Category: Campaign 2008 – President

While Newt Gingrich may think the current GOP field is a bunch of “pathetic…pygmies“, I’ve still got to go by the field as it is at the moment. However, I’d certainly welcome Newt into the fray should he choose to commit to running for the highest office in the land. And speaking of pathetic pygmies, I also have to see how the Democrats continue to fare as I stack them up against the GOP hopefuls and turn the topic over to military and veterans’ affairs.

For this portion of my search, I’m really more interested in the veterans than the actual military strategy. While I talk about a 50 year plan, the winner of the 2008 race can only serve 8 years and it’s likely that we’ll continue to deal with the Long War throughout his or her term. So I’ll focus on the military aspect separately when I get to the part regarding the Long War and concentrate on veterans’ affairs here. In case you’ve forgotten, here is where I discuss the subject in its entirety.

And since I’ve sort of limited the topic, there’s really not a lot of discussion of this on the various campaign websites. In fact, I only have seven entrants this time around so this will be one of the shorter articles. Only one from the GOP side talks specifically about veterans; not surprisingly, it’s John McCain.

For the Democrats, we start with the onetime First Lady. Hillary Clinton deals with the veterans here.

John Edwards makes his suggestions as well.

Mike Gravel puts a bit of biography in it:

Senator Mike Gravel enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1951 and served for three years as an adjutant in the Communications Services and as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps. Our war veterans are not, as some would have it, a “special interest” but are our primary interest. As President, Sen. Gravel would ensure that veterans receive full and unambiguous funding for their most important needs, including health care that is indexed to the increasing cost of care and medicine. He would also make permanent the 100 percent disability ratings of those diagnosed as suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He would also make sure that the VA system is fully financed and has sufficient well-trained personnel to provide the finest care that is available. As the senator says, “We can do no less and will do much more.”

This is what Dennis Kucinich has to say.

Barack Obama weighs in here.

Finally, Bill Richardson notes on his site that:

Veterans will get access to the high-quality care they deserve, when they need it, without bureaucratic hassles. (emphasis his).

Also, from a blog account:

During campaign stops in Iowa, Richardson said he would give all veterans a “Heroes Health Card” that would allow them to receive health care wherever they need it. Currently, veterans are required to access their health benefits at designated veterans’ hospitals, which creates an accessibility burden for those veterans who don’t live near them.

So there you have it. And to be quite honest the Democrats aren’t all bad on this issue.

But I’ll start with my side. John McCain has sort of a mixed bag where he has made a lot of effort to secure common-sense rewards for veterans and their families like “a demonstration project to send mobile health centers to remote locations where veterans need care” or “support(ing)… the Troops-To-Teachers Act, a program to train veterans to become teachers.” On the other hand, he overreaches with items like “efforts to provide veterans with treatment for tobacco related illnesses” or “creat(ing) National Medal of Honor Sites to honor recipients of the Medal of Honor.” While this is a reasonable and lengthy record, I don’t see much to suggest what he’d do if elected. I can only give him a few points because he’s resting on past laurels; thus, I’ll give him 4 points so at least now he’s in positive territory.

Hillary Clinton is a little less specific about her plans, what sticks out the most to me is a promise to “reduc(e) the red tape our wounded service members and veterans face.” But the main point to me is that she still wants to localize care within the VA where I’d like to see it more privatized. I’ll give her actual points for effort though, how about 2 points.

Like Clinton, John Edwards seems to place all of his eggs in the federal VA basket. One part of his plan that bothered me somewhat was that he “will also reject the Bush Administration’s ideological drive to outsource federal jobs; a questionable decision to hire contractors to manage Walter Reed facilities contributed to the shocking conditions there.” To me, the military’s specialty is killing people and breaking things. It’s probably a case of a poorly-chosen contractor that’s to blame for the conditions at Walter Reed, not the outsourcing itself. Overall, his program would spend more money for what I consider dubious results at best, so he gets no points.

I suppose the question for Mike Gravel is this: while I have all the respect and admiration in the world for those who serve our country, shouldn’t we all get the finest care that’s available? It’s why I’d like to see the VA system absorbed into the health care system at-large – that way all of us benefit from the best healthcare has to offer. I appreciate Senator Gravel’s service, but will deduct 2 points from his score.

Dennis Kucinich is similar to John McCain in that he talks about what he’s done for veterans, but then he takes time to rip on Halliburton and talk about his plan to substitute the ineffective UN “peacemakers” for our troops in Iraq. For going off topic like that, I’m taking off all 15 points.

Most of Barack Obama’s webpage about the veterans issue talks about what he’s purportedly accomplished for veterans rather than what he plans to do for (or to) them if elected President. It’s much like my complaint about John McCain, but he has a much less lengthy record. It is a bipartisan record though so I’ll give him one point.

But of all the candidates who have talked about veterans’ affairs, I think Bill Richardson actually has the most intriguing idea. It’s one that’s worth further discussion to be sure because this “Heroes Health Card” apparently allows veterans to receive care wherever they wish, including the private-sector hospitals. If it were tied to a private insurance program that could be supplemented by the government as a veterans’ benefit I’d really like it, but as it is I’ll give him 8 points.

The GOP standings aren’t changing a lot, but John McCain moves up a bit and joins the rest of his companions in positive territory. Tom Tancredo maintains his lead. I also have to retroactively add 3 points to Mike Huckabee’s total because I completely missed his treatise on education in part five. It brings him closer to the field.

1. Tom Tancredo, 19.5 points
2. Duncan Hunter, 17 points
3. Sam Brownback, 14.5 points
4. Ron Paul, 13.5 points
5. Mike Huckabee, 12 points
6. Rudy Giuliani, 8 points
7. John McCain, 3 points
8. Mitt Romney, 3 points
9. Fred Thompson, 2 points
10. Tommy Thompson, 1.5 points

The Democrats shuffle a little bit; those who commented here generally benefit. I also am taking this time to add 4 points to Mike Gravel’s total, if you go back to part four you’ll see the reason why.

1. Bill Richardson, -15 points
2. Mike Gravel, -19 points
3. Joe Biden, -19.5 points
4. John Edwards, -22.5 points
5. Chris Dodd, -23.5 points
6. Barack Obama, -28 points
7. Hillary Clinton, -29 points
8. Dennis Kucinich, -40.5 points

Interestingly enough, my next subject is the only one not part of my original 50 year plan. With the attention I give the subject elsewhere on monoblogue though, I decided energy independence merited its own spot and 17 precious points that could vault any candidate up to the top of the GOP standings. So that’s Friday’s topic du jour.

Just as this series is my attempt to educate voters about the choices they have and the benefits of studying my take on the issues (along with other sources, of course) when it comes to choosing a candidate that’s best for America, some of these same aspirants feel that the federal government needs to have a role in educating the “skulls full of mush” that become the leaders of tomorrow. On that I part ways with these men (and woman) who seek our country’s highest office, an argument I advanced here.

There are 13 points at stake in this particular part (yes, I increase at two point increments with each successive portion of my quest to find my chosen candidate, it’s my way of weighing the results properly.) The gain or loss is going to pretty much depend on how willing the candidate’s going to be to tell me that the Department of Education should be dismantled and federal control of education dollars ceased. I don’t think anyone goes to that extreme so I don’t anticipate someone getting all 13 points; however, it should be interesting to find out if anyone drops all 13 by wanting even more government control over the kidlins with ideas like pre-K schooling.

As is customary, if the candidate has a webpage devoted solely to the topic I link, otherwise I quote, beginning with the GOP side.

Sam Brownback:

When we ignore poorly performing schools, we also ignore every student in those schools, thereby allowing an achievement gap to persist. It is imperative that we close the achievement gap and provide our nation’s students with a productive learning environment that challenges and encourages intellectual stimulation. I believe that providing for choice in education is beneficial to student achievement. For years now, we have seen studies that prove school choice programs, such as the new Opportunity Scholarships recently implemented in the District of Columbia, have a drastic and positive impact on students—especially minority students. By supporting such initiatives, we will be ensuring that more students have access to a high quality education, which means that they will have a better chance of success in not only reaching college, but flourishing in life.

Duncan Hunter has two parts of his site devoted to education:

15. Goals for the Department of Education:

I believe we can educate students more effectively by returning school curriculum prerogatives to the states, local communities and, most importantly, to the family. State agencies charged with conducting education policies do not need expensive and inefficient mandates from a federal agency and I support streamlining the responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Education toward a goal of working in cooperation with local and state governments to meet local and state learning levels.

16. Educational choice (vouchers, tax credits); home schooling; and the freedom of private and home education from federal regulation:

I support taking the actions necessary to strengthen our public educational system and school vouchers are a great opportunity to provide students and their families with additional educational choices. According to national studies, a significant percentage of high school students have difficulty reading at a proficient level, test well below the international average in math and science, and lack basic knowledge in history. Clearly, parents have a reason to be concerned. Many Americans support innovative plans that address our current education shortcomings and I believe school vouchers are an effective way of achieving this goal.

Taking into consideration that approximately 2 million children are taught at home, it is important that we make every effort to ensure these students have the same access and opportunities to federal benefits, such as financial aid, as those who attend public school.

Mitt Romney talks about education here and features a video on his site.

Tom Tancredo devotes both a full webpage and slightly modified summary:

I spent a decade as the Department of Education’s regional representative in Denver so I do not say this lightly. Federal involvement should be limited. Educational control is best left in the hands of parents. A no-strings-attached voucher system would promote school choice, while competition for students would drive educational improvements at the institutional level. I also suggest schools return to a more traditional course of study and that the public focus shift to certain non-school factors, like parental involvement, which studies show are the most important determinants of student performance.

Tommy Thompson:

Governor Thompson, who started the nation’s first school choice program in Milwaukee, believes America must hold our schools to high standards from kindergarten through college while making sure all of our children have access to a world-class education, regardless of what neighborhood they live in or how much money their parents make. Governor Thompson believes Congress can make No Child Left Behind stronger, and do so without wavering on its core principles.

And now the Democrats, beginning with Joe Biden.

Joe Biden:

Joe Biden believes that every American should have access to higher education. In order to compete in a global economy the American workforce has to protect its edge in education. A college degree is more valuable than ever – and more expensive.

As a parent, Joe Biden knows how tuition costs drain family savings. He would expand help for families by increasing the tax deduction for tuition payments. He would expand Pell grants to cover the average tuition at public colleges for low income families.

Joe Biden believes that high school students should be engaged in planning and saving for college earlier in their careers so that students in their senior year are not overwhelmed by the process of applying to college and figuring out how to pay for it. He would expand national service programs to high school students so that they can earn money for college by participating in public service while they are in high school.

Over the past two decades we have made incredible strides in updating our education system. Fifteen years ago it would have been hard to imagine students linked through a high-tech video and high-speed internet network to other students and teachers across the country or teachers interacting with parents via email. New technology holds promise for our education system that we’re only beginning to discover. But nothing is more essential than quality educators and engaged parents. Joe Biden believes that to fulfill the promise to leave no child behind we have to direct adequate resources to update schools, reduce class size and school size, reward quality educators, and improve teacher pay.

Hillary Clinton has a pet program and also notes:

She has worked to make college affordable and accessible, fighting to increase the federal Pell Grant, which currently covers just a third of tuition at an average public college. Hillary has also proposed the Student Borrowers Bill of Rights, a comprehensive set of reforms that would eliminate unscrupulous lending practices.

Chris Dodd has this to say about the subject.

But John Edwards tops Dodd (and the rest of the field) with two pages.

Mike Gravel:

No Child Left Behind has left far too many children behind. We have a dire situation in America; 30% of our kids do not graduate from high school. Nearly a third of our children are condemned to a substandard economic existence. Education in America must be properly funded. However, money will not solve all the problems. For example, Washington D.C. ranks first in dollars spent, yet ranks last in achievement. We need to approach education comprehensively. We must properly fund education while raising the overall standard of living in America and making education a vital part of a healthy, thriving community.

Of course Dennis Kucinich has his share of ideas, too.

Barack Obama isn’t left out of the pandering either.

Nor is Bill Richardson. This is one of his top issues. And he sucks up to the teachers’ union in this speech.

As I said earlier, no one is going to get all 13 points on the positive side. 2008 is just too soon for as much radical change as I seek – but some may get a better beginning than others. This is where the parties tend to be different.

Let me ask you Sam Brownback, how will you support school choice initiatives? More federal funding? Granted, I like the idea of school choice but we all know that federal money comes with federal strings and you don’t mention anything about severing those. I’ll give you 3 points.

Duncan Hunter comes pretty close to the ideal, just not quite there! It’s tempting to give him a whole lot of points but I’ll stay with a nice round 10 points of 13. Vouchers are probably the closest thing to “money follows the child” that we’ll see for the foreseeable future.

Mitt Romney still seems to favor an abundance of federal involvement in education despite his talk about principals managing schools. What about homeschoolers? Only 1 point.

Tom Tancredo is also great in this category. Just wish he’d said “no” federal involvement instead of “limited.” A plus for voting against NCLB, although that’s a bit of hindsight on my part since the idea of standards sounded good to me when it was passed. He gets 11 of 13 points.

On the other hand, please tell Tommy Thompson that we do not need NCLB to be stronger. It’s only because he did enact the first school choice program that I’ll award him 1/2 point and not dock him.

Something tells me Ron Paul would be pretty strong in this category too but I saw nothing on his site pertaining directly to education. That may be an upcoming correction.

Time for pandering to the NEA and AFT; let’s look at the Democrats.

Joe Biden doesn’t disappoint in the pandering department. Throw more federal money at schools and give everyone a college education. That and the national service (is that like compulsory volunteering?) means I’ll dock him on points. He does consider merit pay in his prescription so I’ll only take off 12 of the 13 possible.

Leave it to Hillary Clinton to assign rights that don’t exist (a student borrowers’ Bill of Rights? They have the right to pay it back!) and give federal largesse to the states with enough strings attached to fly 500 kites. Yep, that and the pre-K indoctrination you’re pushing lose you all 13 points.

Chris Dodd saves himself 1/2 point by promoting competition for student loan dollars. Other than that, it’s the same left-wing garbage, good to lose 12.5 points by.

While John Edwards talks a bit about streamlining some parts of the college financial aid process and what could possibly be a good program at a state level (called “College for Everyone”) the trouble is that he’s advocating one-size-fits-all solutions that make even more people rely on the federal government to get through life. He’s going to be cut another 11.5 points on this section.

Mike Gravel correctly points out that money will not solve all of the educational system’s problems but says TWICE that education should be properly funded. Well…which is it? For the colossal ignorance of saying three contrary things in one paragraph you lose all 13 points.

The man is practically a Marxist lunatic on the subject of education, but I have to give Dennis Kucinich props for one statement he makes toward the end of his education webpage:

Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking.

It’s sort of like a blind squirrel moment, but he’s totally correct on that one facet so I’ll only deduct 9 points from Dennis.

The problem with Barack Obama is that he comes up with plausible-sounding ideas that could work but wants to integrate them at a federal level, when the goal should be for the federal government to leave the education system alone. On that basis I’m deducting 11 points.

Let’s see, Bill Richardson wants to “fully fund” NCLB (check), raise teacher salaries (check), do a federal pre-K program (check), and say no to vouchers (check). A perfect little AFT/NEA minion. Off with your 13 points!

So once again the GOP order changes around. And much like liberal financial policy (raise taxes while spending the influx and then some) the Democrats’ deficit gets deeper and deeper.

GOP:

1. Tom Tancredo, 19.5 points
2. Duncan Hunter, 17 points
3. Sam Brownback, 14.5 points
4. Ron Paul, 13.5 points
5. Mike Huckabee, 9 points
6. Rudy Giuliani, 8 points
7. Mitt Romney, 3 points
8. Fred Thompson, 2 points
9. Tommy Thompson, 1.5 points
10. John McCain, -1 point

Democrats:

1. Joe Biden, -19.5 points
2. Mike Gravel, -21 points
3. John Edwards, -22.5 points
4. Bill Richardson, -23 points
5. Chris Dodd, -23.5 points
6. Dennis Kucinich, -25.5 points
7. Barack Obama, -29 points
8. Hillary Clinton, -31 points

Next week we move into the topic of military and veterans’ affairs.

Late edit: How the heck did I miss this? I must have been half-asleep when I looked at Mike Huckabee’s website because I missed his page on “Education and the Arts.”

The problem I have is that he wants to do things that were fine as governor (such as expanding arts and music education) to a federal level. And while he talks about setting a “distinction” between federal and state involvement that still leaves the federal government involved. On the other hand, he would encourage homeschooling and charter schools so I suppose that’s worth something. At my next opportunity I’ll retroactively give him 3 points.

Just like “The Jeffersons”, we’re movin’ on up. Ranked number nine on my list of the twelve most important issues impacting my choice for President on the Republican side (and as a contrast on the Democrat side) is trade and job creation.

As I note in my chapter of the 50 year plan dealing with trade and job creation, I’m more on the side of free trading, but I sympathize with the argument protectionists have regarding our perceived decline in manufacturing jobs over the last 30 years or so. In the GOP field, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul do have a valid point in noting that some of the free trade agreements we’re eager to sign on with do have some caveats that chip away at our sovereignty.

It’s also interesting to note that a major part of the impetus for declaring our independence from the British Crown in the first place had to do with tariffs, such as the Stamp Act (1765) and the Tea Act (1773), which led to the Boston Tea Party. On the other hand, for much of our country’s history tariffs and duties were the prime source of government revenue, generally up until the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. In short, this is an issue that has provoked discussion and outcry on many occasions during our nation’s history and Campaign 2008 is no exception.

(Also corollary to this topic on an economic basis is trading in labor, but I’m going to cover that situation as part of my look at border security and immigration later on. In my eyes that’s more relevant to the subject of national security than to trade.)

But here’s what the Presidential hopefuls have to say about this issue. For some of the GOP contenders, I’m indebted to the Club for Growth website, where they’ve done “white papers” on four of the officeseekers. These will be noted as appropriate.

Sam Brownback, as excerpted from the Club for Growth website:

On the whole, Senator Sam Brownback has been one of the most consistent supporters of free trade in the U.S. Senate. He was deemed a “free trader” by the Cato Institute for the 105th Congress through the 108th Congress, a designation given to those who “consistently vote against both trade barriers and international economic subsidies.”

His overall pro-trade record, however, is tarnished slightly by his support for a quota on foreign wheat gluten imports (Press release, 03/19/01) and his support for the preservation of a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol (Press release, 05/10/06).

No doubt, these two aberrations were motivated by the role wheat gluten and ethanol play in the Kansas economy, but they are nevertheless disappointing blemishes on an otherwise extremely impressive record on trade.

Senator Brownback’s record on regulation is generally pro-growth with just a few exceptions. He has often demonstrated his respect for the self-regulation of the marketplace and his general aversion to burdensome regulatory measures.

At the same time, Senator Brownback has cast some votes that increase burdensome government regulations. The most unfortunate of these was his vote (admittedly along with all his Senate colleagues) in favor of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, an overreaction to corporate malfeasance that imposed heavy financial burdens on companies (Roll Call #192, 07/25/02). He has also voted in favor of an amendment that would allow the federal government to set drug prices (Roll Call #302, 11/03/05) and supported the CANSPAM Act of 2003 (Brownback press release, 10/27/03).

Rudy Giuliani, also excerpted from the Club for Growth site:

Rudy Giuliani the presidential candidate is billing himself as a supporter of free trade. As recently as late March, the Mayor embraced free trade, albeit cautiously, at the Club for Growth Winter Conference. “I generally agree with the principles of free trade and I think and increasingly have become more convinced of those principles because I almost think they are inevitable.”

While his professed support is a step in the right direction, the lack of hard evidence to support his claims and his ardent opposition to NAFTA in 1993 is troubling…

…Giuliani has explained his opposition to NAFTA as motivated by his concern for New York City jobs, (but) it is unclear if his parochial concerns bear out upon closer inspection. As the financial center of the country, if not the world, New York City stood to benefit from the removal of trade barriers in North America. Given his sparse record on trade and his curious opposition to NAFTA, Americans have a right to question whether a President Giuliani would expend the political capital to continue the kind of broad free trade deals that have contributed to American prosperity over the past generation.

(snip)

Rudy Giuliani’s record on regulation demonstrates an intuitive understanding of the virtue of free markets and a fearlessness in the face of government bureaucracy. This is an admirable and necessary quality for a candidate looking to run a government behemoth in desperate need of a spring cleaning. While that same record displays some flashes of disappointment, his overall persistence is an encouraging sign.

I’ll start with Mike Huckabee from his own website, with the Club for Growth summary to follow. In his own words:

I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade. We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed. Behind the statistics, there are real families and real lives and real pain. I’m running for President because I don’t want people who have worked loyally for a company for twenty or thirty years to walk in one morning and be handed a pink slip and be told, “I’m sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.”

I believe that globalization, done right, done fairly, can be a blessing for our society. As the Industrial Revolution raised living standards by allowing ordinary people to buy mass-produced goods that previously only the rich could afford, so globalization gives all of us the equivalent of a big pay raise by letting us buy all kinds of things from clothing to computers to TVs much more inexpensively.

For its part, the Club for Growth points out (excerpted here):

Governor Huckabee’s record on trade is limited, but positive. In 2003, he pushed for free trade with Mexico, calling for a “strong market of the Americas” and supporting NAFTA (AP 10/03/03). In 2006, he signed an agreement between Arkansas and a South Korea trade group, calling for increased commerce between the southern state and South Korea (AP 06/23/06)…

Governor Huckabee has consistently supported and initiated measures that increase government’s interference in markets, thereby impeding economic growth. He told the Washington Times he supports “empowering people to make their own decisions,” but many of his key proposals have done just the opposite (Washington Times 03/01/05).

Duncan Hunter:

America’s one-way-street trade relationship with China and other nations has reduced manufacturing jobs severely in the U.S. I would change the one-way-street into a two-way-street by putting the same charges on foreign goods that they put on ours.

Like Huckabee, John McCain has his view and the Club for Growth perspective:

A global rising tide of economic isolationism is threatening our entrepreneurs. Opening new markets is a key to U.S. economic success. Today, despite all the defeatist rhetoric, America is the world’s biggest exporter, importer, producer, saver, investor, manufacturer and innovator. Americans do not shy from the challenge of competition: they welcome it. Because of that, we attract foreign investment from all over the world. Our government should welcome competition as our people do, and not pretend that we can wall off our economy.

Neither should we fail to recognize that competition can lead to painful dislocations for some individuals. We must remain committed to education, retraining, and help for displaced workers all the while reminding ourselves that our ability to change is a great strength of our nation. Indeed, Washington must keep pace with this change and develop new approaches to ensure that our ideas are protected, our intellectual property rights are respected, and our economic outreach serves the American workers today and in the future.

But, cautions the Club for Growth:

John McCain has been a strong proponent of free trade in the U.S. Senate. He has voted for many bills that broke down trade barriers and increased competition and choice for consumers…The Cato Institute aptly sums up his record on trade by designating him a “free trader” for the 105th Congress through the 108th Congress, a top accolade given out to those who “consistently vote against both trade barriers and international economic subsidies.”

At first glance, John McCain’s record on regulation appears generally positive (but)…

A deeper look at Senator McCain’s record…reveals a number of votes and bills that reflect much less favorably on his commitment to free market principles and his claim to being an economic conservative…His anti-growth votes are exacerbated by his characteristic vociferousness in cases like the Patients’ Bill of Rights and the Climate Stewardship Act. His occasional eagerness to support and encourage increased government regulation suggests a troublesome mistrust of the free market.

Ron Paul notes on his website that:

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system….We must withdraw from any…trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

Mitt Romney chimes in with this statement:

“We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.”

Romney also touches somewhat on this topic in a speech he gave at the Detroit Economic Club back in February.

Tom Tancredo discusses trade here, and in this statement:

The President’s fast track authority should not be renewed. The constitution gives Congress not the Executive the power to negotiate treaties. Those who would delegate that authority to the President argue that the complexities of negotiation in a global economy require it. But that argument has lost its force because the Presidents have abused the power. Instead of sticking to trade agreements, they make commitments on matters of domestic policy, like immigration and carbon dioxide emissions, in the guise of international accords.

Now I’ll turn to the Democrats, as I found nothing from either Thompson directly relating to the subject at hand.

Joe Biden sort of peripherally skirts the subject:

To protect jobs, compete in a global economy and strengthen families Joe Biden believes the next President must first address two things: energy security and health care. This is not our father’s economy – America now competes in a global economy.

The price of energy is set by the global marketplace. Developing our own sources of energy aren’t enough to protect us from high prices that cost businesses and families — we must invest in using energy more efficiently and become the leader in energy innovation.

By 2008, the average Fortune 500 company will spend as much on health care as it will make in profit. In other countries their competitors will not have to bear these costs.

Joe Biden believes America will continue to dominate the global economy by putting energy security and health care reform at the top of the agenda.

Hillary Clinton places her views on what her campaign has billed as the “innovation” page and adds:

In New York, Hillary championed tax incentives like wage credits for businesses and job creation in upstate New York and elsewhere. She also helped launch economic development initiatives to provide critical resources to small and micro businesses and helped launch a private sector venture called New Jobs for New York that makes venture capital available to New York’s innovators.

In fact, aside from Biden and Mike Gravel, each of the Democrat contenders devotes a whole web page to their ideas. So for further study, one need only check out the websites. The interesting thing to me is how they bill each page.

For Chris Dodd, it’s headlined under the “Labor” category.

Meanwhile John Edwards lumps the topic with “working families.”

Dennis Kucinich is very straightforward, for him it’s about jobs.

Barack Obama bills the subject as “fighting poverty.”

And finally Bill Richardson refers to his ideas as “jump-starting the economy.” I guess Richardson recalls the “worst economy of the last 50 years” bit that his former boss Bill Clinton used to con 43% of the public into voting for him in 1992.

Obviously, having gone through the sources, the question becomes how I rate each participant. These are rated on an 11 point scale as the priority increases.

On the broad scale the Club for Growth gives Sam Brownback pretty good marks, and it seems like he’s at least not interested in adding more regulations. I’d like to see him (and the rest of Congress for that matter) try and roll back more red tape, but the tide needs to be stemmed as a beginning. I’ve decided he merits 7 points of 11.

As a chief executive in the nation’s largest city, Rudy Giuliani comes relatively close to the same powers he’d have as President. Given his track record from the Club for Growth’s perspective, particularly on NAFTA, he’s probably not the closest candidate to my ideal on these subjects although Giuliani did accomplish a bit of streamlining as mayor. I’ll give him 4.5 points.

I have a question regarding Mike Huckabee, particularly when it comes to the agreement signed with the South Korean trade group – does that seem to anyone else uncomfortably close to the Constitutional prohibition regarding a State “enter(ing) into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation” (Article 1, Section 10)? His record seems to be one of slowly increasing the role of government in the market, rather than the other way around – for that and the blatant emotional appeal he only gets 2.5 points.

Well, Duncan Hunter lost his lead. We know China’s not going to play ball fairly, so slapping tariffs on their goods will just compel them to find some other way around the restrictions. When you add in the fact there’s also no statement on job creation, my decision is to deduct 1 point from his total.

I’m not impressed with John McCain’s own description of his approach to the subject at hand. While he correctly acknowleges we cannot “wall off” our economy, the part about helping out displaced workers is troubling if he’s figuring that as a federal-level issue. With that and being as moderate on regulation, I can only give him two points solely for being a good free-trader.

Ron Paul is very principled on the idea of not having what George Washington termed as “entangling alliances.” On the other hand, we do need some rules of the game so I think as President he should work to limit the scope of the agreements as feasibly as possible. I don’t think he would go to the extreme Hunter does, in fact he states that he welcomes free trade. In this case, I think he deserves 6 points.

I’m not certain I like Mitt Romney’s idea about “investing” in education and technology because I can see that as more government intervention. While it’s not totally germane to the subject, the example of his health insurance program in Massachusetts also sends a message that he’s not totally enamoured with private-sector solutions. It’s only because he’s not a protectionist that I award two points.

Tancredo is cut from the same cloth as Ron Paul insofar as the trade agreement idea is concerned. I’m not quite as certain regarding cutting government regulation and red tape though so I’ll grant him 5.5 points on this subject.

Switching sides, Joe Biden talks nicely, but what he says is code for additional regulations on energy that will discourage market forces from controlling its price and the easing of corporate health care costs by placing the government in charge of it rather than private industry. I have two future posts that will deal with those specific subjects, but as far as attitude goes and because Joe’s so vague on the subject he loses three points.

Practically all of Hillary Clinton’s ideas involve – you guessed it – more federal spending and involvement. I will give her a little credit for having the idea of rewarding innovation through competition, but I think the private sector or states should play the role of funding these awards, not the federal government. Even with that thought she loses 9.5 points.

Chris Dodd finally did it – the perfectly wrong plan for trade and job creation. You have to read it to believe it. He loses all 11 points, and I’ve half a mind to take off more. But I won’t.

As part of his crap about “Two Americas”, John Edwards manages to show that he can be a Big Labor toadie, too. Tell me, John, is your legal firm’s staff unionized? It’s amazing how Democrats think Big Labor creates good jobs when the reality is that it’s the capital and effort of those who start these companies that truly create the work that the union folks do. The UAW didn’t start Ford Motor Company, Henry Ford did through hard work and effort. Yep, he loses 11 points too.

Dennis Kucinich is not just protectionist, he wants to recreate the FDR-era Works Progress Administration. It would be make-work, big-dollar unionized jobs for everyone. Screw the market. While I’ll admit that our nation’s infrastructure isn’t in the best shape, there’s a reason for the term “close enough for government work.” He also needs to update his page, unemployment isn’t at 6.2% now. Try about 4.5%, or just about the definition of “full employment.” I’m taking off 10.5 points.

There’s a couple ideas that Barack Obama has that might not be bad on a state level, and he at least pays lip service to the private sector in his spiel. One area he speaks about is helping out low-skilled workers through a partnership with unions. Where I don’t care for Big Labor in a political sense, they do tend (particularly in the construction industry) to train workers who exhibit craftsmanship that’s usually worth the premium paid. But his program would overstep the boundary between government and the market. He loses 9 points.

Finally, Bill Richardson starts out pretty well with some of the programs New Mexico has implemented that seem to work in turning the state’s economy around (or so he claims.) As far as that goes, these programs are fine because it’s New Mexico’s right to do so. But Bill may be making the common liberal mistake of thinking that what works in New Mexico will work in New York, too. And he falters in spots into the typical left-wing job-killing ideas like increasing the minimum wage and repealing some of the Bush tax cuts. He’s penalized 8 points.

While no one on the Republican side was a perfect 11 point gainer, we do have a new GOP leader:

1. Ron Paul, 13.5 points
2. Sam Brownback, 11.5 points
3. Mike Huckabee, 9 points
4. Tom Tancredo, 8.5 points
5. Rudy Giuliani, 8 points
6. Duncan Hunter, 7 points
7. Mitt Romney, 2 points
8. Fred Thompson, 2 points
9. Tommy Thompson, 1 point
10. John McCain, -1 point

It’s pretty sad that a “perfect” score would now be 32 points and no one comes close. Of course, Joe Biden and Mike Gravel made it to the Democrat lead by pretty much saying nothing on this subject:

1. Joe Biden, -7.5 points
2. Mike Gravel, -8 points
3. Bill Richardson, -10 points
4. Chris Dodd, -11 points
5. John Edwards, -11 points
6. Dennis Kucinich, -16.5 points
7. Hillary Clinton, -18 points
8. Barack Obama, -18 points

Next time around, we tackle the subject of education.

Late edit: In doing my research for a future installment, I found this on Mike Gravel’s website:

The senator’s position is that America must address the root cause of illegal immigration. Any discussion of Mexican immigration must include NAFTA and the concept of “free trade.” The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been a disaster for the working class of both the US and Mexico. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that over 1,000,000 US jobs were lost as a result of NAFTA, a third of them manufacturing jobs. In Mexico, 1.3 million farm workers lost their jobs in the same period. This has led to a wave of immigrant workers looking for work in the US job market.

Major structural changes must be made to NAFTA in order to restore lost jobs. Reforming unfair trade policies will stimulate job growth on both sides of the border and allow Mexican workers to remain in their motherland. We must make fair trade a priority if we are to rebuild the American middle class.

It was buried under “immigration” which is scheduled for August 17. But I think Gravel has a decent point here so I’ll add 4 points to his total with the next chapter I complete.

The other day I was reading an article Michelle Malkin wrote on her website that talked about Republicans being a little apathetic when it came to their Presidential choices, noting about the apathy, “That’s about where I’m at now, alas. How about you?” 

Well, Michelle, here’s one part of your answer, courtesy of monoblogue.

Today I’m going to hit up issue number 10 on my list, election reform. This also includes camapign finance so it’s a relatively broad issue and candidates are all over the map on it.

If you go back and look at my chapter on election reform and campaign finance, my pet issues are voter ID, early and absentee voting, and removing campaign financing restrictions in exchange for instant disclosure.

But one thing I didn’t mention that deserves consideration because it’s favored by many Democrat candidates while I’m against it is the issue of felons voting. Here is the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied of abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

While Democrats argue that “condition of servitude” can be construed as a jail term, to me serving time is not “servitude”, but punishment. Slavery was servitude where those born into it had little or no choice in the matter; serving jail time is commonly (but not always) because of a choice made to violate laws that society dictates. And something tells me they’d do their damndest to deny Scooter Libby (who is now a convicted felon despite the trumped-up charges) his franchise.

As I did the research, I found that this is a “trap” issue for Democrats, who by and large were on the opposite side of the fence to me while the GOP candidates pretty much (with one notable exception) stayed away from the subject. In a way that’s wise, because I see this as mostly a state issue so not discussing it in a national campaign is actually closer to how I feel about it. Probably the main area of concern I have with existing law is in the area of campaign finance.

Thus, unlike my last installment which predominantly featured Republicans, this time we showcase Democrats trying to federalize everything – it’s something they’re good at.

However, the GOP does go first and there’s one guy who mentions the subject.

John McCain:

Most Americans understand that competitive elections in a free country require money. Since campaigns require spending funds to communicate with voters, they know we can never take money completely out of politics, nor should we. Americans have a right to support the candidates and the parties they endorse, including financially if they so choose.

But what most Americans worry about profoundly is corporations or individuals with huge checks seeking the undue influence on lawmakers that such largesse is intended to purchase. That is why John McCain has fought to enforce long-standing prohibitions on corporate and union contributions to federal political parties, for sensible donation limits, disclosure of how candidates and campaigns are funded, and the diligent enforcement of these common sense rules that promote maximum public participation in the political process and limit opportunities for corruption.

John McCain understands that in America the people are sovereign, and deserve a political process worthy of the sacrifices that have been made by so many to keep us free and proud. As President, John McCain will see to it that the institutions of self-government are respected pillars of democracy, not commodities to be bought, bartered, or abused.

Wow, that was easy. Now we turn to the Democrat side, beginning with Joe Biden.

Joe Biden:

This is from a news report on a New Hampshire debate:

Biden argued that political campaigns should be financed publicly to remove special interests from the political process.

Hillary Clinton devotes an issue page to voting, and also I found an excerpt from a speech she gave on government reform:

(W)e have to reform our election system. That’s where our democracy starts. We have to make sure that every vote is counted and every vote counts – and we know that the best place to hold a government accountable is at the ballot box. Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of interference with our electoral system in the last years, and there have been new requirements that have been put up as obstacles, that have really discouraged people from exercising their right to vote.

I’ve introduced legislation called the Count Every Vote Act, which is a comprehensive voting reform bill. It will make our voting systems more accountable and accessible. It will expand the right to vote of most of our citizens. It will create more opportunities for people to register to vote, and it will give greater assurances through paper-verified ballots that those votes will be counted. We need more oversight in our electoral system to discourage manipulation and deception. It is almost heart-breaking that I have to mention this on my reform agenda. American should lead the world in the best electoral system, using the best equipment.

Mike Gravel weighs in with what he calls the National Initiative.

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich has plenty to say on the subject, devoting two pages on his Presidential website to the twin issues of election reform and campaign finance.

Barack Obama chimes in from his website as well.

Bill Richardson:

In 2006, Governor Richardson signed into law the landmark New Mexico Make Every Vote Count Act, that moves the state to a single paper ballot system, makes New Mexico’s elections system more transparent and helps guarantee that every New Mexican’s ballot will be counted.

Looks like it’s time to add them up; or in this case it’s going to be subtract them out because I don’t agree with the vast majority of what these candidates say. Moreover, the stakes start to get higher as this part counts for nine points.

John McCain has my permanent disdain for introducing McCain-Feingold, and it doesn’t look like he’s learned anything since then. While he pays lip service to our right to donate to campaigns, his proposal’s not worked whatsoever, never mind it violates the First Amendment as I see it. It’s solely because he’s a Republican that I don’t hammer him for all nine points, he loses 8.5 and moves into negative territory overall.

No, Joe Biden, we do not need public financing of campaigns. He loses half of the possible points only because he said very little on the subject otherwise. A big minus 4.5 to you.

Hillary also has a completely wrong-headed approach, with the possible exception of a paper trail. Why make Election Day a national holiday? If a person’s not going to vote, they don’t deserve a day off to not do it. Same-day registration is a quick invitation to voter fraud, and who decides whether a person is an “impartial observer”? Most states already have provisions for elections to be supervised at the polling place by at least the two major parties. And something tells me Ben Cardin had a hand in the part about “(allowing) the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting.” You lose 8.5 points, Hillary.

Mike Gravel wants to use the Constitution to change our country from a Constitutional republic to a true democracy. All this would create is mass chaos as public opinion on some topics wildly diverges from one place to another, nor is public opinion always correct. After all, I’m told that the majority of people in Colonial times would’ve preferred to stay under the British crown. Should we have listened then? So much for your plus rating, Mike, you lose nine points.

Dennis Kucinich goes through a so-called progressive wish list of voting rules: completely public financing, Election Day as a holiday with instant registration, felons voting, and a concept called “instant runoff voting” where people pick a second and third choice, used if no candidate gains a majority. That may work in a primary situation (which occurs at the state level) but I’m not sure that’s feasible nationally. I’ll be ranking my choices in order here so I’m doing something similar; however, I only get one vote next year. So I give him credit for an interesting thought that may merit study at the state level; also he favors including “credible” third-party candidates in the debates. My only complaint there is who determines “credible.” I’ll subtract only six points overall; he has some decent ideas but the total package is dreadful.

Barack Obama notes his attempt to nationalize election rules and is dead-set against voters showing ID. That’s 180 degrees away from my view, so he loses all nine points.

Finally, Bill Richardson is just vague enough that he doesn’t lose many points. I’ll grant him that he did this on a state level; however, my assumption is that he would follow through with this on a national level, which violates states’ rights. So he loses three points.

In the revised standings the biggest change is McCain plummeting, and this time starts to reveal the divide that there is between Democrats and Republicans. But I also added and subtracted points based on comments Marc made regarding my previous gun control post; having read the evidence he submitted I found some of my point totals were worth changing. I’m adding 3.5 points to Ron Paul’s total thanks to this article (much appreciated since I found nothing on the subject on Paul’s website), subtracting 1/2 point from Rudy Giuliani, and adding 1 point to Bill Richardson on the Democrat side.

With these changes also factored in, we get these revised totals.

Republicans:

1. Duncan Hunter, 8 points
2. Ron Paul, 7.5 points
3. Mike Huckabee, 6.5 points
4. Sam Brownback, 4.5 points
5. Rudy Giuliani, 3.5 points
6. Tom Tancredo, 3 points
7. Fred Thompson, 2 points
8. Tommy Thompson, 1 point
9. Mitt Romney, no points
10. John McCain, -3 points

On the Democrat side, note that having no points is simply because there’s no opinions on the first three issues:

1. Chris Dodd, no points
2. John Edwards, no points
3. Bill Richardson, -2 points
4. Joe Biden, -4.5 points
5. Dennis Kucinich, -6 points
6. Mike Gravel, -8 points
7. Hillary Clinton, -8.5 points
8. Barack Obama, -9 points

On Tuesday we move up to the 9th place issue, that of trade and job creation. The economy is an issue and something tells me that there’s going to be some serious movement starting next week.