To say this has not been a good year for me is an understatement...

If I were offered the chance to relive the past month over again, with the knowledge that the platform examinations I would work on would take up eight 5,000-word parts per party, and it would take me a day to complete a 5,000-word part after sacrificing most other priorities and with a nagging feeling I could complete two, three, or even more without the distractions and by giving up even more priorities, but I never would... I think I'd take the offer.

Even going back three weeks, when my first attempt at writing Part I of the Democratic examination hit a snag in the form of the belated discovery that Blogger's post editor "in draft" can still lock up after several successive successful uses of the clipboard, if I had then the foresight not to let the frustration of that stop me from starting over somewhat immediately, or even had the foresight to follow my own motto of "never assume" and had taken the simple step of composing the examination in Notepad in the first place, that would remain a very tempting target to go back to and revive the plans I had in mind all along.

(Or maybe I could have worked on most of my plans in advance like I always thought about in the back of my mind.)

Honestly, the platform examinations were only supposed to be the beginning. Against the backdrop of the ongoing series in Sandsday, I would start out largely as I did start out - proclaiming the urgent importance of global warming and the role of mass transit as being the solution - but would continue into an examination of several large cities' mass transit plans, any expansion plans, and anything on the ballot today. I would cut into the platform examinations but would spin from that into a deconstruction of every level, big and small, of our political system, including an investigation into what sort of plan we really need to get away from the Bush years and a deconstruction of the positions of those who place themselves outside the two-party political system. Hopefully I could clarify some of my own political positions in the process. (No, my almost-constant agreeing with the Democrats does not mean my positions were fully clarified. That was nothing new.)

If you still need to read up on the platforms before voting (assuming you haven't voted already), you can read the last two parts of each platform from here and here. I've considered pressing on with my platform examinations and trying to salvage something out of my original plans, but it's kind of pointless after the election, and it might result in a situation where some of you are telling me "Oh, now you tell me about some of these positions!" On the other hand, some of the things I had in mind might still be extant after the election, but it might be considered a bit jarring to launch into them without the structure provided by the platform examinations. (By which I mean the examinations being completed in full.)

So I'm starting a new Da Blog Poll. If you still find the platform examinations useful and want me to complete them, even after you've already voted, let me know and I might launch back into them, and try and salvage the rest of my plans as well. If you don't find them useful anymore, we'll... move on, I guess.

Examining the Republican Platform Part VII: “Education Means a More Competitive America”

This is continued from Parts I-VI of my examination of the Republican Platform. If you saw Sports Watcher Friday after I reposted it, you know I made a big understatement there.


We move on to Part VII, "Education Means a More Competitive America", and what funny buzzwords the Republicans have for bilingual students that can measure up to "English Language Learners"! "Maintaining America's preeminence requires a world-class system of education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential. That requires considerable improvement over our current 70 percent high school graduation rate and six-year graduation rate of only 57 percent for colleges." That certainly sounds bad and needing improvement. That's a C (maybe D) and an F respectively. But as with the Democrats, let's make sure we're not using grade inflation to improve them.

Education is essential to competitiveness, but it is more than just training for the work force of the future. It is through education that we ensure the transmission of a culture, a set of values we hold in common. It has prepared generations for responsible citizenship in a free society, and it must continue to do so. Our party is committed to restoring the civic mission of schools envisioned by the founders of the American public school system. Civic education, both in the classroom and through service learning, should be a cornerstone of American public education and should be central to future school reform efforts.

This is almost a bizarre paragraph for the admissions it makes. Education is responsible for the transmission of "a set of values"? The family has nothing to do with it? The meat of the paragraph – about preparing people to be good citizens – is pretty much all stuff you can say "hear, hear!" to, it's just, I don't know what the stuff about "values" is about.

"Principles for Elementary and Secondary Education":

All children should have access to an excellent education that empowers them to secure their own freedom and contribute to the betterment of our society. We reaffirm the principles that have been the foundation of the nation's educational progress toward that goal: accountability for student academic achievement; periodic testing on the fundamentals of learning, especially math and reading, history and geography; transparency, so parents and the general public know which schools best serve their students; and flexibility and freedom to innovate so schools and districts can best meet the needs of their students.

Odd to see some of those things called the "foundation" of the education system, but okay. These things sound like good principles, but it'd be nice to see how they come forth in practice, especially the one about testing.

We advocate policies and methods that are proven and effective: building on the basics, especially phonics; ending social promotion; merit pay for good teachers; classroom discipline; parental involvement; and strong leadership by principals. We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules.

What the heck is "social promotion"? Most of these seem to be good approaches, pending whatever "social promotion" is. Do any of these give any unfair advantages to the rich over the poor? It sounds like home schooling does. One-gender education sounds risky. "[A]lternative and innovative school schedules" seem worth trying though. "We recognize and appreciate the importance of innovative education environments, particularly homeschooling, for stimulating academic achievement." Wow, it seems so odd to see the Republicans so high on homeschooling, dropping it twice in as many sentences. It's damn near impossible for the poor to implement, so do you have any help for them there? Would any help even be possible? "We oppose over-reaching judicial decisions which deny children access to such environments." Well, that helps explain the emphasis on homeschooling. I'd like to know what these "over-reaching judicial decisions" were and what the grounds for them were.

"We support state efforts to build coordination between elementary and secondary education and higher education such as K-16 councils and dual credit programs." Sounds good. "To ensure that all students will have access to the mainstream of American life, we support the English First approach and oppose divisive programs that limit students' future potential. All students must be literate in English, our common language, to participate in the promise of America." The Democrats never directly say they would keep us from turning into Quebec, but at least nominally, their early-stage second language program is intended to raise students' future potential and allow them to compete in the global economy. So Democrats support teaching kids second languages but neglect to reassure us sufficiently they will protect English as the primary language, while the Republicans reject such programs altogether as "divisive" (a valid point, maybe not necessarily sound, but valid) and don't suggest they would do anything to help Americans compete in the global economy like kids in Europe learn English.

"Early Childhood Education":

The family is the most powerful influence on a child's ability to succeed. As such, parents are our children's first and foremost teachers. We support family literacy, which improves the literacy, language, and life skills of both parents and children along with the continued improvement of early childhood programs, such as Head Start, from low-income families. We reaffirm our support for the child care tax credit that helps parents choose the care best for their family.

Not sure what "family literacy" means in this sense. Democrats proposed their "Children's First Agenda" to boost Head Start and invest in Pre-K, among other things – it was short on specifics and long on buzzwords. Democrats want "quality, affordable early childhood care and education" but don't say much about how, other than the above, and the Republicans back the existing "child care tax credit". Neither party seems to make this much of a priority, to say the least.

"Giving Students the Best Teachers":

For students to meet world class standards, they must have access to world class teachers, whether in person or through virtual public schools that can bring high-quality instruction into the classroom. School districts must have the authority to recruit, reward, and retain the best and brightest teachers, and principals must have the authority to select and assign teachers without regard to collective bargaining agreements.

These are all valid points. We need to be able to keep the best teachers and not keep bad ones just because the union would complain. The Democrats also recognized this need, but would fix it by providing more support and training, and even where there are lost causes "find a quick and fair way—consistent with due process—to put another teacher in that classroom."

"Because qualified teachers are often not available through traditional routes, we support local efforts to create an adjunct teacher corps of experts from higher education, business, and the military to fill in when needed." Well, that's a bizarre idea. "Kids, we couldn't find enough teachers to staff the school today. Here's a college professor who knows so much he'd probably die if he had to bring himself to your level! Or, here's a businessperson who wants to get back to the office and has no teaching experience whatsoever! Or, here's a soldier! Don't you love getting the same educational experience as a third world country?" Wouldn't encouraging more people to become teachers like the Democrats propose be a better approach in the long term? (Although that might create a bunch of crap teachers... and the Democrats did want to "streamline the certification process for those with valuable skills who want to shift careers and teach", which I was concerned about causing more wannabe teachers slipping through the cracks and coming out crap.)

BAM BAM BAM! You know what that sound means! Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Take A Shot At Trial Lawyers Time! "Teachers must be protected against frivolous litigation and should be able to take reasonable actions to maintain discipline and order in the classroom." As always, what about legit lawsuits? "We encourage the private-public partnerships and mentoring that can make classroom time more meaningful to students by integrating it with learning beyond school walls. These efforts are crucial to lowering the drop-out rate and helping at-risk students realize their potential." Privatize! Privatize! Privatize! Actually this is all pretty much agreeable and arguably important, and the Democrats want to "address the dropout crisis by investing in intervention strategies in middle schools and high schools", once again ignoring the line about how an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (I don't see the word "tutor" in either party's discussion of education.)

"We encourage state efforts to ensure that personnel who interact with children pass thorough background checks and are held to the highest standards of conduct." Well, that's just common sense.

Partnerships between schools and businesses can be especially important in STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and math. The need to improve secondary education in those fields can be measured by the number of remedial courses now offered at the college level. Our country's reliance upon foreign talent in those areas begins with insufficient emphasis upon them in the high school years. We applaud those who are changing that situation by giving young people real-world experience in the private sector and by providing students with rigorous technical and academic courses that give students the skills and knowledge necessary to be productive members in a competitive American workforce.

The first half of this paragraph makes some very good points and pretty much convinces me of more investment here. Not sure if we need to go all the way to "real-world experience in the private sector" and other things that seem to have college more in mind, especially when you consider the "remedial" courses which suggests bringing our secondary-school courses back to "normal" would be a more important first step. Does someone who's going to become a journalist need to go through "rigorous technical and academic courses" in high school? Or are you only addressing ways to fix the problem in college? Because it seems like from your own assessment of the problem, let's see what happens when we fix secondary teaching of these subjects first. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't really touch on this at all. The Democrats don't touch on most of these things, in fact. On the other hand, the Republicans aren't as concerned at creating more "best and brightest" teachers, or about making sure the poor have the best teachers they can. Bringing up the poor, after all, is part of the point of the public school system.

"Asserting Family Rights in Schooling": "Parents should be able to decide the learning environment that is best for their child. We support choice in education for all families, especially those with children trapped in dangerous and failing schools, whether through charter schools, vouchers or tax credits for attending faith-based or other non-public schools, or the option of home schooling." Harping on home schooling again. It certainly sounds like a worthy goal to get kids out of "dangerous and failing schools" whenever possible, even though it sounds like you would abandon them instead of trying to reform them; I said in my Democratic platform examination (Part II) that "[p]unishing a school for failure only perpetuates and deepens the divide between rich and poor schools", but it sounds like you may have something in mind to get around that problem. But I've heard there's some debate on the topic of vouchers, and you're getting into dodgy territory if you're helping people get into "faith-based" schools, both on First Amendment grounds and on whether "faith-based" schools are really the best education. But charter schools sound good – and were proposed by the Democrats as well.

"We call for the vigilant enforcement of laws designed to protect family rights and privacy in education." Sounds good; if you're not going to enforce them, change them. "We will energetically assert the right of students to engage in voluntary prayer in schools and to have equal access to school facilities for religious purposes." As long as that prayer is voluntary and respected yet not overly supported, and as long as it respects Muslim prayer to the same extent as Christian prayer (to the same extent as atheist non-prayer).

We renew our call for replacing "family planning" programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.

If only abstinence education, you know, worked. Turns out teens don't stop being horny just because they're told not to. It's understandable that you would oppose offering abortion services, but at least tell kids "if you do give in to temptation, at least have a condom handy". "Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive personal non-academic questionnaires without parental consent." Sounds like a good stance to take, but what are these "offensive or intrusive...questionnaires" actually asking? "It is not the role of the teacher or school administration to recommend or require the use of psychotropic medications that must be prescribed by a physician." Again, sounds reasonable.

"Reviewing the Federal Role in Primary and Secondary Education":

Although the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education, Washington's authority over the nation's schools has increased dramatically. In less than a decade, annual federal funding has shot up 41 percent to almost $25 billion, while the regulatory burden on state and local governments has risen by about 6.7 million hours – and added $141 million in costs – during that time. We call for a review of Department of Education programs and administration to identify and eliminate ineffective programs, to respect the role of states, and to better meet state needs. To get our schools back to the basics of learning, we support initiatives to block-grant more Department of Education funding to the states, with requirements for state-level standards, assessments, and public reporting to ensure transparency.

This goes along with all the Republicans' emphasis on curbing government waste. Also pushing a "states' rights" tack. This all seems reasonable as stated, although "block-grant"? And more pushing for "standards" and "assessments" that have been pushed for years. "Local educators must be free to end ineffective programs and reallocate resources where they are most needed." Hopefully they would also be free to fix those ineffective programs if they're fixable.

"Maintaining Our Commitment to IDEA": "Because a federal mandate on the states must include the promised federal funding, we will fulfill the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to cover 40 percent of the costs incurred because of that legislation. We urge preventive efforts in early childhood, especially assistance in gaining pre-reading skills, to help many youngsters move beyond the need for IDEA's protections." The Democrats also "support full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" and I'm not sure the Republicans are pushing "full funding" here. So either the Republicans aren't giving enough support to "individuals with disabilities" or the Democrats are throwing more money away. I hope the Republicans aren't brushing off learning disabilities in that last sentence.

And why are Republicans seemingly completely unconcerned about bridging the gap for minority and poor students? The Democrats also gave more emphasis to special education (beyond IDEA) and those "English Language Learners" – other than that bit of "learn English" at the start, which was aimed for native-born Americans, the Republicans never mentioned bilingual students at all. On the flip side, the GOP vowed to allow teachers to maintain order without threat of frivolous lawsuit, help students see the things they're learning in action, make sure we're not hiring sex offenders as teachers, and make us more competitive in our math and science education. The Democrats also don't address prayer in schools, sex education, or (so far) cutting Department of Education waste. Republicans also refrain from trying to "hold [parents] accountable", as the Democrats did, but other than their fixation on home schooling, neither do they take the opposite tack and say what would have been an easy line: "we do not believe government should tell parents how to raise their kids" or "government should not interfere in parenting".

Had I included this section in Part VI it would have been around 6,000 words.

"Higher Education": The GOP praises higher education of all stripes "for its excellence, its diversity, and its accessibility. ...Post-secondary education not only increases the earnings of individuals but advances economic development. Our colleges and universities drive much of the research that keeps America competitive. We must ensure that our higher education system meet the needs of the 21st century student and economy and remain innovative and accessible." Certainly important points and good sentiments.

"Meeting College Costs": College costs are outpacing inflation, and seem immune to normal market forces (something I'd like to see explored further if true). "We commend those institutions which are directing a greater proportion of their endowment revenues toward tuition relief."

The Republican vision for expanding access to higher education has led to two major advances, Education Savings Accounts and Section 529 accounts, by which millions of families now save for college. While federal student loans and grants have opened doors to learning for untold numbers of low- and middle-income students, the overall financial aid system, with its daunting forms and confused rationales, is nothing less than Byzantine. It must be simplified. We call for a presidential commission to undertake that task and to review the role of government regulations and policies in the tuition spiral. We affirm our support for the public-private partnership that now offers students and their families a vibrant marketplace in selecting their student loan provider.

Here's an idea for a drinking game. Start from Part I of this examination and continue going through part by part, or just read the platform itself. Drink once every time the Republicans take a shot at trial lawyers and "frivolous lawsuits", once every time the Republicans propose privatizing something, and twice for any permutation of the exact phrase "public-private partnership" (or "private-public partnership"). You'll be stoned in no time. Throw in a drink for any permutation of the phrase "___ Savings Accounts" for good measure. Throw in a drink for any time the Republicans complain something has gotten too complex and wasteful and must be "simplified" or otherwise reformed.

The only policy position listed is this "presidential commission" to review the financial aid process; the rest is affirming policies and practices that already exist. The Democrats wanted to create a gimmicky "American Opportunity Tax Credit" of $4,000, with the "expectation" of community service attached (Republicans may have taken a shot at this requirement much earlier in the platform, and they see the GOP's "presidential commission" and raise them a checkbox on the tax form. I had doubts about the checkbox at the time, but now it just sounds like actually doing something about a problem instead of talking about it like the GOP wants to do. Think about that as you look back on previous parts and previous "studies" and "commissions".

"Innovation Will Lead to Lifelong Learning":

The challenge to American higher education is to make sure students can access education in whatever forms they want. As mobility increases in all aspects of American life, student mobility, from school to school and from campus to campus, will require new approaches to admissions, evaluations, and credentialing. Distance learning propelled by an expanding telecommunications sector and especially broadband, is certain to grow in importance – whether through public or private institutions – and federal law should not discriminate against the latter. Lifelong learning will continue to transform the demographics of higher education, bringing older students and real-world experience to campus.

To truly assess any of this we need to compare it to Democratic positions. The Democrats "support education delivery that makes it possible for non-traditional students to receive support and encouragement to obtain a college education, including Internet, distance education, and night and weekend programs." The Republicans don't really mention the first and last on that list. The Democrats don't address student mobility, though, and sort of talk around the idea of "lifelong learning" in two sentences: "we will invest in short-term accelerated training and technical certifications for the unemployed and under-employed to speed their transition to careers in high-demand occupations and emerging industries" and a call to "invest in training and education to prepare incumbent job-holders with skills to meet the rigors of the new economic environment and provide them access to the broad knowledge and concrete tools offered by apprenticeships, internships, and postsecondary education."

"Community Colleges Continue to Play a Crucial Role": (Who says political parties are shy to adopt literary conventions like alliteration?) This is really just a shout-out to community colleges, not stipulating any policy positions whatsoever. The Republicans praise community colleges' role as a "bridge[] between the world of work and the classroom", a place for veterans to gain needed skills to transition to civilian life, and in a weird analogy (especially considering the relatively recent vintage of the key phrase), "[a]s the first responders to economic development and retraining of workers". But unlike the Democrats, they don't "reward successful community colleges with grants so they can continue their good work". Of course, that might be considered throwing money away.

"Special Challenges in Higher Education": "Free speech on college campuses is to be celebrated, but there should be no place in academia for anti-Semitism or racism of any kind." What "anti-Semitism" is this referring to? Are Republicans concerned about professors being critical of Israel? Is "racism" referring to affirmative action, or "whitey sucks"? Do Republicans want institutions of higher education to say Israel and white people can do no wrong, or do they just want to kick out the "death to Israel" and "whitey sucks" people?

We oppose the hiring, firing, tenure, and promotion practices at universities that discriminate on the basis of political or ideological belief. When federal taxes are used to support such practices, it is inexcusable. We affirm the right of students and faculty to express their views in the face of the leftist dogmatism that dominates many institutions. To preserve the integrity and independence of the nation's colleges, we will continue to ensure alternatives to ideological accrediting systems.

This certainly sounds like a good idea, but what about universities that kick out any professors who espouse any "political or ideological belief", on the grounds that they're "indoctrinating their students"? The "affirm[ation]" of "the right of students and faculty to express their views" suggests the Republicans would indeed protect those people, at least if they're on the right. What "alternatives to ideological accrediting systems" do you propose/want to sustain? Regardless, the Democrats haven't touched on this issue at all.

Because some of the nation's leading universities create or tolerate a hostile atmosphere toward the ROTC, we will rigorously enforce the provision of law, unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, which denies those institutions federal research grants unless their military students have the full rights and privileges of other students. That must include the right to engage in ROTC activities on their own campus, rather than being segregated elsewhere.

For the most part, this sounds good, but what are "ROTC activities", trying to recruit other students? The Republicans didn't really pledge their support for colleges' and universities' research role here either.

This is another short part, but because of going longer than anticipated. The discussion of education passed 3,000 words all on its own, and I made special emphasis to look at the Democratic plan in order to stretch it out, which was good for making it longer than the last part on health care. This last paragraph is carrying us past 4,000. We keep pressing on towards the end of the Republican platform – only two more parts to go! (A note on the Democratic platform series: I may wait to post the last two parts until I have both done...)

Examining the Republican Platform Part VI: “Health Care Reform: Putting Patients First”

This is continued from Parts I-V of my examination of the Republican Platform. I say I made good on my guarantee because this is before I went to bed.


The rest of the Republican platform deals with social issues, starting with Part VI, "Health Care Reform: Putting Patients First", which will cross over with the Democrats' favorite topic. The Republicans' treatment of it begins with empty praise for the personnel and resources of the medical system, and the need "to build around them the best health care system. Republicans believe the key to real reform is to give control of the health care system to patients and their health care providers, not bureaucrats in government or business." Does that mean you would junk the current private health care system that even Democrats want to retain? Is this something where privatization is not the answer?? Here are the problems the Republicans see with the current health care system:

• Most Americans work longer and harder to pay for health care. 
  
• Dedicated health care providers are changing careers to avoid litigation.
  
• The need to hold onto health insurance is driving family decisions about where to live and work. 
  
• Many new parents worry about the loss of coverage if they choose to stay at home with their children.
  
• The need – and the bills – for long-term care are challenging families and government alike.
  
• American businesses are becoming less competitive in the global marketplace because of insurance costs.
  
• Some federal programs with no benefit to patients have grown exponentially, adding layers of bureaucracy between patients and their care.
  

Gotta love the shots taken at trial lawyers and the size of the bureaucracy. The Republicans claim "It is not enough to offer only increased access to a system that costs too much and does not work for millions of Americans. The Republican goal is more ambitious: Better health care for lower cost." Your stance intrigues me, and I wish to learn more.

"First Principle: Do No Harm": "The American people rejected Democrats' attempted government takeover of health care in 1993, and they remain skeptical of politicians who would send us down that road.  Republicans support the private practice of medicine and oppose socialized medicine in the form of a government-run universal health care system.  Republicans pledge that as we reform our health care system:

• We will protect citizens against any and all risky restructuring efforts that would complicate or ration health care." The Republicans seem to think it's impossible to "cover all", as the Democrats want, and still offer complete coverage, as the Democrats want. Not sure how the Democratic plan would really "complicate" things – you choose between a number of providers.
  
• "We will encourage health promotion and disease prevention." So do the Democrats; this is presumably a defense against the notion that they wouldn't do those things.
  
• "We will facilitate cooperation, not confrontation, among patients, providers, payers, and all stakeholders in the health care system." I'm intrigued as to how.
  
• "We will
  not put government between patients and their health care providers." Unless "health care providers" refers to private insurers instead of doctors and hospitals, I'm not sure how the Democratic plan "puts government between patients and their health care providers".
  
• "We will
  not put the system on a path that empowers Washington bureaucrats at the expense of patients." Fair point.
  
• "We will
  not raise taxes instead of reducing health care costs." The Democrats did say their rollback of the Bush tax cuts would pay for their health care plan, but they are also concerned about "reducing health care costs" if I recall correctly.
  
• 
  
  "We will
  not replace the current system with the staggering inefficiency, maddening irrationality, and uncontrollable costs of a government monopoly." Given some of the weak spots in the Democratic plan, fair point.

  Radical restructuring of health care would be unwise.  We want all Americans to be able to choose the best health care provider, hospital, and health coverage for their needs.  We believe that real reform is about improving your access to a health care provider, your control over care, and your ability to afford that care. 

  We will continue to advocate for simplification of the system and the empowerment of patients.  This is in stark contrast to the other party's insistence on putting Washington in charge of patient care, which has blocked any progress on meeting these goals.  We offer a detailed program that will improve the quality, cost, and coverage of health care throughout the nation, and we will turn that plan into reality.

Very intrigued. You want further simplification of the system and you think the Democratic plan complicates it? Your – presumably very different – plan follows the "quality, affordable" tenets of the Democratic plan, but with less reliance on government? I want to know more!

"Patient Control and Portability": "Republicans believe all Americans should be able to obtain an affordable health care plan, including a health savings account, which meets their needs and the needs of their families." Well, here's the beginnings of it, but I still want to learn the details of this "health savings account" Where would the money come from, how does it differ from a regular savings account? "Families and health care providers are the key to real reform, not lawyers and bureaucrats. To empower families, we must make insurance more affordable and more secure, and give employees the option of owning coverage that is not tied to their job.  Patients should not have to worry about losing their insurance. Insurance companies should have to worry about losing patients' business." The substantive parts of all of that sound good, but they sound similar to the Democratic plan. Although I don't know how easy the Democrats make it to change health care providers.

"The current tax system discriminates against individuals who do not receive health care from their employers, gives more generous health tax benefits to upper income employees, and fails to provide every American with the ability to purchase an affordable health care plan." Democrats did call for employers to "have incentives to provide coverage to their workers", and all of these are fair points – and only the last, vague one mirrors the Democratic plan. "Republicans propose to correct inequities in the current tax code that drive up the number of uninsured and to level the playing field so that individuals who choose a health insurance plan in the individual market face no tax penalty." The Democrats did say that "[c]overage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means", but didn't directly address "inequities in the current tax code". "All Americans should receive the same tax benefit as those who are insured through work, whether through a tax credit or other means." Sounds fair, but I see no incompatibility with the Democratic plan.

"Individuals with pre-existing conditions must be protected; we will help these individuals by building on the experiences of innovative states rather than by creating a new unmanageable federal entitlement." Democrats wanted to bar insurers from barring people with "pre-existing conditions", so they wouldn't necessarily have to enter the "federal entitlement", but it does consist of more of that "regulation" Republicans hate so much. I want to know what these "innovative states" have come up with; the Democrats had a similar line there as well. "We strongly urge that managed care organizations use the practice patterns and medical treatment guidelines from the state in which the patient lives when making medical coverage decisions." Sounds somewhat obvious.

Then the Republicans start harping on semi-tangential "values" issues. "Because the family is our basic unit of society, we fully support parental rights to consent to medical treatment for their children including mental health treatment, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives, and abortion." Some people might disagree, but this seems reasonable to me.

"Improving Quality of Care and Lowering Costs": And "help[ing] Americans – men, women, and children – live longer and healthier lives".

"Prevent Disease and End the 'Sick Care' System": Sound like Obama calling for "a health care system, not a disease care system"? "Chronic diseases – in many cases, preventable conditions – are driving health care costs, consuming three of every four health care dollars. We can reduce demand for medical care by fostering personal responsibility within a culture of wellness, while increasing access to preventive services, including improved nutrition and breakthrough medications that keep people healthy and out of the hospital." The Democrats cited a similar stat and vowed to "promote healthy lifestyles and disease prevention and management especially with health promotion programs at work and physical education in schools. All Americans should be empowered to promote wellness and have access to preventive services to impede the development of costly chronic conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension." How would the Republicans "foster[] personal responsibility within a culture of wellness"? Why do I have a sinking feeling those "breakthrough medications" are a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies? If you need them great; ideally, you don't need them.

"To reduce the incidence of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and stroke, we call for a national grassroots campaign against obesity, especially among children." The "party of small government" should know that a "grassroots campaign" started by government is a contradiction. "We call for continuation of efforts to decrease use of tobacco, especially among the young." I will never understand how people my age could possibly start smoking despite being bombarded all their lives by messages about how bad it is and considering how bad it stinks. We've been on an anti-tobacco crusade since, what, the 70s now? Do you think maybe we should start thinking about changing tactics, or at least adopting new ones?

"A culture of wellness needs to include the treatment of mental health conditions.  We believe all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care, including individuals struggling with mental illness.  For this reason, we believe it is important that mental health care be treated equally with physical health care." These three sentences are almost redundant and give the impression that the Republicans are committed to mental health when they give no specifics.

"Empower Individuals to Make the Best Health Care Choices": "Clear information about health care empowers patients.  It lets consumers make better decisions about where to spend their health care dollars, thereby fostering competition and lowering costs.  Patients must have information to make sound decisions about their health care providers, hospitals, and insurance companies." Question is, will they even look at that information? I don't think I saw anything in the Democratic platform concerning this. This may be the most substantive part of the Republicans' alternate plan so far, but because many Americans get their coverage from their employer, it lacks a foundation.

"Use Health Information Technology to Save Lives":

Advances in medical technology are revolutionizing medicine. Information technology is key to early detection and treatment of chronic disease as well as fetal care and health care in rural areas – especially where our growing wireless communications network is available.  The simple step of modernizing recordkeeping will mean faster, more accurate treatment, fewer medical errors, and lower costs.  Closing the health care information gap can reduce both under-utilization (the diabetic who forgets to refill an insulin prescription) and over-utilization (the patient who endures repetitive tests because providers have not shared test results).

There's a germ of substantive policy in there. The Democrats did call for, more specifically, "driving adoption of state-of-the-art health information technology systems, [and] privacy-protected electronic medical records". All pretty common sense stuff.

"Protect Good Health Care Providers from Frivolous Lawsuits": It's Take-Shots-At-Trial-Lawyers Time!

Every patient must have access to legal remedies for malpractice, but meritless lawsuits drive up insurance rates to outrageous levels and ultimately drive up the number of uninsured.  Frivolous lawsuits also drive up the cost of health care as health care providers are forced to practice defensive medicine, such as ordering unnecessary tests.  Many leave their practices rather than deal with the current system. This emergency demands medical liability reform.

And that medical liability reform would be...? This is another thing the Dems don't touch on, and it's starting to form the germ of lowering the cost of health care, at least as described. But more is still to come.

"Reward Good Health Care Providers for Delivering Real Results":

Patients deserve access to health care providers they trust who will personalize and coordinate their care to ensure they receive the right treatment with the right health care provider at the right time.  Providers should be paid for keeping people well, not for the number of tests they run or procedures they perform.   The current cookie-cutter system of reimbursement needs restructuring from the view of the patient, not the accountant or Washington bureaucrat.

That certainly sounds reasonable – do you reimburse providers more for keeping costs down? Well, you don't say that. And what about what the Democrats call "insurance discrimination"? This sounds like a way of doubling that – one way to get "paid for keeping people well" is to keep out the people who aren't!

"Drive Costs Down with Interstate Competition":

A state-regulated national market for health insurance means more competition, more choice, and lower costs.  Families – as well as fraternal societies, churches and community groups, and small employers – should be able to purchase policies across state lines.  The best practices and lowest prices should be available in every state.  We call upon state legislators to carefully consider the cost of medical mandates, and we salute those Republican governors who are leading the way in demonstrating ways to provide affordable health care options.

Um... okay, this is an odd proposal. Does this mean that one or two states will be providing the health care for the entire nation? Wouldn't this render state-by-state policies meaningless? Why don't you just take away the state-by-state policies and pass the best ones on a national level? Don't you like the states?

"Modernize Long-Term Care Options for All":

The financial burdens and emotional challenges of ensuring adequate care for elderly family members affect every American, especially with today's aging population.  We must develop new ways to support individuals, not just institutions, so that older Americans can have a real choice whether to stay in their homes. This is true not only with regard to Medicaid, where we spend $100 billion annually on long-term care, but also for those who do not qualify for that assistance.

And those new ways would be...? I'm not even sure what you would look at here.

"Encourage Primary Care as a Specialty": "We believe in the importance of primary care specialties and supporting the physician's role in the evaluation and management of disease.  We also encourage practice in rural and underserved areas of America." No word on how, though. The Democrats provided more detail on how they would support primary care workers, but surprisingly, didn't mention the last sentence either in my Part I or in their "rural America" section.

"Funding Medical Research":

We support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research.  This commitment will maintain America's global competitiveness, advance innovative science that can lead to medical breakthroughs, and turn the tide against diseases affecting millions of Americans – diseases that account for the majority of our health care costs. The United States leads in this research, as evidenced by our growing biotechnology industry, but foreign competition is increasing.  One way government can help preserve the promise of American innovation is to ensure that our intellectual property laws remain robust.

So, would big bad government actually directly fund this research? Certainly the Democrats talk about that. "[E]nsur[ing] that our intellectual property laws remain robust" certainly sounds good. The Democrats support research as a way of enhancing their health care plan, not so much as a way to fight diseases in and of itself. They accused the Republicans of stonewalling "biomedical and stem cell research", but the GOP mentions "biomedical research" here and doesn't mention anything that looks like a control (although I'm not done with the section yet).

"Federal research dollars should be spent as though lives are at stake – because, in fact, they are." I guess big bad government is getting into the spending business, but this certainly makes it sound like a worthy cause. "Research protocols must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups if we are to make significant progress against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers." What are these "formerly neglected groups"? Are they Democratic special interests? What are we talking about here?

Now come the political flashpoint issues.

Taxpayer-funded medical research must be based on sound science, with a focus on both prevention and treatment, and in accordance with the humane ethics of the Hippocratic Oath. In that regard, we call for a major expansion of support for the stem-cell research that now shows amazing promise and offers the greatest hope for scores of diseases – with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells – without the destruction of embryonic human life.  We call for a ban on human cloning and for a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

"Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Democrats? We love stem cell research! We just don't like embryonic stem cell research that destroys life." No permutation of the word "clone" appears in the Democratic platform, but I don't know enough about cloning to know where the controversy is, other than religious and philosophical questions. What's your position on "embryonic human life" that would be "destroyed" anyway? There are no mentions of assisted suicide in the Democratic platform either: "We believe medicines and treatments should be designed to prolong and enhance life, not destroy it.  Therefore, federal funds should not be used for drugs that cause the destruction of human life.  Furthermore, the Drug Enforcement Administration ban on use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide should be restored." What's your stance on people suffering from incurable terminal illness, other than brushing it off with "let's do more research so it becomes curable"?

"Protecting Rights of Conscience":

The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling.  No health care professional – doctor, nurse, or pharmacist – or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health care service against their conscience for any reason.  This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America's health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.

What's this referring to, abortion? Since most of these services can be gotten elsewhere this seems reasonable, especially as a logical outgrowth of the First Amendment.

"Medicare":

Its projected growth is out of control and threatens to squeeze out other programs, while funding constraints lead to restricted access to treatment for many seniors.  There are solutions. Medicare can be a leader for the rest of our health care system by encouraging treatment of the whole patient. Specifically, we should compensate doctors who coordinate care, especially for those with multiple chronic conditions, and eliminate waste and inefficiency.

Most of the Democrats' talk about Medicare comes closer to the end of their platform, in a part I haven't gotten to yet. For now know that they want to "allow[] Medicare to negotiate for lower prices" which would be one way to cut costs. This proposal sounds reasonable and logical so far. "Medicare patients must have more control of their care and choice regarding their doctors, and the benefits of competition must be delivered to the patients themselves if Medicare is to provide quality health care." Sounds good, but don't know what to make of it and keep in mind we're talking about seniors. "And Medicare patients must be free to add their own funds, if they choose, to any government benefits, to be assured of unrationed care." That sounds reasonable as well, at first glance, but it means rich people would get better care than poor people. "Finally, because it is isolated from the free market forces that encourage innovation, competition, affordability, and expansion of options, Medicare is especially susceptible to fraud and abuse.  The program loses tens of billions of dollars annually in erroneous and fraudulent payments.  We are determined to root out the fraud and eliminate this assault on the taxpayer." Sounds good, but how do you plan to do that and what long-term structural reforms do you plan to institute without rendering Medicare at risk to economic downturns and changes in government? And didn't you just say "the benefits of competition must be delivered to the patients" and now you're calling Medicare "isolated from...free market forces"?

"Medicaid":

Our Medicaid obligations will consume $5 trillion over the next ten years.  Medicaid now accounts for 20-25 percent of state budgets and threatens to overwhelm state governments for the indefinite future.  We can do better while spending less.  A first step is to give Medicaid recipients more health care options.  Several states have allowed beneficiaries to buy regular health insurance with their Medicaid dollars.  This removes the Medicaid "stamp" from people's foreheads, provides beneficiaries with better access to doctors, and saves taxpayers' money.  We must ensure that taxpayer money is focused on caring for U.S. citizens and other individuals in our country legally.

The Democrats have even less to say about Medicaid; they mention extending it to more HIV-positive Americans and then don't mention it again until a section titled "Virgin Islands" virtually at the end of the entire platform! So presumably they're willing to let the Republicans' doomsday scenario happen. The idea of letting Medicaid beneficiaries buy whatever health insurance they want with their Medicaid dollars certainly sounds like a good idea. One more sentence of harping on illegal immigration at the end there.

"Building a Health Care System for Future Emergencies":

To protect the American people from the threats we face in the century ahead, we must develop and stockpile medicines and vaccines so we can deliver them where urgently needed.  Our health care infrastructure must have the surge capacity to handle large numbers of patients in times of crisis, whether it is a repeat of Hurricane Katrina, a flu pandemic, or a bioterror attack on multiple cities.  Republicans will ensure that this infrastructure, including the needed communications capacity, is closely integrated into our homeland security needs.

I seem to recall the Republicans may have mentioned this before, back in their national security discussion. This sounds like an important thing to do, to the extent you kind of wonder why we're not doing it already.

We're under 4,000 words, let alone 5,000, but the section on education started going so long it wasn't particularly plausible to stick it in this part without either threatening the 7,000 word barrier, or causing a contradiction by breaking in the middle of the education section for the GOP but not for the Democrats (with a firmer break with the latter to boot). So more Republican fun is still to come... and you may see two Democratic examinations before the next Republican examination.

Examining the Republican Platform Part V: “Energy Independence and Security” and “Environmental Protection”

This is continued from Parts I-IV of my examination of the Republican Platform. I have hope the next examination will go up by the end of the night.


Considering that so far, I have by and large agreed more often with the Democrats than I have with the Republicans, and I started this project (which by the way, is dominating the run-up to the election more than I ever had in mind and proven to be a lot less fun) last Monday with the Democratic Platform before launching into the Republican plan, you may be wondering why I'm letting the Republicans take the lead and reach Part V first. The short answer is that the Republican platform has struck my fancy more.

The long answer is that Part IV, "Energy Independence and Security", touches on my single-issue topic, the one I expounded on so much at length, that of the concerns raised by global climate change. But right off the bat, Danger, Will Robinson! This part is so short that I can conceivably throw in a second part to fill out the space. The Republicans do give an entire part to the issue of energy, a bit more than the Democrats, but the Republicans also have more parts (we're only halfway through and the Republicans are already passing the number of parts the Democrats have in their entire platform). Any concerns I might have over the Republicans' commitment to climate change are seemingly validated when they devote all of two pages to the following part on the environment. On the plus side, we've only got four more parts or so to go after this (we passed the halfway mark last part), so we're fast approaching the end!

It's been a long time since I properly quoted a section introduction to see how it addresses its own goals:

All Americans are acutely aware of the energy crisis our nation faces.  Energy costs are spiraling upward, food prices continue to rise, and as a result, our entire economy suffers.  This winter, families will spend for heat what they could have saved for college, and small businesses will spend for fuel what could have covered employee health insurance.

Our current dependence on foreign fossil fuels threatens both our national security and our economy and could also force drastic changes in the way we live.  The ongoing transfer of Americans' wealth to OPEC – roughly $700 billion a year – helps underwrite terrorists' operations and creates little incentive for repressive regimes to accept democracy, whether in the Middle East or Latin America.

It didn't have to be this way, and it must not stay this way.  Our nation must have a robust energy supply because energy drives prosperity and increases opportunity for every American.  We reject the idea that America cannot overcome its energy challenges – or that high gasoline prices are okay, as long as they are phased in gradually. We reject half-measures and believe "No, we can't" is not a viable energy policy.

Together we can build a future around domestic energy sources that are diverse, reliable, and cleaner.  We can strengthen our national security, create a pathway to growing prosperity, and preserve our environment.  The American people will rise to this challenge.

Hmm, "no we can't"? I smell a not-so-subtle dig at Obama there! Who's positing the idea that "America cannot overcome its energy challenges"? What do you mean by "high gasoline prices are okay, as long as they are phased in gradually", what's that referring to? Of course I don't want to see any "half-measures" with the stakes as high as they are!

"Growing Our Energy Supply":

We must aggressively increase our nation's energy supply, in an environmentally responsible way, and do so through a comprehensive strategy that meets both short and long term needs.  No amount of wishing or hoping can suspend the laws of supply and demand.  Leading economists agree that any actions that will increase future energy supplies will lead to lower energy prices today.  Increasing our production of American made energy and reducing our excessive reliance on foreign oil will:

• Bring down the high cost of gasoline and diesel fuel.
  
• Create more jobs for American workers.
  
• Enhance our national security.
  

In the long run, American production should move to zero-emission sources, and our nation's fossil fuel resources are the bridge to that emissions-free future.

All good points. Some notes. Hand-in-hand with focusing too much on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, instead of what's best for reversing climate change, is focusing too much on gas prices. Gas prices should be made irrelevant, not necessarily lowered. From what I've heard, there isn't enough oil offshore to make much of a dent in gas prices, now or later. Agree that "American production should move to zero-emission sources" – as soon as possible. Using "our nation's fossil fuel resources" as "the bridge" is pretty much unacceptable, because it continues reliance on the major source of greenhouse gases.

"Growing American Energy Production": As Sarah Palin would say, drill, baby, drill! Drill everywhere, from the oceans to the mountains to the valleys white with foam! "To deliver that energy to American consumers, we will expand our refining capacity. Because of environmental extremism and regulatory blockades in Washington, not a single new refinery has been built in this country in 30 years.  We will encourage refinery construction and modernization and, with sensitivity to environmental concerns, an expedited permitting process." Which is a good thing if you're going to drill for all that oil, but we should be getting away from oil! And the Democrats say "we can't drill our way to energy independence". "Any legislation to increase domestic exploration, drilling and production must minimize any protracted legal challenges that could unreasonably delay or even preclude actual production.  We oppose any efforts that would permanently block access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." As long as legitimate legal concerns aren't railroaded past and the ecological concerns with drilling in ANWR are addressed.

"Nuclear Power: the Earth's Clean Future":

Nuclear energy is the most reliable zero-carbon-emissions source of energy that we have.  Unwarranted fear mongering with no relationship to current technologies and safeguards has prevented us from starting construction of a single nuclear power plant in 31 years.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has for decades relied upon nuclear-powered vessels, and other nations have harnessed nuclear power to provide a major portion of their energy consumption.  There is no reason why the United States cannot catch up and do the same.  Confident in the promise offered by science and technology, Republicans will pursue dramatic increases in the use of all forms of safe, affordable, reliable – and clean – nuclear power.

I try to represent a typical, uncommitted American's perspective in these examinations, and I'm not sure I've succeeded. So I'm tempted to say this is mostly bull-bleep. But instead I'll list the concerns I had earlier – waste needs to be disposed of for many thousands of years, nuclear reprocessing is currently laden with problems, you need to secure the uranium so it doesn't get into the wrong hands, it still produces at least some greenhouse gases, it's not entirely renewable, etc. That's entirely apart from the Three Mile Island-type incidents you probably have in mind. Just because "other nations" do it doesn't mean we should – right, "control-the-UN-and-go-in-unilaterally-if-everyone-thinks-we-suck" GOP? Don't just talk about "unwarranted fear mongering", to some extent it's very much warranted, address these concerns. With a substantial rollout solar power is already ready to meet most of our energy needs with few or no side effects. How is it less reliable? "The labor force will expand, with nearly 15,000 high quality jobs created for every new nuclear plant built – and those workers will lead the nation away from its dependence on foreign oil." They will need a lot of education, even the construction workers, and I see no commitment to that.

"Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydropower": In other words, "oh, here are these other sources of energy as well."

Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection.  Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability.  We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.

Well, you're playing my song, and you at least talk about a form of energy tangential to wave or tidal power, but you also bring up geothermal like the Democrats. The Dems don't say directly how they would support alternative energies but they seem to imply a direct giveaway. I'm thinking a modern TVA may be in order. "Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power" – hear hear, but I don't think you're committing to it as heavily as the Democrats. "We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands." Sounds like building a bigger patchwork system of different standards from different companies. But beyond that little "privatize everything" point, sounds good.

"Clean Coal":

Although alternate fuels will shape our energy future, coal – America's most affordable and abundant energy resource and the source of most of our electricity – remains a strategic national resource that must play a major role in energy independence.  We look to innovative technology to transform America's coal supplies into clean fuels capable of powering motor vehicles and aircraft.  We support coal-to-liquid and gasification initiatives, just as we support investment in the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies, which can reduce emissions.  We firmly oppose efforts by Democrats to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants. No strategy for reducing energy costs will be viable without a commitment to continued coal production and utilization.

Ah, the "clean coal" scam. I already linked to environmentalists' critiques of it. It's far safer, and possibly less expensive, to invest in technologies for which "carbon capture" isn't needed. Power our cars and airplanes with coal?!? Sequestering carbon is obviously impractical; how the hell are you ever going to clean up coal enough to serve as automobile fuel suitable for use in our cities, even with "coal-to-liquid" technology?!? You're going to need to do a lot of "carbon capture" with how much CO2 "coal-to-liquid" can produce. Of all the things you could have proposed to power our cars, you go with coal?!?

"Natural Gas": "Natural gas is plentiful in North America, but we can extract more and do a better job of distributing it nationwide to cook our food, heat our homes, and serve as a growing option as a transportation fuel.  Both independently and in cooperation with alternative fuels, natural gas will be an essential part of any long-term energy solution. We must ensure it gets to consumers safely and quickly." It's still a fossil fuel and it still pollutes, not to mention it leaks methane in transport, which is significantly more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. No direct mention of taking care of that little problem.

"Energy Cooperation": "We embrace the open energy cooperation and trading relationship with our neighbors Canada and Mexico, including proven oil reserves and vast, untapped Canadian hydroelectric generation." Certainly sounds good; the "proven oil reserves" we shouldn't be in too much of a rush to exploit, the "vast, untapped Canadian hydroelectric generation" we should, with some consciousness of the ecological impacts of dams. I don't believe this is mentioned in the Democrats' plan.

"Reducing Demand for Fossil Fuels": Now this is getting into my wheelhouse! "While we grow our supplies, we must also reduce our demand – not by changing our lifestyles but by putting the free market to work and taking advantage of technological breakthroughs." Do those "technological breakthroughs" refer to those advances in solar and wind technology? "Increase Conservation through Greater Efficiency":

Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less.   Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better.  We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases.  Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel.  The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.

Those are all important goals, some of which I mentioned in my earlier discussion. "New Technologies for Cars and Other Vehicles":

We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production.  As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world.  Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard.  We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.

More pushing "cellulosic ethanol" like the Democrats, while giving a shout-out to "rising food prices", without addressing the land use constraints of any plant-based fuel. The shout-out to electric vehicles is something I absolutely love; the shout-out to nat-gas less so, and no mention of mass transit. In retrospect, I should have been able to tell from the introductory paragraph that the Republicans would focus way too much on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, not on climate change, and "half-measures" like "clean coal" suggest a deceptive edge to those remarks.

We move on to Part V, "Environmental Protection", and see what happens when the Republicans get into the core of my wheelhouse. They start by only talking about "increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil", not decreasing the short term demand for oil like might be necessary. Still, a good start.

"Addressing Climate Change Responsibly":

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.  Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy.  Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.

(Thinking about it, deciding not to say anything about the "ongoing scientific research" comment.) Everything sounds good to this point. I might say that a short-term economic hit is OK when you consider the long-term consequences, but green investment right now could actually help the economy anyway.

"The Solution: Technology and the Market": Other than "privatization", this is the Republicans' other favorite buzzword: the "free market". They believe technology and the "free market" will "decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy." Eee...eee. Not sure what to think of that line "maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy". That might indicate they secretly want to keep climate change going. It certainly suggests they don't take it very seriously. The last two points, though, are important when you combine how urgent the problem is and how little confidence world leaders have inspired in most environmentalists.

"To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources." Still pushing nuclear power as the panacea. "But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits.  Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets." Using climate change to hammer your typical drumbeat: "Don't let Washington do it." "Use the For...er...free market." I think I've grown numb to this sort of drumbeat.

"International Cooperation": "Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter.  It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all." Agreed in basics, but like I said in my earlier posts on climate change, there is no such thing as doing too much. It may be "unrealistic and counterproductive" for "the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared", but it's imperative that it carry as much burden as it can, and so must everyone else, and the developed nations should help the developing ones by providing them with the technology they need. Bickering about "who should shoulder more burden" as the Republicans hint at here misses the larger point.

"Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation": "Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change.  Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon." Sounds like a great idea. Something about the title turns me off, though.

"Doing No Harm": From the very first sentence, I become very disappointed. "Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government.  We can – and should– address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly." Unfortunately, those "doomsday scenarios" are rather plausible, and possibly disturbingly close. Given the other terms in the second sentence, I suspect "situations to be managed responsibly" is an euphemism for something else. I may be almost as extreme as they come about climate change but I don't consider myself a "no-growth" kind of guy; it's precisely because I think we can and should grow as we go green that I'm such a big backer of transit. I don't even have any idea where this comes from or how anything I suggested in my earlier global warming series would be "no-growth".

A robust economy will be essential to dealing with the risk of climate change, and we will insist on reasonable policies that do not force Americans to sacrifice their way of life or trim their hopes and dreams for their children.  This perspective serves not only the people of the United States but also the world's poorest peoples, who would suffer terribly if climate change is severe – just as they would if the world economy itself were to be crippled.  We must not allow either outcome.

If it were to turn out that no matter what efficiency and renewability gains we achieved, there was no way the average American's way of life could be sustained, would you be willing to sacrifice this plank, or would you rather sacrifice the Earth? I think for the most part, the suggestions I proposed largely preserve most Americans' way of life. The major two exceptions are home heating and my backing of mass transit, but in the case of the former the Republicans themselves called for building "better and smarter buildings", and for the latter I know there are some people who would think that would be an improvement in people's quality of life. (Regardless, if you're not hep to transit you still have the electric car.) I don't think that living a little cooler, or cutting back on barbeques, exactly constitute "trim[ming our] hopes and dreams for [our] children". I've elided the impact climate change would have to direct industrial applications, such as the use of gas flames as a source of heat in reactions, but I suspect we can find non-polluting (or less-polluting) ways to achieve the same goals with little negative impact to the economy. I'm not a "no-growth radical", I tried in my climate change recommendations to preserve as much of our way of life as we can while dramatically slicing emissions (I even gave up on a couple of non-fossil fuel fronts), and I encourage you to read them. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I do suspect it's an euphemism for "let's do as little as possible".

"Continuing Our Stewardship over the Environment":

The Republican perspective on the environment is in keeping with our longstanding appreciation for nature and gratitude for the bounty the Almighty has bestowed upon the American people.  It was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who said, "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others."  We agree.  Whether through family vacations, hunting or fishing trips, backpacking excursions, or weekend hikes, Americans of all backgrounds share a commitment to protecting the environment and the opportunities it offers.  In addition, the public should have access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, and fishing.

Thanks for trivializing the issue. So what's your stand on motorcycles or snowmobiles in public lands? Time to beat the "privatization" drumbeat again: "In caring for the land and water, private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the world's worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under governmental control.  By the same token, it is no accident that the most economically advanced countries also have the strongest environmental protections." Wait, what? Did you just undermine the point of the first sentence by implicitly backing "environmental protections"? That's like the Democrats saying "Social Security is not in crisis" where I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, except I'm not sure this is as simple as a one-word typo.

The next paragraph begins by praising "[o]ur national progress toward cleaner air and water" through "balancing environmental goals with economic growth and job creation". "State and local initiatives to clean up contaminated sites – brownfields – have exceeded efforts directed by Washington. That progress can continue if grounded in sound science, long-term planning, and a multi-use approach to resources." Sounds good.

Government at all levels should protect private property rights by cooperating with landowners' efforts and providing incentives to protect fragile environments, endangered species, and maintain the natural beauty of America.  Republican leadership has led to the rejuvenation and renewal of our National Park system.  Future expansion of that system, as well as designation of National Wilderness areas or Historic Districts, should be undertaken only with the active participation and consent of relevant state and local governments and private property owners.

First two sentences sound well and good. The last sentence also sounds reasonable but could be disagreed with; we need to make sure private property owners don't impose unreasonable demands on everyone.

But by and large, I am incredibly disappointed. Virtually everything I disagreed with in the Democratic platform, the Republicans have as well if not worse. Mixing up goals? The Republicans have that in spades. Geothermal and the "clean coal" scam? The Republicans name-dropped geothermal along with solar and wind, much like the Democrats, and devoted a whole paragraph to "clean coal"! Using cap-and-trade to fund renewable investment? The Republicans don't propose anything specific to discourage emissions. Weaning us off cars entirely? The Republicans, if anything, give even less sign they're ready to do that than Democrats do. Only a quarter of our energy from renewable sources by 2025? Republicans don't give any firm target at all and the word "renewable" only appears once in either part. Doubts about cellulosic ethanol? The Republicans are plugging it as well. The Democrats aren't even finished with dealing with energy and climate change, and I've finished covering the Republicans' entire plan in one part – in fact, had I stopped before this paragraph I would have fallen short of 4,000 words! The part specifically dealing with "Environmental Protection" is the shortest in the whole platform! I was actually considering getting a head start on the next part of the platform!

The really sad part is that the Republicans actually have some good points, though again the Dems might claim some of them later. They would use a tax credit and "Climate Prize" to encourage renewable energy development instead of growing the size of the bureaucracy and government. Democrats haven't yet mentioned cooperation with Canada and Mexico, and only obliquely referred to "plug-in hybrids" and didn't directly call for making more. No pushing India and China to fill their role and cut to renewables as fast as possible either. And there is something to be said for giving some credit to the free market. And I like to think my recommendations, by and large, meet the criteria laid out by the Republicans in the "Environmental Protection" part. But the GOP wants to use fossil fuels as a "bridge" to a renewable future and see nuclear as our chief source of electricity thereafter. I've yet to see anything that fundamentally wrong in the Democrats' approach.

I am so running back to the Democrats for my next examination.

Examining the Republican Platform Part IV: “Expanding Opportunity to Promote Prosperity”

This is continued from Parts I-III of my examination of the Republican Platform. You may notice a change in my formatting scheme for the Republican platform only starting with this part.


Before we move on to Part III, "Expanding Opportunity to Promote Prosperity", we need to take a look back at the Republican government-reform plan. I think the Republicans can be trusted to take some of the steps they propose to reform Washington, but I'm not sure they're entirely willing to control the size of government. And they never did address the "members of Congress" that "have been indicted for violating the public trust", a good many of them Republicans. Now then, on to the Republicans' economic policy, and it is possible that for the first time the Republican review is catching up to something already covered by the Democrats.

America's free economy has given our country the world's highest standard of living and allows us to share our prosperity with the rest of humanity. It is an engine of charity, empowering everything from Sabbath collection plate to great endowments. It creates opportunity, rewards self-reliance and hard work, and unleashes productive energies that other societies can only imagine.

Today, our economy faces challenges due to high energy costs. Our task is to strengthen our economy and build a greater degree of security – in availability of jobs, in accessibility of health care, in portability of pensions, and in affordability of energy. That is an urgent task because economic freedom – and the prosperity it makes possible – are not ends in themselves. They are means by which families and individuals can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values, and build communities of self-reliant neighbors.

Economic freedom expands the prosperity pie; government can only divide it up. That is why Republicans advocate lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and smaller, smarter government. That agenda translates to more opportunity for more people. It represents the economics of inclusion, the path by which hopes become achievements. It is the way we will reach our goal of enabling everyone to have a chance to own, invest, and build.

Even when talking about the economy, the Republicans still talk about "security". The Republicans entirely attribute the economy's "challenges" to "high energy costs" and want to pursue "affordability of energy", but there's nothing yet about climate change. They do want to increase "accessibility of health care" and "portability of pensions" as well. The Republicans, tellingly, see one of the real "ends" that "economic freedom" is a "means" to as "independence from government", which should tell you what some of their strategies will be: as little government interference as possible.

"Republican Tax Policy: Protecting Hardworking Americans":

The most important distinction between Republicans and the leadership of today's Democratic Party concerning taxes is not just that we believe you should keep more of what you earn. That's true, but there is a more fundamental distinction. It concerns the purpose of taxation. We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions.

Today's Democratic Party views the tax code as a tool for social engineering. They use it to control our behavior, steer our choices, and change the way we live our lives. The Republican Party will put a stop to both social engineering and corporate handouts by simplifying tax policy, eliminating special deals, and putting those saved dollars back into the taxpayers' pockets.

So why didn't you do so when you were in power for six years? As described, it sounds all well and good that the Republicans would want us to live our lives the way we see fit and not let government micromanage us, but it seemingly rings hollow when that path is self-destructive, especially where the environment is concerned. When a Hummer is seen as a status symbol, you know "the people" and "the market" can't always be trusted to do the right thing. And look at the other extreme, explicitly espoused by the Republicans: "tax only to raise money for [the government']s essential functions." That way lies, in all likelihood, chaos and unchecked corporate greed. The Republicans did back "reasonable regulation" in the introductory section, but still.

"The Republican Agenda: Using Tax Relief to Grow the Economy":

Sound tax policy alone may not ensure economic success, but terrible tax policy does guarantee economic failure. Along with making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent so American families will not face a large tax hike, Republicans will advance tax policies to support American families, promote savings and innovation, and put us on a path to fundamental tax reform.

Lower Taxes on Families and Individuals

• "American families with children are the hardest hit during any economic downturn. Republicans will lower their tax burden by doubling the exemption for dependents." Sounds like a good idea.
  
• "New technology should not occasion more taxation. We will permanently ban internet access taxes and stop all new cell phone taxes." Do those taxes exist, or are the Republicans just trying to preemptively stop them?
  
• "For the sake of family farms and small businesses, we will continue our fight against the federal death tax." I know the Democrats disagree, but "estate tax appears nowhere in their platform. Tax issues are rather missing from the whole thing, other than a general tax plan, which makes it scary that I keep wondering if they think money grows on trees.
  
• "The Alternative Minimum Tax, a stealth levy on the middle-class that unduly targets large families, must be repealed." I think everyone agrees on that.
  
• "Republicans support tax credits for health care and medical expenses." Am I going to have to call the Republicans out for trying to use taxes as a tool for "social engineering" as well?
  

Keeping Good Jobs in America
America's producers can compete successfully in the international arena – as long as they have a level playing field. Today's tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country.

The Democrats think jobs go overseas because of tax breaks, and want to provide specific incentives for companies to stay here – one reason the Republicans accuse Democrats of "social engineering". (And remember my mention of "the Democrats' attempts to mandate community service" in Part I?) I hope you get rid of those same "tax breaks" the Democrats are concerned about, though.

Promoting Savings through the Tax Code
We support a tax code that encourages personal savings. High tax rates discourage thrift by penalizing the return on savings and should be replaced with incentives to save. We support a plan to encourage employers to offer automatic enrollment in tax-deferred savings programs. The current limits on tax-free savings accounts should be removed.

The Democrats said they would "encourage personal savings" but didn't say how; they did say they would create "automatic workplace pensions". You don't like "penalizing the return on savings" but you want to replace them with "incentives to save"? Social engineering alert! The penultimate sentence sounds good, if a bit social-engineering-y, and the last sentence sounds good but could be a minefield.

Fundamental Tax Reform
Over the long run, the mammoth IRS tax code must be replaced with a system that is simple, transparent, and fair while maximizing economic growth and job creation. As a transition, we support giving all taxpayers the option of filing under current rules or under a two-rate flat tax with generous deductions for families. This gradual approach is the taxpayers' best hope of overcoming the lobbyist legions that have thwarted past simplification efforts.

Why does that smell like trying to screw poor people? What about the original and current purpose of the income tax? Rich and poor should benefit equally from the "generous deductions for families" unless the deduction is a flat dollar amount and the "flat tax" is a flat percentage, and I doubt a "flat tax" would get rid of income taxes for the poor, which (in my opinion) is the tax we really need to get rid of. How about a simple tax on a logarithmic or polynomial scale, with a formula available to anyone, and if you don't know that sort of algebra you can plug in your income on an IRS web site and get your tax burden? The Democrats just wanted to close loopholes and end "tax havens".

"As a matter of principle, we oppose retroactive taxation, and we condemn attempts by judges, at any level of government, to seize the power of the purse by ordering higher taxes." Why would anyone do that? "Because of the vital role of religious organizations, charities and fraternal benevolent societies in fostering charity and patriotism, they should not be subject to taxation." Sounds reasonable, but "fraternal benevolent societies"?

"In any fundamental restructuring of federal taxation, to guard against the possibility of hypertaxation of the American people, any value added tax or national sales tax must be tied to simultaneous repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which established the federal income tax." Or in other words, "if a value added tax or sales tax is in, the income tax is out!" A value added tax is basically a sales tax that avoids double-taxation incurred during the making of a product (so in other words, a sales tax would tax a sandwich maker for the peanut butter, jelly, and bread they bought, and then tax you for the full price of the product, whereas a VAT would only tax the "value added" by the sandwich maker). Regardless, I don't think the Democrats are pulling for either. There is something to be said for the idea that you're taxed once when you get money, and then taxed again when you spend that same money, so I can see the Republicans' point here. The next section takes a startlingly direct shot at the Democrats:

"The Democrats Plan to Raise Your Taxes": This section is a startlingly direct shot at the Democrats.

The last thing Americans need right now is tax hikes. On the federal level, Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth, put more money in the pockets of every taxpayer, and make the system fairer. It worked. If Congress had then controlled its spending, we could have done even more.

Ever since those tax cuts were enacted, the Democratic Party has been clear about its goals: It wants to raise taxes by eliminating those Republican tax reductions.

Before I get to the bulleted list, I want to remind you of what the Democratic platform actually said: "families making more than $250,000" would be asked to "give back a portion of the Bush tax cuts" (emphasis added). And those tax cuts have worked re-e-e-e-eally well right now, have they? And the poor and middle class really got a lot "more money in the[ir] pockets", didn't they?

• "Marginal tax rates would rise. This is in addition to their proposal to target millions of taxpayers with even higher rates." 2% of 300 million is about 6 million, so technically, "millions" of people would indeed get "even higher rates". And the "marginal" tax rate is the rate on the next dollar you make, or the rate on the money that carries you into another tax bracket. If you're raising the curve beyond a certain point, while keeping the curve on the other side the same or lowering it, the slope of the line has to increase somewhere. But the Republicans imply by their "in addition" phrasing that these two things would happen in two separate increases, separately.
  
• "The "marriage penalty" would return for two-earner couples." Not sure what that is or if it's a real "penalty" or just separate assessments on each earner that don't get reduced for marriage or cohabitation.
  
• "The child tax credit would fall to half its current value." A valid point.
  
• "Small businesses would lose their tax relief." However, the Democrats also proposed "exempt[ing] all start-up companies from capital gains taxes and provid[ing] them a tax credit for health insurance". Of course, the latter might be that "social engineering" the Republicans complain about.
  
• "The federal death tax would be enormously increased." Again, "estate tax" doesn't appear in the Democratic platform.
  
• 
  
  "Investment income – the seed money for new jobs – would be eaten away by higher rates for dividend and capital gain income." Again, the Democrats would "exempt all start-up companies from capital gains taxes". Otherwise, however, this seems to be a fair point.

  All that and more would amount to an annual tax hike upwards of $250 billion – almost $700 per taxpayer every year, for a total of $1.1 trillion in additional taxes over the next decade. That is what today's Democratic Party calls "tax fairness." We call it an unconscionable assault on the paychecks and pocketbooks of every hard-working American household. Their promises to aim their tax hikes at families with high incomes is a smokescreen; history shows that when Democrats want more money, they raise taxes on everyone.

So the Republicans think the Democrats are just playing politics and will raise everyone's taxes regardless of what their platform may say. On the one hand that's obviously a concern, on the other I'm actually a little bit less concerned about the funding sources of their social programs, but on the other other hand, the GOP is making them really look like traditional tax-and-spenders.

"Small Business: the Engine of Job Growth": In addition to the above, the Democrats also pledged to "help small businesses facing high energy costs", "remove bureaucratic barriers for small and start-up businesses" including reforming the patent process, and "create a national network of public-private business incubators and technical support."

We proudly call ourselves the party of small business because small businesses are where national prosperity begins. Small businesses such as Main Street retailers, entrepreneurs, independent contractors, and direct sellers create most of the country's new jobs and have been the primary means of economic advancement by women and minorities.

Eight years ago, when Democrats controlled the Executive Branch, small business faced a hostile regulatory agenda, from OSHA's ergonomics standards and attempts to intrude into the homes of telecommuting employees to IRS discrimination against independent contractors. Republicans turned back those threats, along with much of the onerous taxation that limited the growth of small businesses. We reduced their marginal tax rates, quadrupled the limit on their expensing of investments, and phased out the death tax on family owned small businesses and family farms. We enacted Health Savings Accounts to help small business owners secure health insurance for themselves and their employees. All those gains are jeopardized if Democrats gain unfettered power once again.

What were "OSHA's ergonomics standards" under Clinton? Were they unreasonable and/or unnecessary, or are you intimating that small businesses shouldn't have to help their employees avoid carpal tunnel syndrome? The only other points I would wonder about are the "death tax" and the "Health Savings Accounts". And the fact that the Democrats have only had "unfettered power" for two years, at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, since Carter's presidency ended. On to the Republican plan:

• "Through the energy agenda laid out elsewhere in this platform, we will attack the rise in energy costs that is making it so difficult for entrepreneurs to compete." So the Republicans wouldn't do anything to specifically help small business, only take on energy in general. The Democrats are so vague that for all I know, they may have the same thing in mind.
  
• "Our tax reduction and tax simplification agenda will allow businesses to focus on producing and selling their products and services – not on paying taxes." Another reference to another part of the platform. The Democrats indicated they would do similar things for small business.
  
• "Our plan to return control of health care to patients and providers will benefit small business employers and employees alike." Wait until I see it. I should remember the Democrats' tax credit for small businesses at that point, in addition to their general health care plan.
  
• "Our determination to vigorously open foreign markets to American products is an opportunity for many small businesses to grow larger in the global economy." Once again, wait until I see it and compare it to the Democrats' own plan to increase exports.
  
• "Our approach to regulation – basing it on sound science to achieve goals that are technically feasible – will protect against job-killing intrusions into small businesses." Sounds good; would you engage in the bureaucratic simplification the Democrats promise? What regulation is based on unsound science?
  
• "Our commitment to legal reform means protecting small businesses from the effects of frivolous lawsuits." Sounds good, but what about protecting their right to legitimate lawsuits?
  

The section ends with empty praise for small businesses as the source for "technological progress" and the solutions to our most pressing problems, including the environment.

"Technology and Innovation":

American innovation has twin engines: technology and small business, employing over half the private-sector work force. The synergy of our technology and small business drove a world-wide economic transformation of the last quarter-century. To maintain our global leadership, we need to encourage innovators by reforming and making permanent the Research and Development Tax Credit as part of the overall agenda outlined in this platform.

The Democrats also vowed to make the R&D Tax Credit permanent, but did not vow to "reform" it.

Innovation is our future – in our approach to energy, to education, to health care, and especially to government. As a symbol of that commitment, we share the vision of returning Americans to the moon as a step toward a mission to Mars. In advancing our country's space and aeronautics program, NASA will remain one of the world's most important pioneers in technology, and from its explorations can come tremendous benefits for mankind.

Sending Americans to the moon may seem like a waste of money, but in fact the future of the human race may well lie on the moon and Mars if the environment keeps going to hell in a handbasket... and the moon is only mentioned in the Democratic platform in reference to the expeditions of the 1960s and 70s.

"Developing a Flexible and Innovative Workforce": "To master the global economy, our work force must be creative, independent, and able to adapt to rapid change. That challenge calls for better education and training and new approaches to employer-employee relations. It means investing in people, not institutions." The first sentence is certainly agreeable, but doesn't "investing in people", in the sense the Republicans are getting at here, require "investing in institutions"? The only way to directly "invest in people" without "investing in institutions" is to give them tax cuts, which you can't control how they're spent unless you use specific tax credits, which smack of "social engineering". But I digress.

"The Failed Model of Employer-Employee Relations":

The Democrats' approach to employment policy is a retreat to failed models of the past: new regulatory burdens on employers that make it more difficult for businesses, big and small, to hire and keep employees. That failed model empowers union bosses at the expense of their members, trial lawyers at the expense of small businesses, and government bureaucrats at the expense of employer-employee partnerships. Its goal is not to create jobs but to control the workplace and the work force.

Are the "failed models of the past" referring to Democrats' support of the right to organize? The empowerment of "union bosses at the expense of their members" suggests it may well do so, which means the "regulatory burdens" are referring to the need to report to labor boards about treatment of workers. "Trial lawyers at the expense of small businesses" refer to what Republicans see as frivolous lawsuits. "Government bureaucrats at the expense of employer-employee partnerships" of course refers to those same labor boards, but how are we to know the "partnership" won't be a way for employers to take advantage of their employees? I do agree with the idea that unions shouldn't be the cure that's worse than, or at least just another iteration of, the disease – and that's an issue that hasn't appeared in the Democratic platform at all thus far.

"The Republican Model: Investing in People": "Republicans believe that the employer-employee relationship of the future will be built upon employee empowerment and workplace flexibility.

• The Industrial Revolution treated people like machines; today's economy must treat them as individuals. We recognize that work schedules should be more flexible when employers and employees are not negatively affected such as removing outdated distinctions between full time and part time, clock-punching and overtime. The federal government should set an example in that regard." Wha... what? That almost sounds like an Orwellian way of giving employers a blank check to force workers to work as long as they (the employers) want. I'm not sure what to expect if this were to happen.
  
• "The workplace must catch up with the way Americans live now. For increasing numbers of workers, especially those with children, the choice of working from home will be good for families, profitable for business, and energy efficient." Sounds good, but how will you encourage it, especially without instituting "social engineering"?
  
• "All workers should have portability in their pension plans and their health insurance, giving them greater job mobility, financial independence, and security." I'm fairly sure the Democrats agree.
  
• "Global competitiveness will increasingly require an entrepreneurial culture of cooperation and team work. Making the best talent part of our team is the rationale for the H-1B visa program, which needs updating to reflect our need for more leaders in science and technology while we take the necessary steps to create more of them in our own school systems. By complementing the U.S. work force with needed specialists from abroad, we can make sure American companies and their jobs remain here at home." Sounds like good ideas all around, but I mentioned how sad it was that even in fields that are remaining here at home, we're importing the best and the brightest, at the end of the Democrats' Part I. Importing "specialists from abroad" take up jobs that could be going to Americans (which is one reason blue-collar workers are concerned about illegal immigration). Fortunately, you also pledge to "create more of them in our own school systems".
  

"Businesses and employees, working together, are best suited to addressing the challenges ahead. Empowering official Washington and the trial bar, as Democrats prefer, will only lead to more antagonistic relations." Unfortunately, you didn't really stipulate how, specifically, you would change the "employer-employee relationship", only the paths you would open up for how people could work.

"Individual-Based Unemployment Insurance and Training":

Government can play an important role in addressing economic dislocations by modernizing its re-training and unemployment assistance programs. We must make these programs actually anticipate dislocations so that affected workers can get new skills quickly and return to the workforce.  We advocate a seamless approach to helping employees stay on the job and advance through education. Workers should be able to direct a portion of their unemployment insurance into a tax-free Lost Earnings Buffer Account that could be used for retraining or relocation. With financial incentives to return to work as soon as possible, this approach will also require strengthening community colleges and making them more accessible through Flexible Training Accounts.

This sounds good but kind of skirts the details, especially: How will unemployment programs "actually anticipate dislocations"? What are "Flexible Training Accounts", aside from Yet Another Overly-Capitalized Gimmick?

"Protecting Union Workers": Hmm, will the Republicans address here some of the questions they brought up but then avoided earlier? "We affirm both the right of individuals to voluntarily participate in labor organizations and bargain collectively and the right of states to enact Right-to-Work laws." I still don't know what those are, but I know the Democrats hate them – and I'm about to find out! Wikipedia says they're basically laws forcing employers to allow the existence of non-union employees. Before you think Democratic opposition is simply pandering to union bosses, know that such laws can effectively kill unions by allowing people to benefit from union negotiations without paying union dues, which might make it insane to join a union.

But the nation's labor laws, to a large extent formed out of conflicts several generations ago, should be modernized to make it easier for employers and employees to plan, execute, and profit together.  To protect workers from misuse of their funds, we will conscientiously enforce federal law requiring financial reporting and transparency by labor unions.  We advocate paycheck protection laws to guard the integrity of the political process and the security of workers' earnings.

Sounds appropriate, but the Democrats hate "paycheck protection" laws too, and Wikipedia doesn't really have an article on them – although it does have an article on California's Proposition 75, which would have barred union dues from going to political campaigns. The Republicans probably see Democratic opposition to that as protecting their union money, the Democrats probably see it as protecting workers' voices – but if those voices are being presented as one monolithic voice from union bosses, it probably gets distorted, especially in this post-Dean era of Internet microdonations.

"Stopping the Assault on the Secret Ballot": "The recent attempt by congressional Democrats to deny workers a secret ballot in union referenda is an assault, not only against a fundamental principle of labor law, but even more against the dignity and honor of the American work force. We oppose "card check" legislation, which deprives workers of their privacy and their right to vote, because it exposes workers to intimidation by union organizers." I already gave away my agreement with this statement when the Democrats brought up the EFCA.

"Rebuilding Homeownership": "We support timely and carefully targeted aid to those hurt by the housing crisis so that affected individuals can have a chance to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home's market value." Since no one wants to enter the housing market, how is that possible? "At the same time, government action must not implicitly encourage anyone to borrow more than they can afford to repay. We support energetic federal investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution of criminal wrongdoing in the mortgage industry and investment sector." Agreed. "We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself." (stifles guffaws of laughter, since maybe a month later they passed just such a bailout) "We encourage potential buyers to work in concert with the lending community to educate themselves about the responsibilities of purchasing a home, condo, or land." See also: the Democrats' call to "invest in financial literacy".

"Republican policy aims to make owning a home more accessible through enforcement of open housing laws, voucher programs, urban homesteading and – what is most important – a strong economy with low interest rates." It certainly all sounds good. "Because affordable housing is in the national interest, any simplified tax system should continue to encourage homeownership, recognizing the tremendous social value that the home mortgage interest deduction has had for decades." "You see, this is an example of social engineering that works and is good for America." "In addition, sound housing policy should recognize the needs of renters so that apartments and multi-family homes remain important components of the housing stock." But no Democratic call that "affordable rental housing...is now more critical than ever."

"Reforming the Civil Justice System to Improve Competitiveness": You're probably thinking "Shouldn't this belong on the section on government reform?" But this is talking about tort reform and what the Republicans call "the rule of lawyers", as opposed to "the rule of law". "The Republican approach to eliminate frivolous lawsuits has advanced in Congress through efforts like the Class Action Fairness Act and in many states through the adoption of medical liability reforms, which we will continue to pursue on the federal and state level." Not sure what those are and what their impacts have been.

"But because their Democratic donees currently control Congress, the trial lawyers are on the offensive. They are trying to undermine federal health and safety regulations by allowing trial lawyers at the state level to preempt the reasoned judgments of independent experts." Sounds bad and needing reform, but how have they done so? "They seek to weaken lower-cost dispute resolution alternatives such as mediation and arbitration in order to put more cases into court." Again, sounds bad, but what are the positives and negatives of mediation and arbitration? "In bill after bill, their congressional allies insert new private causes of action – trial lawyer earmarks – designed to drag more Americans into court." Again, sounds bad and needs reform – I can't wait for the Democratic section on this, if there is one. "All plaintiffs, especially those who must hire personal injury lawyers on a contingency basis, should be protected against abuse by their attorneys, and the attorney-client privilege should be defended as a bulwark in the defense of liberty." Sounds good.

"Free and Fair Trade": For a while I was concerned that I was going to go a significant distance over 6,000 words and be tempted to break this into two parts, but I'll only now hit 5,000. Basically, trade is great and means more jobs and a higher standard of living.

With 95 percent of the world's customers outside our borders, we need to be at the table when trade rules are written to make sure that free trade is indeed a two-way street. We encourage multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements to reduce trade barriers that limit market access for U.S. products, commodities and services. To achieve that goal, Congress should reinstate the trade promotion authority every president should have in dealing with foreign governments. Trade agreements that have already been signed and are pending before Congress should be debated and voted on immediately.

Hmm. Short on details. Basically, we need free trade agreements; I'm not sure what "trade promotion authority" is. "We will contest any restrictions upon our farm products within the World Trade Organization and will work to make the WTO's decision-making process more receptive to the arguments of American producers." Hmm, could this be because the US government throws out farm subsidies left and right? "We pledge stronger action to protect intellectual property rights against pirating" – sounds good but I know there are a LOT of people on the Internet that hate this stance – "and will aggressively oppose the direct and indirect subsidies by which some governments tilt the world playing field against American producers" – also mentioned by the Democrats. "To protect American consumers, we call for greater vigilance and more resources to guard against the importation of tainted food, poisonous products, and dangerous toys." Compare with the Democrats, which expressed a very similar sentiment in another section. "Additionally, we recognize the need to support our growth in trade through appropriate development and support of our ports in order to ensure safe, efficient and timely handling of all goods." Sounds good but could be expensive.

"Supporting our Agricultural Communities": "We advocate the creation of Farm Savings Accounts to help growers manage risks brought on by turbulence in global markets and nature itself." The GOP loves "savings account" gimmicks, don't they? Another shot against the "death tax" as well. "Those who live on and work the land are our finest environmental stewards. They understand, better than most, the need for safe water, clean air, and conservation of open space. We oppose attempts to hamper agricultural production with heavy-handed mandates, including any expansion of the Clean Water Act to regulate ditches, culverts, converted cropland, and farm and stock ponds." Wait, the people who work on the land "understand...the need for safe water" so you want to pull back regulation of safe water? Or are you saying regulation of safe water isn't needed? Somehow I get the feeling it quite probably is.

"We reaffirm traditional state supremacy over water allocations and will continue to make available renewable rangeland under sound environmental conditions." Don't know what this is but it sounds good. "We support greater investment in conservation incentive programs to help rural communities improve and sustain environmental quality." Sounds excellent, and right in my wheelhouse, but aren't "conservation incentive programs" "social engineering"? (Since I could fill an entire part with pointing out GOP examples of "social engineering" I'll stop after this part.) "Agricultural policy should be formulated by giving careful consideration to the expert opinions of those most knowledgeable on the topic – the farmers and ranchers." Sounds reasonable.

To meet surging global demand for food and biofuel, farmers must have the technology to grow higher yields using fewer inputs. The USDA must remain the international leader in agricultural research to ensure that America and the world will never have to choose between food and fuel. The U.S. government should end mandates for ethanol and let the free market work.

The best way to "never have to choose between food and fuel" is to take fuel off the table entirely, especially when you consider the unpredictability and possible consequences of technology. I also support ending mandates for ethanol, for entirely different reasons – I don't think it's the best way to address climate change.

The Democrats, in their discussions of farming so far, focused on supporting rural Americans, including a "strong safety net" and "funding for soil and water conservation programs." So the Republicans want to reduce the need for a safety net with their "farm savings accounts", which follows the old adage about prevention and cure, and the Democrats have fewer comments on farm production itself. Don't we need support for rural Americans in both their business and their way of life? Or maybe that's spending too much money, but you'd think both approaches would be backed by the same party.

I promise, I'll pick up the pace in the near future! For real!