Bob Scott is a candidate for U.S. Representative from the Second Congressional District in Tennessee in the August 7,2008 Democratic primary election.

The Second Congressional District in Tennessee includes Knox County, part of Sevier County, Blount County, Loudon County, McMinn County and Monroe County.

(I am doing his website myself and I am having to learn how to do it- it will get better. The ideas are all here and they represent my way of thinking)

<>
Bob Scott believes the following are the most important issues in the 2008 House of Representatives election:


1. Moving our country into the future

Economic development of East Tennessee needs to emphasize manufacturing, tourism and support for TVA and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Our East Tennessee manufacturing- and manufacturing throughout the entire United States-must be put on a “level playing field” in competing with foreign manufacturers who are not required to pay minimum wage, clean their environment, provide safe working conditions, pay for unemployment insurance and pay for workman’s compensation. Inappropriate development of resources cannot be allowed to diminish the attractiveness of East Tennessee to foreign and domestic tourists. TVA needs to get federal funding for non-power functions- as it did in the past. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory needs funding to aggressively do research and development on energy and nuclear options that may be needed in the near future.


Economic fairness is a problem in many societies with many prosperous countries having a large number of permanently impoverished citizens (Mexico is an example- they are trying to solve their problem by sending their poor people to our country). The widening gap in our country between rich and poor is controlled at the federal level by taxation- graduated income tax and inheritance tax. The Republicans have been reducing these taxes and have been moving our country toward a third world model- with a few extremely wealthy people and a large impoverished group of people. We need to look to the future and institute an intelligent tax policy, strengthen labor unions and keep high tech and manufacturing jobs in the United States.

2. The environment of East Tennessee - and the world.

Environmental degradation in East Tennessee is too obvious for argument. What is less obvious but potentially even more serious is the world environment- with carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere rising annually. The Bush administration has done everything possible to avoid facing environmental problems, but the problems are not going away and letting a Republican president and Republican congressmen (especially OUR current congressman) continue to stick our national head in the sand only means the problems will be much worse if we wait until the national Republicans finally wake up.


3. Limiting the number of terms U.S. Representatives spend in the House of Representatives.

East Tennessee- and the entire country - is not well served by having career politicians serving unending terms (even dynasties?) in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is the PEOPLES branch of government. It is meant to reflect the majority will- even if it is volatile and changing. Our current second district representative has served for 18 years and his father before him served 23 years. Even the Republicans- in the Newt Gingrich “Contract with America “ -called for a constitutional amendment which would limit U.S. Representatives to three terms !

When I asked for a nominating petition for US Representative, I was explaining to the clerk what I was running for and the light dawned in her eyes " Oh, John Duncan's seat". Well might she call it that because she had never known any other name in the seat.

The Second Congressional District is supposed to be "the safest Republican district in the country". There has not been a Democrat US Representative since before the Civil War.

But in the 2006 election a Democratic gubernatorial candidate- Phil Bredesen- won the district easily.

In Knox County for Governor

Bredesen(Democrat) 85,566

Bryson(Republican) 32,676

In Knox County for US Representative

Greene(Democrat) 27,162

Duncan(Republican) 90,784

People who voted for a weak candidate like Greene are probably confirmed Democrats.

People who voted for Bryson are probably confirmed Republicans.

There were about 59,000 people who voted for a Democrat Governor and a Republican US Representative. That means there are 59,000 people who are independent enough to vote for a Democrat when they think the Democrat is the better candidate. To carry Knox County a Democrat needs to get about 55 percent of the independent vote. The Second Congressional District as a whole is not very different from Knox County.<>



About Bob Scott

I am a native of East Tennessee- with roots here. My great great grandfather, John Stoltzfus, donated the land for the Concord Mennonite Church at Lovell Road. My great grandfather Christian Stoltzfus was chairman of the committee that started Farragut High School and my great aunt Amanda Stoltzfus was principal during the first year. My grandfather, Charles Ferris, was the first dean of engineering at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville (he also played on the first U.T. football team).

My father, Bob Scott, came to the University of Tennessee from Memphis and stayed in Knoxville after graduating. He was an insurance man with M.F. Flenniken Co. in Knoxville. I have had strangers come to me, when they heard who I was, and say “ your father was the finest man I ever met”-quite a legacy. He was also an athlete- he played basketball for UT and was one of the best handball players and golfers (hole-in-one three times) in Knoxville.

My mother, Katherine (Kitty) Scott is from Knoxville and now resides at Shannondale Assisted Living. My brother, Charlie Scott, played basketball for U.T. and my sister, K. K. (Scott) Cooper, worked for the Knoxville News-Sentinel before going to Florida.

My wife, Julia, is from Knoxville. Her father, John Montgomery was an ophthalmologist and a cattle breeder in Knoxville and McMinn County. Her older brother, John Montgomery Jr. is a retired ophthalmologist, red angus breeder and developer. Her younger brother, Tucker Montgomery is a physician and a lawyer.

Julia and I have been married for 47 years. We have two sons. Rob Scott is a computer engineer with EVENTBOOKING.COM in Knoxville. Joe Scott is a physician in Murfreesboro.

I went to Knoxville High School and West High School and graduated from the University of Tennessee with a degree in Chemical Engineering. I also have a masters degree in chemical engineering from the University of Cincinnati and I attended UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer (since 1962) in the state of Virginia.

I worked in the chemical industry for 15 years with Dupont, Olin and Shell Chemical Companies in Delaware, Texas, Virginia, California, New Jersey, New York and Alabama. I have worked in design, construction, chemical manufacturing (synthetic rubber, heavy chemicals, pesticides, consumer products and pharmaceuticals), government research and development (Oak Ridge National Laboratory and U.S. Army Signal Corps R&D Laboratory) and economic evaluation of manufacturing projects. I taught at what is now Pellissippi State Technical Community College for 26 years before retiring.

I lived in Arizona, South Carolina, New Jersey and Alaska while in the Army. I had a small farm (2.6 acres with an old barn, steers, sheep, ducks and chickens) near Princeton, New Jersey when I worked in New York City. I acted as my own general contractor in building the house we now live in.

I am currently a member of the following organizations:
Church of the Savior-UCC
Technical Society of Knoxville
Tennessee Ornithological Society
Sierra Club
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Mensa
American Association of Retired People
Audubon Society

I have been interested in studying nature since I took bird study merit badge in the Boy Scouts and I probably would not have directly gone into a job in industry manufacturing pesticides. When I completed graduate school I went to work for Shell Chemical Company making synthetic rubber. Shell transferred me to the Agricultural Chemicals Division making consumer products, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Most of the people who made pesticides regarded environmental concerns as unwarranted and they had an “us versus them” attitude. I remember being in a meeting to design a new plant and one of the other engineers stopped what he was doing , looked at me and said “ Scott, you are the closest thing to a double agent I have ever seen.” But, I never did anything I didn’t believe was in the long term best interest of my employer and when Shell started the plant the Shell top management gave the plant manager a pointed directive “you will be a good neighbor.” Later on, the plant was given an award by the State of Alabama for being a good neighbor.


I am not a politician- I am a manufacturing person and a teacher- but I have always tried to do something about public problems rather than just talk about them. My first move toward public office was in New Jersey. I was convinced one of our township committee members was crooked and I thought I would run against him. I planned to attend the township committee meetings until the next election so I would be informed. I went to the next meeting. There was no one in the audience but me and the newspaper reporters. The meeting droned on and on. At about 10:00pm they took a break and all the committeemen were curious about my presence.

They then reconvened. I had to get up the next morning for a one and a half hour commute to New York City ( I worked in Rockefeller Center) and I realized I could not take the time to be a committeeman- so I went home. I resolved to shut up about the crooked committeeman since I was unwilling to do the job but I resolved to support and appreciate genuine public servants from then on.

When Richard Nixon ran against George McGovern I was convinced that Richard Nixon was a crook and I was Democratic chairman in my precinct in California. I was a relative newcomer to the area but the established Democratic party activists were unhappy that Hubert Humphrey had lost the nomination and they were sitting the election out. I knew McGovern was going to lose because half of the Democratic households were supporting Nixon but I did my best. On the night of the election I was at the election office watching the results come in and my Republican counterpart was there and he was very happy. I knew him since he was my son’s soccer coach and I held my tongue but I was thinking “my conscience is clear”.

After I returned to Knoxville I was active in the Jack Heidel campaign for school board and I was at the polling place all day. I observed that the Randy Tyree vs Kyle Testerman voters had already firmly made up their minds before arriving at the polls and that gave me the confidence in the judgment of informed voters that I have today (Randy won in an upset).

When John Duncan Sr., our U.S. Representative, died it looked like John Duncan Jr. was going to get the U.S. Representative position without opposition. That offended me and I said “if no one else is running against him , then I will”. I got my name on the ballot for the Democratic nomination. At the last minute several other people entered the race and I eventually lost in the primary to Dudley Taylor. I really liked the slogan “This is the House of Representatives- not the House of Lords”.

During the race I thought of an idea- if I won the primary, I would try to overcome the big money advantage of the Republicans by distributing an inexpensive video that would clearly explain why I would be a good U.S. Representative. I thought then that I could trust the intelligence and sense of fair play of the voters if I could give them something they could replay when the Republicans flooded the TV with advertisements. I still think the voters are very intelligent when they have enough information on a political race that has caught their interest. I entered the 2004 and 2006 campaigns and I am in the 2008 campaign- still trying to try to test my idea.




Discussion of the campaign's most important issues

Economy

A major problem with the U.S. economy is the loss of manufacturing jobs. A lot of jobs are going overseas to manufacturers who do not have to meet U.S. standards for wages, safety, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance and environmental cleanup.

I propose to impose a tariff on imported manufactured goods if the manufacturer has not met U.S. standards for minimum wage, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance, safety, and environmental cleanup. Our industries should not have to face unfair competition in the U.S. markets.

I think it is important to encourage manufacturing in the U.S., so I propose that corporate taxes on manufacturing operations be discontinued and profits from manufacturing be taxed as they are distributed to owners or stockholders. I remember, when I worked in the chemical industry, making economic evaluations of manufacturing projects and noting how the taxes caused many projects to be rejected. Removing taxes would be- in effect- a subsidy for our industries that would help them compete in world markets.

Corporate executives are routinely being over compensated and the performance of the companies is being affected adversely. I propose that publicly held companies must get stockholder’s specific approval for the salaries of the top ten officers each year.

Labor unions have been losing ground for several years. One reason is the loss or dislocation of manufacturing jobs but a poor climate for union recruitment is probably an important factor. Most people don’t understand or appreciate the contribution labor unions have made to our standard of living and to our freedoms but they have been crucial and many of the gains were bought in blood.

I was always a part of management when I worked in industry but I saw how effective it was whenever the workers were given a strong voice. I once made a comment about his difficulties in dealing with the strong union in his plant to the personnel man in a large company and he said “we consider our strong union to be a valuable asset.” I thought to myself he was trying to put a good face on a bad situation and then I read of a study that showed companies with a strong union were more successful than companies that didn’t have a strong union. Remarkably, some enlightened managers understand that and take advantage of it. Many managers, however, prefer to not share the decision making process with the workers and prefer to fight. The years of administrations hostile to unions and hostile or indifferent congressional actions toward unions need to be reversed.

Pensions for many workers have been reduced by unscrupulous employers and an overhaul of federal regulations is needed to ensure that employees are treated fairly- even when their company is bought by another company.

John Duncan Jr., our current U.S. Representative, in his 2006 newsletter proposed that our country return to the gold standard and eliminate the Federal Reserve system. There isn’t enough gold in the world to back our money with the balance of payments our country has now. The Chinese would own every scrap of gold we could put in Fort Knox. Republicans think of money as something tangible when money is only what people agree to value to make trade easier. Gold is valuable only because people agree to consider it valuable. The Indians of Alaska knew gold was in the creeks but they considered it useless- except that it could be used to make bullets. Money today is numbers in financial institution computers- if you don’t agree, then think about what you have in liquid assets and what form they are in. Our society has almost advanced to the point that most of the worlds financial problems could be solved just by changing the numbers in bank computers around the world.

The Federal Reserve Bank is manipulated to try to control the economy and it’s primary tool is the interest rate it charges banks to borrow money. Since it creates it’s own money, it never runs out. In the runup to the the last high and low in economic activity the Federal Reserve board kept increasing the interest rate on money and then the economy took a nosedive and the Federal Reserve board cut interest rates to ridiculously low rates. Control of processes is one of my professional interests and I can see the problem the Federal Reserve board has. The economy is not a stable system- if it moves in a direction it tends to accelerate in the same direction. The Federal Reserve board tries to control the economy by making small incremental changes but such a process needs to be controlled by frequent larger changes. Other tools for controlling the economy are needed and I have wondered if the president might be induced to give a weekly report on the economy and ask people to spend more in a certain area or ask them to restrain in some area. If the response was significant it might add to the limited tools we have for controlling the economy.

The Federal Reserve system is doing a fair job and it is certainly better than anything else devised- it shouldn’t need to be defended from our U.S. Representative, John Duncan Jr.


Environment and energy

There is uncertainty regarding how quickly and in what exact way the climate is changing and will change.
The one undeniable fact is this:
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the air is increasing steadily year after year due to human activity and the increased carbon dioxide WILL have an effect on the climate.

I propose funding development of a computer model for the earth’s weather and climate that will allow well informed decisions regarding the effects of burning fossil fuels and other processes that may affect the climate and allow evaluation of remedial measures that will be effective and in conjunction, I propose funding a massive weather collecting system worldwide to gather sufficient data so we can really understand and predict the weather and climate accurately.

I propose a research and development project along with subsidized manufacturing for solar cells for home roofs. The goal would be to develop a reasonably efficient, inexpensive solar cell that could be installed by ordinary roofers. The solar cells would need to be connected to a transducer that would allow them to put energy into the power grid. Once a market is developed private enterprise will drive the costs down.

The practice of coal mining by the cheapest method is destructive of the long term beauty of our environment and coal (and other natural resources) extraction needs to be done to preserve natural beauty and water quality. In evaluating economics of coal mining, logging or other extraction or development that may change the environment it must be recognized that scenic beauty and clear water are very valuable to our region as tourist attractions. The rights of private property owners do not extend to doing damage to their property that is against legitimate public interest - and I would try to prohibit the “mountain top removal” method of mining !

Drilling for oil in wilderness areas and wildlife refuges and strategic reserves is not a long term solution to the U.S. gasoline supply manipulations and price fluctuations. There is oil in the ground in developed fields in the lower 48 states but it is more expensive to extract than oil that comes from big gushers in the middle east. If we want increased domestic oil production the federal government needs to protect the oil production and the oil drilling industry from predatory price competition by setting a minimum price for oil imported into the United States.

A move to more fuel efficient cars and trucks could reduce the need for oil imports to a level where the U.S. would see a buyers market rather than the current sellers market. We (Bob and Julia Scott) purchased a Honda Civic Hybrid in 2003 and it gets better than 40 miles per gallon of gasoline. We purchased a Mercruy Mariner hybrid in 2007. As a U.S. Representative I would propose legislation to compel automobile manufacturers to have fleet averages of 40 miles per gallon in a short but attainable length of time.

The future energy requirements may result in nuclear power becoming economical and I propose research and development into the use of thorium for atomic power, development of a nuclear power reactor that will be stable and safe and further development of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. I have spent many years in chemical plants- often handling very dangerous materials- and I have seen both very good and very bad manufacturing practices. I was appalled by the control systems installed in the first nuclear plant I visited- the controls were primitive compared to what we used in the chemical industry. I know that even the best designed plants can be dangerous if operated by management that does not put safety as the first priority and safety as the second priority. I would insist that the nuclear industry operate safely. Many changes in the operating procedures for nuclear power plants were made after the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident and nuclear power plants are operated very safely at the present time.

I have also been appalled by the imposition of changes in nuclear plant design during construction. When you are building a plant you build it as designed and modify it after it is built (it should be designed so it can be modified easily, if necessary). Modifications during construction run up the cost of construction astronomically and most of the excessive costs of the nuclear plants built in the past were due to (well intentioned) changes during construction.

Education

As a professor in a college I saw many students who wanted and needed an education. During the Reagan presidency the money for student assistance was cut and from that time until today most of the engineering technology students worked to support themselves, and often a family, while trying to graduate. I would propose more resources to support college students.

Taxation

The graduated income tax primarily does two things. It results in the collection of a large portion of the money spent by the federal government and it tends to redistribute wealth. The mark of a civilized country is its ability to collect taxes from its wealthier citizens. The State of Tennessee is an example of a government that increases taxes on the poor (increased sales tax and the well advertised lottery). Increasing taxes on the wealthy requires political courage since the wealthy will spend money to elect officials who will reduce their taxes. President George H.W. Bush increased taxes in a politically courageous move that contributed to his defeat by Bill Clinton. Conversely, President George W. Bush has pandered to the wealthy by cutting their taxes and was rewarded with large contributions to his reelection campaign.

The current huge federal deficits are totally unnecessary and are due to the Bush administrations irrational desire to cut taxes just to cut taxes. The current tax rate in the highest tax bracket is 35 percent and the economy is dragging. The comparable rate during the Clinton administration was 39.6 percent and the economy was booming so it seems the tax rate has little to do with how the economy does.

I favor adding a 50 percent tax rate bracket for over $750,000 (this is something that has to be carefully thought out). This (or some similar tax increase) will make the income tax a more progressive tax and go a long way toward eliminating the budget deficit.

I favor modifying the alternative minimum tax. It should be calculated at 28 percent of income with a deduction of $200,000 to simplify it and minimize the number of people affected by it. All of the taxes that have a fixed dollar amount associated with them should be revised yearly so inflation does not change their original intent.

Even with a tax increase in the higher income level, the United States citizens will be taxed at a lower rate than most Europeans. In general, countries with high standards of living have high tax rates and it is not an accident.

John Duncan Jr., our current U.S. Representative, in his 2008 newsletter favors eliminating the federal income tax and replace it with a 21% federal sales tax. The proposed sales tax would be revenue neutral. The Republicans have a real talent for creative misnomers and they call this their “fair tax”. Many wealthy people pay more than 21 % of their income in federal income tax. Anyone who was paying more than 21% of their income in federal taxes will have a tax reduction when a federal sales tax is instituted. If the federal sales tax plan is revenue neutral the taxpayers who have been paying less than 21% of their income in income tax will have to pay more in taxes to make up for the loss in tax revenue from the wealthy.

One of the touted benefits for the “fair tax” is the elimination of the Federal Internal Revenue Service. (The IRS does need better oversight from Congress). However, even the Republicans would hesitate to impose a 21% sales tax on people in poverty so the “fair tax” would provide for a monthly refund to people in poverty. Sending a monthly check to all people in poverty would require a lot of IRS employees. Ingenious people would work up ingenious ways to avoid the sales tax and it would require IRS agents to monitor the payment of sales taxes. It would be only a matter of a short time before campaign contributions to selected Republican legislators would result in the sales tax laws being riddled with exceptions and soon the tax laws and their enforcement would become complicated again.

There are radio talk show hosts who favor the 21% federal sales tax (euphemistically called the “fair tax”) and the Republicans may be deciding that we should have government of, by and for our radio talk show hosts- “honk your horn for the “fair tax” when you drive past the capital building!!”

John Duncan Jr., our current U.S. Representative, should be able to understand this “fair tax” and he should never have considered a 21% federal sales tax to have any merit and certainly our next U.S. Representative should try to stop it from even being considered in the House of Representatives.

Health Care
It is a disgrace for the United States to have people within our country who cannot get the medical treatment they need because it is too expensive for them. I am currently covered by Medicare and it is a very good program except that it seems to underpay the physicians for some treatments. I favor a program similar to Medicare for everyone. I have heard that the United States spends more for health care per person than any other major country and I believe if the money were allocated rationally that everyone could be covered.

I favor a national federal medical records program. Physicians would not have to maintain large filing systems and medical records would have continuity and completeness that they do not have now. Currently if you go to several physicians and if you have gone to physicians in the past your medical records are hopelessly confused or lost if you want a comprehensive overview.

..:: Qualifications for U.S. Representative ::..

Job qualifications and how I see my strengths and weaknesses:

Only partly tongue-in-cheek: US Representative must be one of the easiest jobs anywhere- think about it- how many jobs do you know of wherein the worker never gets fired- even if he or she is incompetent?

Actually it is a challenging job if it is done with insight and creativity and I appreciate anyone- Republican or Democrat- who is public spirited enough to serve in the position as a public servant and not for their own personal power and gain.

The U.S. Representative has seven areas of responsibility:

1. Voting to organize the House of Representatives

This is a crucial operation because it determines who will chair the committees and subcommittees for the session. The Republicans have recently shown execrable judgment in selecting the House leadership. In my opinion, Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay have been among the all time worst leaders of the House of Representatives. It is hard to visualize, but John Duncan must have approved of Tom Delay and his behavior since he donated $5000 to his legal defense fund. Our country desperately needs the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives and East Tennessee is derelict if we keep sending Republicans that the rest of the country has to overcome- do your part! Help the Democrats retain control of the House of Representatives.

2. Constituent service

It is not mentioned in the constitution but an important part of the U.S. Representative job is to help constituents who have problems or otherwise need assistance in dealing with the federal government. This is something that contributes to the problem of U.S. Representatives being almost impossible to replace. Nationwide, people are very unhappy overall with the members of the House of Representatives but they uniformly think their own representative is good. ALL US REPRESENTATIVES HELP THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS. It is not something they should get overwhelming credit for but a majority of the voters let constituent service determine their vote. ANYONE WHO IS ELECTED CAN DO IT!
If elected, I will exert whatever effort is needed to serve the people of East Tennessee in dealing with the federal government. I worked for 26 years helping students who had problems with school bureaucracy and I would continue the same kind of effort as a U.S. Representative.

I can’t say I have received many awards but two that are applicable in the context of helping people with their problems are
a. I was voted the Outstanding Faculty Member by the faculty of the State Technical Institute at Knoxville (now Pellissippi State) in 1976.
b. I was given the annual “Servant of All“ award by my church in 2000.

3. Proposing laws

Many new laws, revisions of old laws, resolutions and constitutional amendments are introduced by U.S. Representatives each year. Some are good, some bad and some of minimal importance. Our U.S. Representative is on record as favoring some laws that I consider destructive.

4. Working in committees on proposed laws.

The opportunity to influence legislation comes in the meetings and hearings held by the committees considering proposed laws. I have worked well in committees throughout my career. I have worked on committees to build plant facilities, introduce new products to the market and start new organizations. I have served on the board of directors of professional engineer societies (California, New jersey and Tennessee), chemical engineering societies, Toastmaster Clubs and the Technical Society of Knoxville. I have served in my church as a deacon and as a member of the administrative council. I have worked throughout my teaching career with program advisory committees. I served on the Technology Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. Working on committees is an opportunity I enjoy and is something I have a lot of experience with.


5. Voting on laws.

The difficulty in voting for or against proposed laws is the original bill or the amended bill may have both something desirable and something undesirable and it may be a matter of choosing the lesser of evils or determining the greater good in deciding how to vote. If elected, my criterion will always be to vote for what is in the best long term interest of East Tennessee and the United States. I will always ask for and respect information and opinions on all sides of a question.
One abuse of the power to write laws is the practice of authorizing federal government spending in congressional districts for the purpose of influencing votes in the next election- they all seem to do the same thing and brag loudly about what they have done for their district. What will it take to stop the unnecessary and excessive federal spending intended to influence votes when even our own “fiscally conservative” representative does the same as all the others?


6. Impeachment of federal officials

This is not common but if it occurred, I would not be governed by politics but would be fair and render a judgment based on the facts.
I think the Republican impeachment of President Clinton was a disgraceful and polarizing attempt to embarrass the president for short term political gain. The Republicans refused to allow a vote on a censure motion that the Democrats could have supported and instead voted to impeach the president- knowing that there was no possibility he would lose the vote in the Senate. If the Republicans had thought President Clinton would be removed from office and Vice President Gore would be president at the time of the next election they would not have voted for impeachment. John Duncan was one of very few representatives who voted for impeachment on all three charges.
It is unlikely that Richard Nixon would have been impeached if Spiro Agnew had not already been replaced by Gerald Ford and it is unlikely that George Bush will be impeached as long as Dick Cheny is vice president.

7. Ceremonial appearances

Public appearances and meeting visitors are an important part of the U.S. Representative job and, while I am not likely to ever become a professional speaker, I enjoy meeting people and talking to groups.

Other thoughts on qualifications.

In my opinion, a U.S. Representative should be someone who has a variety of experience and an education in a field that gives them an understanding of technology ( note that I may be prejudiced).
My experience is very wide and I find it gives me the ability to synthesize ideas from several areas to come up with creative solutions to problems.

As an example, when I lived in New Jersey, I had a grape arbor and I decided to squeeze the grapes to make juice. We stomped the grapes (it works very well) and then tried to strain them with cheesecloth. It was VERY slow and I had about 500 pounds of grapes. I looked around the basement and found the answer. I rinsed our washing machine out well and put it on spin cycle. I then ran the grapes through the washing machine and it worked beautifully (the juice came out the drain hose).

I was listening to B-1 Bob Dornan on the Rush Limbaugh show ( I can rarely listen more than a couple of minutes without getting disgusted or infuriated or both) and he commented derisively on the limited experience of most of the members of congress. He should at least know something about that. I think we would get better laws if some congressmen had technical backgrounds. I think there are more than enough Republican lawyers in Congress.


Divisive issues


I am not a politician but I have learned why politicians have the reputation for sitting on the fence. It is the constituents who put them there. I am amused by the story about Abraham Lincoln jumping out of a courtroom window to avoid having to vote and take a stand on an issue.

Voters will not usually vote for someone based on a position on an issue but they will often vote against someone on the basis of a single issue.

In spite of it being politically unwise, I have written out my thoughts on a number of controversial issues to show how I think about solving problems. I try to find areas where all sides can agree and try to find a consensus solution. I try to be open to ideas and feelings of everyone. I can change my mind. If I have an ideology it is “what would Jesus say to do”?


Liberal versus Conservative
Our “American College Dictionary” defines “conservative” and “liberal” as follows:
conservative
(adjective) 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. 2. cautious or moderate: a conservative estimate 3. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative 4. noting or pertaining to a political party whose characteristic principle is opposition to change in the institutions of a country. (noun) 5. a person of conservative principles 6.a member of a conservative party in politics, especially in England 7.a preservative.
liberal
(adjective) 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in religious or political affairs. 2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform: the Liberal party. 3. favorable to or in accord with the policy of leaving the individual as unrestricted as possible in the opportunities for self expression or self fulfillment. 4. of representational forms of government rather than aristocracies or monarchies. 5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 6. giving freely or in ample measure; a liberal donor. 7. given freely or abundantly; a liberal donation. 8. not strict or rigorous; a liberal interpretation of a rule. 9 befitting a freeman, a gentleman, or a nonprofessional person. (noun) 10.a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion. 11.a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Who is a liberal and who is a conservative?
If you set aside the vituperative characterizations, a liberal position on any issue is one that is intended to make an improvement. A conservative position is one that prefers the current situation.

What is confusing (and destructive) is that some people want to make changes that they think will improve a situation and they want to call their position conservative - when in reality it is a liberal position by the dictionary definition-and they want to call themselves “conservatives”. Some of these self-styled “conservatives” have created a straw man they call a “liberal” who can be twisted into the epitome of evil intent to arouse the ire of other “conservatives”.

I, Bob Scott, hope that when there are problems to be faced that I usually take a liberal position- ie. trying to find an acceptable- preferably consensus - solution to the problem. However, there are issues where I take a conservative position when I think a proposed liberal position is unwise or misguided.

For example, I hold a conservative position on Social Security.

I am retired and a Social Security recipient. I have found the program to be efficient and easy to use. My benefits are not enough to provide a comfortable life but they would keep me from starving if they were my only source of income. I -like everyone else -needed to plan ahead and have other resources after retiring.
The Republicans have proposed a change in Social Security which they say will improve it-ie. they have attempted to privatize a part of Social Security. The Republican position is a liberal position since- ostensibly- they wish to improve the Social Security program. Personally, I think the Republican attempt is misguided because it throws the element of luck into even the Social Security part of retirement planning. I also mistrust the Republicans’ intentions-it is almost amusing to watch the Republicans- they really don’t like Social Security and they know most people do like the program but they just can’t keep their hands off of Social Security.

There are several genuinely liberal-ie constructive- changes the Republicans could propose if they really want to improve Social Security. If the Republicans want the money in the Social Security Trust Fund to get a greater rate of return then Congress can increase the interest rate and pay a greater rate of return at any time -since Congress has decreed that the money will be loaned to the Federal government and Congress also sets the interest rate.

With Social Security taxes collected on only the first $65,400 of a person’s annual salary the Social Security tax is a regressive tax. It would be fairer and it might generate the revenue needed to keep Social Security solvent in the future if the limit on income were eliminated or raised significantly.

However, the only proposed changes are detrimental in my opinion and I favor the conservative position-ie. the status quo is better than a bad change.

The war in Iraq
The following is an excerpt from http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar2.html :
“following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's rhetoric implied an (as yet unproven) Iraqi connection with al-Qaida. Using the potential threat of Saddam-supplied Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of terrorists, the U.S. government increasingly insisted on total Iraqi disarmament. With initial backing by the UN Security Council, the United States encircled Iraq with growing military forces, leading Iraq to permit UN weapons inspectors back into the country.”

As part of “encircling Iraq with growing military forces” President Bush asked the Congress for authority to attack Iraq. President Bush said in his reelection campaign that Senator Kerry had seen the same intelligence reports he had seen (he neglected to add that Senator Kerry had read them). President Bush convinced most congressmen that it was important to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Many of the congressmen felt that only the certainty of an attack by the United States would induce Iraq to allow weapons inspections to resume. A hollow threat would not have sufficed. The House of Representatives voted 296 to 133 to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Eighty one Democrats voted in favor of authorizing the use of force. Six Republicans (including John Duncan Jr.) voted against authorizing the use of force. Senator John Kerry voted to give President Bush the authority he requested. Senator Robert Byrd opposed the authorization saying “ This is another Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I am not going to vote for that this time.”

The threat of military action was a success and inspections for weapons of mass destruction resumed. If President Bush had been honest and patient we would have found from the arms inspectors that Iraq was not a threat and there was no need to invade and conquer Iraq. John Duncan and Senator Byrd would have taken the wrong stand in opposing the president.

Unfortunately for our country, John Duncan and Senator Byrd understood the president and his intentions all too well and the principled stand against authorizing the use of force was very commendable. Note that 127 Democrats in the House of Representatives also understood President Bush and their opposition is equally commendable.

<>
The future conduct of the war with Iraq- after a myriad of mistakes by President Bush, Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld- has no good options. The least odious option seems to be to declare we have succeeded and withdraw our ground forces. We need to fund a strong central government army ( it will be corrupt) and we could provide air support for the central government army until the country is (hopefully) stable.

Moral issues
There are several issues on which the Republicans claim moral superiority . I find the perception to be based on propaganda.

Abortion:
The 2004 Democratic party platform said “abortions should be safe, legal and rare.”
The 2004 Republican party platform said “ We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.”
Think about what that says. If the Republicans could pass a constitutional amendment, there will be no punishment for self administered abortions except the knowledge that they are illegal. However, anyone who helps a woman have an abortion will be prosecuted. There WILL be a black market supplying abortion pills. What will happen to physicians who perform an abortion when amniocentesis shows a genetic trait-for instance, hydrops fetalis due to homozygous a zero thalassaemia- in which the fetus has no chance of surviving and it represents some risk to the mother?

There should be a bipartisan effort to make abortions rare. Both parties propose to support pregnant women who wish to bear children but the Republicans just talk about it- they could have easily passed bipartisan legislation supporting mothers. Apparently the Republicans would rather agitate at election time and pontificate about an abortion amendment that they know has no chance of passing but will put the Democrats in a bad light with some single issue voters. They rely on the probability that these voters do not look at their inaction and their motives.


What is it about the Republican position that is morally superior?
Partial birth abortion:

I consider the decision to end a pregnancy with an abortion a tragedy for whatever reason. The “partial birth abortion” is a Republican euphemism for a medical procedure (D&X) that generates a lot of emotion- but little understanding. When President Clinton vetoed the “Partial Birth Abortion” bill, James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, said on his radio program: "The blood of these tiny infants will be on Mr. Clinton's hands." What James Dobson said is a distortion- it is the decision to end the pregnancy by an abortion that matters- not the procedure used. I am not an expert but it seems that the alternate methods used are Caesarean section and D&E (which involves cutting the fetus up inside the womb and removing it piece by piece).
There may be medically sound reasons to not use one procedure or another, but where is the moral superiority in choosing one abortion method over another.

What is it about the Republican position that is morally superior?
Flag burning amendment to the Constitution

This is another issue that some people are very emotional about but it is an area that should just be ignored. The Supreme Court was correct- it is a freedom of speech issue and a flag burning amendment would be a restriction on free speech- obnoxious speech certainly, but we tolerate a lot of obnoxious speech.
The Boy Scout Handbook years ago said when a flag is to be destroyed, it should be burned and not discarded in the trash or buried. Visualize a person burning a flag. If the person says “I am respectfully burning my flag because in my opinion it is worn and should no longer be displayed ” then there is no problem. If the person says “I am burning the flag because I hate the war in Viet Nam” then there is anger. The action is the same in both cases- only the words are different. The Supreme Court was correct - it is a freedom of speech issue.
Flag burning has not been a problem for years but it will become a BIG PROBLEM if it is outlawed. People who are trying to get attention will take advantage of the opportunity to goad the government into futile action that will generate publicity. The Supreme Court will be busy defining a “flag”. For example : a few years ago the Knoxville News-Sentinel printed a full page color picture of the flag. If someone burned that page would it be illegal? Thousands of people buried the picture. People are ingenious and crafty- there are endless ways to circumvent any flag burning law and get publicity.

Why do the Republicans bring up the flag burning amendment? To get votes. Probably most lawmakers are educated enough to recognize the error in amending the constitution but they don’t want to be labeled “unpatriotic” so they vote for the amendment- but they count the votes first. David Crockett (I recently found out in a visit to the Alamo that he was never called “Davy” Crockett ) said one way to get elected and reelected was to “wrap yourself in the flag”. That is a cynical way of taking advantage of the people’s devotion to the flag.

Some radio and TV ministers favor the flag burning amendment but there is no mention of burning flags in the Bible.

What is it about the Republican position that is morally superior?

Same Sex Marriage Amendment

My personal opinion is marriage should be between one man and one woman (I have been married to Julia for 47 years). My concern about attempts to redefine marriage is primarily against opening the way to legalizing polygamy. I believe it is a reasonable exercise of government authority to prohibit polygamy.

I understand that people live together in other, alternate, arrangements and they may need health care, visiting rights during hospital stay, and other things that are available to one person and needed by both.
An example without sexual connotation could be when two sisters live with their aging mother. One sister works outside the home and the other takes care of the mother. Both need health insurance and social security but only the one working outside the home has coverage.

Calling other arrangements “marriage” may be a shortcut to getting other people the things available to married couples, but I, personally, think the legitimate needs of people in alternative living arrangements should be met another way. I think domestic partnerships or civil unions or handling each need individually on a state by state basis would be preferable to redefining or expanding the definition of marriage.

I oppose amending the constitution to give the central government jurisdiction in an area the has traditionally been handled by the individual states. The Republicans would be disappointed if the constitutional amendment passed because they could no longer trot the amendment out just before elections in an attempt to put the Democrats in a bad light with a group of single issue voters.

I am certain that many people disagree with me on this issue but I ask the question a different way. If the Republicans bring up the issue- knowing it will fail to pass- for the sole purpose of making some Democrats look bad to a group of people.
What is it about the Republican position that is morally superior?

Gun control

<>The writers of the constitution lived at a time when there was a small standing army and a real need to fight wars- justified or not- using militias composed of ordinary citizens who could stop their work and fight a war. There would not be time or resources to arm a militia quickly if a large number of men did not already have a gun. Contrary to popular opinion many frontiermen did not have a gun and were not much help in fighting.

"Before the Battle of New Orleans the Kentucky Militia numbering 2,250 arrived from Baton Rouge. Most were in weak physical condition from the long journey, they were poorly clothed, and only about one-third
were armed. On learning how few weapons the Kentuckians had, Andrew Jackson exclaimed,
'I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun, a pack of cards, and a jug of whiskey.' The people of New Orleans raised money to buy, and make, clothes for the Kentucky soldiers, but weapons were nearly impossible to get."

Today we do not need a civilian militia to fight the British and we would not expect a civilian militia to successfully fight against a modern army. If our country were invaded by a foreign army we would certainly act as gorilla fighters with any guns available. That is a very unlikely scenario and even if it did happen rifles would be used. Handgunsand shotguns would be ineffective because of modern body armor. Wyatt Earp had a shootout with the Clantons over control of handguns in Tombstone. He knew they could mean trouble and needed to be controlled. Wyatt Earp was right and reasonable handgun control is still reasonable. It is not reasonable to try to control hunting or sporting firearms.