BTW, just for fun, here’s my positions on these:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008769.php
EXCERPT:
Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration [/quote]
NO - undo is too harsh - may not be perfect, but the old system did need fixing.
[quote]#
Repeal the estate tax repeal[/quote] Um, NO.
[quote]#
Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI[/quote] Two parter: NO and probably.
[quote]#
Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)[/quote] Probably not, but I wouldn’t rule out that someone could come up with a plan I would actually support.
[quote]#
Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation[/quote]
NO to the first, and depends on the regulation to the second.
[quote]#
Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there’s probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.[/quote] This is a whole list of items, some of which are loaded terms. Essentially, it sounds to me like this is advocating government funding of this stuff, so NO.
[quote]#
Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code[/quote]
Simplify: YES. Increase progressivity: NO.
[quote]#
Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.[/quote] NO and YES. The government shouldn’t discriminate against religion or for religion.
[quote]#
Reduce corporate giveaways[/quote] YES – and particularly include those to PBS… Query: Aren’t universal health insurance and the Medicare Drug Plan corporate giveaways?
[quote]#
Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan[/quote] NO: Kill the 2nd, fix the first.
[quote]#
Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.[/quote]First part: Qualified Yes, but transition to defined contribution rather than defined benefit plans. 2nd Part: Hell no – I can just imagine what this would do to private investment…
[quote]#
Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards “more decriminalization” of drugs, though the details complicated there too.[/quote] Qualified Yes - devil is in the details on that too, as I wouldn’t be for legalization of “hard” drugs.
[quote]#
Paper ballots[/quote] NO - What happened to leaving things to the states? Anyway, this whole issue should be addressed via reforms to eliminate voter fraud.
[quote]#
Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.[/quote] All on the government’s dime I’m sure. And free cotton candy and balloons too… NO.
[quote]#
Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.[/quote] Nothing like discincentivizing work. NO.
[quote]#
Marriage rights for all, which includes “gay marriage” and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.[/quote] First part: Not by judicial fiat. As for a legislative act, it would depend on the details. NO for the second part - the immigration procedures are already stacked in favor of relatives - address the other issues like letting in qualified immigrants first.