My Platform
Politicians drive me crazy. The hosts on the Sunday morning news shows ask them questions, and they flat out refuse to respond. Nobody will take a position on anything. Look at the web site for Senator Jim Leach of Iowa: http://leach.house.gov/. There is barely a clue here as to his stand on any issue at all. The only way a person can decide how to vote is by seeing whether there is an (R) or a (D) after the name – but simply picking the “R” can get you anything from a libertarian to an evangelical to Pat Buchanan to John McCain. Certainly there is a good reason for taking no position; if you don’t, nobody will disagree with you. At the same time though, these people look like idiots when they refuse to answer a question posed flat out. And while people might vote for you if you smear your opponent badly enough, they will really make an effort to get to the polls and vote for you if you come out forcefully in favor of something they agree with.
Here’s an example of what I’d like to see more of; brief descriptions of the candidate’s positions on the major issues of the day. These positions, of course, are my own.
National defense. I am strongly in favor of a vigorous national defense, including, when appropriate, preemptive action on foreign soil. I am aware of the criticisms claiming “imperialism” by the United States, and I strongly agree that our military power should not be used to impose our cultural values on foreign nations, or to blatantly advance our purely economic interests at the expense of others. At the same time, threats to our nation’s security are complex, and simply holing up within our own borders is not a realistic option.
Terrorism. The so-called “war on terror” is simply a subset of the overall national defense. The primary difference, in my mind, is the simple fact that these enemies are not foreign nations and are thus not easily identified. Conventional military forces are not as well equipped to fight terrorist enemies, and a large part of the burden falls on intelligence agencies. Regarding the “torture” debate, I’m middle of the road. I agree that we should maintain the moral high ground to some extent, by treating our detainees as humanely as we reasonably can, but I find the argument about putting our own soldiers at risk un-compelling. When was the last time we fought an enemy who gave a damn about the Geneva Convention? Will our troops face an enemy who does any time in the near future? At present, any captured soldier would count himself lucky if he wasn’t beheaded on live TV.
Iraq. Invading Iraq was a mistake. I tend to agree that we are probably less safe as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq than we would be if we had done nothing at all. Having said that, we can waste all kinds of time pointing fingers and second guessing the original decision, but what matters now is how we go forward. Assigning blame and expressing regret don’t help us decide how to proceed. In my opinion, the United States now has a moral obligation to the Iraqi people not to turn tail and leave them suffering in anarchy and civil war. Our goal should be to stabilize Iraq as quickly as possible, and then get our troops out. I support withdrawal when either (a) Iraq has a stable government, or (b) we decide that our continued presence is not, and cannot make matters any better than they would be if we left. I am very receptive to the idea of breaking Iraq into states along ethnic lines if this is what is required to establish peace.
North Korea. There appear to be few good options when it comes to North Korea. Economic sanctions seem pointless, or even cruel, given the facts that North Korea is already heavily sanctioned and impoverished, and that inflicting pain on the populace of North Korea is clearly of little import to the government in charge. If and when feasible, I would support targeted military action aimed at North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
Economy. In general, I am a strong supporter of free markets and free trade. As a general rule, I feel that the best thing the government can do for the economy is stay out of the way and let the free markets work.
Taxes. Lower taxes are better. Whenever possible, taxes should be directed to those who use the service for which the tax is collected, e.g. gas taxes to pay for roads. I would support radical reform of the tax code at the federal level, such as a single rate flat tax with no exceptions (or exemptions). I reject the class warfare tactics employed by the left when debating tax policy (the most common being to demonize the top X%).
Minimum wage. I do not support increasing the minimum wage. In fact, I don’t support any minimum wage at all. To those who do I ask; why not make the minimum wage $75 per hour? What do you think would happen if such a minimum were actually enforced? It is the height of economic ignorance to suggest that anything is fundamentally different when the minimum wage is $10 as opposed to $75; they both result in economic losses and unemployment, the effect is just smaller when the minimum wage is lower. At the moral/personal level, I question why we would want our government to interfere with fully voluntary employment agreements between competent adults.
Social Security. Before I say anything else, I will say that I do not support any changes to social security that would significantly change things for anyone over 45-50 years old. Having said that, I think social security is a mess. To me, it seems to be a haphazard combination of forced savings, welfare and old-age insurance. Young people understandably consider social security to be little more than another tax that is unlikely to provide any benefit in the future. While it would be tempting to propose a complete phase out of social security, we must acknowledge that planning ahead for retirement is something that many, if not most, people find extremely difficult to do. Because of this, the forced saving aspect of social security has value. The personal retirement account was one approach to this problem that I think had value; saving is mandatory under that scheme, but the money a person saved still had his name on it. Another approach I would explore is the idea of private retirement insurance. It would be mandatory to carry a policy that guaranteed a minimum return starting at retirement until death; market competition would determine how much the policy costs.
Immigration. I flatly reject the notion that foreign people have any right to enter the United States. Immigration policy should be set solely for the benefit of current citizens. However, it is pointless to debate and implement new immigration policies when we are unable to control the flow of illegal immigrants into our country in the first place. So, the first step is to do a much better job controlling illegal immigration. If this requires building walls and/or using high tech surveillance then so be it. Additionally, since we are talking about illegal immigrants, we should treat those who harbor or employ them the same way we treat people who harbor other types of criminals. Obviously, I oppose offering any form of assistance or services to illegal immigrants. I am, however, in favor of making it as easy as possible to utilize foreign labor on a temporary basis. Employers of such labor should be responsible for their guest workers, to include bearing the cost of any services they utilize or damage they cause.
Gay Marriage. I believe that the debate surrounding gay marriage is terribly confused. To take a position on this issue, one needs to know what people really mean when they say “gay marriage”. I do not support any measure that aims to restrict the ability of people to enter contracts and have those contracts enforced by law. Therefore, if two people (homosexual or otherwise) wish to draw up a contract binding them to certain rights and obligations with respect to each other, I believe the legal system should enforce that contract and make it legally binding. At the same time, I do not support the push to erase the legal distinction between homosexual cohabitation and traditional marriage; a distinction that is clear to all but the willfully blind. Furthermore, I do not support any measure that aims to forcibly prevent companies, insurers, or any other private entity from making this distinction. Whether or not a company extends medical benefits to homosexual partners, for example, should be between the employer and the employees.
Abortion. I am unenthusiastically pro-choice. I think that abortion is generally a bad thing – it reflects poorly on the health of a society and its culture if abortion is widespread. In general, abortion seems to me to be a safety net for people who are being irresponsible, and thus on some level it encourages that irresponsible behavior. Even with all the negatives I see, however, I think that removing abortion as a choice would be worse. I would not, however, support any move to prevent individual states from enacting their own restrictions. I also would not support any push to have the federal government fund or in any way advocate abortion either domestically or abroad.
Environment. In my opinion, the environment is important insofar as it provides utility to humans. The environment is not God. Obviously, people value clean air and clean water. People also value the “environment” as a source for raw materials to make products, and as space in which to live and partake in recreational activities. I generally disagree with the idea that it is beneficial to block off huge areas wilderness for no other reason but to keep people off. Pristine wilderness is of little value if nobody can actually see it. Regarding pollution, I am receptive to novel market based approaches to dealing with the problem – such as pollution credits. See this essay for an idea I had regarding automobile pollution.
Energy. I oppose the use of government funding to promote “alternative” energy sources, including ethanol. I have every reason to believe that the financial markets know better than politicians what the future holds in terms of the availability of fossil fuel. I see no reason to waste money on energy sources that are not economically viable in the absence of government assistance.
Guns. I strongly support the rights of citizens own guns. I believe people should generally be allowed to purchase, use, and transport guns with a minimum of restrictions. I will not support any additional firearms restrictions at the federal level. At the present time (given the already heavy regulation of gun sales) I support recent legislation to protect gun manufacturers from politically motivated liability lawsuits. Obviously, gun rights can be abused. I support harsh penalties for those who abuse these rights. Additionally, I generally support moves to provide people protection from liability and prosecution when they use guns in self defense (within reason).
Health care. In general, I support efforts to bring more market forces to bear on medical providers, consumers and the health care system in general. I oppose any move toward socialized medicine. An example of a subtle but effective way to bring the market to medical care is with health savings accounts. These are relatively recent developments that combine high deductible insurance with tax free savings accounts applicable only to health care expenses. The important consequence is that people actually have to pay for medical expenses with their own money (to a point) and thus (a) don’t go to the doctor for every sniffle and get every expensive test in the book, and (b) shop around for lower prices when possible. I predict that if and when more people switch to HSA’s, doctors and clinics will be more up-front and competitive with pricing. The recent growth of convenient, low priced walk-in clinics is a great example of the market working for health care consumers. Another recent example is the drastic price cutting by Wal-Mart of commonly prescribed drugs.
As for lowering costs, liability for both doctors and drug companies is an area that could clearly use improvement. Recent awards in cases against the makers of Vioxx don’t even pass the laugh test; clearly Merck has not done enough harm here warrant driving it into bankruptcy. It’s not even obvious that the drug Vioxx was, on balance, a bad thing. Liability for doctors may or may not be a major contributing factor to the overall health care problem, but I have given some thought to how we might improve the situation anyway. See this essay.
Finally, I’ll say that I also think we (the public at large) might simply have a philosophical problem with respect to health care that will only make things worse as time goes on. We are unwilling to accept that some procedures and treatments are simply too expensive to offer universally. As it stands now, every fancy new treatment that becomes available is a potential blow to the system because we feel the need to make it available to everyone, regardless of which insurance policy they have or whether they are insured at all. The introduction of new treatment options should be a good thing (was the introduction of plasma screen TV’s a bad thing because only the wealthy could afford them?) Data cited in a recent edition of USA Today indicated that the cost of cancer treatment has gone up drastically in recent years, while the survival rate has gone up only modestly. Is it appropriate to pay (for example) $100,000 more in treatment for a 1% increase in the likelihood of survival? My opinion is that only individuals in a fee medical economy can make that decision.
Affirmative action. I do not support affirmative action. I believe that everyone is better off when employers are free to hire employees based on the criteria that they feel are the most appropriate. Admissions to public colleges and universities is not quite as clear cut. While I still do not support government mandated quotas, I do accept the fact that administrators may desire to create a certain kind of cultural environment on campus which may not be achieved by simply selecting the most academically gifted applicants.
Drugs. Though I consider myself a libertarian, I do not believe it would be wise to legalize currently illegal addictive drugs. I do, however, think that enforcement against end users should be heavily de-emphasized in favor of action against dealers. End users are generally the victims in my view; dealers are the perpetrators. Regarding perceived conflicts between state and federal drug law, I think that the federal government should generally stand down and let the states regulate themselves.
Did I miss any current issues?