Commentary on Demand

                                    Editorials by Request

                                             Fuel your discussions

My response:

I appreciate your good advice and recognize the benefit.  Initially I only posted long articles with the salient points nestled into the middle so that only the most interested people would find them.  This was a reaction to my finding almost no useful (detailed) information on other candidate websites (including Presidential candidates).  I’ve tried to find a bit of a medium by posting executive summaries at the beginning of some of my articles and better opening paragraphs on others.  My apologies for the ones I’ve not re-addressed.

I’m a little leery about going too much to the other side for two reasons:

1. A lot of the methods and ideas I want to talk about are not widely discussed today.  With a little more context people tend to see the points are not as wild as they would appear if I presented them stand alone.
2. When things are presented simply I seem to be for just about everything.  I get Right to Work surveys and answer yes to 80% of those.  I get pro-union surveys and answer yes to 80% of those.  Yet when I talk to one side or the other I get the impression they think I’m some radical from their opponent’s camp.  

Such is my dilemma:  If I simplify my positions too much I risk loosing the votes of those who enjoy the complex puzzle while at the same time deceiving those defined by a single issue into thinking they have an ally.   

Personal and Political Philosophy

By Thomas F. McMasters   Article originally appeared as part of 2010 Primary Run which culminated 5 May

First Draft (3 Apr 10)

I don't think there is any real benefit to you for me to try and make a one page list of the things I'm for and against.  I definitely know it won't help me.  Aren't we all for lower taxes, better education, a strong military, affordable healthcare?  The devil is always in the details.  That's why I like to write expansively about the paths I took to my current positions.  Openness like this not only helps you understand how I come to my current position it also helps you predict what my next position might be.  Not only that but it allows you to contribute details to my arguments and more importantly point out obvious flaws in my logic which I can use in my attempt at constructing better policy.  Although I'm still going to make you go into the articles to discern my positions I don't mind pointing out some of my personal and political philosophies.

First of all the most important issue of the day is the budget deficit.  I haven't written or thought about it nearly as much as my intention when I decided to run but it must be addressed and it must be addressed now.

That's the only specific issue I'm going mention in this article.  I think it is useful for you to know I believe in getting value for my money.  I'm not particularly scared of taxes nor do I see socialism as being evil.  I just don't embrace them extensively because we dedicate enough of our GDP already to taxes and socialism just doesn't work.  As a guiding principle, I see the country benefiting from low taxes and free enterprise.  Not no taxes and no regulation.  I'm not an anarchist!  But if we are going to collect taxes we should be getting something for our money. 

To argue with myself let me go on to say I don't think taxes are applied in the right manner as to optimize; enterprise, industry, collective or individual wealth.  It would be deceitful for me to say "no new taxes" because I'm all for adjusting the tax code so the right parts of industry are promoted.  For instance I am for substance over style.  In my world, producing a quality sneaker should be more important than convincing someone an Ok shoe should be envied.  Right now we tax the crap out of the production side making the advertising side look like a better cash investment.  To me it makes no sense that Tiger Woods gets more of Buick's money than the company president.   It makes no sense Michael Jordan pulls in more than the doctors consulted by New Balance.  One of the prime reasons we go with style over substance is because we over tax substance and give style a free ride.  

Still arguing with myself, free enterprise is the best system as long as it is properly regulated.  In general less regulations are better but remember regulations are merely a history lesson.  Those that fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.  Now history is always being created and some of the lessons we learned in times past do become moot.  So not only is it important not to hold onto a regulation when it no longer provides any use, we must make sure the underlying problem which caused our ancestors to put it there in the first place is gone.   

This leads to a subject I've been wanting to write, that is, an article titled "Political Consistency is Insulting".  When I write this article the intention will be to convince you it's alright for your politicians to show you they are capable of considering other points of view and when necessary adjust their positions.  I believe the country is stronger when more ideas are explored and thought through.  I would love to see people get a chance and want to look at 4 or 5 different candidates per elected position during these primary races.  

I could go on for a lot longer but I guess I will end with this last item.  I am not a good candidate for anyone with a hardcore agenda, left or right.  I'm pretty much a centrist on a lot of issues and I like to think I will consider the details of any specific law in the context of what gives the American taxpayer the best value / standard of living / quality of life.