Since I believe in giving all candidates a forum to explain their views, I took the opportunity to contact 3rd Congressional District candidate Michael Krsiean and asked him to explain some of his positions he put on his website - krsieanforcongress.com.

The following is a synthesis of the correspondance I have had with Mike Krsiean:

CouleeConservatives.com: I noticed on your website that you talk about how "The federal government must decrease, DRASTICALLY..like 90% drastically." What specifically do you mean by that? What bureaucratic agencies do you propose should be cut and why?

Michael Krsiean: Early in the campaign I estimated 90%. I have since revised that to 80%. I see you have found an opportunity for me to update my website. Thanks!

 

My opinion on what should and should not be funded through the federal government is based on the following understanding: Article 1, Section 8 itemizes the areas for which the federal government is given control. The 10th amendment tells us that all other powers are vested in the States or individuals.

 

Learning from the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, our founding fathers, from the various states, begrudgingly sacrificed some State sovereignty to the Article 1, Section 8 list. These formed the basis on which the unifying federal authority could ensure that the States functioned and interacted in a uniform and controlled manner. These included setting standard weights and measures, issuing currency, post roads, creation of common land and naval forces, etc. These things (in Section 8) are what I see as the legitimate itemized things to which the federal government should be restricted. I do not buy into the current broad definition given the interstate commerce clause.

 

That said, I believe the following organizations not only exist outside constitutional authority, but in many instances they are creating regulations that bear the same weight as power of law but created through unelected authorities:

 

Budget savings in Billions of Dollars:

 

Phase-out of Social Security: 792

Dept. of Ag: 132

Health and Human Services: 81

Dept. of Education: 71

Homeland Security: 44

Dept of Housing and Urban Development: 42

Dept. of Energy: 32

NASA: 19

Dept. of Labor: 14

Dept. of Interior: 12

EPA: 10

National Science Foundation: 7.4

Corp for National and Community Service: 1.4

Small Business: 1

Other (rounding and/or undefined in budget itemizations): 290

==========

Total Savings: 1.55 Trillion

By this outright defunding and dismantling of entire departments, we get the federal government down to 40% of what it is now. The other 20% comes from cuts to departments that are left intact. When we look what the Dept of State is spending at 57 Billion, or the 78 Billion of the Transportation Department, you just KNOW there are things ripe for the picking, especially as remaining federal authority is brought under control.

 

At face value, these represent an uphill battle. However, when the people are told exactly how their money is being spent, through a concerted effort on my part, I hope they will rally around the changes. Especially when they realize how much money they will be able to keep in their own pockets.

CouleeConservatives.com: Wouldn't the Dept of Ag fall into the "general welfare" of the Republic?

Krsiean: I choose to believe the orthodox definition of general welfare rather than what is considered the modern definition for at least three reasons.

 

1.) James Madison, the father of the Constitution, the author of the Virginia Plan which was the model for the US Constitution and our form of government, debated with Patrick Henry in the Federalist Papers about the following section. Henry was worried about the potential for future generations to misinterpret ‘general welfare’ as a means to unwisely empower central government. Madison told him, in essence, only a fool could hold to that reasoning because why then would they enumerate federal powers. He rejected Henry’s concerns.

 

2.) The modern definition, as well as the definition of the phrase ‘regulation of interstate commerce’, is one developed by progressives of the last century to validate federal government over reach and enable the dawn of the entitlement mentality.

 

3.) Pure logic and the spirit of the Constitution – If we accept the notion, by a reading of the Constitution, that the founders established the federal government to act ONLY as a referee and unifier for State level economics and State Defense (check it out! Section 8 below. It relates to economy and defense of country as a whole only – every single item!), then the purpose of the federal government is to enable the States to work together peacefully to flourish and also act as a liaison to foreign countries. The founders established strong safeguards against the federal government becoming involved in the people’s personal lives. It is with this understanding that I say the following. General welfare is a term that relates to the people collectively, commonly; not individually. Look at the sentences in which general welfare is used. Common defense and common welfare. Does each citizen have an Army private stationed outside their front door? No. Common applies to all people as a whole. Like for instance the well publicized intent of law enforcement to maintain public safety as a whole, but that they cannot and will not guarantee that they will respond when you call them. This is has historically been an argument for the 2nd Amendment that I trust you’ve heard before.

 

But logically we can take this modern general welfare clause definition to its ultimate conclusion. Agriculture subsidies, agriculture loans, development programs, healthcare, welfare, jobs training. Progressives would say these are constitutional under general welfare. Well, I have more immediate needs. I can live quite a while without jobs training, an Ag loan, healthcare. What I can’t live without for even a few weeks is food, water, shelter, air. Those are REALLY critical general welfare needs. Now, do we really think the founders, fresh after the war of Independence, had the intention that the federal government, by stealing 50% of all citizen’s income should be in the business of supplying all these things to everyone? I hardly think so and it seems to me diametrically opposed to the founder’s real intent and spirit of their constitution.

 

The 10th Amendment says whatever the Constitution does not empower the Federal government to do is left to the States and the people. I believe this is a very wise and critically important approach to government. In addition, Article 1, Section one clearly states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” But we have these agencies, full of unelected bureaucrats creating regulations that carry the power of law! We have no direct control over them. This is clearly unconstitutional.

 

The EPA wants to regulate CO2 and mandate regulations that will alter our lives in major ways. The EPA and Department of Ag tell farmers what they can and can’t do. I’ve got farmer neighbors hating planes that fly over because that is one method the government uses to survey what they are growing on their land, or using their property for. CRP land…the government takes our money to give to farmers to grow nothing with their land…and then spies on them.

 

My judgment is the Dept of Ag and the EPA must go. Other agencies must follow. Our habit of turning to government, specifically the federal government to right society’s ills must change. We are feeding the monster, not only with our money but with our demands and expectations.

CouleeConservatives.com: What is your position on what say the federal government has with regard to how private business owners operate and conduct business? What I mean is this: Does a private business owner have the right to refuse me service if I am lawfully and peaceably carrying a firearm even though his place of business is considered a public place?

Krsiean: If we truly believe in private ownership and that a person should have total control over what happens on his private and business property, I would say he or she (the owner) DOES have the right to request you leave for any reason. This is not an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights as you maintain, because the choice remains with you. You can comply or keep your firearm and go somewhere else. To the more general question, I don’t believe the federal government has ANY say as to what happens in a business of any particular State. The only exception would be a national excise or consumption tax as permitted by the Constitution for raising of revenue.

CouleeConservatives.com: Does a private business owner have the right to refuse me service because he knows I am a conservative Christian even though his place of business is considered a public place?

Krsiean: If it is a public place under private ownership I do believe he is afforded this right. However, in such cases capitalism is a bummer! I’d tell all my friends, and the man would suffer personal loss from his poor business practices. It might also constitute a great opportunity for my own competing business. Don’t ya just LOVE FREEDOM and CAPITALISM!

CouleeConservatives.com: Does that mean that a private business owner can refuse service on the basis of color or race?

Krsiean: Either a man has the right to do with his property as he sees fit, or he doesn’t. I think he does. Of course my rights end where your nose begins. But our inclination to run to the federal government and utilize them as arbiter in all things is opening the door and inviting them to get involved with things they have no business dealing with. Unless that man is somehow being given federal funds for his business, and there are no state or local ordinances that he would otherwise be violating, he should have absolute authority to do as he sees fit with his property or business. Yes, even if that meant he would choose to not serve a certain segment of society. As a point of comparison, I believe doctors should have the right to refuse to do an abortion.

 

One last distinction. Just because a shop is open to the general public does not mean it is owned by the public (or government). If it is not owned by the federal government, the federal government should keep to its own business. State and local laws are a different matter. These local laws and ordinances are in a different league. I’ve got less reservation about more restrictive local laws because we have more control over changing and modifying them. Alternatively, we can choose to leave that locality. But with an overbearing, hard to control central government, how effectively can one control it relatively speaking, or to where can we flee for refuge from tyranny?

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mike for sharing his views and I want to thank you, the reader, for reading the entire post.