I'm a moderate conservative...either that or I'm a conservative Democrat. It's really hard to differentiate the two nowadays since we seem to have become a nation of political extremism. I don't
know if Obama or Romney would be better over the next four years. There's been
a lot I've disagreed with over the last 4 years. I've certainly disliked some of the
bailouts of entities who shall remain nameless (initials are AIG). It
kinda reminds me of the wasted bailouts Reagan gave during the S&L failures
of the 1980's. But even I know that Bush 2.0 saw the warning signs beginning in
2006 and he didn't really try to insulate our nation (more to follow). We didn't have
a domestic policy for his eight years. We as not only a nation but
internationally almost reached the same level of economic bust as the great
depression and even that took 12 years to rebound and numerous government-backed
programs to just start the process of getting people back to work. It took nearly six years to get out of the mini-recession we experienced in the late 80's - early 90's. I don't like increasing the debt anymore than anyone
else and question a lot of the spending, but I find it incredibly naive of
people to expect an immediate turnaround after only four years given what we as
a nation faced in January of 2009. Perhaps we could blame the digital age for our impatience. We are a culture of instant messaging, immediate access to global news and information, drive-thru service and overnight delivery. Have we simply lost the will to be patient for effective change and are content with gestures and illusions? Times may change, but it doesn't speed up.
I normally try to stay away from political
discussions in general for three reasons. First, I’m a military officer, and the
majority of the military leadership are STAUNCH, inflexible conservatives. And
anytime you get that much agreement and solidarity in any single place, common
sense and reason tend to leave town. Second, political discussions are often
similar to religious ones in that many people understandably have an emotional
connection to the message. I normally sit back and listen and try to understand
their point of view even if I occasionally disagree. And finally, as a member
of the military it is my personal belief that my oath to support and defend the
Constitution and the "office" of the President of the United States precludes
me from making any emotional connection to the official sitting in the oval
office. As such, I normally have not voted in the Presidential elections until
this past one. Not many in uniform agree with my stance, in fact, not many
people do in general and that is fine with me. After all, it is my personal
belief. Besides, we should all know by now that a President's success or
failure is mainly attributed to the actions of Congress and the ability of all
members of government to communicate effectively among themselves and with
society. I don't think it's woefully inaccurate to compare the POTUS to any
head of industry or organization. They too are only as strong and successful as
the people who serve around them.
I have certain liberal beliefs though I am a
moderate. Call me by any name you wish. With discontent you may even call me a
fence sitter. But I truly believe in the freedoms afforded in the Constitution
and I believe the Constitution is a living document and must evolve with society.
I'll try to explain why I am a political fence-sitter, and why I simply cannot
understand how anyone can solely blame the current administration for the ills
of today's society even though I share a number of "conservative"
philosophies with how the government should operate and have disagreed with a
number of the current administration's actions.
Role of Government.
I lean right when it comes to the role of our
government. That's not to say that the federal government should not have some
of the watchdog duties it currently possesses. I fully support the 2nd
Amendment, but I also agree with the need for gun control provisions. I just
don't believe what we currently have in place is effective. But even with
technological advances shrinking the "global" view of our world, this
nation has simply become too large and too complex for it to be ruled
effectively from one centralized body. If anyone argues that our representative
legislators have not become disconnected from their own constituents, they
haven't been paying attention the past 12 years or so. And if this sounds
incredibly similar to state's rights, it is.
First off, I believe we need to reduce the
number of departments and look at consolidating certain independent federal
agencies and offices. There are 15 federal departments and no less than 56
independent federal establishments and corporations completely outside the
purview of any department, such as the CIA, Federal Trade Commission, and
Federal Communications Commission. Some
independents are right to be on their own due to the nature of their
mission or tasking. But when you look at the primary mission of others, you begin
to understand that much of what is focused on could be done with a minimally
manned executive council, or having certain independent agencies collapse into
a single body and/or under a federal department. The savings from reduced
federal pay and operational requirements would be more significant than most
realize. Look for yourself in the manning and operations appropriations in the
federal budgets for 2011 and 2012.
For example, consider the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). Budgetary services, education and policy development, and
federal student aid are extremely important to ensure the states are not only
providing quality education to our children nationally, but that they are also
receiving the necessary levels of federal guidance and financial assistance.
But can we really justify a whole arm of the ED to focus on Civil Rights
(specifically Title IX violations) when we already have the (independent
office) U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as well as numerous federal laws and
titles that directly impact policy and funding to enforce equal opportunity in
our schools?
The departments that must obviously have
federal control include: Defense, State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Labor,
Energy, Veteran's Affairs, and Commerce. These departments have
responsibilities that are inherently international in practice and/or cross
states' borders with indifference. The Department of Homeland Security, our
newest department born in haste during the Bush administration as a result of
the terrorist attacks of September 11, should be disbanded and have those
responsibilities and agencies returned to their previous stakeholders. The DHS
was a knee-jerk reaction and ill-conceived, and has done nothing but increase
red-tape and infighting within the federal government.
The remaining departments should be
disestablished and reformed as smaller executive councils with minimal manning
and operational requirements to necessitate budgetary services and formulate
federal policy only: Agriculture, Health &Human Services, Housing &
Urban Development, Education, and Transportation. One simple reason, but not
the only, for their disestablishment is that every state has already
established their own state government departments to address these aspects of
society. And shouldn't the states be able to address their own issues
independently with as little federal interference as necessary? After all,
California has a greater percentage of Hispanic students than Maine or North Dakota.
Should the federal government mandate that each state be required to devote the
same percentage of federally augmented funding based on racial or ethnic
divisions when the states do not share that division? It has been argued on the
floors of Congress. The states are more
apt to address those needs individually.
Additionally, congressmen should have a
significant reduction in pay, a reduction in the authorized number of staff
members, and should not have a lifetime pension plan simply because they served
a term in congress. If anything, any pension plan should be adjusted based on
years in service, much like the military or any other government employee. Our
congresspersons have taken advantage of their positions without any significant
voice from the people. This is a shame. In fact, any increase in a politicians
pay should be determined by the vote of the people that they represent.
And this brings us to states’ rights. I
believe states should be able to determine for themselves many aspects of daily
life. The legalization of drugs (not including medications that would normally
undergo FDA compliance), same-sex marriage, and even universal health care. If
you recall, it wasn't that long ago that California legalized medicinal
marijuana only to have the U.S. Attorney General state they couldn't and would
prosecute violators of federal drug laws. And if states want some form of
public health care, shouldn't that be their individual right to pursue based on
their citizens' desires?
Taxes.
I lean more to the left when it comes to
taxes. I do not believe in tax relief or scalable rates for any socioeconomic
class. What I believe in is a fixed income tax rate across the board, and here
is why.
The federal tax code for 2012 was much larger
than I realized...try 73,608 pages large. And although it is reported that the
wealthier a household's income is the higher the federal tax rate, reality couldn't be farther from the truth. Within those 73,000+ pages are numerous
allowances and appendices that permit certain income to be maneuvered in ways
that prevent them from being taxed. Problem is most people are either
economically incapable to take advantage of or are simply unaware. These people simply do not earn the high annual income that would enable them to take advantage of those loopholes. Most of these loops holes that exist do so in a manner
that only households that earn in excess of $1M annually can take advantage of
them. That is why middle america is paying in the neighborhood of 40% of their
income in taxes while the upper 1% of society are only paying 12% to 16%
regardless of the scaled rates on the books. These loopholes should be
expelled from the tax code. And let us not kid ourselves...telling middle
America they can transfer income to non-taxed IRAs or mutual funds only delays
the inevitable and further reduces their immediate discretionary spending
power. It's not the same.
I am not anti-big business either. Strong corporate
structures are not the antithesis to small businesses. But I find it somewhat
ironic that over 40% of the federal governments income comes from income tax, while only about 10% comes from corporate/business tax (tax on
profits and assets) when this nation has such a high GDP. And this is where the real disappointment lies, because you then read how corporate dynamo's like Westgate Resorts' Seigel telling his employees that he provides all the jobs and then pays all the taxes. It simply is not true. In fact, for those
who state Democrats are anti-big business and taxes only the wealthy, keep in
mind that in the last year of Bush's presidency (2008), corporate taxes
comprised 12% of the federal government's income compared to only 9% in 2010
under Obama. And under Bush, income taxes comprised 45% compared to 42% under Obama.
Economy.
I've heard a large number of people asking if
the nation is in a better place now than it was four years ago. The answer is
no... but the prognosis really is better than it was four years ago when you look at the "individual market trends" and not just the bottom line figures. For example, neither I nor my wife make excessively high salary's or come close to higher tax brackets. And if you were to look at my bottom line it would show that I'm over $270,000 in debt. That's less than appetizing. But the trend shows that in the past four years, I've not only been able to pay down my home mortgage, but I've also paid off loans on my 2009 truck and 2010 motorcycle ahead of schedule. At the same time, I've been able to invest over $30,000 in home improvements while saving over $100,000 from my salary for personal investments...and that doesn't include any joint accounts shared with my wife. It just depends on how you determine progress, and if you are a bottom-line type person then you will never be able to say you are satisfied. You'll hear people say you need to run the government like a business. There are many aspects in which business practices are applicable and even essential, but you can't cut away segments of a nation because it is under-performing expectations, nor can we sell States like some old building simply because it costs more to operate than earn. Instead, nations need to be ran like a household, with strict budget guidelines. It's not as if households go out and print up more money just because it doesn't have enough at the moment. If Congress can
get over its bickering and start working for the American people again, this nation will get stronger.
What I find so incredulous in some is the lack of real hindsight when we blame the Obama administration for all the woes of today's society. We tend to forget things rather quickly in society, and many people may not truly appreciate just how badly the U.S. and global economies were hit in 2009. The Bush administration dealt early and often with significant national disasters. First were the worst floods on record in the northern Mississippi River regions, followed by the events surrounding 9/11 and then Hurricane Katrina. And while we were focused on two wars and increasing international developments, have we as a nation truly forgotten that one of the few domestic activities during the Bush administration that had any real push was a platform against same-sex marriage? I don't understand how so many smart people can solely blame the current administration for actions that began many years prior, and ignore the fact that so little was attempted, let alone accomplished, regarding the domestic health of our nation. And lets not shed blame from a body of government that has purposely refused to work together, starting in earnest in 2005. It's not just one party's "take it or leave it" attitude. Both need to share the blame.
What I find so incredulous in some is the lack of real hindsight when we blame the Obama administration for all the woes of today's society. We tend to forget things rather quickly in society, and many people may not truly appreciate just how badly the U.S. and global economies were hit in 2009. The Bush administration dealt early and often with significant national disasters. First were the worst floods on record in the northern Mississippi River regions, followed by the events surrounding 9/11 and then Hurricane Katrina. And while we were focused on two wars and increasing international developments, have we as a nation truly forgotten that one of the few domestic activities during the Bush administration that had any real push was a platform against same-sex marriage? I don't understand how so many smart people can solely blame the current administration for actions that began many years prior, and ignore the fact that so little was attempted, let alone accomplished, regarding the domestic health of our nation. And lets not shed blame from a body of government that has purposely refused to work together, starting in earnest in 2005. It's not just one party's "take it or leave it" attitude. Both need to share the blame.
Have we forgotten that the average price
for a gallon of gasoline jumped 243% from 2002 to 2008 ($1.43 to $3.26)? In the
three years following Obama's election, the average gallon of gasoline only
rose an additional $.27, to $3.53 a gallon in 2011, and actually fell in 2009
for the first time in over a decade. And while I'm not happy about paying
that much for gasoline to begin with, the fact that it has nearly kept pace
with inflation was at least more promising than the previous administration's
work (in the section on environment and global warming I'll discuss the necessity
to open our oil fields on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts). Yet this was on the
RNC's list of topics to criticize during the campaign. And yet here we are, having increased our domestic production to the point that we will likely become the leading producer of oil and natural gas within the next 15 years, further reducing our need for foreign oil.
Have we forgotten that the housing bubble
began unabated in 2001, and continued to grow without federal adjustments until
it burst in 2006? Foreclosures skyrocketed and average home prices then
continued to fall until they were finally stabilized in 2009. And while the
housing market is just now beginning to rebound, the fact is that this whole
mess started a long time ago when there was a serious lack of financial
oversight to monitor for the improper lending practices between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets that were ultimately responsible for the housing
boom and subsequent fall. In essence, many of these secondary markets were
orchestrating what I would consider a housing ponzi scheme, except they used real mortgages with lien holders who had no realistic means to repay those mortgages as they were designed. They packaged and sold on the market these pieces that had no real value...but still had "market value". This is the blurred line between what's legal and what's unethical.
And have we forgotten that the global
financial crisis began in July of 2007 with significant spikes in the credit
risk ratings throughout the world, especially noted in the difference between
the US debt rates and the Eurodollar futures? The crisis then wavered at this
elevated level for over a year without any action from the Bush administration,
until it exploded in late 2008 with the greatest differences to date just prior
to the Obama inauguration in January 2009.
The national debt is out of control. There's
no way to avoid that realization and no reason why anyone should. It rose by
$5T during Bush's term in office, and has continued to skyrocket by another $5T
during Obama's first four years. I was never in favor of most of the government bailout plans (though the auto industry was a sound investment). Ideologically, the bailouts were very similar in philosophy
to the New Deal policy under Roosevelt. But unlike the New Deal, it wasn't
focused on specific projects nor did it target a measurable outcome. It was
another all-to-common political faux pas where we threw good money after bad in
the belief that if you spend enough it will eventually work. The simple fact of
the bailouts/stimulus plan was that these projects had to be financed from
somewhere, and it was done so by increasing the national debt which only
worsens the dollars future. Unlike private investments, public investments by
the government don't have to meet the smell test...that is, they don't have to
produce more than they cost to continue. This is unfortunately the result of
the bailout and stimulus plans that the Obama administration put in place. A
really good article discussing this can be found at http://www.dimensional.com/famafrench/
2009/01/bailouts-and-stimulus-plans.html.
Then again, something was done, right or wrong, which was more than what was done when these problems were becoming visible prior to 2009. As much as I disagreed with the bailouts of AIG, Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac, etc., we can’t forget that this has been a practice of both Republican and Democtratic leaders in our past, most recently from Reagan/Bush in the late 80's - early 90's as a result of the mini-recession we experienced. And it took several years to rebound from that, with the 2009 economic collapse being vastly greater in reach and impact.
Then again, something was done, right or wrong, which was more than what was done when these problems were becoming visible prior to 2009. As much as I disagreed with the bailouts of AIG, Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac, etc., we can’t forget that this has been a practice of both Republican and Democtratic leaders in our past, most recently from Reagan/Bush in the late 80's - early 90's as a result of the mini-recession we experienced. And it took several years to rebound from that, with the 2009 economic collapse being vastly greater in reach and impact.
If there is any positive outlook, it would
come from the unbiased website PresidentialDebt.org that monitors the national
GDP and spending. Since Obama took office, the debt has obviously continued to
rise, but the debt trend has actually improved each of the past three
years...our rate of increased debt is shrinking... whereas the trend worsened in
five of Bush's eight years in office, including the greatest downward trend in
his last year in office (2008), a sure sign of the worsening economy. And
the U.S. was still fighting a very costly war against terrorism AND
stabilizing a devastated domestic economy. To the very least, it provided a
stable platform in which we can now focus on correcting the current spending
practices of the government, increase jobs and reduce the debt, although with
much disagreement within Congress on how to proceed.
The simple fact is this...the problems we face
today were put into motion well before the current administration took office.
If you want to criticize anyone’s plan for the future, feel free. If you want
to criticize Obama’s ideas during the past term, please do so. It’s not only
your right, but your obligation as a citizen. But don't point your fingers at
the current administration and state they are to blame for where you are today.
It takes a hell of a lot longer to clean up a mess than it does to create one.
I find fault in many of Obama's activities, but I'm not blinded by my or any
one person’s political views or party affiliation from acknowledging the truth
about the recent past.
Same Sex Marriage.
Unfortunately, I at first questioned the
wisdom in abolishing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy in the military. It's not because I'm a homophobe or bigot,
but because I actually worried if an openly homosexual
member of the military would truly receive the same fair opportunity to
progress in their career. I initially believed it would probably be better for
the military as a whole to continue the DADT policy until the younger
generations had achieved the higher levels of rank and authority to ensure full
acceptance of open homosexuality throughout the ranks. I wondered with
doubt if the historically conservative military leadership would be able to evolve
and wholly accept an immediate change in policy, even though we all knew
homosexuals actively served. It was very much an aspect of pretending to not
see the elephant in the room because it didn't make a noise. Rather ridiculous
in my opinion, but true nonetheless. The truth is, the majority of the junior
officers and enlisted couldn't have cared one way or the other about the sexual
orientation of the member beside them. It was primarily viewed as just an
aspect of today's society.
But the professional advancement in the
military is primarily dependent on the "opinion" of superiors. Only
the enlisted personnel have standardized advancement exams, and that serves to identify the top candidates eligible for promotion. Otherwise, there
are nearly no standardized practices that impacts a persons military career,
especially officers. In fact, all promotion and special career advancement
boards (officers and enlisted) are generally based on the professional
evaluations given by a member's superior. Likewise, officers are
subjected to oral boards to attain professional / watchstanding qualifications
which they must achieve in order to proceed with their careers. Yet, the
questions that can be asked at these boards are also not standardized...they
are at the discretion of the commanding officer and his or her panel members. Without
this standardization, how could a member claim any one oral board was
substantially unfair and impossibly difficult compared to that of another
officer? There is no recording of the questions asked to gauge that officer's
professional knowledge. How could an openly homosexual junior officer be
protected against a panel influenced by their personal beliefs or biases during
an oral board? This is what concerned me, and I feared such instances should
they occur would harm the integrity of the service.
BUT... I find it incredibly
offensive that we as a nation of the free can tell any segment of our
population that they cannot share in the same freedoms or opportunity that any
other segment enjoys. We know that change must and always will occur.
Every generation ultimately determines for itself what is socially acceptable.
I don't believe we could ask homosexuals in the military to pretend to be
something they are not for 20 or 30 years until they are at the top of the
ladder, so to speak, and held those high seats of power and authority to then
enact what rightfully should be today, just because it was easier or
potentially less embarrassing should there be instances of discrimination.
Historically, mandated change has been
turbulent and slow to acceptance. A full century had passed since the abolition
of slavery, and even with federally mandated civil rights throughout those
decades, the segregation and discrimination of African-Americans continued. It
took another 50 years to vote the first African-American to the office of
POTUS. This historical precedent worried me when it came to DADT, but I had no
right to ask homosexuals to not fight for what they believed in and what I
believed was just. Not if I truly believed in what I swore an oath to defend.
And so it goes...I fell in love and married
the woman of my dreams. It was a perfect wedding. I could not have asked for a
more perfect week in the Grand Cayman Islands. So how can I, a person who
supports and defends the freedoms of this land, deny two consenting adults from
enjoying the same life experiences? How
can we purport to separate church and state and then quote religious text to
reinforce the state's position to deny the very same? We do not live in a
theocratic society. We should not claim to be a more advanced civilization than
Iran, Iraq, or any other nation where active segregation of the population systematically
practices discrimination based on religious beliefs. If we allow religious beliefs to rule over
law, then how have we evolved? How has the current self-proclaimed "moral
majority" protected itself from the same discriminatory practices if in
the future their beliefs are questioned or even banned by a new order of
thinking?
And how would same-sex marriage affect anyone?
If you are someone who is opposed, how are you affected in any respects? I
believe people who say they don't understand alternative lifestyles actually
mean they can't imagine being in a same-sex relationship, and it's fair to make
that statement. I can't imagine being in a same-sex relationship because it's
not my lifestyle. But to claim one does not understand an alternative lifestyle
is to state one does not understand devotion and love for another person
greater than himself or herself. Anyone who has ever fallen in love, whether it is with your spouse, partner, or even your family, understands that
all too well.
Abortion.
I do not support abortion, but I am a
proponent of the freedom of choice over a person’s body. As a means of
birth control, abortion is incredibly offensive. My heart tells me there should
be no difference between first term and third term abortions. But I also cannot
divorce myself emotionally from the turmoil in the known medical scenarios that
would require an aborted pregnancy to preserve the life of my wife. My mind
tells me anytime a fetus is far enough along in the pregnancy to possibly
survive a premature birth it should be given that chance to live. On the other hand, heaven help me
and any person who tells my wife, or perhaps one day a daughter, that she would
have to carry to term any fetus that resulted from a sexual assault or would in fact endanger their lives.
If I seem to flip-flop on this subject, it's
because I obviously do. I don't have an answer specifically toward abortion.
But for me this debate is not a simple matter of Roe v. Wade (not that that is
simple). I do not want the government telling me what I can or
cannot do with my body. It's the larger precedent that is set when the
government legislates decisions regarding one's decision with their physical
body. And this legal precedent has been extended to argue other debatable
topics such as assisted suicide, experimental medical treatments for terminal
illnesses, and the like. I should be permitted to seek any medical option to
extend my life whether or not the federal government approves. Or even end it
if I choose not to have my family suffer with me during an extended terminal
illness. And as such I have to afford the same liberal perspective toward
abortion, whether or not I agree with it.
Immigration.
I lean to the right concerning immigration,
which would probably irk my mother-in-law who came to the United States from
Spain in the mid-1970's, albeit legally, without being able to speak a lick of English.
I don't understand why some liberals are so opposed to the premise that if you
are in the country illegally, you should be deported and forced to follow the
legally mandated criteria to enter this land.
I also don't understand why some liberals want
to support undocumented members in society with public resources. For example,
in Virginia there was a bill proposed to provide state public assistance to
undocumented persons. That means using tax dollars of legal citizens to provide
family assistance benefits to illegal aliens who don’t pay taxes. I simply
don't get it. If they're undocumented, why are they still here?
That's not to say that there haven't been some
liberal immigration reform that I thought had some interesting philosophies and
were somewhat reasonable. Originally introduced in 2001 and defeated, the DREAM
Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) was recently revamped
by Obama as an executive order which allowed temporary residency status to
children of undocumented parents if the children had met certain criteria, such
as no criminal record, lived in U.S. for five years, and so on. This temporary
residency status would then allow a specific period for the children of
undocumented parents to achieve naturalized citizenship status through the
legally mandated process. But Obama's actions in pushing immigration
reform through an executive order was incredibly dubious and offensive to government processes. Just as the conservatives attempt to take matters into their
own hands by supporting Arizona's efforts to engage in federal immigration law
at the state level was offensive. While I'm all for states’ rights, there are certain topics
that should be directed at the federal level, and immigration policy is one. President Obama's order should be rescinded and resubmitted to Congress for committee and vote. Being POTUS shouldn't allow
you to sidestep the law, which in my opinion is what his order is doing
presently.
Gun Control.
When it comes to weapons, I am right down the center. I believe the 2nd Amendment remains valid to this very day and was not meant to be solely applicable to the colony or state militias of our past as some have interpreted. Being that, I simply cannot understand how anyone can be completely opposed to gun control measures. Many I have talked to believe that "gun control" simply refers to the governments attempt to limit the availability of guns to lawful citizens. This may be true to a certain extent. But for those persons who haven't truly pondered the values of this nation...those who spout "land of the free" while failing to accurately perceive those freedoms...then consider this; have we not always had "regulated freedoms" since the birth of our nation over 200 years ago?
Gun control should not be about taking away freedoms, but simply regulating them. It is not an unreasonable concept when we (the people) also demand governmental controls on all aspects of life. Food processing plants have to adhere to certain health and safety measures to reduce the chance of poisoning the population through contaminated meats and produce. Medications must undergo a lengthy and exhaustive testing process in an effort to reduce the chance that a medication meant to heal doesn't ultimately harm our health and well-being. Hell, the constitution grants us the right to vote, but we regulate voting practices to ensure our voice in the way we are governed is not to be molested. And we prosecute those who try to violate these regulations for their own "personal" gain.
And that is the key to "regulated freedoms" of this nation. We regulate freedoms by passing laws that are meant to benefit the nation as a whole, not the individual. Not the person. So how does regulating weapons differ?
The genius of our ancestors was their forethought enabling the Constitution to always change as society evolves. But just because the Constitution can change isn't the primary reason for why it should. So lets look at what federal "gun control" has typically aimed at confronting over the last 80 years. It has set up a system for taxing the sale of weapons, required the licensing of traders and wholesalers, placed age restrictions on the purchase of weapons, and has restricted the lawful possession of weapons by those who have been convicted/indicted of certain violent crimes. It has attempted to reduce the magazine capacity of guns, and regulated the registration of weapons with state law enforcement agencies. It has attempted to limit or ban the possession of weapons in public schools or areas where children gather (school grounds and parks). And it has limited the availability of automatic weapons.
Of course, there have also been instances in which efforts by the federal government have been nothing more than propaganda, such as the now defunct law banning the possession/sale of "assault weapons", which are nothing more than semi-automatic weapons that have the cosmetic appearance of fully automatic assault rifles. And while I personally have no interest in possessing assault weapons, I think it is safe to say that measures such as this provide no real benefit to society.
But Americans continue to make the argument that gun control only inhibits law-abiding citizens because criminals don't follow those same measures. This is undeniably true. But should we stop registering and inspecting vehicles because the local bank robbers use stolen cars as a getaway? Should we rid ourselves of legal driving ages simply because persons who've lost their driving privileges will continue to operate motor vehicles? Should we do away with illegal drugs such as heroin or methamphetamine just because there are those who are still willing to produce, sell, or use them? Or should we allow abusive spouses or members of society with a history of violence to possess weapons?
If I wanted to be glib I'd ask if homeowners really need a full, 30-round banana clip to protect their homes? When is the last time someone actually had their home broken into by 30 people? Or even five? I don't know about anyone else, but after years of being around gunfire I can certainly tell you that an unexpected gunshot in the still of the night still shocks the hell out of me. I have a hard time believing that a couple pulls on the trigger from a handgun won't scare the hell out of any number of home intruders.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has stated that persons only need to be properly trained in firearm safety. I would agree with that. Firearm safety would go a long way to reducing accidental discharges and certainly educate persons of all ages to properly respect the definitive consequences of using a firearm. Should we make that a law, i.e. a regulation, or should we leave it up to the honesty of our neighbors and, dare I say, complete strangers?
We have all regulated freedoms within our own lives. And if you think we don't, then ask yourself this: Have you ever punished your children? Were you ever punished for breaking the rules as a kid yourself? Regulation has always existed, and it does for simple and reasonable purposes.
And then there is the all-too-ridiculous saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I'm sorry to disappoint those people, but guns kill. That is what they are designed to do, plain and simple. And they make it more effective and efficient. Yes, sometimes it is the intent of the person that makes weapons lethal. Certainly intent is behind most if not all of our nation's tragedies involving weapons. But how many stories have there also been of little Johnny finding the keys to the gun cabinet and showing his daddy's gun to his friends, only for it to go off accidentally and injure or kill someone? How many times has someone accidentally killed himself/herself cleaning a weapon they thought was unloaded? Even trained military personnel have inadvertent discharges. The fact is this...intent is not always a precursor to a lethal event...but violence is, and guns are inherently violent. So please stop promoting this ridiculous slogan.
It may sound "un-American" to say that too much freedom is a bad thing, but it is. I sometimes have a hard time believing I actually agree with statement given I've spent a good portion of my life defending this nations freedoms. But I do. Rights and regulation is a system of checks and balances, where without one or the other we fall to either side of the spectrum between anarchy and tyranny. Regulation is not only required, it can be reasonably applied. Personally, I think we've reached that balance between tyranny and anarchy on this issue. I don't believe any additional measure is necessary other than perhaps to mandate firearm safety courses for persons wishing to purchase or use firearms.
The only thing standing in the way of reasonable gun control regulation are "all-or-nothing" individuals who fail to be reasonable themselves?
Health Care.
When it comes to weapons, I am right down the center. I believe the 2nd Amendment remains valid to this very day and was not meant to be solely applicable to the colony or state militias of our past as some have interpreted. Being that, I simply cannot understand how anyone can be completely opposed to gun control measures. Many I have talked to believe that "gun control" simply refers to the governments attempt to limit the availability of guns to lawful citizens. This may be true to a certain extent. But for those persons who haven't truly pondered the values of this nation...those who spout "land of the free" while failing to accurately perceive those freedoms...then consider this; have we not always had "regulated freedoms" since the birth of our nation over 200 years ago?
Gun control should not be about taking away freedoms, but simply regulating them. It is not an unreasonable concept when we (the people) also demand governmental controls on all aspects of life. Food processing plants have to adhere to certain health and safety measures to reduce the chance of poisoning the population through contaminated meats and produce. Medications must undergo a lengthy and exhaustive testing process in an effort to reduce the chance that a medication meant to heal doesn't ultimately harm our health and well-being. Hell, the constitution grants us the right to vote, but we regulate voting practices to ensure our voice in the way we are governed is not to be molested. And we prosecute those who try to violate these regulations for their own "personal" gain.
And that is the key to "regulated freedoms" of this nation. We regulate freedoms by passing laws that are meant to benefit the nation as a whole, not the individual. Not the person. So how does regulating weapons differ?
The genius of our ancestors was their forethought enabling the Constitution to always change as society evolves. But just because the Constitution can change isn't the primary reason for why it should. So lets look at what federal "gun control" has typically aimed at confronting over the last 80 years. It has set up a system for taxing the sale of weapons, required the licensing of traders and wholesalers, placed age restrictions on the purchase of weapons, and has restricted the lawful possession of weapons by those who have been convicted/indicted of certain violent crimes. It has attempted to reduce the magazine capacity of guns, and regulated the registration of weapons with state law enforcement agencies. It has attempted to limit or ban the possession of weapons in public schools or areas where children gather (school grounds and parks). And it has limited the availability of automatic weapons.
Of course, there have also been instances in which efforts by the federal government have been nothing more than propaganda, such as the now defunct law banning the possession/sale of "assault weapons", which are nothing more than semi-automatic weapons that have the cosmetic appearance of fully automatic assault rifles. And while I personally have no interest in possessing assault weapons, I think it is safe to say that measures such as this provide no real benefit to society.
But Americans continue to make the argument that gun control only inhibits law-abiding citizens because criminals don't follow those same measures. This is undeniably true. But should we stop registering and inspecting vehicles because the local bank robbers use stolen cars as a getaway? Should we rid ourselves of legal driving ages simply because persons who've lost their driving privileges will continue to operate motor vehicles? Should we do away with illegal drugs such as heroin or methamphetamine just because there are those who are still willing to produce, sell, or use them? Or should we allow abusive spouses or members of society with a history of violence to possess weapons?
If I wanted to be glib I'd ask if homeowners really need a full, 30-round banana clip to protect their homes? When is the last time someone actually had their home broken into by 30 people? Or even five? I don't know about anyone else, but after years of being around gunfire I can certainly tell you that an unexpected gunshot in the still of the night still shocks the hell out of me. I have a hard time believing that a couple pulls on the trigger from a handgun won't scare the hell out of any number of home intruders.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has stated that persons only need to be properly trained in firearm safety. I would agree with that. Firearm safety would go a long way to reducing accidental discharges and certainly educate persons of all ages to properly respect the definitive consequences of using a firearm. Should we make that a law, i.e. a regulation, or should we leave it up to the honesty of our neighbors and, dare I say, complete strangers?
We have all regulated freedoms within our own lives. And if you think we don't, then ask yourself this: Have you ever punished your children? Were you ever punished for breaking the rules as a kid yourself? Regulation has always existed, and it does for simple and reasonable purposes.
And then there is the all-too-ridiculous saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I'm sorry to disappoint those people, but guns kill. That is what they are designed to do, plain and simple. And they make it more effective and efficient. Yes, sometimes it is the intent of the person that makes weapons lethal. Certainly intent is behind most if not all of our nation's tragedies involving weapons. But how many stories have there also been of little Johnny finding the keys to the gun cabinet and showing his daddy's gun to his friends, only for it to go off accidentally and injure or kill someone? How many times has someone accidentally killed himself/herself cleaning a weapon they thought was unloaded? Even trained military personnel have inadvertent discharges. The fact is this...intent is not always a precursor to a lethal event...but violence is, and guns are inherently violent. So please stop promoting this ridiculous slogan.
It may sound "un-American" to say that too much freedom is a bad thing, but it is. I sometimes have a hard time believing I actually agree with statement given I've spent a good portion of my life defending this nations freedoms. But I do. Rights and regulation is a system of checks and balances, where without one or the other we fall to either side of the spectrum between anarchy and tyranny. Regulation is not only required, it can be reasonably applied. Personally, I think we've reached that balance between tyranny and anarchy on this issue. I don't believe any additional measure is necessary other than perhaps to mandate firearm safety courses for persons wishing to purchase or use firearms.
The only thing standing in the way of reasonable gun control regulation are "all-or-nothing" individuals who fail to be reasonable themselves?
Health Care.
For me, this has been the most ridiculous
platform that has received so much attention and political maneuvering. Not
ridiculous in that it's not important, but ridiculous in that neither side has
it right. I don't believe this is privatization vs. socialism, nor is it
a matter of the working having to pay for the so-called "lazy" as has
been referred to by some out there. The real problem doesn't lie with the
federal government mandating publicly funded insurance, which as you already
know I believe is a matter for the states to determine for themselves. In fact, if anything, the federal government should be
more focused on curving the ever increasing cost of medical care in general and
not shifting it to the taxpayers to cover. Prices in a hospital are almost as
bad as prices for federal government acquisitions ($20 for an aspirin is the
same as $700 for a hammer analogy...the figures are overstated, but the gross
overpayment for simple items is not). And if you think that's bunk, consider
the fact that a wrench for use on a satellite cost NASA tens of thousands to
procure. I bet you regardless of the material used and whatever research was
conducted by the contractor to produce the item to withstand an interstellar
environment, I could get a crescent wrench from Lowe's Hardware to do the same
job. But back to the issue at hand...
The real problem is how the federal government
addresses healthcare in general. Billions in federally funded
research grants are provided to private institutions and pharmaceutical companies
(pharm's) to investigate treatments for just about every type of disease
imaginable. The problem with this is that pharm's don't make money from
vaccines that cure diseases. They make their money from patenting medications
to treat the symptoms. In fact, if you think about it briefly, it's
actually bad business for pharm's to research for a cure. They would then be
working to reduce their number of repeat customers in the market.
Seriously, any futures market advisor you talk with will tell you to include at
least one pharmaceutical company in your portfolio. There's a reason for
it...they will always have customers as long as there are sick people.
This is one of the few areas where I'd
actually like to see the federal government increase its activity by enhancing
the number of federal research grants and facilities whose sole purpose is to research cures
for diseases. Pharm's already have the motivation to research treatments. The
government should focus on cures and reallocate research grants currently going to
pharm's to futher enhance this effort. As it currently stands, numerous non-profit
organizations rely primarily on private funding (a.k.a. your donations) to
research cures with federal assistance making up a small fraction, such as
the American Heart Association, American
Cancer Society, Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the Susan G. Komen
foundation.
Many people state that
without federally funded grants the pharm's would boost the cost of medications
to cover their profit margins and satisfy investor expectations. But that would
not be the case if congress would work together to legislate a maximum price
index for medications to prevent such price gouging. I know too many retirees who are getting their medication via the internet from Canadian companies simply because the cost to too high domestically.
Environment and Global Warming.
I admit it...I'm a tree hugger. I oppose
drilling in the arctic because I love the cute and fuzzy wildlife. I like
going green and the idea of investing in renewable energy. I like ice caps and
glaciers. And while I believe global warming to be a natural
occurrence as history indicates, we have also exacerbated it's effects and the
immediacy in which it is returning. We have an obligation to ourselves to do
all we can to reduce our ecological footprint. But I also know that a large step in
"going green" will be too costly until the infrastructure and private
consumers are ready to receive. What I mean is, unless more people are in a
position to use, lets say, hydrogen fueled hover crafts (to be flip), then the
cost to produce in such a low demand market will be too expensive for anyone to
participate. As I've said before, change must and always will occur, but
immediate change is often painful. We don't need to do a complete 180 degree
turn right this second as long as we are making honest efforts to seek better,
cleaner, healthier, and more efficient energy sources. If we're not making an
honest effort, then it will be too late sooner than we like.
I believe President Bush truly cared about the
American people, he just didn't consider various angles and alternatives or beyond the near-term impacts. I
also think he surrounded himself with individuals who cared more about lining back pockets than anything else. And this, in my opinion, is demonstrated quite
nicely in the oil industry. One thing President Bush did during his
administration was address the increasing gas prices in 2004 by pushing through
a tax break to the oil companies that was intended to offset the industry's
costs of providing this much needed resource. This in turn was meant to be
reflected at the pump with lowered gas prices for consumers. Unfortunately that
never happened.
The 2004 corporate tax relief provisions for
the oil companies targeted the industry's recovery of expensive manufacturing, drilling,
and exploration costs. As a result, one independent research center
states that the federal tax rate for oil companies from 2004 to 2010 was less
than half of the average 35% standard rate for all other U.S. companies. As the
price of gasoline continued to rise and oil giants such as Exxon and Shell
booked record setting quarterly profits in the billions, much to the angst of the public, the
companies countered with the argument that they were only making $.02 cents
profit for every gallon produced while the government was applying excessive
taxes at the pump. They further blamed the consumers for excessive fuel usage, driving up the demand with limited supply that resulted in higher prices. The reality was that the federal and state
governments were collecting a combined $.60 a gallon while approximately $.02 was going to
the wholesaler (gas station). If the companies were claiming an additional $.02
in profit, then where was the rest going? It was going to the oil companies.
They claimed $.02 profit because the rest was on the books as costs for...you
guessed it...drilling and production, transportation, and exploration. So they
reaped the benefits of the tax relief without falsely claiming the costs that
permitted the incredible profit growth because the tax relief was an
aftermarket addition. In other words, prices didn't come down and they kept
their inflated profits thanks to the tax relief. Bush's idea was sound but
the plan was flawed.
So while I fully support reasonable
investments in exploring alternative fuel sources, we also need to take
advantage of known oil and natural gas deposits, primarily sitting off our coasts, to further reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. There has been a lot of debate since the
Deepwater Horizon incident that this step only further invites disaster on our
shores. The truth is, while this event was an obvious tragedy, it greatly
overshadowed the country's favorable track record in safe oil and gas
extraction compared to other regions around the world. In the last 50 years,
accidents in shipping have been the cause of most spillage incidents in the
world. In fact, outside of shipping-related spillage, only two spills of any significant
size in the U.S. occurred as a result of weather (Hurricane Katrina in 2005
& CITGO Refinery in 2006) and only one incident at sea at an oil well
failure in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 that ultimately had a low environmental
impact.
In the past 20 years, the U.S. government has
conducted several exploratory operations on both east and west coasts, and the
results are promising. Some estimate that the available oil and natural gas
deposits on or just off the continental shelves could produce as much as six
times more fossil fuel than the entire middle east every year for the next 60
to 100 years, which is about how long the middle east stores are expected to
last (some are hinting that China and Russia are waiting for the middle east
wells to begin drying up to take advantage of the foreign market with their
vast deposits that sit untapped). To harvest this resource would not only
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and possibly insulate the U.S. from excessive global
market flux, it would reduce domestic gas prices, inflate our reserves, and
produce an incredible amount of federal income to invest in alternative and
renewable energy resources which is a must for our future survival. And while I
don't have the cost estimates to support my opinion, the fact that these deposits
are within a couple hundred miles of the mainland should mean it would be much
more cost-effective than transporting from the arctic circle.
Ironic for some to believe, however, I'm also
strongly opposed to the completion of the Keystone Pipeline connecting Canadian
oilfields to several U.S. refinement facilities as it is currently planned. The main reason I oppose this
project is simply because it is currently laid out to cross
the Ogallala Aquifer in several locations. The Ogallala is an underground fresh water system
stretching from northern Texas to southern South Dakota, with the largest
concentration in Nebraska. If there was a significant oil spill at any section
of the Keystone crossing the Ogallala, then it realistically could contaminate this vast
underground water source with no real means to corral and defeat it. The
resulting contamination would destroy a fresh water supply that supports tens
of millions of Americans and over $20 billion in agriculture annually, which
would devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.
Though I want to see significant improvements
in our exploration of alternative and cleaner resources, I don't believe in our
economy we can't get there without the federal income generated from a steady domestic supply of reasonably priced fossil fuels in the near future.
The Military.
As much as I hate to admit it, being a member
of the military, President Clinton had it right when he slashed the defense
budget to the bone in the 1990's. It forced the department to stop their
practice of funding poorly conceived acquisition programs that were service-centric. This in turn, led to the development of the current acquisition practice that focuses on
joint service compatibility and capability. Essentially, services were forced to
work in a joint environment more effectively because they individually could no
longer fund the programs and materials necessary to engage in a military
campaign on their own. Furthermore, the technological advances made it possible
for fewer assets to assume greater responsibilities and tasking, thus enabling
the forces to be smaller in size and (presumably) expense. Opponents had it
wrong when they claimed he weakened the military. His actions actually made the
military as a whole more effective operationally, and wiser with their allocated budgets.
Bush also had it right at first. He had no
choice but to increase the defense budget as a result of the decision to enter
into two wars. Unfortunately when you give more and more, there is a tendancy to accept greater risks because there is a financial fall back. Though I won't go into any specific details on programs I had become intimately familiar with, I would venture to guess that increases to the defense budget led to unwisely funding a number of programs that
eventually made little to no progress and were cancelled only after hundreds of millions
of dollars and several years
were lost, or were shelved after finally realizing that the planned
numbers for acquisition would not be cost effective.
In my opinion, the nations defense needs (1)
repriortized R&D programs, (2) streamlined acquisition processes, and (3) an
increase in the quality of life of our service members. The next administration must focus on
tightening the purse strings for R&D programs not already in
the functional testing phases. While it's hard to put a concrete number for
limited R&D, for example limiting the services and DARPA to only 10
programs each, there must be a return to frugal spending with a clear and (most
important) consistent vision for the future of the military as a whole. This is
a difficult task considering the technological advancements made by many nations in recent years. But we simply cannot afford financially to investigate so many
programs whose functions and purpose are so closely related or provide no technological advances that would be beneficial 20 years from now. Furthering this problem
is the fact so many senior military officials spend so little time, as little
as 14-18 months, heading commands responsible for the development of these R&D
programs. As soon as one leader’s philosophy begins to take hold, the next
leader arrives with a different set of priorities or beliefs and perhaps even different priorities.
The military needs to refocus and streamline the
acquisition process that was put into place in the 1990's. While this system
installed measures to guarantee proper oversight and force the services to work
together, the excessive "back and forth" that currently takes place
to satisfy all stakeholders and services is quite possibly a central factor why
so many major military acquisition programs take dozens of years
to go from concept to deployable asset. Furthermore, anytime a civilian
contractor loses on a bid to produce a major acquisition program, you can
almost always expect them to file a law suit halting the acquisition in order
to argue how they somehow were wronged during the process. These failures keep
needed assets out of the hands of the warfighters.
It was disheartening to hear that a number of
returning Iraqi veterans in 2003 through 2005 were being injured and even electrocuted
and killed in their own barracks due to eroding living conditions on U.S. bases.
It was aggravating to hear our wounded warriors were being cared for at a
military hospital compound with building conditions so deplorable that some of
those very buildings were condemned (after the news of their situation was made
public). But it wasn't really surprising because I lived for almost three years
in barracks ran by two separate services. The quality of life for all service
members must improve to maintain a steady and ready force. After having
served in a number of positions in the military, I've learned that the two most
important groups in the military are (1) the trigger-pullers on the front
lines, and (2) the admin types. Yes, I said admin. The personnel who circulate
directives, process orders, track pay, and are more or less entrusted with
taking care of the welfare of our operational soldiers, sailors, and airmen are
second only to the frontline warfighters in terms of importance...to every
service member. This is the only segment of the military that actually impacts
every other member of the service. Not everyone cares if the mechanics are able
to get the tanks rolling or patrol craft steaming. Some aren't too concerned
about a tactical display malfunctioning on a watch floor, or a daily supply transport plane
not making a routine run. But I guarantee you if a person isn't receiving their
base pay, if their families haven't received their housing allowance, or if
they have received too much pay through an error and are now going to be
without pay the following month, THEY CARE! The morale of a service member is
tied directly to their quality of life and their effectiveness in carrying out
their duties. Living conditions, wage scales, allowances to meet cost of living
adjustments, access to college tuition assistance programs, quality medical
care, and quality career pension programs are not only important to enhancing
the morale of current service members, but vital to retaining those qualified
and highly trained members who one day are expected to be the military's future
leadership.
Foreign Policy.
in progress
Space and Exploration.
in progress
in progress
Space and Exploration.
in progress
