The Official Debate Thread For District 4 Senate

[Democratic Hawk]

Format

Bono and Democratic 'Hawk' have agreed to a debate, which will be as follows:

1) The Debate will begin at 13.15 (EST), Wednesday 7th December, 2005

2) The candidates have agreed to ask each other four questions

2) The candidates will then answer those questions

3) Once the candidates have answered these questions, the debate will be open to take questions from the Forum

4) The Debate will close for questions at 13.15 (EST), Thursday 8th December, 2005

5) The Debate will continue until 15.15 (EST)  - i.e. a further two hours - to allow candidates time to answer any remaining questions

6) The Debate will close as soon as all questions have been answered but no later than 15.15 (EST) , Thursday 8th December 2005

[Democratic Hawk]

Here are my questions for Bono:

1) What do you think are the TWO most important issues facing Atlasia today?

2) How would you go about reforming welfare and reducing welfare dependency in Atlasia?

3) What do you think should be Atlasia's primary international objectives?

4) What is your overall ideological/philosophical orientation?

Dave

[Bono]

Ok, here are my questions:

1) What are your views about the role of federal government in Atlasia, and how do you think power should be shared between the federal government and the regions? Does the former have too much or too litle power?

2) This senate session has been highly polemic due to problems regarding the budget. Would you work to balance the budget, and if so how, or if not, why not?

3) What are your views regarding Atlasian sovereignity with regards to inernational orgnizations such as the UN or the WTO. In we have a conflict of interets with such an organization, should we follow their rule or the laws made by the Senate?

4) Given the expected wave of retirements by baby boomers in the coming years, that will likely geopardize the stability of the Social Security and Medicare systems, what steps, if any, do you feel are need to reform these programs?

[Democratic Hawk]

1) What are your views about the role of federal government in Atlasia, and how do you think power should be shared between the federal government and the regions? Does the former have too much or too litle power?

By conviction, I'm pretty much a firm believer in the principle of regional rights and do genuinely feel that government can operate most efficiently and effectively at the regional level rather than the federal level both in relation to the economic and social spheres. While I believe that federal government has the responsibility to set and determine fiscal and monetary policy for the nation, I believe that bodies responsible for such initiatives as economic regeneration and the establishment of urban/rural/post-industrial re-development zones should, although facilitated by federal government, should operate at the regional level

I certainly think that the balance between federal and regional level as stipulated by the Second Constitution is about right but I most certainly see a greater role for regions

As a passionate South-Easterner and 100% committed to my home region along with District 4 and I firmly believe that the more hot-button social issues such as abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage/civil unions, gun rights and stem cell research should primarily be determined by the regions to allow for variations in our cultural values

I firmly believe that, strategically, health care and welfare provision should be primarily determined by federal government but I most certainly favour a partnership between federal and regional government in its delivery - because the point of delivery, as I believe, operates more effectively at the lower level of government

However, when it comes to foreign policy and defense, I do believe that this is the exclusive preserve of federal government

In sum, I see federal government as playing the enabling/facilitating role in many areas of policy but with regional government being the primary deliverers. Social issues, more than any other, should primarily be regional matters. However, while, overall, the balance between federal and state government is about right, I'm minded to say that federal government has too much power but I certainly see a bigger role for regional government

[Bono]

1) the two most important issues facing us today are:

a) The budget deficit, which I feel should be dealt with promply and assertively, instead of sweeping the issue under the rug like previous senates have. I am totally opposed to tax increases to end the budget deficit, since such a solution, while seeming a miracle drug in the short term, in the long term it can only lead to a decrease in economic growth, which will only lead to more deficits, and more tax increases, in a vicious circle that could only end with tax revolt. I would balance teh budget by cuting waste, bureocracy and useles feel good programs that make a mockery out of taxpayers. I am not afraid to break the tabu of waste in teh defense budget. Experts say defense operations could still be carried on efficiently with between 75% to 50% of the current budget, if waste in the Department of Defense and in defense contracts was eliminated or reduced. There's no end to the lenghts I'll go to protect the Atlasian taxpayer, even if it means facing defense sector corporations and interests.

and

b) the second issue is monetary policy. Most people find this subject entirely dry and don't want to ever hear about it, but it is one of the single most important issues this country faces. It has been cycles of boom and bust created by wrong and misguided monetary policies that have created recessions that have brought misery to millions of Atlasians. I would fight first for the return of the control of monetary policy to congress, so that their makers can be accountable to the people, instead of sitting in an ivory tower, and to adopt a scrict control over the money supply that would ensure that the CPI would never leave the [-1;1] range.

2) In my view, welfare is a misguided program that should never, at least, be operated by the federal government. While I was governor of the Southeast, I presented an initiative, which the voters passed, that furthered Welfare to Work and ensured that welfare recipients lead more responsible lives. This was a good first step. However, there is much to be gone. The federal government should first start by turning Welafre Grants to the Regions into unconditional block grants, so that the regions could choose to apply this money as they saw fit, and as was more adjusted to the conditions of each regions. Eventually, the federal government should stop funding welfare at all, leaving to the regions the total opearting of the whole system, and the choice to continue operating it at all. The federal government should, of course, then make a tax cut equivalent to welfare expenses, and take otehr free market measures so that economic growth could acomodate new jobs for former welfare recipients.

3) I believe our primary international objective shall be to protect our nation from threats to its security, and no less dangerous, from foreign intervention in our affairs. It is not, however, in our best interest, to go out of our way and spend tax dollars in helping private companies in their international ventures. It is also not our duty to help corrupt dictators and incompetent governments out of their bad fiscal policy, nor Wall Street from their bad investments.
I also believe we should examine every international agreement very carefully, as well as continually evaluate if our presence in international organizations is valuable to our interests, or if these organizations are drains on our budget, direct attacks on our sovereignity and our rights, or  even both.
On a final note, I would like to say that I oppose all international efforts to interfere with Atlasia's firearm laws.

4) I am, as is probably known, a paleo-libertarian. I oppose cohercion, and I don't hold the state to a different moral standard than I hold myself or my neighbour. My practical goal is thus to reduce state intervention to a minimum possible, in the most decentralized way as possible. This last tenet assures that decisions are made by the people who are really affected by them, and not by unelected, unacountable bureocrats who will never face the consequences of their actions, and will be done much more efficiently, if not becuase below-federal governments cannot just print some more money everytime they're in a dire financial situation.
However, freedom from cohercion doesn't mean freedom from responsability, and if someone chooses to follow a shallow, immoderate or thoughtless lifestyle, he should be ready to face the consequences of his actions and the disaproval of society.

[Democratic Hawk]

2) This senate session has been highly polemic due to problems regarding the budget. Would you work to balance the budget, and if so how, or if not, why not?

In principle, I support to the ideal of having a balanced budget and firmly believe that it is the duty of all who are elected to public office to exercise fiscal responsibility. So, yes, I would work towards a balanced budget

However, as a citizen of Atlasia, I voted to support the Senate's recent bid to seek an overturning of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Although, the Supreme Court has subsequently suspended the vote. I voted to support because bearing in mind that the most pressing issues and concerns facing Atlasia today, such as further social security reform; the desired objective of attaining our energy independence; Hurricane Katrina relief; and the 'War On Terror' together with the war in Iraq require funding in both the immediate short-term and the long-term, which may incur significant transitional costs, although it is anticipated that such costs will ultimately pay for themselves. It is in light of these issues and that I voted to repeal it

However, I'm of the firm opinion that all Senators, regardless of ideology and political inclination, should seek a consensus and impose a statutory limit on deficit spending, possibly in the region of $250bn and I believe that it is essential that we periodically review spending across all departments and, where appropriate, cut wasteful programs wherever possible. We must ensure, however, that by doing so the positives outweigh the negatives. If elected, I pledge to work towards those goals with a view to balancing the budget, but in light of the pressing issues of the day, I think it's implausible that we tie our hands in some fiscal straightjacket

I believe that 'fiscal responsibility' is the litmus test by which the executive and legislative branches of government should be judged. I will certainly oppose any effort to tax-and-spend for its own sake and I oppose any tax cuts for those who don't need them. My support for any tax increases will be conditional on it being nothing short of absolutely necessary. However, much of my legislative agenda will concern providing tax incentives to companies committed to regenerating economically-depressed areas, scientific research and pro-environment initiatives – the dividends of which will ultimately pay for themselves

If elected, I would most certainly work towards balancing the budget

[Democratic Hawk]

3) What are your views regarding Atlasian sovereignity with regards to inernational orgnizations such as the UN or the WTO. In we have a conflict of interets with such an organization, should we follow their rule or the laws made by the Senate?

In my view, Atlasia's sovereignty supercedes that of any international organisation. If we have a conflict with any international organisation, we should rightly follow the laws made by the Senate

I am committed to world peace through diplomacy as well as through military strength. While I support the 'ideal' of the United Nations, what preceded in the run-up to the Iraq War have left me feeling extremely disappointed - no, livid, in fact. As far as the UN is concerned, I firmly believe that the Security Council is in need of reform with China, France and Russia losing their permanent membership status, or at least their 'veto', due to their inability to put global security interests above all else. If push ever came to shove, I'd support our withdrawal from what is an increasingly feckless and corrupt organisation, which kind of resembles a tiger with no teeth but this would only be an option of last resort. I'm mindful that Atlasia should keep it's standing as Leader of the Free World, so such a decision would be a tough one to make - but Atlasian political and economic issues - I'm believe in the principle of Free Trade but would sanction any necessary protectionist safeguards to protect Atlasian jobs and livelihoods - transcend all else

[Democratic Hawk]

4) Given the expected wave of retirements by baby boomers in the coming years, that will likely geopardize the stability of the Social Security and Medicare systems, what steps, if any, do you feel are need to reform these programs?

First of all, I’d say that the issues of Social Security and Medicare are among the most pressing concerns of Atlasia today. Reform can and must happen sooner rather than later

Social Security

Social Security is an insurance, which provides seniors with a guaranteed safety net in their retirement and that the main priority is to preserve the solvency and security of the program. That was what it was intended to be and that is how it should remain

Nevertheless, as well as government having an obligation to provide adequate protection for seniors in their retirement, people themselves and their employers have an obligation too. I would certainly be a strong advocate of company pension schemes and believe that wherever possible they should be encouraged. However, many smaller companies may not be able to afford to do so, which is why a couple of options could be considered:

   Firstly, smaller companies could organise along regional lines to establish a collective private pension scheme
   Secondly, smaller companies could organise along employment sector lines to establish a collective pension scheme

Of course, membership of such schemes would be optional and the contribution rates determined by those employers and those employees party to the scheme. However, in the long term, it can’t be ruled out that such schemes may have to be mandatory. We’d also need to allow tax incentives, transfer rights and death benefits. I can’t think of any bigger disincentive than contributing towards something you may not even live to receive. Members of such schemes would continue to pay into the Social Security system but, like with National Insurance in the UK, at a reduced rate and before tax

Additionally, there are a range of private schemes, which allow people to invest for their retirement and these should be encouraged too

Other options that I think could be considered by the Senate include:

   Implementing a phased and small reduction in Social Security benefits for the wealthy
   Introducing a minimal across-the-board increase in payroll taxes
   Increasing the retirement age
   Providing seniors with tax incentives to work beyond retirement age
   Giving all those starting work a Retirement Bond, which would be a fixed sum invested in various ways and made payable once they reach retirement age, tax- free and indexed-linked for inflation but with the Treasury taking 25% of any profits, which would be transferred to the Social Security program

One thing is certain, tough decisions will have to be made. It’s too important an issue to go ignored or unresolved. I also believe it is an issue of such importance that it will require consensus among Senators irrespective of partisan divides and ideological orientation

Healthcare/Medicare

I believe that we have an obligation to ensure that all working families get affordable healthcare. For me, access to good healthcare is a basic human right. It is important we work towards reducing costs through tort reform and a modernisation of how our healthcare system operates. It is important we promote a healthy lifestyle and encouraging healthier diets in our schools, as well as concentrating efforts on preventative medicine

At present, our healthcare system consists of bureaucratic HMOs and drug companies and it is grossly inefficient. I believe that the provision of healthcare works best at the level of medical practitioner and patient, and it is on this relationship that we need to focus. I find it obscene that billions of dollars are wasted by drug companies on advertisements and promotions. Granted, it is their money but it is a waste of money, which could, frankly, be put to better use, for example, in research or by keeping the cost of prescription drugs down. And where does the burden of this cost fall? On the patient, on their health insurers – and ultimately, other insurees, or on the government, that’s where. If government has an obligation to exercise fiscal responsibility then corporations, to a degree, do too. It is there important that we regulate such activity and legislate to cut needless waste. The patient has more right to be free from being ripped-off than greedy pharmaceutical corporations have the freedom to rip-off

I also think it’s important that working families take responsibility for their own healthcare by taking out affordable health insurance. In the case of those less-affluent the government may need to subsidise it

[Democratic Hawk]

From this thread https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=32747.0

Q has asked of the candidates:

What is your position on the President's voting reform proposals?

[Democratic Hawk]

The debate is now closed for questions but will remain open until 15.15 (EST) for Bono and Democratic 'Hawk' to answer any remaining questions

[Bono]

I think no voting reform measure has evne begun to adress the fundamental problem. and that problem is Instant Runoff Voting. There are many other better, simpler, voting systems that could be used that would make our electoral process much simpler and less random. Any voting system where one can hurt one's preferd candidate by preferencing him first is fundamentally unfair.
Any voting reform measures that do not adress this issue are nothing more than feel good cosmetic measures that will do very little at all.

[Democratic Hawk]

From this thread https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=32747.0

Q has asked of the candidates:

What is your position on the President's voting reform proposals?

I'm not quite sure of what the President's proposals are and efforts to establish what they are have come to no avail and time is pressing

As far as voting systems go, no one system is perfect - all with their very own pros and cons - and it's an issue where I'll maintain an open-mind. It's certainly an issue I would work towards a compromise. It may help if several systems are mooted and that subject to consultation. It is important that some consensus is determined as to which is the best way forward

I agree with Bono in that we need to decide on the best possible and fairest method of voting

[Democratic Hawk]

Thread closed 15.15 (EST)