Richard Matthews for Congress

Radio Interview April 14th

Richard Matthews — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:06:58 GMT

Richard Matthews was on a program Bet on Ron Paul, on Ron Paul Revolution Radio yesterday. Here is an MP3 link for anyone who missed the live show. http://www.richardmatthews.org/audio/20080414_Mon_Indy1.mp3 The segment is one hour long. Obviously, only the comments of the candidate, and not the host, should be attributed.

The Enumerated Powers Act H.R. 1359

Richard Matthews — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:16:45 GMT

Richard Matthews is in full support of the Enumerated Powers Act. It was first introduced in 1995 by Rep John Shadegg of Arizona’s Third Congressional District and in Maryland is co-sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of the Sixth District. This bill has been reintroduced every two years but has never entered into the agenda of it’s assigned committee (Judiciary, and Rules), nor been offered for a up or down vote on the floor. The Enumerated Powers Act is a simple bill that requires Congress, on every bill, to site the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of the Act in question. This straightforward bill should be supported by every member of congress without hesitation. The very fact that it is not supported by many, including Dutch Ruppersberger, is an acknowledgment of the lack of respect for constitutional lawmaking in our nation’s capital. We need leadership in Washington that is not afraid to make a commitment to respect the governing documents of our country. Some politicians have been known to pass bills even while acknowledging the possibility of their unconstitutional nature. Their stance is to let the courts approach the bill later and strike out the portions that are in fact unconstitutional. These roughshod attitudes about our Constitution is exactly why we find ourselves with a Federal Government having a three trillion dollar budget, a directionless war in the Middle East, and trampling on our freedoms and individual liberties. The Enumerated Powers Act is a rare piece of good legislation. No better indictment can be made against our incumbent politicians than their lack of support for this bill.

Proposal: Veterans Tax Reform and Relief

Richard Matthews — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:45:27 GMT

A major plank of the Richard Matthews campaign is tax reform. Not only do we Americans pay too much, but the primary method of taxation is oppressive to our dignity and provides excessive policy authority to our Federal Government. Tax simplification is a major thrust of this campaign and should be a focus of the Republican Party. Bureaucratic overhaul never being a pretty sight, and always taking longer than desired, Matthews will propose a quicker partial remedy on our way to full tax reform. Upon election Richard Matthews will introduce and/or sponsor a bill in congress to exempt all military retirement pay from Federal Income tax. If any class deserves tax simplification and relief first it is our Veterans.

Where is Dutch Ruppersberger?

Richard Matthews — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:38:14 GMT

ALERT Congressman MISSING

When found please contact the voters of the Second District

Well, we do know where he is not. Dutch Ruppersberger has not attended a single vote in the House of Representatives this month so far. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000576/votes/

Iraq position Press Release

Richard Matthews — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:44:30 GMT

Republican Matthews calls for troops to come home in 2009 This release was issued to all media outlets in the Baltimore area February 14th.

Press Release: Republican Matthews calls for troops to come home in 2009

richardmatthews.org — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:38:26 GMT

February 14th, 2008 Baltimore, MD – Republican candidate for Congress Richard Matthews calls for a safe and swift withdraw of U.S. Forces stationed in the Middle East in 2009. Matthews states as a campaign promise, “If I gain the trust of the voters of Maryland to serve in 2009, I will not vote for any bill that extends the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq. Any bill that includes spending for the continuation of U.S. military operations in Iraq, I will commit myself to vote against.” Candidate Matthews thinks that the mission(s) in Iraq have been accomplished. “We have verified that there are no weapons that are threatening the security of the United States, we have toppled a dictator, and now is the time for us to step out of the way and let Iraq become a sovereign, independent nation.” The Matthews campaign feels that the Democratic incumbent in Maryland’s Second District C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger can be commended for voting against the “surge” in Iraq in early 2007. However, his stated position of a “Perimeter Plan” does not help protect the security of the United States. As quoted by Ruppersberger on his Congressional website from January 10th of 2007 – “Changing the mission of U.S. forces, redeploying them to perimeter areas, and lowering the profile of the U.S. forces in urban areas will break the dependency the Iraqi military has on U.S. forces. Our ultimate goal is to bring our men and women in uniform home. I believe this change in strategy will help us do that.” Matthews states, “A plan to move troops to perimeter areas does nothing for the security of the United States. With our goals accomplished in Iraq our presence on their soil can only be seen as an occupying force, no matter how benevolent our intent may be. Active military occupation will, of course, cause radical elements of any society to target their occupiers. To only move our forces into safe compounds on the outside of urban areas is a move that would yield little, if any, positive result. “Complete removal of our forces from Iraq as soon as safely feasible, and neighboring countries shortly following, is the plan of action I advocate. I plan to vote only in this fashion upon my election to Congress in 2009. Six years of war is enough, 3960 U.S. Solders dead is too much. Redeployment of many of these units to protect our own borders rather than inside Iraq’s is what I support. For further information about Richard Matthews and his campaign for Congress in Maryland’s Second District please see www.richardmatthews.org or e-mail info@richardmatthews.org. Liberty loving individuals can donate to the Matthews Campaign online at www.richardmatthews.org/donate. A donation to the Matthews for Congress Campaign Committee is a donation for a strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America. Antiwar

For the Record, Matthews Would Sign the D.C. vs Heller Amicus Brief

Richard Matthews — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:24:54 GMT

District of Columbia v. Heller, scheduled for argument March 18, offers the Supreme Court a chance to settle years of debate over whether the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- guarantees an individual right to possess firearms or a "collective" civic right related to military service. As mentioned in the Washington Post Friday, February 8th a majority of the House and Senate filed an amicus brief in D.C. vs Heller. The brief contends: "This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms," their brief contends. The District's prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable." According to the Washington Post (list of co-signers) my Democratic opponent has not signed this brief. As it should be obvious from my previous article on the matter of the Second Amendment, I wish to go on the record saying that I would have signed this brief.

The Second Amendment

Richard Matthews — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:42:13 GMT

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -- Second Amendment of the United States Constitution This to me is a very simply explained concept and well written amendment. In order to secure liberty it could be necessary for the people to defend it with arms from an enemy, foreign or domestic. In addition to the security realities of the day, I believe that the intent of the founders was to create the ultimate of the many checks and balances in the Constitution via this amendment. There are of course many reasons for a free person to desire to own a firearm. Hunting is the cherished past time of many regions and families. Marksmanship is a sport of Olympic stature. Great enjoyment is found by those who collect and care for firearms. Of course protection of one’s home and the safety of one’s family is of paramount concern to many gun owners. All of the issues I listed are enough to convince me that our Constitution’s position on arms is correct. Free people, in the exercise of their liberty, should be able to do any activity so long as that activity does not conflict with another person’s exercise of their own liberty. However, what is actually the substantive point of this issue and this cherished amendment, is that by allowing the citizens to remain armed this preserves their right to give consent to be governed. Without the clearly defined rights in the Second Amendment, the people lose the ability to rebel and therefore lose their ability to consent to be governed. Reductions of the strength of the Second Amendment via legislation is contrary to the revolutionary spirit of our nation's founding. I feel those who signed the Declaration of Independence would look on with scorn at those who attempt to cheapen the significance of these concerns. I am anxious to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Regardless of that opinion and its affect on the regulations of the states, I will not vote for any additional Federal regulation of firearms if elected to Congress and will work to rescind the majority of those on the books. - Richard Matthews

Economic Stimulus

Richard Matthews — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:32:42 GMT

The proposed economic stimulus presents an opportunity to highlight the inefficiency of government. Often big government types extol the idea that government should give to the poor and downtrodden to improve their plight. We have programs like the E.I.T.C., welfare, Medicare and Medicaid that implement this. The proposed economic stimulus will send a check to most Americans so that they may spend it and spark the economy. This is nothing more than a very inefficient top down income redistribution. In this plan well off Americans will be taxed and that money will not be used for the operation of the government and it’s many programs and utilities available to all, but rather it will be directly redistributed to other Americans. Hardly even a modicum of effort will be spent determining if these recipients are in any need of charity from the government. Meanwhile the productivity of the wealthy will be discouraged via the additional taxation that will be required to provide this benefit. Even worse, this year, as all others this decade, the Federal government is running a deficit. So in fact, this hand out to help the “working man” will be paid back, with considerable interest, by that working man’s children as tax payers some year in the future. Would not a better idea be to allow the wealthy to distribute charity funds as they see fit? Would not these people, using the self interest of seeing their hard earned money go to the best use, direct their funds to the truly needy? We have many examples of the generosity of Americans of means, a most shinning example being the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Free markets work very well allocating capital to its most efficient use. Government should also stay out of the way and let free markets distribute capital. This stimulus plan will do nothing but devalue our dollar due to the inflationary nature of all government borrowing. During a downturn in the economy this move is especially risky. If elected to congress I will vote to stop wasteful government hand outs such as this proposed stimulus. I will vote for balanced budgets and sound money. - Richard Matthews

Federal Reserve in the News

Richard Matthews — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:20:07 GMT

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080130a.htm

“The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to lower its target for the federal funds rate 50 basis points to 3 percent. Financial markets remain under considerable stress, and credit has tightened further for some businesses and households. Moreover, recent information indicates a deepening of the housing contraction as well as some softening in labor markets. The Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, but it will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.”

Monetary policy is perhaps one of the most ignored topics in our political landscape. Our Federal Reserve system is an unconstitutional extra-governmental association that is unaccountable to the people.

From Article I Section 8 of our Constitution: “The Congress shall have power … To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures”

Article I Section 10 of our Constitution: “No state shall … coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts” What is clear here is that Congress has a responsibility to be more involved then it has been in matters of monetary policy. I reject the recent actions of the Federal Reserve and demand additional Congressional oversight into their activities. Every time the federal funds rate is reduced this introduces additional dollars into our economy. Anytime large amounts of cash are added to the money supply of an economy inevitably the value of that money decreases. This is what is known as the Inflation tax. This severely hurts most participants in our economy including those earning wages, those drawing fixed pensions and those who have saved money. Food for thought: In 1920, a 1-ounce of gold could buy you a nice suit. In 2008 1-ounce of gold can also buy you a nice suit. In 1920, $20 could buy you a nice suit. In 2008, $20 can buy you a pair of jockey shorts and a tee shirt. In Congress I will advocate for transparency and Congressional oversight in the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee meetings and activities. I will also advocate for a return to a backed currency based on commodities such as precious metals. - Richard Matthews

2008 State of the Union

Richard Matthews — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:33:02 GMT

I must comment on a portion of the State of the Union last night that I think points out how the unintended consequences of our tax code cause harm to the well being of people in our nation. “To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options. We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. (Applause.) The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. (Applause.) So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it this year.” As far as intentions go, this sounds great! Many do not know the history behind our current system of health care as an employer provided benefit. This was instituted in the World War 2 era as a way for businesses to attract employees during wartime wage controls. This has been further ingrained in the way our system works over the years by various tax incentives for both employer and employee. However, folks who are not offered health care as part of their compensation from an employer do not enjoy many of the same tax benefits as those who are offered health care. While exact details will be forthcoming, President Bush is suggesting allowing the same or similarly structured exemptions to apply when people purchase coverage individually. While it is great to remove exclusive tax benefits to a particular class of consumer or a particular type of good (in this instance employers buying health care), it would be better to remove any and all favor from our tax code entirely. I propose that we remove all exemptions, exclusions and credits for health coverage in our tax code in conjunction with a plan to drastically lower rates with the eventual goal being to remove the IRS and the income tax entirely. Our tax code is something that no one is happy with and should be eliminated. No matter the frequent good intentions, every deduction and credit in the code has unintended consequences that are often under appreciated or completely unexpected. It is in our nation’s best interest to allow markets to work freely and openly as much as possible. Unfortunately our tax structure sometimes has our economy more closely resembling the top down economic planning of ideologies we have worked hard to reject. Economic freedom, without the sway and pull of Washington bureaucrats, is essential to the care and maintenance of civil liberties and individual freedom. - Richard Matthews