A Presidential Platform I Support.

A Platform I Can Get Behind

As I look at various political parties and institutions I feel it behooves me to write down what I view as an optimal platform to secure America’s future. I’m not sure if you would call it conservative or libertarian, or maybe even nationalist, but it’s my optimal view. This is written as if I am running for President, although I will not be eligible to until 2021.

US out of the UN, UN out of the US

To my mind the UN is an organization that gives almost nothing to the US while we give a lot to the UN, 22% (not counting peace keeping mission fees) of their annual operating budget, which they assess to us, for the latest figures that’s $921,800,000. The next 2 closest contributors are Japan, at 16.6%, and Germany at 8.66%, if we withdrew from the UN, it would virtually cripple them. While it wouldn’t save us a whole lot of money, a little can go a long way.

Then there is the fact that the UN is run by a whole lot of wannabes and never weres, none of the Secretary Generals have ever been from a major power. Don’t talk to me about the UN Security Council the fact that France has a permanent seat removes all credibility that it may have had. Plus the fact that it is a committee where one third of the members have veto power makes it simply remarkable that anything gets done, rule by committee is, by it’s very nature, a quagmire of competing opinions ideas and agendas, where even a simple resolution to censor a nation for violating international law can fail miserably.

After our withdrawal from the UN we will give the UN one year to relocate from New York City to somewhere non US. If they don’t want to go, all UN diplomats will find themselves persona non grata. If that doesn’t work then I will unfortunately have to ask the governor of New York to call out the National Guard to assist in the removal of the belligerents.

Taxes

For a time I was a supporter of the so called “Fair Tax.” However as I looked at it and thought about it, I realized it really wasn’t fair. If say a person who makes $300,000 a year buys $30 in something, they are paying about 0.01% of they annual income in that transaction, while if a person who makes $30,000 a year buys they same thing they are paying 0.1% of their annual income in that transaction. I have a hard time seeing how this is fair. Instead what I believe in is a flat rate tax, set at 15%-18%, so that it will get taken out evenly, from everybody. For a better breakdown of this concept see the blog “Caveat Emptor” by Dr. Harold Black.

Fiscal Policy

My fiscal policy is based in the principles of Laissez-Faire, and reduction in government spending. (There might be holes in this I’m no economist):

Basically I would start by weaning the American people off of welfare, I would set a date probably 3-4 years down the road when all welfare payments would stop, up to that point there would be a gradual decrease in the amount of welfare money given out till it reached the null point. I would be inclined to offer (during the step down period) government support in attending college, or trade schools.

At this point I believe that most people realize that Social Security is failing, however I don’t know if it is fixable or not. The big problem is that the way the US population is growing, by the time I am old enough to collect Social Security experts predict that there will be so many people over the age of 55 that it will be virtually impossible for those people in the lower age brackets to support them. The only reasonable idea that I can come up with is to set up something along the lines of “All persons who are over 40 by year XXXX will be eligible for social security benefits” and any person who is under 40 will not be eligible to receive social security.

As for companies that are failing and asking for bailouts, I believe that if they are doing so bad as to find it necessary to ask the government to keep them from failing, there is no sound reason to believe that any help we give them in the long run will actually keep them in business, if the corporate leadership is bad. It’s like the captain of a ship saying “Hey can I borrow your boat? I ran my last one into an iceberg.”

Foreign Policy

I’m tired of countries decrying the US as an “imperial and expansionistic power.” If they don’t like us that much, let’s bring the troops home, from EVERYWHERE with the exception of maybe South Korea. Let’s see how the economies around US Military bases in Germany, Italy, England, Iraq, Japan, and more stand up when the last transport departs. Let’s see if those countries take the US military for granted then.

I believe that since there is no singular institution that is above everybody, and acts to maintain balance and security in the world, that roll must be played by the United States, since the UN is incapable of doing so. The decision as to whether or not this means by military force or by economic coercion will depend on the situation. We will no longer participate in UN Peace Keeping Missions, nor will we put American Soldiers under the command of other nations.

I believe in acting first in the best interests of the United States, then the world, as any American leader should.

Defense

My defense policy is probably harder to explain than anything else. I believe that if there is credible intelligence that somebody is going to attack us we have every right to, warn them off and then launch a preemptive strike, designed to deter the threat. If they do attack the United States of American needs to operate on the principle that you must respond, an attack on American soil and American citizens demands a response. I believe in the principle that if they hit you once you hit them until they can’t hit back, if you have to destroy the government and military, so be it. As stated above we will no longer participate in UN Peace Keeping Missions, nor will we put American Soldiers under the command of other nations. However, under appropriate circumstances, we may be favorably disposed to send peace keeping missions out, with or without allies, but under American command.

Legislation

My policy for signing legislation would be along the lines of trying to keep government out of as many things as possible, while extending personal freedoms. I would veto any bill that would allow Washington DC to obtain voting seats in Congress and the Senate; I believe that they are fairly well represented by the Senators and Congressmen who live there. At the same time I will never allow a bill full of pork barrels to pass my desk as a law. There needs to be some control over excessive government spending. Almost any thing that increases the size of the Federal Government is out of the question

Abortion

While I am personally against abortion I would probably sign a bill that legalizes abortion, but provides that both parents of the fetus must be in agreement or the parents of the parents, if the people involved are under 18. If one parent decides that they don’t want an abortion, then they should bear the burden of raising and supporting the resulting child, unless the other parent decides that they want to a) get married, or b) share custody.

Immigration

The problem concerning immigration that faces America today is a grave one. There are many solutions that get thrown around by politicians but there is little that gets acted upon or implemented. I can understand and appreciate that there are many people around the world who wish to escape from wherever they are and come to live in America, however they must understand that Americans value the law, and therefore it is important to get off on the right foot by obeying the immigration laws. While I can appreciate that there are a vast multitude of people that wish to enter the USA I believe that it behooves us to be at least a little selective as to whom we let into the country. It is important that they enter the country with the ability to support themselves, either by having family they can live with while they get their feet under them, or by having either and assured job, or sufficient funds to exist for a period of time unsupported, this is so that they don’t stretch the resources of the State. It would also be preferable for people to enter the country with a basic grasp of the English language. It’s not that I want people to forget where they come from, I just want to be sure that they are able to understand police officers, road signs, and find decent work. While I accept that there is no “official” language of the United States, English is the Lingua Franca.

As for the people whom are already here illegally, I would present them with 2 options. Option One: within one year they must register with the US government, and begin paying back a fine of $5,000, as well as to begin to pay taxes.

Option Two: If they don’t register within the one year period they will be deported to their country of origin and not be allowed to reenter the US by legal means. Realizing that they may give a false name their fingerprints, photographs and other biometric information will be recorded.

To aid in the implementation of option two, I would ask congress to pass a law allowing/requiring law enforcement to check on the immigration status of people that they encounter in routine traffic stops, that they consider to be of questionable immigration status (i.e. they don’t have id, they can’t communicate with the officers etc.), as well as to require potential employers to check on the immigration status of people who are not US citizens and do not present a work visa, or proof of legitimate residency inside the United States. If the employer is found to have illegal’s working for him they will be subject to a fine proportional to the number of illegal’s that work for them.

As far as illegal’s who commit crimes inside the United States, I feel that they should be punished according to American law and then deported to their country of origin.

Questions and request for clarification are welcome.

Guns of Tennessee

I believe that it is a fundamental right of every American to own and carry firearms. So I was relieved to hear the decision of District of Colombia vs. Heller, which said that the states can not bar any law abiding citizen from owning a handgun, although they did state that cities/states may "reasonably regulate" the carrying and ownership of fire arms.
My joy was elevated to a new level when I read in the paper that Tennessee is considering 4 bills that would expand the places that legally licensed individuals can carry their guns.
HB0959
Handgun Permits - As introduced, makes information contained in handgun carry permit applications and renewals, information provided to agencies to investigate applicant, and records maintained relative to the permit application confidential and creates Class A fine only misdemeanor of unauthorized publication of permit information or records. - Amends TCA Section 10-7-504 and Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.
HB0960:
Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, authorizes person with handgun carry permit to possess firearm in local, state, or federal parks. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 and Title 70.
HB0961
Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, authorizes person with handgun carry permit to possess firearm in a refuge, public hunting area, wildlife management area, or on national forest land. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 and Title 70.
HB0962
Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, allows person with handgun carry permit to carry in restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages as long as such person is not consuming alcoholic beverages and such restaurant is not an age-restricted venue. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17.

My opinion on each bill is as follows:
HB0959
I like the fact that they are trying to look out for the privacy of gun owners, I don't believe that it needs to be public knowledge as to who owns a gun. I would have liked to see them set a minimum fine however, nothing less than $1000.
HB0960 & HB0961
(The committee vote of 960 has been pushed back to Wednesday or so of this week.)
I think that the attempt to pass this bill recognizes that not all dangers occur in our homes or neighborhood. If someone is hiking in the woods and they get attacked by a rabid animal, a bear, or one of the marijuana growers that operates in the the back country where very few people grow, then the carrier of the gun has the ability to protect him/herself . There is also the fact that a gun fired three times into the air is a universal symbol of distress. How, I ask, is somebody supposed to signal this distress if they are not allowed to carry a gun in these areas?
HB0962
The first few times I read this bill I didn't quite get the "and such restaurant is not an age-restricted venue." clause. However after pondering on it I think I understand it. The way I see it is that they want to allow people with conceal carry permits to go into standard restaurants, like Ruby Tuesdays, Appleby's or (if you're in East Tennessee) Copper Celler and Calhouns, normal resteraunts that serve alchohol, as long as the carrier doesn't drink. Age restricted places in Tennessee are considerd "clubs" in Tennessee and I guess the thought is that if you're going to a club then you are probably going to be drinking, or mixing with a high number of people who have been drinking, and guns and alchol, or people who've been drinking don't mix with happy results.

I hope that these bills pass, and I hope that people realize that the people who follow the laws and are legally licensed to carry guns are less likely to commit gun crimes than anyone else.

Cycle of Democracy

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-­1813)

We are at 221 years now…and on to selfishness, with apathy and dependence already showing themselves.

After doing a little internet research it seems that there is no definitive answer as to who wrote this quote. It has been attributed to a number of people over the years and is likely several different quotes stuck together, see http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html for a good essay on the quote.

The fact that the origin of this quote is not known does not detract from the implied ideas behind it, which are fundamentally sound, if not slightly skewed. We are seeing the effect of the realization that people can vote themselves money by voting for someone who promises the most benefits from the treasury. Obama’s idea of the redistribution of wealth is nothing new, however the fact that 56-58% of the US population voted for him indicates that people are less willing to work for what they want/need and want it given to them.

As for the times given for the life of Democracies, it varies more than the 200 year mark, some have said that this is the time frame of the Athenian Democracy, but the Athenian Democracy was not a continuous period, rather it was interrupted on several occasions by the rise of tyrants, who often, initially, had popular backing. However this is a valid concern, democracies giving way to dictatorships, see the Wiemar Republic, and the rise of Napoleon III.

It is easy to see that we are working our way through the cycle, and that if we are not careful we will go on to become a nation bound up by our government, and dependent on them for the littlest things.

These so called "stimulus" packages are a perfect example of this idea. People voted in the last run of elections for a party that basically promised to give them money. Isn't that bribery? The fact that many Americans are so short sited as to allow themselves to be driven only by their needs and not the greater needs of the nation. People and companies need to understand that when they mess up it's their own fault, and the government is not required to bail them out, you hear that GM, Chrysler? If a company is practicing business which causes it to lose money is there really a reason for supporting it? Is there any reason to believe that they won't blow that money away? The first time I ever really disagreed with President George W. Bush was when he signed the first economic stimulus package into effect.

I fear that we are slowly becoming a nation addicted to government support, a nation of socialists.

However let us not forget that:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Sir Winston Churchill

So I guess I don’t really have any answers but I have seen the symptoms, and they frighten me.