Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Election 2012: Know your candidates

I firmly believe that the most important thing in an election is not that citizens vote, but that they get informed, then vote. A citizen who merely pulls the lever for whoever has an "R" in front of their name does a disservice to their country. If he cannot be troubled to spend twenty minutes becoming acquainted with the issues then he would be better off simply staying home.

Towards that end I'm posting an issue-by-issue comparison of the Republican and Democratic tickets (AKA, the only candidates that matter). I will attempt to make this as strictly non-partisan and unbiased as possible. My hope is that, whoever you choose to vote for, you'll be choosing them not because of party, but because of actual relevant information.

My primary sources for this will be Project Votesmart & Ontheissues.

1. Abortion

Romney: Firmly pro-life. Claims to have had an epiphany when touring a cloning facility which led him to change his previously pro-choice stance. He has stated that "scientifically", life begins at conception (again, as a result of the same visit). Following in the same vein, he has said that it would be a "good day" were Roe v. Wade to be repealed. Stated he personally advocates abstinence, but has no desire to outlaw contraception.

Ryan: Also pro-life. Has a 0% rating by NARAL, believes life begins at conception, and has voted against federal funding for both abortions and stem cell research.

Obama: Pro-Choice. He has stated that he is "undecided" on whether life begins at conception or not. Regardless, he believes that women have a legal right to safe abortions (though in 2008 he stated it was ok for States to block late-term abortions) and expanding embryonic stem cell research. 100% rating by NARAL.

Biden: Also pro-Choice. He has said he personally accepts the Catholic Church's decision that abortion is wrong, but does not translate that to his public life. However, in 2007 he stated that there should be no Federal Funding for abortions.

2. Budget, taxes, & economy

Romney: Statements from Romney generally are along the lines of "Cutting spending is the solution" to the budget. He has repeatedly insisted that he will not raise taxes on either the wealthy or the middle class, claiming he will make up gaps by cutting spending and eliminating loopholes. He was one of the few Republican candidates to propose switching America to a territorial, vs worldwide, tax code.

On the bailouts he was originally tepid on Obama's bailing out of large auto companies, but by 2011 had come out against them, and in 2012 said that bankruptcy would have led to a stronger Detroit in the long run. He has maintained throughout, however, that the TARP package was necessary to avoid economic meltdown.

From his book "No Apologies": "There's a good deal of rhetoric today from liberal politicians who say that we need to tax those corporations that "send jobs overseas." I'm afraid they don't understand that companies with subsidiaries in other countries pay taxes there. Requiring them to pay still-higher US taxes would make them less competitive in those markets, making it bad for their business overseas, and also for jobs here. Sales made by subsidiaries of US companies are often supported by high-paying jobs in finance, research & management at home. And if a company's tax burden under such legislation grew too high, it could simply move overseas to avoid it--resulting in a loss of tax revenue for the US, not a net gain."

Ryan: Known as a rabid deficit hawk, most of Ryan's statements and votes are geared towards cutting back Federal spending at the expense of programs deemed "non-essential" in order to balance the budget. However, he did vote in favor of the bailout for GM & Chrysler, and also for the $192B stimulus spending bill. He has intensely rejected the notion that the rich should pay more to make up for the deficit. In the VP debate, he said (paraphrased) "Even if the rich paid 100% of their income, it wouldn't be enough. There aren't enough rich people to do that."

Both Romney & Ryan have at various times said they would favor a plan to cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

Obama: Endorses a policy he himself branded "economic patriotism". Believes the rich should pay "a little more" in order to pay for the operation of the Federal government in tough times. Under his administration, responses to failing businesses in Detroit led to a Federal subsidy to keep GM & Chrysler in business. This bailout package resulted in the government briefly becoming the majority stockholder in GM.

In general, the President focuses on reducing the tax burden on the middle class. For corporations, he has a target tax rate of 25% and believes that ship jobs overseas should be taxed for doing so. He favors continuing or deepening the progressive tax system the Federal government currently employs in which the richest pay a much higher tax burden as a percentage of their overall earnings, while the poorer citizens pay progressively less.

Biden: Similar positions to Obama in terms of a progressive tax plan. He said that TARP "stuck in his throat", but it worked, and believes the bailouts of Detroit were the right thing to do. Has repeated the ticket slogan of the rich paying a little more, but if we reach into the Way-Back machine for a moment, in 1997 he voted "yes" to support a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget.

3: Civil Rights (Namely, gay marriage & affirmative action)

Romney: Opposes gay "marriage", but on 9/19/2012 said that a gay couple should be able to enjoy all the same rights (such as hospital visits) as a straight couple, with the actual term "marriage" being reserved for traditional marriage.

Ryan: Also opposes gay marriage and opposed the repeal of DADT. He did however vote in favor of a bill that would outlaw discrimination in the workplace due to sexual orientation.

Rated by the NAACP at 36%, indicating a mixed stance on affirmative action, but I couldn't find anything specific in terms of statements or votes in this regard.

Obama: Has long said that homosexuality is not a choice, and in 2012 he reversed his 2007 position and came out in favor of gay marriage. He has still maintained that the decision to enact the legalization of gay marriage should be left to the States, but that no Federal law should invalidate said marriages.

From his campaign's website:

"Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer: I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens"

Voting record and interest group ratings all indicate a very pro-affirmative action stance.

Biden:  He was the first on the ticket to come out officially in support of gay marriage. Essentially the same stances as Obama on these two issues.

4. Energy & Environment

Romney: On global warming, in his book "No Apologies", 2010:

"I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral US cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on the climate but could cripple economic growth.
Oil is purported to be one of the primary contributors to rising global temperatures. If in fact global warming is importantly caused by our energy appetite, it's yet one more reason for going on an energy diet.
Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth's history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now...

As nations like China and India make available to their citizens the automobiles and appliances that we take for granted in the West, their energy demands--and their emissions--will rise dramatically. If developing nations won't curb emissions, even extreme mitigation measures taken by the US and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

These considerations lead me to this: We would pursue a no-regrets policy at home, and we should continue to engage in global efforts--not just US & European efforts--to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. By no regrets, I mean that we ought to take unilateral action on emissions when doing so is also consistent with our objective for reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

During an interview on Sep. 4, 2012 he proposed having the States approve resource management within their own borders, which he claims would cut down significantly the time required to approve permits without sacrificing environmental concerns because the States are better at it. In 2008 he endorsed giving the States the right to have their own emissions standards.

On energy, he has frequently endorsed the use of nuclear energy, believes that subsidies for green companies should be ended, and envisions an America that uses all of the resources within its borders (including oil, coal, etc). That includes drilling in ANWR if it is economical to do so.

Ryan: Voted yes to open up the continental shelf for drilling for oil & natural gas (2011), and to stop the EPA from regulating CO2 as an air pollutant. Like Romney, does not believe in the cap & trade system. Generally votes in favor of any bill that opens up areas for drilling and/or mining for resources.

Obama: Has endorsed the use of a cap & trade system to fight global warming. For example, this quote from his 2004 campaign website for Illinois senate:

"Obama will support legislation requiring that by 2020, 20% of the nation’s power supply portfolio comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy. Promoting renewable energy will create new investments and new jobs without increasing prices. Obama has proposed a flexible market-based approach that allows electricity providers to either generate the renewable energy themselves, obtain it from other companies, or purchase credits from providers who exceed the standard."

His administration has invested billions in the green energy sector in an effort to have wind, solar, and nuclear energy solutions to take on a greater share of the current American infrastructure. A centerpiece of his "all-of-the-above" answer to our energy problems is clean coal, which makes sense since coal currently provides approximately 44% of the power in America, though the first clean coal power plant has not yet come online according to FactCheck.org.

Voting record includes ending subsidies for oil explorations (2007), disallowing drilling in ANWR (2007), and sponsoring a bill to increase CAFE standards (AKA emissions standards) by 4% each year until 2018 (2006). In 2007 he voted yes to a bill that would make global warming a consideration for federal project planning.

Biden: Generally in step with Obama throughout his long history in government. He also sponsored the same 2006 CAFE standards bill, voted yes to address CO2 standards in America without considering emissions in India & China, supports cap & trade, etc.

5. Military & Foreign Policy

Romney: It's very difficult to assess any sort of "voting record" on foreign policy for Romney, since Governors do not directly play a hand in foreign policy by definition. His speeches have centered around ensuring America's power does not decline abroad. At the Republican National Convention, he stated he wanted a military "so strong, no nation would dare test it." Towards that end, he has proposed maintaining or increasing defense spending. He opposes a timetable to leave Afghanistan, saying that this is essentially giving our enemies a "wait until" date for our defeat, believing instead that decision ought to be up to our generals.

Ryan: Voted in favor of military intervention in Iraq, opposes timetables for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and has voted in favor of increasing defense spending on multiple occasions.

Obama: Oversaw the withdrawal of troops from Iraq that was began under the Bush administration, having opposed that war since 2004. He has also set a 2014 deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, then located in Pakistan, was killed under his Administration and with his approval.

From his campaign's 2008 website:

"Barack Obama believes that strengthening weak states at risk of collapse, economic meltdown or public health crises strengthens America’s security. Obama will double U.S. spending on foreign aid to $50 billion a year by 2012."

A good quote that seems to sum up his approach to the rest of the world (2008 Black Caucus):

"As commander-in-chief, all of us would have a responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s our first responsibility. I would not hesitate to strike against anybody who would do Americans or American interests’ harm. What I do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign policy that says, for example, I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies, because I remember what Kennedy said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. Having that kind of posture is the way we effectively debate the Republicans on this issue. Because if we just play into the same fear-mongering that they have been engaged in since 9/11, then we are playing on their battlefield, but, more importantly, we are not doing what’s right in order to rebuild our alliances, repair our relationships around the world, and actually make us more safe in the long term."

Biden: Voted yes to enlarging NATO to include other Eastern European countries in 2002.  He voted in favor of the war in Iraq, but has since said he regrets that vote due to his perception of Bush's abuse of the powers it gave him.

A quote on the role of America abroad:

"[I would] make two fundamental changes in this [Bush's] administration’s policy. We have to jettison this notion of preemption as a doctrine, and we have to jettison the notion of regime change. Replace it with prevention; open our ears and talk, before things become crises.

And, two, we have to move in the direction of making sure that we deal with the one thing that no one’s talking about, and that is conduct change, not regime change. Think of the folly of what this administration has acted on. It has said, “By the way, give up your weapons, the very thing that’s [stopping] us from attacking you. And once you give them up, then we’re going to take you out.” That’s the logic of this administration. That’s why we’ve lost respect all over the world. My goal would be to reestablish America’s place in the world."

6. Gun Control

Romney: Supports the assault weapon ban & a law that made it more difficult to purchase a handgun by instituting a 5 day wait period, and proudly claimed that these positions "would not make him a hero with the NRA". He has since said in 2007 & again recently in the 2012 debates that he would not support any additional gun control legislation, believing that what we have on the books is sufficient if it were to be enforced. 

Ryan: Voted in favor of a bill to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits over the use of the weapons they produced. He also voted in favor of a bill that (in DC, where the Federal government is the only government) that repealed registration requirements for guns in DC, as well as repealing a restriction on semi-automatic weapons.

Obama: Like Romney, supports bans on assault weapons. He has maintained support for the 2nd amendment, but believes that localities have the right to ban guns if they wish (Politico interview, 2008, on his position in favor of the DC handgun ban).

Biden: Voted no on protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, yes on background checks at gun shows, and also supports an assault weapon ban.

7. Healthcare

I think it is fairly self evident that Obama is pro-Obamacare, and Romney would be naturally against it. I won't go into the details of Obamacare in this format, but here's some highlights:
  • No rejection based on preexisting conditions. This will likely result in higher costs for most, due to the fact that those preexisting conditions mean certainly high medical costs. That burden would be shifted onto the rest of the population.
  • Individual mandate to purchase insurance. Anyone who does not purchase insurance is penalized with a tax. Note the Supreme Court held up this clause, not because of regulating commerce, but as a tax. This sets the precedent that Congress could conceivably "tax" consumers into buying products they determine to be in the public good.
  • State run exchanges to facilitate the purchase of insurance.
  • Plus about 1000 pages of other stuff.
Critics of Romney have stated that Obamacare was patterned in part on Romneycare, the healthcare plan put into place while Romney was governor of MA. Romney's response is that Romneycare was the result of working with the Democrat dominated Congress in his state. He went on to invoke the 10th Amendment, saying it was the right thing for Massachusetts, but that the Federal government shouldn't have taken as large a hand as they did.

Romney has vowed to repeal Obamacare, though that is obviously outside his power to do so were he to be elected. The repeal of a law requires a 2/3 vote of both the House & Senate, which is unlikely. That being said, bills to defund Obamacare are possible. Those bills would naturally be veto'd were Obama to be elected. Thus, while Romney may not be able to repeal Obamacare, it is much more likely that less of Obamacare will be implemented if he is elected vs Obama. Bottom line: If you're anti-Obamacare, you're pro-Romney, and vice versa.


These are far from the only issues, and far from all the information available. I encourage you to do your own fact checking and investigating, because the only way we will improve our government is through informed voting.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Debating the debates: An excellent idea from Arianna Huffington

As I was perusing various news & opinion sites in my off time, I came across a very interesting point made by Ms. Huffington of the Huffington Post. She notes that there was much to-do about Romney sneaking in notes to the first debate (he didn't, it was hankie), and then asks the obvious question: "Why does it matter if they have notes?"
"When is a sitting president ever going to be faced with a situation in which he's going to need to make an important decision without availing himself of any outside information? Information is good -- indeed, very few crises in our history have come about because a president wanted to consider too much outside information."
Being President isn't an improv comedy show where having all the information in your mind is important. Actually, quite the opposite. It's just as important to know where to get information and who to ask if you don't know as it is to know the information yourself.

She goes on to suggest we actually get rid of the entire debate process as it stands entirely, and replace it with a decision making exercise.
"...what about at least one debate that is structured to resemble the decision-making process a president would actually go through in office? For starters, they could have access to all the information they want. It's fun to see how a candidate responds to a zinger, but it'd be much more instructive to see how a candidate goes about seeking information that he doesn't know. So give them web access. And give them a phone -- to borrow from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, we could have a "Phone an Advisor" option. Or we could have candidates bring their advisors on stage with them. The moderator could throw out a difficult hypothetical; the candidates would consult their respective advisors and come back with an answer. That is, after all, how the presidency actually works."
I imagine this running like Iron Chef, with the Chef going from adviser to adviser getting input, consulting prepared information dumps, etc. Hell, we could even have commentators analyzing who he chose to bring with him, what his process is, and at the end the two candidates get to propose their solution.

It's an intriguing idea. It'll never happen, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Debate Factcheck: Few lies, many exaggerations

As one should always do post-debate, I've been perusing the various fact checking websites to see just how badly our two Presidential hopefuls stretched and manipulated the truth. The short version is: They both exaggerated, but didn't outright lie all that much.

So, yay?

Here's a link to check for yourself at factcheck.org, and another from PolitiFact. It's mostly making things appear much worse and/or better than they actually are. For example, Romney claimed that half of college grads "couldn't find work", implying they were unemployed. In actuality, the study he cited said that 53.6% were unemployed or underemployed, meaning they might be able to find work but were not working as much as they would like or are very overqualified. Still bad, but not as bad. Likewise, Obama's plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion includes some dubious line items, such as savings from the war's ending...which is kind of silly if you think about it. The wars were ending anyway, so that's not really a "deficit reduction" plan.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

1st Presidential Debate: Holy President beating Batman!

I missed the debate last night so I could watch my Orioles completely blow it in a chance to have a showdown with the Yankees. I just finished watching the Presidential debate on YouTube while I was working, expecting a ho-hum sort of experience. After all, President Obama has pretty much convinced me on who to vote for, so all Romney could possibly do is screw it up, right?

Holy ninja-cyborg Jesus was I wrong. Romney whipped the President like the red-headed stepchild of a rented mule. This from a celebrity Twitter feed yesterday:
"What’s that silence I hear? No one throwing a party? No one saying this election is a slam dunk for Obama? What happened to the victory lap?"
 That's Michael Moore. When Michael Moore believes the Republican won a debate, you can pretty much take that to the People's Bank of China.

Romney was concise, using only 47.3% of the total talking time. He was to the point and extremely direct, not afraid to engage the President in specific-yet-eloquent ways on a variety of issues. He looked less like a robot and more like a robust candidate for the Presidency, showing some humanity for the LULZ with his Anniversary jibe at the beginning. Romney proved that he's not out of this race yet. He even did something I didn't think he was capable of: He sounded like a Conservative.

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching it. Here's some of the highlights to look out for:

  • Romney emphasized over and over that he intends to allow no tax cut that adds to the deficit. Likewise, he intends to view all spending through the lens of "Is this worth borrowing money from China for?"
  • Romney made an excellent point about the difference between cutting the corporate tax rate and the individual tax rate. Many businesses pay the individual rate, which is why lowering that rate helps them tremendously.
  • Obama continually hammered Romney on a glaring vulnerability, the fact that closing all loopholes & exemptions would not be enough to cover the gap that Romney is discussing. I doubt that's all Romney has up his sleeve, but he didn't articulate an answer this time. Look for it next debate.
  • When Obama claimed that there is currently a tax break for companies to move their production overseas, Romney completely bitch slapped him. "I've been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I need a better accountant."
  •  Romney clearly stated he was pro-voucher for Medicare to increase coverage. Obama said he was anti-voucher, believing Medicare to be a better option.
  • Obama was pro-cuts to the military, stating the Defense Department "hasn't asked for increased spending". Romney stated he wanted increased Defense spending, so we would continue to have a military that was "second to none".
  • An hour or so in Romney made a reference to the 10th amendment in reference to Healthcare. I could've kissed him.
Now, don't get me wrong. Candidates say all kinds of things during debates they don't actually get to doing in reality. Still, if this performance is any indication, this race is far from over.