if they do not care get rid of them? How would you replace them? Would you national education and or make a minimum wage that would attract qualified people?

First I would fund them properly so that they can do their jobs without worrying about where paste and paper come from. Class sizes would be limited to allow maximum student-teacher interaction.

Tougher standards for students? Meaning that if they screw up in school they can be kicked out. If the assault an instructor they are out? Higher requirements for test scores?

Tougher standards, being held accountable for their actions, and no "push aheads". Hold them back until they get it. Or, if they "get it" early, push them forward so that they learn and don't fail out of boredom. No coddling for the lazy, but also no punishing the smart.

How would you increase Private sponsorship for technical education. I know this goes on right now at colleges. I also know that many also do it in elementary and high school for robotics and other technical challenges or competition.

Tax incentives for one. Co-Funding with donation matching. Other programs as possible.

While I support less government in our lives, I am confused on how you would do this. Can you provide some examples?

Eliminate or combine redundant departments or organizations.
Cut back on waste

Smaller government is an idea. How would you approach getting smaller? What services would be cut back?

Too often tasks that should be handled at the state level are pushed on the federal to fund. That will stop. The federal government's purpose is to defend the shores, keep the nation stable and handle international issues and trade. Some quality of life programs as well as environmental stewardship also fall to the federal in my opinion. Those programs found to be outside that area would be examined and considered for dropping based on guidelines to be decided upon within the first year of my term. Funding a highway that helps people and trade go coast to coast is good. Funding an amusement park in podunk montana (population 25) however, isn't.

What would you do with the military?

The military is key to our continued existence. They would be properly funded and equipped yet held to the same purchasing restrictions as everyone else. Why pay $900 for a hammer when Sears has one for $9? Buy 2 so there's a back up in every kit and still save $982.

What would you do with research and or space type programs?

NASA needs proper funding and to be held accountable for it. It's safety record for example has been poor as of late. That needs to change.

Encourage clean air. Would you support the off shore wind farms that Europe is looking into? Right now the easiest way to create Hydrogen for Fuel Cells is to use electricity. Would you fund research into getting it other ways? Or offer Tax credits? What type of incentives would you offer to get people interested in spending the money on research?

I'm partial to wind and solar power. We can convert a mere 9% of the US desert space (uninhabitable) into solar power collectors and power the entire country. Add to that wind farms and more efficient hydro and we can power our energy grid quite well.

A network of fuel cell distribution needs to be established to encourage adoption of that technology. Many existing gas stations can be upgraded to offer that service, though the current costs are high.I would support subsidizing those upgrades, with a careful cost watch to minimize graft, to speed the adoption.

Research needs to be funded, tax credits (or no sales tax?) to early adopters of the products, and other possibilities exist to help the researcher, manufacturer and consumer switch to newer and greener technology.

US Independence on foreign energy. There was once a plan by the leaders of this country. It was to use the limited energy that was outside the country first and then when there is a real shortage the reserves would be in the control of those from this country. Would you be looking to change this long standing policy? Is that because your alternative fuel options would be in place within ten years? How do you make sure your plans are in place after you leave the office in 4 or 8 years?

The current plan has me paying $3.50 a gallon for foreign oil, $1.75 for a dozen eggs, and other living expenses increasing as well. My intent would be to eventually abandon the foreign energy and produce all we need and more here, a truly independent nation.

Much of the technology is here, now. It lacks the support structure however. I would build that structure, which once in place would become self sufficient and expansive.

As to Bio Fuels would the Government fund the research or would the offer some incentive to private industries for their own research?

A bit of both.

By increasing the number of inspectors and also the higher standards in other areas you mention above, this would mean adding in more people. This is not getting smaller. This is larger. Would you fund this with a new tax or by cutting somewhere else?

Companies that produce outside the country would be responsible (with high penalty for failure) for funding inspection. No more poison toys from Asia.

Building it / buying it outside where it costs pennies to get? No problem. But before we let it into our marketplace, you're going to pay for that $20/hr inspector to examine it and ensure it meets our health and safety guidelines.

So you support the industries controlling this? Or you think the artists should have more individual control?

Give the artists more control. They deserve more than $1 from a $20 CD.

Would the cost be paid for by the teams themselves? This is in my opinion another place where the government would be getting involved in our lives and adding more cost as the owners would still want the same profit margins and pass the cost onto the viewers and fans. Can you explain how this fits your other comments?

It's a cost of doing business, to be paid for by the entities in question.
They can afford to pay a 3rd string QB a million bucks a year, they can certainly afford twice a year random drug testing (at a few hundred bucks a pop) for players.

A simple law would handle most of this. Would you author it or have someone else send to vote?

BTW: I support this action as well.

Author it with assistance to ensure completeness.

While I agree with manufacturer defects should be covered by the manufacturer, it is not the fault of a car company is some one buys a car and uses it to kill someone. The lawyers go where the money is. This means people will go after the manufacturers. I am confused by your first line in the immediate above.

I do not believe they should be immune to lawsuits. There should be limits though on the extent of their responsibilities, similar to how it works in other areas of manufacture.

I agree with no ban on assault weapons.

Except deer. Deer still can't have them.

The full background checks would slow down the process. Would you still allow those who had already done the background research and hand a valid Concealed pistol or weapons permit to buy at a show? Would you allow
it across state lines or only in the same state? Or would it be only approved states that meet a minimum level?

I'm more of the opinion that a national CCP should replace the confusing and often contradictory state guidelines.
It's a couple hundred bucks and weeks of waiting in NY, while in PA it's $50 and 5 minutes. Uh? no.

Integrate with a national database (see national ID) put in a reasonable processing fee and standardize nation wide, thereby easing things on both citizens and law enforcement.

If someone has declared or made actions against the US or its citizens would they be allowed to be labeled as a threat to society?

That depends. Did they say "someone should shoot that SOB" or are they out trying to organize the firing squad?

** A moment of silence please **
Thank you for the repealing of the Patriot Act.

You're welcome.

Would the FBI/ATF/CIA be a sub group within the Department of Homeland Security? Or as it was created as part of the Patriot Act would continue with the one bureau idea that handles both internal and external investigations?

All police and investigative branches would be umbrellaed, to facilitate sharing of data and data mining. The still in use system here A doesn't tell B because A wants B to look bad, doesn't work and will be eliminated.

By no automatic path, do you mean being born in the US? Being Born in the US with foreign parents? Can you explain further on this?

Being born here. Citizenship should be granted to those born of US Citizens, or those who apply and are accepted.

Tougher 'entry' standards? Is this for residence or visiting or application of citizenship?

Both

By Creation of the coast watchers I detect an increase in the government size here. See above question on the same issue. Also for Border Patrol as well.

Some areas will expand as required for increased security. It will be offset by lower law enforcement and health expenditures.

Would everyone get the screening I get? If so then there should be no problems.

Right down to the prostate exam my friend. If they are insisting that it's every 10th car, there will be records that can be audited.

You support a single source Federal ID. I see you want it to be easy to use. Would this be a national driving license? And for those who do not drive would it an ID like that but different enough not to be confused?

Exactly. States can use the national format, with the ID indicating State of Issue. This is looked up on a national database, similar to credit card transactions, though with picture ID included. Doesn't matter if you have Jacks ID, you won't look at all like Jack in the government system.

Drug prices are there as they are also trying to regroup the cost for failed research. How would you decrease the cost? Regulate the amount of profit they can make?

Someone suffering shouldn't be forced to do without because a company failed. I would regulate the industry.

Small business forming a guild would be a good idea. As long as it did not turn into a monopoly issue.
Sin taxes may not cover all costs. Would you have an excess of sin tax to make sure the money is there? How would you make sure people just did not spend it to make sure they got it the next year?

Increasing standards for veteran care is good. Would this be covered with an increase in tax or flat tax?

This would come from the savings by buying direct in the military budget. The military will take care of those who served.

How would you pay for the 100% Health Care Coverage? See above about Flat Tax.

From savings through downsizing, more efficient spending, and other initiatives. Also, 100% coverage does not equal 100% paid for. Copays would still apply for most people to help offset costs. The goal is to make it accessible and affordable.

Why should disability funding for those who never paid in come from the SS fund? If we as a society decide that funding for disabilities is good or required or best for interest of society then we should fund it by itself? Why do you think it should remain a part of the SS? Is it because it has been for so long?

I'm thinking more along the lines of government employees and elected officials who are exempt from paying in but still get benefits. Disability funding should remain as it's the humane thing to do, and if the fund was left intact and not used as a free bank to fund pork, more than enough money would be there.

Private investment is allowed now and people encourage everyone to contribute. But we all "NEED" to have the latest iPod and other toys. So, how would you make your encouragement different? Would you offer incentives? Would you allow for individuals to do 401k versus IRA's? As the limit in 401k's is higher than an individual IRA.

By educating earlier on what it all means. One shouldn't find out at 40 what their retirement funding would be like, it should be taught in high school.

Company A tells it's people I am moving the manufacturing out of the US. Here is your severance pay. Is this not notice? What type of notice are talking about? Is this not a place where the government is getting into our lives?

Maybe, but I'm thinking a requirement to run an ad on tv or paper for a week or 2. Similar laws exist for business notices for forming a corporation.

I agree with the trade agreements. If a country has tariffs on our subjects then we should do the same be it a capitalist open market or not. This will open on the second largest economy of Japan that is pretty much a closed economy right now.

Thanks for your time in replying.

No problem.

Now someone get Hillary on here!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What tools does a president have to encourage this?

Good question. I'm afraid I don't have a specific answer. My intent would be to find qualified advisor's who can not only educate me on those tools but aid me in using them for maximum effect.

What is the private sector's reason for investing? What dividends would their investment 'pay'?

Publicity. Public awareness of their products. Apple cornered the education market for years by donating macs to schools.

I saw words like 'increase' and 'fund' a lot overall. But where is the money to pay for these things coming from? Aren't you hiding a tax increase in all that?

Through privatization, savings and recouped funding by eliminating needless expenditures.

How do I get a Bob Hubbard for President banner?

Working on it.

 

[arnisador]

recouped funding by eliminating needless expenditures.

But there's the rub. Congress will never stand for that.

Still, I see that using the 'Bully Pulpit' is a big part of your plan!

 

[Xue Sheng]

I dunno,there's been a few who said similar.

Yup
and one is governor but he lied, he has pals appointed all over the place.
If you are serious about it sadly you will not get anywhere

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But there's the rub. Congress will never stand for that.

Still, I see that using the 'Bully Pulpit' is a big part of your plan!

I'm for putting term limits on congress...no more elected for life people. give em 4-8 years then let them go on speaking tours like everyone else.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yup
and one is governor but he lied, he has pals appointed all over the place.
If you are serious about it sadly you will not get anywhere

You never know....Perot made a good dent.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You never know....Perot made a good dent.

True, but Perot were independently wealthy and needed know backing for a campaign to be honest. And he still lost to Clinton with his checkered past and what was to be his checkered future.

I would LOVE to see a stop to the "Pals" getting high paying jobs just because they are a pal but it is a hard sell to politicians that are very good at the ole one hand washes the other ethic and you do this for me and I'll do this for you plan. Also it would appear that our governor didn't do it either, but trust me he did and just as much as any governor before him

And I only have experience at the state level I can't imagine how much of this goes on at the federal level.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

While researching a different issue, I found this comment

The next time you hear Congressman Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, calling for the abolition of the Fed and the income tax; a defense policy that defends America; drastic reductions in executive power; free trade and free markets; and a return to Constitutional principles, including the principle of states’ rights, you are being given a chance to finally put an end to Hamilton’s curse. Ron Paul is our Jefferson. Every other presidential candidate, Democrat and Republican, is a Big Government Hamiltonian, through and through.

by Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo. I'm a supporter of Sen. Paul, and find myself wishing I could withdraw and throw my support behind his campaign. Unfortunately, my dozen supporters will do nothing to help him as his own campaign is pretty much over, for now.

The problem with our current national government is, it's too big, too bloated, too out of control. I'm at a loss at what specifically to do to trim the beast. All I can do is encourage people to support those who can chip away it, until someday, we can again return to the principles that founded this nation.

 

[Twin Fist]

well, I agree with more than 50% of your talking points, not much more, but more than 50%

but universal heath care is a fantasy

 

[arnisador]

Sen. Paul

Rep. Paul.

but universal heath care is a fantasy

Other places have done it, but it'd be very hard to do here. Still, it's a good fantasy.

 

[Twin Fist]

it is a nice fantasy, thats for sure.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It depends on how you define it.
I don't agree with Hillary's forced health care plan for example. I think it should however be affordable so that everyone can consider it.

But a Federal program, I don't agree with. It's not the Federal government's job to do this.

 

[terryl965]

It depends on how you define it.
I don't agree with Hillary's forced health care plan for example. I think it should however be affordable so that everyone can consider it.

But a Federal program, I don't agree with. It's not the Federal government's job to do this.

But it would be nice for them to regulate it so everyone could afford it. For me and Yolanda and our three kids we pay about $800.00 a month, to me that is way to steep for us, but I must have it because the consiquences if we got sick would be to much to bare.