National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion

[Verily]

Membership
Verily
Bullmoose88
AndrewCT
afleitch
Straha
Bacon King
Peter
Fabian
Colin Wixted
Mr. Moderate

Anyone, of course, is welcome to participate in the discussion. Since no one wants to discuss chairmanship, I thought we'd just move right along to hammering out platform planks. Just so we can do this in an orderly fashion, I'll suggest areas in which we should probably have a coherent position and then we can all discussion. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable consensus on everything; if not, we may have to hold votes on some particularly contentious issues.

[Verily]

First up is international trade.


My own position is one that generally supports international markets as a positive force in the Atlasian economy, and vice versa. Overall, the expansion of international trade benefits far more people, both in Atlasia and worldwide, than it harms. Therefore, I would support the expansion of free trade proposals and the reduction and/or elimination of non-punitive tariffs. However, we must retain our current standards for imported goods, and environmental and quality clauses in free trade agreements are both reasonable.

[Verily]

First up is international trade.


My own position is one that generally supports international markets as a positive force in the Atlasian economy, and vice versa. Overall, the expansion of international trade benefits far more people, both in Atlasia and worldwide, than it harms. Therefore, I would support the expansion of free trade proposals and the reduction and/or elimination of non-punitive tariffs. However, we must retain our current standards for imported goods, and environmental and quality clauses in free trade agreements are both reasonable.

Though I'm not 100% totally supportive of free trade (though much more supportive of it than the alternative), it's the inevitable direction of the world economy.  Fighting it is largely futile.

My largest issue with free trade is countries like China, but I see the plank already has a mention of the environmental concerns.  (I'm also against unfettered free trade with countries that offer subsidies for their own goods, like I believe China does extensively.)

Well, that would fall under the category of punitive tariffs, I think, though honestly we'd have a job proving that China subsidizes their companies; China's state-run economy has turned into more of an economy-run state (well, it makes for a nice turnaround; business-run state would be more accurate).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of the Americas, Australia, Singapore, Bahrain, Morocco, Israel, New Zealand, Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia, Georgia, Switzerland, South Africa and the Philippines, to be precise.

[Verily]

Yup. but the problem with those are that rather than pacts they were largely unilateral surrenders in the trade wars.  I'm very pro-free trade, but not to the point of ignoring the ill effects from other countries subsidies of their own products on Atlasian manufacturers and farmers.

Of course. Largely, the issue of domestic agricultural subsidies was already dealt with by the Farm Subsidies Abolition Act, so the need to reduce our own unfair practices is less pressing than it once was.

Again, this falls under punitive tariffs, which cannot be wholly ruled out.

I do think Atlasia should follow up on additional free trade proposals, however, such as extending free trade to EFTA, Indonesia, and South Korea, which have shown some inclination to agree.

[Verily]

I generally agree with the esteemed Acting Chairman, however, I would not actually make it a goal of the party to pursue expansion of the free trade agreements because they are so dull for the Senate to consider.

Agreed.  I can think of few things less interesting to do on the Senate floor than to debate the issue of whether or not to offer a free trade agreement to Madagascar.  (No matter how wonderful their vanilla beans may be.)

I guess the position should be more towards defending existing free trade, and if it must be extended, then to do it in a bulk, regional agreement unlike the previously approached country-by-country format.  Ugh.

The position of this party on immigration, secularism will most likely determine if I decide to stay.

[Hopefully, I'm not out of line discussing these other topics—feel free to rule me out of line, here, Verily.]

Not a problem; it seems as if we've reached a rough consensus on our position on trade. We'll move on to immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't foresee anyone objecting to that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasia has already issued amnesty quite recently, and I'm not of the opinion that amnesty is more than a quick-fix solution, so I basically agree with this position.

Legal immigration should be eased, moving away from the current family-based model to a more demand-based model (though obviously still allowing people to bring in close relatives) in which immigrants are considered primarily for their desire to enter the United States.

On this line, increased border security is also important, including increased monitoring of the Straits of Florida as well as the Rio Grande and the rest of the US-Mexico border. (Obviously this applies ot the US-Canada border, too, but, being realistic, that's not where illegal immigration happens.) A wall would be ineffective and absurdly expensive.

[Verily]

BTW, I'm officialy not a NLC member, but if Verily okays it, my "Democratic Centre" will affiliate with the NLC with conditions of automatic support for NLC candidates etc.

(note: i'm supposed to leave for Ottawa soon and I'll be absent, so I'll comment on anything this assembly passes upon return, so wait for me )

Not a problem in my book.


Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding
-Same-sex marriage or blanket civil unions replacing legal marriage
-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing
-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)
-Legalize euthanasia through living wills and active consent

[Verily]

Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding

You mean biotechnology corporate welfare?  I have mild objections to this unless we have any patents resulting from the research be owned by the government as well so that they can be used by a wider group of users.

The patents need not be owned by the government, just have there be no patent at all. Of course, as the companies themselves also invest money into the research, they should at least get some sort of benefits; it isn't simply the government paying for research, it's the government encouraging research through grants. I agree with you in principle about corporate welfare, but in the recent past it has been nigh impossible to get anyone to seriously research stem cells (or most anything else in the medical field) without substantial government input.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I have no strong position on much of the abortion issue, I am stridently against exceptions for rape or incest.  The sole justification for restricting or prohibiting abortion is that one is safeguarding another human life by doing so.  The circumstances that lead to a pregnancy, no matter how tragic they may be, have no bearing or whether an embryo or fetus has yet reached the point at which it should be considered to be a human life or not.
[/quote]

Okay, I think it's time for the dying violinist to be dragged out again. It's an argument often offered in favor of abortion, and it's very compelling... until you realize it applies only in situations of rape. Anyway:

You wake up in a strange place. There is a person connected to you by tubes carrying blood between your bodies. A group of people stand around you. They explain to you that the person attached to you is a famous violinist, and they are his devout fans. He has a critical illness, so they have kidnapped you and attached you to his bloodstream to keep him alive. You both will survive with no ill effects if you agree to be confined with the man attached to you for nine months, but, if you choose to sever the connection, he will die. Are you obligated to maintain the connection?

The NLC shouldn't take a position on abortion. While I'm relatively pro-choice myself this should remain a 'conscience' issue for each member to hold their own opinion. The same could also be said for embryonic stem cell research which I fully support. Of course if everyone is one side of the fence I can see why a position could be adopted

I agree; if we can't find a consensus position on these sorts of things, it's okay to leave them out of our platform.

[Verily]

Where can I join?

I've added you to the party list. Be sure to re-register your party affiliation in the New Register Thread.

[Verily]

I was just wondering what the National Liberal Coalition's policy is on Personal Tax and Buisness Tax. For my view on Personal Tax and Buisness Tax go to my Northeastern Senatorial Campaign Headquarters on the Fantasy Election board. Just like to remind people, I am AFFLIATED. I HAVEN'T JOINED YET

We can tackle taxation as an issue next; I think that will be one issue on which we have a wide variety of different plans and positions for how to establish a reasonable taxation system (and I think there are many reasonable possibilities).

[Verily]

Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding

You mean biotechnology corporate welfare?  I have mild objections to this unless we have any patents resulting from the research be owned by the government as well so that they can be used by a wider group of users.

The patents need not be owned by the government, just have there be no patent at all. Of course, as the companies themselves also invest money into the research, they should at least get some sort of benefits; it isn't simply the government paying for research, it's the government encouraging research through grants. I agree with you in principle about corporate welfare, but in the recent past it has been nigh impossible to get anyone to seriously research stem cells (or most anything else in the medical field) without substantial government input.

Largely because the medical community has become so dependent on government funding that it has forgotten there are other ways to raise research funds.  One good thing about the stem cell controversy has been that its gotten some off their duffs to find other funding sources.  Unfortunately most of them only see it as a stop gap until government returns to its usual practice.

In that sense it is reasonable, but I am still reluctant to say that government should abandon its attempts to advance medical science. What would you propose we do to encourage scientific advancement?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I have no strong position on much of the abortion issue, I am stridently against exceptions for rape or incest.  The sole justification for restricting or prohibiting abortion is that one is safeguarding another human life by doing so.  The circumstances that lead to a pregnancy, no matter how tragic they may be, have no bearing or whether an embryo or fetus has yet reached the point at which it should be considered to be a human life or not.
[/quote]

Okay, I think it's time for the dying violinist to be dragged out again. It's an argument often offered in favor of abortion, and it's very compelling... until you realize it applies only in situations of rape. Anyway:

You wake up in a strange place. There is a person connected to you by tubes carrying blood between your bodies. A group of people stand around you. They explain to you that the person attached to you is a famous violinist, and they are his devout fans. He has a critical illness, so they have kidnapped you and attached you to his bloodstream to keep him alive. You both will survive with no ill effects if you agree to be confined with the man attached to you for nine months, but, if you choose to sever the connection, he will die. Are you obligated to maintain the connection?
[/quote]
If you are the only person who can keep the person alive, then yes, even if he weren't famous.  The violinist is clearly a human being in this example, without any of the uncertainty of that fact that pertains to the analogous case.  Given what the two stark choices presented are, you are inconvenienced for nine months or he dies, the only ethical choice at this point would be to keep him alive.  That wouldn't keep you from seeking legal action, both criminal and civil against his fans.  Indeed, such action should be taken.
[/quote]

Well, okay, though I wonder whether you consider it a moral obligation (that is, you'd judge someone who chose differently) or a personal obligation (you'd feel obligated, but you don't feel a need to enforce that obligation on others). I myself would find it a personal but not moral obligation.

I suppose we need not make abortion a major issue anyway, seeing as it is already decided at the level of the regions (and enshrined in some regional constitutions one way or the other; the Northeast Constitution explicitly allows abortions for rape and life-of-mother circumstances and forbids it in all other circumstances).

[Verily]

-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing

That's the only part receiving my disapproval. Public schools should be 100% secular, and you do what you wish with private schools.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point; children are allowed to pray during recess, for example, but "I'm busy praying" is no excuse for not paying attention in/being in class. I'm not sure how we could actively forbid students (or teachers/faculty, in environments with no students present) from being religious in school as long as no one is forcing anything religious on anyone else.

[Verily]

Where do we stand on labor?

And sub issues such as "Right to work," "Right to organize," wages etc...

A complex issue, and one to which I want to give due time. However, I'm going to keep going in order on to taxation, which Rockefeller Republican brought up earlier. (Secularism in public schools has been covered, I think, and vouchers should probably wait until we get to broader education topics.)

Now, on to taxation. Afleitch had a solid idea proposed in his campaign, the reorganization of tax brackets, though I am afraid pulling out the bottom 20% may remove slightly too much funding for necessary programs; pulling out, say, the bottom 10% might be more reasonable.

Some other ideas... I like the idea of sliding taxes rather than tax brackets, where taxes increase constantly with income rather than jumping up as soon as you cross a certain threshold. This creates the complication of calculating exact tax brackets, but, so long as the calculation were simple enough, it doesn't seem unduly problematic, and is certainly more fair and reasonable (no need to keep your income below a certain line so as not to suddenly have to pay far more in taxes than otherwise). Obviously, there would be an upper and lower bound on the slide. This is just an idea, though, and I'm not sure how feasible it would be.

I can't say I favor raising corporate taxes, at least not more than incrementally, as corporate taxes greatly discourage business ventures within Atlasia from which the entire country benefits (and driving large corporations out to tax havens would ultimately reduce revenue rather than increasing it). Clearly, if corporate taxes are to be raised, however, it should be large businesses which bear the burden.

As an example of what sliding taxes would look like:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Verily]

Now, on to taxation. Afleitch had a solid idea proposed in his campaign, the reorganization of tax brackets, though I am afraid pulling out the bottom 20% may remove slightly too much funding for necessary programs; pulling out, say, the bottom 10% might be more reasonable.

Some other ideas... I like the idea of sliding taxes rather than tax brackets, where taxes increase constantly with income rather than jumping up as soon as you cross a certain threshold. This creates the complication of calculating exact tax brackets, but, so long as the calculation were simple enough, it doesn't seem unduly problematic, and is certainly more fair and reasonable (no need to keep your income below a certain line so as not to suddenly have to pay far more in taxes than otherwise). Obviously, there would be an upper and lower bound on the slide. This is just an idea, though, and I'm not sure how feasible it would be.

Well, that's not exactly the way the tax system works, though.  There's no real tax "jump" once you pass a marked dollar line.

Ignore the standard deduction for a moment.

For a single filer in 2006 (our tax rates are constantly changing throughout the decade because of the Bush tax cuts), the first $7,550 in taxable income is taxed at 10%.  The amount you make over $7,550 but less than $30,650 is taxed at 15%.

So, at $7,550 in income, your taxes are $755.
If you make $7,551 in income, your taxes are 10% on the first $7,550 ($755), plus 15% on that next dollar.  So, your taxes are then $755.15, not $1,132.65.

Making the effective tax rate at $7,551 of income 10.0007%.  This slowly increases as you make more money, hitting 15% at $30,650.

We already have a sliding scale.  The full tax tiers are here.

Thank you for enlightening me on that. (Having never moved from one tax bracket to another, I just never understood how it works.) It sounds reasonable, though the numbers could be smoothed from the current odd jumps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. According to what I could find, though, 20% of the population would bring us well into the $20,000 range, probably far too high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps we could simplify some of the confusion by removing some of the different brackets, rising only in three or four different brackets (perhaps from 10% to 18.3% to 26.7% to 35% at, say $20,000, $75,000, $150,000 and $350,000; that's just an example). Reducing the number of brackets would greatly simplify the tax code without necessarily changing tax rates substantially.

[Verily]

Perhaps we could simplify some of the confusion by removing some of the different brackets, rising only in three or four different brackets (perhaps from 10% to 18.3% to 26.7% to 35% at, say $20,000, $75,000, $150,000 and $350,000; that's just an example). Reducing the number of brackets would greatly simplify the tax code without necessarily changing tax rates substantially.

Honestly, unless you want to scrap the whole thing and move to a flat tax, cutting out some tax brackets isn't going to really make the tax code that much simpler.  As long as we have more than one, people will still need to use those infernal tax tables.

Though I suppose it'd make the job of whomever makes those tax tables for the IRS a little bit easier.

As creative a mind as I have when it comes to this sort of thing, only the wettest of conservative (or libertarian) wet dreams will make tax time any simpler.

All right, I suppose we should settle for supporting the status quo with openness to future simplification suggestions. Tax law is just as boring as trade law, though. So much for positive tax reform (unless anyone else has any ideas).

Bullmoose mentioned labor earlier, so we'll go there next. Now, "right to work" has always sounded somewhat silly to me; you have the right to work so long as you do something that someone is willing to pay you for. Fortunately, everyone (save those covered under other issues: retirement, disability, education/child care, etc.) can do something that someone is willing to pay them for (albeit sometimes not much, we'll get to that), it's just a question of willingness.

Certainly, there exists a "right to organize". It's there in the Constitution: peaceable assembly. Of course, unions and unionization do not, or should not, have the power to unilaterally override corporations. On the other hand, unions do not seem to be too powerful today, and current union law seems sufficient in my view. There are corrupt union bosses, but there is nothing the government can do to stop other workers from supporting them.

Minimum wage... this might be an interesting one. Again, I am more or less in favor of the status quo, though indexing the minimum wage to inflation to prevent future battles over raising it seems prudent.

[Verily]

I'm rather supportive of unions, but I do oppose "card check."  Businesses and unions should be on an equal playing field when it comes to the bargaining table.

It's already been ruled, IIRC, that the Senate has no power to regulate a minimum wage.  I'd probably support a constitutional amendment allowing one, but honestly, I think it's a matter best left to the regions.  Any minimum wage should definitely be indexed to the CPI, though.

Ah, yes, I found that case just now while going through the list of Atlasian laws. Well, we can support a reasonable minimum wage at the regional level.

[Verily]

A flurry of recent activity has pushed this onto the second page, which really won't do. We'll move on to electoral reform. The current PR-STV proposal is intriguing, and I think I favor it, though the problem of what to do in the event of a vacancy has paralyzed Senate discussion.

Anyone else have thoughts about electoral reform?

[Verily]

The problem that arises with STV is the issue of vacancies. The leftists don't want countback because they may be replaced by centrists, but the rightists don't want by-elections because it's very difficult for them to be elected in a single-member election nationwide. Personally, I think both are merely "partisan" objections, and that either by-elections or countback would be an acceptable solution.

Two-member Districts are too small for reasonable STV elections, and there aren't yet enough Atlasians for three-member Districts.

[Verily]

Two-member Districts are too small for reasonable STV elections, and there aren't yet enough Atlasians for three-member Districts.

Also you have to consider that most districts now have trouble finding two candidates to run in an election. With DWDL's exit from the race no district in this election had more than two candidates.

Well, I think we might have more candidates if more people considered it possible for themselves to be elected. Right now, no left-winger would run against, say, Earl because they agree on most issues and only one could be elected, but, with this system in place, both could run and conceivably both win seats.

Also, thank you Jas for your words, all of course true and powerful.

[Verily]

Okay, I'm going to start drafting a full platform within the next few days on the issues already discussed, and then we will continue with further issues such as education, health care, the military, agriculture, etc.

[Verily]

Here's what we've got so far, I think:


Immigration
The National Liberal Coalition supports the expansion of legal immigration, especially the refocusing of immigration away from family connections and towards desire to enter Atlasia. The National Coalition believes that illegal immigration is primarily the by-product of unnecessarily restrictive immigration laws, and therefore also believes that illegal immigration that would continue after legal immigration is been eased is of a far less benign nature than currently. Because of this, in tandem with easier legal immigration, the National Liberal Coalition supports expanded border security measures, though it opposes the expensive posturing of constructing a wall.

Trade
The National Liberal Coalition supports the expansion of Atlasia’s international trade connections, and advocates free trade agreements with other interested parties, with reasonable exceptions.

Taxation
The National Liberal Coalition is largely supportive of the current taxation system. We are always willing to consider strategies to reduce the tax burden on the middle and lower classes, but out-and-out tax cuts can be fiscally irresponsible, and the National Liberal Coalition would prefer to balance the budget before offering tax breaks.

Religious Freedom
In a public school, court, or other government environment, the National Liberal Coalition supports the desires of the individual to participate in religious activities. However, the National Liberal Coalition opposes any and all spending in such areas directed towards religious belief or the installation of any overtly religious iconography in said government buildings.

Labor
The National Liberal Coalition is broadly supportive of the status quo in labor issues, except for the issue of the minimum wage, where the National Liberal Coalition opposes the decision of Bono v Atlasia and advocates the return of the minimum wage and its indexing to inflation.

Electoral Reform
The National Liberal Coalition is broadly supportive of efforts to reform the voting system in such a way as to make it more democratic and to encourage personal and party participation while not currently endorsing any particular plan to do so.

Euthanasia
The National Liberal Coalition supports the legalization of euthanasia through living wills or active consent.




Now, let's move on to more issues. Next up: education. This includes voucher programs, education funding, district sizes, etc.

[Verily]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what each individual regional minimum wage is?  Has every region even set one?

Southeast: $7.00, age 18+, $5.75, age 15-17, both indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Northeast: No law recorded, but, then again, no laws after October 2005 are recorded
Pacific: $7.00, indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Midwest: $5.75, indexed to inflation in Feb. 2006
Mideast: Absurdly complex (read more)

[Verily]

Verily,

The language regarding tax cuts...any possibility we could modify it from "...are often fiscally irresponsible..." to "...can be fiscally irresponsible..." or something a little less strong?

Done.

[Verily]

Okay, well, we have education up now.

I've considered quite a few radical reforms to education in the past, namely some way of equalizing public education spending per student nationwide. (Clearly pre-adult students are not responsible for their economic problems, so it seems reasonable to enact what its detractors might call "socialist education".)

Looking at this on a federal level, such equality would require either the pooling of local property and other taxes spent on schooling or a federal income tax to replace such taxes (then distributed evenly across school districts, with spending at their discretion). Unfortunately, the federal government cannot step in and repeal local property taxes, etc. that are currently used to fund schools, so the tax would be considered an additional tax instead of a replacement tax.

I would also not like to forbid the collection of property taxes to increase school funds (temporarily, for an expansion, or permanently), but I would like to make most funding for education come from a national education fund supplied by income tax rather than property tax or sales tax.

On other issues, I generally support merit-based vouchers, with the exception of vouchers for explicitly religious schools.

I would also generally like to encourage the consolidation of school districts as larger high schools are more able to provide diverse curricula.

[Verily]

What Moderate says all seems reasonable. I think we have enough to do a brief summary of an education platform; I'll get that up later tonight or tomorrow.

Next: health care.

I am personally in favor of universal health care. I feel that not only the personal benefits, but also the economic benefits of a healthy and well-cared-for population often go unnoticed. It increases worker productivity and improves the ability of the middle class to tread economic water.

Most important is universal health care for children, who, as I argued with regards to education, do not have the luxury of being in control of their own economic fates. (Whether adults control their economic fates or not are a subject for a different debate.) I am currently considering a universal child health care bill to propose before the Senate, and I think (hope?) we can all rally behind that idea.

For other health care issues, the debate often comes up of personal responsibility. Do we want the obese consuming a great deal of the health care budget? Do we want the same of smokers? I am open to ideas that would allow us to institute universal health care while retaining some degree of personal responsibility in health; I have mulled over many ideas in the past and come up with nothing sufficiently adequate.

Any other health care-related discussion is also welcome. I would like to encourage the members of the NLC to actively participate in the creation of this platform; it's your party!

[Verily]

Good point with the cigarette tax. Perhaps at least fast food could also get such a health tax to help pay for health costs? It's not a fool-proof method, but fast food is relatively simple to tax whereas a strange formula on raw foods based on caloric content would become hopelessly snarled.

It's important to stress that this isn't a sin tax, it's a health tax to pay for the extra costs incurred on the health system.