Gary Johnson for President

Yesterday, I had the privilege of seeing Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President of the United States, speak in Des Moines.  I actually traveled two hours to hear what he had to say.  I have been a Johnson fan since he was nominated as the Libertarian candidate, and my enthusiasm -- yes, enthusiasm -- has only grown as time has passed.  But after hearing him speak yesterday, I was absolutely blown away, and I couldn't imagine a better candidate.  When I heard him talk, it almost seemed as if he had called me personally to ask for my position on the issues.  Yes, there are certain specifics on which we don't agree 100%, but man... I was stunned with how well we aligned on the various topics.

Let me start by discussing the areas in which we don't agree.  I will talk about places where we see eye to eye shortly.

-Social Security:  I agree that we need to tackle Social Security.  I even agree with his basic premise that there should be means testing for receiving Social Security.  I do not, however, agree with the nuts and bolts of his platform.  Paraphrasing what he said... he doesn't understand how those "with means" should receive more than they paid in.  I disagree with this to an extent.  In all fairness, I disagree with this because my wife and I have done the right thing.  We are not rich, but we have chosen to scrimp and save as much as possible in our respective 401(k) programs in order to secure our futures, and we are on track to have a relatively secure, prosperous retirement... with or without Social Security.  There is no doubt that we will end up in the "of means" category.  My problem with Mr. Johnson's proposal is threefold: 1) I find it objectionable that we should receive only our "initial investment" if we are determined to be "of means."  If we had the opportunity to invest on our own, we would have reasonably expected to receive some sort of return on our investment.  Therefore I propose that even the most well-off should expect to receive some sort of return on their Social Security "investment," especially considering that we (collectively) had no choice but to contribute.  2) If we are going to tax income for the purpose of Social Security, I believe that it's reasonable to tax ALL income to care for our elderly.  3) I believe that Mr. Johnson's current proposal penalizes people like me who do the right thing, and encourages reckless practices regarding retirement savings.  With this said though, I am willing to sacrifice some personally for the benefit of many, and for the long-term interest of my country.

-Abortion:  I'll preface this by saying that I'm going to piss off both sides with my personal position on abortion.  I do not believe that life starts at conception.  I believe that the *potential* for life starts at conception.  Stating that life starts at conception is like saying that grass seed is the same as a blade of grass.  At the same time, I find it morally objectionable that a woman can theoretically go in for an abortion the day before delivery.  And yes, this is theoretically, legally allowable in most states, though most doctors of conscience would refuse such a procedure.  I believe that life starts at the heartbeat.  I believe that abortion should be illegal past the point of fetal viability outside of the womb.  Note that there is a gray area in between the point of heartbeat and the point of fetal viability outside of the womb, and candidly admit that I do not have a solid answer for this area.  One of Gary's overriding philosophies -- one with which I agree -- is that people should be generally free to do what they choose, on the condition that those choices don't adversely impact the lives of others.  My position is that a fetus is a person before birth, though not necessarily at conception.  This means that the government has a responsibility to protect the life of the unborn child.  My major difference is that I don't blindly subscribe to the pro-life platform.  I do, however, believe that the government should stay out of a woman's womb until we can find some sort of compromise.  With that said though, it's important for the pro-life platform, and for moderates, to voice our opinions and keep pushing for some sort of middle ground.

[Edited to add a new item]
-I disagree with Johnson's tax plan.  Gary proposes to abolish income taxes for individuals and companies, and replace it with a consumption tax.  I disagree with this for two reasons: 1) A consumption tax is a de facto regressive tax, because poor people essentially have no discretionary income, whereas the rich have a significant ability to save money, thereby avoiding taxation.  2) Consumption is what drives our economy.  If you tax consumption, you create an incentive to save, which drives down spending and slows our economy.  I personally prefer a flat tax, where all income is taxed at the same rate... whether it's income, investment dividends, corporate income, etc.  I would also close all loopholes.  I would, however, consider combining our ideas, to an extent.  I could support a smaller flat tax, coupled with a smaller consumption tax, on the condition that items necessary for a person's survival, such as food, housing, clothing and medicine, are tax exempt.

Now, let's talk about areas where the Governor and I agree...

-Civil Asstet Forfeiture:  I am disgusted by laws that allow the government to seize the assets of private citizens without due process of law.  This was one of the first things that Mr. Johnson mentioned.

-Term Limits: Johnson supports term limits, a subject with which the overwhelming majority of Americans agree.  Yet our elected officials continually choose to NOT pass laws limiting their longevity in government.  I personally propose a law that allows an elected official to serve a maximum of twelve years in any one elected office.  (This is specifically because 12 is the lowest common denominator in the House, Senate, and Presidency.)  I propose that we can get this law passed by grandfathering those who were in office before this election cycle, which would help garner the support of existing lifelong politicians.  This is not my personal preference, but I am bowing to the reality of our current situation.  I would also place text in this legislation that would require the largest legally allowable majority possible in order to overturn the legislation.

-Military Affairs:  Like Gary, I am tired of being the world's police.  Our doctrine of regime change has yet to provide the desired outcome.  Furthermore, it's cost untold thousands of American lives, and countless trillions of dollars.  His position is the same as mine.  If you directly fuck with us, we will crush you.  But we aren't just going to galavant half-way around the world just because we don't agree with the domestic policy or situation of such-and-such country.

-Internet Freedom:  I'm a computer geek by trade.  I personally favor net neutrality, and find the opposing position nothing more than a money-grabbing ploy by Internet service providers.  There is no extra cost to ISPs to provide "more" internet.  Data caps screw the consumer.  "Fast lanes" screw both providers and consumers.  It's time for Internet providers to understand their place in the ecosystem... they are the digital equivalent of the dial tone for a land line telephone.

-War on Drugs:  I submit for your consideration the position that there are two things that cannot be legislated -- stupidity and morality.  The drug war is an attempt to criminalize both... it's a personal moral decision to choose whether or not to take drugs... to the same extent that it's a personal moral decision to consume alcohol.  There are certain drugs, such as heroin and meth, that it's stupid to consume.  Mr. Johnson believes that it's time to end the war on marijuana, and return personal choice to the people.  It's time for us to stop being the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world, all because of drugs.

-Education:  I agree with Gary that education is better served at the state level... without Federal interference.

[Edited to add a new item]
I agree with Johnson's view on capital punishment.  Additionally, this is an area where we both changed our views over time.  I, like Johnson, used to support capital punishment.  We both changed our views, and for similar reasons... it's significantly more expensive to execute a person than it is to keep that same individual incarcerated for life.  Johnson took this a step further, referring to a review of death row inmates ordered by the Illinois governor a few years ago.  I believe there were 36 inmates on death row at the time.  At the end of the review, I believe that twenty of these prisoners were ordered released because of new information that exonerated them. That's a pretty staggering figure, especially considering that the estimated rate of error is approximately 4%.

A couple of other things I'd like to note...

Gary Johnson, unlike the Democratic and Republican nominees, did not sling mud at his opponents.  He didn't trash talk them.  He spent his time and energy discussing the issues.  This was incredibly refreshing.

There was not a single protestor at Johnson's rally.  Nobody appeared strictly to say "Johnson sucks!"  "Never Johnson!"  This is because he is a reasonable candidate and a viable alternative.  I know this is an uphill battle.  I know that statistically speaking, my words in the future will be read, and the reader will ask "Who's this Gary Johnson."  I don't care!  I believe in the depths of my soul that Gary Johnson is the best candidate, and I will do all that I can to spread the word.  I will do all that I can to break the partisan logjam that is American politics.