For my first candidate profiles, I’ll take the first two (in
alphabetical order) Republican and Democratic candidates: Hillary
Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, both as it happens from New York. My
thoughts are pretty much in random order, loosely grouped; there’s
no real information design or editing, just lots and lots of words.
Hillary Clinton
Hmmm…her site
wanted my name, email address and zip code—but was reasonable
enough to let me skip that nonsense. There’s no way I want to
be on her mailing list…
Economic policy
Well, she says that she wants to lower taxes for middle-class
families,
which is noble enough. That’s almost certainly
code for and raise taxes on the rich,
which isn’t so
good. She mentions the oxymoronic Earned Income Tax Credit (I earn
income-why don’t I qualify for it?) in the same paragraph; I
think that her definition of middle-class
is not the same as
mine. Still, not a terribly offensive promise, and one not likely
to do too much damage.
She wants to invest
money in research. I’m a bit
puzzled as to how that’s constitutional, but no doubt she has a
good rationale.
She will ensure that unions are strong, presumably by forcing people
who don’t want to be in them to contribute dues. She appears to
like trade protectionism (one of the few really, honestly, truly
proven bad ideas in economics). She loses points there too.
This paragraph is absurd: Hillary will restore the basic bargain
that if Americans work hard and take responsibility, government will
do its part to make sure they have the tools to get ahead.
Wow—I thought the basic bargain is that the State exists to
prevent a war of all against all, to protect my rights from you,
your rights from me and our rights from those folks over there. She
really loses points here.
She promises a return to fiscal responsibility.
This is a
good goal, and one I applaud.
She’ll throw lots of money at alternative energy. How this
syncs with the previous promise is unclear.
She’ll create all sorts of new federal programmes and bureaus,
without any constitutional power to do so, as far as I can tell.
She’ll expand the GI Bill, which is economically insane
(it’s one reason that college tuition has skyrocketed) and VA
home loans (not a terribly good idea economically, although of course
it’s a political home run).
She wants to increase teacher salaries. I can’t seem to find
where in the Constitution she finds that in the powers of the federal
government, but apparently she believes it’s in there
somewhere.
She wants to teach parents how to be parents. Oddly, one would think
they could learn that from their parents. Or, if their
states wanted, those states could teach them. I don’t see why
the United States needs to worry about something that Sue and Jim or
New Mexico and Massachusetts can.
She thinks that the fact that women earn less on average is evidence
of discrimination (it’s not; it’s evidence that women are
willing to trade money for other benefits, like flex-time), and that
it’s a federal issue (it’s not).
She wants to fire half a million government contractors. No word on
what the economic affect of that will be.
She want to publish budgets for every government agency. With the
exception of intelligence and military research budgets, this makes
sense to me, and should be applauded.
She claims to want to eliminate corporate welfare. This is laudable,
if she’s serious. Pity she’s not so strong on eliminating
individual welfare too.
Health care
She’s still annoyed she lost back in 1994 and wants to try
socialised medicine once more, opening those plans for federal
employees up to the general public. Not the worst idea in the world,
but not a good first step. She wants to give tax credits to small
business for providing health care plans (but what about large
businesses?); the better solution is to stop making employer-provided
health insurance non-taxable. She wants to force insurance companies
to cover anything their customer wants, regardless of their contracts.
She doesn’t say how she will keep me from demanding seven
nurses, a surgeon, a physician, a dentist and a phlebotomist when I
get a cold—someone will have to know when to say when: if
it’s not me, and not my physician (who gets paid no matter how
absurd my demands are), and not my insurance company, who will it be?
The state? She loses big points here.
She wants to force health insurance companies to cover contraception.
Never mind that contraception is, basically, breaking a working
machine and that the rest of health care is fixing a broken
machine.
Iraq
Clinton seems to believe that we’re done in Iraq, never mind
that the state there is nowhere near stable. We were stuck in Germany
for forty years; why we should be done so quickly in Iraq is beyond
me. Her three-step plan
is: bring our troops home, work to
bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new
diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing
Iraq’s future. I’m unclear as to how she would work for
stability in the region without a military force to back up her
diplomacy; I’m unclear which states would provide
security in Iraq, if not us. The British Empire (that’s a joke,
see?), maybe? Russia? Iran? Isræl?
She wants to bring everyone home, thus leaving the Iraqi government
to fall to jihadists, just as her allies brought our troops home from
Vietnam and let a democracy fall to communist tyranny. She is, at
least, consistent.
She wants the UN to handle Iraq, apparently please with how it has
handled Kosovo (once a part of Serbia, once full of Serbians, once
full of monasteries and churches, now a hell-hole full of Albanians,
where historic churches are pulled down and priests are murdered).
She thinks she can persuade Iraq’s neighbours (e.g. Syria,
Iran, Turkey) not to interfere in its affairs. Without the US
military to stop them. Presumably she will ask very nicely.
She is apparently unaware that we’ve already been mediating
where possible. She’s also apparently unaware that sometimes
mediation’s just not possible: when party A wants to kill party
B, and party B would rather keep on living, there’s no real way
to compromise.
Iraq’s neighbours (and other nations) would apparently also pay
to rebuild Iraq. But of course not be repaid. And naturally this aid
would never, ever, ever get into the hands of jihadists.
She does seem to realise that a US departure would create a crisis
which would make the boat people seem like a Cub Scout regatta, which
is good, but she doesn’t seem to care, which is bad.
Foreign policy
She wants to continue spending money on foreign aid, including
funding preschools in the Benighted World. Why that’s our
business as a nation (instead of mine as a citizen) is beyond me.
She wants a robust response to the violence in Darfur,
but is
coy about whether this would involve actually using the military,
merely threatening to use the military or talking in a very stern
voice.
Liberty
Clinton supports censorship of violence and sexual content (and no
doubt of other things, like smoking or conservatism).
Clinton supports infanticide, apparently caring not a whit for the
liberty of the unborn. She is particularly fond of the practise of
partially delivering a child, then twaddling its brain with
scissors.
She claims she will restore integrity to science policy, reversing
Bush administration policies that are holding our nation back
;
this is of course code for spend federal money murdering children
so that Michæl J. Fox can maybe cure his
Parkinson’s.
She seems to think that there is such a thing
as ethical embryonic stem cell research.
Well, provided that
they are not human embryos, sure. But that’s not what
she means. She loses points there.
She wants to force employers to hire employees they don’t like.
Methinks it’s better to simply let bigots lose out in the
marketplace when they pass over better-qualified candidates.
She’s silent on the right to bear arms; the right to free
speech (impinged on by her censorship); the right to practise
one’s religion (impinged on by her mandates for various
irreligious practises); the right to confront one’s accusers;
the right to property and so forth. She clearly does not believe that
government is created by the people, for the people; she seems to
think that government nurtures the people, for the government’s
greater glory.
Miscellaneous
She wants to create a public-service academy (like the military
academies, but for training bureaucrats). I don’t think that
increasing the supply of leeches is a good idea.
She wants to expand voting access,
which is precisely the
wrong thing to do. Fewer, not more, people need to vote. Most people
are morons; every election in recent memory has been decided by fewer
people than that number of the population which is literally retarded.
Handing out votes to felons and illegal aliens, while good for the
Democratic Party, is hardly good for the United States.
She wants Election Day to be a national holiday. This is not an
entirely bad idea, since it means more honest people with jobs can
vote. On the other hand, it means more people voting, which is bad.
And most people with upper-class jobs can vote; this just makes it
easier for the lower classes to vote, which is much like handing a
teenage boy a bottle of whiskey and the keys to a Corvette.
She wants more hate crimes. This is a mistake; hate crimes are no
worse than other crimes and are perilously close to thought crimes
(the crime which is being punished is not the criminal’s
actions; it is his thoughts).
She’s proud of opposing Chief Justice Roberts, the single best
judge we’ve gotten in my lifetime. Wrong-o.
Conclusion
I cannot be excited about Hillary Clinton as president. Her
positions are almost always unconstitutional; they are often
pandering; they are generally wrong. Her only virtue is that she is a
woman, and that it would be nice to finally elect a woman president so
that we can get it over with and quit having it as an issue.
Otherwise she is a discredit to her country and would be a disaster
for our nation.
Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani’s site uses
Flash, which loses points. It also has a silly chequered flag thing
on it right now.
Economic policy
Giuliani wants to lower marginal tax rates. This is a good thing; if
we could cut our taxes down to about 6% or so that’d be perfect.
It ain’t gonna happen, though.
He wants to eliminate the estate tax. Excellent! Taxes were already
paid when the income was made; why pay twice? Certainly tax-sheltered
accounts (like 401(k)s or IRAs) should be taxed or rolled over into
other tax-sheltered accounts, but otherwise why should be double-tax
the rich?
He wants to rein in
the Alternative Minimum Tax and tie it to
inflation. Why not just eliminate it entirely?
He wants to lower corporate tax rates, a reasonable enough action as
our rates are out of line with those across the globe.
He wants to simplify income taxes, giving the option of filing the
current forms or a simplified one. Again, not a bad idea, although
not going far enough.
He wants to cut the capital gains tax; I don’t see that it
really needs cutting. It’d not be bad for me, personally, but
that’s no basis for federal policy.
He wants to reinstate the research & development tax credit.
That’s a good idea.
He wants to end earmarking—an excellent idea whose time has
come. I cannot applaud him highly enough on this.
He wants sunset clauses on all federal programmes. This too is an
excellent idea.
He proposes an amendment instituting a line-item veto. It was a good
idea in the 1860s and is a good idea now.
He favours burning the Midwest’s remaining topsoil in order to
feed our addiction to the automobile—this is also known as
ethanol. Not a good idea, albeit perhaps necessary to win votes in
the Midwest (whose voters don’t apparently care that
they’re denuding their own land and shipping it elsewhere to be
burnt in engines).
He favours school choice and charter schools, which is good—but
I don’t see how they’re a federal issue. He wants to give
scholarships to all children active-duty military men (effectively,
school vouchers for the military); this is a good idea, although
honestly the Department of Defense is already way too
expensive. It’s one of the few legitimate federal bureaucracies,
but do we really need to expand it?
He wants to reform Sarbanes-Oxley. Excellent! It was an
over-reaction which has hurt our economy and our national
competitiveness.
Health care
Giuliani proposes excluding the first $15,000 earned for those who do
not have employer-funded health care. Not an entirely bad idea,
although it will inevitably lead to higher insurance rates. A better
solution is to tax employer-funded health care as income. Giving
everyone a $15,000 exclusion, including employer funds therein and
letting inflation fix the problem (within my lifetime $15,000 will be
worth about $900) is almost as good.
He favours medical tort reform, but has no details. Done right,
it’s necessary; done poorly, it’ll be a very bad. And I
don’t see how this is a federal issue.
He wants to streamline the FDA. How about getting a constitutional
amendment allowing it first? Just a thought. How about letting
people take the medicines they want? Use the FDA simply to guarantee
safety, purity and effectiveness; allow physicians and patients to
make their minds up otherwise.
He wants to invest
in health information technology. If
it’s an investment, it will pay for itself and private companies
would be doing it already.
He wants to expand health savings accounts. This is vital. If
instead of nickel-and-dime health insurance—which is the
equivalent of gasoline and car wash insurance on a car—people
has catastrophic insurance and HSAs they’d be better off and
health care prices would be lower.
He wants to promote healthy lifestyles and wellness.
How is
this a federal responsibility?
Iraq
Giuliani realises that Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are the three
current fronts against jihadism. That’s good. Other than that
he appears to have no vision for how to stabilise Iraq and get back
home. That’s bad.
He opposes withdrawal from Iraq at this point in time, which is
appropriate. He doesn’t exactly say what his criteria for
withdrawal are, which is a bit worrisome.
Foreign policy
He wants to rejigger foreign aid so as to encourage Mohammedan states
to crack down on domestic jihadism. Great idea!
Giuliani wants to expand NATO—excellent idea! NATO needs to
become the anti-UN. The UN is a failed relic of a fascist’s
reign; NATO is the only real organ for international liberty.
He wants to expand the number of H1B visas. H1Bs are already abused:
they were meant to allow in workers with skillsets not findable among
citizens, but have become a way for employers to pay cheaper foreign
labour instead of more-expensive American labour (in fairness, I
should point out that my industry is particularly hard-hit by this and
that I may not be unbiased). He loses points here.
He wants to increase free trade. Yes! Particularly if it means
getting rid of the rules which prevent free trade in Internet
gambling…
Liberty
Giuliani is no friend of liberty; he’s on record as
stating, Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness
of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of
discretion about what you do.
This is not a man who should be put
in authority over anyone.
He wants to extend the PATRIOT Act and FISA. They’re not
really all that bad in themselves (their vices have been exaggerated
and their virtues are not unpresent), but I don’t see any need
to do much more.
Giuliani supports infanticide, but as its supporters go, he’s
not too bad. Of course, it’s really not a federal issue, so
that should be immaterial. The end result of his policies (many of
which are unconstitutional, which is a bad thing) would probably be to
reduce the number of children murdered each year, which is good thing.
Still, his heart is most definitely not in the right
place.
He says he wants to promote religious and political freedom, human
rights and democracy for dissidents across the world
; I just
wish he felt the same about America.
He thinks that public safety (i.e. police) is a federal
responsibility. It’s not and never has been. He loses points
here.
He is silent on the right to free speech (impinged on by her
censorship); the right to practise one’s (non-Christian)
religion; the right to confront one’s accusers; the right to
property and so forth. His thoughts on the right to bear arms seem to
be get guns out of the hands of criminals (and potential
criminals).
New York City has some of the worst gun laws in the
nation, which he enforced.
Miscellaneous
Giuliani wants to create a military-civilian expeditionary force
to stabilise failing states and prevent the emergence of new
terrorist safe-havens.
This would have been a good idea before
Iraq—but do we really want to be in that business anymore? He
loses points on this.
He pledges to appoint judges who read the Constitution as it’s
written, not as they wish it were written. This is a good thing, a
necessary thing and an unfortunately very rare thing.
He thinks that anti-terrorism is a federal responsibility; I agree,
when it comes to foreign and anti-federal terrorists. Local
terrorism, of course, is a local issue.
He wants to decentralise the Department of Homeland Security in
regions. Why not eliminate DHS, and give each state responsibility
with its borders, and the military and intelligence arms
responsibility outside our borders?
He wants need-based
funding for anti-terrorism. This means
taxing Duluth, Des Moines and the Dakotas to pay for CCTV cameras in
New York, Boston and Los Angeles. No thank you—those places
have plenty of money to spend on their own.
Conclusion
Rudy Giuliani is a good administrator. If the position of President
were simply the Chief Executive of the United States (as it should
be), he would probably do a good job. Given that it has become King
of the United States, given his lack of respect for liberty and his
worrisome trend toward corporatism and authoritarianism, I cannot
support him for president at this time. His tenure would probably be
pretty good in execution, decent in foreign policy and absolutely
terrible in civil liberties. And one can only imagine the personal
scandals…