Have you heard about this? The RNC has released the “RNC Resolution on Financial Support of Candidates,” where they list ten key points that candidates wishing to obtain party funding must support at least 80% of the time. Where does the Republican leadership come up with this nonsense? Talk about trying to win a marathon while being chained to a pole.

In the fallout of the nomination of “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) in recent elections, the Republican leadership has decided to release a list of 10 issues that candidates must agree with (at least 80%) if they wish to receive party endorsements and financial backing. Hoping to avoid another candidate like Dede Scozzafava from running under the Republican banner, the sponsors of this resolution hope they can field Reaganesque candidates for the 2010 election. I think they are going to be disappointed.

The following is the ten key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle as identified by the Republican National Committee, as well as my personal responses to each one:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

In general, I believe that a “smaller government” is best. The Constitution lays out fairly clearly the role of the Federal government, with most of the powers being placed in the hands of the states. However, after 200 years of maturing as a nation and taking on the role as the worlds’ lone Super Power, the scope of responsibilities by the Federal government has change. That is why a “bigger government” in respect to foreign policy is needed today.

In regards to reducing the national debt, deficits, and taxes, I do agree. Keeping a smaller government (as mentioned above) leads to a lower fiscal demand on the population. Another benefit of having a tighter belt on government spending is that it is easier for the government to respond when economic stresses arise since you are in a financial position to take on some additional debt for the near-term. Take the economic stimulus bill that the RNC highlights in this litmus test.

When the nation needs a shot in the arm, it can infuse cash into the system through government projects and contracts. The stimulus bill failed since it was focused on small state projects or supporting state services. Additionally, there is no return on investment from these projects, which leads to a greater financial hurdle that the population must shoulder when the economy finally turns around. A leaner Federal government would have focused on long-term interstate projects (such as new energy infrastructure programs) that are needed and provide a return on investment. Additionally, instead of spending money on state projects, the Federal government should have provided the state governments a low-interest line of credit with a 20-year repayment deadline. That will help states through their economic slump while maintaining their credit rating, gives them ample time to repay their balance, as the Federal government receives some financial benefit in the end.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

Since we have covered Health Care Reform in the past, I won’t go too deep into this item. I’ll state that item one in this list naturally dictates that item two should be a non-government run program. The role by the Federal government in regards to health care should be establishing the guidelines for the insurance companies to follow. For example, if the problem with the current health care industry is that people with pre-existing health conditions cannot find coverage by a new insurance provider, then government can simply pass a law requiring providers to treat these patients the same way as any other client. There is no need for the government to have to offer their own insurance plans.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

The fallacy in this statement is that cap-and-trade is government-based. What it is, in a nutshell, is a penalty on energy providers by artificially creating a carbon credit market, which then in turn creates a market-based system. Unfortunately, this plan will hurt the energy market more than help. What the Federal government should do is create an environment where energy producers want to voluntarily upgrade their power plants so they are more environmentally-friendly, while at the same time making it easier for them to expand to meet the every growing demands by the public. As our society grows ever more dependent on technology, the need for more grows as well.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

On this I have to agree. Card check is a bullying tool wanted by the unions as a way to stem their loses in the labor market. If unions provided a service in the modern working world that workers cannot obtain from the employers directly or from similar jobs, then people would be signing up for the unions more often today than they are now.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Unless the RNC is planning on deporting over 10 Million illegal aliens, there will have to be some form of amnesty provided. That doesn’t mean that the government has to stop deporting illegal aliens as they are captured and hand out green cards and visas without any penalties. The correct “solution” to the current illegal alien problem is to offer an amnesty while charging them $10,000 per person. So, a family of five would have to pay $50,000 in exchange for legal status. After the amnesty period concludes, any remaining illegal aliens would have to be deported. If they are obtained during a raid on a business, the business will be fined for each illegal alien captured. This would hopefully create an economic disadvantage to the employers to verify the legal status of a potential employee before hiring.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

The author of this item doesn’t seem to understand the complexity of the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ‘victory’ in Iraq was not just a military-recommended troop surge, but a mixture of both military and political recommendations and strategies. This is obviously a dig at Obama for not jumping on the McCrystal recommendations, and I do agree that Obama has had over a year to decide on his course of action. I say “over a year” since he was briefed repeatedly both on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Presidential elections as well as after he was elected President.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

I have to ask the RNC to clarify what they mean by “effective action.” Am I to assume they are looking for a military response to Iran’s nuclear program?

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

It might sound like a cop-out, but the gay marriage debate does fall under the “interstate commerce” clause. Let me try to explain.

The states are the ones who should establish the definition of marriage. The problem is when you start dealing with multiple states. If one state recognizes gay marriage and another one doesn’t, what is the legal status of a gay couple if they move? Additionally, are they able to obtain health care coverage for their spouse or adopt a child? The problem with leaving the decision to define marriage up to the states creates the potential for gay couples to live in limbo if they have to move to a non-gay-friendly state. For this reason I support a national definition which the Defense of Marriage Act provides. If enough states desire to change the definition of marriage, they have the ability to petition the Federal government to repeal DOMA and establish a new definition that is universal across the whole country.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;

This item ties in with item 2. The government should not be providing health care plans to the general public (they do pay for some health insurance for government workers and the military). As far as government-funded abortions, I would like to refer people to my article on embryonic stem cell research. I would not bar people from seeking out an abortion, but I would all but bar Federal funding for the practice. For government workers and members of the military who wish to seek an abortion, I would limit it to cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mothers’ life. For ‘elective’ procedures, the person would either have to fund the procedure out of pocket or through a third party.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

One of the biggest problems with the Second Amendment is how poorly written it is. Since I think the government has the right to limit certain types of weapons from general sales as well as establish screening regulations before obtaining a permit, this statement is too vague to support.

I guess by the RNC’s criteria, I would not be receiving much support from the party if I were to run for office. By that note, I don’t think Ronald Reagan would either. The RNC resolution loves to cite Reagan throughout the document, but it completely misses the essence of what made Reagan great. He worked to create an identity of the party on a series of principles, not through “purity tests.” The RNC would be taking the party back to the days of Nixon with this resolution, and not the era of Reagan.

Related articles:
CNN – “Should Republicans be trying to sell political ‘purity’?”

Earlier this week I received a link to a very unusual piece of art.  It is a picture depicting Washington, DC with a slew of historically important people from our nation and what role they played in the pass as well as the present.  When you scroll your mouse over each individual and symbol in the painting, a magnified view of the selected area appears on the right-hand side of the page giving you a description of the person and why they are included.  I am proud to say that Thomas Payne is one of over 40 people highlighted in the work of art.

While the painting is religious in nature, I think everyone will find the site interesting and informative.  Take a few moments and explore the picture and see if you can find all of the symbols the artist chose to include.

The following is the text from the e-mail that came with the link:

Powerful New Piece of Art…..

McNaughton: “One Nation Under God”

As you run your cursor over each person, their name and a brief description will be revealed. This may be the most timely and powerful new piece of art that Jon McNaughton has done. It has over 40 patriotic heroes speaking to us from the dust as Jesus Christ holds the US Constitution. See if you can identify each of the patriots. There is a link to the detailed description of the 57 symbols and an interview with Jon.

There has been some talk in Washington lately that has caught my attention. Yes, I know that sounds like a strange comment for a political blogger to make but hear me out. For those of us who do business online (in my case, offer online advertising and do reviews), the Federal Trade Commission is talking about taking a bigger role in regulating the online advertising industry.

The concern comes down to disclosure and transparency. For example, if you note above, I have a tab labeled “Disclosure” that opens a page with 300+ words informing the visitor that I do run ads on my website. Have you ever read the page? Did you even know it existed?

Consumer advocates argue that people are being taken advantage of online by advertisers and retailers because the websites are misleading people about the costs of their products, the results of their online activity, and tracking cookies that allow websites to better target products to the website visitors. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said this week that “Sometimes overzealous marketers just aren’t presenting consumers with an adequate choice and a transparency about what they are doing with information, and we think that is very problematic. If the industry doesn’t step up to the plate with vigorous and consistent self-regulation, they are inviting a more regulatory approach.”

This increased regulation has caught the attention of some of the bigger players in the online market place. Online entrepreneur Jeremy Schoemaker (from Shoemoney.com) noted that “it’s good that there is going to be more regulation obviously, but I think it’s really bad because … [the government is] very uneducated about what we do, and … they don’t even understand what they are doing.” This is often the case with new industries and technologies.

The government has good intentions, but acting without examining the basics first can cause more problems in the end. The editor from DM Confidential states it well, “[The expression 'the customer is always right' is] a saying that somehow the majority of American consumers have internalized, acting with a growing sense of entitlement.” Sometimes we expect a certain level of handholding with our transactions, and when we are surprised by an unexpected outcome, we seek to blame the seller. However, Schoemaker properly states, “Eventually the responsibility has to fall on the consumer.”

I received this comic earlier today and thought it was too funny not to share with you, given some of the topics of debate in Congress over Health Care Reform.

Sarah Palin is once again dominating the headlines.  Her anticipated book release has resulted in debates about her accusations regarding the McCain campaign mishandling her as well as various news organizations studying the book to find inaccuracies.  Additionally, she’s hitting the media circuit and doing more interviews in one week than I can recall seeing in all of 2008.  So, I wanted to use this as an excuse to throw in my two cents.

My first though surrounds the Newsweek magazine cover.  I was talking with our friend Harrison Price earlier today about this topic and how complaining about Newsweek deciding to run that cover only helps the magazine.  All this complaining about the photo being “sexist” and “inappropriate” is very frustrating to me.  For starters, this isn’t a doctored photo, but one that she posed for in a photo shoot for Runners World (hence the reason why she is wearing running clothes).  The photo is meant to show off her wonderful body and mixing it within the illusion of power.  For all of her time in elected office, Palin has been able to remain physically active and in good shape – a theme common in Runners World.  It might be inappropriate since the article is not about her health but her impact on politics, but that is as far as it goes.

The complaint over the cover has only drawn attention to the magazine, and that might drive up their sales (something the magazine is needing).  Also, by focusing on the photo, the media is not covering the article entitled “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?  She’s bad news for the GOP – and for everybody else, too.”  I haven’t had a chance to read the article yet, so I’m not sure if it is a hit piece on the former Governor or not.  However, does it matter at this point?  The real story is the photo, isn’t it?  It’s time for this “controversy” to end and start debating the article itself.

My second thought is about the decision by Attorney General Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York to be tried in Federal Court. Leaving the whole debate about military tribunals vs Federal Court aside, there are some serious problems with what I’ve heard on this topic and the decision in general. For starters, New York City is the wrong location for this. The court is located just a few blocks away from Ground Zero. Knowing that the man that masterminded the attacks that killed thousands was being held and tried in your backyard could lead to some serious security issues. If we think back a few months ago, when the Presidential Plane was flown over lower Manhattan causing a panic, the fear and feelings of that fateful day still run strong in the hearts and minds of New Yorkers. Constant local news coverage of the trial might lead to increased anxiety to the locals as well as the potential for one of them to attempt a revenge hit on Mohammed.

I also have a problem with the way Holder has handled the media response to his decision. Stating that he wouldn’t have decided to try him in public if he wasn’t certain he could get the conviction he wants raises questions about the “fairness” of the trial. If we are going to hold Mohammed to the same legal rights that a citizen has, then having the top lawyer in the land basically guaranteeing a conviction makes the case sound as if it is rigged. Additionally, it sounds as if he is trying to taint a potential jury pool (though it will be hard to find an impartial jury in New York City as it is). But my most frustrating point is how Holder says “the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” that is, if Mohammed is acquitted, the government will still keep him detained and not release him. So what is the point of the trial then? And why the constant complaints about the Bush Administration not granting the detainees their day in court? Sounds hypocritical to me.

So there are my two cents worth on the frustrating issues of the day. We got to get off of these superficial media “hot topics” and start getting to the substance of the issues. The range is clear … give me your best shot.