I thought it would be useful to make a post with my basic political beliefs, so that the "blogsphere" can get a better idea of what I am about. I welcome debate, so feel free to agree or disagree with anything I say.
I would consider myself politically liberal with social policy and libertarian when it comes to foreign policy.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate my beliefs, is to break them down by specific political issues, so here it goes... (Why not start with the most controversial first!)
On Abortion/Sex Education:
I am Pro-Choice. I am against late term abortions, except when the mothers life is threatened or if the child will be born with severe mental or physical defects that would prevent any quality of life for the child. I am in favor of parental notification for young women under 18, unless they are emancipated. I am also in favor of adoption alternative counseling for all potential mothers that are considering abortion. Ultimately I think women have the fundamental right to choose, but I support any efforts to educate these women about alternatives, as well as well as supporting on-going counciling and state or federal financial support for women who choose to carry the children to term. While I realize such a system would be vulnerable to abuse by some, the stigma of planned parenthood, and pregnancy in general, would almost guarantee this would not become a widespread phenomenon.
I am in favor of sex education in public primary schools, as early as 4th and 5th grade. However, I think such sex education should be done on an individual basis, with the children, parents and counselor. I think it is important that parents are included in the process, and that sex and sexuality is treated as more than simply a "human biological process for procreation." I think sex education today is too scientific, in the sense that it creates what I believe to be a false sense, that sexual activity, while risky, is an entirely biological process. I think that the state has an obligation to inform youth about the dangers of STD's and the availability of contraception, but the parents too, need to be allowed to express moral or religious values that run counter to their use or pre-marital sex in general. In other words, the schools need to tell children that these methods are out there, but parents need the opportunity to instruct the child as to the wisdom of their use.
On the Death Penalty:
Ethically I am against the death penalty, but I must consider that none of my friends or relatives have been murdered. For that reason, I think the death penalty should remain legal, but that federal restrictions should be placed on the states ability to execute prisoners. I think that prisoners who are sentenced to death by a state, should be sent up for federal review by a grand jury, and given one chance to appeal conviction. I do not think that prisoners should be granted multiple appeals, costing states millions if not billions of dollars. Instead, this "send up" system, should act as a reasonable safeguard for justice for both the community and the prisoner. Should a prisoner be acquited by the federal grand jury, they would then be sent back to the state for sentencing (short of death of course).
On Taxes:
This might be my most controversial statement yet, but I don't think most American's pay enough taxes. I don't make very much money, about $17/hour, but I still think the 31.5% in taxes I pay is far too low. I actually think that I should pay as much as twice this amount. I do think that there should be a cap on taxation at about 60%, but I think the average American can live on far, far less than we have grown accustomed too. Most of the middle class folks I know, still waste their money on things they "think" they need, like digital cable or going out to restaurants 4 times a month, when we could surely live on less. Of course I realize that if you take that money out of a consumers pocket, industry could suffer, but ultimately I believe an improvement in our infrastructure and social programs, would lead to greater long term growth. While people complain that immigration is causing job loss for example, the reality is that the influx of foreigners to our nation is not only the historical precedent, but one of the primary factors that leads to our global prominence. Imagine a country with completely free education all the way through P.h.D.? Surely this would not only boost our skilled workers in this country, but it would encourage others to come here and educate themselves for the benefit ultimately of our society. How do you guarantee immigrants, even illegals, participate in the tax structure? Tie it to their priviledges. I would propose that the I.R.S. and the D.M.V. coordinate for example, so that your drivers license is issued after the I.R.S. verify your taxes have been paid. The increased tax leverage this creates, could allow the federal and state governments to negotiate handsome subsidies to American corporations, in exchange for specific employment and wage goals. Essentially you could call this hybridized socio-capitalism. The profit motive must remain intact, but needs to be tied to an increasing degree to social responsibility.
On MediCare and Prescription Drugs:
I am not on MediCare, and am no expert. I don't think that the Bush Administration reform has been particularly beneficial for the public, and I criticize that MediCare does not have more legal leverage to negotiate drug prices. Ultimately however, drug companies need a profit motive to develop new cures, and to some extent need some protections to determine the price for drugs. I do think that pharmaceutical companies need more incentive from the federal government to provide affordable drugs and continue R&D efforts, but these benefits need to be coupled with specific public protections.
For perscriptions, Canada is not the answer, but I also find the Bush Administration's stance to be quite misleading. American's basically subsidize R&D for American pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck. I don not think that Canadian drugs should be banned in the U.S. (especially on the shaky reasoning of safety), but instead I propose that we "protect" this industry with tariffs, and force other countries to pay a rate "closer" to what we pay in the U.S.. Clearly some drugs would need to be exempted, like anti-HIV drugs, but why do Canadian's pay less for Viagra or Propecia?
On Iraq:
You didn't think I'd forget did you? Personally, I do not think the war in Iraq was launched under legitimate or honest reasons. I think many liberals have the tendency to focus on this fact alone. The idea that we were "duped" by the Bush Administration. I don't really think anyone was duped however, because the information and news has been freely available throughout this period, and those who feel "duped" always have educated reasons for feeling that way. How have they been "duped" then? Neither do I think red-state voters are stupid. The reality, I think, is that the Iraq War will benefit U.S. geo-political interests in the long term, but that the short term costs have been repeatedly denied and obscured by the executive. I think many American's are offended with this apparent dishonesty, but I don't think that that is enough of a reason to pull out of Iraq before our goals have been accomplished. Were I President, would I have invaded Iraq? No. But I can see what Bush is aiming to do, and I don't think that it flies in the face of American interests. Instead, I think Bush is taking an aggressive posture, that alienates many of us, but that will eventually lead to economic and political benefits down the road. Can you export Democracy on the barrel of a gun? Yes. I think you can.
On Separation of Church and State:
I think that the U.S. government should remain strongly secular in orientation. I do not think it is appropriate that we pray at school, have commandments outside of courtrooms, or print "In God we Trust" on our currency. I am strongly against faith based initiatives that would give any government money to religious groups for any reason. However, I do support limited censorship of network broadcasts, billboards, or other media clearly designed for mass public consumption. My basic philosophy is that it is the responsibility of government to protect the minority rights, without woefully comprimising the public good. Access to pornography or other kinds of debatable media should be limited but not eliminated. Any media outlet aiming for mass public appeal, should be required to a limited extent to protect the values of their audience, even if it means we end up with Disney-esque networks and radio, we still have satellite and cable for viewers who want different content. Public buildings should always be free of religious displays, including Christmas, or Easter displays. While I don't think their is parity between a Christian's offense to a naked nipple, and a Muslim's offense at a nativity scene, government has a responsibility to evangelize secularity as our common ground.
On Gay Marriage:
Here I may come off as a total politcal extremist, if I haven't already. I don't think that the states or federal government should grant ANY marriage licenses at all. (And yes I realize that is the first time I have used all CAPS yet in my diatribe). Instead, I think any two consenting adults over 18 should be given civil union certificates, which grant specific property and tax priviledges and rights. I think marriage should be the sole domain of religious institutions, who clearly have the largest stake in the issue. Under this system, religious individuals would be able to "validate" their union by marrying in a church, but their tax and financial rights would remain in parity with those who do not share their beliefs. I believe marriage is, and should be, the dominion of religion, and that the secular government ought not to interfere. The fact that we grant marriage priviledges, is the same poor judgement that lead to "Under God" in our pledge.
On Education:
As I have mentioned earlier in this post, I think it would be a good idea for the government to sponsor free education through a doctoral certificate. I think that these institutions do not necessarily need to be publicly run, and in fact I think government should encourage private enterprise to train and educate their own workforce. I think a new government program should be created to encourage high school graduates to seek corporate or public sponsors, who share the burden of paying for education in exchange for an agreement of service from the individual. Essentially a system like the military, but without all the bombs and guns. The military, in fact, is an example of a very successful educational enterprise, controlled almost completely by the federal government. I should mention that I think vouchers are a bad idea, because there is no mandate for private schools to cap their tuiton rates, or increase enrollment, which can lead to disenfranchised students while lining the pockets of the private sector.
On Environment:
I think environmental protection is in the public interest, but I also believe that corporations need to have some limited access to natural resources. In the case of ANWR, I think that some drilling should be allowed, but only after extensive environmental review. I believe that corporations should be encouraged and mandated to extend environmental protection, both for the public and natural good. Unfortunately, this means often crude policies must be adopted. Perhaps corporations should be expected to provide new habitat for displaced species, and/or fined heavily if industry leads to environmental or natural decline.
End of Part I.
I have realized that politics is a big topic, and for now at least, I need to give it a rest. I will try to address other pressing issues soon!
-->Rascilon<--
