Every time an election cycle comes around, I am left with the belief that the only way to get anything fixed will be to do it myself. 2020 is the earliest I will be eligible. I might as well start talking now.
I realize that not all items in my platform would be within a President's powers to fix. That does not change the fact that this is how I feel things should be done.
If you disagree or have a comment, please chime in. We can call the process 'vetting'. At worst, we can understand why we disagree, as opposed to simply thinking each other to be foolish/shortsighted/immoral/etc.
My platform:
Defense
I'd like to disband the existing Army and National Guard units and take their current personel and funding and give it to the State Defense Forces or National Guard. I'd likely do something similar with the Air Force, but the Navy is currently dependant on the Air Force for logistical reasons, so that would require more complex rejiggering. (Rejiggering being the technical term.) I would put the state forces under command of their Governor. Federalization should require either: the Governor's consent, a Congressional delaration of War, or an official delaration of emergency (non-combat ONLY).
Ultimately, the same number of troops would be available if something actually required it (An actual invasion of the United States or its allies, for example.) The Marines (as part of the Navy) would still exist in their role as a rapid response force.
However, in order to go to war somewhere else, the President would either need to convince enough Governors to give him troops, rely on the Marines and Navy, or convince Congress to either grant special funding to raise an army or declare war. This is how the military worked right up until World War I.
Health Care
Yes, this means that healthy people's taxes might help pay for unhealthy people. Guess what health insurance does right now?
Taxes
Social Security
Social Security Disablilty and other non-retirement benefits would continue to be drawn from general government funds, not this retirement fund.
Abortion and Sex Education
Energy
Drugs
Gay Marriage
Government Transparency and Accountability
Anything I missed? Ask!
I may vote for you, but I'm wondering where you stand on 3e vs. 4e.
Defense
Would you roll the current military intelligence commands into the CIA or disband them altogether?
Would special force units used for low intensity, covert operations come from one state or would each state have like a revolving duty? Or would all covert operations be eliminated? Or maybe rolled into the CIA. How would you maintain consistent quality of forces across states?
Would the states be required to maintain a proportional sized Army so you would have essentially the same size as we have now?
If you have the same size, how would you handle the decreased amount of actual fighting forces? Since each state would have its own army, there would be a large amount of duplication among the support assets.
Would the states be required to use the same equipment? Somewhat related, how would you handle the decrease in military technology since no one state is going to provide the same funding as a federal budget?
|
stuff.
I agree with you for much of this, but other things not so much. Here's my opinion, for what it's worth.
Defense:
Health care:
Taxes:
Social Security:
Abortion and Sex Education:
Energy:
Drugs:
Gay Marriage:
Government Transparency:
Total:
Health Care 1/5
Taxes 2/5
Social Security 1/5
Abortion and Sex Education 5/5
Energy 5/5
Drugs 5/5
Gay Marriage 5/5
Government Transparency 5/5
Total: 34/45
Summary: I disagree with you on a few issues, but overall you're better than pretty much anyone who's had a chance during my lifetime.
I have played hours of Civilization and one thing I have learned is that eventually, you are going to need a standing army.
I also think a federation is stronger than a confederation. Just look at the UN for an example of an inefficient confederation.
|
Ross, you have lots of good ideas, unfortunately many of them are things that you could not do on your own as president. The only way that you could affect many of the changes that you propose is to develop broad coalitions in Congress in order to get them passed. If you are actually serious about going through with this, I would suggest that you start deciding now which of these positions has room for compromise and which are non-negotiable. I would also suggest that you consider running for Congress rather than the presidency, because most of your agenda items are legislative rather than executive.
As far as a standing Army goes, you are right, the Constitution does not specifically provide for it. However, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution it would take monthes for a devoted enemy to reach our shores. Today it would take hours. Sure Canada and Mexico may not be planning to invade anytime soon, but what about places like China and Russia? With modern airlift capability, if they launched an attack on us at breakfast time, they could be having Senate Bean soup and hotdogs in Washington D.C. for lunch. That is with a standing army. The time when we would have weeks or months to prepare for an attack are over, today we would have hours, if our intelligence was good. That was the lesson of World War I
Defense
Would you roll the current military intelligence commands into the CIA or disband them altogether?
High level espionage (i.e. spy stuff) probably belongs with the CIA. Battlefield intelligence (scouting, signal interception, etc.) belongs in the military. Ideally, there would be an office in the Pentagon where the CIA, the FBI, and the military intelligence people would be compelled to share with one another (in the same manner the Pentagon in general forces the difference armed forces to work with each other.)
The NSA would be disbanded. If you have a warrant, the FBI can do it. If you don't, it's unconstitutional.Would special force units used for low intensity, covert operations come from one state or would each state have like a revolving duty? Or would all covert operations be eliminated? Or maybe rolled into the CIA. How would you maintain consistent quality of forces across states?
The Marines and Navy SEALS would remain a Federal force, so they would be the go-to guys for covert/special operations. If Army forces were needed, the Pentagon probably would choose whichever group they thought would be most effective, as long as they could get the relevant Governor's permission to use those troops.
If we have an obligation by Treaty to maintain forces in a foreign area (for instance, South Korea), then a rotation system would probably be best. Specific legistlation to each treaty would have to be drafted by Congress before a new treaty could be signed. If Congress can't get agreement from the States, then Marine forces would need to be used. Yes, this does make it difficult to have a permanent military presence on foreign soil.As for quality, the best way to maintain quality, besides using the same training standards we use now, would be to foster rivalries between states by holding competitions between units. Trivia fact: Did you know the the NRA was founded, not as a guns rights organization, but to sponsor marksmanship contests between army units in order to improve quality?
Would the states be required to maintain a proportional sized Army so you would have essentially the same size as we have now?
I'd require each state to maintain a force in direct proportion to the number of volunteers they receive, which would generally be in rough proportion to their population. Since our current military is also dependant upon volunteers, I'd imagine the size would not change very much.
If you have the same size, how would you handle the decreased amount of actual fighting forces? Since each state would have its own army, there would be a large amount of duplication among the support assets.
What kind of support assets are you imagining? Things like cooks, quartermasters, even artillery support are all generally required in proportion to the number of fighting troops. If there is something that would be senselessly duplicated, then it can be maintained at a Federal level, but must be constructed in a way that it can be given to the States if its funding is not maintained on a 2-year interval.
Would the states be required to use the same equipment? Somewhat related, how would you handle the decrease in military technology since no one state is going to provide the same funding as a federal budget?
The National Guard is currently required to use standard equipment, which I cannot imagine changing. Research would be handled through the Navy and civilian DoD agencies like DARPA and the DoD itself. (Which makes a lot more sense. As is the Army has several long-term research projects when in theory they should always be worried about having a job in two years.)
I disagree. I have a cousin who's had to deal with nationalized health care and it has major drawbacks which he dislikes enough that he pays for private health care in addition to the taxes that pay for national health care. The drawbacks included long waits (which you said you wanted to avoid) and often being stuck with incompetent doctors.
I have never heard of any problems with Nation Health care that are not also problems of HMOs and health insurance. So at the very least, it cannot be worse.
I don't support taxes. At all. IMO, the government has no right to take people's money except during a war or some other emergency situation. That said, the system you propose would be less of a headache.
Trouble is that the government has to get money from somewhere. Even under a Libertarian-style government, you need money for defense. The only way to not need some form of tax is to have no government at all. An income tax and a sane corporate taxes is about as 'fair' as its going to get.
I really don't like government-based Social Security. The system should just be thrown out and privatized.
The whole point of Social Security is to have a risk-free, reliable income in retirment. Abolishing it would be one thing (not one I'd be in favor of, but one I understand.) But Privatizing it would mean continuing to take money from people, but creating the risk that it would just disappear, or at least become insolvent. That's really the worst of both worlds.
My thoughts exactly. Except that if I were president, I wouldn't ask people to impeach me.
Consider it a daily reminder to not do anything illegal.
Summary: I disagree with you on a few issues, but overall you're better than pretty much anyone who's had a chance during my lifetime.
I have as much of a chance as an atheist, childless, geek with no formal legal training will ever have.
I would you Fund these Armies? Would you leave it up to the individual states? Then how would you deal with the inevitable decline of the army *Technology, Upkeep Etc* because some states can't afford as much as others?
The Constitution actually permits the Federal Government to permanently fund the Militia. So funding would still largely be on a Federal level. If states want to bolster their forces with state funds, that's fine, but won't be required.
Just like the National Guard is now.|
|
I disagree. I have a cousin who's had to deal with nationalized health care and it has major drawbacks which he dislikes enough that he pays for private health care in addition to the taxes that pay for national health care. The drawbacks included long waits (which you said you wanted to avoid) and often being stuck with incompetent doctors.I have never heard of any problems with Nation Health care that are not also problems of HMOs and health insurance. So at the very least, it cannot be worse.
I don't know that "it can't get any worse," is a good reason to support a policy.
Ross, you have lots of good ideas, unfortunately many of them are things that you could not do on your own as president. The only way that you could affect many of the changes that you propose is to develop broad coalitions in Congress in order to get them passed. If you are actually serious about going through with this, I would suggest that you start deciding now which of these positions has room for compromise and which are non-negotiable. I would also suggest that you consider running for Congress rather than the presidency, because most of your agenda items are legislative rather than executive.
I have no desire to waste my life in Congress yelling at 99 (or 434) other politicians trying to convince them I'm right. The Presidency, though, is a leadership position. It's no guarantee of the ability to get laws passed, sure. But look at FDR. He got a lot of laws passed, because he was able to convince the people that they were a good idea. The other benefit of the Presidency is that it's term-limited. I don't want to be a career politician.
I do realize that not wanting to be a career politican pretty much disqualifies me from actually winning the Presidency. Was there ever a President who was just a dude before he ran?As far as a standing Army goes, you are right, the Constitution does not specifically provide for it. However, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution it would take monthes for a devoted enemy to reach our shores. Today it would take hours. Sure Canada and Mexico may not be planning to invade anytime soon, but what about places like China and Russia? With modern airlift capability, if they launched an attack on us at breakfast time, they could be having Senate Bean soup and hotdogs in Washington D.C. for lunch. That is with a standing army. The time when we would have weeks or months to prepare for an attack are over, today we would have hours, if our intelligence was good. That was the lesson of World War I
The great thing about state forces is that they act a lot like a standing army on defense. They just don't act like one on offense.
I don't know that "it can't get any worse," is a good reason to support a policy.
It is when you add in the 'it might get better'. For instance, removing the administrative overhead that insurance requires. Or making sure that people who would otherwise be without insurance can see a doctor.
|
|
I do realize that not wanting to be a career politican pretty much disqualifies me from actually winning the Presidency. Was there ever a President who was just a dude before he ran?
I don't recall one. Maybe back in the days of Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor, but in modern times people would like their president to have some experience leading and working in government. Just look at the back and forth over Barack Obama and Sarah Palin's experience to get a glimpse of what would happen if you tried to run without any political experince. I think Mitt Romney was the closest we will get to someone with no experience in politics any more.
CIA, FBI, DOD plus 50 military intelligence organizations all squabbling for position. It is my professional opinion this is full of fail.
The NSA disbanded? O.k. So our intelligence community crippled.
And every time the President asks for troops, each governor demanding favors. This would actually increase bureaucracy and politics, not diminish it.
I am pretty sure the quality across state militias would vary drastically regardless of whatever rivalries you attempted to foster.
Cooks, quartermasters, artillery support, medics, truck drivers, administration, supply…pretty much anything not an 11B. Some states may not want to maintain missile batteries because it would be too expensive. Some states may not want to maintain flights of helicopters because their state is too small. With 50 militias governed exclusively by each state, they will all look drastically different.
The focus of a state militia will be different than a federal army. This is a very intriguing idea. With the size of the defense budget and I can certainly see the appeal. I just do not think you can break it up into 50 different pieces and expect it to function effectively. I also see this leading to some states seceding from the union when they get fed up with a particular president. There would be nothing to stop them.
|
|
Who would be in control of the Nuclear forces?
If they had Minutes or Hours to call the forces for defense of the nation would you allow provisions that would give power to the president to call up all the forces for the defense of the nation if it was needed instead of the complication of waiting for 50 Governors permission?
This just occurred to me…how about a compromise? Instead of 50 state militias, 4 regional armies? South West + Hawaii, North West + Alaska, North East, South East + non-continental US Holdings (Guam plus the others I can not think of right now).
These armies are funded by the region and the president must get approval from the governors from that region. The governors from the region would select a military commander over that region.
There is still a lot that would need ironing out, but I think this might handle a lot of the problems I foresee in 50 different militias.
Oh, and I beg you, do not disband the NSA.
I know everyone thinks the intelligence community failed us on Iraq. Honestly, I am still scratching my head on that. Intelligence is critical to the security of this nation and military intelligence is critical to effective fighting.
Do you think we had warrants when we discovered the soviets were parking nuclear missiles in Cuba? The other side is not constrained by our constitution. Not that I am saying we need to toss it out the window. Sometimes though, we have to get our hands dirty. It is not as simple as black and white, unfortunately. This world is full of grey.
CIA, FBI, DOD plus 50 military intelligence organizations all squabbling for position. It is my professional opinion this is full of fail.
The NSA disbanded? O.k. So our intelligence community crippled.
I'm assuming the state agencies wouldn't be doing their own foreign spying, so they mostly be listening at those meetings.
And the NSA doesn't do anything the CIA (foreign) and FBI (domestic) can't do, aside from the illegal things.And every time the President asks for troops, each governor demanding favors. This would actually increase bureaucracy and politics, not diminish it.
I'm hoping what it would mean that the President would simply try to avoid asking for troops for political reasons and instead would only ask when they are actually necessary.
I am pretty sure the quality across state militias would vary drastically regardless of whatever rivalries you attempted to foster.
Cooks, quartermasters, artillery support, medics, truck drivers, administration, supply…pretty much anything not an 11B. Some states may not want to maintain missile batteries because it would be too expensive. Some states may not want to maintain flights of helicopters because their state is too small. With 50 militias governed exclusively by each state, they will all look drastically different.
Congress is still allowed to regulate the Militia, so quality standards could still be enforced. The National Guard, for instance, does not have these huge differences between states.
The focus of a state militia will be different than a federal army. This is a very intriguing idea. With the size of the defense budget and I can certainly see the appeal. I just do not think you can break it up into 50 different pieces and expect it to function effectively. I also see this leading to some states seceding from the union when they get fed up with a particular president. There would be nothing to stop them.
The thing that would stop them would be the other states, just as happened in the Civil War.
|
|
I know everyone thinks the intelligence community failed us on Iraq. Honestly, I am still scratching my head on that. Intelligence is critical to the security of this nation and military intelligence is critical to effective fighting.
Well, there were two things at play there. One was that Saddam was very successful at convincing people he had WMDs. It was a defense mechanism, because if the Iranians knew how bad off he was, they would have gobbled him up, and the Shi'a would have welcomed them with open arms. Saddam even managed to convince his own commanders that he had the weapons. After action reports of interviews with captured Iraqi military commanders show that many of them believed that Saddam had the weapons and did not understand why he was not using them.
The second was that we had a serious deficit in our intelligence system. Up until the early 1990's we were fully focused on the Soviet Bloc. When the Iron Curtain fell, nobody put any real effort into determining where the next big threat was coming from. We were also better equipped to handle electronic intelligence {elint} than we were to handle human intelligence {humint}. Unfortunately, when dealing with the Middle East, the best, and sometimes the only, way to find out what is going on is to have boots on the ground, which the CIA was reluctant to do. Therefore we had big holes in our intelligence because we weren't willing to do the hard things needed to fill in those holes.
Do you really think the other states would go to war with Texas or California if they wanted to secede? Imagine all the back door deals in that scenario. Europe pre-WWI anyone?
ELINT is easier/cheaper than HUMINT. Good points, David.
|
|
Spoiler:While fundamentally a good program, Social Security has always been a pyramid scheme. The first generation never paid in. The second generation's contribution went to the first generation so nothing was saved, and so on. It's time to own up the the debt the program is in. The debt needs to be written off, which will manifest as a large, one time cost. This injection of cash will be put into a fund (in Treasury Bonds) from with Social Security will draw it's payments and where all future payments will be put. Also, the way SS is taxed is currently highly misleading. 6% plus 6% employer matching is pretty much a 12% tax. I'd change the entire sum to be a payroll deduction, with the requirement that all employers put their former 'matching payment' into the pay of their employees. This would only be a semantic change. Who gets what money would stay the same. Social Security Disablilty and other non-retirement benefits would continue to be drawn from general government funds, not this retirement fund.
Social Security isn't drawn from general funds.
If you want to change the way SS is taxed change the maximum FICA taxable amount.
If they had Minutes or Hours to call the forces for defense of the nation would you allow provisions that would give power to the president to call up all the forces for the defense of the nation if it was needed instead of the complication of waiting for 50 Governors permission?
Easy question first: A congressional Declaration of War would automatically federalize and mobilize state forces.
Who would be in control of the Nuclear forces?
The Naval nuclear forces would remain under the Navy. The Army's nuclear forces were all 'tactical' weapons (and poorly considered ones at that) and could honestly just be done away with. The Air Force's (or more specifically, Strategic Air Command's) nuclear forces, which include America's ICBMs, are the problem.
One option would be to staff Strategic Air Command installations (silos and nuclear bombers) with a rotation of federalized state Air Militia troops. (Federalized by act of Congress.) This way, all the nuclear forces are under the President's command while they have control of nuclear materials. When a unit's rotation is up, it would be returned to the state force. This would be the prefered option in a high-tensile situation like the Cold War.
Another option would be to make nuclear ordinance 'Federal Property' and require presidential authorization to use it. This would not mean that a Governor would be required to launch a nuclear strike, merely someone in the state's chain of command to agree with it and the Governor not directly give an contradictory order. This would be the preferred solution in a time where the primary worry is not who has nukes pointed at us, like today.
The good thing about these plans is that they can be swapped between by Congress more or less at will.
Another option would be to try to get an Amendment specifying the Air Force to be as important as the Navy, so that the Air Force would remain federal in the same way as the Navy.
Oh, and I beg you, do not disband the NSA.
I know everyone thinks the intelligence community failed us on Iraq. Honestly, I am still scratching my head on that. Intelligence is critical to the security of this nation and military intelligence is critical to effective fighting.
Do you think we had warrants when we discovered the soviets were parking nuclear missiles in Cuba? The other side is not constrained by our constitution. Not that I am saying we need to toss it out the window. Sometimes though, we have to get our hands dirty. It is not as simple as black and white, unfortunately. This world is full of grey.
The problem with the NSA is that it is completely overlapped by two other civillian agencies. Having intelligence agencies fighting for juristiction or ignoring each other is bad.
We don't need warrants when dealing with non-U.S. citizens. The Bill of Rights does not protect them. That's what the CIA and military intelligence are for.
When spying on Americans, though, the Bill of Rights applies, and it becomes the FBI's problem. (If said American citizen is in the military, then the USCMJ applies and the Military Police handle it.)
|
We don't need warrants when dealing with non-U.S. citizens. The Bill of Rights does not protect them. That's what the CIA and military intelligence are for.
Now, I am foreign and don't have a lot of experience with the american constitution, but wasn't the bill of rights an attempt to recognize and protect basic principles of human liberty? Shouldn't those basic principles extend to everyone?
<threadjack> John Adams was a very good mini series </threadjack>
I am cool with rolling the NSA into the CIA and FBI provided that you bring the CIA under federal executive departments and expand the CIA and FBI to include signals intelligence and cryptanalysis responsibilities currently assigned to the NSA.
*panting* Damn run on sentences.
Now, I am foreign and don't have a lot of experience with the american constitution, but wasn't the bill of rights an attempt to recognize and protect basic principles of human liberty? Shouldn't those basic principles extend to everyone?
Good point. It is an attempt at that, but as a legal document it only applies to U.S. citizens. And obviously, a U.S. court cannot issue a warrant to search a home in another country. Hopefully, the CIA could be made to be mindful of human rights, but that unfortunately goes beyond the legal and into the philosophical (i.e. making sure the people in charge of the CIA look at it the right way.)
Edit: On further thought, the definition of 'the people' in the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation. Let me think on this.
Do you really think the other states would go to war with Texas or California if they wanted to secede? Imagine all the back door deals in that scenario. Europe pre-WWI anyone?
It happened once.
I am cool with rolling the NSA into the CIA and FBI provided that you bring the CIA under federal executive departments and expand the CIA and FBI to include signals intelligence and cryptanalysis responsibilities currently assigned to the NSA.
That would pretty much be the plan. Code breaking would probably go to the CIA (under the 'Central' part of their name.) Code-making would be primarily the duty of the military signal corps. Obviously, these organizations would have to be willing to talk with one another.
|
|
Now, I am foreign and don't have a lot of experience with the american constitution, but wasn't the bill of rights an attempt to recognize and protect basic principles of human liberty? Shouldn't those basic principles extend to everyone?Good point. It is an attempt at that, but as a legal document it only applies to U.S. citizens. And obviously, a U.S. court cannot issue a warrant to search a home in another country. Hopefully, the CIA could be made to be mindful of human rights, but that unfortunately goes beyond the legal and into the philosophical (i.e. making sure the people in charge of the CIA look at it the right way.)
Edit: On further thought, the definition of 'the people' in the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation. Let me think on this.
I'd be happy with something similar to what we were taught in the army, simple ethical and moral rules that apply to you no matter what you are doing, no matter where you are, and no matter who is giving you orders.
And some form of judicial oversight.
I don't want any canadians to get gitmoed or snatched and sent to syria, on some suspicion, chained up with some dogs, and have a legal tap dance go on about how they are not a citizen, not on US soil not a soldier, and not a pow so they have no rights.
I've thought about it. The basic protections the (American) Bill of Rights should apply to all people that the U.S. Government interacts with. The sticky problem is what 'due process' and warrants entail when no U.S. court has jurisdiction.
My solution is to require organizations that would be working outside U.S. Court jurisdiction to have an internal court system that is subject to Congressional oversight/audit/investigation (and possibly subject to subpoena from the ICC). The U.S. military already has this in the form of the MPs, USCMJ, and JAGs. Oganizations like the CIA (actually, I think the CIA is the only U.S. civilian agency working outside the United States. Anyone think of others? (The NSA doesn't count. I already said I want to get rid of it.)) would have to have a well-documented internal mechanism for granting 'warrants' and shouldn't have any power to arrest or detain anyone.
Code-making would be primarily the duty of the military signal corps.
50 different codes would make it more difficult to break…of course it would be difficult for the 50 different militias to communicate between one another.
Code-making would be primarily the duty of the military signal corps.50 different codes would make it more difficult to break…of course it would be difficult for the 50 different militias to communicate between one another.
Fortunately, we can do it under a higher level than that by making it a Joint Forces effort in the Pentagon. Alternately, we can show some love for West Point/Annapolis/Colorado Springs by making it the duty of the Academies.
|
If you disagree or have a comment, please chime in. We can call the process 'vetting'. At worst, we can understand why we disagree, as opposed to simply thinking each other to be foolish/shortsighted/immoral/etc.
I tend to upset people so I usually do not chime in but for the sake of a different opinion;
DefenseThe Congress shall have the power ...
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
OK, so maybe I read this different then you do. The Constitution does not prohibit the permanent funding of a standing army. It prohibits funding for more then two years. This means that every two years the funding must be looked at and can not be extended for more then two years.
When reading this it makes a lot of sense with your concept just for different reasons. It also makes the Second Amendment make a lot more sense.
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.
This being the case I almost feel this is one of the places the Constitution is fallible in this day and age a Standing Army is a necessity. That being said, more regulation of deployment of the military must be set up so that we never have another Iraq. A situation where we go into a place we should not be in for reasons that are well if not blatant lies, very poor information.
Health Care
“I feel” that a National health care system would not work because of the Governmental regulation. It would end up being the same FUBAR we see with every other thing the Government takes too much direct control of. In point of fact other then some basic regulations I don't think they should have anything to do with it.
Caps on the amount of money that a Physician can be sued for. This will lower costs for all involved.
Get rid of Medicaid and in fact I don't really care for Medicare either. These should be conducted by private companies who specialize in Medical services and then Paid for by the Government for the elderly or for those who can not afford it on their own. Otherwise basic coverage should be offered through your company.
Taxes
I guess I actually support a Progressive Tax with a Caveat. Individuals who invest should have a more Proportional tax rate applied. I know of several reasons for and against this the most obvious is that it seems like a way to “trick” the system but I do feel that this is the goal that should be attempted. And almost anything other then a flat tax rate would be better then what we have right now.
Social Security
Wow what a loaded almost impossible situation. This needs to be fixed and fixed fast otherwise no one will be able to use this benefit. I feel removing the cap for FICA would be a step in the right direction but in truth I have not researched this as much as I should have and as such I do not have any different or better Idea then what has already been expressed.
Abortion
Pro-Life. Or rather pro-responsibility, if you can not abstain you should have enough common sense to use basic safe sex practices. “ I feel” that an abortion should only be performed by a licensed practitioner and only in specific situations. Mainly when the mothers life is in danger, Rape and Incest.
Please understand this is my opinion and I realize that not all feel the same way. We live in a free country and should be entitled to our opinions.
Sex Education
Yes, intelligent open and mandatory education in all pubic and private schools on this subject. Including Birth control and contraceptives and abstinence.
Though I understand that some may frown on this for religious reasons I feel this planet has enough problems that taking responsibility on ourselves and for our children is a nessesity.
Energy
We have lots of ways to curb our energy independence now. And giving our cities these options should be a priority. Wind turbines and solar panels on all public buildings would be a nice start. Making it mandatory for the government to use and instal Hybrid cars and or fuel cell vehicles would be one good way to do so. I don not feel we should wait until 2020 who ever gets into office should do this NOW.
Also Kyoto accords not only should be signed by the USA we need to go above and beyond the requirements. It doesn't matter that a few of our cities have done this so far the country needs to.
Drugs
Drug use destroys lives. This should not be legalized. That being said, the so called “war on drugs” has not been very helpful in fixing this problem. We need to change focus into education and social prevention as opposed to the sad case by case of tracking traffickers and maybe busting them and well then they go right back to the streets.
Gay Marriage
Touchy subject. Do I believe in gay marriage? No. This is and was and shall be a religious institution. The only reason the government should have any regulation or interest in this subject is for Taxation and historical purposes. Otherwise they should just strike the benefit out of being married from the tax code. As far as Historical purposes there may be some justification for the government to be involved but if so this must be included into the constitution or the government should have a total and complete hands off.
Am I rambling yet? Sorry just trying to get my thoughts out in such a way that you understand it and well also understand that this is my opinion and I do not feel others should have to share in it.
Government Transparency and Accountability
ITMFA
Never heard of this before, had to Google it. I couldn't agree more.
Other :
Education
We must spend more time and effort educating all levels and ages of our society.
Sub subject: Creationism, it is not good science and even worse theology and should not be taught in schools.
Religion, should be if only a comparative religion course as a senior in high school there is so much of our society that is based on teachings or even misunderstandings of the Bible that this should be a mandatory subject.
Science, should be given a much greater emphasis in every level of schooling.
Increase funding for Physical education including nutrition.
Increased funding for the arts and music, its amazing to me what some people consider art or music these days.
Language, we need to expand ourselves beyond an English only society if for no reason then to teach Latin for better understanding of science.
Mandatory financial planning classes for all middle schoolers, they should understand how credit works before they get a job and have a way to mess it up.
Teachers just don't get paid enough for what they do now let alone what I want them to have to do. I also support a year long school year. Sorry Kids.
CIA/NSA
What a total mismanage, they should be totally reformatted. The CIA should be an open system that disseminates information and makes some sense of the chaotic world we live in. And more importantly shares that information in a timely manner to any and all who can make use of it.
NSA should be for more clandestine operations, and they should be quite limited to what they are actually doing. We should not be in the business of playing king maker in other countries. I have seen many times that this country has stuck its nose into another countries politics when we should not and then ignoring situations like Darfar where we should have taken a much more aggressive stance.
Cuba, Lets talk and open up even the most basic of trade with them, as much as we disagree they are to close to our borders to ignore.
Iran extended the hand of friendship to us prior to our invasion of Iraq, the entire situation would have been much easier if we had taken that hand, Instead we ignored them and now they no longer have a moderate government they have an idiot in charge and the world is much worse off, this is a situation that did not need to be and one we should take an active hand in fixing.
Well that's my two copper pieces. Sorry to rant so long and good luck to our country because we don't all see eye to eye but we need to be focused to fix our problems or they will just get worse.
|
|
Every time an election cycle comes around, I am left with the belief that the only way to get anything fixed will be to do it myself. 2020 is the earliest I will be eligible. I might as well start talking now.
Technically, there's no such thing as separation of Church and State. There is (paraphrased) State will not impose a Church. Quite different intent and I direct you back to your history and American Government classes. True separation of Church and State would require that NO ONE of any Church background whatsoever could serve a public office due to the obvious influence of Church into State affairs, and that all reference of Church must be removed from all aspect of State. In fact, I'd imagine that State would have to turn a blind eye to any rights of Church (tax-free, response to hate crimes, rights to assemble, etc) because true separation of Church and State requires a complete elimination of Church entirely.
I however, won't be voting for you, and the above isn't the reason why.
1) Response-based Military. It's like Hurricane Katrina, especially in light of today's technology. If you wait until after an event happens to rouse the forces it's too late. It's also dependant upon the good will and diplomatic intentions of neighboring states. If they were all rational, reasoning, respectful individuals, I would be out of a job.
2) Abortion. If you're an expectant mother, and I accidentally kill your unborn fetus I can be charged with fetal homicide. If you go to the doctor and kill your unborn fetus it is pro-choice and everyone claps. The end result is the same (dead fetus), the only difference is your opinion on "I wanted it" or "I didn't want it." How is that fair, or responsible?
3) Which recreational drugs? Pot? Crack? Crank? Coke? Meth? LSD? XTC? What's your stance on operating motor vehicles while under the influence? Yes, right now we DO have people under the influence of recreational drugs and driving, which results in a person dieing on our nation's highways about once every 39 minutes. How bad do you think it's going to get when we legally add more to the mix? As a side note, 16,885 persons lost their lives on our nation's roads in 2005 alone. 846 soldiers (one twentieth) died in Iraq during the same period. While I understand the concept of per capita, just looking at the raw numbers my first impression is that it is safer in Iraq then it is here in my own country. I've been involved in the lives of a lot of "recreational" users and I can't recall any of them being all that happy about it.
I'm not trying to say your ideas are not noble. Unfortunately, the race of persons on this planet (self included) often take into their own hands things they should be more responsible with - ie fair play, fidiciary responsibility, civic service, kindness to one another, etc etc. What happens is that we're all shackled with the "me-me-me" gene and noble ideas have to be toned down to more basic levels.
Technically, there's no such thing as separation of Church and State. There is (paraphrased) State will not impose a Church. Quite different intent and I direct you back to your history and American Government classes. True separation of Church and State would require that NO ONE of any Church background whatsoever could serve a public office due to the obvious influence of Church into State affairs, and that all reference of Church must be removed from all aspect of State. In fact, I'd imagine that State would have to turn a blind eye to any rights of Church (tax-free, response to hate crimes, rights to assemble, etc) because true separation of Church and State requires a complete elimination of Church entirely.
According to Thomas Jefferson (who helped write the First Amendment, so I'd imagine he knew what it meant) and the Supreme Court, there is. The context in which I brought up Church and State was in the context of the Gay Marriage debate. Gay people should be able to be married in the United States. One counterargument to this has been that 'Marriage' is a religious concept, specifically a Christian one. That may or may not be historically true. But if Marriage is a religious concept, it means that the government, under the First Amendment, has no business issuing marriages, or at the very least isn't allowed to prefer one version over the other. The easiest way to avoid this is to simply say 'Fine. If you want the legal protections and rights of marriage, come to the government and get a Civil Union (formerly known as a Marriage License). If you want a Priest/Rabbi/Reverend/Minister/What-have-you to do a ceremony and call you whatever in the eyes of their chuch, do that.'
1) Response-based Military. It's like Hurricane Katrina, especially in light of today's technology. If you wait until after an event happens to rouse the forces it's too late. It's also dependant upon the good will and diplomatic intentions of neighboring states. If they were all rational, reasoning, respectful individuals, I would be out of a job.
It is not as if my plan would suddenly mean we don't have an army. Since each militia's first duty would be to defend its state, it would just mean that the 'First Response' would be the governor's problem, not the president's.
2) Abortion. If you're an expectant mother, and I accidentally kill your unborn fetus I can be charged with fetal homicide. If you go to the doctor and kill your unborn fetus it is pro-choice and everyone claps. The end result is the same (dead fetus), the only difference is your opinion on "I wanted it" or "I didn't want it." How is that fair, or responsible?
The fact that it was a choice makes all the difference. A wanted fetus is a baby. An unwanted fetus is a sexually-transmitted tumor. The Fetal Homicide laws (which not every state has) assume the pregnancy in question was a wanted one. This is going to be a bit of a crude example, but I'll continue anyway. If you break into a farm and shoot a pig, that's illegal. If that same farmer slaughters a pig the next day and eats it/sells it that's his right.
Oh, and nobody claps when anyone gets an abortion. They suck. I don't equate it with murder but that doesn't mean I think it's Happy Fun Time. It is merely that forcing people to have children they don't want and/or back-alley/'coathanger' abortions are worse.
The reason I combined my position on abortion with sex education is that I think the best way to minimize the number of abortions is to make sure people know what risks they are taking.
3) Which recreational drugs? Pot? Crack? Crank? Coke? Meth? LSD? XTC? What's your stance on operating motor vehicles while under the influence? Yes, right now we DO have people under the influence of recreational drugs and driving, which results in a person dieing ondieing on our nation's highways about once every 39 minutes. How bad do you think it's going to get when we legally add more to the mix? As a side note, 16,885 persons lost their lives on our nation's roads in 2005 alone. 846 soldiers (one twentieth) died in Iraq during the same period. While I understand the concept of per capita, just looking at the raw numbers my first impression is that it is safer in Iraq then it is here in my own country. I've been involved in the lives of a lot of "recreational" users and I can't recall any of them being all that happy about it.
I know I'd legalize pot. It makes booze look like a hard drug. Probably LSD as well, though I'd require all the places licensed to sell it to make people stay there for the duration of their trip. XTC has been legal in several European coutries for some time with no apparent issues, but I don't know enough about its long-term effects to decide on it right now. I'd want to have a nice long talk with medical experts and sociologists before deciding exactly what would make the list, and under what conditions it should be legalized.
My metric for legalization would be safety (both immediate and long term) and addictiveness. Nothing less safe or more addictive than tabacco.Driving while intoxicated, by anything, is already illegal, and should remain so. The only thing that would change would be a person pulled over while high would only get the DUI instead of also getting a possession charge. (Though he might get an open container violation if he was actually smoking at the time.)
This being the case I almost feel this is one of the places the Constitution is fallible in this day and age a Standing Army is a necessity. That being said, more regulation of deployment of the military must be set up so that we never have another Iraq. A situation where we go into a place we should not be in for reasons that are well if not blatant lies, very poor information.
A federal standing army is in peacetime is not barred by the constitution, but it should be small, and should have a large officer cadre to help combine and take command of the state forces when necessary. And, of course, it should be prepared to disband every two years. Keeping it small aids that goal. One of the major problems with the current system is that you can't actually just stop funding it. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.
“I feel” that a National health care system would not work because of the Governmental regulation. It would end up being the same FUBAR we see with every other thing the Government takes too much direct control of. In point of fact other then some basic regulations I don't think they should have anything to do with it.
Caps on the amount of money that a Physician can be sued for. This will lower costs for all involved.
Get rid of Medicaid and in fact I don't really care for Medicare either. These should be conducted by private companies who specialize in Medical services and then Paid for by the Government for the elderly or for those who can not afford it on their own. Otherwise basic coverage should be offered through your company.
Employer-based health care has a lot of problems. It screws the unemployed/underemployed for one. It also makes switching jobs a real headache (worker mobility is good for the economy), particularly if you already have a medical condition.
Malpractice insurance does drive up the cost of healthcare, but so does the administrative overhead of the insurance system. A single-payer system simplifies a lot of that.I guess I actually support a Progressive Tax with a Caveat. Individuals who invest should have a more Proportional tax rate applied. I know of several reasons for and against this the most obvious is that it seems like a way to “trick” the system but I do feel that this is the goal that should be attempted. And almost anything other then a flat tax rate would be better then what we have right now.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to handle 'unearned' income. I'm leaning toward a proportional tax, but overhauling the Capital Gains system to both minimize accounting complexity and reward long-term over short-term investments.
Corporate taxes are a real mess, but I'd need to consult with real lawyers and economists to fix that one.Pro-Life. Or rather pro-responsibility, if you can not abstain you should have enough common sense to use basic safe sex practices.
Condoms break sometimes. (This is why Plan B should be readily available, but sometimes it also fails.)
“ I feel” that an abortion should only be performed by a licensed practitioner and only in specific situations. Mainly when the mothers life is in danger, Rape and Incest.
I disagree. Two primary reasons:
1) Safe-sex methods can fail, even if multiple ones are used. This means that even people who are being responsible can sometimes end up with an unwanted pregnancy.2) A child should not be a punishment for being irresponsible. Both because that's a really s%+#ty way to look at a child, but also because irresponsible people are by definition least qualified to raise said child.
We have lots of ways to curb our energy independence now. And giving our cities these options should be a priority. Wind turbines and solar panels on all public buildings would be a nice start. Making it mandatory for the government to use and instal Hybrid cars and or fuel cell vehicles would be one good way to do so. I don not feel we should wait until 2020 who ever gets into office should do this NOW.
Also Kyoto accords not only should be signed by the USA we need to go above and beyond the requirements. It doesn't matter that a few of our cities have done this so far the country needs to.
I agree.
Drug use destroys lives. This should not be legalized. That being said, the so called “war on drugs” has not been very helpful in fixing this problem. We need to change focus into education and social prevention as opposed to the sad case by case of tracking traffickers and maybe busting them and well then they go right back to the streets.
I think that legalizing a few drugs that aren't exactly known for ruining lives (Heroin ruins lives. Pot, not so much.) would help take the strain off the system. Then, you are absolutely right, we need to treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Touchy subject. Do I believe in gay marriage? No. This is and was and shall be a religious institution. The only reason the government should have any regulation or interest in this subject is for Taxation and historical purposes. Otherwise they should just strike the benefit out of being married from the tax code. As far as Historical purposes there may be some justification for the government to be involved but if so this must be included into the constitution or the government should have a total and complete hands off.
The government might be able to take marriage out of the tax code, but what about things like inheritance rights and the definition of next-of-kin? There needs to be a legal structure that provides thoses benefits. I personally don't care if it's called a marriage or a civil union or whatever, as long as everyone gets the same benefit.
We must spend more time and effort educating all levels and ages of our society.
Sub subject: Creationism, it is not good science and even worse theology and should not be taught in schools.
Religion, should be if only a comparative religion course as a senior in high school there is so much of our society that is based on teachings or even misunderstandings of the Bible that this should be a mandatory subject.
Science, should be given a much greater emphasis in every level of schooling.
Increase funding for Physical education including nutrition.
Increased funding for the arts and music, its amazing to me what some people consider art or music these days.
Language, we need to expand ourselves beyond an English only society if for no reason then to teach Latin for better understanding of science.
Mandatory financial planning classes for all middle schoolers, they should understand how credit works before they get a job and have a way to mess it up.
Teachers just don't get paid enough for what they do now let alone what I want them to have to do. I also support a year long school year. Sorry Kids.
I think that a comparative religion (or even biblical studies class) could be undertaken younger than senior year of high school.
I also think that living languages are of more benefit than Latin, but otherwise I fundamentally agree with you. (The 8th-grade microeconomics class in particular is a good idea.)I do support year-round school, but only if the 'breaks' are lengthened. (Replacing a 10-12 week summer with an extra 4-6 weeks dispersed throught he year still nets more class-time, though, and avoids leaving teachers without a paycheck for 3 months.)
Just wanted to say that I like a lot of Ross' ideas, even if some are unfeasible. +1 for the guts to come out and take a stand on what you believe in.
|
|
A standing Army that spent it's peace-time doing civil service projects (building dams, cleaning up flood zones, repairing infrastructure) would get my vote. Every state that has stuff that needs fixing (which is all of them) would be hesistant to sign on to any foreign wars of aggression as it would take their civil workers away, the people who keep their bridges from falling down and stuff.
I'm for most of the rest of the platform.
But I'd add a major call for personal responsibility. I believe that social safety nets are a necessity for a humane civilization. If we don't protect the weakest among us, what kind of beasts are we? But I also believe in personal responsibility. Give someone a hand UP, not a handout.
Everybody should have the same rights. If I am opposed to abortion, I won't get one. (More to the point, I'll adopt a child if the mother doesn't want it, and I do believe that there should be a clause allowing a *father* to have some say in what happens to his child, if he's willing to take responsibility, but I won't decide that *my opinions* are worth more than the mothers, or that the next 15-20 years of her life is going to be held hostage by the values of a church that she does not belong to.) In the case of a child that *isn't* mine? I got no rights at all to tell someone to what to do, and then smugly wash my hands of it and leave all the hard work of child-rearing in her hands.
In a perfect world, as Ross says, people would be sterile before *choosing* to have children. In a much different world than the one we live in, parents would have to actually go to classes and pass tests on basic parenting skills before being allowed to pump out a bunch of children that they will end up abusing or abandoning. None of that is the case, and since God didn't tell me that I get to make choices for other people, I can't tell people that they have to be responsible parents or that they have to bear children that they don't want and won't love.
Marriage existed long before Christianity. Certainly long before Christ. Biblically, the 'traditional' marriage is between one man and multiple wives, with various approved mistresses (although one is not supposed to sire son's by one's mistresses! Bad!). If we are going to become a Christian nation and impose Christian traditions on marriage, then all marriages should be polygamous, women should have no marital rights and mistresses should be allowed. If we are going to honor the separation of church and state, then marriage becomes a purely civil affair. If churches want to have their own recognition of some marriages and not of others, that's their perogative, and they should never be required to perform a marriage that they don't approve of, just as Mormons spend decades refusing to marry blacks and whites, since miscegenation was considered a mortal sin. That's their right, and it's their right to support and perform marriages of multiple women to a single man. But the government shouldn't be imposing those religious strictures on civil marriages, and marriages sponsored by a church shouldn't have any special legal benefit over a civil marriage.
Rights to do anything should start at voting age. If smoking, drinking and getting married are legal, they should be legal to those old enough to vote (or be drafted).
If tobacco killed 435,000 people in 2000, poor diet and physical inactivity caused 365,000 deaths, alcohol caused 85,000 deaths and *all illicit drug use, direct and indirect* caused only 17,000 deaths (almost half the 32,000 who died of adverse reactions to LEGAL prescription drugs!!), I don't think college ravers tweaking out on XTC is quite the menace it has been cracked up to be. I wouldn't mind a perfect world where nobody smoked or drank or used drugs, but gosh, they tried Prohibition already, and it was a dismal failure. People want to poison themselves? They have the right to 'pursue happiness,' even if it leads them to an early grave. We can't stop them, as has been proven time and again, and it's past time to stop throwing good money after bad pissing into that hurricane.
Social Security, of a sort, has been around for 4000 years, and possibly longer, with the Pharoahs of Egypt having had their own 'tax the peasants during the fertile season and then feed them their own taxed grains during the famine season' scheme going on. If people can't be trusted to plan for their own futures, I see nothing wrong with the government setting up a retirement package out of the citizens own money. I'd prefer to live in some wonderful land where everyone was smart enough to be personally responsible and plan for their own retirement, but I'm stuck on this planet with a bunch of human beings. :)
Just wanted to say that I like a lot of Ross' ideas, even if some are unfeasible.
Agreed. This is the sort of radical thinking this country needs. Change is not going to occur if we keep thinking the same way.
Down with sacred cows!
