Issues, Part 2

Alright ... let's finish off the Issues listed in el chart.

Homeland Security

Obviously, this is an important issue. Our President must be committed to helping us remain safe on our home soil. Some would call it the most important issue, and I'd be hard pressed to argue with them definitively.

The chart linked to above divides this into four separate categories: Patriot Act, Wiretapping, Torture, and Guatanamo. I'm not going to sub-divide this issue, as they really all link together. And, when you look at that chart, you won't see a lot of split candidates on the issues.

On the Patriot Act (and wire tapping, too), I think it's a great idea ... in practice. I'd like to see it done with a little more caution and have it tweaked to depower the federal government and restore some more privacy. I'd like to see reduced burden of proof to obtain warrants to wiretap, search, etc in the interest of Natioal Security and Anti-Terrorism, but not completely warrantless. I don't believe you give up freedom to fight for freedom, because you don't really get freedom at all that way. You're just exchanging freedom types. And I think we're called to pursue freedom at it's purest form. It's the basis of our country. That said, if my options are to keep the PATRIOT Act as-is, or to scrap it (no tweaking possible), I'd probably lean slightly towards keeping it.

I also believe that keeping Guatanamo Bay open and operating is essential to our National Security. The reason for this is not because I want unsanctioned prisons, or cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon anyone. Rather, it's because when someone is trying to harm our country, I don't believe they should get the benefits that come from being in our country, namely Habeas Corpus. If only for that reason. Guatanamo is important to us.

Meanwhile ... I'm incredibly torn on the issue of torture. Morally, I'm completely opposed to it. I don't want anyone being starved, dehydrated, water boarded, or anything like that. At the same time, I recognize that we're not at war against a typical enemy here, either. If, and this is a big if, we could negotiate an anti-torture policy that every side in this war would be bound to and live by, I would want the USA to not torture anyone for any reason. But I understand the enemies we have better than that, and do not naively think that they might abide by such an agreement. As such, I think I support the USA having torture as an option, but one that is used with as much reservation as we use with the option to use nuclear weapons.

Immigration

Illegal immigration is a serious problem facing our nation today.

Legal immigration is something that will continue to make our country strong.

Those two statements seem like complete common sense to me.

Anyways, my ideal candidate will want to get tough on Illegals who are already in our country. No amnesty, no quickpath to citizenship. But, more importantly, my ideal candidate will have a plan to help stop illegal immigration into the USA.

What that plan is ... well, again, as long as it's good, logical, and doesn't raise my taxes, I'll like it. If you have a good way to build a Great Wall of USA, fantastic. If you have a good plan to beef up border patrols and have a virtual fence, fantastic. If you have another idea that will help control it and will actually work, fantastic and I want to hear it.

More importantly, still, is to find ways to discourage illegal immigration. The biggest reasons illegals come to the USA are jobs, education, and health care. Therefore, if we take away these perks, it seems to me we will reduce the number of illegals. So, we need to find a way to stop them from getting jobs. I suggest punishing the companies, very severely, through fines, loss of tax breaks, sanctions, and the such who hire illegals. And we keep illegal immigrants out of the public schools. Make the parents provide Social Security numbers on enrollment forms to verify that the parents and/or students are citizens and/or legally in the country. Ditto for any non-life-saving health care.

I'm not sure what the ideal conclusion is for illegals already in the country. Perhaps giving them a small window of time to report themselves and have them put "in line" for citizenship while remaining in the US could be an option, with anyone found after the short window (3-6 months) who hadn't reported being deported immediatly and forced to the back of "the line". And I wouldn't be opposed to not granting citizenship to children born in the USA when both parents are illegal immigrants. Again, no need to reward the activity.

So, to wrap that up, I see it as an important issue, but one that I don't have a definitive plan I want to see followed. What I want is a candidate who does have a plan, knows how to execute that plan, and will solve the problem with that plan.

Internet Neutrality

As a conservative discussing Internet + Politics, I'm supposed to make an Al Gore joke, right?



Anyways ... I'll be honest. This issue was so far off my radar, I had to look it up to find out what it meant. I found two sources on Wikipedia to give me a general idea of it. You can read them here and here.

In my (very) brief look at the issue, it seems the argument in favor of it is more government involvement, more taxes, and more regulation of the market and private sector.

Therefore, I must conclude that I am opposed to this, but cannot say it's anywhere near a make-or-break issue for a candidate.

If anyone has more info on it, however, let me know, as I may be missing something.

Iran

If any country poses a threat to and/or attacks the United States the Commander in Chief has the right to use force in response, and I would dare say a duty to use force in response. If any country is posing a threat to the world and ignoring international laws and/or mandates, the United States needs to impose sanctions of varying sorts and degrees on that country.

So, if that country happens to be Iran, I support the option of force and the use of sanctions on Iran.

Pretty simple to me.

Iraq War

I supported the Iraq War when it began. I support it now.

I thought we went into Iraq with too much confidence, and too little troops and power. I thought the strategy of "Shock and Awe" would have worked had we given enough power to the "Shock and Awe" to make it work. As a result, I supported the surge, though thought it would have been unnecessary had we entered correctly in the first place.

I support withdrawing from Iraq when our presence there has helped to make that country secure, stable, and able to stand on its own against the other regimes in the area. I support starting to lower the number of troops present as military strategy allows. I believe that an immediate withdraw of troops will undo all the good we have accomplished up until this point, and will have made every troop death in the war that has occurred meaningless. I believe that setting a hard date for withdraw will draw our enemies together and give them a calendar to work with.

I need a President who is willing to stand by our troops in Iraq and give them the resources, manpower, and time neccessary to complete the mission. Period.

Minimum Wage Increase

This is where my desire for small government starts to border on insanity. I'd very much prefer that we completely abolish the idea of a Minimum Wage and allow the free market to decide what employees are worth. Companies will not be able to attract quality employees without paying them competitive wages. Companies without quality employees will not succeed. Hence (using logic) I see that only companies that are willing to pay their employees a decent wage will survive in the free market.

This may not have once been true, but in the age of information, companies cannot get away with what they once got away with. Information is available to quickly and too freely for companies to be evil in this day and age.

So, I really see no need to increase the minimum wage nationally. It will not do what it is intended to do (help the lower class). Companies will simply hire less employees at a higher rate, and with less jobs, the lower class will have less than it does now. That's really all there is to it, in my opinion.

That said, this is an issue for the legislative branch, not the executive branch. I want my Senators and Representatives to care about this. I don't need my president to. There are far more important issues for a President, in my opinion.

Same Sex Marriage

The reason, in my opinion, that marriage is recognized by the federal government is because it gives a benefit to the nation. Marriages produce children, which are the next generation of workers, leaders, and Americans in general. And in return for this, the government gives recognition and tax breaks.

And, even in a day and age when more and more children are being produced outside of marriage, the need for recognition and benefit through tax breaks are there, if only because so many studies have shown that children from a natural two-parent household do much better in school and life that children from other situations. So, yes, even in this day, heterosexual marriage gives us a benefit as a nation, and as a reward (or thank-you, if you will) we recognize that and give a tax break.

Now, same sex marriages do not give that benefit (naturally) to society. So, I see no need to recognize or reward same sex marriage in the same way as heterosexual marriage.

(Look at that. A logical argument against same sex marriage. And it didn't involve my moral or religious beliefs at all. *gasp* *shock* *horror* Is that legal?)

So, my position is: no federal recognition of same sex marriage.

Now, my position is also no federal ban on same sex marriage. And especially no Constitutional amendment.

I can see plenty of good reasons (such as economic growth, attention, etc) why specific states might want to recognize and give, on the state level, tax breaks to same sex couples who partake in a same sex marriage. More power to those states. Let each state decide if they want to define marriage as between one man and one woman, or if same sex marriage is okay (and for that matter ... nah, let's not touch polygamy today). And if a couple is married in state one, and move to state two where there marriage is no longer recognized, they lose the tax break. They can still live together. But they knew before they moved they would lose the tax break, so I weep not for them.

And I'm 100% opposed to the term "civil union". To me, it's nothing more than a wussified way to get around same sex marriage. It's saying "Marriage is important, and you can't be married because you're of the same gender. But, if you act like your married but call it something else, that's ok." Not in my book, sweetheart. Either allow same sex marriage, or don't allow it. But to allow same sex civil unions but not same sex marriage is just silly.

Universal Health Care

Everything the government tries to do that the private sector could do better, the government screws up.

I expect nothing less if the federal government wants to implement Universal Health Care.

I am 100% opposed to this. And if I could get a higher number than 100, I would. Honestly. And not just because I'm in the business.

The private sector works fine. If you properly educate people about their options, put less regulations on the market, and give proper tax incentives, the system will fix itself.

Now, if you want to have government health care, I can support that in one very specific way. Do it like you handle shipping. The USPS is one of many choices (along with DHL, UPS, and Fed Ex). So they have to compete. Put the government health care out there. Give them a field force, actuaries, claims services, networks, etc. See if it will work. And if it's the best option you can find, take it. And if it's not, don't take it, and find something else. And if they make it proportional to your income, hey, low-income folks can find health care that way, without screwing up health care for the rest of the country.

I will not support any candidate who wants to implement Universal Health Care. Period.



And that wraps up the issues in the chart. The only big thing it didn't touch on was taxes and spending. I want both decreased. Which is a pretty simply explanation.

I think I'll do a candidate review next time, and then reveal who I back the time after that, along with my list of alternates, in order.

I'm enjoying the political process right now, and I hope all of you, like me, are taking the time to examine your beliefs, priorities, and government wants. This is a chance to speak out and speak up. Let's not waste it.