When I Fall Off the Fence: An Election by Any Other Name

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.

     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.

     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.

     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