Our party platform has three key philosophies compared to a traditional campaign agenda. First, we believe that the party system in Washington is broken. Second, we believe in a foundational return to the spiritual heritage of our country. Third, we believe it is time government act selfless and not selfish with the future of this country.
We have great passion to be part of a larger movement under God of real change in this country. Enjoy the site and let’s MOVE! Learn why all individuals who interviewed Todd of the York County GOP leadership committee endorsed Todd Watson for US Senate.
This site is designed to give you the information you need quickly while yet thorough enough to move the dialogue of the debate to “How” from “What”. “Todd’s Stances” has quick positional stances (read the bold if you have no time). Second, we have three Philosophies with quick excerpts to learn more about our beliefs. Finally, we thoroughly blog on any given topic to give those passionate about a subject details they can depend on. The details in these blogs gives you a roadmap to solving problems and details on specific views. You will rarely find disclosure of this level of detail as well as belief structures. Campaigns want to be general to appeal to the most voters. We fundamentally believe in giving specific guidance to move the debate forward and show we are serious about solving problems–not being popular.
Thanks for your support!
The Watson Campaign Team
August 1, 2014
Todd Watson Supports Ethanol
July 30, 2014
Agricultural interests have endorsed Ben Sasse early in the debate but have they considered all sides of his policy? Ben has an “All of the Above” energy plan but no details on where Ethanol fits into that plan. He is endorsed from large monetary PAC’s tied with “Big Oil”. Big Oil is working to eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. I asked Ben’s campaign manager on July 1st over breakfast if he supported a Renewable Fuel Standard of at least 15%. The Sasse campaign has yet to answer the question.
I support a renewable fuel standard. Opponents of Ethanol and many well-meaning conservative capitalists cite the subsidies as a problem and that this product is not efficient in the marketplace. Much of this opinion is based on prices at the pump with little understanding of market based costs due to tax breaks, subsidies, and loop holes given to both energy sources that distort actual market prices. Although I’m principally against subsidies, I believe the market price of oil is not really a market based price. Externalities, an economic concept of oil is not understood.
What is the cost of tax credits and tax loopholes in the system? What if we allocated costs to foreign oil for the divisions of the military whose primary role is to facilitate and protect the land and shipping lanes for the free flow of foreign oil? What would we quantify the cost of each life lost or injured protecting lands that produce oil? Can this cost even be calculated (a most inhumane thought)? Do we honestly have a national interest in occupying many of these lands if we ignore the oil deposits they possess? Can we quantify the cost of terrorism to our country due to the funding of terrorism with petro dollars? I believe the economic cost of gas/oil should be determined based on what our “true cost” for oil is with domestic sources alone. Subsidizing alternative fuels to this 100% domestic cost point (true cost) makes sense to me with National Security being a primary position for this motivation.
In a new tax code we should adopt cost allocation strategies to drive consumer behavior. For example, if the cost of cigarettes to our health care system is $5/pack (Estimates Vary)—shouldn’t we tax cigarettes $5 more dollars and lower taxes by $5 to the American people to allocate cost to the cause and driver of the problem? Higher prices reduce negative affects to our people by driving lower consumption of the costly product and will save the burden of needed federal revenue to cover expenses that can be cured by adjustments to consumer behavior.
The same argument holds true with oil. If protecting oil with our military is necessary – shouldn’t we allocate the portion of the military used to protect oil into the cost of foreign oil and lower the general tax burden to the American people who do not consume the product? Market forces (when true cost is established in the products) will drive alternative behavior like consuming ethanol over foreign oil and will drive domestic investment over foreign investment (if we were to just tariff foreign oil and not domestic sources). Furthermore, we need to empower individuals to make political statements with what they buy. Seeing a Flex Fuel F-150 makes me smile. Purchasing a product that rejects bail out money and consumes home grown energy is awesome.
Conservative opponents (look for the oil money) should note that income taxes were not necessary pre 1913. America funded itself on excise taxes and tariffs alone. Imagine incenting work with lower taxes and pushing tax revenue to products that hurt national security, increase federal expenses and jeopardize domestic tranquility. This makes sense. Let economic forces drive movements away from foreign oil and into domestic natural gas, electric vehicles (electric sources primarily being domestically sourced), and domestic oil.
The “Good” is that America has ramped up domestic production of oil, but we can do better. The “Bad” is we still import about 33% of our oil supply from foreign places. What would be the price of gas and other oil related products if we were to lose that 33% of oil tomorrow? This theoretical price of oil should be the benchmark of where we subsidize ethanol to. Republicans will argue jobs and money and Democrats will argue environment. Both of these objectives are good but the paramount driver in my decision making remains national security. We need to be in a position to be self-sufficient and have the ability to remove ourselves from lands that cause loss of life, stir up tensions with locals as they question their soverignty, wash our hands from oil dollars that fund terrorism abroad, and bring moms and dads home to their kids and parents from military assignments protecting oil interests. I believe this will increase “Domestic Tranquility” as called for by the Constitution and aid in National Security.
Please Join the Watson for Senate team today. Independent problem solving thought is needed!
May 18, 2014
What country would you like to see Europe send their money to for Natural Gas?
If your first guess was Russia or Iran you maybe happy with this article.
If your first guess was America you can read on.
This article is one more reason we need to get on the ball and start capturing the energy potential in North America. Russia has imperialistic desires and we do not want to empower Iran with more funds. Although I think this story is premature to be considered a crisis. I do think this should be a warning shot to Americans to seize the day with the amazing opportunities energy presents to this country (full disclosure I take zero money from oil and gas interests–this is my own opinion). We must continue to harvest our own energy for independence of this country and the independence of our allies. National security and independence is a dominant value that drives my energy positions.
March 4, 2014
With the Russia and Ukraine situation evolving and a return to the Cold War starting to simmer — the United States and American leaders need to respond to the situation. Similar to my position on the cuts in defense, there are no positions on the situation in the Ukraine from my opponents as well (with the exception of 1 candidate). We need opinions on each.
I’m still waiting on an answer on how much, if any, defense to cut from my opponents (zero, 25%, 50%?). I digress…
Russia has taken a proactive position on Middle East diplomacy in addition to being aggressive with the Ukraine. They schooled us diplomatically in the Middle East the past 12 months and are changing the game on the world stage with these acts of occupation in the Ukraine. Here is a backdrop to the Ukraine/Russia situation from a February 2nd interview with Henry Kissinger.
Each candidate is sticking to their “hot topic” but as a Senator I believe you need to be well versed on a variety of issues and be able to respond to the situation as opposed to a focused tunnel vision on your agenda.
We will continue to take positions in this campaign because I believe that is what leaders should do–lead. I realize in today’s political environment “not taking a detailed position” is how you win the race and appeal to the most voters. This very approach may help win an election but I believe this makes you by definition a leader who is susceptible to swaying in the wind. This swaying in the wind is why our country has no long term direction. We have a body of elected representatives who sway to the tune of public opinion that changes direction by the second. Demand opinions and not tag lines. Demand details and not broad brushed statements. I’m “ok” if you need a few days to gather your opinion (I often do as well to do my homework) but you can’t duck an opinion on a MAJOR topic for a week. We need to know how our leaders will lead us.
Moving on, Ukrainian Independence is very important. I do not believe we engage military involvement at this stage. We do not need another war but must begin to position ourselves if Russia continues to take positions of aggression to the West. However, diplomatic and economic sanctions need to be swift for these acts of aggression. The Russians are smart and have placed a lot of money with European institutions and some with American institutions. They believe the West is corrupted by money over principle (see article below–I think Putin is wise on this calculation). They believe we (more Europe then the US) will not act against them economically since they believe we care more about their money and resources over diplomatic principle. This is why we must get a calling back to our soul and principle over a love of money in the West (money is not bad but the love and control by it is).
Institutions using their lobbying money need to be ignored who care about the usability of Russian funds on deposit with them. We need to be blind to the Russian money and make sound decisions that do not aid Russia for dangerous acts of aggression. Our strategic balance of power in the region is important and trump the concerns of financial institutions (that support these party candidates) who inhale large sums of money from Russia. In conclusion, we support swift sanctions but echo an avoidance of military action at this early stage of one single act of aggression.
Next, we must leave George Bush’s mission to build a Democracy in Afghanistan. We need our military back on the home front. The hot spots continue to grow around the World and we need our military regrouped to respond to bigger threats more than we need a focus on building Democracies under military supervision. We support the President in returning our troops home from Afghanistan but are highly critical of his Foreign Policy. We need to reassert our lead on Middle East opinions and give strong support to Ukrainian Independence. Finally, why was Obama not at the National Security Meeting while Russia was invading Ukraine–this just cannot happen!!!!
Finally, we will continue to prioritize Energy Independence. Our diplomacy with the most corrupt and inhumane government groups continue to uncomfortably exist because we have oil/gas or military interests in these areas. Although land rights is a hot debate in Nebraska, and I empathize with the concerns, I believe we need to prioritize our Energy Independence in this land (although still in favor of a refinery up North–see previous blog). We cannot be at the mercy of immoral governments for resource supplies when we have the ability to meet the need at home. National Security and Energy Independence are higher priorities to me in this country at the current time.
Furthermore, Europe is in need of Russia’s natural gas. We must continue to expand on our national gas infrastructure (we have been an advocate of natural gas expansion from the beginning). Europe may have to bow to Russia for energy considerations but truth be told the Oligarchs need money for the gas from Europe to fund their desires.
If we can provide the world with domestic resources (transport is possible but not there in scale for natural gas — AN OPPORTUNITY AMERICA!!!) we can limit the influence and control Russia can have on Europe with energy prices and supply. Russia returning to its Imperialistic roots is a scary trend and the United States needs to diplomatically rise to the challenge to slow down this rising threat to the region.
Please vote for Watson for Senate in Nebraska. This job is way more than a popularity contest. We need a courageous and wise/diversified leader who will lead this country forward.