Last year I outlined the platform of my candidacy for the position of President of the United States of America.

Recently the Texas GOP has released their 2010 State Republican Party Platform, which by reports I’m reading is very similar to their 2008 Platform.

In the interests of full disclosure many of you know I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. My voting the past few years has tended towards Independent candidates who have aligned closer to my beliefs, but in the grand scheme of donkeys and elephants I tend to vote for more Democrats than Republicans. The reason is that I value social issues higher than economic issues. It’s also helped that the Republican party of the past 30 years has gone off the deep end. Going from a long held position of small government and balanced budgets to two of the largest spending administrations in history (Reagan and Bush 43).

With that being said, I have voted for Republicans who don’t seem to be total wackjobs. In fact many Republicans I know are reasonable people with well thought out positions; but there is a special place in my heart for those on the fringes. And a great example of this is the Texas Republican. No other set of right wingers have that unique mix of belligerence, homophobia, presumptuousness, and weaponry. Let’s compare their platform to mine.

Abortion
Might as well start with a biggie. I support the right of a woman to chose, especially when her health is at risk. In an ideal world there would be no abortions, but they will always exist in this world and we must ensure they are done properly and with compassion.
The TX GOP has a slightly different view. They have an entire section of their platform titled “Protecting Innocent Human Life” which has a very pure solemn ring to it; but how does one define life? Well I’m glad you asked, “All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” Along those lines they would like to see an amendment to the US Constitution to have the 14th Amendment apply to unborn children. Funny how the TX GOP values a single fertilized cell more than a gay adult, but we’ll get to that later. Basically the TX GOP wants to make sure as few abortions occur as possible. I’m surprised they don’t go so far as to outright say all abortions should be banned, but I’m not sure what else would be the goal of “We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade.” Let’s just say we differ slightly on this topic… for example I’m not in favor the state providing the option of a “Choose Life” license plate.

Afghanistan-Iraq-Iran-War on Terror
Surprisingly our positions on this topic are not all that far apart. Aside from the reasons we are involved in these messes, we both agree that the US needs to see it through, and that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. However, I would look to close the prison in Gitmo (by actually putting all detainees on trial) while it seems the TX GOP is fine with the status quo in Cuba.

Cuba
Speaking of Cuba, I support engaging Cuba to incent them to make reforms and to lay the groundwork for post-Castro Cuba. The TX GOP simply states: “We support the continuation of the embargo against Cuba until democracy is restored.” Surprisingly they support all Cuban refugees emigrating to the US.

Economy
While we may quibble on some of the details of the economy (I’m not so sold on incentives to have people give more money to faith based charities) overall we agree that spending should be lowered, the budget should be balanced, and Social Security should not be used to fund anything besides Social Security.

Education
This topic is somewhat mixed. I agree that we need to invest in schools, No Child Left Behind has not worked, the need to have competent teachers, and use corporal punishment. But after that we start to diverge. I like the idea of teaching the principles of MLK and that we should recognize and celebrate the contributions of all regardless of color and endorse a collective American identity… but they also state that MLK was a Republican. It’s pretty obvious that MLK didn’t subscribe to either political party and for one or the other to co-opt his name for political gain is shameful. Beyond that the TX GOP is really in favor student sponsored prayer in schools and getting parental consent before going near any topic like sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. Lastly they also want Intelligent Design taught in schools. How about you let educators decide how/what to teach and keep your personal beliefs out of it? If you want your children to consider Intelligent Design you are more than welcome to teach them about it at home… how’s that?

Energy
The TX GOP is pretty brief on this one, but even since the disaster in the Gulf they support “an immediate end to the deep water drilling moratorium in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico”… yeah, good luck with that position if the oil spill in the Gulf drifts west instead of east. I believe that the government needs to take a more active position in forcing the US to start considering alternate energies. Of course there’s no money in electric cars right now, but without a mandate we’ll wait until the market forces our hands (a true oil crisis) instead of getting out in front of it. Government should use gentle steering and let the economic engine do all the work.

Environment
Not surprisingly the TX GOP is mostly concerned with property rights, water rights, and mineral rights. Not much to say otherwise.

Free trade
On one hand they support free trade with Columbia, but on the other hand they rant about pulling out of all free trade agreements. ???

Guns
We couldn’t disagree more on this topic. I support registration of all firearms, they reject any monitoring of gun ownership. I would repeal conceal and carry, they oppose “gun free zones”. Of course they also support the establishment of a “volunteer Constitutional State Militia.” I have no idea what that means, but I don’t like the sounds of it. Ask folks in Michigan how that works for them.

Health care
The TX GOP of course rejects “Obamacare” out of hand, without any specifics. They do support more transparency and choice for consumers… so they aren’t totally nuts on this topic.

Homeland security
We more or less agree that security is of the utmost importance. There aren’t specifics on how to make this happen. They spent 87 words on Homeland Security, but 205 on the right to bear arms and 1162 on abortion.

Immigration
My more conservative colors will show here as I fully support the securing of our borders and ports. I support stopping the flow of immigrants, drugs, and guns (going from US to Mexico) across our southern border. There will be significant economic impacts to securing the border, but the impacts of current state justify that option in my opinion. As for immigration as a larger issue, I again agree with the TX GOP in their quoting of Teddy Roosevelt:
America is a country of immigrants, we should insist that any immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself/herself to the United States. He/she shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else. This is predicated upon the fact that the person is in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance. Anyone who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t American at all. We have room but for one flag, the American Flag. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language. We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is loyalty to the American people.
(Teddy Roosevelt, 1907)

Social Security
Another topic I more or less agree with the TX GOP on. While it cannot happen overnight I support the phase out of Social Security and prevention of government of using the existing money to fund other items.

Stem cell research
Pretty standard boilerplate stuff from the TX GOP on this, and I agree with some of it; such as not creating embryos for the sole purpose of research… I’m a little queasy on that. But there is one line in their statement I have to share: “We encourage the adoption of existing embryos.”
Wha?? I suppose is they believe that life starts at conception that means you can adopt an embryo. In my humble opinion the embryo belongs who whomever it came from, and it’s up to them on what to do with it… put it up for adoption (??? that just sounds so absurd but I’ll go with it), have it destroyed, or donate to research. What is it about the combination of egg and sperm that gets the TX GOP so worked up?

Taxes
The TX GOP is hardcore on Taxes: “We recommend a national sales tax (which does not include a Value Added Tax) to replace all other Federal taxes once the I.R.S. is abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is repealed.”
I’m no expert on taxation, but I do know that some level of taxes are needed and I don’t know if an income tax (revised to get rid of the current confusing system) or a national sales tax is that answer, but if we go with a national sales tax can we mandate that all pricing must include the tax? I hate buying something for 99 cents and then going to the register and having to pay $1.06 for it.

LGBT issues
I saved the “best” one for last. I put best in quotation marks because this is where the GOP across the country loses me completely (as if their harsh stance on abortion wasn’t enough) and shows their homophobic and hateful colors.
As my own platform states, I am not in favor of gay “marriage”, I’m in favor of government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Marriages are the business of the Church, not government, and the Church can marry whomever they want. For legal purposes the government should recognize the Civil Union of two people; and I don’t care if they are two men, two women, or a woman and a man (or a transgendered person of any type). I support adoption of children by gay couples; I support gays in the military. Essentially I don’t see any valid reason to limit the rights of anyone based on their sexual preference. As long as you are a consenting adult, have fun! However, the TX GOP feels a little differently on this one.
As I run down their “STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH” section here are my reactions…
There is no assault on marriage by judicial activists (and by the way, funny how if a judge changes a law to something a homophobe agrees with it’s not judicial activism). And can someone explain to me why the government should define marriage as between a “natural man and a natural woman”? I suppose the word ‘natural’ is in there to cover the transgendered. But why is this a problem? Here’s why; found under the heading “Homosexuality”:
“We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”
Ok, but *why* do they believe that homosexuality tears at the fabric of society? Because they believe the homosexuals are deviants who prey on children, spread disease, and just plain make them feel uncomfortable. How narrow minded these horrible little people are. Their fear and insecurities do not give them the right to persecute those who are different. They are reminiscent of the Nazis. And to have the gall to hide behind their Christian religion is appalling. What would Jesus think of them? He would forgive them for they know not what they do; but He would not agree with them.
As if that isn’t enough…
“Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.”
That’s right; if you were to marry two people of the same sex you would have committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. You could lose your right to vote, own a gun (although I suppose the TX GOP would be ok without you owning a gun in this case), or run for public office.
The TX GOP also wants to get rid of all pornography and make sodomy a crime. … … Ok, it’s one thing to go after the gays… but making sodomy a crime is just ludicrous!
I beseech the Republican Party… please kick out the hateful religious wackjob bigots! This dictatorship of morality is no different than the radical Islamic mullahs who keep parts of the world under authoritarian regimes.

Now more than ever is why we need an alternate party who believes in smaller less intrusive government, but one that isn’t run by fear and hate. In closing I leave the Republican Party of Texas with this…

That’s working out really well so far, isn’t it?

The Yahoo! News headline (courtest of Live Science) reads: Quarter of Republicans Think Obama May Be the Anti-Christ.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Wall Street Fat Cats and Corporate Tycoons run America… because for the most part the people aren’t in any shape to do so.

I have a strong feeling this survey isn’t exactly accurate, but any measurable number of people who feel this way (combined with the Tea Party wingnuts, “Birthers”, and anyone who has threatened a Congressperson), is too many.

America… what the hell is wrong with you people?!?!

I hereby announce my intent to form a committee to investigate the feasibility of my candidacy for the office of President of the United States of America in 2012.

Between now and the next election I will officially become eligible to run for President:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1)

I have come to discover that the extreme positions that our two national parties have taken have led to my disillusionment with the political process. I balance out to be a centrist as I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

Some people believe that last statement is a fallacy. Some people erroneously believe that social liberal means spending money on a lot of touchy-feely programs. That is not the case. Below I have outlined the major issues from the 2008 campaign. I will state my positions on each and hopefully illustrate what is meant by social liberal-fiscal conservative.

Abortion
In a perfect world there would be no abortions; but we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world of rape, incest, and where mothers die giving birth. I believe in a woman’s right to control her body. I believe that an abortion should be legal at any point in a pregnancy if the mother’s life is in danger, and I believe medical science should determine what that means. I believe that a fetus is a life once it can reasonably survive outside of the mother, and again I would rely on scientific evidence to determine what that means. Abortion is a terrible choice that I hope no woman would have to make, but it has a place in our world. We must ensure that it is done properly and with compassion.

Afghanistan
Afghanistan is modern day’s forgotten war. Too much time, money, and attention has been spent on Iraq. The United States has forgotten where this “War on Terror” started. The US must move its focus to Afghanistan, stabilize the country, and work with neighboring Pakistan to ensure there is no place to hide for the Taliban. Should be a piece of cake. I would expect this to wrap up by the end of my second term in 2020.

Cuba
As much as I disagree with the neo-conservative doctrine that the United States must bring democracy to the world (some societies aren’t ready for it, see: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan), I do believe the time is right to work with Cuba to loosen restrictions and entice the country to moderate. Do not expect free elections overnight; but I would work with Raul Castro to bring Cuba into the modern age. Expect Cuba to be the United States’ 53rd state in 2035.

Economy
By the time I start my campaign in 2011 we should be out of the current mess and on our way to a new bull market. As part of the political process I will need to argue that all of the missteps in the recovery that rightfully belong to the Bush administration actually belong to Obama. Hey, people will do anything to get elected, right? Regardless, my economic policies can be summed up by this Winston Churchill quote: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
I firmly believe the pure capitalism does not work for today’s society. If left to its own devices (as evidenced by the recent financial collapse of large banks) capitalism will drive to wild highs and bottom-scraping lows. On the other side I am not advocating socialism. But if you don’t think the US has a fair amount of socialism already built into it I will direct you to: a) Social Security, b) the insurance industry as a whole (socialized risk), and c) the TARP bailout. So the right-wing cries of “socialism” towards Obama are ridiculous.
Regardless, the US (and the world) isn’t equipped to handle that sort of roller coaster ride that unfettered capitalism provides. I am not a fan of massive government regulations either; but stricter controls over the economy, by the government, are necessary. Think of the government as the throttle on the economic engine. We just blew a cylinder, so we need to fix the engine and take it easy on the gas pedal next time. We’ll be fine.

Education
In the immortal words and music of Michael Masser and Linda Creed (as sung by Whitney Houston): “I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.”
I am against school vouchers. I strongly believe our public school system is what led America to its position as the world’s only superpower. However, that system has not adapted over the last several decades to stay ahead of the world. We need to swallow our pride and learn techniques that have worked in other countries. The public school system at the beginning of my term will bear little resemblance to the school systems at the end of my second term. My top three initiatives would be:
A) Uniforms – all public schools will require uniforms.
B) Pay for Performance – teachers will be evaluated not on their students’ performance, but how the teacher performs in the classroom as judged by peer review.
C) Bring Post-Secondary options into High School: why not let students’ natural abilities drive their educational experience? I strongly believe in a well-rounded education, but most seniors in high school do not need to learn calculus. Diversify the classroom options for the last two years of high school and prepare student for the working world or post-secondary education.

Energy
My energy policies will closely resemble what is referred to on the internet as “The Robin Williams’ Plan”.
“The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.”
Getting the US weaned off of oil isn’t going to happen overnight, but great strides could be taken immediately. I will make it a point to cease and desist all ethanol plants that use corn as a source. Not only does corn make for a very poor source of plant based fuel (as compared to switch grass or even pond scum) it is a horrible plant that strips the soil of nutrients and is as the source of the “food industrial complex”. For those of you reading this who didn’t grow up in an agricultural town, you know all that corn you see growing when you drive through the Heartland? That isn’t for people. You could take that corn and boil it all day and you couldn’t eat it. That’s all for cattle, food additives (High Fructose Corn Syrup is the most notorious), and ethanol. Did you know that it takes 10 calories of fossil fuel to create one calorie of corn as food?
But I digress, the topic at hand is energy. We use petroleum for so many other important products (plastics to just name one). We need oil, but we don’t need to use it all for our fuel. The fuel plan of the future will need to be diverse as we won’t be able to get all of our transportation fuel from oil, nor all of our electricity from coal/nuclear. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, natural gas, as well as coal and nuclear are all part of the equation. I will accelerate the Obama administration’s support of new technologies to help the US gain energy independence. I will make this research a cornerstone of the US economy creating jobs and an industry focused on helping the US and the world.

Environment
I do not support the Kyoto Protocol. It seems to me that it is only creating a market where the have-not nations can sell their “carbon credits” to the have nations who will continue to expel high-levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Whether or not you believe that the climate changes we are seeing today are part of a natural cycle or influenced by man, we all should agree that we should limit polluting the air and water of the world. My energy policies will go a long way toward curbing the US output of polluting gases. It is an unreasonable expectation of emerging economies to adopt and buy carbon credits to create their own energy infrastructure when the western world became the energy consuming behemoth it is today on the back of free wheeling use of energy. Unless the first world countries are willing to share their energy technologies with third world countries we cannot limit their energy evolution. We, as a world, need to limit our environmental impact by sharing resources and knowledge. This won’t happen overnight, but it can happen.

Free trade
In theory Free Trade sounds like a good thing. In actuality Free Trade is an immensely complicated issue. Presidential campaigns are run on sound bites. McCain said things like, “[I am] the biggest free marketer and free trader that you will ever see.” Biden said, “scrap NAFTA or fix it.” Most voting Americans have no understanding of the complexities of the economics involved, they only care about generalities and tough talk; like Obama wanting to eliminate tax breaks for companies who move their headquarters overseas. So for my campaign I will be equally glib and only pay lip service to arguably the most important and influential issue on the table.
Government contracts will only be awarded to companies headquartered in the United States.
NAFTA will be “fixed” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).
The US will use “talk tough” with other countries that have placed high tariffs on our goods.
In reality any meaningful change in policy on free trade will come when our society no longer values saving a few dollars over quality. We are addicted to cheap clothes and cheap electronics. We place a high tariff on imported sugar to ensure that using our surplus of domestic corn, after going through a somewhat complicated and expensive manufacturing process, is a cheaper sweetener.
Regardless, the US cannot embrace protectionist policies, but it cannot continue the unabated consumption of the past 40 years.

Guns
My position on the “right to bear arms” is probably what will keep me from getting elected. I am strongly in favor of gun control. I would propose strict regulation and tracking of firearms. This may seem impossible but consider we have just as many guns as we do vehicles registered in the US (approx 225-250 million). We regulate every single car built and sold in this US. Each one gets a unique number assigned to it. Each one needs to be licensed. If you are found operating it without a license you can be fined or jailed. You are required to carry insurance if you own and operate one. But when it comes to guns, it’s laissez-faire. My administration would look to track every single firearm manufactured or imported into this country. Owners would need to be licensed, and purchase insurance on their firearm in the case it is used in illegal activity. Future purchases of assault weapons would be banned. I don’t care what any member of the NRA may tell you; there is no provision in the Bill of Rights that provides for the ownership of an AK-47. There is no reason to own an AK-47 except for the purpose of killing people. There is no other reasonable use for weapons of this nature. You cannot hunt game with this gun. Ok, well you can, but you’ll lose half the deer to the exit wounds an assault rifle would leave. Lastly, I am not in favor of “conceal and carry” laws, I would actively pursue overturning those laws.

Health care
Newsflash: the American healthcare system is broken. Since I currently work in the Health Insurance industry I have my own biases on what is wrong and what should be done to fix the industry. I do not believe a single payer (i.e. government health insurance) is the answer. I favor universal coverage for children whose families qualify, but I do not favor universal coverage for adults. I believe that pharmaceutical companies and medical care providers need to be transparent on their costs and fundamentally change they way they are paid for their services. Health Insurance companies should be not-for-profit enterprises; any profits above and beyond a reasonable threshold should be returned to the policyholders who pay the premiums. Ideally hospitals would be not-for-profit as well.

Homeland security
What candidate would say: I am against Homeland Security? What my administration would do is increase the cooperation and better define the roles and responsibilities of the various departments responsible for the security of the United States. The creation of a whole separate department (with the Orwellian title of: Department of Homeland Security) was possibly needed at the time, but seemed to be treating the symptoms instead of curing the problem. Consolidating duties and departments without sacrificing safety would be a high priority in my administration.
Additionally, on the chance that the prison at Guantanamo Bay is still open and contains detainees, I would move to put all detainees on trial to determine their fate. I would also look to revise the Patriot Act to ensure a proper balance between freedom and safety.

Housing
What the US is experiencing in the housing market is known as a “correction”. That is an emotionless word to describe the pain that is felt across the nation as families are losing their homes to foreclosure; but it is an accurate word. By the time my candidacy gets off the ground this chapter will be in the past, but let us make sure it is not forgotten. If your family makes $60,000 a year, you probably can’t afford a $500,000 home… with no money down… and loan payments that only cover the interest each month. Sometimes the collective “we” learn the lesson the hard way. And learning the hard way is never fun.

Immigration
It’s fascinating that so many of these issues have economics at their core. The electorate wants it both ways, they want cheap labor to hold down the prices of food, but they don’t want immigrants illegally entering the county. This country was built on the backs of immigrants, and continues to run on the backs of immigrants. From the fields of California to the dairy barns in Vermont; illegal immigrants keep wages low, which in turn keep prices low. But the electorate doesn’t want to hear that. They want to hear tough talk like, “let’s build a fence between us and Mexico to keep those damn immigrants out!” Building a 700-mile long fence will do little to nothing to stem the flow of illegal immigration (or drugs) along the Mexican border. It’s a waste of time and money. Reforming the economics that drive people to risk their lives coming to this country is the only path to meaningful change.

Iran
Attempts to marginalize Iran and label them part of an “Axis of Evil” couldn’t be further from the appropriate way to change the Iranian regime. I would continue the approach to engage Iran and do our clandestine best to support moderate factions within the country to move their society and their government away from extremists. I would continue sanctions in an effort to have Iran dismantle their nuclear ambitions, but a military action without U.N. backing would be a mistake far bigger than Iraq.

Iraq
I was against the invasion of Iraq without support from the U.N. I do feel that the U.N. can be an impotent organization, but while the U.S. *can* go it alone, the Iraq war has illustrated why we *shouldn’t* go it alone. However, now that we have been in Iraq for over 6 years (!!!), it is time that we withdraw our troops and focus on stabilizing Afghanistan where this “War on Terror” started and where we have yet to win any meaningful victories.

Israel
Israel is a key US ally in the Middle East and my administration would continue to support that ally. However Israel hasn’t done much to help themselves in the ongoing conflicts in the region. I would push for a three-state solution to the Palestinian issue; giving Egypt authority over the Gaza Strip, and giving Jordan the West Bank. This solution would make Egypt, Jordan, and Israel unhappy; which tells me that it must be the right solution.

LGBT issues
This issue is really all about gay marriage. There are other important issues (actually they are probably more important than gay marriage) such as gays in the military and gay adoption. For the record I am opposed to gays being banned from the military, and I am in favor of gay adoptions; there are so many children in need of loving families and there is no evidence that a child raised by a gay person or a gay couple is at more risk for *anything* than those raised by straight people.
As far as the main issue of gay marriage, I have a pretty radical stance. I believe the government should get out of the marriage business. Government agencies should only issue Civil Unions. Allowing two people to join themselves for economic benefits (inheritance, taxes, etc.) and social responsibilities (responsibility for children, power of attorney, etc.) is a function of government. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. Last I checked we had a separation of church and state in this country.
And as an aside, what is the problem with gay people getting married? Do people see it as diminishing their own marriages? I just don’t understand it. I could understand if people were against it from a fiscal perspective; paying out additional health benefits for partners, or using marriage as a tax advantage (which it really isn’t)… but you never really hear *why* people are against it besides religious reasons. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Something else that doesn’t make sense is amending the Constitution to prevent gay people from getting married. The Constitution is meant to grant rights, not take them away. The last time we tried to take something away it really didn’t go very well (Prohibition). If someone can give me a good logical reason why gays shouldn’t marry, I’ll listen to them, but I have yet to hear anything.

Russia
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” – Alphonse Karr
Just when you thought Russia was evolving and the Cold War was over, they start invading neighboring countries and stirring up trouble. Russia is not the powerhouse it was during the Soviet days, but they are a key world power and must be treated as such. However we must not turn a blind eye to the corruption and human right violations rampant in their country; but this is not a country the US can intimidate.

Social Security
Boy, darn good thing we didn’t take Bush 43’s advice and put Social Security in the stock market. Whew! We dodged a bullet there!
To get elected as president you need the senior vote, and considering that by the time I’m running in 2012 the senior population should be over 40 million, I need to pander to the old folks. To get those votes I will talk tough about Social Security. I will not privatize it. I will also stop Congress from raiding it like it was a cookie jar. Once elected, I will hold to those promises, but I will also move to phase it out over time. Citizens of this country should not rely on the government to support them in their old age. Each and every person should focus on saving their own money for a time when they are no longer working (whether that is through retirement or a disability). Not a popular position, but in all honestly Social Security isn’t much support for seniors anyway. The payments get lower and lower each year and with the Baby Boomers moving towards retirement age there is little chance of Social Security surviving until I am ready to retire. Time to start the long process of weaning us off of Social Security.

Stem cell research
My administration would not add any restrictions on stem cell research. I would support federal funding for research companies using embryos that are slated for destruction by fertility clinics, as well as other existing sources. I would not support what is commonly referred to as “fetal farming”; the creation of embryos specifically for research.

Taxes
Taxes are a necessary evil that provide funding for services that benefit the common good. I am absolutely for lower taxes, but I am for more in favor of a balanced budget. This will require raising taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the country, and I envision a graduated scale. For every million dollars you make, your tax rate goes up 1% topping out at 45%. This country is providing the means for you to make obscene amounts of money, the least you could do is help her get out of debt. Taxes rate will remain where they are for the remainder of the population but government services and subsidies will be targeted for elimination where possible. Once the budget is under control and we can begin to pay down our debt, tax rates will be adjusted accordingly. Deficit spending will abhorred in my administration. Only under the most dire circumstances will it be allowed. Government by the people is a reflection of those people. The American public has gotten fat off of cheap credit and racked up immense debt. The national debt comes out to $37,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. Tack on another $10,000 for the average personal credit card debt and you quickly see how dire the situation truly is.
Keep in mind this won’t happen overnight. The last time our national debt was this high (as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product – 65%) was 1955. We had just finished the Korean War and were still paying down the debt racked up during World War II. It took 25 years, but debt was relatively stable and tracking downward as a percentage of GDP (32.5% in 1980) right up until 1981; which was when Reagan took office and deficit spending went unabated until the latter Clinton years. We must do our best to shrink government and pay down the debt (both national and personal) we have; and I believe my policies will allow us to get there.

So… would you vote for a social liberal–fiscal conservative? I believe I’ve shown that it’s possible to be both. Maybe someday there will be a candidate on the national scene that fits both. And if there ever is, I’ll vote for her!

When I first heard the term “Bailout” in 2008, I (and millions of Americans) thought to myself: “why should *my* tax dollars be given to these irresponsible and idiotic companies?”

If this country is going to continue the charade that it’s a capitalist society (I hate to break it to you, but this country has been socialist for a long time now; however I’m comfortable with that) then why not let the laws of capitalism rule and let these companies crumble?

The pros to the bailout were numerous and nebulous to the general public (frozen credit markets, government financed take-overs would be less costly in the long run); the only one that resonated with people was that the US couldn’t afford that many newly unemployed people. On the flip side the cons were everywhere: companies hadn’t learned any lessons, no accountability, fostering the entitlement mentality of Wall Street, etc.

The bailout started in the financial sector but soon started to grow. Detroit came with their hand out, but met a much more stern Congress compared to the red carpet treatment that Wall Street received.

I was against these bailouts, but it has dawned on me that the issues weren’t the act a small group of people. The issues these industries were facing were truly systemic. Additionally, this isn’t the first time the government has stepped in to bailout an industry or a company.

It isn’t as true as it used to be, but there is the old adage “As General Motors goes, so goes the nation.” The negatives of financial collapse on Wall Street and in Detroit far outweigh the debt that will pile up.

So I’m not happy about the billions going out the door to Corporate America, but with any luck this recent patch of tough times will reign in some of the extravagant perks and salaries of high level executives (a boy can dream, can’t he?).

However… with all of that being said, I am back to square one when it comes to Obama’s mortgage bailout plan.

Much in the same way that my last post lamented the focus of time and money on a slim minority of people who probably don’t deserve the “help” they are receiving; this bailout is eerily similar. Did you know that over 95% of US homes are NOT in foreclosure? Over 90% of homes are current on their payments.

We see these scary headlines every day like “Ninety Percent increase in US Home Foreclosures”. Foreclosure is a scary process, and I’m not minimizing those facing that prospect; but how do you target those who deserve help instead of idiots who got in way over their head, yet not alienate the 90% of homeowners (not to mention non-homeowning taxpayers) who didn’t get themselves in a heap of trouble? Is the problem truly systemic when 90% of people are current on their payments? Why are we addressing the minority at the expense of the majority?

Maybe someone can talk me into loving this latest bailout; but until then I’ll continue to worry.

In case you hadn’t notice, our 43rd President has been on a grand farewell tour over the past several days. Giving several speeches, holding his final press conference (which brought the total up to 9 for his eight years, right?), and tonight he will give his farewell speech to the nation.

Most of our recent presidents have given a televised farewell speech (In the last 30 years only Bush’s father didn’t). Tonight’s promises to be yet another speech in defense of the Presidents record and to combat the information (and misinformation) from his critics.

The effort to spin Bush 43rd’s legacy has gone to the extent of the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov — don’t type “.com”) publishing a 52 page document titled: “Highlights of Accomplishments and Results — The administration of President George W. Bush”

Perhaps other presidents have published such documents as well. But what I found most interesting was the section starting on page 38 titled: “100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record”.

The 100 items fall under 14 separate topics. So let’s take an armchair pundits view of Bush and his record, shall we?

• Kept America Safe (listed as a main header, but still has 1 bullet – someone at the White House doesn’t understand how to make lists or do an outline…sheesh!)

In all fairness, you can’t quite blame 9/11 on Bush. And in the years since, there has not been another major attack, so I suppose this counts. Although does this qualify as something “Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record”?


• Waged the Global War on Terror (3 bullets)

Again, I think most everyone is aware of this. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan have different leaders, although saying 50 million people are “free” is a bit of a stretch. Al Qaeda is weaker in some respects, but the actions of this administration also helped them recruit and raise money. I’m sure plenty of plots have been disrupted, but who exactly is this “coalition of more than 90 nations to fight terrorism”? Most nations are against terrorism…how many nations are for the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?


• Transformed Our Approach to Combating Terrorism After the 9/11 Attacks (3 bullets)

Ideally this would have happened *before* 9/11, but if you open that door you open the door to say that the Clinton administration should have killed Bin Laden when they had the chance. However, when you hang your hat on the passing of the Patriot Act and you approved illegal wiretapping, you don’t get my vote here. I’m a believer that the ends do not justify the means.


• Protected the United States Homeland (6 bullets)

Did we not cover this above with the bullet under “Keep America Safe”? This one actually talks about our borders and ports, and creating the TSA. Anything involving the TSA is hard sell for me.


• Advanced Missile Defense and Counterproliferation Efforts, and Prevented our Enemies from Threatening America and our Allies with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (6 bullets)

I’m not kidding, that is the heading. I don’t know if they can take credit for securing a commitment from North Korea when they then kicked out the inspectors a few months ago. Also, are they really taking credit for Libya giving up WMD? Really? I’m gonna go ahead and say that the credit belongs to Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton far more than Bush 43. Lastly, does anyone find it funny that they take credit for “Dismantled the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network”; only to have their buddy Musharraf pardon the guy? Yeah, I didn’t find that funny either… mostly just sad.



• Promoted Liberty Abroad
• Removed Totalitarian Regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and Helped Transform Both Nations into Emerging Democracies and Allies in the War on Terror (3 bullets)

Again, didn’t we cover this already? I like the double counting being used to hit a total of 100. I’m thinking this list is 54 unique items… tops!


• Created Institutions to Propel the Spread of Democracy Worldwide, Helped Oppressed People Secure their Freedom, and Strengthened Support for Dissidents and Democracy Activists (4 bullets)

Some of these titles are longer than the bullets that support them. There are actually a couple of decent points here, too bad that the section is broken up by a picture of Bush and Cheney who appear to be hopping on one foot. Seriously though, the first bullet is: “Created international organizations to promote the spread of freedom abroad and more than doubled funding to promote democracy worldwide.” I think the US really needs to re-think this approach. Some areas of the world (*cough* Middle East *cough*) just aren’t ready for a western style democracy. Democracy didn’t happen in the West overnight either; it actually took hundreds of years for society to be at a point where democracy could happen. Personally I think the Middle East is decades away from being at that point.


• Confronted Threats and Helped Defuse Regional Conflicts (3 bullets)

2nd Bullet: “Laid the foundation for a future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a democratic Palestinian state by launching direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) at the Annapolis Conference and working with the PA to build accountable institutions.” Well, we see how well that’s worked as of late.



• HELPED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD THROUGH A NEW APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT (6 bullets)

Yet another major heading with sub bullets, but no sub points. Actually for the next several areas they’ve abandoned any sub points, only to use them again for the last few. Who is their editor? Seriously though, if you can applaud Bush for anything, the efforts on AIDS relief in Africa are worth applauding. Of course when you look back at Nixon the only nice thing people say is “well, he opened up China”.

• STRENGTHENED AMERICA’S INTERESTS AND ALLIANCES ABROAD (5 bullets)

Wow, this is the one where I think most any reasonable person would call ‘bullshit’. They cherry picked (or possibly just made up) 5 items, but they would all be outweighed by the negative impacts of this administration’s foreign policy.

• LOWERED TAXES, INSTITUTED PRO-GROWTH POLICIES, AND ADDRESSED ECONOMIC CHALLENGES (3 bullets)

Two of those three bullets are reiterations of “lowered taxes” and the third is: “Led the response to the 2008 financial crisis.” That’s a real nice positive spin on “was in charge when all hell broke loose on Wall Street”.

• REDUCED WASTEFUL SPENDING AND IMPROVED GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY (4 bullets)

Wow, I’m just amazed at the gall on this one. They have the cajones to talk about the $40 billion saved over 5 years when the Iraq war costs $341.4 million per day. That $40 billion got ate up in just under 120 days.


• IMPROVED EDUCATION FOR EVERY AMERICAN CHILD (5 bullets)

No Child Left Behind by most accounts is a failure and needs to be fixed or needs to go away. I don’t know where they got their stats to say that math and reading scores improved. About the only thing I can applaud here is the increase in the Pell Grant program. While I didn’t get much from the Pell Grants (maybe a couple thousand?) every little bit helped.


• REFORMED MEDICARE AND ADDED A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT (3 bullets)

This is basically Medicare Part D, which as someone in the Health Insurance industry, I’m familiar with. Meh… something else for the industry to sell, and it’s horrible complicated. Try explaining what a donut hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_Hole_(Medicare)) is to an 85 year old.

• STRENGTHENED AMERICA’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM (4 bullets)

I’m starting to think a consultant wrote this. Only a good consultant would have a bullet like this: “Infused transparency about price and quality into the health care system and launched an initiative to make electronic health records available to most Americans within 10 years”. Infused transparency… wow, I’m gonna use that in my next PowerPoint deck.

• IMPROVED LIVES BY ENGAGING FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND PROMOTING VOLUNTEERISM (2 bullets)

Wow, just go read those bullets. They speak for themselves.

• PROVIDED UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES FOR VETERANS (4 bullets)

Of course they increased the VA budget by 98% since 2001, the number of veterans have increased by 98% since 2001. Duh. Am I the only one who giggles when he reads “the Dole-Shalala commission”? On a serious note, if Bush actually did decrease the number of homeless veterans by nearly 40%, then some kudos are deserved, but I’m not really sure how the administration can take credit for that. Did they have a presidential decree or directive to the VA to do that?


• SUPPORTED AMERICAN WORKERS BY INCREASING TRADE, JOB TRAINING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
• Expanded and Enforced Trade Agreements to Open New Markets for American Products (2 bullets)

2nd Bullet: “Negotiated and signed a trade agreement that helped increase U.S. exports to Central America by nearly $8 billion from 2005 to 2008.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? According to this website, which by the way was the only site I could find listing this information, our trade deficit is only $28 billion, so… um… wait… it’s $28 billion since January 1st 2009??? Wow… so it took Bush 3 years to get back the money that we lost in 3 days this year.


• Helped American Workers and Businesses Remain Competitive (4 bullets)

Three things here: American Competitiveness Initiative, broadband access available in 99 percent of America’s zip codes, and National Space Policy. Uh-huh… that sounds great. Is anyone buying any of this shit?

• SET A BRIGHT COURSE FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
• Took Unparalleled Action to Advance Cooperative Conservation and Protect the Environment (4 bullets)

“Unparalleled”… well, that’s one way to put it


• Advanced America’s Energy Security and Took Steps to Develop Cleaner, More Efficient Sources of Energy (5 bullets)

Yes, steps were taken like removing the ban on offshore drilling and encouraging the development of more nuclear reactors in the US. I’m not making a joke here, those are actually two of the bullets.


• Reduced Crime, Lowered Teen Drug Use, Protected Vulnerable Children, and Helped Make America a More Equitable Country (5 bullets)

Last bullet: “Protected the right to vote for generations to come by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and advanced civil rights”. They didn’t actually put that down did they? I suppose the opposite action would have been bad… but still, this is the crap you are padding your resume with?


• Reduced Homelessness and Aided Struggling Homeowners (2 bullets)

Sounds good… if it’s remotely true.

• Improved Transportation and Import Safety and Protected American Consumers (3 bullets)

I’ll give him this, the Do Not Call list has helped lower the amount of telemarketer calls I get during dinner. Kudos to you Mr. Bush… Ku-dos.

• STOOD ON PRINCIPLE, REFUSED TO PUT OFF TOUGH DECISIONS, AND SHOWED THE WAY AHEAD
• Really… that’s one of your main points? Really?
  
  • Advanced a Culture of Life (3 bullets)

  I’ve got about 50% of that nation that’s gonna go ahead and have to disagree with you on that one.
  

  • Appointed Judges Committed to Ruling by the Letter of the Law (1 bullet)

  You knew you’d see the phrase “not legislate from the bench” in here, didn’t you? It should be noted that ‘conservative’ judges are just as capable of legislating from the bench.
  

  • Demonstrated Leadership on Reforming Entitlement Programs, the Immigration System, and Government Sponsored Enterprises (3 bullets)

  “Proposed” “Laid out” “Warned”… these are not the action verbs that a resume writer would approve of.

  • Directed Unprecedented Preparations for a Smooth Presidential Transition (1 bullet)

  “Led the most comprehensive and forward-leaning effort in modern history to facilitate a smooth and effective transition”. Just like me, the writers of this document have obviously run out of steam at this point.

So there you have it, the 100 things Bush did right. According to him.

The furor over California’s passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state’s constitution banning same-sex marriage, continues to boil. Newsweek had a recent cover story discussing whether or not the Bible supports or condemns gay marriage.

I found the article poorly researched and not well written, something I would expect on a blog (insert irony here) not from a respected bellwether such as Newsweek. However, after reading the article and the associated feedback Newsweek received, I find myself asking the same question I always do when this topic comes up: what is so wrong with gay people getting married?

The first and foremost reason has been Religion. There are portions of the Bible that denounce homosexuality. But as the article notes the Bible devotes far more time to rules on how to properly sacrifice animals. It has always been my argument with people that use the Bible to promote anything that you cannot pick and choose your verses. If you use the Bible’s literal text to believe that homosexuality is an abomination, you better start burning some animal organs on your altar as well. The text in the Bible is a reflection on the times during it was written. During this time it was common to sacrifice animals to the Lord and it was common to buy and sell slaves. It made sense to dictate what kind of animals could be eaten, which were clean and unclean; and it made sense to have rules to isolate people with infectious skin diseases (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=13&version=31). But I digress; the Judeo-Christian religion does not support any position for or against gay marriage.

Another reason against gay marriage is Society. The founding fathers of the United States had no reason to legislate anything regarding marriage. Societal pressures ensured that anyone who was gay was pushed to the furthest fringes, virtually invisible. As our society has evolved, gay people are no longer marginalized to that extent. They are front and center today. Sadly there is a significant portion of our society that holds onto old biases against gay men (oddly enough there doesn’t seem to be much issue with gay women, as long as they are hot, and are willing to have a man join them for an evening of… ahem… well I digress). This portion of society is against gay people in general, let alone gay people getting married. Another part of society doesn’t have a problem with gay people, but is threatened by the notion of them getting married, as this somehow damages or devalues their own (hetero) marriages. While I strongly disagree with these segments of society, at least their existence makes more sense. There are idiots and bigots in every society. Over time they slowly disappear… or at least move on to some other issue to be an idiot or bigot about. With time these people will be gone. Black people had to wait hundreds of years for society to weed out enough bigots to move in from the fringes of society, gay people have come a long way in the past few decades, but they will have to wait out today’s bigots as well.

The only other reason against gay marriage that comes to mind is Economics. I could understand if people were against gay marriage because of the economic repercussions. Same-sex medical benefits and the like. But there isn’t much argument here either. Any economic reason one could come up with against gay marriage would also be against all marriages. So it really all boils down to ignorance and hate.

So what would I do if I ran the world?

Well, first off I would get the government out of the marriage business. From this moment forward you will get a civil union license from the government. Signing and filing of this document (signed by witnesses of course) is a legal agreement between two individuals (of appropriate age) that ensures visitation rights, inheritance rights, economic rights, and so forth. Now I know this is where the Mormons step in looking to ask why a civil union can only be between two people. The answer is that this is the belief of our society. That two and only two people should be joined. If you don’t like it, try another society, or wait around a hundred years or so and maybe that’ll change. Life sucks, get a helmet.

Next, that leaves Marriage completely in the hands of the non-secular. Whether you want a large 3 hour Catholic ceremony, or if you want to confirm your love in front of Captain Jean-Luc Picard at the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas; it’s totally up to you and your beliefs. That’s what makes this country great. You have that right, no matter how wacky it might seem to everyone else.

It just seems that the separation of church and state would dictate that the sacrament of Marriage should not have any influence by the government. The basic purpose of government is to provide security, preserve the public order, and protect property rights. That’s about it. Unless gay marriage threatens your security or public order, the government should stay out of it.

Sadly, I don’t run the world. But maybe someday.

Don’t worry, that’s a rhetorical question. I would never ask who you plan to vote for, but I’m certainly willing to listen if you’d like to tell me.

But before you do, you should go here to see who you *should* be voting for: http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/Pres2008.asp#sec0

Unfortunately, much of the content on speakout.com isn’t up to date, but you can go to ontheissues.org for some slightly more up to date information on candidates across the country. However, the VoteMatch quiz on speakout.com is insightful and helpful. I took the quiz to find out that I am a Moderate Liberal. I think that is fairly accurate, although I was surprised I didn’t have more of a Libertarian slant to that.

What was even more surprising is that the candidate I matched best with was the Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney. How is it possible that I get matched with the Green Party Candidate???

Well… while I agree quite closely with Ms. McKinney on several issues (Abortion, Patriot Act, School Vouchers) I completely disagree with her on a whole host of other issues (Reparations for Slavery, Affirmative Action, Health Care, her touch of 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and her support of the Hip-Hop community as a movement for Social Justice… and no, I’m not kidding about that last one). Additionally, for those of you with good memories, you’ll recall that Ms. McKinney was the member of Congress who in March of 2006 walked through Capitol security without her “member of congress” lapel pin, and when she was stopped by security guards who didn’t recognize her she assaulted one of them.

So how could I have matched with her? Well, when I say “match” that means I totaled to a score of 45%. That’s right; the best match for me out of all candidates (even the fringe candidates) was 45%. The scoring broke down like this:
Personal Matching Score: 44%
Cynthia McKinney poorly matches your views on personal issues.
Economic Matching Score: 46%
Cynthia McKinney poorly matches your views on economic issues.

So, out of all the candidates, the one I match the “best” with poorly matches my views across the board. How depressing…

Here is how I matched up with some of the other notables for this year’s Presidential race:

• Hillary Clinton
  
  • Total 43%
    
  • Social 31%
    
  • Economic 50%
  
  
• Ralph Nader
  
  • Total 43%
    
  • Social 25%
    
  • Economic 54%
• Barack Obama
  
  • Total 38%
    
  • Social 19%
    
  • Economic 50%
• Bob Barr – Libertarian nominee for President
  
  • Total 25%
    
  • Social 19%
    
  • Economic 29%

• John McCain
  
  • Total 18%
    
  • Social 19%
    
  • Economic 17%

Realistically I am voting between two candidates who don’t represent much of what my beliefs and positions are. Breaking it down further, it looks like this:

• Personal Matching Score: 19%
  
• Barack Obama very poorly matches your views on personal issues.
  
• Economic Matching Score: 50%
  
• Barack Obama matches your views on economic issues acceptably.

• Personal Matching Score: 19%
  
• John McCain very poorly matches your views on personal issues.
  
• Economic Matching Score: 17%
  
• John McCain very poorly matches your views on economic issues.

Going even deeper:
Looking at McCain on Personal Issues: I agree with him on the death penalty, but disagree with him on abortion (well, he used to agree with me, but not anymore), prayer in schools, and tougher drug laws.
On the flip side I agree with Obama on abortion and prayer in schools, but pretty much disagree with him on everything else.

Looking at Economic Issues I agree with Obama on Social Security, school vouchers, alternative energy, campaign reform, the Patriot Act. While McCain and I only agree on alternative energy, free trade, and campaign reform.

This is why people have become “issues voters“. When you don’t agree with so much of what a party or candidate stands for, how do you decide? As someone who values social issues more than economic issues, this race is even more difficult for me. How does one decide between two men whom you agree with 19% of the time on social issues? Out of all of these issues, which are the ones that a president can truly influence, and I care most about?
These are the questions in front of me… and in front of you. Good luck!

I think Joe Biden has said it best… some Republicans have devolved into fear and loathing. Check out this article; and then my comments after the jump.

The chants of Nobama (not to mention the shirts) were somewhat amusing/annoying when the Republicans were in town for the convention. It’s a good catch phrase and it is relatively harmless. But what does one think when the Republican faithful start yelling out more disturbing things like “Terrorist” or “Obama Osama” or using his middle name like an epithet (not “epitaph” like Biden mistakenly said).

Republicans tend to take the high ground when it comes to politics. The party of family values. But there are extreme elements of the right that are just as dangerous and hateful as the anarchists on the far left. And now that it looks like things aren’t going to go their way, they are coming to the forefront.

How different are the people chanting “Obama Osama” than this guy?