newsminer.com

Bob Bird

Bob Bird

Alaskan Independence

Age: 57 (at time of primary)

Residence: Kenai

How long in Alaska: 31 years

Occupation: Teacher, coach, radio sports broadcaster

Recent polls show the No. 1 concern of voters at the moment is the soaring price of gasoline, which is tied to record high crude oil prices. How would you address rising energy prices in the short term and what actions do you think Congress should take on energy policy in the long run?

Congress has created this problem. Ending the war in Iraq will drop prices dramatically, saving blood as well as gasoline; we need to open Alaska & the Gulf Coast in the Lower 48 for drilling; and the hidden tax of inflation can be stopped by returning to a gold and silver standard. Incredibly, Democrats are threatening to nationalize the oil industry, deflecting their role in this crisis. In 1940 an ounce of silver was pressed into a silver dollar and gas cost 20 cents a gallon. That’s one-fifth of an ounce. Today, an ounce of silver roughly goes for $20. And what are gas prices today? A little over $4.00 per gallon: or, one-fifth of an ounce of silver. This means that it is not gas prices which have gone up, but the vaue of the dollar that has gone down. Add state and federal taxes and then environmental regulations and the wonder is that gas prices aren’t even higher. Our unconstitutional overseas military ventures drive up prices because the market responds to a scarcity. We need to return to obeying the Constitution, something every member of Congress is sworn to uphold.

The faltering economy, weakening dollar and growing unemployment are spurring middle-class concern about the future and whether they can maintain their current standard of living. What can Congress do to shore up the economy and reverse job loss?

The double curse of taxation and inflation are destroying our economy. The Democrats want more taxes and the Republicans cleverly avoid this unpopular move. But since Republicans have failed to cut spending, the shortfall in revenue is made up by the hidden tax of inflation. The antidote: obey the Constitution, have the government give more freedom but less expenditures, return to a gold and silver currency. The 10th amendment to the Constitution should resolve any argument about how it should be interpreted. James Madison in Federalist #45 stated that the federal government’s powers were “few and defined” and the 10th confirms this. Yet today what passes as statemanship is to use the government as a giant machine of confiscation and redistribution of people’s hard-earned property. Creating jobs by federal spending is like an addiction: there is a short-term “fix", but eventually it brings dependency and control, and destroys the individual.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on now longer than World War II. Should the United States continue its military campaigns in those countries and, if so, for how long? If the wars are to continue, would you support a national draft?

I completely oppose the unconstitutional and undeclared wars. They are destroying our young people’s lifeblood and our economy at home. It is madness to pretend we are defending our nation in the middle east yet leave our southern border undefended. I will oppose the conscription-draft with my entire being. It is not only unconstitutional but immoral. I don’t care if a draft was used in the past. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. These unconstitutional and immoral wars give the federal government an excuse to assume tyrannical and unconstitutional powers. We are quickly turning into a fascist surveillance state. These are no longer theoretical but actual threats. In my home town of Nikiski, Homeland Security has ordered the local beach access closed, making it necessary to get a permit to tend to fishing sites and, should a family want a picnic, the Coast Guard and FBI are notified. Still think this is a free country? What terrorists are there in Nikiski? The real threat is the government that is terrorizing the people.

More and more American soldiers are returning from the wars with lifelong injuries, yet Congress and the president continue to disagree on funding for veterans services. What, if any, changes should be made to the health care and benefits veterans receive and how would any increases be funded?

These soldiers risked everything for love of country, family and freedom, even if they were used for purposes that I disagree with. I can think of no better, or more constitutional, use of our tax dollars than to make sure we properly care for those who have borne the brunt of battle.

The high cost of health care continually ranks as one of the top concerns of Americans. Does the current health care and insurance system need to be changed? Explain.

It is the socialized health care we have been implementing since the 1960s that has caused this crisis, yet liberals want more and more of the same. Nationalization of health care will immediately cause a system of triage and delay, where some people will be deemed more worthy of treatment than others. I oppose federal health care as utterly unconstitutional but also in principle. I keep hearing about “greedy HMOs” but never about “greedy government” from people who want a national health care system. With the unlimited deep pockets of the government, naturally HMOs expect full payment. When doctors accepted their calling to serve humanity, rather than to make money, the poor were always given health care according to their ability to pay. With nationalized health care, the greed and triage factor will lead to increased trouble. Rest assured the liberals and socialists will blame someone other than their own harebrained ideas, and demand more government control.

How can health care for Alaska Natives best be improved, especially in rural communities?

Certainly not with federal subsidies, which would be unconstitutional. This is a matter for the state legislature. However, private charities always function more efficiently and humanely in these matters. With people’s disposable income being eaten up by high taxes, fuel costs and inflation, do charitiable organizations still have the ability to meet the need? Yes, but imagine if Congress ended these self-created problems how much better off charities would be.

What, if anything, would you change about federal law governing abortions?

Answer for print edition (70-word limit) Roe v Wade was an utterly unconstitutional power-grab by the supreme court. Troublesome social issues need to be returned to the states, where they were before 1973. I would invoke Article III, Section 2 and have Congress remove the supreme court from these issues; and pass a resolution supporting the fact that the President need not enforce any court ruling. If you read the Federalist Papers, the judicial branch was meant to be the weakest and least influential of the three. The courts have absolutely no power of enforcement, but only the executive. Further, Congress can remove the courts from any case they choose and can regulate their activity in Art. III, Sec. 2. This applies also to First Amendment issues such as school prayer, flag-burning and municipal holiday displays. Local control is where divisive social issues should be resolved. State and local government ought to openly defy the courts. It is not a perfect system, but a uniform federal policy, imposed by courts, suffocates freedom and justice.

The use of congressional earmarks to fund state projects has been a major point of contention. Do you support the use of earmarks? If so, how should the system be altered to reduce abuse?

If we obeyed the Constitution, earmarks would not even appear as an issue. Using the government as a machine to confiscate and redistribute the property of citizens is what leads to earmarks. If I swear to uphold the Constitution, and break that oath, I would jeopardize my soul before God. Therefore, the only earmarks I would make would follow the Enumerated Powers Act, which clearly cites what part of the Constitution authorizes expenditures.

Does the Endangered Species Act, as it is currently interpreted by environmental groups and the federal judiciary, and the listing of the polar bear present a threat to the economic future of Alaska? If not, why? If so, what changes would you support in Congress to address the issue?

The Endangered Species Act should be repealed on Constitutional grounds and because it harms human livelihood. The spotted owl and snail darter are now public jokes that attest to this and the polar bear will be the nemesis of Alaska unless we act quickly. Environmentalism, when applied to human stewardship, is good. Constitutionally, however, this is a questionable federal activity, and would be best left to the states. Only a mad man wants dirty water and dirty air. However, unreasonable environmentalism has even begun to alienate Greenpeace supporters because of its “Chicken-Little” scare tactics. I will oppose federal interference in Alaska’s environmental questions on Constitutional grounds as well as in principle.

For any policies that would require increased spending, how would you pay for them?

If I have made anything clear, I want to decrease federal spending, to Constitutionalize it and return economic questions to the states and to the free market. We are at the critical breaking point in our economy. We can tolerate no more foreign aid, federal entitlements, grants, loans or programs. Even if we froze spending, we cannot last. We must reduce the power of government and return freedom to the people.

Should Congress continue to provide funding for the bypass mail system? If not, should some form of subsidy be provided to maintain air service in rural communities?

“To establish post offices and post roads” is found in Article I, Section 8, so this may (repeat, may) be a Constitutionally approved subsidy. However, with the state awash in surplus revenue, why not make this a state issue?

The ability of Alaska Native corporations to receive preference for federal contracts under the 8(a) program is currently causing a stir on Capitol Hill. Has the program been abused in Alaska? Should it be changed?

First of all: it is unconstitutional to award Federal contracts other than on merit; the 8A program - giving preference to minority businesses - is therefore unconstitutional. In addition, are the contracts for Constitutionally approved projects, according to the Enumerated Powers Act? If not, the question answers itself.

Funding for the Denali Commission regularly comes under fire in Congress. Has the commission been a success and should it be continued? How would you pay for rural infrastructure projects, such as water and sewer projects, fuel tank farms and ports?

Federal subsidies for such activities would be unconstitutional. I wouldn’t want my money to go for such projects on the east coast and they should not be here in Alaska. Again, with the state enjoying record surplus revenues, these questions would be best settled by the legislature.

Do you support efforts to place a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions? How would you reduce the impact of such a cap on the national economy?

This question assumes several things: 1) global warming is a proven fact, and 2) it is caused by human activity. Both assumptions are highly questionable and I will not be intimidated by Al Gore Environmentalism. But such a cap would fail the test of Constitutionality once again.

Warming global temperatures are opening up new opportunities for resource development and shipping in the Arctic, as well as new challenges. What changes to Arctic policy does Congress need to enact and how do they affect Alaska?

Congress does not own the Arctic and has no Constitutional authority in such matters. International treaty is a Constitutional activity, but again, unreasonable environmentalism would be certain to affect such agreements such as resource development and shipping. Russia has apparently claimed the undersea Arctic, and we ought to oppose Russia’s sovereignty claims in such matters.