Republican Platform Review

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!

This is continued from Parts I and II of my examination of the Republican Platform. Don’t worry, I am making progress and I fully expect to make good on my pledge to put up two more examinations tomorrow.

Onward to the Republicans’ Part II, “Reforming Government to Serve the People”, and if you’re skeptical about one of the major parties reforming the government they’re knee-deep in I don’t blame you.

The American people believe Washington is broken … and for good reason.  Short-term politics overshadow the long-term interests of the nation.  Our national legislature uses a budget process devised long before the Internet and seems unable to deal in realistic ways with the most pressing problems of families, businesses, and communities. Members of Congress have been indicted for violating the public trust. Public disgust with Washington is entirely warranted.

Republicans will uphold and defend our party’s core principles: Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions.  Unleash the power of enterprise, innovation, civic energy, and the American spirit – and never pretend that government is a substitute for family or community. 

The other party wants more government control over people’s lives and earnings; Republicans do not.  The other party wants to continue pork barrel politics; we are disgusted by it, no matter who practices it.  The other party wants to ignore fiscal problems while squandering billions on ineffective programs; we are determined to end that waste.  The entrenched culture of official Washington – an intrusive tax-and-spend liberalism – remains a formidable foe, but we will confront and ultimately defeat it.

To be fair, Republicans have always had a reputation, at least, of being the party of small government, but boy, that government was really tiny from 2001-2006 when Republicans controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress, wasn’t it? But based on what I’ve already seen in the Democratic platform, some of those shots at “the other party” in the last paragraph kind of cut close to the bone. Still, you’d think there were no Republicans in “official Washington” at all.

“Washington’s Failure: The Scope of the Problem”: The government collects $2.7 trillion a year from the American people! Shock! Worse, it spends $3 trillion a year! Shock!

Why? Largely because those who created this bloated government will not admit a single mistake or abolish a single program.  Here are some staggering examples of the overall problem:

• Recent audits show that 22% of all federal programs are ineffective or incapable of demonstrating results.
• 69 separate programs, administered by 10 different agencies, provide education or care to children under the age of 5.
• Nine separate agencies administer 44 different programs for job training.
• 23 separate programs, each with its own overhead, provide housing assistance to the elderly.

With so many redundant, inefficient, and ineffective federal programs, it is no wonder that the American people have so little confidence in Washington to act effectively when federal action is really needed.

Well, the last bullet point can be taken care of by merging all of the programs; I can think of reasons why so many different programs would exist for the middle two, but consolidation of agencies might still be possible. But how can we be sure Republicans will “admit a single mistake or abolish a single program” and won’t just perpetuate the problem?

“The Budget Process – A Fraud that Guarantees Runaway Spending”:

For more than three decades – since enactment of the Budget Act of 1974 by a Democrat-controlled Congress – the federal government has operated within a rigged system notable for its lack of transparency. The earlier approach – annual passage of the appropriation bills, amended and voted up or down, with the numbers there for all to see – had its flaws and generated much red ink.  But its replacement, the current budget process, only worsened the money flow and came to rely on monstrous omnibus spending bills.  The results are adverse to all seeking to limit government’s growth.

Wow! Tell us what you really feel! But I have a feeling this is going to veer off into esoterica that no one can even comprehend. Examples in original:

• “The budget process assumes every spending project will be on the books forever, even if the law says the spending will expire – but it assumes tax relief will be temporary.” A fair point.
• “It treats well-deserved tax cuts as a kind of spending, so that letting Americans keep more of their earnings is considered the same as more spending on pork projects.” Ties in with the following:
• “It fails to recognize the positive impact that lowering tax rates has on economic growth.” That might be a fair point, but the budget process is designed with the federal government in mind, and as far as the government is concerned tax cuts ARE a sort of spending unless it actually increases revenue.
• “In its deceptive and irresponsible accounting, an increase in a program’s funding is actually a decrease if it is less than the rate of inflation.” Um, yes. That’s what inflation is. That’s not “deceptive and irresponsible accounting”, that’s honest and responsible accounting.
• “Once a budget is produced under that system, the budget law itself limits the time Congress can consider it before voting.” Already no budget gets completely passed before the date it’s supposed to go into effect; you want to lengthen that time?

“Moreover, the budget’s review process is a sham.  Of the $3 trillion spent annually, only one-third is reviewed each year during the budget and appropriations process.  The remaining $2 trillion automatically goes to interest on the national debt or entitlements.” What, in this sense, are “entitlements”? And from a fiscal perspective, doesn’t it make sense to pay down the national debt? “And because the budget process assumes an automatic increase in spending, the debate on the remaining one-third is only over how much more spending to approve.” An “automatic increase in spending” adjusted for inflation, or unadjusted for inflation? If unadjusted for inflation, I think it’s fair to factor in inflation in the budgeting process. “Finally, while government requires corporations to budget for future pension and health care costs, our government ignores those requirements.  No family or private sector business could keep its books the way Washington keeps ours.” Another fair point.

“A Plan to Control Spending Republicans will attack wasteful Washington spending immediately.  Current procedures should be replaced with simplicity and transparency.  For example:

• We favor adoption of the Balanced Budget Amendment to require a balanced federal budget except in time of war.” We haven’t had a congressionally-declared war since World War II, and the War Powers Act pretty much guarantees we’ll never have another. Any sane judge would say a Constitutional amendment would use the Constitutional definition of “war”, so unless you start having Congress declare war again (or make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves by giving that power explicitly to the President), your war exemption is meaningless and practically, you won’t be able to spend like you need to in time of war. Also, most economists say deficits are natural and necessary in recessions as tax revenue goes down and government services are used more, and should be exacerbated by tax cuts and infrastructure investment, so without an economic-downturn exemption this sounds like a recipe for disaster that will force you to take steps that would exacerbate the recession.
• “Earmarking must stop.  To eliminate wasteful projects and pay-offs to special interests, we will impose an immediate moratorium on the earmarking system and reform the appropriations process through full transparency.  Tax dollars must be distributed on the basis of clear national priorities, not a politician’s seniority or party position.” I can’t think of a good reason for earmarks to even exist, but how can I trust the Republicans to follow through on this?
• “Government waste must be taken off auto-pilot.  We call for a one-year pause in non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending to force a critical, cost-benefit review of all current programs.” Why “non-veterans”? Why not non-education? And if you eliminate all spending of that sort, especially in a recession, you deprive people of a LOT of vital services, redundant though they may be. And who will perform this review, and if it’s an independent auditor, how can I trust the Republicans to follow through on his recommendations? 
• “We call for a constitutionally sound presidential line-item veto.” That would allow for the President to get rid of specific items in a spending bill without vetoing the whole thing. Because when the President wants more power, he usually gets it, this might actually happen.
• “If billions are worth spending, they should be spent in the light of day.  We will insist that, before either the House or Senate considers a spending bill, every item in it should be presented in advance to the taxpayers on the Internet.” Same as for the “accountability” measures the Dems proposed for things like pension funds: no one will be able to sit through it except for watchdog groups and freaks like me who run point-by-point examinations of party political platforms. J
• “Because the problem is too much spending, not too few taxes, we support a supermajority requirement in both the House and Senate to guard against tax hikes.” Sounds like that’ll make it more difficult for your balanced budget amendment to work. Republicans love tax cuts, so they’ll probably follow through on this, but it almost certainly will require a constitutional amendment and people who think government has a vital role will complain that “it takes a supermajority to raise taxes but a majority to lower them”.
• “New authorizations should be offset by reducing another program, and no appropriation should be permitted without a current authorization.” You really are the small-government type. This could create a tight space for the important services government provides, and it needs to be able to account for inflation. And I doubt you’ll do it anyway.
• “Congressional ethics rules governing special interests should apply across the board, without the special exemptions now granted to favored institutions.” Sounds good, but what are these “favored institutions” and why are they “favored”?
• “We support the Government Shutdown Protection Act to ensure the continuance of essential federal functions when advocates of pork threaten to shut down the government unless their wasteful spending is accepted.” Sounds like a good way to undermine your “spending freeze”, er, “pause”, and it’s sure to become a target for loopholes that allow every wasteful, porkful program to keep getting funding and render a “government shutdown” meaningless.
• “We will insist that the budget reasonably plan for the long-term costs of pension and health care programs and urge the conversion of such programs to defined contribution programs.” Sounds good, but a lot of foreign language.

“Empowering the States, Improving Public Services”:

The long term solution for many of Washington’s problems is structural. Congress must respect the limits imposed upon it by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

We look to the model of Republican welfare reform, which, since its enactment in 1996, has accomplished a major transfer of resources and responsibility from the federal government back to the states – with an accompanying improvement in the program itself.  Applying that approach to other programs will steer Congress back into line with the Constitution, reversing both its intrusion into state matters and its neglect of its central duties.

Well, the “model of Republican welfare reform” serves to reassure me – and, presumably, others – that the Republicans can, indeed, be trusted to reduce the size of government, and that moving some programs to the states is indeed the answer.

(Note: For the first time I’m struck by the remarkable small-government implications of the Tenth Amendment. It effectively says the government literally cannot do anything unless the Constitution explicitly or implicitly allows them to, or says the states can’t. I’m planning a series of posts on that next year, but if the Congress has really gone afoul of the Tenth Amendment, isn’t the real problem that the Supreme Court hasn’t called them on it?)

To aid in the fulfillment of those duties, we propose a National Sunset Commission to review all federal programs and recommend which of them should be terminated due to redundancy, waste, or intrusion into the American family. The Congress would then be required by law to schedule one yea or nay vote on the entire sunset list with no amendments.

This would be nonpartisan and not influenced by political manipulation, and can’t be used to get particular powerful people’s wishes ramrodded through without a chance to be amendmented out, right? Oh, you talk about “intrusion into the American family”, it’s already influenced by political manipulation.

“Additionally, as important as returning power to the states is returning power to the people.  As the Declaration of Independence states, our rights are endowed to us by our Creator and are inalienable: rights to life, liberty, and property.” Actually, the Declaration talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”… “Government does not confer these rights but is instituted by men to protect the rights that man already possesses.   The Republican Party strongly affirms these rights and demands that government respect them.” Empty platitudes that sound good but mean less than nothing.

“Congress Must Improve Oversight of Government Programs”: “Congress has a fundamental duty to conduct meaningful oversight on the effectiveness of government programs, not use every hearing as an opportunity for political grandstanding.” Well, that certainly rings true from what I’ve seen. With that in mind:

• “We urge every congressional committee to reserve at least one week every month to conduct oversight of the nearly 1,700 separate grant and loan programs of the federal government.” That’s almost micromanagement, and it does nothing to stop “political grandstanding”.
• “To prevent conflicts of interest, a Truth in Testimony mandate should require all committee witnesses to detail the amount of federal funding they and their employer currently receive and, in the case of associations, how much federal money their members would receive from the proposed legislation.” Sounds reasonable, if subject to the same problems as other “accountability” measures, but why would only “associations” have to declare how much money they would receive?
• “Because official Washington does not even know how much land it owns, we call for a national audit of all federally-owned properties as a first step toward returning unnecessary properties to the American people or to state and local government for public use.” Again, sounds reasonable.

“Improving the Work of Government”: A good chunk of the federal workforce and most of its managers are about to retire, and the Republicans see in that “a[n]…opportunity…
to gradually shrink the size of government while using technology to increase its effectiveness and reshape the way agencies do business.”

Each agency must be able to pass a financial audit and set annual targets for improving efficiency with fewer resources.  Civil service managers should be given incentives for more effective leadership, including protection against the current guilty-until-proven-innocent grievance procedures which disgruntled employees use against them to thwart reform.  Due process cannot excuse bad behavior.

What happens if and/or when an agency can’t improve its efficiency any more? The first sentence sounds good but the rest almost seems to come out of left field. I’d like to know more about these “grievance procedures” and verify whether or not “protection against” them would result in more bad apples among “civil service managers” less able to be disciplined.

“We will provide Internet transparency in all federal contracting as a necessary step in combating cost overruns.” A good – nay, excellent – idea, especially in light of some of the headlines of the past eight years, but like all such “transparency” measures, who’s reading it? “We will draw on the expertise of today’s successful managers and entrepreneurs in the private sector, like the “dollar-a-year” businesspeople who answered their country’s call during the Second World War, to build real-world competence and accountability into government procurement and operations.” How do we know they won’t be more like the “party-a-bankruptcy” businesspeople at companies like AIG? That sounds like a recipe for a bunch of charlatans to come in, loot the government for personal gain and leave it in shambles, and leave.

“Domestic Disaster Response”: “Americans hit by disaster must never again feel abandoned by their government.  The Katrina disaster taught a painful lesson: The federal government’s system for responding to a natural calamity needs a radical overhaul.  We recognize the need for a natural disaster insurance policy.” That sounds like a fantastic idea. Of course, Katrina happened under a Republican President and a Republican Congress, but it sounds like a great idea and should motivate the government to protect people from natural disasters, especially with the climate potentially going out of whack in coming years.

“State and local cooperation is crucial, as are private relief efforts, but Washington must take the lead in forging a partnership with America’s best run businesses to ensure that FEMA’s Emergency Operations Centers run as well as any Fortune 500 Company.” Oh great, another “let’s privatize it all!” suggestion. To be fair, the Republicans talk about “best run businesses”, but even there that’s going to lead to ruthless cost-cutting and the lowest levels of service FEMA can get away with (not to mention possibly irrelevant advice), and how do we know it really is going to be the “best run businesses” Republicans take a cue from? And it’s a “partnership”, so how do we know there won’t be any conflicts of interest? About the only part of this sentence that I like is the bit about “state and local cooperation”.

“We must make it easier for both businesses and non-profits to act as force-multipliers in relief situations.” Agreed in theory, especially for non-profits, but at the same time we can’t just hand it over to big business and trust them not to join the looting. “We believe it is critical to support those impacted by natural disasters and to complete the rebuilding of devastated areas, including the Gulf Coast.” Again, agreed.

“Restoring Our Infrastructure”:

The American people can have safer roads and bridges, better airports and more efficient harbors, as long as we straighten out the government’s spending priorities.  The politics of pork distorts the allocation of resources for modernizing the nation’s infrastructure.  That can leave entire communities vulnerable to natural disasters and deprive others of the improvements necessary for economic growth and job creation.  We pledge a business-like, cost-effective approach for infrastructure spending, always mindful of the special needs of both rural and urban communities.

The bit about disaster response is more out-of-place in this part than infrastructure, because infrastructure improvements tend to be the target of pork. Once again, “run the government like a business”. I don’t even know what this means or how you would change anything.

We support a level of investment in the nation’s transportation system that will promote a healthy economy, sustain jobs, and keep America globally competitive.  We need to improve the system’s performance and capacity to deal with congestion, move a massive amount of freight, reduce traffic fatalities, and ensure mobility across both rural and urban areas. We urgently need to preserve the highway, transit, and air facilities built over the last century so they can serve generations to come.  At the same time, we are committed to minimizing transportation’s impact on climate change, our local environments, and the nation’s energy use.  Careful reforms of environmental reviews and the permitting process should speed projects to completion.

It sounds like your heart’s in the right place, and if you want to “deal with congestion”, “reduce traffic fatalities”, and “minimiz[e] transportation’s impact on…energy use”, mass transit would be a good place to start, especially for the last. Would those “reforms of environmental reviews and the permitting process” potentially get rid of important aspects of either?

Safeguarding our transportation infrastructure is critical to our homeland security.  An integrated, flexible system – developed and sustained in partnership between state and local governments and the federal government – must also share responsibilities with the private sector.  We call for more prudent stewardship of the nation’s Highway Trust Fund to restore the program’s purchasing power and ensure that it will meet the changing needs of a mobile nation.

“Privatize! Privatize! Privatize!” Pretty much all covered before. Oddly, this might mean getting the private sector involved in securing the nation’s infrastructure, but not in building it like the Democrats. Last sentence… not sure what to make of it, really. No reference to non-transportation infrastructure in the whole thing.

“Entitlement Reform”: So this is what “entitlements” are: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are typically isolated from the rest of the federal budget. “The job of modernizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid calls for bipartisanship, not political posturing.  Through the last four presidential terms, we have sought that cooperation, but it has not been forthcoming.  The public demands constructive action, and we will provide it.” Really means little until we hear more in the next two paragraphs.

Social Security
We are committed to putting Social Security on a sound fiscal basis.  Our society faces a profound demographic shift over the next twenty-five years, from today’s ratio of 3.3 workers for every retiree to only 2.1 workers by 2034.  Under the current system, younger workers will not be able to depend on Social Security as part of their retirement plan.  We believe the solution should give workers control over, and a fair return on, their contributions.  No changes in the system should adversely affect any current or near-retiree. Comprehensive reform should include the opportunity to freely choose to create your own personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to the overall Social Security system.

So no hiking the retirement age, “give workers control over…their contributions”, and “personal investment accounts which are distinct from” Social Security proper. This might be what some Democrats are talking about by Republican plans to “privatize” Social Security, and notice that it’s rather short on details. The bit on “Medicare and Medicaid” refers to the later discussion of the Republican health care plan, which will involve “rewarding quality care, promoting competition, eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and giving patients and providers control over treatment options.  We envision a new Medicaid partnership with the states, improving public health through flexibility and innovation.” More reducing the size of government by passing it off to the states. “Improving public health through flexibility and innovation” seems like an empty platitude for now.

“Appointing Constitutionalist Judges for the Nation’s Courts”:

Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public.  This must stop.

We condemn the Supreme Court’s disregard of homeowners’ property rights in its Kelo decision and deplore the Court’s arbitrary extension of Americans’ habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants held abroad.  We object to the Court’s unwarranted interference in the administration of the death penalty in this country for the benefit of savage criminals whose guilt is not at issue.  We lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states and are undermining traditional marriage laws from coast to coast.  We are astounded that four justices of the Supreme Court believe that individual Americans have no individual right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families.

Republicans will insist on the appointment of constitutionalist judges, men and women who will not distort our founding documents to deny the people’s right to self-government, sanction federal powers that violate our liberties, or inject foreign law into American jurisprudence.

I’m withholding judgment until I read the Democratic platform’s discussion of this issue. Suffice to say I suspect none of these cases are as black and white as the Republicans indicate. The line about “sanction[ing] federal powers that violate our liberties” actually surprises me a little because it suggests the Republicans at least want to give the appearance that they want to control the abuse that one of their own, Bush, has been accused of. I’m curious what cases the Republicans think “inject[ed] foreign law into American jurisprudence”.

The Republicans “oppose stealth nominations to the federal bench, and especially to the Supreme Court, whose lack of a clear and distinguished record leaves doubt about their respect for the Constitution or their intellectual fortitude.” That’s out of left field; certainly it’s a fair point, but is it based on something in the Democratic platform or something? Because otherwise it would seem to refer to their own president’s nominations.

“We reject the Democrats’ view that judicial nominees should guarantee particular results even before the case is filed.  Judges should not be politicians.  Jurists nominated by a Republican president will be thoughtful and open-minded, always prepared to view past error in light of stare decisis, including judicial fiats that disenfranchised the American people.” WHAT? You just said you object to the Supreme Court making decisions you didn’t like, and now you’re trying to claim justices should be free of political pressure?

No qualified person should be denied the opportunity to serve on the federal bench due to race, ethnicity, religion or sex.  In affirming Article VI of the Constitution – that no religious test shall ever be required for any office – we insist that the Senate should never inquire into a nominee’s religious convictions and we condemn the opposition, by some members of the Democratic Party, to recent judicial nominees because of their ethnicity or religion.

I agree, but I’ve heard nothing about this. Presumably “inquir[ing] into a nominee’s religious convictions” is part of determining, say, how those convictions might affect how they rule. It’s appropriate, and in line with your ranting against judicial activism, to determine if someone’s religious convictions will unduly affect how they rule, which applies regardless of specific religion.

“Protecting the Right to Vote in Fair Elections”: It’s so hard for members of the military to vote in the election! We need “expedited mail delivery to bring ballots to and from our troops abroad, including those serving in areas of conflict, while completing work on an electronic ballot delivery system that will enable our military personnel to receive and cast their ballots in a secure and convenient manner”! What about those screwy voting machines that made such a difference in 2000?

We oppose attempts to distort the electoral process by wholesale restoration of the franchise to convicted felons, by makeshift or hurried naturalization procedures, or by discretionary ballot-reading by election boards.

Preventing voting fraud is a civil rights issue.  We support the right of states to require an official government-issued photo identification for voting and call upon the Department of Justice to deploy its resources to prevent ballot tampering in the November elections.  We support efforts by state and local election officials to ensure integrity in the voting process and to prevent voter fraud and abuse, particularly as it relates to voter registration and absentee ballots.

That all sounds well and good, but there have been reports of voting fraud cases used for political purposes to disenfranchise poor voters, and concern that requiring photo ID for voting either will disenfranchise more poor people or result in the basis of Orwellian tracking.

“The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box.  They include the free-speech right to devote one’s resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports.  We oppose any restrictions or conditions upon those activities that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals.” It sounds good but what does it really mean? Does it mean weakening campaign finance legislation?

“Guaranteeing a Constitutional Census in 2010”:

The integrity of the 2010 census, proportioning congressional representation among the states, must be preserved. The census should count every person legally abiding in the United States in an actual enumeration.  We urge all who are legally eligible to participate in the census count to do so; at the same time, we urge Congress to specify – and to constitutionally justify – which census questions require a response.

What the hell is this all about? It sounds good but I have no idea what it’s talking about.

“Working with Americans in the Territories”: “We appreciate the extraordinary sacrifices the men and women of the territories are making to protect our freedom through their service in the U.S. Armed Forces.” That’s basically everything you said about the “Armed Forces” in the previous part, only with “of the territories” added.

We welcome greater participation in all aspects of the political process by Americans residing in Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Puerto Rico.  We affirm their right to seek the full extension of the Constitution, with all the political rights and responsibilities it entails.

Wait, does this mean you support statehood for all of them? Why am I surprised? “We recognize the valuable contributions made by the people of the United States Virgin Islands to the common welfare of the nation, including national defense, and their contributions to the federal treasury in the form of federal excise taxes paid on products produced in the territory.” Why a shout-out specifically to the Virgin Islands for this?

“We support the Native American Samoans’ efforts to protect their right to self-government and to preserve their culture and land-tenure system, which fosters self-reliance and strong extended-family values.” Calling them “Native American Samoans”, which makes them sound like what we call Indians, might not sit well with them. Still, you are showing cultural sensitivity. “We support increased local self-government for the United States citizens of the Virgin Islands, and closer cooperation between the local and federal governments to promote private sector-led development and self-sufficiency.” So are you trying to grease a path to independence?

We recognize that Guam is a strategically vital U.S. territory, an American fortress in the western Pacific.  We affirm our support for the patriotic U.S. citizens of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to achieve greater self-government, an improved federal territorial relationship, new economic development strategies, a strong health care system that meets their needs, and continued political self-determination. We support a review to determine the appropriate eligibility of territories as well as states for Supplemental Security Income and other federal programs.

Once again, it sounds like you’re moving towards something resembling independence, but this time you still want to keep them as “strategically vital U.S. territor[ies]”. All of this, by the way, sounds like perfectly good things, but this in particular makes me scratch my head at the Republicans’ small-government reputation.

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine.  We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement.  As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

So you’re okay with Puerto Rico becoming a state, but you don’t want Congress defining so, you want the people to choose from the options Congress provides. As written by the Republicans, this seems reasonable.

“Preserving the District of Columbia”:

The nation’s capital is a special responsibility of the federal government.  Yet some of the worst performing schools in the country are mere blocks from the Department of Education, and some of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in the country are blocks from the Department of Justice.  Washington should be made a model city. Two major Republican initiatives – a first-time D.C. homebuyers credit and a landmark school choice initiative – have pointed the way toward a civic resurgence, and a third piece of GOP legislation now guarantees young D.C. residents significant assistance in affording higher education.

Sounds good, but sounds like Democratic proposals. Although “school choice” might be a little more Republican. Still, once again casts doubt on your “small government” reputation.

Because Washington’s buildings and monuments may be top targets of terrorist groups, the federal government must work closely with local officials to improve security without burdening local residents. We call on the District of Columbia city council to pass laws consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case.  We honor the contributions of the residents of the District of Columbia, especially those who are serving honorably, or have served, in our Armed Forces.

Again, sounds good, but I notice there was no mention of the call by DC residents for true voting representation in Congress.

Hmm. At this rate, I’m going to need to devote a part to each and every part of the Republican platform from here on out unless some of them get really short. Can I get through them all before the election???