We are currently going through a very interesting time in our great nation. Many different people with many different beliefs on what is best for our country are trying to convince others that their way is correct. In reality, no one person has the right answer and we need to work as a nation to make sure that we are safe and free. As a Conservative Democrat, I will work with Congress and the President, regardless of who wins the Presidential Election, to make sure our nation is safe, secure, and economically healthy!

There are many different issues that can be touched on. I will be adding more as time goes on.

The Environment:

         Coastal erosion: Coastal restoration will be one of the main issues facing all Louisiana Representatives this year. In fact, the Representatives of Louisiana in Congress need to make coastal restoration their number one priority in Congress. I am the only candidate to make that commitment in District One.
        How can I make this my top priority when there are other issues that are very important to our nation (such as: national security, terrorism, education, health care, and the economy)? These are issues that will impact the nation as a whole. Nobody needs to inform congress that these issues are vital for discussion. However, people in other states may not see the direct impact that coastal restoration can have on the nation. As a Congressman, it would be my job to bring this issue to the table and show the other Congressmen why dealing with coastal restoration is a national issue.
        What effect will coastal erosion have on Louisiana and the Nation? We are losing over 22,000 acres of land each year. Since 70% of the loss is man-made, there are definitely things we can do on the conservation side. Louisiana also supplies over 20% of the shrimp to our Nation. The wetlands act as a barrier for hurricane protection. With no barrier, the next direct hit will devastate us. The loss of the Louisiana refineries could cause oil prices to rise as well. You can also imagine the cost to FEMA if we get a direct hit. The short and long term results of a direct hit require an advocate in Congress that will put coastal restoration as the number one priority.
        Why am I the best candidate to be an advocate for coastal restoration? If we are serious about fixing our disappearing coastline, we need to be able to convince representatives from other states to be on our side. To do this, we need someone who can build bridges to representatives on both sides of the aisle. As a conservative Democrat, I would have that ability to reach across the aisle, look beyond the petty party differences, and work towards gaining bi-partisan support on coastal restoration. Candidates who run too far to the right (or left) may have difficulty building those bridges.

National Security:

         Iraq: I disagree with some members of my party who think we should pull out of Iraq. Regardless of how you felt about going into Iraq, pulling our troops out now would not be intelligent. We would just create a power vacuum. Who do you think would fill the power void that would exist? It is in the best interest of the international community to make sure that the Iraqi people have a stable country with a representitive form of government that will work for them. As a Congressman, I would support legislation that will work to achieve this goal. I would also push for more global involvement from our allies so our weary troops can get some well needed rest.

         Ports and borders: We are not doing enough to protect the safety of our ports and our borders. Allowing people to circumvent our immigration policy is a big risk to our security. There are better ways to allow good honest workers from other countries to work and live in our country without risking our safety.

Economic Issues:

        Spending: I have a general rule on spending. On any issue that regards spending I would ask a few questions. First I would ask "Is this spending something that the government should even be discussing?". If that is the case, I would continue asking questions. The second question would be "Will the government get more bang for its buck by spending money?". This answer differs on many different issues, and you will see some of those answers below. Finally, if the government could spend the money better than individuals, I would then ask "How can we make the spending more efficient while getting the job done?". Cuts in spending are usually a good thing, but if it has the potential to hurt people or needed programs then we need to be careful in where we cut.

        National Sales Tax: I believe that a National Sales Tax (or Consumption Tax) is the best way for our country to tax its citizens. Many people on "the left" claim that this form of taxation is regressive. However, they never really back that claim up. The NST would replace the current tax system. All items and services would be a subject to a tax except for those that would be considered necessities (unprepared foods, utilities, second hand items less than $5,000, the first $10,000 on a car and the first $200,000 on a new house, etc). This would get rid of all the tax shelters that the rich currently have, while ensuring that the poor are not overly burdened when trying to make ends meet. It would also not punish people who attempt to get a second job that would put them in a higher tax bracket. The constitution states "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.". I do not think this should get in the way of the NST. However any constitutional issues can be worked out as we discuss the issue.

         Income tax: While we try and make a National Sales Tax work, there are things that can be done to fix the current tax system. Under current interest rates, a family that purchases a home at $100,000 does not get the benefit of deducting interest paid on the home loan because they do not exceed the standard deduction. I propose that the first $5,000 of all mortgage interest payments in a year be written off before the adjusted gross is determined. Many other changes can be made to our current tax system to make it "more fair". I do not believe in taxing the rich just because they are rich. However, in light of the Enron scandal, I fear that "trickle down economics" can sometimes fail when corporate executives let the money trickle into their pockets.
         Taxpayers should also be able to deduct all required medical expenses as a pre-tax deduction. All medical expenses should come off of the gross income. People should not be forced to itemize their medical expenses, nor should they be restricted on what percentage those costs are.

         The Laffer Curve: Many people hailed the recent tax cuts as being important to stimulate the economy. Reducing taxes CAN in fact increase revenue but ONLY if you are on a particular portion of the laffer curve. Sometimes revenue can actually be raised by increasing taxes. Now, if you are on the left hand side of the curve, should you automatically raise taxes? NO! You should only do so if the government is running short of funds. Cutting programs should always be looked at first if you are on the left side of the laffer curve. If you are on the right side of the laffer curve,  you should always reduce taxes.

         Faith based initiatives: There are much better ways to handle getting charities money than offering the proposed faith based initiatives. All this plan would do is expand the government, creating more bureaucracy in determining which charities are eligible to get the funds. Why don't we just allow people to donate money to whatever qualified charity THEY feel is best, remove any restrictions, and allow them to write it off their taxes? This way you reduce the size of government and there would be no arguments about the government giving tax dollars to religious organizations.

Health Care

          Nationalized Health care: I feel that a short-term nationalized health care plan would contribute to meeting our long-term goal of making health care affordable. Of course many of my opponents will jump on this as being "socialist". I feel that the use of such labels is a cop-out when you lack any better arguments against the issue. The two main reasons that health costs are so high are a lack of preventative care and abuse of the emergency room.

          Preventative care: If a woman detects breast cancer, or a man detects colon cancer at an early stage, it is much easier to treat. However, if routine medical checkups are not available, then the costs will go up as the cancer spreads. Treating the problem before it becomes too great is always better than letting it go untreated. If more people were treated early, costs would go down across the board.

          Emergency stays: Some people let their sickness go for so long because they do not have medical coverage. They let their condition get SO bad that they must go to the emergency room. The law dictates that hospitals may not reject people in an emergency. Shouldn't the government pay for the patients that they force hospitals to take? And again, couldn't we reduce costs by making sure that people get treated early? So where does the money come from now? It comes from you and me who get charged extra to cover those that currently cannot pay. This means that OUR health costs go up.
           If we let people have routine checkups and cover emergencies in the short term, we would reduce the overall costs. By reducing the costs of health care, we reduce the costs of health coverage. This would allow more people to get health coverage AND allow the companies who cover people to increase revenues while decreasing the cost to get the services. Sound familiar? If you supported the President's tax cut then you should support this as well.

        Prescription drugs: We live in a free country. We should be allowed to find sources to purchase prescribed medicine at affordable costs. Someone should not be forced to suffer because their medication costs too much. We should not have to obtain a special card to get a good deal if we can find a better deal ourselves. This would be a good solution in the short term. I would hope that the competition of a more open market would bring wholesale prices down across the board. However, if the problem is not fixed, a long term solution would require the government to be able to negotiate prices down so the pharmacists do not lose their business.
       I also think that we need to look at the reasons why prescription drugs costs are so high and see if there is anything that we can do to bring them down. An example would be to ask the drug companies why they feel it is important to run TV commercials about their products. Doctors ultimately make the decision on what drugs they will prescribe for their patients. You should not have to "ask your doctor if some drug is right for you”. Doctors are trained professionals that will know which medication is right for the needs of their patients.

        Allowing experts and families to make medical decisions: One of the problems with government occurs when politicians that do not have medical degrees make decisions on what is the "best" solution for a general case. That solution is usually the least efficient, most prone to not adequately handle the situation of the individual seeking healthcare, and generally treats the person as a dollar sign and not an individual. Individuals are unique. Why should we treat their healthcare any differently?
       There are cases where an individual, who would only require help for 2 hours each day, gets placed in a large institution that provides 24-hour care. This can happen because of misdiagnosis by the doctor. It can also happen because either the system failed to educate that individual and their family about the different options that exist or it failed to even provide those options. By ensuring that these options are available and accessible, individuals take more control of their own life and it can often save the system thousands of dollars. It is a win-win situation that can be applied in areas including, but not limited to, healthcare and education. By educating people on the resources that exist and allowing doctors to do their job, we can create a better, more caring, and more efficient environment.

Educational Issues:

           Teacher salary: Louisiana does have an improving education record but more can be done to improve the quality of schools. We should promote competition for teacher pay in order to attract better teachers. If they have more incentives for starting and future salaries then we might attract better teachers and improve the schools. This will not completely fix the problem, but it is a good start.

           Vouchers for non-public schools: Many people argue that these vouchers are the way to go. Many will argue that if there are only certain non-public schools available in the area (i.e. religious schools) then you are not really offering school choice. The real problem with vouchers is that currently our non-public schools are not hurting for students. Many non-public schools reject students every year. If a student gets to go to a non-public school using a voucher, where does the other student that he/she would have replaced go? He/she would go to the public school system! While you have helped one child, another gets left behind. These vouchers could cause an additional problem if they are funded by existing public school funds. If the scenario that I discussed above would happen, money available to the school system would be reduced with each voucher given. However, the number of students in the system would remain the same. To prevent the loss of funds per student, we would have to increase funding to the public schools. If that would be the case, wouldn't it be prudent to just spend that extra money to increase teacher salaries and get better teachers?

    .      Vouchers for switching public schools: This idea is less controversial but I still have some concerns about it. What percentage of students from the failing school will get to go to other schools? What happens to the other children that are forced to stay in the current school? How will the increase in class size in those other schools affect the effectiveness of the classes? Would it be more efficient and better for the students to close down the failing school and re-zone the school districts? Would it be better to seek alternative programs in fixing failing schools instead of closing them down? These are some of the questions that would need to be answered before I would support this kind of voucher.

Dependence on foreign oil:

We have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is no one way to do this but there are several options.

           Drilling for oil: We do need to protect the environment. However we cannot do so at the expense of our livelihood and national security. We must tap the resources that our country has so that we cannot be held hostage by foreign powers. This will help our short-term goals.

           Alternate fuel sources: We need to invest more money into alternate fuel sources. And if big oil companies won't grab on for the ride as we develop better and cleaner sources of renewable fuel, then they will just fall behind. We should not cater to big businesses that want to stay in the past. We should encourage these businesses to invest in the future and develop new and better sources of fuel.  

Protecting our Constitution:

           Gay Marriage: I would not support any Constitutional amendments on homosexual marriage (on the state or federal level). We have more than enough legal tools to handle this issue without abusing the Constitution. I do not believe that the Constitution should EVER be used to restrict rights and privileges. I support ideas like those from Republican and former New Jersey governor Christie Todd Whitman who believes that the state needs to remove itself from "marriage" and just deal with civil unions of all couples (homosexual and heterosexual). You then allow individuals and religion to define marriage as they see fit.

Business Fraud:

         Internet: Not enough is currently done to protect people from being victims of fraud over the Internet. Because of the nature of the Internet, many of the crimes can be seen as only having federal jurisdiction. However, the cases are so small that the government is hard-pressed to act on the crimes. We need to grant local jurisdictions the authority to work together on these fraud cases so the government can be left to deal with the issues of large corporate fraud and national security. Companies like Ebay(tm) are able to hide behind their "venue" status to restrict their liability when individuals are victims of fraud. No legal title should enable a company to take a blind eye when criminals use that company to steal from customers.

        Mike Brunker from MSNBC.com has a series of articles on this issue. These include:

• Cautionary tales of two auctions
• Confessions of a scam artist
• EBay’s tough talk on fraud doesn’t withstand scrutiny