Prior to my looking at the third-party candidates and reviewing them I am going to quickly describe my views so my reader(s) know from what direction I cast my gaze. I doubt this will be all encompassing (and I am sure it will be too long, certainly for my wife), but should serve to give a bit of a flavor. I haven’t been shy about my political leanings, so regular reader(s) probably won’t find much surprising. My goal with each section is to state my ‘were I in charge’ desires, then the sorts of things I would like to see in a candidate’s speech/writing that would engender my support. (I am too lazy to search through my archives (wow! 670 posts up to this point!) and try to find previous posts to link. Besides here I also have some maunderings at the Book of Keith.)
Taxes
I firmly believe that corporate taxes are a burden to society. Corporations simply pass the cost of taxes onto their customers, so really all corporate taxes do is hide the true cost of taxes to the consumer. Worse, in my mind as an entrepreneur, large companies game the system and reduce their taxes thus creating an unfair, un-level playing field where they have excess profits (or lower margins) that keep smaller competitors from being a threat. I believe that taxes should be highly visible, but accept the reality that people should not have the true rate waved in their faces. Thus, I would go with a much higher sales tax, but require that to be built into the advertised price so that no one would get an unexpected surprise when they bought something. Much like how gasoline prices are advertised at their final (tax included) price.
Regarding income tax, a sales tax is regressive in that people who make a lot of money and don’t spend it, don’t pay any taxes. Because I firmly believe that the wealthy have a disproportionate obligation to support their society, I believe in a progressive income tax system (that _must_ be indexed for inflation so that middle class do not wind up as ‘rich’ like the stupid AMT). In my consideration I believe a 40% tax at the highest levels is a reasonable exchange for a highly functional society with a vast robust economy. I believe that the poor should not have income taxes because they already pay a disproportionate amount of their income as sales and payroll taxes. Also, _all_ income should be taxed at the exact same rate and I also like the idea that deductions (because I feel there are some legitimate reasons to incentivize people with lower taxes for certain behavioral changes) be capped at an inflation adjusted figure (perhaps customized to the local economy, so someone in New York City would have higher deductions than someone with the same income in, say, Kansas).
Clearly there won’t be such radical changes like this anytime soon, but at a minimum would like to see a candidate support _increased_ taxes on those who can afford to pay them, not decreased taxes. I have a very strong moral objection to anyone with higher income paying a lower rate of taxes than I do and I do not feel overtaxed (though, like everyone else, I complain about the taxes I pay). Capping deductions is also something I would like to see as well as a permanent removal of the idiotic AMT. We need to eliminate as much as possible the loopholes and special deductions that apply only to the wealthy (individuals and corporations) and ensure a level playing field.
Civil Liberties
I believe there should be a nation-wide picture identification requirement. I tend to get a bit creepy to the average person in what I consider OK for our government to know. The idea that people should be able to live in our society without any identification is something I just don’t understand. I have no problem with there being an official, nation-wide fingerprint, iris, DNA, etc., registry database. I think the idea that people should be free to commit crimes until caught is rather idiotic. If you commit a crime the investigators should be able to compare their evidence with every person living and dead in our country in seconds (right out in the field). That this is somehow an invasion of privacy is something I don’t quite understand.
My focus would instead be on working toward a more fair (or less unfair) justice system. I strongly object to the ‘war on drugs’ and consider it a huge waste of resources. I have written earlier about some middle ground between our current idiocy and full legalization and favor that approach. Decriminalize things that don’t have any real impact on society (like prostitution) and wham, bam, thank you mam, we wind up with a whole lot fewer criminals, our courts get cleared up and our police and prosecutors can focus on crimes that actually have a negative impact on society (like driving under the influence, why do those people continually get passes?).
I don’t expect a nation-wide ID system soon, but I do think that a combined driver’s license system makes a lot of sense. By eliminating people’s ability to get a license in multiple states (what conceivable legal reason is there for that?) and standardizing ID, there is a pathway forward toward. I would like to see a candidate come out against the war on drugs and the decriminalization of things like prostitution, but given the prison-industrial complex winding down the prison system has to happen gradually to keep from crashing the economy.
Abortion/Contraception
I am a misanthropist so see absolutely no reason to bring unwanted babies into this world. I think that our (eroding by the minute) nation-wide legal right for abortion is the right way forward and do not think that support for making this a state-by-state approach is wise. The women who need this service the most are those who are most likely to be trapped in a state that decided to make it illegal. I support the idea that contraception should be readily available (for boys and girls!) and that sex education should educate about sex, not abstinence. I believe that an informed population makes better decisions so girls and boys who know exactly how sex happens and how to protect against diseases and pregnancy will be more likely to take the appropriate steps to avoid those consequences.
At a minimum I would want to see a candidate support for leaving Roe v Wade alone and reversing the erosion that has been happening the last couple of decades.
Immigration
I believe there should be no limitations on immigration. I strongly believe that any foreign student who gets a graduate degree should be greeted as they come down the aisle with citizenship papers and tickets to fly their family members here. Creating barriers to immigration is no different from the war on drugs, it creates criminals out of people who are not doing anything to harm society. Indeed, those who choose to immigrate, in my opinion, tend to be the best, brightest and most entrepreneurial of the population in their home country and thus bring up our nation with their arrival.
I don’t expect the barriers to come down immediately, but I would expect any candidate to support those ideals and not (as Obama has done more than Bush did) specifically target the current illegals.
Energy
I think that current petro fuels should be used as long as they are cheaper than alternatives, but I also believe that there should be a tax on them that is used to fund efforts to reduce use. I believe that the best ‘bang for the buck’ is to make our consumption a lot lower (our current _rate_ of consumption is totally unsustainable in any sort of physical sense, so at some point we need to cut back; we can do it in a controlled method or via chaos when the fossil fuels run out) which is going to help when we do get viable alternatives (which I firmly believe are possible and practical, but not until the economic cost of petro versions reach around $10/gallon of gasoline equivalent). The government should not be investing in specific companies (i.e., “picking winners”), it should be providing demand for industries by subsidizing purchases of the product. By providing demand the government allows the marketplace to decide the most efficient method of achieving a given end and helps to reduce the incentive for corruption. At a minimum I would want a candidate to talk about reducing the incentives to petro-fuel companies and to use those incentives to reduce demand instead.
Environment
Our society must assign the costs of all consequences to the source of those consequences. Meaning that waste produced cannot be put into the environment for free, it must have costs associated with it. When a company dumps waste into the environment it is society that suffers, so this is not a situation like the war on drugs. Society must shoulder the burden of enforcing environmental laws and that cost must also be added onto the direct environmental costs of the waste. I believe, with this as incentive, that most ‘waste’ would be seen as a valuable raw material to someone, somewhere, and recycling would increase. I believe this extends to the use of landfills, we should not be creating problems for our heirs to deal with and should resolve all waste issues directly. At a minimum I would want to see a candidate support the EPA and its regulations. Science must drive regulation, not lobbying.
Military/Foreign Interests
Our military is unnecessarily large and a huge drain on our economy and society. We could cut it by 90% and _still_ have the strongest defense in the world (and still be several times stronger than any other country!). The US needs to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, after all, it is that meddling that lead to 9/11. I would like to see any candidate propose to immediately eliminate our involvement in our countries (I particularly abhor our drone program), but winding back the military industrial complex has to happen gradually since it is such a pivotal part of our economy.
FED/Finance
I believe ‘too big to fail’ means unequivocally that entity needs to be broken up. I believe if your organization was kept solvent by taxpayer dollars that executive compensation should be more in line with executive compensation of government employees. No executive should get bonuses based on tax payer dollars, thus, since all money is fungible, that means that no executives get bonuses before the taxpayer monies are repaid and for some time period afterwards. If this causes a massive loss of senior executives at these companies, I would consider that an excellent side effect. I think that the FED (Federal Reserve Bank) should be ‘nationalized’ (I didn’t realize it _wasn’t_ part of the government until a few months ago, did you?) and should be operated by government executives and not by for-profit financial entities. A Constitutional amendment to ensure that the control of the nation’s economy stay in the hands of government executives is clearly necessary.
At a minimum I would want to see a strong focus on eliminating the sources of the problems that lead to the collapse (they are manifold and primarily due to deregulation). There will be huge resistance from the finance leaders and any efforts of a President would be massively diluted by Congress and lobbyists, but I would want to see an espoused commitment to seeing this sort of direction taken.
Education/Student Loans
I believe a new financial crises is in the offing due to the massive amount of securitized student loans that are outstanding and are never going to be paid. I believe this is a huge and unsustainable burden on our society and believe that the companies that made these loans should be forced to absorb them. Student loans should be bankrupt-able/re-organizable like any other debt. I believe that state colleges and universities should be almost fully funded by the state and federal government, the primary cost of education should be room, board and lost wages. While the latter part (‘free’ education) is not something I expect any time soon, I would like to see a candidate support a path to reverse the student loan bankrupt-ability. If students can renege on those obligations through bankruptcy, lenders will be a lot more likely to evaluate their ability to pay.
Healthcare
I strongly favor the idea of universal health care. I doubt there is any political will in the US to pursue it, but I would like to see a candidate support the idea.
Jobs/Infrastructure Bank
I would like to see the government offer long-term and stable funding for infrastructure maintenance and improvements. I see the best way to do this is to offer government-backed infrastructure bonds that, much like Freddie and Fannie guarantee mortgage loans (though without the astronomical executive compensation and profit motive!), the government could access the several trillion dollars a year that are necessary to rehabilitate our infrastructure. Given today’s interest rates, I fully believe that just the bare stimulus of flooding the market with money will repay interest and principle on the debt and the massive shot in the arm to society by having modern infrastructure will just be a huge bonus. Based on my research there is little keeping the President from making something like this happen, so it is something I would want a candidate to fully support.
