They have an interesting bit on a local candidate running for President. He won't get elected, nor even heard of, but he does have some interesting ideas on some political subjects. I have cut and pasted the parts I want to comment on, as I feel they are relevant and hit many areas of current campaign issues. My discussion in red.
What's all this got to do with presidential politics, you say? Everything! Because Frank Moore recently declared his candidacy for President of the United States. He even started his own political party, "The Just Makes Sense Party," and chose as his running mate sex activist Dr. Susan Block.
A sex activist? Common that's an unfair advantage in the Male 18-100 demographic. LOL
To legitimately compare Frank Moore to the other candidates we'll visit later today, let's take his campaign seriously and see where he stands on the issues. Luckily, he has published a fairly comprehensive platform on his campaign Web site. It turns out that Moore has some very creative ideas that totally overturn the outdated concept of a left/right divide in political thinking. Here are a few highlights which I find particularly intriguing:• "I'll do away with welfare and social security. Instead, every American will receive a minimum income of $1,000 a month."
This is actually an interesting Idea. I wonder how the math would work out. It might be cheaper. I would make it a voting adult of 18 or over.
I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote the above. This is purely a socialist act. The redistribution of wealth. I would earn, due to the number of people in my family, almost twice as much per month as I do now, why would I go to work? This would just promote laziness and decrease productivity. It would punish those willing to create an income to be taxed, while encouraging those willing to take the easy ride.
• "Government should leave marriage to churches. Instead, any two or more adults who have been living together for at least 2 years should be able to register as a 'family.'"
Another interesting idea. I have little to say, I think the whole Gay Marriage issue is a red herring and smoke screen used by politicians to distract us from other issues. The Gov should stay out of my bedroom, my religion, and my personal values.
• "An individual taxpayer will be able to direct her taxes to what functions she wants to support. But corporate taxpayers should not have this option."
I agree on principle, but believe it is wishful thinking. It would be neat to see what the American people would not wish to pay for, but how would you keep someone from not using the infrastructure if they don't want to pay for it with taxes? How about national defence? Sorry, can't protect you, you didn't help pay my wages for being a soldier.
• "All businesses selling their products in the U.S. will have to certify that their products were manufactured in accordance with this country's labor, wage, environmental, and safety laws."
Ok, this one is pointless. Most of it is already covered under current laws, and from what I understand a lot of other countries have more stringent Environmental and Safety Laws. So, would American Companies be required to do the same for countries they sell too? I understand a lot of people get angry when an American business goes to another country for cheaper labor, therefore giving Americans cheaper prices and higher unemployment. So if your upset over that, I hope your willing to pay more for more employment. Now if your just against Big Business using cheap labor because those poor people work hard for so little, how would you feel if you took away their wages and employment by making it less cost effective for American businesses to use them? Sometimes working for pennies a day is better than subsistence farming, especially when you don't own a farm. Are slave wages better than no wages when you need to feed your family?
• "The use of drugs should be legalized and taxed. Pot and spirits should be sold over the counter to adults only. Tobacco and other addictive drugs should be sold by prescription only."
Interesting phrasing and subject. First, spirits are highly addictive, and one of our largest health and welfare issues (AA came way before NA). Second, I find it funny that Pot Users provide many of the same arguments Tobacco Users were using 50 years ago. I also don't believe it is not addicting. I will believe it is not addicting when a daily user stops using it forever without ever wanting to take another tote. I know people that only drink on New Years Eve, and only smoke cigars during Annual Training, I believe addiction is a disease. Now, that does not mean I am against legalizing pot, go ahead, I would rather tax it then pay for the prosecution of someone using or selling it. I do not believe it is anymore dangerous that tobacco or spirits.
• "The President should have a line veto. But the Congress can over-turn this line veto by a simple majority. Also bills should be limited to 5 pages in length and/or limited to one subject."
100% Agree
• "Prisons should be only for violent or otherwise dangerous criminals. Prisons should be a part of the health and educational system and should include drug rehab programs."
Please define violent and dangerous. Is speeding a "lockup" offense? I mean it is dangerous to you and others. Is a non-armed note carrying bank robber more or less violent and dangerous that a con man using the Internet to bilk the elderly out of their retirement funds? Should either be incarcerated? How about repeat non-violent offenders?
Funny thing about prisons and health, education, and rehab, is that most have it available, but as Americans we cannot force people to use them. They can be incentives like reduced sentences for completing a GED, or the return of privileges for attending rehab or AA, but you cannot force someone to do these if they don't want to, nor can you force them to use any to their advantage.
Others of his positions are admirable in principle, but seem overly optimistic in that they're simply unaffordable:
• "We will have universal prenatal-to-the-grave health care and universal free education with equal access."
Ok, yes we have to do something about the cost of health care, insurance, and education. But allowing the government that brought you FEMA, and/or has an approval rating below 30% to decided about how these issues are controlled is ridiculous. How would this effect the Abortion issue? The Stem Cell Issue? Your freedom of choice? How about evolution versus intelligent design in classrooms? Sex education? Or, progressive versus Conservative teachers, are we going to control curriculum of colleges? I have only heard one good argument for Universal Health Care, and that was it could boost the economy by reducing the need for small businesses to provide health insurance for employees. I wonder if the tax increase would counteract the benefit? education should be a local issue. Insurance is a over litigation issue. I have no idea about health care, but government controlled seems dangerous to me.
• "Public mass transit will be free, 24/7, and reliable."
Bullshit, another local issue that should not be federally controlled. I agree with Ron Paul on this one, airline security should be a responsibility of the Airline Companies, and not the government. Likewise, cost and reliability of mass transit should be the responsibility of private companies that will loose contracts and money if they don't perform.
• "We will encourage electric cars, fast trains, clean sustainable decentralized energy generators."
Great Ideas! How about this, I am for local government control of utilities (water, electricity), cable, Internet, and phone. I'll have more on this for later, but for now I believe these should be private companies provided government contracts of a 1 year length.
As for foreign affairs and national defense, Moore seems to be very much an old-school peacenik:
• "I'll cut the military budget by at least half."
No way, this always hurts the soldiers, never the real problem of over spending on military equipment. Most of the junior enlisted are paid at the poverty level, and would be unable to support themselves without the housing, food, and care provided by the military. Salaries for the upper ranks are not competitive with civilian occupations requiring the same experience and education. How would cutting these help anyone?
• "I will destroy 10 percent of our nuclear weapons each year to reverse the nuclear arms race."
No problems here
• "We will stop giving/selling arms to other countries. All private arms sales should be illegal."
LOL, yeah sure that will work. How about military construction equipment?
• "I will bring the troops home from Iraq immediately."
I love this, and then what? Anyone? 1 Step planning got us into this, it is not going to get us out.
Though in an interview he declared that he will support an independent Israel, alongside a new Palestinian state -- a position pretty much identical to that of the Bush administration:
• "I'll work for a sustainable Israel and sustainable Palestine with the civil and human rights insured for all the inhabitants of both nations. In other words, my policies would be even-handed. "
No issues here
In the same interview, after discussing his anti-militaristic policies, he added this intriguing and dire warning to America's enemies:
• "But after saying all this, I am quite able and willing to confront acts of insanity with the unexpected which will be extremely effective!"
Like what and how? You reduced military funding, opened the prisons, and domesticated the society by paying us 1K for breathing. What could you do? Start a pie trowing contest?
No comments:
Post a Comment