Virginia Libertarian

Jim Webb for U.S. Senate: On the Issues

Reading through Jim Webb’s speech on Iraq, which actually appears to cover all of foreign policy, I can see that he mouths the Democrat talking points of the Iraq war being wrong.  He lays out a two step plan for Iraq, but I find those two steps sorely lacking in detail, and can be boiled down to this:  1. Say we don’t plan to occupy forever, and 2. get other nations in the region involved..  I don’t see any concrete ideas on what we need to get out.  What are our goals before we leave?  What do we want the other nations to be doing?  He does appear to have some good ideas concerning foreign policy and the rest of the world.

In terms of the rest of the world, ultimately the entire global community must address the issues of failed states, world regimes, and underdevelopment, which are the breeding grounds of such issues as terrorism. In our own hemisphere, we need to improve our homeland security and to guard against the terrorist threat, at the same time coming up with a sensible, fair, and enforceable policy on immigration. And we need to think about that in the larger context of our relations with Latin America which has been backsliding toward authoritarianism and illiberal economies. We shouldn’t allow the rest of the Americans to become anti-Americans, even as we ourselves become more Latino in our makeup. A true vision for national security must also encompass non-military challenges. We need to wean ourselves off our dependence on foreign oil. It goes without saying that we are too dependant on Middle Eastern regimes today and if we are not careful we may be heading into a clash with China tomorrow over energy resources.

While much of this sounds good, I don’t hear anything other than “we need a good plan”.  The candidates need to say what their plan actually is.  What is a good immigration policy.  How would he address the issue of failed states.  How do we improve homeland security.  How do we guard against terrorist threats.  How should we wean ourselves off of foreign oil.

On Immigration, Webb again cops out with this:

The immigration debate is divided into three separate issues. How can we secure our border? What should we do about the 11 million undocumented workers? And, lastly there is the guest worker question. It is necessary to separate out the 3 issues. The primary concern must be securing the border. Immediate action is needed to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. Approaching the issue using an omnibus bill that attempts to solve all three issues simultaneously creates a political stalemate that delays the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must be improved and we should act on that consensus as soon as possible. Once the border is secure we can develop a fair solution to other immigration issues.

Ok, great, we can see 3 issues, what are you going to do about them?  How are you going to secure the border.  What are you going to do about the current 11 million illegal aliens (and no bolt of lightning struck me when I typed that).  What is your plan for the guest worker program.  What is your “fair” solution to the other issues?

The rest of his stances on the issues I find to be anathema to me.  On “Economic and Social Fairness” he plans to reinstate notions of “fairness”.   I can only assume that means soak the rich to redistribute wealth, continuing to punish those who work hard and succeed to get where they are, and reward those who continue to fail.  On education he appears strongly in favor of our current public schooling system, along with the worthless NCLB testing.  On the health care issue he is for a government run medical program, pushing us into Socialized medicine even as Canada is figuring out that doesn’t work.  He blames infrastructure failures in New Orleans and other areas of the country on the federal government, when this is really the responsibility of the states, and he is for bringing home the bacon for transportation costs:

As Virginia’s junior Senator I will work with Gov. Kaine and the legislature to implement their transportation priorities by fighting for greater federal funding.

I cannot see myself ever voting for someone like this, even if he got the War on Terror issue completely correct (whatever that might be)

George Allen on the Issues

George Allen is a Hard-Core Conservative.

I take issues with the strongly oppose rating he is given on Abortion is a woman’s right. IMO, his past votes agree more with libertarian values. He opposes partial birth abortions, he voted against funding to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives (any libertarian will vote no on funding increases), and Voted yes on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Not sure what’s up with the gun control issue. I can’t see someone voting both NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence, and YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers (unless your name is Kerry). Here is what his campaign site says for some clarification:

I will remain committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights, including that of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. In the Senate, I voted against renewal of the toothless, cosmetic “Assault Weapons Ban” because facts have demonstrated that it has not reduced crime, but became a platform for taking away additional gun rights with more imagery. In addition, I have co-sponsored legislation to repeal the unconstitutional D.C. gun ban and an additional bill to allow pilots in the cockpit to be armed for the defense of the aircraft and their passengers.

I can’t see anything wrong with that.

On the Iraq war:

In Iraq, I believe our troops have done a tremendous job helping Iraqis begin to build a free society in a country formerly ruled by an oppressive, terrorist-friendly dictatorship. The notion of immediately withdrawing our military from Iraq would be forfeiting to the terrorists and I disagree strongly with those who suggest that we should leave precipitously. Right now historic progress is taking place as the vast majority of the Iraqi people have taken part in free elections. I believe we must stand with our troops as they continue their difficult but vital mission to help the tree of liberty take root in Iraq. And I feel certain that when our Iraqi friends are able to stand up, our brave men and women in uniform will be able to stand down and come back home as genuine heroes with satisfaction.

While the libertarian viewpoint is opposed to initially starting the war in Iraq, the majority viewpoint seems to be that since we are now in there, we have to finish the job. That said however, there needs to be agreement on what the JOB is. We need to have concrete goals that we are working toward, not platitudes every few months that we need to “stay the course”. Something like: “Build up Iraq’s military to 5 battallions, hold free democratic elections, and bring the incidence of terrorist attacks down to X number per week”. I don’t see much in Allen’s opinions other than the talking point of “stay the course”, neither stating what the current problems are nor offering any solutions to them.

Allen has a somewhat mixed record from my point of view, here is the list that I disagree with him upon. He voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. He supports anti-flag desecration amendment. He voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit, voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit, supports the death penalty, supports mandatory “Three Strikes” sentencing laws. He appears to be willing to give up all our civil liberties as he voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. He is also for expanding military spending. He also hasn’t figured out that the war on drugs has been lost, voting for tougher sentencing for drug crimes. He voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship, and NO on establishing a Guest Worker program. He supports continuing Foreign Aid to Russia, Israel, & others.

That said, here is the list with which I agree. He opposes requiring companies to hire more minorities. He voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. He supports privatizing Social Security. He supports parents choosing schools via vouchers. He voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. He supports making income tax flatter & lower, and authored the Balanced Budget Amendment plus lower taxes. He voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. He appears to be for Free Trade, having voted for a number of free trade agreements. He voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He supports allowing churches to provide welfare services (I would support any private group doing this instead of government)

All in all, I agree with him more on economic issues than social ones. While he does have some pluses like being for free trade, pro-gun rights, and moving in the right direction for taxes, I think he is a bit to right-leaning for my tastes, being too much in favor of big government intrusions like the PATRIOT act, medicare, military expansion, and the drug war.

TimesDispatch.com | Officials probe death of skydiver
In addition to a state police investigation, a representative of the Federal Aviation Administration said an agent from its Richmond field office will make sure the parachute was packed according to federal regulations.

OK, someone explain to me WHY we have federal regulations for packing a parachute?

Allen visits Valley
“We’re spending hundreds of billions on foreign oil each year,” he said.
He said more energy must be produced, grown and explored in the United States, and said it would take a bipartisan effort to make it happen.

Why is spending money on foreign oil such an issue with people. If that is the most cost effective way to get energy, then continue to use it. If the problem is that we’re funding a national regime we don’t like, is it really believed that by us not buying from them that someone else won’t? Where do you think China or Russia get their oil? Do you think they will stop buying from Iran or Syria just because we do? If we were to remove all the tariffs and taxes that government puts on top of the gasoline we buy for our cars, we’d be paying somewhere around a dollar a gallon instead of 3. In my area the service stations have started placing stickers on their pumps that tell you how much of each gallon you buy is going to state and federal taxes. Next time you fill up, take a look at it. If you change sources of energy to a new age domestic fuel, like corn ethanol, the government is going to have to either tax that, or shift that tax revenue to somewhere else to make up for it.

Allen said the country’s border security must include fencing in several border locations and virtual fencing in others.

I really don’t see the point in using “fencing in several border locations and virtual fencing in others”. Do you think that people won’t just go around the fence? If you’re going to build a fence, you have to do it all the way along the border if it’s going to be effective. That and let private industry build the fence, as the feds want to waste a billion on building it when it could be done feasibly for 10 times less.

With a little more than two months left before the November election, Allen still is leading former U.S. Navy Secretary Webb.

But recent polls show the advantage for Allen in the single digits.

Ahh, the good news. There is also a 3rd party candidate running for Allen’s seat, Gail Parker. I will do a follow-up post comparing the three candiates on the issues.

DailyProgress.com | Albemarle board addresses drinking, salaries
The board recommended that the legislators support an amendment that would release to school administrators the names of students under age 18 charged with underage drinking outside of school grounds.

Sen. Emmett Hanger, R-Mount Solon, said the proposal was a good idea as long as it does not compromise the confidentiality policy of courts in overseeing the cases.

Under current Virginia law, police inform a school division’s superintendent of students involved in any incident involving alcohol, marijuana, or a controlled substance while “on a school bus, on school property, or at a school-sponsored activity.”

The board wants to amend the code to “on and off school property.”

Yes, because we all know that it’s the schools business to know everything that happens to your child, whenever, whereever, and however.  Of what relavance to teaching a student is this information?  This is something that the parent needs to be informed of, and is the parent’s responsibility to handle, not the government.  Next thing they’ll have mandatory treatment programs for any juvenile caught drinking, on or off school property.