To the Editor:
As a conservative, I’m looking for a presidential candidate who knows that bigger government is never better government, someone who understands that taxpayers will use their hard-earned resources more efficiently and effectively than the government.
In this year’s Republican field, John Kasich stands out as someone who has actively fought for these principles. As governor of Ohio, he’s cut taxes by $5 billion over the past five years by reducing the personal income tax and completely eliminating taxes on small businesses. The number of state government employees is the lowest in 30 years.
If you’re looking for a candidate who walks the walk, you’ve found one.
What would taxes look like with John Kasich in the White House? For one, he would cut personal income taxes for every tax bracket and cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. He would freeze all new federal regulations for a year also, so the whole system could be reformed.
On Feb. 20, I encourage you to vote for a candidate who doesn’t just boast about conservative principles but someone who actually lives them. By that standard, you won’t find a better option than John Kasich.
Rep. Jeff Bradley
District 123, S.C. House of Representatives
To the Editor:
The Center For Responsible Politics describes Super Pacs (SP) as an “Independent Expenditure Only Committee” that can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, individuals etc., to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.
A 2010 court decision, CaseSpeech Now.org vs. Federal Elections Commission, found in favor of Super Pacs, later confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. FEC. The Supreme Court said that the First Amendment’s freedom of speech allowed groups to donate to a SP just as individuals (limit $5,000) can to a PAC (Political Action Group).
The fallacy of SP’s is that, unlike PAC’s Super Pac contributors can make virtually unlimited donations while remaining anonymous. The first amendment was not meant to anonymously omit the identity of the donors.
“INFOPlease” claims SP’s are the cause of new political action committees altering the course of political campaigns.
CNN states that unlike the candidates, the real danger is that no accountability is require of the SP’s. Further, their negative advertising skewers the legislative process in Congress in favor of SP’s special interests, influencing, perhaps buying the election. In addition, this attack advertising allows the benefiting candidates to spend less and remain in the race longer.
Thus, Super Pac spending can corrupt the process, candidates obliged to favoritism and granting undeserved earmarks etc.
Conclusion: Anonymous, unlimited donations do not serve the best interests of ethical government, our Constitution or the freedom our democracy promises. Super Pacs need be eliminated. Speak out!
Hilton Head Island
To the Editor:
Sadly, many GOP voters willingly support a candidate who rarely mentions the Constitution and whose core principles and values still remain a mystery.
Americans have short memories. We elected our current president because he dazzled us and got us all hyped-up with the “hope and change” slogan. This year, it is the celebrity Donald Trump who dazzles us and gets us all hyped-up with his “make American great again” slogan.
At least Sen. Obama gave us a specific warning that he was going to “fundamentally change America.” Donald Trump vaguely promises “you’re going to like what I will do as president.” We have no idea what that means.
We don’t know whether Trump understands the Constitution is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. He appears to share President Obama’s disdain for the Congress. If Mr. Trump were elected, would we get another arrogant Socialist, or worse, a dictator?
We cannot afford to have another neophyte in the White House. President Obama has shredded the Constitution on so many levels that it will take a principled and competent patriot, with a serious commitment to the Constitution, to structurally restore the federal government to its original form.
Another important consideration: the next president will probably have four nominations for the Supreme Court.
Please consider either Sen. Ted Cruz or Dr. Ben Carson. Both are highly capable conservatives, serious patriots, dedicated to the U.S. Constitution, and well-suited for the job.
Jack and Jane Kenny