Topic: Ron Paul
RPR: rEVOLution interview - Dan Druck This is the 3rd Freedom Files interview with rEVOLution Candidates.by RS Davis
(Libertarian)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Hello Freedomphiles! Time for another rEVOLution candidate interview. Today, we are talking to Dan Druck, who is running for Denny Hastert's old Congressional seat in Illinois' 14th District.
Mr Druck is forty-nine years old, and lives with his wife and three children in Huntley, Illinois. He writes a column, as I do, for The Nolan Chart, under the pseudonym USAF Vet Dan.
A graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology, he has a degree in architecture, winning the Alpha Rho Chi National Architectural Award and established the school's first chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
Before college, though, Mr Druck enlisted in the air force, serving from 1976 to 1980, where he was awarded theAir Force Commendation Medal, Longevity Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and Marksmanship Medal.
This is not his first foray into the political realm, having campaigned in 1996 as a Democrat, but as Dan tells us, "The Democratic Party filed a protest with the IBE, challenging petition signatures. The IBE, without review, invalidated my position on the ballot." He ended up running a write-in campaign.
He also co-founded The Council on Domestic Relations(CDR), which he describes as "the antithesis of the CFR. It focused on ferreting out unConstitutional components that were buried in pending legislation. Our nation-wide volunteers would read all pending legislation (unlike most of our Congressmen) and then we'd organize phone blitzes to our elected officials in an effort to defeat these nefarious bills. The CDR also fought against state calls for a Constitutional Convention."
The principal motivation came from the myriad of federal mandates which have been placed and are planned to be placed on the states. State legislatures feel they have little choice but to implement these mostly-unfunded mandates and pass the cost for implementation to the state taxpayers. For most state legislators, this is a very frustrating dilemma.
The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp. Article IV, Section 4 says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.....", and the Ninth Amendment states that..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
We have, through apathy and lack of will, allowed federal legislators and bureaucrats to assert their will over us and commandeer our funds for their own use.... most of it today outside the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This was what happened with New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). The federal government was attempting to mandate that the State of New York accept radioactive waste for disposal. New York pleaded they were exempt from the mandate under the Tenth Amendment and the court affirmed the Tenth Amendment protection. Thus, by having proclaimed sovereignty, a state is in the position to select those mandates they will follow, now by choice, not by edict.
A sovereignty resolution does not preclude any state from participating in any program they choose, but the proponent may no longer claim, "It's a federal mandate. We have to do it". Each state legislator, in compliance with his/her oath of office, must then examine closely before passage, the Constitutionality of any law being considered.
It passed in 26 states, but the CDR ran out of funds and could not continue to pursue it.
I had a chance to have an email sit-down with Mr Druck, and ask him a few questions about why he was running and what he wanted to accomplish.
FF: So, under which party's banner are you running, and why?
DRUCK: Libertarian. Thelocal Republican organization has, like most around the country, rejected Ron Paul's platform. Rather than further complicatemy campaign by having to fight against my own party, I chose the LibertarianParty because it most closely reflects my staunch pro-Constitutional views and is the most organized of the third parties.
FF: How's the organizing going?
DRUCK: While the 14th CD has long been known as an "ultra-conservative" district, the much-hated Republican (Jim Oberweis) lost to the Marxist Democrat (Bill Foster). This makes us believe that a real Constitutionist will be well received come November when their only other choice will be the same two RepubliCrats. We really have a shot at winning this... but we have to clear the first hurdle - ballot access.
The RepubliCrat candidates require only about 800 petition signatures. I, running on the Libertarian ticket, am forced to obtain more than 11,000! (15,000 to ensure that we are "challenge-proof") Yes, I know... we should sue the Illinois State Board of Elections but there isn't time. Thepetitioning deadline is June 23. While we have volunteers outcollecting signatureswe are going to have to hire petitioners. As soon as our website is done, we intend to collect donations to cover the costs of paid petitioners. In the mean time, we are trying to get the word out.
FF: So, what is your general philosophy of good government?
DRUCK: Government that governs least, governs best. I believe that the founding fathers were spot on target with defining the limited role of the federal government. They properly identified those areas and services (i.e., common defense, postal roads, etc.) that are best provided by a central government.
They were also on target when they reserved all other powers to the states and to the people by way of the 10th Amendment. The closer the citizen is to his government, the better. The more government we can shift to the states, counties, and townships - closer to thecitizen - the more impact the citizen has ontheir electedofficials who administer government.
FF: How are you like Ron Paul? How are you different?
DRUCK: As a strict Constitutionist, my platform is almost identical to Congressman Paul's. The only difference is in the area of foreign trade. I believe free trade cannot exist unless both trading partners are practicing it.
FF: Now, Milton Friedman likened that to saying, essentially, "I'll stop hitting myself in the head with this hammer, but only if you stop hitting yourself in the head with that hammer." Do you stray from the free market economic analysis that trade barriers harm the country enacting them far worse than the country they are enacted upon? If so, why?
DRUCK: I'll admit that I have not studied Austrian economics at a level of detail enough to consider myself wholly proficient. I have a general understanding of its principles and generally view it as the valid economic theory of a free society. I don't embrace a collectivist, micro-economic approach of economic management. I do, however, believe that modification to the application of Austrian economic principles is required when considering global economics - specifically, that true free trade can only exist when both trading partners are practicing it.
To date, all of the discussions I've had with staunch proponents ofAustrian economics has led me toconclude that, with regard to the effects of trade tariffs,theyfocus on theoutcomes and impact to the consumer and somewhat ignore the manufacturing side of the trade equation."Manufacturers" (whether of goods or services) are germane in the equation as theyemploy the consumer and are, therefore, a conduit within the flow of money. If CountryA imposessubstantially higher tariffsthan Country B, then B's consumers will enjoy lower prices but B's employers will be placed at a disadvantage - a disadvantagethat will reduce their volume of business and therefore flow of money to B's consumers.$100 plasma TVs, as inexpensive as they would be, are still out of reach of the unemployed.
To resolve thisinequity, I believe in the use of a simple, standard policywhereby tariffs are adjusted to match that of the trading partner's. Not only will this minimize and balance the detrimental effects of tariffs on and between both the consumers and the manufacturers, it will encourage alltrading partners to lower / eliminatetheir tariffs thus promoting true free global trade. I do not, however, propose the use of tariffs in a protectionist fashion - that is to say, in a manner intending to pander to the manufacturers' desire for more than a level playing field. This can lead to trade wars which can lead to real wars.
Again, admitting that I am not wholly proficient on Austrian economics, I reserve the right to change my position on tariffs. I sincerely have an open mind on this issue and encourage input that would demonstrateflaws in my position. As they say, the truth shall set you free and truth is what I seek. I also intend to further educate myself on Austrian economics (time permitting). But, until such time that additional information proves my position as flawed, I stand by it. By the way, Ken Prazak, my campaign manager, is a staunch proponent of pure Austrian economics. I'm sure we'll be discussing this issue further.
FF: Libertarians areextremely varied on their foriegn-policy views. How would you describe yours?
DRUCK: Thomas Jefferson said it best: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Good foreign policy is akin to being a good neighbor. While I may help him plant a tree on our property line, invite him to my house for dinner, and lend him a tool when he needs it, I don't stick my nose into his personal affairs. I believe America's prime interaction with other countries should be in the area of the promotion of free trade. We can best encourage and promote freedom and liberty by our own example.
FF: As a veteran, I'd imagine that you'd have a special place in your heart for our women and men in uniform. Do you have any plans regarding veterans?
DRUCK: Combat veterans do not receive proper assistance required to successfully transition them back into civilian life. They need more substantial, long-termpsychological assistance to address post traumatic stress problems as well as bolsteringthe programs designed to retrain them into civilian jobs.
FF: A couple of quick shots. Federal Reserve - keep it or lose it?
DRUCK: Lose it. Ron Paul is right.
FF: Gay marriage - for or against? State or federal issue?
DRUCK: StateIssue. Ron Paulhit the nail on the head on this one.
FF: What if you were a state legislator? What would your position be on gay marriage, or marriage in general?
DRUCK: Marriage is a moral contract and, therefore isa matter for the church, not the state.As it relates to civil law,all peopleshould be free to enter into any kind of agreement they wish, including those that specify the details oftheir personalfinancial relationship, property ownership, etc.
FF: Agreed. What about the War on Drugs? Fight or surrender?
DRUCK: Get rid of it. It doesn't work, puts drug sales in the hands of gangsters (just likeProhibition Period alcohol), costs us billions, and fills our prisons.
FF: Agreed. Thanks for your time, and we'll have to have that free trade/fair trade debate on The Nolan Chart sometime.
He's working on a campaign website right now, but until then, you can read his workon The Nolan Chart. Also, if you are in his district and want to help him collect the 15,000 signatures he needs before June 23, download this petition formand get started!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 RS Davis, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, May 12, 2008
Last modified: Monday, May 12, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thanks for helping get the word out about my campaign. Our web site is now up and running and should be able to accept donations by the end of today. www.TimeForDan.com
Our supporters have been working furiously to obtain signatures. They have kept me busy with many speaking engagements, newspaper, radio and video interviews. We are making a lot of progress but the clock is our enemy.
The ballot access barrier that works to preserve the RepubliCrat stranglehold on the electoral process in Illinois is daunting, to say the least. Doing the math, if it takes ten minutes to get one signature, it will take 2,500 man hours to obtain 15,000 signatures (11,000 is the requirement / the additional 4,000 are needed to ensure that 11,000 are valid). A little excessive for a congressional district that had less than 99,000 people vote on Super Tuesday, wouldn't you say? I don't think any other state in the Union requires the signatures of more than 11% of the active electorate just to get on the ballot.
Gee... as a Ron Paul supporter, I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from the System!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 RS Davis, all rights reserved.