National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.)

(Just for the record, Atlasia already has free trade agreements with virtually every country under the sun.)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.]

I generally assume the consensus here would be to keep church and state as separate as possible, since it is a more socially-liberal-geared party.

Immigration is a much tougher issue.  I, for one, support increasing the allowable legal immigration, allowing illegal immigrants basic government services (such as emergency medical care and public schooling—after all, immigrants pay property taxes for public schools through rent, and a lot pay into the social security and medicare system via falsified SS numbers—money they'll never be able to get back), but I oppose the idea of "amnesty" as any kind of solution if we're going to keep the current system in place, since it merely re-inforces the idea that border policy is meaningless so long as you're lucky enough to skirt the rules.

In an ideal world, I would be for totally open borders, but I think we do need some kind of immigration policy in hand to help aid against terrorism and to protect our economy from a massive, sudden influx of Mexicans, Cubans, and assorted third-worlders.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

I think I agree with all of this.  With due respect to supporters of the idea, building a wall across our borders is one of the most retarded public policy ideas ever dreamt up.  This is not East Germany, and good luck building a wall around tens-of-thousands of miles of ocean.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

-Embryonic stem cell research funding

I'm supportive of stem cell research, at least as much as I'm supportive of all government research into diseases—I have no moral issues with it.  I'd prefer to see industry take a more active lead in research, though.

-Same-sex marriage or blanket civil unions replacing legal marriage

Right now we've got the latter, and I see no reason to change it.

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

I approve of that, so long as it doesn't have negative consequences toward the South's school choice program.

-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)

I'm pretty blanketly pro-choice so I wouldn't mind if the party went even farther than that.  I do oppose partial birth abortion (exception for health of the mother, of course) and support parental notification.

-Legalize euthanasia through living wills and active consent

Of course—why should the government have a say in whether or not you can kill yourself?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

Now, let's reintroduce the concept of the personal deduction and standard deduction (i.e., minimum deduction) for a moment, since not all income is really taxable.  In 2006, the standard deduction was $5,150.  You also get a $3,300 personal deduction (plus more if you have dependents) on top of that.  That means the first $8,450 of Atlasian income is essentially taxed at a 0% rate for a single person like myself.

What afleitch is proposing, basically, is hiking the personal deduction.  I could find myself supporting that, so long as the math works out right, and it doesn't wind up being a massive hike on the upper middle class, like often seems the case.  (I'll run the numbers in a separate post.)

Our tax system is confusing as hell, but the more familiar I get with it, the more I like it.  I used to be one of the flat taxers, but now that I'm actually working (and not making that much), I think a progressive "sliding" tax scale works very well.  The real debate is more along the lines whether or not to lock in the "Bush Tax Cuts" which have been grandfathered into Atlasian law, and my own pet issue, figuring out what to do about the unique impending Atlasian "Carbon Tax Crisis" I talked about in my campaign.

As far as business taxes are concerned, I'm for the status quo.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Going by 2005 data, 8.64% of households make $9,999 or less a year.
21.66% make $19,999 or less.

If the basic amount people get deducted is $8,450; taking the bottom 10% out of the tax system is more than feasable—if you include things like the Earned Income Tax Credit (more complexity, yay!), we're probably already AT 10% or better.

I'm against tax hikes, but I don't mind tax reorganization.  I think the taxation plank should be deliberately vague, perhaps a line or two in support of progressive taxation tiers, or an opposition to a flat tax/national sales tax.  Perhaps even shifting the tax burden away from the lower class, and closing business tax loopholes.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Well, it looks like we're not going to come to a consensus on too much by way of electoral reform.

Personally, I haven't made up my mind on PR-STV.  I think I'm leaning against it at this point.  I do know that I don't like countback, and would vote against that.

no interest in electoral reform on my part.  The Senate spends too much time shuffling the deck chairs and not bothering about where Atlasia is headed.  Of the six items on the floor now, only one, the Educational Funding Clarification Bill, is about what the government does, the other five are all about how the government does it's business.

I think you're right, that is a problem right now—the Senate floor is starting to get jammed up with its own reforms.  It looks like just a temporary pipeline thing: there's plenty of non Senate reform stuff coming up soon.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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)

Perhaps, in the short term, the NLC can back an I&R push to get a minimum wage law on the books in our own Northeast Region, then?  We probably have enough votes to pass one based on NLC members alone.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Now that we are the "plurality" party in the Senate, I figured it'd be worth bumping the thread here.  It'd be nice to get something hammered out before the October elections get into full swing.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

With respect to education, my feeling is that the country would benefit from "public school vouchers."  Different from the traditional idea of vouchers, these would allow students to attend any public school in their state.  This would allow an unprecedented level of specialization in high schools, vocational programs, and would give kids who are stuck in underperforming schools (but want to learn) a chance to realize their full potential.

The good schools will get more public funds and will be able to expand their offerings and take in more students.  The poorly performing schools will be forced to make dramatic, real changes or face having their doors shuttered.

These vouchers would not be redeemable in private schools or religious schools, though I strongly feel those tuitions should be fully tax exempt.

And we need to work towards eliminating the inherently regressive property taxes.  School districts should impose local income taxes to fund schools instead.

I think most people can probably agree at this point that school funding is virtually unrelated to the performance of the students who attend the school.  We've spent the past 20 or 30 years trying to fix these urban schools by just throwing money at the problem, and that hasn't worked in the slightest.  It's clear we need some new ideas.

And the Senate, in my opinion, just took a massive step backwards by preventing the Southeast—an area in desperate need of educational innovation, judging from test scores and literacy rates—from experimenting with new ideas.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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!

I think you bring up an interesting idea here.  I am unsure how to account for overweight Atlasians, but so far as smokers go, I think it's entirely fair to assess a health-based tax (proceeds dedicated towards a national health care plan) on things such as tobacco, based on their relative impact on the health of the user.  Basically, putting money aside with each cigarette to pay for the health consequences of each cigarette.

I suppose something similar could be done with food, but coming up with a formula is much more challenging.  Something based on caloric content?  Fat content?  Neither seem "perfect."

In the meantime, I will fully support any bill to extend health care coverage to kids.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

Fast food (as separate from restaurants), and perhaps a few select items such as candy and non-diet carbonated beverages.  When I lost 100 pounds seven years ago, it was almost entirely due to dropping Coke from my diet.

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.

Correct.  The money is for the future benefit of the smoker (and those affected by the second hand smoke).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Actually - it's been shown that if you consume copious quantities of diet drinks the effect on the body isn't very different to consuming the non-diet versions - since the artificial sweetener can have the same physiological effect on the body as sugar.

Which is why when I decided to lose weight I kept away from diet drinks.

Well, I just switched to water and sports drinks because aspartame tastes like rat poison.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

With no objections, I am going to go ahead and include those in our platform. Does anyone have other concerns they'd like to see addressed?

Not as such.

It doesn't necessarily need to fit into the platform, but it looks like there is some manner of consensus about the United States.  Specifically, most NLC members voting in the referenda seem to be against the notion of recognizing it.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I understand Colin's reluctance to have this included in the platform, and the fact that it looks to be a closed issue in Atlasian politics suggests to me that there is no particular reason for it to be included in our platform. That is not to say that I am not "anti-independence" (I am), but that addressing closed discussions would be rather pedantic.

Oh, certainly the issue of recognizing the United States is not finished—all we've agreed on as a nation so far is that we don't wish to recognize the United States.  How Atlasia fits into the world as a whole is still something the Senate will have to address and legislate—ideally in the near future—now that a national dialogue is being started.