The Iraq War
Health Care
Global Warming
Social Security
Welfare
Drug Prohibition
Gay Marriage/Civil Unions
This Document was prepared by Jon Reed, who is the WebMaster of Amarxica.com. Hold him personally responsible for anything anyone disagrees with. Bear in Mind that we are a Political Party with a wide range of opinions and that this isn't a formal statement of LP Philly's position on anything, but most of our members would generally agree with most of what is here.
There is much debate about the reasons and validity for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. No matter whether you think it was the right or wrong thing to do is now irrelevant. We are in and this conflict engaged by the Bush administration is not working.
It's time to make the Iraqi government put up or shut up. The newly elected Iraqi government was sworn in on May 20, 2006. The Iraqi parliament is scheduled to meet soon. President Bush remarked this week that this was a turning point in building a free and democratic Iraq. We can no longer act as their police and we can no longer lose American soldiers trying to make warring factions of Islam (factions that have been at war for hundreds of years) act civil toward each other.
Our plan for Iraq:
1.
Cutting and running is not a plan, but our troops can no longer be put
in the path of direct harm. Get them out of Baghdad and the other major
urban areas and place them along the borders to prevent outside
agressors from entering and flaming the conflict.
2. Make the Shia,
Sunni, and Kurd leaders discuss plans for peace; even if that means
dividing the country up into three separate nations with a plan to
share oil revenues. We should not be committed to preserving Iraq if
its ethnic groups can't agree to live in peace.
3. A phased withdrawl of troops when relative stability is reached.
Going forward, we should do what is necessary to protect our citizens. That does not mean entering foreign nations and replacing regimes we find disagreeable. While we should be vigilant against terrorism and reserve the right to strike immediate threats to our security (nuclear weapon facilities, terrorist training camps, etc.), we should concentrate our efforts on intelligence and defense rather than military action.
The cost of health care is a sensitive issue, mainly because something so vital to our lives is becoming increasingly expensive every year. It makes a great campaign issue for politicians who want to "rescue" the American people from the "evil" insurance and medical industries with government regulation and ultimately, a government-run, taxpayer-funded, single-payer system.
Unfortunately, what the politicians won't tell you is that it government is a major part of why health care is so expensive. For instance, programs like Medicare and MedicAid set limits on the fees they will pay doctors and hospitals. In reaction, doctors and hospitals shift the public costs of health care to private insurance companies. Also, many federal and state regulations require private insurance companies to cover certain procedures and treatments (including experimental ones), instead of letting them offer customers a choice of what they want to have covered.
There are many more causes for the rising costs of health care. For more information, please click here.
The popular remedy of more government control will not make it any less expensive, but it WILL make health care less accessible, poorer in quality, and more scarce in resources. The evidence that government is completely incapable of controlling the cost and quality of health care is rampant; including one hundred years of communism, decades of European socialism, and recent American examples like TennCare.
Even Republicans will not tell you that the citizens of those countries that have "free" health care pay a heavy price; not including a heavy tax burden. Medical services and supplies are finite, and iIn order to provide equal care to everyone, they must be rationed. Every year, tens of thousands of people in Europe and Canada wait several painful months waiting for necessary procedures like hip replacements and heart surgery.
The only solution to this problem is taking control out of the hands of government. Make Americans responsible for their own health by letting them treat health insurance like car insurance: let our citizens set up tax-free health savings accounts and pay for routine check-ups and tests, while using co-pay insurance for catastrophic events. We must stop making medical services artificially expensive by taking it out of the control of an inefficient bureacracy.
Despite the recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (actually, the report won't be released until May 2007 as the panel needs to make sure all the data supports their findings), the causes for global warming are NOT undisputed. There are about as many scientists that believe climate change is a natural occurrence as there are those that believe it is man-made... they just don't get the same amount of press in the liberal media.
The fact is that the global warming "debate" is not a debate at all. Those who refute the man-made theory are regarded in the same disrespect as anyone who denies the Holocaust. Al Gore and his ilk accuse oil companies like Exxon of funding those scientists that insist global warming is natural, as if organizations like the IPCC are free of financial and political influence (the IPCC is funded by the U.N.; a infamously corrupt organization that has repeatedly proven itself to be fiercely anti-American). Furthermore, the man-made theorists have developed a "CYA" theory that is basically irrefutable. If the weather is too hot, it is due to global warming. If you happen to experience freezing temperatures or a blizzard, that is another symptom of global warming. Plus, the full effects of man's CO2 output, according to the IPCC, will not be fully realized for another 100 years... leaving them completely free of accountability if they are proven wrong.
Worse, all of the European countries that have signed the Kyoto agreement and continually berate America for not doing the same are WAY over their CO2 emissions caps. Include the fact that there is no guarantee that developing countries like China, India, and Viet Nam are required to follow environmental restrictions make international regulation pointless and ineffective.
The Libertarian Party is all for alternative energies. We are for recycling and the expansion of nuclear technology rather than petroleum. We also see the economic advantage to pioneering alternative energies. However, these should be developed by private industry, not government.
If America signed and adhered to the Kyoto protocol, or implemented everything Al Gore would like, our country would fall into an economic depression. Industries would be handcuffed in their production and our citizens would be faced with skyrocketing gas prices and be forced to adopt automotive technologies that would be necessary to make everyone environmentally "legal." We refuse to send America into an economic freefall when our "allies" don't even live up to their own lofty goals.
The environmentalists screaming for emissions reduction offer no viable plans for an economy dependent on oil and combustible technology. Even if we grew all the corn needed to provide the necessary amount of ethanol, it would require an enormous amount of land. Not only that, many of the fertilizers used in the farming of corn are petroleum-based. Thus, our dependence on foreign oil would not disappear with the development of ethanol.
Plans like these proposed by environmentalists are far from economically sound. The Libertarian Party will not endorse such policies and jeopardize the economic stability of our citizens for an issue that is as disputable as man-made global warming.
To say that Social Security is headed for financial collapse is like saying the sky is blue. It's a truth of which everyone is aware; even those who are its biggest proponents. Every politician in Washington knows that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire before the end of the decade, it will cause an increasing burden on the national budget.
Originally intended as a safety net for those who were too old to work, Social Security has expanded in the 1960s to include Medicare, MedicAid, and Supplemental Security Income (for disabled Americans). With its expansion, it has, of course, become a drain on the taxpayer and a steady income for those who fraudulently claim to be "disabled."
Social Security's financial weakness stems from its actual, rather than its preceived, structure. Theoretically, we pay taxes into a "trust fund," and when we retire, we get that money back and live happily ever after. In reality, there is no trust fund. The money that we pay into the system goes directly to retirees and the disabled. Worse, like all government programs, Social Security demands dependence. Benefits are not automatic. All recipients, for instance, must enroll in Medicare in order to receive payments.
At its inception in 1935, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today, there are three. By 2017, there will be more Social Security recipients than American workers paying into the system. By 2030, the situation will be absolutely critical. There will be no choice but to either raise taxes, cut benefits, or raise the mandatory retirement age. In truth, any action apart from abolition will be a band-aid.
It's time for the federal government to get out of the business and allow its citizens to determine their own means of retirement. If every American put the money paid into Social Security into a low-yield mutual fund, the amount of money they would acquire at 65 would make the federal program laughable.
Of course, we do not intend to cut off the money promised to those who are about to retire and have few alternatives. But like President Bush's abandoned plan, we would allow anyone 45 or younger to invest their money privately. To support those who would continue to receive benefits, cuts in the federal budget would need to be made, beginning with Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI.
This alternative is not attractive to many voters and considered political suicide for any politician to suggest it. But the fact remains that we face a financial crisis in less than a decade. America is in desparate need of tough love or it will face dire consequences.
When President Lyndon Johnson initiated his Great Society program in 1964, the goal was to end poverty. Regardless of what revisionist liberal politicians might say, simply offering assistance to the needy was NOT the purpose. To the contrary, the theory was that all the poor lacked was the finacial resources to succeed; thus, give them money and that barrier comes crashing down.
Over 40 years and $10 trillion later, it is clear that money isn't the answer. The War on Poverty has proven to be an utter failure. Poverty still exists even in the most prosperous nation in the history of civilization. It has and always will exist because, as history has shown, money does not equal wealth. Again, government's heart is in the right place, but once again proves it is incapable when it comes to changing behavior or creating responsibility. Only individuals have the ability to do this for themselves, and our welfare system requires little accountability from its recipients.
Perhaps its biggest fault - like most government programs - is the fact that welfare doesn't discriminate. The system doesn't even care about citizenship. If you're physically in this country, regardless of legal status, you are eligible for welfare. Many who are more than capable of supporting themselves take advantage of the system because of the governments unwillingness to scrutinize.
It's time to let private charity do what it's done for hundreds of years - provide the best assistance to the most deserving people. Our history proves time and again that Americans will help those in need. Local private charities and church groups are the best way to take care of the most needy. Private charities operate on business models; they must conduct themselves efficiently in order to survive. This means making sure their funds are used the best possible way. They have the ability to discriminate and ensure that assistance is given to those who need it most and have the potential to maximize its benefits.
Will fraud still occur? Of course. The free market does not exist on the premise of perfection. Mistakes will certainly be made. Compared to what has happened for the past 40 years, however, we can ill afford to support a system that drains the taxpayer's wallet and demands no responsibility in return.
The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order, and to peace in the world.
It's time to stop wasting federal funds on this failing national issue and return to the states their right to self-determination. Any state that wants to end drug prohibition should be allowed to do so. Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others' rights.
Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse. Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue.
This cannot be done on a federal level. The states must be able to choose what approach they want to take in dealing with this issue. If that solution is an end to prohibition, the federal government should not encroach on their sovereign right to do so.
The ability to love and a desire to remain committed to another person is not exclusive to heterosexual couples. Regardless of what you wish to call it, states need to reserve the same legal rights to homosexual couples that are afforded to hetereosexual ones.
Federal attempts to prohibit gay marriage is deplorable and a violation of Constitutional power (although we should be used to that by now). If a state wants to recognize the legality of a domestic partnership between members of the same sex, there should be no fear of federal reprisals or denial of recognition.