My platform is based upon these basic foundations, each explained below;

1) Safety, Security, Policing

2) Effective Safety Net Programs

3) Elimination of Waste/Fraud

4) Transportation

5) The Economy

These are my core issues. It is my formal policy that in regards to social programs in effect in Oregon I shall NOT reduce the amount reaching 'the street' but I shall try to remove fraud and waste as well as more effective versions of programs as are shown to work in other States which may result in an increase in the amount 'reaching the street' and/or reduce the actual cost of the program (while not affecting the amounts reaching beneficiaries as expressed above).

I am running for specific reasons and those reasons are primary here, and the voters will is primary here, and thus I will not violate voter trust on issues. In cases where I feel I want to change something not expressed here I will hold public meetings as well as try my hardest to get the items on the ballot instead of vote outright.

My Federal Beliefs are much more stronger in nature, but shall not be covered here since I am not running for a Federal Position. But to give a short on it... Any function the Federal Government is doing besides Defense and Intelligence Services related functions, should ONLY be done at the State level. They should just let the States do the Taxation and spending the States feel they should do.

My five topics are outlined here:

1) Safety, Security, Policing
Our State has several severe issues with this topic. Portland is #1 per Capita (many years running) for Bank crimes. We are, or recently were, #1 for Meth related crimes and for Meth abuse in the United States. We rank consistently in the top for a number of other drugs and for metal theft. We have a large and well established car theft problem as well as home intrusion issues.

To compound this we have District Attorneys who cannot jail everyone or charge for even most crimes. This results in police knowing that they cannot get charges on some crimes, and thus for even less total charges being presented to the District Attorneys (I have seen first hand the police level early release of criminals that could be prosecuted in other states who get released utterly, with no penalty other than a verbal talking to and maybe a notice to re-enter a specific property).

This is not making us safer. If criminals learn that certain levels wont get them charged, they will continue at that level for a while (There was a car thief who stole more than 100 cars before he was charged even one time).

Instead of locking people up forever, which is what my opponent might claim, I ask that we instead try to use our State to assist temporarily to fund the jail in Portland that can help give space for the District Attorneys to send criminals to.

This serves several levels. First drug addicts can get a chance to flush the drugs withdrawals from their system in a safe environment, and get a chance (if they desire it) to go clean with (or without if they desire it) the help of professionals/not for profits/volunteers.

Second it allows us to show that we can punish for crimes again which should have a remarkable affect upon crimes in our city, as this will make crime not just be a reward, but have a penalty as well.

Third it allows us to see the true scope of the problem in Portland as officers will arrest more and District Attorneys will press more total charges. It may 'seem' that crime is up if I am elected and this passes, but in truth the actual result will be that crimes will be accurately reported, and criminals will have to stop or get stopped.

Additionally...

Our government wants GPS trackers to charge people for how far they drive, not for how much gas they use, how can a woman be safe to hide from a dangerous estranged husband if he can track her GPS. He can get her GPS from her work, it does not matter if she has a restraining order, and has changed jobs even... If he finds her once, and has obtained the right technology, he can track her to her work, to her friends, to her home.

Not only do we have the safety issue, but then we have the issue of how do we get new residents onto the system effectively. How do we receive highway use fee's for vehicles from outside our State traveling through?

This system is unsafe, it is an unfair burden on those who comply with it, and it could result in a net loss for revenue for our State's highways and Interstates. My opponent is a big supporter of the GPS Tracking. I SAY NO WAY!

2) Effective Safety Net Programs
It is my desire to show that a properly created Safety Net can in fact be made, can be run cheaply, and can be run effectively.

I am going to highlight one extremely well functioning program and one very poorly running program. I expect flak for highlighting the poorly running program, but my skin has recieved real shrapnel, and I think I will survive.

The functioning program housed 10 persons in a single house with a single volunteer (who gets to stay free while pursuing an education as well as get a resume builder for social services). The total costs of the program to provide temporary housing was far lower than the program run by another group, where results are also much lower and entry is harder to get.

I endorse food stamps to a certain extent, though I do not believe that rising food prices will help the situation, I also know that a person CAN live on less (From my own experience) and maintain nutrition. Food Stamps is something I would like to have more care in providing as I know several persons who had way to much money to spend that had food stamps somehow. The well to do should NOT be receiving food stamps!

Mental Health is an issue I use in here as well. Our State has completely run away from effective short term care of mental health problems and the entire system is a mess. Having suffered depression over an issue I will reveal later in my campaign (long since passed) I know first hand how our State fails. I also was a mental health secured transport driver for a while and I have other knowledge and experience in this topic as well. We can do better, and there CAN BE COST SAVINGS here on some circumstances with more appropriate treatment (I can show this later in the campaign).

This is not to say that we just blanket go with other aspects, where we are going to just up spending. NO! This is using existing spending, just modifying the way it is spent for more efficiency.

3) Elimination of Waste/Fraud
First off I can point out two huge wasteful projects.

The I-5 bridge replacement has two serious proposals. The first costs 1.5 BILLION dollars, provides a light rail track in each direction, a pedestrian lane in each direction, and a bicycle lane in each direction. To pay for this bridge TOLLS will be forced upon all drivers over the I-5 bridge in and out of Oregon, and over the I-205 bridge.

The alternative costs 500 million dollars, does not require tolls, places the complicated light rail on the railroad bridge to the west of the I-5 bridge, adds all the other offered lanes, and also ADDS an extra vehicle lane in each direction. We would get more for our money, and not require tolls and save ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

The I-5 replacement bridge my opponent wants is the 1.5 billion dollar bridge. I call this WASTE.

Another major project they want is a light rail bridge from Milwaukie to Portland. This extension of the light rail system would cover a 7 mile area. It will cost 1.5 billion dollars for this project as well. The maximum ridership on this is insanely low for the total price. We can afford to purchase a SUV for everyone to drive in instead of riding the light rail. I am not joking here. The cost is just that high per rider. Instead why do we not, if needs are that high, provide via Tri-Met an express service from Milwaukie... Oh they already do. Travel time from Milwaukie to Portland for a bus is the same as from a car with this express route. Yes you have to connect to it, but the bus system is not supposed to be as agile as having your own car. This is supposed to be a trade off of cheaper price but longer transit versus freedom of movement but higher price.

There is no cost savings in producing the light rail bridge versus continued busing. There is no significant reason to create another line for that level of cost, but my opponent never saw a dollar she did not wish to spend ten of.

The fact is that Portland + Oregon debt is higher per capita than the Federal Debt is per capita. We are already having issues with our unfunded portion of the PERS Pensions, so why do we have to spend money we dont have on projects we do not need for the safety of our people? Why can we not get a handle on PERS first, then examine carefully spending requirements for the future. Let us BALANCE our budget entirely as well. Every penny of interest paid is a penny we could have spent or saved instead.

4) Transportation
As noted in the Safety portion, I am against the GPS trackers. I also have other issues here where I believe we can help our State.

I also showed how I am against a Toll bridge on a cost basis, but now I need to show why Tolls hurt as well. Oregon is home to independent truck drivers. They own their own truck, they drive their own truck. All costs they get are going to directly impact them. A toll bridge would get them at LEAST two times a day for every day they cross (A Semi-truck driver typically gets an average of 1 day off a week in my personal experience, this is 'averaged' out. Some local drivers never take a day off but may work reduced hours compared to an over the road driver). Some drivers cross our bridge many times a day.

We would destroy these personally owned small businesses. The tolls would make driving as an Owner Operator impossible. Many will choose to leave to a better, more business friendly State. It's not about Patriotism, it is about their ability to buy food and pay the bills.

Additionally some companies run hundreds of trucks over our bridges on a daily basis. They would have to compete against companies elsewhere who do not have toll roads or bridges. As seen elsewhere companies close or relocate under this sort of issue, not because of lack of Patriotism, or a lack of willingness to pay their fair share, but from a survival standpoint.

So when we have an alternative to Tolls, we MUST EMBRACE THE ALTERNATIVE!

Our city of Portland is 'roughly' 300 miles from our Southern border and 375 miles from our Eastern border. A semi truck is legally prevented from driving more than 11 hours before sleeping another 10 hours.

Currently, unlike 46 of the lower 48 States we have a 55 mile per hour speed limit for Semi-trucks. So I ask you, what does this mean to you? I know what it means for me. It means I have to work more days to do the same work that happens in other States. Think of it this way. From the California border it takes 5.5 hours (straight line, not counting mountain climbing for trucks) to get to Portland. If we increased the Speed limit to 60 our trucks can save 30 minutes immediately. It would only take 4 hours and 37 minutes if we made the speed limit 65. Many States actually have increased their speed limits by more than this.

Idaho is a good example. In some area's the speed limit is 65, in others, 75. Trucks drive certain speeds based on safety, not on a false fuel economy premise. At 70 mph a semi-truck could make Portland from California in 4 hours 17 minutes.

I am not asking for us to be Idaho, I am not asking for us to follow Wyoming or Nevada. I am asking us to not follow California here.

If we can increase the speed limit for Semi's an AVERAGE of 5mph (I concede some area's we just have to be limited to lower speeds as it is a safety issue, but some area's we can easily go 65 with no safety issues at all) then we would save 10% of the time of a driver frequently driving in Oregon.

My Opponent might try to claim this would dramatically affect the fuel economy of our trucks. I drive a semi truck, I think I know more than she does. The economy of my truck is so close the same at 55 as it is 65, that there is no need to worry. This is because my 'sweet spot' is closer to 65 than 55. Gains in efficiency make trucks very capable of getting only a decimal of a difference in miles per gallon. I go from 6mpg to 5.97mpg. The 10% saved time would translate into more loads I could haul into Portlandfor the same time span. This would directly translate into REDUCED COSTS of food and other items in our State.

Our city is nice, but I do stress we are not a major city like some of those in California or the East Coast. The traffic issues of those cities is much different than ours. I can speak of this in first hand experience. I can say with full confidence, we do NOT need a Carpool only lane on the I-5 North. Our traffic conditions are much more different that this is actually a handicap for our traffic, slowing traffic down for no reason.

Let us instead remove this from the I-5 North corridor and reduce traffic snarls that we do not need.

Then there is my last issue in transportation. First a short story of my own life. I used to live in the country of what is now Happy Valley. We road our bicycles up and down a rock hill. This was a form of entertainment for us as back then there was no Xbox or Play Station (There was Atari however, but the games were primitive), and we did have a Commodore 64, but it was good to get out.

Later in life a bicycle was the means to work before I had a license. I used to ride a bicycle 20 miles to work and back per a day while in Bellingham Washington. Yes I said 20 miles. I am saying that I understand bicyclists and that it is a legit means of travel.

However I also think we need to put the brakes on our State level of funding of new lanes for now. Why? Well to say it honestly... we do not need bicycle lanes on every street in a city. This is not just inefficient, but very costly. Instead I am a proponent of reasonable travel rights for bicycles and a system where in cities there are less lanes, but the lanes are dedicated for getting distance. Let us ask Portland to re-examine the lanes, and potentially remove a few where it makes sense to increase vehicle flow, while keeping good corridors for bicycles to move to work, entertainment, and the likes.

5) The Economy
The Economy of our State is a disaster right now. We have been in the very high the the levels of unemployment for the entirety of this super length Recession. We also only need look south to California to see how dangerous spending much more than we bring in is. Our State stands on the edge of a cliff and we are losing our footing.

I will be asking during my campaign... Would you like to make chains? Would you like to make nylon line? Would you like to make steel supports? Would you like to make new pipes? Would you like to have a high paying job in our city, supporting new jobs elsewhere in our State? But then I say, we do not have those yet because of where we are.

But why are we here? We have resources no one else has. We have the ability to be richer than Texas if we desired it... But we still stand at the edge.

I am asking for a means to save our State. I am not asking for the pillaging, or anything remotely near, of our State. I am asking for responsible resource management of our State.

We have many resources, but a few highlights: Our Forests, our Rivers, our Mountains, our Ocean access. To make the list more clear, let us go back into timber, let us fish on a large commercial scale, let us mine, and/or let us drill for oil. We do not need to do all of these, but to be frank and honest... We MUST DO ONE OF THESE or we must cut programs to the core to restore our budget. There is no alternatives.

We cannot increase our revenue successfully via taxes... we already have one of the highest tax burdens in the United States. We cannot increase our revenue via investments, there are no companies willing to large scale invest in the current Federal Regulatory nightmare. Every State, excepting a few like North Dakota and Texas, is desperate for new revenue. We must compete for the few major initiatives companies are willing to do.

But it does not need to be like this. We can log timber responsibly, with safe forest management. This means cutting tree's down, and planting new ones. We can do responsible mining. This means that debris from the mining is restored to the mine, and that no industrial run-off is allowed away from the mine. We can do safe oil drilling. This means we can use the safest standards of the world and still convince oil companies to come. Better with oil we can ask that a certain amount is used only in Oregon... to reduce our fuel costs! We can fish. I ask you... if you have two fish in your hands, and you take them to a scientist... and that scientist looks for genetic differences, and can find none, does that not mean they are the same? We should treat wild Salmon and farm Salmon as the same, and harvest without worries. One of the few spending initiatives I can think I would support would be a loan for new fisheries (Privately owned) that utilize our extensive waterways to make a marketable product.

I would like to be able to say I helped create 100,000 jobs via removing obstacles. I want to say I created high paying jobs, not minimum wage jobs. I want to say that I turned the Oregon economy around. And I do not want to say this for myself, I want to say this for others. I have had minimum wage jobs, I have been homeless, I have been on food stamps, and I do not like it, just like the rest of our State does not like it. Lets Make Oregon's Future BRIGHT with jobs!

~~~~~~~~~~~

That is my platform

Key I hope this answers some of your worries and concerns posted elsewhere. I have real idea's for getting REAL jobs. I will go around in town halls asking 'who is unemployed' and then pointing at some, 'would you like to make steel cables? And you, would you like to make fishing boats? And what about Chains, Nets, Pipes, Drills, Semi-Trucks, and Hydraulic Equipment?'. My district has a huge unemployment rate. I don't have the exacts right now, but I suspect it is 15-18%. Jobs will win me votes.

I will talk how regulations that are not needed are capable of destroying jobs and companies. I will talk how spending money we don't have on projects we don't need will cripple us more. I will win my district from one of the strongest Democrats in the State. Even if I do not win, I will cause Republicans to win the House for SURE, as 8 seats are opened up from retiring Democrats. 8 seats they must fight for to just retain the 30-30 balance in the House. My fight will be a drain on their primary fundraiser, their spokesperson, their leader.

I will be showing people the American Dream as we Conservatives see it, and I will be highlighting 20+ wasteful spending programs.

My ads... Well my ads are Viral in nature. I am a child of the Internet age, and my opponent does not even have a twitter or MySpace account. I have already spent near $3,500 on the stuff I need, and I am barely started (I just got my logo completed, next is website and business cards/handouts).

I have identified some donors, and identified even more that can and WILL endorse me. I am not talking small here, I am talking a full on campaign of epic proportions for a mere State seat. I am also talking a National Campaign at the same time, on a single issue. I will walk in the money from that one as it affects 6 million individuals, and not a ONE agree's with the implementation of it.

I am here to play ball, and I am no mere suit. I know what I am running on, 5 issues locally, 1 nationally (that wont interfere with State issues, but will help partially fund my State run). First goal in this District is to gain TRUST. To show I mean good things, and that I will not bow to ugly business idea's with their paid idealists. I am here to change the cronyism, and to provide jobs first. The next election is where I can fix the more underlying issues that need addressing besides these 5, after that trust is established.

In regards to dam's being torn down... That's waste. Pure waste. A fish held to another fish, both are examined under microscope, and both have the same DNA, same RNA, same all that crap... Except one is farm raised and another born in the wild... Does not make them different species! This is an excuse by Environmentalists who wish to hijack more agenda's in support of their own fantasies.

Social Security I cannot touch as just a State Rep, that's a Federal Job.

And Key, I am the decider of my policies, of my plans. I do not need someone to do that for me. I need a writer to make sure what I write is good and acceptable to all.