Hess for Governor | Issues
Official Barry Hess 2014 Campaign website for Governor of Arizona.


My Stance on the Issues:

Libertarians first seek a solution within the community and through free market enterprise. Government, by nature, is inefficient. Government solutions are cumbersome, not very adaptable, and loaded with bureaucratic rules, regulations and red tape that make implementation slow and expensive. Additionally, without free market competition, there is little pressure to improve the product or service and/or reduce it’s cost.Social and community demands are better met by the free market. What is the right solution in Detroit isn’t necessarily the right solution in Phoenix or Miami. Or for that matter, what is the best solution for Phoenix is not the best solution for Tuba City or Douglas.”Choice is the gift that liberty gives to us.”So on the matter of the issues, you will see that the solutions are based on what the brilliant minds of entrepreneurs can do with us, rather than what the government can do for us. Solving our problems ourselves provides a sense of pride and ownership and the underpinnings of personal responsibility.
  • I simply can’t endorse government’s thievery through confiscatory taxation.  There is simply no reconciling the involuntary, forced extraction of the fruits of the labor of the individual with any kind of morality.  Theft is still theft, even by government, and even if some politician tells you it’s “for the children”.  Repealing the Arizona state income tax is my number one priority.

  • New jobs and opportunities are the only way to get back on solid economic ground.  All of the other candidates will tell you how they think we should bailout old and defunct industries and jobs. Such a course will only drag our economy lower for longer.  There is no such thing as a “jobless recovery” like the current crop of politicians would have us believe.

  • It’s small business’ that creates over 90% of all jobs. Removing prohibitive regulations and taxes that have stunted enthusiasm for those seeking to start new businesses must necessarily be a top priority.

  • At the same time, I hope to draw large employers by transforming Arizona into the energy technologies capital of the world, and a leader in new technologies to provide environmentally sound manufacturing solutions.  Such a facility can be a significant source of revenue for Arizona, and a real opportunity for the average Citizen to put their ideas to the test.

  • Ensuring safe passage in the public thoroughfare is a primary task of government.  I believe we do need peace officers to assist and serve the public against force and fraud. But the primary responsibility for a person’s safety falls to the individual.  Ensuring that government doesn’t impair or infringe on any individual’s ability to protect themselves falls to me.

  • My objective is to stop criminals from hurting anyone.  It only makes sense that all individuals inherently possess a fundamental right to defend themselves against aggressors, by all means available, without restriction or license.  In a population that can defend itself, either by discouragement or demise, the bad guys go away.

  • In the public thoroughfare there can be little expectation of privacy.  Camera monitoring our streets to aid safety officials and officers to help keep our streets safe doesn’t run afoul of our Constitution(s).  Speed ticketing cameras, with their inherent “due process” violations, do run afoul of our Constitution(s).

  • To many of us, marriage is a holy sacrament; to others it’s a contract.  Whatever the case, the government does not have any business what-so-ever in the ‘marriage’ business.

  • Education has always been my personal priority.  My objective has always been to graduate competent young men and women who can go out into the world to make their own way, without ever becoming a burden to anyone.  Our children and our families will be our ‘retirement plan’ so I want them to be 100 times smarter and more competent than I could ever hope to be.

  • I will shift the focus to the progress of each individual child, rather than preserving the current administrative process of education.  I advocate voluntary competency tests to determine how far a student has progressed, as opposed to the current trend to one-size-fits all instruction.  My goal is to end up with smarter students.  To be ‘last’ in the nation is an utter disgrace.

  • Health care is another pressing concern.  Unlike the president and current Governor, I am less concerned with ‘insuring’ everybody and letting the costs skyrocket, than with the actual medical attention of those in need.  By removing all government involvement in health care, we can look forward to a drop in costs estimated to be between 60-70%. At that point, the greatest number of Arizonans won’t even need insurance.  They’ll be able to afford their health care out of their hip pockets.  For those in legitimate need, I believe we need to re-invigorate the county hospital system, and rely on the charitable giving of those who ‘can’.  I believe that if the state has any obligation in it at all, it is to provide health care NOT health insurance.

  • •  I will not pretend to have all the answers to every question on the tip of my tongue, but I’ll guarantee I can get good answers in a reasonable period of time.  I am carefully choosing my advisory committee from people I know I can rely on, and whom I know will offer expert, unvarnished advice in each of many specific areas.

As Governor, I will be looking for new and practical sources of revenue to fund government necessities:

  • Contract insurance to fund our Courts
  • Saleable water supplies from the Gulf of California
  • A for-profit mass transportation system stretching from top to bottom of the state
  • Patent sharing.
One of the tenets I will demand, as governor, is that there must be some flexibility in plans and contracts, so the People of Arizona don’t get stuck paying for more ‘white elephant’ or ‘locked in’ projects. Another is a demand for transparency in our state administration.  There will be no room for secrets and plenty of room for innovative ideas.  With an objective clearly defined, it’s an easy task to plan on getting it done.  All objectives should leave the problem solved and self-funded, if it needs to be on-going.
It is a privilege for me to not just be registered as a Libertarian, but to actually be one, as well.  I will do my best to make sure it is easy for you to determine exactly where I will stand on any given issue.  All you’ll need is a decent understanding of the ideas enunciated in my job description (the Arizona Constitution).
My objective is to get government out of the way from further hampering our economic growth and stability.  This Depression is far from over, but with new perspectives and ideas we can certainly lessen its impact on the People of Arizona.  One thing is absolutely certain, if we keep electing representatives from the same old inbred political gene pool, the burden on families will continue to grow.
I believe that together, we can face the challenges that lie ahead, and turn them to our advantage.  I can see a bright and prosperous future for Arizona if we resolve to put her back in line with our Constitution(s).  I hope it is now clear that I’m not looking to “step back”, as some may say, but rather to “step back up” to a higher standard of governance.  Our history holds the answers we need.







Border Control


To completely stop all crossing of the southern Arizona jurisdictional border with the State of Mexico other than through portals of entry designated by the State of Arizona.  To secure the Southern Arizona border against hostile invasion or threats to Arizona, and American Citizens at the least cost to taxpayer possible while establishing the most practical and measurable means to accomplish the objective.  To make illegal entry impossible, saving the taxpayers of Arizona the expense of capture, health care, feeding, clothing, sheltering, prosecution, punishment and deportation.
Most importantly, to protect the inherent rights, property and person of each individual as dictated by the Arizona Constitution—the rule of law.  It should be noted that the rights of the individual do not yield to “the (in)efficiencies of the State” even at the sake of greater expense.

A short background:

Federal abdication of responsibility has rendered Arizona helpless to curb the numbers of migrants coming across Arizona’s Southern border outside designated points of entry. When the Federal government consistently refuses to address such a serious issue, each State or Republic resumes all sovereign powers to protect itself.  Today, because of the current economic/opportunity Depression, illegal entry is now largely confined to the “worst of the worst” in terms of criminal intent and violence.  This issue was made far worse because of inaction on the part of the current Governor.  2 years into her inherited term she decided to fool the People of Arizona with an “Immigration” bill, that requires all Arizonans to carry a national ID, and doesn’t even address the illegal entry problems.  My hope is that the People of Arizona recognize the insincerity of election cycle stunts.

The Solution:

On this issue, I considered a wide variety of options and the constraints of our constitution. I arrived at solutions that most effectively solve the problems associated with individuals illegally entering Arizona for any purpose.  There is a certain irony in noting that the technological development of ‘Passive Denial Systems” (PDS) was initiated by our Federal government—specifically for use against y-o-u, me and our fellow (legal) citizens, in case we should ‘miss-behave’.  Now we can put them to use in a positive way!
PDSs are pretty much what their name implies, non-lethal, passive denial systems.
I propose six different security features with all systems intelligently interacting–to prevent illegal entry into Arizona by any known means.  The systems will rely on over-lapping and concealed sensors.
  • Level 1. A series of simple ‘Warning—do NOT enter/No Trespassing’ signs defining the actual jurisdictional boundary of Arizona.  The signs will make it clear that any vehicle proceeding beyond the line will be subject to electro-magnetic impulse, that will instantly and permanently render it unusable.

  • Level 2. 60-feet in from the border, a 2nd series of simple warning signs, making it clear that should they proceed further, in addition to Level 1 systems, they will be subject to a non-lethal ultra-sonic denial system that no human can resist because it resonates in the target’s skull and bones.

  • Level 3. 60-feet in from the Level 2 warning signs, a final series of warning signs making it clear that to proceed any farther would subject trespassers, in addition to Levels 1 and 2 systems, to essentially a non-lethal microwave that makes flesh feel like it is burning.

  • Level 4. I propose to further enhance security by using a series of ‘spy planes/drones’ to monitor the entire border for unauthorized air space penetration backed up by Arizona’s Air Guard scramble teams to escort them out or force-them-to-land missions.

  • Level 5. I propose a border-length series of seismic sensors to detect even ‘single shovel’ digging beneath the surface border.

  • Level 6. Finally, I propose to re-vitalize the Arizona Rangers (AR) whose sole assignment is to monitor all aspects of the PDSs and, act as rapid response helicopter teams for human interdiction in any extra ordinary circumstances that might arise in regard to Arizona’s border.  It will be necessary to build “firehouse” type facilities at specified intervals and entry points along the entire length of the border.  These forces, and the maintenance of PDSs will effectively be self-funded (*see Economic Recovery, and Immigration/Migration proposals).

    Concealed ground sensors and non-lethal PDSs will be powered by an exclusive “mini grid” with interactive, automatic re-routing capabilities, in case any part of it should suffer from interruption.  Individual self-generating (renewable sources) power stations will be set sufficiently into the Arizona interior to assure their safety. Build out should take only a matter of months to reach effective operation. Rural areas easily lend themselves to building out the non-lethal PDS measures above, but in the urban areas and close proximities to designated crossing points, a manned, physical wall will be more appropriate.

    In some sense, the need created by Federal inaction can work for Arizona’s economic recovery inasmuch as contracts for the build out will only go to Arizona-based companies who hire with preference to Arizonans.  (*see Economic Recovery proposal)  Arizona needs jobs.

Benefits for the Citizens of Arizona:

Effective non-lethal elimination of potential physical, economic and/or perceived threats to Arizona Citizens and their property.

  • Less manpower in these efforts means less cost and less corruption.  I wouldn’t venture a guess as to why they public hasn’t been told of the more than 1,200+ ICE, DEA, Border Patrol, local and Military officials under investigation or indictment for facilitating or instigating the very ‘crimes’ they are paid by taxpayers to stop.
  • No more deaths in our desert—a mere political embarrassment to my competitors, a matter of conscience for me.
  • Immediate deployment and short completion time and jobs creation, so we can look to other things for economic development and put this Depression behind us.
  • Physically denying unauthorized crossings of our border eliminates costs to Arizona before they can be incurred.  This represents an enormous savings on medical care, social services (*See immigration proposal) housing, detaining, prosecuting, and deporting costs, by making “illegal” entry through our southern border impossible.
  • Flexibility to turn off narrowly defined sections of the ‘virtual wall’ to allow the free passage of natural wildlife, unlike any physical wall or barrier.  Arizona Ranger personnel will secure off line sections.







The Drug Wars

35 years after Nixon started the war on drugs, we have over one million non-violent drug offenders living behind bars.The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country endure?









The terms and conditions of becoming an American Citizen are squarely under the authority of our Congress however, “Arizona Citizenship” is not so clear. The terms and conditions under which anyone can enter upon Arizona’s land is within the authority of Arizona’s State legislature. The urgency of the problem and the failure of the US Congress or the President to act demands that Arizona’s next Governor act on behalf of the Citizens and finally resort to self-help. What gives our nation any promise at all is that here, our government answers to the People not the reverse.


To clarify immigration/migration requirements to cross Arizona’s Southern border and to vigorously protect the rights, property and personal safety of Arizona Citizens from threats of violence, infection or financial imposition on social services. To allow a regulated flow of human beings to come to Arizona without violating constitutional requirements to protect individual rights. (*Please also see Private Property and Border Control for the principles behind the proposal)
It is important to define our terms. Many times a difference of definition has led needlessly to hard feelings and full-blown arguments between people who are objectively in agreement.
This proposal deals with Migration–defining who can cross Arizona’s borders. Immigration, defines who may become a Citizen and under what conditions and requirements. I use the term Amnesty to mean an award of Citizenship (making them eligible for social “entitlement” assistance) to people who are currently in country without having come through the legal process, entry points, or who have overstayed their visa. Forgiveness absolves an individual of their criminality for having cheated their way in up to this point, but requires them to leave immediately; it does not make them ‘legal’ from here on in. I use the term Illegal to describe a person who is here, on Arizona soil, who sneaked across the border, cheated the migration process, or overstayed their visa.


The Republics, States and Commonwealths that are joined in voluntary confederation to make up the unified ‘American’ nation are ‘guaranteed’ a national defense in times of war. Does this guarantee include securing our territorial borders from physical trespass in times of undeclared war? I’m not so sure. The Federal government is parked on hesitation hill in regard to defining “immigration” particulars. I believe we need to defer to prudence and protect Arizona’s own interests—now, not add this to Congress’ backlog.
The current Governor has acted only very recently, (election cycle shenanigans) and only by signing legislation that impinges on the rights and privacy of every legal Arizona Citizen, increases the size and cost of government and never addresses the substantive issues regarding international labor, migration or border security.
Constant legislative deceptions have galvanized hard feelings and focused anger between and against specific groups of people. Dividing people up into groups, pitting them against each other and then offering to referee is the bread and butter of politicians. The current Governor seems to relish in the practice.
I would have vetoed the bill based not on the public’s perception of its ‘intent’, but on it’s vagueness, sloppiness in its language, its subjective allowance for officer/agent/official discretion, its claim of sovereign immunity for invading the privacy of, and the indefinite detention of free (legal) Citizens, on the whim of an individual. No thanks. see my thoughts on SB1070.
Making the act of applying for social welfare assistance by a non-Citizen an immediately deportable offense would have done a lot more good than all the convolutions of SB1070.
Designing a workable, fair and honest policy toward migration is easy. There’s nothing hard about deciding to allow a regulated flow of human labor and commerce as long as background and infectious disease checks suggest the individual presents no threat to Arizonans or their property.
The actual securing of Arizona’s Southern border has been covered in my proposal for Border Security. Immigration (U.S. Citizenship) requirements are left to the US Congress. This proposal addresses migration requirements and rectifying the ‘illegal’ status of those who’ve already crossed our border.
Attempts at military style search-and-remove efforts are and have been ineffective and bring with them unacceptable violations of the individual rights and property of Arizona’s legal Citizens. A smarter, more effective idea is to give ‘illegals’ an incentive to come out from hiding, of their own accord.
  • Amnesty: I strongly oppose any sort of ‘amnesty’, or “short cut” to Citizenship for illegal migrants. Such a thing would only hurt the people it supposedly would help, and intensify animosity against foreigners for generations to come. We need to invite ‘illegals’ to leave within a very short period of time. The argument for the rule of law has not diminished, nor has the requirement for equal treatment under the law. To ‘award’ Citizenship to currently ‘illegal’ migrants, “just because they’re here” is to spit in the face of those who legally jumped through all the government hoops and intentionally sought to come to America/Arizona to be a contributing part of the shining city on the hill of Ronald Reagan.
  • The “La Migra” swindle. It’s an all-too-common event where unscrupulous employers ostensibly ‘hire’ illegal migrants, accept a solid day’s work and instead of paying them for their labor, threaten to call ‘La Migra’ (Immigration Officials) leaving human beings with nowhere to turn for justice. Illegal migrants lead a very unsettled and uncomfortable existence that can be rectified by simply offering them a more attractive legal alternative.
  • Border crossings are down. The current Depression has eliminated most of the opportunities peaceful migrants came here to fill. I spoke to the Minuteman Organization the night before they disbanded. They estimated that illegal crossings are down by 80%. This left the group with no one to watch out for. The people crossing our Southern border illegally now are the ‘real’ criminal element.

In consideration of all these factors (and many more), I propose the following solutions:

As Governor, I will immediately demand that the Federal Congress clarify and implement Immigration (becoming a Citizen) and migration (movement across our border) requirements once and for all. I do not anticipate that Congress will comply within the 90-day window. On the 91st day, I will assign the task to our own Arizona legislature. Should our own legislature shrink from this responsibility, after 90-days, I will utilize the powers of the Office of the Governor to implement a very simple migration policy.
  • I will allow the controlled flow of persons across our Southern border after background (performed by the Arizona Rangers, with or without Federal co-operation) and communicable disease checks show them to pose no threat to Arizonans, their property or their rights. It will include an “Unrestricted Migrant Card” they will be required to present to potential employers if they should decide to seek gainful employment while they’re here. This will bring an abrupt end to the violence and death created by those who make their living as human smugglers.
  • I propose a very reasonable 30-60 day ‘forgiveness’ window allowing all illegal migrants to ‘go out, and apply to come back in’. If they don’t pose a threat to Arizonans, they have no reason to fear not being allowed re-entry. This eliminates any, “You didn’t give us a chance” arguments. Anyone discovered remaining illegally in Arizona beyond the ‘forgiveness’ window will be deported and permanently prohibited from re-entry.
  • The “Unrestricted Migrant Card” will be given to all individuals allowed to come into Arizona, whether they come for work or just to visit. I do not believe we should, or can, restrict people from seeking meaningful employment. However, the Arizona marketplace is a valuable source of opportunity for industrious people. A “migrant worker fee” for access to our markets is reasonable, fair and within the constraints of our constitution(s). I believe a fair fee on a migrant’s personal labor for access to our markets should be set at 10% (5% each for migrants and employers) of earnings to be withheld by the employer. The monies collected should be segregated and used exclusively for the Arizona Rangers and the maintenance of the virtual border making both ‘self-funding’.
Employers who agree to hire illegal migrants ‘off the books’, upon discovery, will be fined 7 times the amount that they attempted to deprive the State. Migrants who agree to work ‘off the books’ risk permanent deportation with no possibility for re-entry. Playing by the rules becomes a much more attractive alternative for both parties.
  • The “Unrestricted Migrant Card” will enable the migrant to obtain domestic automobile and other insurances and/or bonds that protect Arizonans from the uninsured. Migrants and visitors will be required to purchase a nominal form of insurance to cover the need for emergency medical treatment they may require while visiting. Emergency treatment for foreign visitors will be available through Arizona’s *county health facilities. Once stabilized, foreign visitors will be deported directly to their county of Citizenship for any further medical care (Unless they have useable insurance).

*See my proposal to re-invigorate the county hospital/health system as a superior alternative to the “ObamaCare” swindle.


Immediate relief for those who only came here to be productive because their home country had nothing to offer.
Being able to work ‘in the open’ will raise the going labor rate. It eliminates the argument of any migrant’s ‘low balling’ the marketplace.
It eases Arizona’s collective conscience in regard to human lives being lost in Arizona’s deserts or anyone being forced to accept sub-existence pay for their labor. It eliminates the “La Migra Swindle” and allows migrants to openly purchase insurance in Arizona.
It protects Arizona’s Citizens by making it legal for migrants to purchase automobile, liability and other insurances.
No serious discussion of border security or migration can be had without addressing serious reform or elimination of our social welfare and government education system.
I hope the reader will recognize the good sense of clearly defining exactly what is required of anyone who seeks a ‘hand out’ or ‘special assistance’ from any government agency or department.  These resources come from the pockets of Arizona Citizens.   The burden of proving one’s own eligibility and/or identity has to remain on the individual, and no assumptions should be made without proof. Simply requiring everyone receiving any ‘special’ welfare assistance, money, subsidies, grants, swaps, housing, education, medical treatment or on-going health care, to prove their Citizenship—if that is the requirement for eligibility, would eliminate the burdens placed on the social welfare/education system instantly.  Why haven’t career politicians offered a simple, no-cost idea?
The easiest and quickest way to fix the problem of unqualified individuals imposing costs on legal Citizens would be to simply make participation in all government welfare programs (including letting government “educate” children) by voluntary membership only.  Those who want to participate should pay in, and those choosing not to participate should not. It may even be practical and financially beneficial to allow non-Americans to “buy in” to the welfare “entitlement” schemes, if they choose.  More members would drive the price down, right?  And great service and quality would draw more members.








Private Property:

Libertarians believe that all real property should be privately owned, that the government should not own land. To be consistent, then, our position on a foreign national entering our country should be exactly what it would be if all land were already in private hands.
Individual ownership of a piece of property amounts to the sole right to control and use that property. This is the basis of Individual property rights. A property owner has the sole right to dictate the terms upon which someone may enter his property.  To enter on any other terms is to trespass.
When a foreign national desires to enter the United States: The only way he/she can do so without entering illegally, (i.e. trespassing), is to comply with the terms and conditions set down by the property’s owners.
In this case, the property’s owners are the citizens. No one has a right to enter this country without permission.

A right to travel?

Individuals possess an inalienable, inherent right to travel unimpeded in the public thoroughfare. However, this right to travel stops at another individual’s property line.  If all property were privately owned, then there would be no right to travel, only a privilege at best—with the owner’s permission.
Anyone wishing to enter who is willing to comply with the established terms and conditions for entry, should not be arbitrarily denied entry.  We are clear on the issues that are relevant to immigration in terms of personal and economic freedoms: An unrestricted labor pool is necessary for the operation of free markets therefore, if a foreign national seeks entry to this country to work, they should not be restrained.
Rights require responsibility, so we are forced to address some questions: What obligations go with these rights? What are the obligations of someone wishing to enter the country? We cannot have a political party dedicated to the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and then say that people have the “right” to cross our border unrestrained.

Open vs. Unregulated

Saying that a border is “open” does not mean that it is unregulated, and saying that a border is “regulated” does not mean that it is closed.
If the terms and conditions of entry are public and reasonable, then entry is a matter of formality. What, then, are the reasonable controls that Libertarians would advocate?  Obviously we would require that anyone who wishes to enter must comply with the laws of the country. They must agree to be as subject to the authority of the law as the rest of us.  Libertarians are advocates of the rule of law.  It is our obligation to set down those rules plainly and make them available to all who would enter. As a basic testament to an immigrant’s willingness to comply with our laws, he must be willing to be recognized as an immigrant, and to do so at a recognized point of entry. Anyone entering illegally has already demonstrated a prima facia lack of willingness to comply with our laws.
There is merit to the arguments that we have no obligation to allow entry to someone with a virulent and contagious illness, a criminal record, or other undesirable characteristics.
Of course, for anyone to be able to comply with any of these requirements, they must provide some form of identification. We live in a world where collectivism is a dominant cultural mindset and terrorists wage private and state-supported war against the United States. In a post-9/11 world, if peaceful people are to be allowed to cross borders freely, we must have some mechanism for determining that they are peaceful.








Native American Relations

I appreciate that many of the ideas and beliefs expressed in the Declaration of Independence were taken directly from Iroquois tribal law. In most aspects, it is as libertarian as it gets; respect for each individual Life, equality among men, recognition of the sovereignty of the individual, a profound sense of honor and dignity and a heightened sense of restraint on government interference in people’s lives and business.
I respect the tribal lands as sovereign and self-determined. I believe a sovereign People should govern themselves and direct their own destiny for the preservation of their culture, traditions and social makeup, as they see fit.
As Governor, my policy will be “hands off” the tribal lands except for issues concerning the flow of water through them. I believe the responsibility for roads and economic development, as well as all tax revenues derived on tribal lands, should stay in tribal hands. Sovereignty is sovereignty. I will gladly assist and defend the tribes in establishing tribal lands as wholly owned sovereign nations, entitled to a fair share of, and access to the proceeds derived from the resources on or in their land.
I look forward to learning more about all 22 of Arizona’s tribal nations and to building strong relationships with each one. My past trips to tribal lands here in Arizona have always resulted in valuable insights of the people.
My hope is to re-assert those basic values and ideas that built and prospered this incredible nation. I want to encourage peaceful, mutually beneficial trade and relations with all of our Native American tribes to build, not just a better Arizona, but a better America.









Government’s effective monopolization of the school system has resulted in Arizona’s children receiving poor education. Budgets are spiraling out of control, parents have little to no control over the education of their children and teachers are paying for school supplies out of their own pockets.
Lower and middle income Arizonans are effectively denied freedom of choice in education because they are taxed to support the government schools and cannot afford to pay twice for the same service. Like any coercive monopoly without any real competition, the government schools therefore produce an inferior product at an exorbitant price.
A Free Market approach can provide education services like any other service, and can do so with better results at lower cost and deal more effectively with the diversity of education related needs. Parents must be allowed to have complete control over, while being held completely responsible for, their children’s education.
All education should remain entirely within the private sector. Indeed there are students of limited financial means, but the remedies can and will come from private sector programs such as scholarships and private aid.
We oppose the tax support of universities, colleges, and junior colleges, which forces lower income taxpayers to fund the higher education of children of upper income families. All tax support of such institutions should cease, and the role of higher education should be returned to the private sector.
The bitter disputes over curriculum and teaching methods are the inevitable result of the existence of a coercive government monopoly on education. Just as centuries of religious warfare in Europe were ended by separating church and state, the solution to fights over schools is to privatize education and separate school and state. Decisions about issues such as prayer, sex education, evolution, etc. will no longer cause conflict when supporters of all views have a real choice of schools.
As an interim measure to restore choices to parents and students and to encourage development of private alternatives, we support the continuation and the expansion of existing tax credits for tuition and other expenditures related to education. This is fiscally wise for the state, since the cost of the tax credits is substantially less than the savings resulting from taking children out of the public school system.
We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit. We oppose denial of tax-exempt status to schools because of their private policies on admissions, hiring, or student deportment.








“The purpose of government is to protect the rights, including the right to life, of all people in its jurisdiction. A person does not exist at conception, and the precise moment when a person comes into being after conception is not known. A person may exist for some time prior to birth. However, we do not need any special laws to deal with that possibility. If someone can prove in a court of law that a person existed and was killed, then murder has been committed and we have laws on the books for that. If they can’t prove a person existed, then the state should have no further involvement.”







Clean elections:

Fortunately, people asking me why I have never participated in the “Clean Elections” program, are getting fewer and fewer, and further in between. Most have come to understand that though I clearly could make the cut, if I chose to participate, I can’t. How could I? I harbor no ill will toward any individual there who’s trying to make it work at the Commission; my beef is with the program’s very existence.
The whole debate about State funding for political campaigns really centers around the public’s desire to insure that EVERY candidates’ plans, thoughts and ideas are brought to the attention of as many people (Voters) as possible; without regard to how much money they can raise from special interests, or their party affiliation. CEC was supposed to ‘level the playing field’, so the “little guy” could compete with the candidates whose corporate donors have deep pockets. But in the end, it hasn’t changed a thing in terms of increasing the Public’s choices for elective offices.
What has changed is where the money, the big-money campaigns get to spend; comes from. It used to come from actual voluntary donors. Now it doesn’t.
Over the last decade, the Public demand for more, and better choices, has surged because the Republican and Democrat Parties only offer candidates who agree on just about everything. Where they do differ are distinctions that are measured only in percentages and degrees. It’s not to cast blame on the Republican-Democrat team that I bring it up; it’s to recognize that (‘we’) the Public, brought on our own current miseries by falling for the idea that “2 political parties were enough”. Once we fell for that one, it was only a matter of time before the ‘only’ candidates who could afford to pay for exposure in the Olde Media were those who could be bought off by special interest groups. Winning elections is all about ‘exposure’ and recognition of a candidate’s name and issue positions.
Most people overlook the obvious, but those who pay attention realize that the Olde Media outlets were controlling ‘who’ would get coverage… and ‘who’ wouldn’t get coverage, either through advertising, or biased ‘news’ reporting.On one level, it’s easy to understand how ‘the party’, or candidate who offered to spend the most on their campaign advertising might get, uh, ‘special’ treatment, by extending their advertising into ‘news’ coverage.
So, in the end, the Media is driving the exposure candidates get as ‘news’, and as we’ve all experienced, good candidates are pushed to the side (Dr. Ron Paul is a good recent example), out of sight, unless they can raise serious campaign funds from special interests—and are willing to spend it on their advertising.
What the current concept of “Clean Elections” sought to correct, was to give candidates money to compete with the ‘big’ candidates, in terms of paid-for Media exposure. That sounds good on the surface, and I am confident that the intentions were ‘good’, but if you think about it; all it’s done is allow the Media to raise their advertising rates—and they still control the exposure individual candidates get. That’s not a solution.
I chose to not buy into the scheme simply because I believe campaigns should be funded by actual supporters, not by money that comes from a ‘special tax’ on statutory infractions (like parking tickets). I would have a serious problem trying to tell people that I will ease their burden…by taking more of their money, just to fund my own political aspirations. To me, integrity counts.
I couldn’t deny that there IS a problem when ONLY the corrupted politicians can afford to compete in public view, so I came up with what I think is a better alternative; if the objective is to get all of their elective choices into the Public’s view, so they can make fully-informed choices.
In order for a candidate to be heard, they have to have ‘exposure’; so instead of giving politicians ‘other people’s money’ to run their campaigns—wouldn’t it make much more sense to give them exposure, beyond the normal Media outlets?
I’ve come to think that we would be better-served to simply provide a political website that featured links to every single person who qualifies as a candidate at that particular point in time. For instance, after the signature-gathering date has passed, only those candidates who were successful in their efforts would be left on the site. After the Primary results are in, only those who will appear on the General Election ballot will be left.
In this way, the public can visit the official State Election site repeatedly, for updated information.
The hosting of the sites for candidates, and some technical assistance is a cost the State can easily bear, to eliminate most of the hidden costs of campaigning.
The State can also provide live-streaming forums and debates that are not locked into a specific length or time slot, and a periodic, multi-page newspaper insert displaying ALL of the candidates (at each point in the process)…and maybe some TV commercials directing people to visit the only ‘official’ Clean Elections site. On the site, candidates can put up as many videos, photos and commentaries as they like, as often as they like. Visitors to the site would see all of their options in one place, cutting out their need to look up each candidate individually, or to expend time, energy and gas to go to a million forums in hopes of catching a glimpse of their favorite(s).
Think of the savings. Outside signs wouldn’t need to be cluttering up our roadways to draw attention to any candidate—everyone would know where to find all of their choices in a central location. The need to print literature would be greatly lessened, and through video, each candidate could speak to specific issues in a timely fashion without outside editing or bias.
This is the kind of ‘Clean Elections’ I’d like to see, and my reasoning is that Arizona needs the best possible candidates in the competition in order to wind up with the best possible Governor, so it is imperative that the ALL of the voices of the People’s choices be heard.
The Secretary of State recently implemented a new on-line means of signature-gathering (to qualify for the Primary ballot) that I believe should be expanded to allow all signatures to be gathered electronically, and/or on paper. It seems to me that if someone honestly believes they have something special to offer to the People by their service in office; they would jump right out there and expend their own time and effort to get themselves on the ballot.* (*as long as the same rules apply to all candidates) That’s what it’s all about; proving to ourselves, and to those supporters we gather along the way, that we really are “In it, to WIN it!”, and willing to work for it. Of course, I also think that visitors to the ‘central Clean Elections site’ should be able to sign on-line petitions for those candidates they want to see in the mix; but some candidates want to get out there ‘belly-to-belly’ with folks, so why not make it an ‘either/or’ option? Either way, the two signature-gathering means should both be allowed.
So, what would be left for the candidates to do once they’ve gathered their signatures? Prepare regular messages to supporters, and update content on their website, and then get out and attend all the forums, debates and events that they can, so Voters can hear their story right from the horses’, ah, mouth.
Who would try to stand in the way of such an open and unbiased political forum? I can foresee the two major parties objecting because their fundraising efforts would quickly go away, and their ‘special’ relationship with the Olde Media will be disturbed because the Old Media won’t be able to hide candidate choices from the Public anymore…and candidates wouldn’t have the same need to plaster themselves all over the advertising pages of regular newspapers. At some point, the public will respond negatively to any candidate who ‘overspends’ on additional advertising, by pegging them as someone supported by special interests, so there are ‘unintended benefits’ to be had.
I’m guessing the Old Media will also resist this common sense idea, as well as those who currently operate the CEC; but they shouldn’t be concerned. The Olde Media need only come up with good commentary (that can be verified on the central campaign site) about the actual issues as they come up. I have no animus for the good people who run the CEC in its current form, so I would ask them to simply implement the new CEC.
The current, “Give money to politicians” plan called ‘Clean Elections’, hasn’t expanded Voter choices in the slightest, nor has it given us a wider variety of candidates from which to choose; so, why not try a plan that can actually provide the Voters of Arizona with more choices…and did I mention that my proposal wouldn’t cost what is now given to a single state-wide candidate, for everything?
Are you with me?