Tim Davis for Congress

Welcome

Tim Davis is a native of the Ozarks. He graduated from Branson High School before earning a Ph.D. in economics and a law degree from Oxford. Today, Cambridge University Press publishes Tim’s research in economics worldwide. Tim and his family have been active in foreign missions in Papua New Guinea and China; at home, they attend church at James River Assembly.

Tim Davis

I Believe In

Life

I am pro-life. In the abortion debate, life is the only policy consistent with our legal tradition. And it is the only policy that respects fundamental human rights.Read More

A Balanced Budget

The Federal deficit threatens the well-being of our children and grandchildren. It compromises national security. And it destroys jobs by making American manufactures less competitive and by crowding out private investment.Read More

Winning the War

The United States faces diverse military challenges. We must fight on several fronts against immediate and long-term threats. It is essential that our armed forces have the equipment and training needed to triumph on the battlefield. Of equal importance, our leaders at home must be playing to win; our enemies certainly are.Read More

Activity Meet Tim Schedule of Events Key Issues for Missouri’s 7th District

Get Connected

Give us your email and zip code.

Ricardo's Macroeconomics by Tim Davis

Tim’s Book

Cambridge University Press publishes Tim’s research in economics in 92 countries.

“Timothy Davis has written a most important book.”
—Walter Eltis, Oxford University
“Dr. Davis’ research has rightly been praised as a major contribution to economic scholarship.”
—Samuel Hollander, Ben Gurion University

Recent Posts

  • Where Tim Davis Stands On 9 Key Issues

    By Joe Daues, KSPR News
    See the original article here.
    Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
    There are distinct issues related to the influx of people from Mexico. Border crime is the most serious as violence from the Mexican cartels spills into the U.S. [...]

    read more...

  • Welcome!

    Welcome and thank you for visiting my website! We are continually updating it and adding new events to the schedule, so please check back often to find out what’s happening with the Campaign. If you would like to volunteer, please send us an e-mail and we will be glad to get you involved! To make [...]

    read more...

Why I’m Running

I am committed to providing the people of southwest Missouri a voice of economic reason in Washington, without selling out the values that define us.

I am running for political office because I have the background and training the country needs in Congress right now. Until the start of this campaign, I was the City Attorney for Branson. I have a Ph.D. in economics and a law degree from Oxford University. My doctoral dissertation—which talks about the business cycle and how to manage a recession—was judged to be the best in the world in my area of economics in 1999.

I have lectured in China on law and human rights since 2006 and was named honorary professor of law at Liaoning University in northeast China. Because of this, I have a very strong grasp on Chinese business and politics, which will be very useful in the years ahead as China becomes a major foreign policy challenge for the United States.

About Me

I attend James River Assembly in Ozark, which supported my parents and brother Andrew when they worked in Papua, New Guinea with Wycliffe Bible Translators. Throughout the week, I work with junior high and high school students through James River’s Realife Student Ministries program. I also routinely volunteer my services to handle legal matters for the Church.

I earned my PhD. in Economics from the University of Toronto in 1998 and my Law degree from Oxford University in 2001. I also hold a degree in Commerce, Economics and Finance from the University of Saskatchewan. Among my academic honors are an Honorary Professorship of Law at Liaoning University in the People’s Republic of China, the Lewis Gray Prize for the best undergraduate research project in Economics at the University of Saskatchewan, and the prestigious Joseph Dorfman Prize, awarded annually to the best doctoral dissertation worldwide in the history of economics. I am also a published author, having written “Ricardo’s Macroeconomics: Money, Trade Cycles & Growth,” among other works.

My brother Jon, formerly a professor at College of the Ozarks, is now an attorney with Turner Reid Duncan Loomer & Patton in Springfield, Jon's wife Angie directs the MBA program at Drury University and my brother Andrew is currently in law school.

Growing Up in the Ozarks

My family moved to Taney County in 1967 when my father, Dr. Wayne Davis, became a biology professor at the School of the Ozarks (now College of the Ozarks). My brothers, Jon and Andrew, and I spent our early years on the college campus. We all attended Kirbyville Elementary School and Branson Junior High and High Schools.

Before my dad came to the School of the Ozarks, our family lived in Christian County, having homesteaded near Nixa in the 1800s. My grandparents, Leslie and Vada Davis, farmed south of Highlandville. My great-grandfather, Bill Hicks, pastored the Horse Creek Community Church east of Galena. Orville Keltner and Jack Shirkey, my two uncles, both ran local businesses. My parents are now retired and spend much of their time in connection with foreign missions, having worked in New Guinea, Australia, England and China.

On my mother’s side of the family, my great-grandfather, the Reverend Carl Boquist, emigrated to the new world to pastor Swedish churches in Minnesota, and later Saskatchewan, my mother’s home province. My parents met in college.

Experience

During breaks from my studies at Oxford University, I worked as an economist for Charles River Associates, doing research on government regulation for the Boston-based consulting firm. Since 2004, I have had my own law practice in Branson, centering on commercial litigation and local government law. Prior to establishing my firm, I was an Associate Attorney with Torys LLP in New York City. In that capacity, I dealt primarily in anti-trust issues created by mergers and acquisitions, and also handled projects that required my economics expertise, including the financing of development and trade in developing countries. Until the start of this campaign, I served as the City Attorney for Branson, overseeing the City’s contracts and litigation and writing ordinances.

I have lectured extensively in China on law and human rights and was named an honorary professor of law at Liaoning University in northeast China. This experience has given me unique insights on Chinese business and politics.

Schedule of Events

Please check back soon for the Schedule of Events!

Life

I am pro-life. In the abortion debate, life is the only policy consistent with our legal tradition. And it is the only policy that respects fundamental human rights.

I believe a world is possible where no child is unwanted, where no person, however old or infirm, is without value. To deny this is to deny who we are. And to seek to establish the laws of the United States on a foundation other than the one we inherited is unwise.

The concept of fundamental human rights in American law is Judeo-Christian in origin and stems from the understanding that men and women are created in the image of God and that they have inherent rights because of this. The concept is not an invention of the American evangelical movement. Its lineage is far older and it is more deeply ingrained in the American system than many people realize.

The United States stands on the foundation of human rights. The Declaration of Independence begins with the statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Our legal tradition respects the rights of unborn children, the elderly and the infirm. The absolute right not to be killed intentionally as a means to any further end means that no unborn child and no elderly or infirm person may be killed simply because it is expedient.

On the question of fundamental human rights, the United States lately veered from its foundation. Americans are daily killed intentionally through abortion, voluntary euthanasia and sometimes non-voluntary euthanasia. The practices continue, I suppose, because they are not overtly gruesome. Abortion and euthanasia are sanitized medical procedures, the merits of which can be debated in polite society. But however expedient, however sanitized, the systematic and intentional ending of human life violates fundamental human rights.

I recognize that even if the country returned to a pre-Roe landscape, abortion would remain legal in many states and would continue to occur elsewhere. Ending abortion, therefore, depends on what happens on several fronts, starting at home, then at church, at school and in the community. Ideally, young people will be taught responsible behavior so that children are not conceived in situations where they have no support. For babies at risk of being aborted, meaningful options for unwed mothers, especially adoption, financial, church and family support, are and will continue to be essential.

I am pro-life. In the abortion debate, life is the only policy consistent with our legal tradition. And it is the only policy that respects fundamental human rights.

Gun Control

I bought my first shotgun when I was eight years old. I have no plans to give it up, to register it, or to ask permission to keep it. The widespread ownership of guns in the United States by law-abiding and responsible citizens is a benefit to our country.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Growing up on a farm in Taney County, I learned early how to handle firearms. I bought my first shotgun when I was eight. And I have been hunting ever since. The widespread ownership of guns in the United States is a benefit to our country. Firearms, used responsibly, provide healthy outdoor recreation and food for many families. And hunting is an essential part of Missouri’s wildlife conservation programs, helping us manage our native deer, turkey and other game populations.

Gun ownership also deters crime. Research indicates a significant negative correlation between the rate of violent crime and the rate of gun ownership. Stated another way—the widespread ownership of guns makes for a safer community. The purchase of a handgun by a law-abiding person provides a better return, in terms of crime prevention, than equivalent monies spent on law enforcement, incarceration or social programs. The right to carry a firearm is particularly beneficial to honest citizens who live in high-crime neighborhoods.

I support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. I hope you do too.

A Balanced Budget

The Federal deficit threatens the well-being of our children and grandchildren. It compromises national security. And it destroys jobs by making American manufactures less competitive and by crowding out private investment.

Balancing the budget ought to be a priority for Congress. The Federal deficit unfairly transfers wealth from future generations of Americans to people living today. It compromises national security. And it destroys jobs by making American manufactures less competitive and by crowding out private investment.

Future Americans

Debts incurred today translate into fewer resources in the future for schools, parks, medical research, space exploration and many other worthy projects. Each generation must pay its own way in the world. And unless we are fighting for the survival of the country, there is no compelling reason to saddle our children with debt.

Strategic Weakness

The burden of America’s debt is compounded by the fact that it is a strategic weakness—and one that our rivals, mainly Russia and China, seek to exploit. The foreign and economic policies of both countries are unabashedly greedy.

For the Russians and Chinese, economic power is a strategic weapon. It is a means of gaining control over essential raw materials, especially metals and oil. And it is a means of depriving rival countries (i.e. the United States) of the financial resources needed to project military power.

Given our dependence on foreign money, the U.S. government faces certain chaos—for weeks or even months—if that financing ever dries up. Such a possibility seems more likely than not. As an example, during the 2008 war in the Republic of Georgia, Russia lobbied the Chinese to rapidly sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities so as to create panic in U.S. financial markets. China refused. But the extent of their power over the United States was clearly understood. And it would be foolish to expect such reserve if the next conflict occurred, say, in the South China Sea or in the Straits off Taiwan.

Deficit Spending Has Not Helped the Economy

The Federal deficit has destroyed U.S. manufacturing jobs and slowed the rate of economic growth. It has also created an unacceptable risk of inflation.

The Federal deficit reduces the competitiveness of American business. When our government borrows money, some of the funds come from abroad. As capital enters the country, foreign investors purchase U.S. dollars. These purchases bid up the value of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies. This change in the currency market makes foreign imports seem relatively cheaper to us, and, at the same time, U.S. exports become less affordable abroad. American manufacturers find it more difficult to compete. And the end result is a loss of U.S. jobs abroad.

To the extent government bonds are not purchased by foreigners, they are purchased by U.S. investors. As the deficit escalates this becomes a problem because the government competes with private business for access to capital. When the deficit is high, too much capital is directed from private ventures into the government’s coffers. The deficit thereby “crowds out” private investment. This leads to a lower rate of economic growth and fewer jobs since, as a practical matter, net job creation primarily occurs in the private sector.

Finally, the budget deficit creates the risk of inflation. At some point on our current path, foreign and domestic investors will conclude that the Federal government is insolvent over the long term. When this happens, the U.S. government will lose its ability to finance the deficit by conventional means because there will not be enough investment capital to support the national debt. If we reach this point, our government will have two options: (1) repudiate the national debt or (2) finance the debt by printing money.

Historically, English speaking countries have chosen the second option, which is called “monetizing” the debt and which can cause severe inflation. Inflation, left unchecked, ultimately destroys the economy because it distorts the information conveyed in market prices, leaving businesses and individuals with no ability to make rational economic decisions.

Boost Productivity

The traditional working age ranges from 20–65. The greater the percentage of the population within this working age, the less strain is placed on the economy to support a country’s dependents—its children and its elderly.

Some countries—Haiti and Somalia for example—have very young populations. War and disease have devastated their adult populations, leaving a handful of people of working age to support a far greater number of children and teenagers.

The opposite problem can emerge as populations age. An aging population creates economic challenges because—again—there are too few people of working age to support the relatively greater number of elderly dependents. In the United States, this demographic problem can be solved if we make our economy mimic the economy of a younger nation.

The Republicans have failed to address America’s demographic problem of an aging population that leaves fewer workers to support more dependents.

The Solution

The solution is not complicated. Five things will enable the Federal government to balance its budget without eliminating important public services:

  1. We must commit to balancing the Federal Budget.
  2. We must stick to priorities when it comes to spending.
  3. We must stop shoveling welfare to corporate America.
  4. We must adjust our immigration and tax policies to boost productivity.
  5. We must keep the Federal government’s role in our economy simple and stable.

Support for Our Military

The United States faces diverse military challenges. We must fight on several fronts against immediate and long-term threats. It is essential that our armed forces have the equipment and training needed to triumph on the battlefield. Of equal importance, our leaders at home must be playing to win; our enemies certainly are.

We are currently locked in a fierce conflict in Afghanistan to prevent that country from again becoming a terrorist haven. I support the decision by President Obama to increase troop levels: which demonstrates to friends and enemies alike that we are committed to winning. Only by showing such commitment can we expect important regional players, such as the Pakistani intelligence services and the tribal factions within Afghanistan, to join our effort. Whatever their beliefs, above all, they want to back a winner.

Apart from Afghanistan, we face the threat that Iran may soon have the capability to build and deliver nuclear weapons. Swift action must be taken—and force used if necessary—to prevent this from happening. If the United States, Britain and France do nothing, we could create a situation where Israel, at great risk to itself, will be forced to attack key nuclear sites in Iran. Iran would likely retaliate by launching hundreds of its Shihad-III missiles armed with conventional warheads against Israel’s civilian population. Unilateral action by Israel seems certain to provoke a regional war, the outcome of which is impossible to predict, but which could not possibly be in our best interests.

Long term (over the course of the 21st Century) the only potential rival to American military power is China. The current leadership of that country has taken a hard line toward the West. They did this first by staging the Tiananmen incident to sideline moderate members of the Communist Party. The twenty years since have unfolded a plan to build China’s economic and military resources while gaining influence over the U.S. financial system. Chinese policies, both economic and military, are uniformly unfriendly.

Our land forces in Asia can never match those of the Chinese. For this reason, I support increased investment in our navy and air force (including the F-22 fighter) to ensure that we do not lose control of the shipping lanes that stretch from the South China Sea through Indonesia, and to maintain air superiority in places where we need it, like the Straits off Taiwan.