Thomas Keister for President 2016
Campaign Platform
1.0 Individual Liberty
1.1 Individual Rights
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. (1)
Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. (1)
I am in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18. If the law is to consider a person an adult at 18 years of age, then that person should be availed of all the rights of adulthood, one of which is the ability to determine for one’s self if they want to drink.
1.2 Privacy
Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. (1)
The Patriot Act has created a government the size and scope of which had previously only been the territory of science fiction writers. What Congress did to the American people was the equivalent of telling them the fight is rigged, then making them buy the pay-per-view anyway. This system of alphabet departments and programs, including mass surveillance of American citizens, has been an expensively wasteful abuse of time, resources, money, and the rights of the American people.
Through programs like Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the federal government collects and stores data showing your phone and Internet usage. (2) For some reason this is information the government thinks it needs. Whether or not you have been to a website about guns, or what organizations you may belong to, check out, or follow online. They have absolutely no reason or business having any of that data, yet there they are with it.
Transparency in Government
As we have seen, however, transparency is a great thing for our elected officials to praise and promise us, until we start asking for it.
Transparency begins with simplicity, and I think we call all agree that means making legislation easier for all parties involved. Our federal government should not be requiring bills the size of John Grisham novels for each and every thing they think will make everything all better in the end. We should never, ever be told to read a bill after it passes. If proposed legislation cannot spell out the particulars in 20 pages, then I would say it is not ready for prime time, or it needs to be split into separate pieces of legislation.
Any proposed legislation should, at the very least, include what it wants to accomplish, how it will be funded, and perhaps most importantly when the bill will end, should it accomplish its intended goal. The legislative goals and the legislation our congress produces should not be auto-set to run on forever.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. (1)
We’ve heard it before, and a billion times at that- government does not belong in the bedroom. If government was going to be allowed into the regulation of marriage at any level, it should just be to take your fifty bucks, stamp your marriage license, and then hope for the best while moving on to the next person in line.
That our federal government feels having a rubber stamp and a stack of blank licenses entitle them to say under what circumstances a marriage can occur is arrogant imposition of a value set upon the people, whether or not the value set aligns with beliefs of some people. I cannot say much for a value set that has to be forced on any part of a population, let alone those who back the forced application of those values.
It is not the responsibility of our federal government to decide who should be able to marry whom, nor should they have the authority to make this issue their responsibility. The rights and ability to get married should be left to the people wishing to get married and their religious institutions, if any.
There should be absolutely no distinction made between single and married people, for the purposes of filing taxes. Every individual should file taxes under one set of rules. All marital decisions, such as healthcare decisions, division of or inheritance of assets, and custody matters with children, for example, should be codified in prenuptial agreements, last wills and testament, or other appropriate civil documents.
Marriage is a secular institution that should not be subject to regulation by proxy via religious objections. Religious institutions are free not to marry same-sex couples if they wish, but they should not be allowed to help set the course for marriage law in this country.
Marriage is an internationally-recognized human right for all people, and should be no different in the United States. The Due Process Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution state no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state “shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man (Loving v. Virginia) and that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause (Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFluer). Over the last hundred plus years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is a fundamental right for all. (3)
Outside of issuing marriage licenses, the government’s only role in marriage should be exactly what it is now- enforcing child support, fair child custody, and visitation for parents in the event the marriage is dissolved. The protection of the rights of the children and of the individual parents would remain, and rightfully so, the only proper function of government in marriage.
In our day and age, the idea gay couples are being barred from marriage, and the rights and benefits included with, is discrimination, the purest and most simple kind. That we as a nation allow this discrimination to continue is outrageous and not the sign of a modern, civilized, and most importantly, equal society.
I, therefore, favor a federal law legalizing gay marriage in the United States. As this is an issue of civil rights, this is an issue that cannot be left to the individual states for determination.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. (1)
This is an issue that, to me, seems to be typical of government-as-usual involvement in social policy. Just as people with three divorces to their credit crow about the sanctity of marriage, why shouldn’t people with little to no personal experience or stake in the matter crow about what a woman can choose to do and why she is choosing to do so with her body? The fact of the matter is simple. It is an individual decision based on individual circumstances, and if men could get pregnant, not only would abortion be legal, but you could get one at a drive-thru with a side of fries.
1.5 Personal Expression, Communication, & Internet Issues
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. (1)
Internet Issues
I do not support the taxing of Internet sales. The ability of the Internet to grow as a marketplace has been largely in part due to the relatively tax-free nature of business conducted online. Several states, my own state of Indiana included, were able to attract companies like Amazon and better than minimum wage jobs in part due to tax breaks such as not instituting an Internet sales tax. This is as good an example as any of something that isn’t broken, therefore should not be fixed.
I oppose FCC rules that would regulate content, pricing of services, and Internet speeds, as well as opposing any censoring of political speech online, and believe that online gambling should be legal for adults.
Net Neutrality
Net neutrality is the regulatory concept which eliminates any type of discrimination in the transmission and access of content on the Internet, based on the principle that websites which provide content and users who access this content are equal, and nobody should be given preferential treatment at the cost of others. Net neutrality is based on the open marketplace principle, so the concept exists and thrives. This is why everyone gets equal access to the Internet. There’s no set of regulations or any legislation in charge of the Internet, more or less an honor system that has stood since day one.
Net neutrality is important to the functioning of the Internet as a marketplace by enabling competition in the market and giving the consumer a larger variety of options for service. The competition for those customers will force the service providers to develop their best, which not only increases the options available, but increases the quality of those options.
1.6 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. (1)
Our nation is flat being buried under a ton of law. Every year, year after year, hundreds of new laws go into effect at state and federal levels. Hundreds of laws that have nothing to do with the constitutionally mandated operation of the nation, and create convenient ways for government to spend more money and take money, property, and/or eventually the freedom of the individual themselves.
Take for example a quote taken from Champaign County (Illinois) Sheriff Dan Walsh, as the state began to examine criminal justice reform in early 2015: "When I started practicing law in 1979, the (state) Revised Statutes were four and then five books that occupied about 14 inches of shelf space. The current (statute books) now occupies almost two feet of shelf space and is nine books. Is society really better off with all these laws than we were in 1979? I don't think so." (4)
Four more volumes of statutes in not even forty years? If this isn’t proof of the runaway size and scope of government in its current state, I don’t know what is. And that’s just one state. Granted, it’s one of the most poorly run states in the country, but they are hardly an exception to the norm.
Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, but at what point did our lawmakers become ignorant of the whole point of the exercise of governance? Governing the United States is not a competition, yet the name of the game seems to be seeing how much legislation one can introduce, sponsor, or pass before it’s all said and done. It’s egotistical, and it has bankrupt this country, and in more ways than just financially.
The due process of law that America guarantees demands that the legislatures have to write laws that are clear enough for individuals and government officials to know in advance exactly what the law states.
Criminal Justice Reform
To break the cycle of recidivism, the overcrowding it creates in our correctional system, and the need for a private correctional industry, comprehensive criminal justice reform must include renewed focus on restructuring sentencing guidelines for lower-level and non-violent crimes, treatment for substance abusers and those with mental health issues, and strengthening the supervisory abilities of probation and parole officials. (5)
These reforms cannot just be for the benefit of the adult offender, however. Many states have undertaken reforms of their juvenile justice systems in the wake of mistreatment, most often connected to juvenile offenders being housed with adults. These programs have kept youth out of jail, reduced recidivism rates, and did so at a lower cost without compromising the safety of the public. (6)
Drug policy
The writing is not only on the wall on the nation’s attitudes toward marijuana, but all that writing is starting to get bigger. If someone had told me before the 2012 Presidential election there would be four states with legalized recreational marijuana laws, and five more considering it by the next Presidential election cycle, I would have promptly asked them to pass whatever they were smoking, because that would have certainly sounded righteous. In just a matter of four years, we could possibly travel from pipe dream to nearly a fifth of the country having legalized marijuana.
The American voters are starting to speak on marijuana, and it is to say perhaps it is time to grow up, reexamine some of the issues involved with the largely failed War on Drugs, and shed the only harmless enemy out of the bunch.
Despite hundreds of thousands of arrests, convictions, draconian sentences, fines, and asset and property forfeiture, people still smoking marijuana.
Decades’ worth of talking points, commercials, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on education, interdiction, prevention, and eradication, and people are still smoking marijuana. The politics of fear and “reefer madness” rhetoric may still draw followers, but it has been largely debunked by science, by medicine (most recently including the United States Surgeon General), and now in increasing numbers by the people themselves.
Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are regulated by the United States Food & Drug Administration, and Marijuana has proven medical benefits for a variety of illnesses and conditions, including cancer and AIDS.
The prohibition of something must be weighed against the rights of the society and the loss of freedom incurred with that prohibition. The prohibition of marijuana is an intrusion on our individual freedom of choice. It is illogical and a waste of governmental resources to dictate the extent to which people can willingly expose themselves to potential harm from the use of marijuana.
Law enforcement itself would also benefit from legalization. The rate of marijuana arrests first grew, then snowballed, then became a runaway train. The vast majority of arrests are not for growing or selling, but for possession. This has gone well beyond a failed approach, clogging our court systems and overcrowding our prison systems, in some cases necessitating the release of violent offenders to make room for non-violent marijuana offenders serving mandatory sentences.
Drug arrests and convictions of youth for marijuana offenses can often carry penalties that create lifelong consequences or obstacles. If admitting you not only tried marijuana, but inhaled is no longer a bar to be President of the United States, then why should it be a bar to do anything else in this country?
A legalization policy would mean a reduction in crime, notably property crime. This reduction, along with the elimination of most marijuana offenses would free up court resources, and allow law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes.
Colorado has become an excellent working model of legalization including a taxed retail system. Property crime dropped over 14% and violent crime dipped nearly two and a half percent just in the first three months of legal access alone. (7) In the first year of demand for legal marijuana, 41% of total demand was met by legal recreational sellers, with medical growers and the black market picking up the slack. (8) Eliminating a black market is considered crime reduction.
The fact that in just one year’s time, more than half the black market’s grasp on the marijuana industry gone, replaced by the medical and recreational marijuana industries- regulated, tax paying, legal businesses that have brought none of the moral decay feared by the talking points crowd. Crime reduction, tax revenue, job creation and economic growth- all very compelling arguments for legalization.
Over a full year of legal access, and yet, only 9% of Colorado residents are partaking. 45% of Colorado’s recreational marijuana is sold to out-of-state visitors. (8)
Of course, the primary reason legalization has made it as far as it has- tax revenue, is still an important measure to look at. While the initial estimates of $100 million in tax revenue for Colorado were later lowered to $31 million, this was pretty much a given, seeing as how the system had never been attempted before. The less said about government revenue estimates, the better…As the state acclimates to legalized marijuana, there will be a natural increase in tax revenue, as the legal market forces out more and more of the black market. It should also be noted that tax revenues for marijuana, just with anything else, will eventually peak and then level off to more predictable levels.
Combine these tax revenues with savings in administrative costs related to law enforcement and the judicial process of marijuana crimes, the country’s economic condition will improve, no question.
Beyond retail sale, marijuana is poised to become America’s cash crop. It pretty much is already, even though our federal government has just been slow in figuring that out, and with over 25,000 products that can be made from a cannabis crop (8), the potential is staggering.
An economic effect that has not received a lot of press is the potential of legalized marijuana as a catalyst for revitalization of industrial and commercial areas of cities and towns. The new marijuana industry in Denver is occupying over 4.5 million (and climbing) square feet of real estate, with prices doubling and in some cases tripling. (8)
The mission statement of the United States Marijuana Party is pretty clear:
"WE seek to remove all penalties for adults 18 and over who choose to consume cannabis in a responsible manner."
"We demand an end to the war on productive and otherwise law abiding citizens by the powers that be who claim to protect us."
"We demand the right to use any medication our healthcare providers and we deem fit without government interference."
We demand the release of all people imprisoned on marijuana charges and that their criminal records be expunged. (If records cannot be expunged then legislation to ensure that cannabis users are not discriminated against in the job market, and their right to vote reinstated)
We demand that all property seized in marijuana raids be returned to the rightful owners at once. (Any property that is being currently held should be immediately returned to its rightful owner and any money made thru asset sales (such as a home or vehicle) the proceeds from those sales shall be returned to the rightful owners.)
We demand that our law enforcement officers make more efficient use of our tax dollars and use the resources they have at their disposal to go after violent criminals and crimes that actually have victims.
We demand the right to grow marijuana for personal consumption, just as alcohol can be brewed at home legally and so long that it is not sold it should therefore remain untaxed and unregulated.
Cannabis products produced in a sales/corporate/pharmaceutical environment should be subjected to tax and regulation of its products.
We demand an end to employment drug testing for Marijuana. Only if a person is involved in an incident in a workplace which involves the health or welfare of another should drug testing be allowed.
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self-evident right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds of this earth, and care for the naturally occurring plants thereof, to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such fundamental human rights have been recognized as self-evident, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside and apart from the jurisdictional responsibility of government to regulate commercial endeavors and activities.. And further, that commercial jurisdiction has allowed for the genetic engineering of DNA, seeds and plants and has allowed for the privatizing/patenting and legal protections of such which has left all naturally occurring seeds and plants legally unprotected and physically vulnerable to irreparable genetic modifications from cross pollination contamination with said genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, and that human beings have a naturally endowed right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds and plants of this earth free of genetic modifications stemming from contamination from genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants. (16)
We demand that you stop treating us like second class citizens for consuming something that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and cause numerous deaths each year. Cannabis has never caused one. (9)
The platform is there, and it is sound, and with proof being provided on a daily basis the system can function, there should no longer be a federal obstacle to a state deciding whether or not to implement a medical, recreational, or complete legalization statute.
It would therefore be my intention to push for the repeal of existing federal marijuana law, with the exception of criminal smuggling laws, leaving open the option of using executive action to enact change if Congress proves unwilling to act. The repeal of the majority of federal marijuana law would allow the states, on an individual basis, to determine whether or not this choice would be right for them, and to implement the system they feel would be best to manage it.
1.7 Self-Defense & Gun rights
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. (1)
I oppose gun control initiatives, such as waiting periods, concealed carry laws, restrictions on type or size of guns that private citizens can own, and restrictions that make self-defense difficult. I believe the Second Amendment is clear and establishes an individual right for citizens to own and possess guns.
Private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. (10)
2.0 Economic Liberty
2.1 Economic Policy
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. (1)
In addition to creating a balanced budget with reduced spending across the board, I will veto any bill with expenditures in excess of revenues or any bill containing earmarks.
I support the idea of a constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget.
Ideally, retirement planning would be an individual matter and not subject to government involvement, but realistically, given the size and scope of the Social Security system, this is not going to happen. The system, which never should have been plundered in the first place, can be fixed.
Taxes
I think we’ve heard enough about tax reform. All the talk of tax reform has resulted in a tax code just shy of a bazillion pages. I could have researched and found the real number, but let’s be honest- both are ludicrous.
Throw out the whole mess, and implement the Fair Tax proposal, which would replace the entire federal tax system with a national consumption tax on new goods and services. This would reboot the American economy by spurring savings and investment and creating a continuous influx of cash into the marketplace through the prebate feature. The prebate feature would also go a long way toward addressing the illegal immigration issue, as illegal members of the workforce would have to register to gain the benefit.
By eliminating the corporate tax, one of the highest in the world, American companies would have the capital freed up to start investing in expansion, while international business would start taking an actual serious interest in locating in this country. This expansion would likely include hiring millions of new employees. The Fair Tax revenue could also be used to fund the Medicare and Medicaid programs, rather than relying on payroll taxes.
The argument that the new tax rate would result in less revenue coming in, leading to an increased annual budget deficit, is valid, except for reduced revenue would only lead to an increased deficit if we allowed our current spending levels to remain the same. Producing a balanced budget, which would rein in and reduce spending to responsible levels for programs that fall under the intended purpose of our federal government, may or may not lead to a continued deficit in the short term, but it would be a far more responsible and sustainable long-term framework to address the financial crisis in our country.
2.2 Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve has grown to an entity controlling over four trillion dollars in assets. That is twice the government expenditure for all 50 states. (11)
Obviously, since they have managed to acquire and/or print this astronomical sum of assets both here and abroad, there should be some oversight. Clear and enforceable oversight by Congress of the operations and actions of the Federal Reserve is necessary and well overdue. This oversight should begin first-thing with an audit and a complete review and overhaul of how the Fed does its thing. This overhaul should result in transparency of both the Fed’s operations and lending practices, and perhaps most importantly, end the current practice by the Federal Reserve of printing money and buying debt through quantitative easing.
Quantitative easing is simply printing money to buy debt. The high finance version of writing a bad check to pick up a previous bad check. All quantitative easing has accomplished is inflation and poor investments, conducted under a dubious safety net by our government and others. We need to stop the presses until we start figuring out where all this cash is going, and then the odds are we need to stop letting the cash go to the majority of those places.
2.3 Property & Contract
As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable. (1)
2.4 Environment, Energy & Resources
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. (1)
I support the research and innovation of new forms of energy production, but that is clearly not in the government’s wheelhouse, nor should government take or maintain any position in subsidizing any form of energy. I also support thebuilding of new coal-fired and nuclear power plants, as well as a focusing of federal spending for a crucial overhaul of the nation’s power grid, another critical part of the national infrastructure that has been left to fall apart due to the irresponsibility of government.
2.5 Government Finance & Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. (1)
2.6 Money & Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated and neither profits nor losses are socialized. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws. (1)
2.7 Free Trade, Free-market Capitalism, & Marketplace Freedom
Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise. (1)
2.8 Labor Markets & Labor unions
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain. (1)
I am not entirely dispassionate when it comes to the subject of labor unions. Once upon a time, they represented the best interests of the workers, as well as their right and ability to negotiate better terms of employment. That was then, however, and now we have situations like the “rubber rooms” in New York City, where teachers who are not fit or worse not allowed to be around children sit eight hours a day and do whatever. They can’t teach, the job they were hired to do, but they can’t be fired because of the protections negotiated by their unions. That standard of operation should never be forced upon a business or organization in this country.
2.9 Education
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. (1)
2.10 Health Care
We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. (1)
If the Obama administration has shown us anything, it is that government does not need to be in the health care management game. The costs and hurdles of the health care system in America are severely out of whack, and there must be measures developed to contain costs and allow access without government interventions.
I favor tort reform, and believe fully that reining in the number of absurd or needless lawsuits will go a long way to reducing health care costs, due to the resultant decrease in malpractice and liability premiums for medical practices.
I oppose the Affordable Care Act, and for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being it is neither the government’s role nor do they have the authority to force the American public to buy something under threat of tax penalties or fines.
3.0 Security of Liberty
3.1 Internal Security & Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. (1)
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. (1)
I oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, as I would any bill or measure passed unread, and believe it should be allowed to expire. The Act has tainted our system of jurisprudence, eliminating critical judicial oversights that are supposed to be afforded the people through due process, and ignoring habeas corpus by allowing the detention of individuals without charges.
Eminent Domain
I oppose using eminent domain powers for the benefit of private entities.
States' Rights
As our Federal government continues to assume and take control of matters far outside the scope of the constitutionally mandated constraints on Federal power, the idea of states’ rights is becoming more and more of a novelty. As President, I would restore the proper balance between the branches and divisions of government, keeping the Federal government on Federal government business, and allowing the states to manage their own affairs, the way it was always intended to be done.
3.2 Terrorism
The United States should be safe and protected from terrorism, as should every country on Earth, and we should continue international partnerships to help combat terrorist organizations, but the cost at which we have been pursuing the War on Terror has done little to keep us safe, and has seemingly put us under more threat of attack from our own government, than those who would wish to do our country harm.
I do not believe in nor support the practice of holding persons at Guantanamo Bay or anywhere outside the United States. While the United States should be proactive in efforts to combat and prevent terrorism, the sidestepping of due process whether through the civilian courts or military tribunals damages the overall value of the very protections we take for granted as Americans.
3.3 Military & Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. (1) We should, however, offer “human aid” to those in need, i.e., food, medicine, emergency supplies-not to include military weapons.
Military Policy
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon acting as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service. (1)
We don’t want to appear weak to the rest of the world, but the defense budget of the United States is out of control.
We’ve all seen or heard stories about troops using outdated, irregular, or defective gear, and having subpar conditions, despite billions of dollars to private contractors for just the opposite. Just as with our government, the larger something gets, the more out of control it can become. The United States military has become too big.
The United States should only resort to military action as a final option, and only as provided for in the Constitution. Keeping with that train of thought, as President I would propose a series of defense spending cuts, around 40 percent for starters, to reduce the size of the American military’s footprint across the planet. This would include reducing military presences in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and reducing the current United States nuclear arsenal. Before the chicken hawks and other fans of watching other people fight for them get all up in arms, a reduction of 40 percent would still keep our defense budget within 21st century levels, so it is not like we are retrograding anything. This reduction would merely prove that given definable levels, the United States can still maintain a level of military superiority while not having to do so at an unbearable cost to those being protected in the first place.
3.4 Free Trade & Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. (1)
3.5 Rights & Discrimination
Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free market solutions. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect. (1)
3.6 Representative Government/Campaign Finance
Representative Government
We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government. (1)
Campaign Finance
The only way to ensure across the board campaign finance reform is to begin with 100% transparency and 100% enforcement of the rules governing campaign finance. The people are tired of a system for sale, or at least a system they can’t afford to buy into.
Current individual campaign contribution limits are a great example. An individual may give up to $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or candidate’s campaign committee. (15) The rub is primaries, runoffs, and general elections are all considered separate elections. Fair enough, they are in reality separate, but how can a limit of $2,700 be considered a limit, if that can rise to $8,100 dependent of how the votes tally up? It’s simple- it can’t be a limit, because there are no limits, realistically. With all the loopholes and exemptions and exceptions, is it any wonder that Barack Obama became the first candidate to crack half a billion dollars in fundraising?
Campaign finance reform should begin with allowing a maximum contribution limit of $2,500 per election cycle, whether the contribution is from an individual, a political action committee, or a business or trade concern. While this may not make the system any more affordable to the average citizen, it will gradually reduce the pressure on incumbents (especially rookie incumbents) to fundraise over actually doing what they were elected to do.
I would not support the establishment of a public financing system for federal elections.
I would support efforts to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty. (1)
3.8 Immigration
It may not be most controversial issue out there, but immigration policy is bound to be in a vast majority of Americans’ top fives.
America is a nation of immigrants, and my great-grand father came through Ellis Island just like millions of other people’s parents, grandparents, and so on and so forth. It is not my intention to discount or disparage what people go through or might have gone through to get to this country. Trying to start a new life for yourself or your family in a new country is not something that should be considered criminal at face value. But when it is done criminally, no matter how minor or altruistic, it has to be viewed as a problem in need of a solution.
This is, after all, a nation built on fairness and the rule of law, in addition to being a nation of immigrants. The fairness and rule of law are hand-in-hand concepts, as the laws of the United States are applied and enforced equally and impartially.
There is a system in place, but as with most big government solutions, it has become overwhelmed.
Yet, for all the enforcement- Border Patrol, ICE, ATF, DEA, Coast Guard, National Guard, city, county, state, and local law enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal immigrants that continue to enter our country is enormous.
Getting beyond the whole idea that border protection is not the role of our regular military or reserve branches, a de-escalation of the Drug War would make a major dent in southwestern border violence, which is more often than not cartel-related. As efforts for marijuana legalization continue to evolve and expand on a state-by-state level, I look forward to seeing if legalization among the southwestern states would result in a lowered crime rate at the border. A more stable U.S.-Mexican border is crucial to the efforts to reform immigration policy and reduce the number attempting illegal and often highly dangerous entries into our country.
Currently we spend billions of dollars on all this manpower to presumably guard the border, with minimal success and our next move is to give billions of dollars of public assistance to the illegal immigrants. To accomplish this, obviously, we tax the populace and spend a lot of time promoting a national ID card, because an ID card will go a long way to distracting people from the real issues.
With President Obama’s recent executive order on immigration, the issue has been highlighted, but not addressed. The outrage was, as expected, immediate. The Republicans went on the warpath, introducing legislation to kill the order, and there have been questions raised as to the constitutionality of the order.
The popular accusation, especially from the right, is that President Obama is failing in his duties by failing to enforce immigration law.
And the accusation is just. President Obama is failing to enforce immigration laws. Then again, so did President G.W. Bush, President Clinton, the elder President G.H.W. Bush, and President Reagan, as did the Congresses under their administrations.
So we have two choices laid before us. We can either continue to basically ignore the problem, while spending billions of dollars to safeguard ourselves from the very same problem being ignored. Or, in the weeks leading up to and immediately following an election cycle, something can actually be done in the form of immigration policy reform more grounded in reality, that will achieve the dual goals of turning a stream of illegal workers into legal and taxpaying participants in our economic system and normalizing the millions of illegal immigrants in a beginning of a path to citizenship.
Unlike our current President, and his aforementioned predecessors, I intend to make immigration policy reform a priority of my first term. The important issues this country faces, and the issues the American people want action on should not have to wait in hallways twiddling their thumbs while the President is pursuing a mandate or building a legacy.
Deportation/Amnesty
A popular chorus of anti-immigration circles is “deport ‘em all!” While I have fallen victim to joining in on that chorus a decade or so ago, the fact of the matter is it would be easier and more realistic to build a stairway to heaven than it would be to deport 12 million people, illegal or otherwise.
There should not be, however, any restrictions to law enforcement being able to detain and deport those they find to be in the country illegally through the course of doing their job.
In lieu of an “amnesty,” the illegal immigrants that would then be legally authorized to work can begin formally paying taxes and supporting the systems they are availing themselves of.
This should not be taken as a guarantee or citizenship, but it could be considered an important starting point on a pathway to legal citizenship. If they do not wish to apply for citizenship after a certain period of time, then they can reapply for work authorization. If not, then at that point we can wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors in whatever country, if not their native country, they wind up in next.
There are those who would insist that border security must be improved before the illegal immigrants currently in our country are addressed. That argument might hold even a lick of moisture if it weren’t already for the fact we have been steadily, consistently, and expensively improving out border security for the last twenty years. Hasn’t worked out yet, and I see no reason for any immediate nor long-term success.
I prefer to think the argument that granting amnesty would incentivize future illegal immigration. It might have been trendy at one point to joke that the economy was so bad the illegal immigrants were fleeing back into Mexico. The statistics were even bearing that out. The economy is recovering, however, and the punchlines are starting to reverse course again.
Besides, it’s not like our federal government hasn’t already been incentivizing illegal immigration for the last twenty-five years. Any form of amnesty would be the final stamp of big government approval any future incentivizing would need.
Economics/Economic Impact
For all of the melting pot, nation of immigrants rhetoric that we hear, there is the whole staggering cost factor of illegal immigration. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded services being handed out to a segment of the populace, an illegal segment, as they send billions of dollars to their families in their home countries. While all of this is going on, naturally there will be people and businesses who will choose to get their piece of the pie. It’s a giant web of wealth transfer, and the American taxpayer is the one stuck in the middle, screaming and waiting to be sucked dry.
That is why, as President, I will push for development of immigration policy reform that will:
With these initial reforms, a groundwork can be established for an overhaul and improvement of the immigration process, and the beginning of a process to integrate illegal immigrants into the workplace, removing the “illegal” label, and allowing for more of a participation by immigrants in the society they wish to become a part of.
References
(1) "Libertarian Party Platform." Libertarian Party. Libertarian National Committee, Inc., June 2014. Web. 22 Jan. 2015. <http://www.lp.org/platform>.
(2) Eddington, Patrick G. "Is Big Brother Here for Good?." Cato Institute. N.p., 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. <http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/big-brother-here-good#9C2uUp:ES3>.
(3) "Gay Marriage Pros and Cons." ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://gaymarriage.procon.org/>.
(4) Kacich, Tom. "Criminal justice reform has momentum." The News-Gazette. N.p., 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. <http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-02-15/tom-kacich-criminal-justice-reform-has-momentum.html>.
(5) Scott, Kimberly. "Utah considers major criminal justice reform, reduced drug offense charges." St. George News. N.p., 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2015/02/03/kss-utah-considers-major-criminal-justice-reform-reduced-drug-offense-charges/#.VQ-NE_nF9Hl>.
(6) Garza, Irasema. "Juvenile-Justice Reform: What Are We Waiting For?." Huff Post LatinoVoices. N.p., 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/national-council-of-la-raza-/juvenile-justice-reform-w_b_6653794.html>.
(7) Dunford, David. "Colorado Marijuana Statistics Prove Law Enforcement Was Wrong." N.p., 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. <http://www.inquisitr.com/1208249/colorado-marijuana-statistics-prove-law-enforcement-was-wrong/>.
(8) Kamalakanthan, Prashanth. "A Year After Legalizing Weed, Colorado Hasn't Gone to Pot." Mother Jones. N.p., 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/colorado-legal-marijuana-charts-statistics>.
(9) "Mission Statement of the United States Marijuana Party ." Indiana Marijuana Party. United States Marijuana Party, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2015. <http://usmjpindiana.weebly.com/about.html>.
(10) "Highlights and Summary of The Libertarian Party's Solution to America's Crime Problem." Libertarian Party. Libertarian National Committee, Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Jan. 2015. <http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence>.
(11) Robb, Greg. "The Fed’s enormous balance sheet in seven charts." MarketWatch. N.p., 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2015. <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-feds-enormous-balance-sheet-in-seven-charts-2014-04-18>.
(12) "Increasing Retirement Ages." Urban Institute. Urban Institute, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2015. <http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/ssretirementage.cfm>.
(13) Edwards, Chris, and Michael Tanner. "Reforming Social Security Retirement." Downsizing the Federal Government. Cato Institute, Aug. 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ssa/social-security-retirement>.
(14) "New Air Force Planes Go Directly to 'Boneyard'." Military.com. N.p., 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2015. <http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/07/new-air-force-planes-go-directly-to-boneyard.html>.
(15) "Citizen's Guide." Federal Election Commission. N.p., Feb. 2004. Web. 2 Apr. 2015. <http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml>.
(16) "‘The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration And Natural Seed & Plant DNA Protection Act’." U.S. Marijuana Party of Kentucky. AmericansForCannabis.com, 1 Feb. 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. <http://kyusmjparty.weebly.com/-freedom-to-garden--protection-of-nature.html>.
1.1 Individual Rights
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. (1)
Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. (1)
I am in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18. If the law is to consider a person an adult at 18 years of age, then that person should be availed of all the rights of adulthood, one of which is the ability to determine for one’s self if they want to drink.
1.2 Privacy
Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. (1)
The Patriot Act has created a government the size and scope of which had previously only been the territory of science fiction writers. What Congress did to the American people was the equivalent of telling them the fight is rigged, then making them buy the pay-per-view anyway. This system of alphabet departments and programs, including mass surveillance of American citizens, has been an expensively wasteful abuse of time, resources, money, and the rights of the American people.
Through programs like Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the federal government collects and stores data showing your phone and Internet usage. (2) For some reason this is information the government thinks it needs. Whether or not you have been to a website about guns, or what organizations you may belong to, check out, or follow online. They have absolutely no reason or business having any of that data, yet there they are with it.
Transparency in Government
As we have seen, however, transparency is a great thing for our elected officials to praise and promise us, until we start asking for it.
Transparency begins with simplicity, and I think we call all agree that means making legislation easier for all parties involved. Our federal government should not be requiring bills the size of John Grisham novels for each and every thing they think will make everything all better in the end. We should never, ever be told to read a bill after it passes. If proposed legislation cannot spell out the particulars in 20 pages, then I would say it is not ready for prime time, or it needs to be split into separate pieces of legislation.
Any proposed legislation should, at the very least, include what it wants to accomplish, how it will be funded, and perhaps most importantly when the bill will end, should it accomplish its intended goal. The legislative goals and the legislation our congress produces should not be auto-set to run on forever.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. (1)
We’ve heard it before, and a billion times at that- government does not belong in the bedroom. If government was going to be allowed into the regulation of marriage at any level, it should just be to take your fifty bucks, stamp your marriage license, and then hope for the best while moving on to the next person in line.
That our federal government feels having a rubber stamp and a stack of blank licenses entitle them to say under what circumstances a marriage can occur is arrogant imposition of a value set upon the people, whether or not the value set aligns with beliefs of some people. I cannot say much for a value set that has to be forced on any part of a population, let alone those who back the forced application of those values.
It is not the responsibility of our federal government to decide who should be able to marry whom, nor should they have the authority to make this issue their responsibility. The rights and ability to get married should be left to the people wishing to get married and their religious institutions, if any.
There should be absolutely no distinction made between single and married people, for the purposes of filing taxes. Every individual should file taxes under one set of rules. All marital decisions, such as healthcare decisions, division of or inheritance of assets, and custody matters with children, for example, should be codified in prenuptial agreements, last wills and testament, or other appropriate civil documents.
Marriage is a secular institution that should not be subject to regulation by proxy via religious objections. Religious institutions are free not to marry same-sex couples if they wish, but they should not be allowed to help set the course for marriage law in this country.
Marriage is an internationally-recognized human right for all people, and should be no different in the United States. The Due Process Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution state no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state “shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man (Loving v. Virginia) and that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause (Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFluer). Over the last hundred plus years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is a fundamental right for all. (3)
Outside of issuing marriage licenses, the government’s only role in marriage should be exactly what it is now- enforcing child support, fair child custody, and visitation for parents in the event the marriage is dissolved. The protection of the rights of the children and of the individual parents would remain, and rightfully so, the only proper function of government in marriage.
In our day and age, the idea gay couples are being barred from marriage, and the rights and benefits included with, is discrimination, the purest and most simple kind. That we as a nation allow this discrimination to continue is outrageous and not the sign of a modern, civilized, and most importantly, equal society.
I, therefore, favor a federal law legalizing gay marriage in the United States. As this is an issue of civil rights, this is an issue that cannot be left to the individual states for determination.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. (1)
This is an issue that, to me, seems to be typical of government-as-usual involvement in social policy. Just as people with three divorces to their credit crow about the sanctity of marriage, why shouldn’t people with little to no personal experience or stake in the matter crow about what a woman can choose to do and why she is choosing to do so with her body? The fact of the matter is simple. It is an individual decision based on individual circumstances, and if men could get pregnant, not only would abortion be legal, but you could get one at a drive-thru with a side of fries.
1.5 Personal Expression, Communication, & Internet Issues
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. (1)
Internet Issues
I do not support the taxing of Internet sales. The ability of the Internet to grow as a marketplace has been largely in part due to the relatively tax-free nature of business conducted online. Several states, my own state of Indiana included, were able to attract companies like Amazon and better than minimum wage jobs in part due to tax breaks such as not instituting an Internet sales tax. This is as good an example as any of something that isn’t broken, therefore should not be fixed.
I oppose FCC rules that would regulate content, pricing of services, and Internet speeds, as well as opposing any censoring of political speech online, and believe that online gambling should be legal for adults.
Net Neutrality
Net neutrality is the regulatory concept which eliminates any type of discrimination in the transmission and access of content on the Internet, based on the principle that websites which provide content and users who access this content are equal, and nobody should be given preferential treatment at the cost of others. Net neutrality is based on the open marketplace principle, so the concept exists and thrives. This is why everyone gets equal access to the Internet. There’s no set of regulations or any legislation in charge of the Internet, more or less an honor system that has stood since day one.
Net neutrality is important to the functioning of the Internet as a marketplace by enabling competition in the market and giving the consumer a larger variety of options for service. The competition for those customers will force the service providers to develop their best, which not only increases the options available, but increases the quality of those options.
1.6 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. (1)
Our nation is flat being buried under a ton of law. Every year, year after year, hundreds of new laws go into effect at state and federal levels. Hundreds of laws that have nothing to do with the constitutionally mandated operation of the nation, and create convenient ways for government to spend more money and take money, property, and/or eventually the freedom of the individual themselves.
Take for example a quote taken from Champaign County (Illinois) Sheriff Dan Walsh, as the state began to examine criminal justice reform in early 2015: "When I started practicing law in 1979, the (state) Revised Statutes were four and then five books that occupied about 14 inches of shelf space. The current (statute books) now occupies almost two feet of shelf space and is nine books. Is society really better off with all these laws than we were in 1979? I don't think so." (4)
Four more volumes of statutes in not even forty years? If this isn’t proof of the runaway size and scope of government in its current state, I don’t know what is. And that’s just one state. Granted, it’s one of the most poorly run states in the country, but they are hardly an exception to the norm.
Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, but at what point did our lawmakers become ignorant of the whole point of the exercise of governance? Governing the United States is not a competition, yet the name of the game seems to be seeing how much legislation one can introduce, sponsor, or pass before it’s all said and done. It’s egotistical, and it has bankrupt this country, and in more ways than just financially.
The due process of law that America guarantees demands that the legislatures have to write laws that are clear enough for individuals and government officials to know in advance exactly what the law states.
Criminal Justice Reform
To break the cycle of recidivism, the overcrowding it creates in our correctional system, and the need for a private correctional industry, comprehensive criminal justice reform must include renewed focus on restructuring sentencing guidelines for lower-level and non-violent crimes, treatment for substance abusers and those with mental health issues, and strengthening the supervisory abilities of probation and parole officials. (5)
These reforms cannot just be for the benefit of the adult offender, however. Many states have undertaken reforms of their juvenile justice systems in the wake of mistreatment, most often connected to juvenile offenders being housed with adults. These programs have kept youth out of jail, reduced recidivism rates, and did so at a lower cost without compromising the safety of the public. (6)
Drug policy
The writing is not only on the wall on the nation’s attitudes toward marijuana, but all that writing is starting to get bigger. If someone had told me before the 2012 Presidential election there would be four states with legalized recreational marijuana laws, and five more considering it by the next Presidential election cycle, I would have promptly asked them to pass whatever they were smoking, because that would have certainly sounded righteous. In just a matter of four years, we could possibly travel from pipe dream to nearly a fifth of the country having legalized marijuana.
The American voters are starting to speak on marijuana, and it is to say perhaps it is time to grow up, reexamine some of the issues involved with the largely failed War on Drugs, and shed the only harmless enemy out of the bunch.
Despite hundreds of thousands of arrests, convictions, draconian sentences, fines, and asset and property forfeiture, people still smoking marijuana.
Decades’ worth of talking points, commercials, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on education, interdiction, prevention, and eradication, and people are still smoking marijuana. The politics of fear and “reefer madness” rhetoric may still draw followers, but it has been largely debunked by science, by medicine (most recently including the United States Surgeon General), and now in increasing numbers by the people themselves.
Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are regulated by the United States Food & Drug Administration, and Marijuana has proven medical benefits for a variety of illnesses and conditions, including cancer and AIDS.
The prohibition of something must be weighed against the rights of the society and the loss of freedom incurred with that prohibition. The prohibition of marijuana is an intrusion on our individual freedom of choice. It is illogical and a waste of governmental resources to dictate the extent to which people can willingly expose themselves to potential harm from the use of marijuana.
Law enforcement itself would also benefit from legalization. The rate of marijuana arrests first grew, then snowballed, then became a runaway train. The vast majority of arrests are not for growing or selling, but for possession. This has gone well beyond a failed approach, clogging our court systems and overcrowding our prison systems, in some cases necessitating the release of violent offenders to make room for non-violent marijuana offenders serving mandatory sentences.
Drug arrests and convictions of youth for marijuana offenses can often carry penalties that create lifelong consequences or obstacles. If admitting you not only tried marijuana, but inhaled is no longer a bar to be President of the United States, then why should it be a bar to do anything else in this country?
A legalization policy would mean a reduction in crime, notably property crime. This reduction, along with the elimination of most marijuana offenses would free up court resources, and allow law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes.
Colorado has become an excellent working model of legalization including a taxed retail system. Property crime dropped over 14% and violent crime dipped nearly two and a half percent just in the first three months of legal access alone. (7) In the first year of demand for legal marijuana, 41% of total demand was met by legal recreational sellers, with medical growers and the black market picking up the slack. (8) Eliminating a black market is considered crime reduction.
The fact that in just one year’s time, more than half the black market’s grasp on the marijuana industry gone, replaced by the medical and recreational marijuana industries- regulated, tax paying, legal businesses that have brought none of the moral decay feared by the talking points crowd. Crime reduction, tax revenue, job creation and economic growth- all very compelling arguments for legalization.
Over a full year of legal access, and yet, only 9% of Colorado residents are partaking. 45% of Colorado’s recreational marijuana is sold to out-of-state visitors. (8)
Of course, the primary reason legalization has made it as far as it has- tax revenue, is still an important measure to look at. While the initial estimates of $100 million in tax revenue for Colorado were later lowered to $31 million, this was pretty much a given, seeing as how the system had never been attempted before. The less said about government revenue estimates, the better…As the state acclimates to legalized marijuana, there will be a natural increase in tax revenue, as the legal market forces out more and more of the black market. It should also be noted that tax revenues for marijuana, just with anything else, will eventually peak and then level off to more predictable levels.
Combine these tax revenues with savings in administrative costs related to law enforcement and the judicial process of marijuana crimes, the country’s economic condition will improve, no question.
Beyond retail sale, marijuana is poised to become America’s cash crop. It pretty much is already, even though our federal government has just been slow in figuring that out, and with over 25,000 products that can be made from a cannabis crop (8), the potential is staggering.
An economic effect that has not received a lot of press is the potential of legalized marijuana as a catalyst for revitalization of industrial and commercial areas of cities and towns. The new marijuana industry in Denver is occupying over 4.5 million (and climbing) square feet of real estate, with prices doubling and in some cases tripling. (8)
The mission statement of the United States Marijuana Party is pretty clear:
"WE seek to remove all penalties for adults 18 and over who choose to consume cannabis in a responsible manner."
"We demand an end to the war on productive and otherwise law abiding citizens by the powers that be who claim to protect us."
"We demand the right to use any medication our healthcare providers and we deem fit without government interference."
We demand the release of all people imprisoned on marijuana charges and that their criminal records be expunged. (If records cannot be expunged then legislation to ensure that cannabis users are not discriminated against in the job market, and their right to vote reinstated)
We demand that all property seized in marijuana raids be returned to the rightful owners at once. (Any property that is being currently held should be immediately returned to its rightful owner and any money made thru asset sales (such as a home or vehicle) the proceeds from those sales shall be returned to the rightful owners.)
We demand that our law enforcement officers make more efficient use of our tax dollars and use the resources they have at their disposal to go after violent criminals and crimes that actually have victims.
We demand the right to grow marijuana for personal consumption, just as alcohol can be brewed at home legally and so long that it is not sold it should therefore remain untaxed and unregulated.
Cannabis products produced in a sales/corporate/pharmaceutical environment should be subjected to tax and regulation of its products.
We demand an end to employment drug testing for Marijuana. Only if a person is involved in an incident in a workplace which involves the health or welfare of another should drug testing be allowed.
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self-evident right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds of this earth, and care for the naturally occurring plants thereof, to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such fundamental human rights have been recognized as self-evident, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside and apart from the jurisdictional responsibility of government to regulate commercial endeavors and activities.. And further, that commercial jurisdiction has allowed for the genetic engineering of DNA, seeds and plants and has allowed for the privatizing/patenting and legal protections of such which has left all naturally occurring seeds and plants legally unprotected and physically vulnerable to irreparable genetic modifications from cross pollination contamination with said genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, and that human beings have a naturally endowed right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds and plants of this earth free of genetic modifications stemming from contamination from genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants. (16)
We demand that you stop treating us like second class citizens for consuming something that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and cause numerous deaths each year. Cannabis has never caused one. (9)
The platform is there, and it is sound, and with proof being provided on a daily basis the system can function, there should no longer be a federal obstacle to a state deciding whether or not to implement a medical, recreational, or complete legalization statute.
It would therefore be my intention to push for the repeal of existing federal marijuana law, with the exception of criminal smuggling laws, leaving open the option of using executive action to enact change if Congress proves unwilling to act. The repeal of the majority of federal marijuana law would allow the states, on an individual basis, to determine whether or not this choice would be right for them, and to implement the system they feel would be best to manage it.
1.7 Self-Defense & Gun rights
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. (1)
I oppose gun control initiatives, such as waiting periods, concealed carry laws, restrictions on type or size of guns that private citizens can own, and restrictions that make self-defense difficult. I believe the Second Amendment is clear and establishes an individual right for citizens to own and possess guns.
Private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. (10)
2.0 Economic Liberty
2.1 Economic Policy
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. (1)
In addition to creating a balanced budget with reduced spending across the board, I will veto any bill with expenditures in excess of revenues or any bill containing earmarks.
I support the idea of a constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget.
Ideally, retirement planning would be an individual matter and not subject to government involvement, but realistically, given the size and scope of the Social Security system, this is not going to happen. The system, which never should have been plundered in the first place, can be fixed.
Taxes
I think we’ve heard enough about tax reform. All the talk of tax reform has resulted in a tax code just shy of a bazillion pages. I could have researched and found the real number, but let’s be honest- both are ludicrous.
Throw out the whole mess, and implement the Fair Tax proposal, which would replace the entire federal tax system with a national consumption tax on new goods and services. This would reboot the American economy by spurring savings and investment and creating a continuous influx of cash into the marketplace through the prebate feature. The prebate feature would also go a long way toward addressing the illegal immigration issue, as illegal members of the workforce would have to register to gain the benefit.
By eliminating the corporate tax, one of the highest in the world, American companies would have the capital freed up to start investing in expansion, while international business would start taking an actual serious interest in locating in this country. This expansion would likely include hiring millions of new employees. The Fair Tax revenue could also be used to fund the Medicare and Medicaid programs, rather than relying on payroll taxes.
The argument that the new tax rate would result in less revenue coming in, leading to an increased annual budget deficit, is valid, except for reduced revenue would only lead to an increased deficit if we allowed our current spending levels to remain the same. Producing a balanced budget, which would rein in and reduce spending to responsible levels for programs that fall under the intended purpose of our federal government, may or may not lead to a continued deficit in the short term, but it would be a far more responsible and sustainable long-term framework to address the financial crisis in our country.
2.2 Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve has grown to an entity controlling over four trillion dollars in assets. That is twice the government expenditure for all 50 states. (11)
Obviously, since they have managed to acquire and/or print this astronomical sum of assets both here and abroad, there should be some oversight. Clear and enforceable oversight by Congress of the operations and actions of the Federal Reserve is necessary and well overdue. This oversight should begin first-thing with an audit and a complete review and overhaul of how the Fed does its thing. This overhaul should result in transparency of both the Fed’s operations and lending practices, and perhaps most importantly, end the current practice by the Federal Reserve of printing money and buying debt through quantitative easing.
Quantitative easing is simply printing money to buy debt. The high finance version of writing a bad check to pick up a previous bad check. All quantitative easing has accomplished is inflation and poor investments, conducted under a dubious safety net by our government and others. We need to stop the presses until we start figuring out where all this cash is going, and then the odds are we need to stop letting the cash go to the majority of those places.
2.3 Property & Contract
As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable. (1)
2.4 Environment, Energy & Resources
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. (1)
I support the research and innovation of new forms of energy production, but that is clearly not in the government’s wheelhouse, nor should government take or maintain any position in subsidizing any form of energy. I also support thebuilding of new coal-fired and nuclear power plants, as well as a focusing of federal spending for a crucial overhaul of the nation’s power grid, another critical part of the national infrastructure that has been left to fall apart due to the irresponsibility of government.
2.5 Government Finance & Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. (1)
2.6 Money & Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated and neither profits nor losses are socialized. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws. (1)
2.7 Free Trade, Free-market Capitalism, & Marketplace Freedom
Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise. (1)
2.8 Labor Markets & Labor unions
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain. (1)
I am not entirely dispassionate when it comes to the subject of labor unions. Once upon a time, they represented the best interests of the workers, as well as their right and ability to negotiate better terms of employment. That was then, however, and now we have situations like the “rubber rooms” in New York City, where teachers who are not fit or worse not allowed to be around children sit eight hours a day and do whatever. They can’t teach, the job they were hired to do, but they can’t be fired because of the protections negotiated by their unions. That standard of operation should never be forced upon a business or organization in this country.
2.9 Education
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. (1)
2.10 Health Care
We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. (1)
If the Obama administration has shown us anything, it is that government does not need to be in the health care management game. The costs and hurdles of the health care system in America are severely out of whack, and there must be measures developed to contain costs and allow access without government interventions.
I favor tort reform, and believe fully that reining in the number of absurd or needless lawsuits will go a long way to reducing health care costs, due to the resultant decrease in malpractice and liability premiums for medical practices.
I oppose the Affordable Care Act, and for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being it is neither the government’s role nor do they have the authority to force the American public to buy something under threat of tax penalties or fines.
3.0 Security of Liberty
3.1 Internal Security & Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. (1)
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. (1)
I oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, as I would any bill or measure passed unread, and believe it should be allowed to expire. The Act has tainted our system of jurisprudence, eliminating critical judicial oversights that are supposed to be afforded the people through due process, and ignoring habeas corpus by allowing the detention of individuals without charges.
Eminent Domain
I oppose using eminent domain powers for the benefit of private entities.
States' Rights
As our Federal government continues to assume and take control of matters far outside the scope of the constitutionally mandated constraints on Federal power, the idea of states’ rights is becoming more and more of a novelty. As President, I would restore the proper balance between the branches and divisions of government, keeping the Federal government on Federal government business, and allowing the states to manage their own affairs, the way it was always intended to be done.
3.2 Terrorism
The United States should be safe and protected from terrorism, as should every country on Earth, and we should continue international partnerships to help combat terrorist organizations, but the cost at which we have been pursuing the War on Terror has done little to keep us safe, and has seemingly put us under more threat of attack from our own government, than those who would wish to do our country harm.
I do not believe in nor support the practice of holding persons at Guantanamo Bay or anywhere outside the United States. While the United States should be proactive in efforts to combat and prevent terrorism, the sidestepping of due process whether through the civilian courts or military tribunals damages the overall value of the very protections we take for granted as Americans.
3.3 Military & Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. (1) We should, however, offer “human aid” to those in need, i.e., food, medicine, emergency supplies-not to include military weapons.
Military Policy
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon acting as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service. (1)
We don’t want to appear weak to the rest of the world, but the defense budget of the United States is out of control.
We’ve all seen or heard stories about troops using outdated, irregular, or defective gear, and having subpar conditions, despite billions of dollars to private contractors for just the opposite. Just as with our government, the larger something gets, the more out of control it can become. The United States military has become too big.
The United States should only resort to military action as a final option, and only as provided for in the Constitution. Keeping with that train of thought, as President I would propose a series of defense spending cuts, around 40 percent for starters, to reduce the size of the American military’s footprint across the planet. This would include reducing military presences in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and reducing the current United States nuclear arsenal. Before the chicken hawks and other fans of watching other people fight for them get all up in arms, a reduction of 40 percent would still keep our defense budget within 21st century levels, so it is not like we are retrograding anything. This reduction would merely prove that given definable levels, the United States can still maintain a level of military superiority while not having to do so at an unbearable cost to those being protected in the first place.
3.4 Free Trade & Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. (1)
3.5 Rights & Discrimination
Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free market solutions. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect. (1)
3.6 Representative Government/Campaign Finance
Representative Government
We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government. (1)
Campaign Finance
The only way to ensure across the board campaign finance reform is to begin with 100% transparency and 100% enforcement of the rules governing campaign finance. The people are tired of a system for sale, or at least a system they can’t afford to buy into.
Current individual campaign contribution limits are a great example. An individual may give up to $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or candidate’s campaign committee. (15) The rub is primaries, runoffs, and general elections are all considered separate elections. Fair enough, they are in reality separate, but how can a limit of $2,700 be considered a limit, if that can rise to $8,100 dependent of how the votes tally up? It’s simple- it can’t be a limit, because there are no limits, realistically. With all the loopholes and exemptions and exceptions, is it any wonder that Barack Obama became the first candidate to crack half a billion dollars in fundraising?
Campaign finance reform should begin with allowing a maximum contribution limit of $2,500 per election cycle, whether the contribution is from an individual, a political action committee, or a business or trade concern. While this may not make the system any more affordable to the average citizen, it will gradually reduce the pressure on incumbents (especially rookie incumbents) to fundraise over actually doing what they were elected to do.
I would not support the establishment of a public financing system for federal elections.
I would support efforts to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty. (1)
3.8 Immigration
It may not be most controversial issue out there, but immigration policy is bound to be in a vast majority of Americans’ top fives.
America is a nation of immigrants, and my great-grand father came through Ellis Island just like millions of other people’s parents, grandparents, and so on and so forth. It is not my intention to discount or disparage what people go through or might have gone through to get to this country. Trying to start a new life for yourself or your family in a new country is not something that should be considered criminal at face value. But when it is done criminally, no matter how minor or altruistic, it has to be viewed as a problem in need of a solution.
This is, after all, a nation built on fairness and the rule of law, in addition to being a nation of immigrants. The fairness and rule of law are hand-in-hand concepts, as the laws of the United States are applied and enforced equally and impartially.
There is a system in place, but as with most big government solutions, it has become overwhelmed.
Yet, for all the enforcement- Border Patrol, ICE, ATF, DEA, Coast Guard, National Guard, city, county, state, and local law enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal immigrants that continue to enter our country is enormous.
Getting beyond the whole idea that border protection is not the role of our regular military or reserve branches, a de-escalation of the Drug War would make a major dent in southwestern border violence, which is more often than not cartel-related. As efforts for marijuana legalization continue to evolve and expand on a state-by-state level, I look forward to seeing if legalization among the southwestern states would result in a lowered crime rate at the border. A more stable U.S.-Mexican border is crucial to the efforts to reform immigration policy and reduce the number attempting illegal and often highly dangerous entries into our country.
Currently we spend billions of dollars on all this manpower to presumably guard the border, with minimal success and our next move is to give billions of dollars of public assistance to the illegal immigrants. To accomplish this, obviously, we tax the populace and spend a lot of time promoting a national ID card, because an ID card will go a long way to distracting people from the real issues.
With President Obama’s recent executive order on immigration, the issue has been highlighted, but not addressed. The outrage was, as expected, immediate. The Republicans went on the warpath, introducing legislation to kill the order, and there have been questions raised as to the constitutionality of the order.
The popular accusation, especially from the right, is that President Obama is failing in his duties by failing to enforce immigration law.
And the accusation is just. President Obama is failing to enforce immigration laws. Then again, so did President G.W. Bush, President Clinton, the elder President G.H.W. Bush, and President Reagan, as did the Congresses under their administrations.
So we have two choices laid before us. We can either continue to basically ignore the problem, while spending billions of dollars to safeguard ourselves from the very same problem being ignored. Or, in the weeks leading up to and immediately following an election cycle, something can actually be done in the form of immigration policy reform more grounded in reality, that will achieve the dual goals of turning a stream of illegal workers into legal and taxpaying participants in our economic system and normalizing the millions of illegal immigrants in a beginning of a path to citizenship.
Unlike our current President, and his aforementioned predecessors, I intend to make immigration policy reform a priority of my first term. The important issues this country faces, and the issues the American people want action on should not have to wait in hallways twiddling their thumbs while the President is pursuing a mandate or building a legacy.
Deportation/Amnesty
A popular chorus of anti-immigration circles is “deport ‘em all!” While I have fallen victim to joining in on that chorus a decade or so ago, the fact of the matter is it would be easier and more realistic to build a stairway to heaven than it would be to deport 12 million people, illegal or otherwise.
There should not be, however, any restrictions to law enforcement being able to detain and deport those they find to be in the country illegally through the course of doing their job.
In lieu of an “amnesty,” the illegal immigrants that would then be legally authorized to work can begin formally paying taxes and supporting the systems they are availing themselves of.
This should not be taken as a guarantee or citizenship, but it could be considered an important starting point on a pathway to legal citizenship. If they do not wish to apply for citizenship after a certain period of time, then they can reapply for work authorization. If not, then at that point we can wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors in whatever country, if not their native country, they wind up in next.
There are those who would insist that border security must be improved before the illegal immigrants currently in our country are addressed. That argument might hold even a lick of moisture if it weren’t already for the fact we have been steadily, consistently, and expensively improving out border security for the last twenty years. Hasn’t worked out yet, and I see no reason for any immediate nor long-term success.
I prefer to think the argument that granting amnesty would incentivize future illegal immigration. It might have been trendy at one point to joke that the economy was so bad the illegal immigrants were fleeing back into Mexico. The statistics were even bearing that out. The economy is recovering, however, and the punchlines are starting to reverse course again.
Besides, it’s not like our federal government hasn’t already been incentivizing illegal immigration for the last twenty-five years. Any form of amnesty would be the final stamp of big government approval any future incentivizing would need.
Economics/Economic Impact
For all of the melting pot, nation of immigrants rhetoric that we hear, there is the whole staggering cost factor of illegal immigration. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded services being handed out to a segment of the populace, an illegal segment, as they send billions of dollars to their families in their home countries. While all of this is going on, naturally there will be people and businesses who will choose to get their piece of the pie. It’s a giant web of wealth transfer, and the American taxpayer is the one stuck in the middle, screaming and waiting to be sucked dry.
That is why, as President, I will push for development of immigration policy reform that will:
- Create a system that authorizes illegal immigrants to work and contribute to the marketplace and allows them to begin paying taxes. Remove laws and penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants. If the federal government is not presently worried about illegal immigrants working, they should not, for any reason, penalize those who are providing that very work not presently being worried about. This will not only increase tax revenue, but drastically reduce the cost of social services and the black market on jobs.
- Require background checks of visa applicants, because we need to know who is crossing our borders and we should be able to prevent criminals from entering the country.
- Find an agreeable compromise toward punishment. Plea bargains are a vital part of our criminal justice system, and are made on a daily basis in every court in this country. Because certain conditions will have been established, that is not to say everything is just swept under the rug. Even if it’s only probation, a fine, or penalties relating to any future application for citizenship, those who are either serious about immigrating here or simply working here will man up and deal with it. Millions of Americans deal with the hardships of probation, and fines, and penalties. Welcome to the land of opportunity, even if one of those opportunities is to pay a debt to society.
- Allow states to determine what services or privileges, such as drivers’ licenses, the newly reclassified immigrants will be entitled to. This will be an important inclusion of states’ rights into the process.
With these initial reforms, a groundwork can be established for an overhaul and improvement of the immigration process, and the beginning of a process to integrate illegal immigrants into the workplace, removing the “illegal” label, and allowing for more of a participation by immigrants in the society they wish to become a part of.
References
(1) "Libertarian Party Platform." Libertarian Party. Libertarian National Committee, Inc., June 2014. Web. 22 Jan. 2015. <http://www.lp.org/platform>.
(2) Eddington, Patrick G. "Is Big Brother Here for Good?." Cato Institute. N.p., 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. <http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/big-brother-here-good#9C2uUp:ES3>.
(3) "Gay Marriage Pros and Cons." ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://gaymarriage.procon.org/>.
(4) Kacich, Tom. "Criminal justice reform has momentum." The News-Gazette. N.p., 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. <http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-02-15/tom-kacich-criminal-justice-reform-has-momentum.html>.
(5) Scott, Kimberly. "Utah considers major criminal justice reform, reduced drug offense charges." St. George News. N.p., 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2015/02/03/kss-utah-considers-major-criminal-justice-reform-reduced-drug-offense-charges/#.VQ-NE_nF9Hl>.
(6) Garza, Irasema. "Juvenile-Justice Reform: What Are We Waiting For?." Huff Post LatinoVoices. N.p., 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/national-council-of-la-raza-/juvenile-justice-reform-w_b_6653794.html>.
(7) Dunford, David. "Colorado Marijuana Statistics Prove Law Enforcement Was Wrong." N.p., 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. <http://www.inquisitr.com/1208249/colorado-marijuana-statistics-prove-law-enforcement-was-wrong/>.
(8) Kamalakanthan, Prashanth. "A Year After Legalizing Weed, Colorado Hasn't Gone to Pot." Mother Jones. N.p., 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/colorado-legal-marijuana-charts-statistics>.
(9) "Mission Statement of the United States Marijuana Party ." Indiana Marijuana Party. United States Marijuana Party, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2015. <http://usmjpindiana.weebly.com/about.html>.
(10) "Highlights and Summary of The Libertarian Party's Solution to America's Crime Problem." Libertarian Party. Libertarian National Committee, Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Jan. 2015. <http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence>.
(11) Robb, Greg. "The Fed’s enormous balance sheet in seven charts." MarketWatch. N.p., 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2015. <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-feds-enormous-balance-sheet-in-seven-charts-2014-04-18>.
(12) "Increasing Retirement Ages." Urban Institute. Urban Institute, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2015. <http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/ssretirementage.cfm>.
(13) Edwards, Chris, and Michael Tanner. "Reforming Social Security Retirement." Downsizing the Federal Government. Cato Institute, Aug. 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ssa/social-security-retirement>.
(14) "New Air Force Planes Go Directly to 'Boneyard'." Military.com. N.p., 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2015. <http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/07/new-air-force-planes-go-directly-to-boneyard.html>.
(15) "Citizen's Guide." Federal Election Commission. N.p., Feb. 2004. Web. 2 Apr. 2015. <http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml>.
(16) "‘The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration And Natural Seed & Plant DNA Protection Act’." U.S. Marijuana Party of Kentucky. AmericansForCannabis.com, 1 Feb. 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. <http://kyusmjparty.weebly.com/-freedom-to-garden--protection-of-nature.html>.