Give small farms tariff exemptions

Allow operations under $400,000 GCFI to offset tariffs with tax and other credits

Tariffs are a fact of life. While my plan is to prevent presidents from levying excessive tariffs, there will always be some taxes on imports. Large farms can bear reasonable tariffs on inputs such as equipment and fertilizer. But small farms need help managing their input costs, and America wants small farms to thrive.

We can help them by allowing farms under $400,000 gross cash farm income to offset income taxes and other federal payments with credits matching the cost of the tariffs they paid on their imports. These offsets would likely scale with GFCI.

This will be a complex and difficult policy to implement, but also a popular and bipartisan initiative.

Give landowners who work or live near their land an advantage

Create a “proximate ownership” test and use it as a condition for top-level federal farm benefits

This policy is unlikely to be realized in two years, but it reflects my belief that western Kansas is losing too many people as farms consolidate into mechanized operations owned by people with no desire to live in our neighborhoods. Whether those owners are overseas or in Dallas, they are not returning money to local economies or putting their children in local schools.

I prefer market-based solutions whenever possible. One such solution would be to create a new legal status for “proximate ownership,” or an agricultural operation owned by someone who lives on it or nearby. Farms and ranches with proximate ownership should get better level benefits from the federal government, such as discounted crop insurance rates. This would make it easier for farms owned by members of the community to compete against larger corporate operations, without dictating who is allowed to own land.

End presidential tariff powers.

Amend the International Economic Powers Act and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962

These statutes give the president power to impose taxes on imports. Donald Trump is not the first president to misuse these powers, but his abuse of them has been a disaster for Kansans.

These laws should be changed to give the president limited powers to impose tariffs in actual emergencies, but only for a very limited period of time. Following a one-year period, the law should automatically cancel presidential tariffs unless Congress votes to extend them.

This will give our trading partners confidence that the United States is a stable and rational export market, reversing much of the damage done by our irrational tariffs.

Hold federal officials accountable.

Amend 42 USC 1983 to close the federal government’s loophole

A federal law called Section 1983 has held police and other state and local officials accountable for 150 years. Used since the 19th century, it lets victims sue any official who uses their powers to violate their rights, such as by using excessive force, conducting an illegal arrest, or illegally entering a home without a warrant.

But Section 1983 has an important loophole. It was written to keep state and local officials in check, not federal agents. It has never applied to the federal government. In other words, when an ICE agent–or an IRS, DEA, ATF, or IRS agent–violates someone’s rights, the victim cannot use Section 1983 to get justice. They have to depend on the federal government to keep its own personnel in check. But we’ve seen what happens when we trust the executive branch to police itself. When an ICE agent killed Rebecca Good in Minneapolis, the government immediately declared there would not even be an investigation.

An amended Section 1983 would let victims (or their surviving families) sue in civil court, so the government would not be able to shut down investigations and obstruct justice. This is a tried and true tool that has been in use for lifetimes. Section 1983 cases today are not lottery tickets for the plaintiffs. Most cases get dismissed before trial, so typically only cases where there is strong evidence of a very serious violation succeed. That’s a good tool.

This amendment is plain common sense. We should hold ICE and other federal agents to at least the same standard as local police.

Ban federal officials from using social media to make money off their official duties

A ban on any federal official accepting payment for any social media post made while they were in office

X and other social media platforms pay prominent users for generating “engagement” – likes, replies, reposts, and so on. A prominent federal official posting hot takes could make a significant amount of money, which is not tracked or reported publicly.

For example, a Border Patrol official named Greg Bovino used his X account to generate significant controversy by promoting himself and arguing with users about his own misconduct (including use of excessive force and lying under oath).He is not required to disclose whether he made money on the side by doing so. If he did profit from his posting, that money would have been a powerful incentive to commit more misconduct in office: controversy creates engagement online.

Rather than outright banning such speech, which has First Amendment implications, I propose prohibiting any payment for it. Officials like Bovino would not be allowed to run a side business as a social media influencer, and would have to report and return any payments received.