My stance on the issues

I realized the other day that I may not be living up to my goal of consistency as well as I could be.  I’ve always tried to abstain from negativity and instead focus on solutions, and my most recent blog entry regarding the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors mentioned that an ideology based solely on what one is against will never find traction.  Yet, my entire blog has been dedicated to those solutions and ideas of which I am against. An effort in mild hypocrisy, to say the least.

I like to think my mantra, if I had one, would probably be something like, “I do not tell others why they are wrong; instead, tell them why I am right.”  Needless to say, I haven’t lived up to this ideology with this blog, and it’s time to change that.

If I were elected president tomorrow, my policies would likely be as follows:

Immigration

My first move would be to try to abolish Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship.  As we’ve seen since its inception, nothing good has come of it — instead of allowing us to easily handle the illegal immigration problem, we are forced into a corner because families are torn apart when illegal immigrants are deported but their children are not.

Our border with Mexico would become heavily regulated and monitored.  Nobody would get in or out without the United States government knowing about it.  If needed, a wall would be erected.

All illegal immigrants found in the U.S. would either be deported or slammed with heavy fines and a catch-up on their taxes.  For example, if a family entered the country illegally in 2008 but weren’t caught until 2012, they would be required to pay back taxes for four years or face immediate deportation.

Any illegal immigrants arrested for any crime would immediately be deported back to their country of origin — no questions asked.  Some say this will cost more than imprisonment, but sometimes the principle behind the act is more important.  Besides, with a strong border, this will only be a temporary problem.

Despite my harsh view on illegal immigration, I do believe a reasonable path to immigration should be offered.  Those who wish to become citizens must be offered some type of visa while they study our laws, history, and customs.  However, if they do not become a citizen within a certain timeframe (say, two years), they should be deported.

Our attention to the Canadian border should not be dissuaded by the focus on the Mexican border.  I don’t think a wall is needed, but terrorists may think it’s easier to enter from the north if there aren’t any walls.  I would pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and place them at our borders, including Canada’s.

Social Security (Medicare/Medicaid)

These government programs would be abolished almost immediately.  The U.S. government has not kept its promise in leaving this investment alone.  Instead, it has dipped its hand into it, withdrawn from it, and perverted its original intent.  I’m not saying it was a bad idea; I’m saying it was a bad idea to entrust it to the government.

I wouldn’t even try to offer a plan to privatize it.  Under my administration, this program would disappear.  A private corporation or individual could pick it up if so desired, but the government would no longer play a part in people’s investments.

Executive Agencies

The United States’ executive agencies, which are formed by the president, are overused and wasteful.  My administration would take a close look at many of these agencies, determine which ones weren’t contributing to the success of America, and cut them.  The Department of Education is a prime example.  It has thrown money at America’s schools, providing incentive to rich communities while demotivating the poor, and has accomplished nothing.  Instead of throwing money at an agency (which in turn throws money to states), any taxes gained for the purpose of education would be divvied out to the states based on population.  Ideally, no money would be given to the states, and they would regulate education themselves.

Abortion

The federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion.  The states should determine their approach on abortion.

War on Drugs

There should be no war on drugs at a federal level.  This is another state issue.  Any taxes levied for the purpose of countering drug use should be given to the states, in which they can more appropriately decide what’s best for them and how to spend it.

If I could not persuade the remainder of the federal government to discontinue its war on drugs, I would at least send the money to schools to educate children on the dangers of drugs.  Money spent on removing drug runners and leaders only results in more drug runners and leaders.

Health Care

The federal government has no place in providing or forcing citizens to purchase health care.  No such power is given in the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause hardly applies.

That being said, it is not unconstitutional for states to draft their own health care laws or offer a public option, and I would make no effort to restrain them from doing so.

Homeland Security

The PATRIOT Act would be immediately abolished.  TSA would be removed from airports, but the funds originally given to them would be appropriated to these airports to fund their own security.  I would likely make it mandatory to have security at airports, and while I would enforce moderate regulation, I would not send government agents to perform security checks.

Gun Control

I believe that the right to own a firearm is God-given and inalienable.  However, I do see the reasoning behind restricting incredibly effective weaponry such as assault rifles and machine guns.  Class III licenses would still exist as well as background checks.  However, restrictions would be no different from one area to the next.

I would also ensure that no state’s attempt to subvert this right would go unnoticed or unpunished.  Inner city citizens have every right to defend themselves as those living in rural areas.  Any bans on handguns would be immediately lifted.

Jobs/Economy

If it hasn’t been obvious, I believe the federal government is not a source of job creation.  My focus would be the removal of many government jobs, sending those who lose theirs out into the “real world” to produce real goods or services.

I would provide incentives for manufacturing in the U.S.  Green jobs would take no priority over other jobs, and the federal government would provide no subsidization of such jobs.  They have not been proven to be efficient, and as such do nothing to help the economy or job creation.  Besides, we remember what happened with Obama’s support and funding of Solyndra.  Taxpayers’ money funded bankruptcy.  That wouldn’t happen under my administration.

I believe the best way to “fix” the economy is to allow the free market to operation with minimal regulation.  Naturally, some regulation is needed to ensure an even playing field (i.e. antitrust laws and monopoly laws are some of the most important to date), but I believe an administration friendly to U.S. businesses is nothing if not helpful.

Church and the State

Laws preventing judges from posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses are in direct violation of the First Amendment.  That being said, laws preventing judges from posting quotes from the Koran in their courthouses are in direct violation as well.

Separation of church and state is important, but we must also be careful to avoid approaching this idea with overzealous energy.  Too much separation ensures the violation of free speech, but not enough results in the propagation of one religion over another.

Naturally, there are many more issues that a president would need to think about and act upon.  But these are typically the issues that determine who gets voted in.  I think taking proactive steps to remove the government’s role in individual lives is best since it is inherently inefficient, and that moving more toward a capitalistic free market that allows success and failure (i.e. no Wall Street bailouts) is the best way to create a level playing field for all Americans.

My core value is freedom, which all Americans deserve, whether they truly understand what it is or not.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “My stance on the issues

  1. Well Bro I can agree with all but one subject. Gun control. Why would you give all this freedom but then take away an effective way of defending it?

    Here are my reasons for thinking this way-
    1. Any gun control just takes away weapons from the law-abiding citizens and gives them to the criminals. You cannot stop the sales of automatic and other heavy weapons regardless of imposed laws (think of the effectiveness of the drug war in this instance).

    2. Having been trained to fire automatic and heavy weapons and can tell you it takes discipline to use effectively. But I was more heavily trained on semi-auto and I can kill far more people with an semi-auto weapon. The automatic weapon only works for four missions, 1. Fire suppression, 2. Close Quarter Combat, 3. Fire team support, and 4. Scaring ignorant people. Spray and pray way of shooting will not kill very many people (regardless of what the movies say). So if you want to out law any type of “incredibly effective weaponry” where do we start? That retired trained soldier that can hit a gnat from 100 meters away?

    3. As far as Background checks. The government has no business to know what of my property I decide to sell. That is treating me as a criminal even though I did nothing wrong. If I’m a criminal proven though court then treat me as such.

    In conclusion I believe that the best way to keep people safe from guns is to educate the public about gun safety not take away certain guns because they look or sound scary.

    I hope this will give you something to think about. Keep writing bro I enjoy it.

    • Hey bro! Good points. It’s taken me WAY too long to respond. I’ll address these point-by-point:

      1. I can agree with this, but we have to think about “control” across the whole spectrum. We require special licenses for commercial drivers, so maybe a middle ground can be met in which those with special permits can obtain certain types of weaponry. Sometimes “gun control” is interchangeably used with “gun restrictions”, and it shouldn’t be — we have the liberals to thank for that one. Instead, it should be considered “gun licensing”, in which we treat it in a similar manner to being licensed to drive a car.

      But I think what you’re touching on is the fact that gun rights are laid out specifically in the Constitution. The right to drive isn’t (which makes sense, given the time period in which the Constitution was written). But I think the right to drive is given by the States, laid out in Amendment X. So for once, our federal government has it right.

      Sorry, I digress. Do you agree that there can be a compromise with licensing?

      2. I would argue that “incredibly effective weaponry” is anything that has the capability to kill a large number of people at once. I admit I need to rethink my stance on this because, as you stated, assault rifles don’t necessarily fall under this definition. Grenades and nuclear weapons do, though. So there would need to be a line drawn somewhere, and it could possibly be aided with the use of restrictions (as I mentioned in my original post). Restrictions being licenses.

      But how do we determine what needs to be licensed and what constitutes “incredibly effective weaponry”? I’m not sure, but I can tell you one thing — I don’t want government determining this.

      3. I want to concede this point, but I can’t. In a perfect world, no background checks would be required for those who wish to purchase a firearm. (Then again, in a perfect world we wouldn’t need guns, haha!)

      But — does this mean those who are guilty of past violent crimes should be given a free pass to buy a gun? I’m sorry, but if we return to the driving analogy, you only have so many points on your driver’s license. Once you are penalized enough, you lose it — should and COULD we implement something like this for guns? Or do you suggest we give everybody a free pass to buy whenever they want, regardless of their past actions?

      Looking forward to your responses, bro!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s