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’?”

Bookmark and Share

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!