Share Your Support
For Senate

Type your paragraph here.

Type yAt some point very soon, the Covid-19 crisis will pass, and we will have to deal with other problems.  For at least 90 years, the favorite tool Americans have used to solve problems is to spend money.  Government is very fond of spending money.  I believe we are seeing a diminishing return-on-investment using this strategy. 

              Yes, we need more resources to address our problems; however, money does not have to be the only resource.  The best resource could be increasing the ability of families to solve their own problems.  What families need is more tools; not more government handouts. Often these tools are choices and options that government has a role in making available.  Furthermore, giving families choices usually costs other taxpayers nothing. 

              The best of both worlds can be achieved.  Families strengthened, problems solved, at no or very little cost to other taxpayers.  For example, homeschooling is a tool parents can use.  It allows parents to education their children and costs other taxpayers very little. 

              I believe the principles of the homeschool, charter school, school choice movement can be applied to poverty programs and healthcare albeit in slightly different forms.   The great thing about empowering families by decentralizing government responsibility through choice is that families can seek divine inspiration to deal with their own individual needs.   This cannot be done with a state-run program.

              Imagine, a world where problems are solved by families and freedom.  What an innovative concept.      

What will the future of Idaho look like?  Currently, there are two major views dealing with the problems facing the state.  The first view suggests the state do more to take care of people such as expanding Medicaid.  Recently, the voters asked the state to provide medical care for the poor. 

              This view has a certain, short-term, logical appeal.  Kindhearted people want to help those in need and figure the state can do it quickly and efficiently.  Those holding this view want to replicate this same strategy in other areas such as creating a state-funded early education program to deal with the issue of too many young children coming to school ill-prepared for kindergarten. 

              The second view opposes increasing state programs to take care of people.  Those holding this view don’t think this is a proper role of government and people should take care of themselves.  They see problems such as:

Creating more dependent citizens that expect even greater benefits
The need for larger government budgets which, eventually, leads to higher taxes.
The underlying problems are not solved.
A state-funded early education proposal, for example, would cost at least $50 million.  Where do the funds come from?  They ask, ‘why can’t families do it?’

The voters are evenly matched in which approach to use.   The national vote is split almost 50/50.  Democrats gain control of congress then Republicans gain control of Congress.  The people, however, are frustrated because nothing seems to change.  Problems continue regardless of which party is in power. 

 

What is the Underlying Problem?

According to the American theory of limited government, established by our Founding Fathers, the federal and state governments are limited.  Most of the power is to reside in the people.  I exchange the term ‘family’ with ‘the people’ because I think it is more instructive. 

Rather than argue about building up the capacity of the state or reduce the power of the state; the discussion should be what can we do to build up the capacity of family units, so state programs are not needed.  The underlying problem is America does not have enough economically independent families.  This fact does currently does not guide policy makers.  It should.  An economically independent family:

Pays taxes and does not need social programs
Pays for their own health care rather than receive state help
Pays for their own food, shelter, and transportation needs.

My political career has been and continues to be to advocate for creating another paradigm that addresses long-term problems by increasing the number of independent families.

Increasing the number of independent families requires the state to create a structure where responsibility can flow from the state back to willing families in three areas: education, health care, and poverty.   It does not require the state to create more government programs to take care of people.

The question you need to answer is, “would you like to see the Idaho legislature think of ways to increase the number of functional, economically independent families or not?”   our paragraph here.

At some point very soon, the Covid-19 crisis will pass, and we will have to deal with other problems.  For at least 90 years, the favorite tool Americans have used to solve problems is to spend money.  Government is very fond of spending money.  I believe we are seeing a diminishing return-on-investment using this strategy.  


Yes, we need more resources to address our problems; however, money does not have to be the only resource.  The best resource could be increasing the ability of families to solve their own problems.  What families need is more tools; not more government handouts. Often these tools are choices and options that government has a role in making available.  Furthermore, giving families choices usually costs other taxpayers nothing. 

              The best of both worlds can be achieved.  Families strengthened, problems solved, at no or very little cost to other taxpayers.  For example, homeschooling is a tool parents can use.  It allows parents to education their children and costs other taxpayers very little.  


I believe the principles of the home school, charter school, school choice movement can be applied to poverty programs and healthcare albeit in slightly different forms.   The great thing about empowering families by decentralizing government responsibility through choice is that families can seek divine inspiration to deal with their own individual needs.   This cannot be done with a state-run program.

              Imagine, a world where problems are solved by families and freedom.  What an innovative concept.      

What will the future of Idaho look like?  Currently, there are two major views dealing with the problems facing the state.  The first view suggests the state do more to take care of people such as expanding Medicaid.  Recently, the voters asked the state to provide medical care for the poor. 

              This view has a certain, short-term, logical appeal.  Kindhearted people want to help those in need and figure the state can do it quickly and efficiently.  Those holding this view want to replicate this same strategy in other areas such as creating a state-funded early education program to deal with the issue of too many young children coming to school ill-prepared for kindergarten. 

              The second view opposes increasing state programs to take care of people.  Those holding this view don’t think this is a proper role of government and people should take care of themselves.  They see problems such as:

Creating more dependent citizens that expect even greater benefits
The need for larger government budgets which, eventually, leads to higher taxes.
The underlying problems are not solved.
A state-funded early education proposal, for example, would cost at least $50 million.  Where do the funds come from?  They ask, ‘why can’t families do it?’

The voters are evenly matched in which approach to use.   The national vote is split almost 50/50.  Democrats gain control of congress then Republicans gain control of Congress.  The people, however, are frustrated because nothing seems to change.  Problems continue regardless of which party is in power. 

What is the Underlying Problem?

According to the American theory of limited government, established by our Founding Fathers, the federal and state governments are limited.  Most of the power is to reside in the people.  I exchange the term ‘family’ with ‘the people’ because I think it is more instructive. 

Rather than argue about building up the capacity of the state or reduce the power of the state; the discussion should be what can we do to build up the capacity of family units, so state programs are not needed.  The underlying problem is America does not have enough economically independent families.  This fact does currently does not guide policy makers.  It should.  An economically independent family:

  • Pays taxes and does not need social programs
  • Pays for their own health care rather than receive state help
  • Pays for their own food, shelter, and transportation needs.


My political career has been and continues to be to advocate for creating another paradigm that addresses long-term problems by increasing the number of independent families.

Increasing the number of independent families requires the state to create a structure where responsibility can flow from the state back to willing families in three areas: education, health care, and poverty.   It does not require the state to create more government programs to take care of people.

The question you need to answer is, “would you like to see the Idaho legislature think of ways to increase the number of functional, economically independent families or not?”