Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (AP) President Donald Trump swept into office nearly four years ago as an outsider who promised to get things done quickly on behalf of the American people through sheer force of will and unrivaled knowledge about the art of the deal.

He has checked off some items on his to-do list.

Trump pushed through the most significant overhaul of the U.S. tax system since President Ronald Reagan. Trump, as he said he would, tilted the Supreme Court further to the right with confirmation of two conservative justices and likely a third, Amy Coney Barrett, in the coming days. His promise to get tough on illegal immigration has resulted in a surge in migrant apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

But Trump has also faced the same hard truth that each of his White House predecessors learned: Governing is rarely easy.

A look at some of the presidents unfinished business as he asks voters for a second term in the White House:

HEALTH CARE

Trump has managed to undermine President Barack Obamas health care law, but has fallen far short of his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

His administration has managed to dismantle parts of the law. Enrollment periods have been shortened, some subsidies were ended and the individual mandate -- the fine for people without health insurance -- has been eliminated.

Trump says hes still focused on replacing the with something much better and much less expensive. He said in an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that it will be so good if the Supreme Court puts an end to Obamacare when the justices hear challenges to it next month.

The number of uninsured Americans has risen under Trumps watch. According to Census Bureau data released last month, nearly 30 million people in the U.S. lacked coverage at some point during 2019, about 1 million more than in the previous year.

___

ENDLESS WARS

Trump has made only modest progress toward meeting his 2016 pledge to bring home all troops from what he calls Americas endless wars.

When Trump took over the White House, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan stood at about 8,400, and there were about 6,800 troops in Iraq.

Within a year, the number of troops in Afghanistan climbed to about 15,000. Trump approved commanders requests for additional troops to reverse setbacks in the training of Afghan forces, fight an increasingly dangerous Islamic State group and put enough pressure on the Taliban to force it to the peace table.

In February, the U.S. and the Taliban signed an agreement that calls for the eventual complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

With an eye toward the election, Trump has accelerated his push to bring troops home, teasing that all U.S. troops could be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year.

Pentagon officials said the number of troops in Afghanistan will drop to 4,500 in November. But defense officials insist there are no plans to have all troops home from Afghanistan by the end of the year. U.S. officials also say there currently is no approved plan to reduce the number to 2,500 by early next year. The officials were not authorized to publicly discuss internal deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity.

In Iraq, the number of U.S. troops has dipped from about 5,000 to roughly 3,000, although officials say the number fluctuates higher as units rotate in and out.

___

THE WALL

During his 2016 primary run, Trump sought to mark his ground as a hard-line immigration enforcer who would build a great, great wall on our southern border.

And I will make Mexico pay for that wall, Trump said as he launched his run for the White House in June 2015. Mark my words.

Nearly four years later, Trump still has work to do completing his wall and much that has been completed has been paid by U.S. taxpayers despite promises otherwise.

The presidents administration has promised to build 450 miles by the end of this year and has so far built 371. Trump has replaced hundreds of miles of old, worn-out barriers, meant only to stop cars, with tall, 30-foot fencing that is much harder to get over and impedes wildlife from crossing the border. Conservationists in Arizona, where a bulk of the building has taken place, say the new wall is detrimental to wildlife and the surrounding ecosystems.

Mexico has steadfastly refused to pay for the border wall, though Trump earlier this year suggested that the wall is being paid, in part, by remittances from Mexican immigrants working in the U.S.

To date, the money is coming from the U.S. Treasury, meaning todays taxpayers and the future ones who will inherit the federal debt. To the extent any people who came into the U.S. illegally are kicking in for the wall, its because theyre working and paying taxes like other workers.

Trump also freed up $3.6 billion for the wall last year by diverting money from military construction projects as well as $2.5 billion from approved counterdrug spending.

___

MIDEAST PEACE

Early in his presidency, Trump expressed confidence that his administration could broker a long-term peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. We will get it done, Trump declared in May 2017. He put his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner in charge.

Trump moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that was cheered by Israelis and the presidents evangelical Christian supporters in the U.S. but angered Palestinian leaders. He scored a big win in recent weeks with the U.S. nudging Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates three Arab states to normalize relations with Israel.

The normalization of relations between Israel and the three Arab nations is certainly an important achievement. But the agreements between nations that have never been in direct conflict dont meaningfully move the ball in achieving the large and long elusive goal of achieving peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

___

INFRASTRUCTURE

The White Houses multiple attempts to designate an infrastructure week each effort quickly eclipsed by other issues have become something of a running punchline in the administration.

In his 2016 victory speech, Trump said he would rebuild the nations highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools and hospitals, making American infrastructure second to none and putting millions to work in the process.

Nearly four years later, Trumps soaring rhetoric has failed to produce legislation.

In April 2019, Trump reached an agreement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure plan. This March, he resurrected the idea for a VERY BIG & BOLD plan for infrastructure spending to help jolt the staggering economy after the coronavirus pandemic hit.

While Pelosi and Schumer again threw their support behind big infrastructure spending, Senate Republicans have bristled at deficit spending, and Trumps sales pitch has gone nowhere with his own party.

___

TRUMPS TAXES

On the debate stage four year ago, Trump said his federal income taxes were under a routine audit but promised they would be released as soon as the IRS finished.

Four years later, Trump says the IRS still hasnt completed its work, and the president has yet to fulfill his promise to release his tax returns. No law prevents Trump from making his tax filings public while under audit.

Questions about Trumps tax returns and his broader financial situation have only grown following revelations that he is personally liable for more than $400 million in debt. That sort of debt load, ethics experts say, raises concerns he could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by those to whom hes indebted.

The New York Times reported last month that Trumps debt includes more than $300 million in loans that will come due in the next four years.

Trump dismisses his debt load as a peanut compared with his assets.

The president is the only post-Watergate president not to release his tax returns.

___

Associated Press writers Robert Burns, Hope Yen, Calvin Woodward and Astrid Galvan contributed to this report.

Read more here:
Four years in, Trump has plenty of unfinished business - The Associated Press

President Donald Trump went on the attack again and former Vice President Joe Biden fought back hard in Thursday nights final presidential campaign debate, moderated by Kristen Welker of NBC News.

With the November 3 election less than two weeks away, stakes were high for the event organized by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and telecast live from Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn.

We asked three BU faculty experts to assess the candidates debate performances:

Each watched the debate and emailed their answers immediately afterward.

with Michelle Amazeen, Craig Andrade, and Rachel Meade

Amazeen: The candidates have competing visions of reality: Trump based on fantabulous storytelling and Biden based more on seeming pragmatism and checkable facts. I imagine the fact-checkers are extremely busy right now.

Andrade: The president continued a strategy of bullying, deflection, and hyperbole. Vice President Biden had difficulty breaking through and seemed unable to effectively explain clearly what a Biden administration would look like.

Meade: Trump seemed finally to be attempting to return to his 2016 populist messaging, but its probably too little, too late. In 2016, he presented himself as someone who knew all the corruption because as a businessperson he was benefiting from it, and thus was the one to know how to fix it. He called back to this appeal when he said, You are the one who takes all the money from Wall Street, calling attention to Bidens large base of Wall Street donors. Trump followed up by saying that he could call up Wall Street guys himself, but he wouldnt want to be put in that position. Biden on the other hand, while forceful on certain progressive issues like the minimum wage and the need for a stimulus bill, continued to distance himself from the populist left of the party.

Amazeen: The muting contributed to a much more viewable debate. Trevor Noah predicted that Trump would get around the muting by shouting and even walking over to Bidens mic, perhaps even licking the mic, toothankfully, that didnt transpire. Trump was fairly uninterruptive for the first two-thirds of the debate, but he started to lose his composure and interrupt more in the last third of the debate, talking over the moderator.

Andrade: It simply stopped President Trump from the interruptions that occurred in the previous debate. It also helped both candidates address specific questions focused on policy. Unfortunately, in response to each question truth-talking was hard to find.

Meade: The muting seemed to really help with the overall feel of the debate, and its effects appeared to carry into the rest of the debate. But the more substantive feel is also owing to the really excellent job that the moderator, Kristin Welker, did. Unlike Chris Wallace, she seemed able to maintain control and keep her cool even when candidates continued talking over time, and in contrast to the vice-presidential moderator (USA Todays Susan Page), she asked a lot of follow-up questions.

Amazeen: This debate was more about how each candidate explained the current state of the country. While Biden shared specific anecdotes and many statistics about the state of the world and his policy plans, Trump showed he continues to be a masterful propagandist. He spoke at turns in glittering generalities or bleak predictions that selectively used evidence to support his position. For instance, Trump repeatedly claimed that Biden said he would ban fracking. But Biden pushed back, clarifying that he said he would not allow fracking on federal land, but otherwise would not ban it. But as it turns out, Biden wasnt entirely accurate on this claim, either.

Andrade: The previous interrupts were curbed due to the monitoring of the microphone. Trumps interruptions ramped up later in the debate. Most of those interruptions allowed President Trump to stoke fear with words such as illegal immigrantsa murderer comes in, a rapist comes inthose with the lowest IQ, socialized medicine, theyll destroy your Medicaid.

Meade: Yes, Trump was fairly effective in getting across his message this time. Perhaps some combination of the moderators seemingly even-handed approach and the muting contributed to a more controlled performance from him. At one point he actually said that he appreciated how the moderator was handling things, a moment I found quite surprising. Ill be curious to see if from the perspective of Trumps supporters, the moderation appeared more fair to them than at previous debates.

Amazeen: It seemed as if Trump had Biden in a gotcha moment when Biden admitted he would transition away from the oil industry and stop subsidizing it. But Biden seemed to provide a justification for his position.

Andrade: President Trump consistently responded with falsehoods and exaggeration on the environment, healthcare, racism, the economy, and foreign affairs, unchecked. That may have turned some voters off and made Biden appear more attractive.

Meade: I dont think so, though I was initially concerned about Joe Bidens comments on school reopenings, framed around Boston Public Schools recent decision to move virtual. After noting that funding and PPE are needed to make schools safe, he said: Not that many of you are going to die. Come on. At the time, I didnt realize this was an attempt to mock Trumps earlier stated position on teachers not being easily infected, and, judging from reactions on Twitter, it seems I wasnt the only one who missed the joke.

Amazeen: Voters have a choice between a fantabulous storyteller in Trump or an empathetic pragmatist in Biden. While great storytellers can be very compelling, the devils in those pesky detailsor lack of them.

Andrade: No.

Meade: Its not really a new insight, but I was struck once again by how difficult it is for Trump to not make issues into personal referendums on himself. It was particularly jarring in the race segmentwhere the opening question explicitly asked for candidates to speak to Black parents who worry about their childrento hear Trump making claims that he is the most antiracist person in the room or is the president that had done the most for Black people since Abe Lincoln, which Biden later turned into a pretty effective joke.

Amazeen: There are very few persuadable voters left. Biden embraced empathyoften talking directly to the people at homeand pragmatism; Trump continued to embrace conspiracy theories. I suspect both campaigns are happy with each candidates performance.

Andrade: The performance of both candidates was consistent with their strategy and messages maintained throughout the campaign. Trump continued to work to paint a rosy picture of his administrations performance, including on his management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden focused on bringing the country together, bringing the pandemic under control, addressing climate change, expanding healthcare, and addressing systemic racism. Ultimately, neither candidate moved the needle. I dont believe Trump gained any new votes. Biden looked more presidential and more compassionate. He lost no ground.

Meade: Possibly this could help Trump a little bit, simply because he did so much better than last time. But ultimately, I think its probably too late to see a big shift from this for his campaign, which is also running out of money right now. Biden performed similarly to how he usually does, and probably also better than last time, in part owing to the more effective debate setup and moderation, but I dont think it changes anything for him either.

Visit link:
Trump, Biden Clash on Immigration, COVID and Abe Lincoln - BU Today

Finally, in Thursday's presidential debate, immigration was introduced as an issue. Amnesty was mentioned (the challenger, Joe Biden, said he was in favor of it but did not use the word), but the main focus was on the policy of zero tolerance (which ended more than two years ago), and the whereabouts of the parents of 545 children whose parents were subject to it. The issue has elicited more noise than light, raising the question whether the majority of those parents want reunification.

Biden pounced on the issue, asserting: "Parents were ripped their kids were ripped from their arms and separated. And now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone. Nowhere to go, nowhere to go. It's criminal. It's criminal." This echoed a statement his campaign released, which described the situation as a "moral failing".

Trump, for his part, asserted: "Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they're brought here and it's easy to use them to get into our country."

This is a deeply emotional subject, and one that is personal to me as a father. My son is now a man, but even now, if he were "lost", I would move heaven and earth to find him. But there are some parents who could choose to have their children remain in the United States than with them in their home countries, for a couple reasons I will describe below.

Some background is in order, though, both distant and more recent.

First, the distant. I was an associate general counsel at the former INS when the Elian Gonzalez issue was brewing, and saw it first-hand. The five-year-old Gonzalez was with his mother on a boat travelling from Cuba when the boat capsized. His mother drowned (as did 11 others), but Gonzalez, floating in an inner-tube, was saved by fishermen on Thanksgiving Day 1999 and brought to Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

He was released from the hospital the next day into the custody of his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, and other relatives in Miami. Gonzalez's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, (who lived in Cuba) and the Cuban government requested the boy's return, but an asylum claim was filed by his Miami relatives, and a court and media battle ensued.

His family in the United States did not want to let the boy leave, but his father was allowed to come to this country to retrieve his son. The decision was eventually resolved in Juan Miguel Gonzalez's favor by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. Elian Gonzalez was seized by INS agents from the home of his Florida relatives in a pre-dawn raid on April 22, 2000, but it still took two months for the boy and his father to be allowed to return to Cuba.

It was a case that sharply divided America. Many believed that young Elian should be with his father, regardless of where his father was. Many others, however, believed that he should remain in America instead of being sent to Castro's Cuba. Reno's actions and those of the INS are still a touchy issue.

Second, the more recent. Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which makes illegal entry is a crime, does not contain any exceptions for aliens who arrive in the United States with children, and the threat of criminal prosecution is a powerful deterrent to illegal entry (as I have previously explained). Despite these facts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have traditionally not prosecuted alien parents entering illegally with minors as a matter of policy.

Coupled with the 2016 decision in Flores v. Lynch (which mandates the release of all children from DHS custody within 20 days meaning that the parents usually get released as well), that non-prosecution policy gives parents a powerful incentive to bring their children with them and travel as "family units" (FMU) on the hazardous journey to enter the United States illegally. Want proof? FMU entries increased 600 percent between FY 2017 and mid-FY 2019.

That journey is extremely dangerous, as I have explained in the past, and one bipartisan federal panel found in April 2019 that the trek is particularly damaging for the children involved:

Migrant children are traumatized during their journey to and into the U.S. The journey from Central America through Mexico to remote regions of the U.S. border is a dangerous one for the children involved, as well as for their parent. There are credible reports that female parents of minor children have been raped, that many migrants are robbed, and that they and their child are held hostage and extorted for money.

As for Trump's point, the Texas Tribune reported in March 2019 that most migrants to the United States hire smugglers known colloquially as "coyotes" who "bribe cartels and corrupt cops and immigration agents along the way." According to a 2018 UN study, "smuggling is a big business with high profits" specifically valued at $3.7 to $4.2 billion to North America from the southern border of Mexico in 2014-2015.

Nor are those coyotes simply innocent travel facilitators, as the Obama-Biden administration's National Security Council explained in July 2011:

The vast majority of people who are assisted in illegally entering the United States and other countries are smuggled, rather than trafficked. International human smuggling networks are linked to other trans-national crimes including drug trafficking and the corruption of government officials. They can move criminals, fugitives, terrorists, and trafficking victims, as well as economic migrants. They undermine the sovereignty of nations and often endanger the lives of those being smuggled.

That de facto non-prosecution policy ended on April 6, 2018, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a "Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry".

When migrant parents were criminally prosecuted, they passed into the custody of DOJ for what were reasonably brief trials.

Under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), however, that meant that the minors with them in DHS custody became "unaccompanied alien children", and DHS was therefore required to send them to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for placement in shelters until a sponsor could be found for them in the United States. I explained that process in length in February 2019 congressional testimony.

More than 2,500 minors were separated from their parents under the zero-tolerance policy before President Trump addressed it by executive order on June 20, 2018, directing DHS to maintain custody of those prosecuted through that process (unless the parent posed a danger to the child's welfare). Most have been reunited with their parents, but there were criticisms (to put it mildly) of the policy and the manner in which it was implemented.

One of those critics was the DHS Office of Inspector General, which released a report in September 2018, finding: "DHS ... struggled to identify, track, and reunify families separated under Zero Tolerance due to limitations with its information technology systems, including a lack of integration between systems."

Another critic is my colleague Mark Krikorian, who recently stated: "The resulting child-separation fiasco was amplified and distorted by a hostile media, but the original disarray could have been avoided with less haste and more planning."

Which brings me to the 545 children mentioned in Thursday's debate. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a court filing, said that "that they have been unable to contact parents of 545 children who were separated at the border by the Trump administration, leaving the children living with sponsors throughout the United States."

The Wall Street Journal reports that up to two-thirds of those parents most of whom are from Central America are believed to have been removed from this country.

DHS, for its part, has defended its efforts and pushed back on those claims. According to ABC News, DHS spokesperson Chase Jennings has said that his department and HHS "have 'taken every step to facilitate the reunification of these families where parents wanted such reunification to occur.'"

Note the last clause there. Jennings contended on Twitter:

So, needless to say, there are some discrepancies in this matter. Here are the questions to ask: How many parents have the federal government and/or the ACLU been unable to locate? The parents of 545 children, or some lesser number (such as the difference between 485 and 545 of 60, or any)? Are the 485 children referenced by Jennings included in the ACLU's number? If so, have their parents made the decision that Juan Miguel Gonzalez declined to make 20 years ago, and opted to have their children remain with family members in the United States?

The latter scenario is certainly more than plausible. The idea of bringing children illegally to the United States is to enter and remain with them in the United States. If the parents were unable to remain, perhaps they opted to have their children remain in this country without them.

There are two reasons I can think of for them to have done so: (1) To have their children live in the relative comfort, safety, and affluence of the United States (with free education, to boot). (2) The possibility that, if their children are allowed to remain in this country, those parents will be able to reenter this country at some point in the immediate future.

Another important question even assuming that the parents of 545 children have not been located is how many of those parents have been removed? The closer that number gets to zero, the likelier it is that they don't want to be located by DHS, HHS, or anyone else. Because, if they are, they run the risk of being removed.

I am reminded of an anecdote (I have referenced before) told by Abraham Lincoln about a traveler who was out riding his horse when a furious storm came up, darkening the skies. A bolt of lightning shook the ground. The traveler fell on his knees, praying: "A little more light, Lord, and a little less noise."

As a father, when it comes to the welfare of children, I want as much light as possible. With less than two weeks before the 2020 general election, however, I am afraid that all that I am going to get is the noise.

Read the original:
More Noise than Light on 545 Children - Immigration Blog

Members of both parties agree that President Donald Trump inspires strong reactions from voters.

You either love him or you hate him, said Beva Miles, chair of the Republicans of Spokane County.

The polarization, well documented in national political polls, has led election observers to wonder whether there are any undecided voters left in a presidential contest that has occurred as traditional outlets of voter outreach have been curtailed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

But Washington voters have switched parties in the past, and at least one national poll watcher has suggested that Spokane County may go blue for the first time in more than two decades.

An examination of presidential voting in Spokane County showed numerous precincts in and around Hillyard as well as western portions of Spokane Valley switching from supporting Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump four years later.

At the same time, several precincts in south Spokane, mostly south of 37th Avenue, switched from Republican Mitt Romney in 2012 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Numerous polls have showed that white voters in particular have become more divided in recent years in how they vote for president.

College-educated whites are leaning to Democrats while those without a college degree are leaning more toward Republicans.

Democrats have focused on increasing the turnout in 2020, rather than trying to dissuade Trump voters, said Andrew Biviano, the former chair of the Spokane County Democratic Party and a candidate for Spokane County Commissioner in 2016.

He pointed to Wisconsin, which Trump won four years ago after Obama carried it in 2012.

But Trump won Wisconsin with 2,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney amassed in 2012, indicating that it was lower turnout, not enthusiasm for Trump, that was key to his victory in the Badger State.

Thats true in a lot of other states around the country as well, Biviano said.

Biviano said he thoroughly canvassed the neighborhoods west of the Hillyard main strip four years ago, an area that had historically supported Democrats. When he knocked on the doors of people he believed would be solid supporters, he found Trump voters instead.

For a white person without a college degree, the chances of it being a Trump supporter just were so high, Biviano said.

Many of the people in that category belonged to trade unions, groups that had consistently voted Democrat. But those people were now supporting the Republican partys nominee.

Sue Bergman, owner of The B & B Junk Company on the corner of Market Street and Olympic Avenue since the mid-1990s, said she believed the area has always had a conservative bent.

Thats been reflected in the clientele of her shop, especially after the 2016 campaign.

Im more likely to vote person rather than party, said Bergman, 73, who said Trump wasnt her first choice four years ago but that shed grown to respect his abilities a bit more.

Others groups have been swayed to support the president despite past Democratic votes.

Michael Sessions, 38, moved to Spokane from Seattle earlier this year. A supporter of President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Sessions said he voted for Trump in 2016 largely due to what he felt were broken promises by the Democratic president.

We paid $512 a month for insurance we couldnt use, Sessions said of his family under the Affordable Care Act.

We tried to go to the doctor one time. But it wasnt covered.

Sessions said Trump had done a better job than Obama on curtailing illegal immigration and in support of veterans, noting that his GI Bill assistance was reduced while Obama was in office.

The polarization of the president has worked the other way in Spokane County, as well.

Katie Walsh, 32, voted for Romney in 2012. She voted third party in 2016, one of nearly 29,000 Spokane County voters who did so. In that election, fewer than 20,000 votes in the county separated Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Walsh said this year shes voting for Biden.

Education, accessibility and medical care are three of the things that I look at where a candidate stands, and I dont like where President Trump stands on those issues, Walsh said.

Walsh said she knew less about the third-party candidates in this election year, and that she viewed Biden as the lesser of two evils when casting her ballot.

For the most part, Miles said she expects voters in Spokane County at the presidential level to stay true to their party.

For a county with three Republican county commissioners and an 11,000-vote margin in 2018s Congressional contest in favor of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers over Lisa Brown, that would make it unlikely Biden becomes the first Democrat to carry the county since Bill Clintons re-election in 1996.

Miles said she believes there will be more moderates likely to vote for Republican gubernatorial candidate Loren Culp than for Trump.

Ballots are due to the Elections Office Nov. 3.

Continued here:
Obama-to-Trump, Romney-to-Clinton: How will Spokane County shift in 2020? - The Spokesman-Review

Joe Boscia| For The Times

First, voting is both a privilege and an obligation. To not vote is an abrogation of our responsibility as a citizen, and jeopardizes the type of elected government officials our nation needs. So please vote.

Second, it is not enough to just cast a ballot. Our vote must be an informed one. And that means doing our homework ahead of time. People who say they will decide when they get into the voting booth are uninformed and poor citizens. There are too many politicians pushing the need to make it easy to vote, but they never stress the requirement to vote intelligently.

No one should tell us who to vote for. That should be our choice. But that also means we should not just vote the way our parents or friends do, or simply along straight party lines. Our first president, George Washington, warned against political parties, because they become too powerful, and create permanent politicians, instead of citizen representatives. That prophecy has certainly come true. We have term limits for the office of president, but desperately need it for Congress.

Our presidential choice this year is between two very flawed candidates, so what should we do? I suggest we look at issues, and not the person. Read the party platforms, and look at the candidates past records. And look at their current stand on issues. Have they flip-flopped from what they said and believed in the past?

Will they and the people backing them bring you the kind of America you want to live in?

Here is a list of issues to consider. It is not all-inclusive. You may want to change the order around or add issues. But think about each issue carefully, and how each candidate will address it. Then make your choice.

This really is the most important election in a lifetime. So do a good job of being a responsible citizen.

Supreme Court picks. Will the candidate pick justices who will follow the Constitution as written, or make rulings based on their own beliefs or todays social opinions? Will the justices try to create laws from the bench, rather than leaving that to Congress? Remember, the picks will influence America for decades, as justices serve for life. This also applies to other federal judges they appoint.

National defense and terrorism. Is the candidate strong in these areas and will build an effective, balanced, and right-size military? Will he/she be tough on opponents and terrorists, not afraid but not precipitous in the use of force, but once used, use it overwhelmingly, and not incrementally?

Law and order, crime and drugs. Is the candidate strong against crime and drugs, and believe that there is no excuse for looting, burning and harming police, while still against unwarranted police actions? Does he/she believe that drug pushers need to be strongly dealt with, and drug users discouraged, or that these are non-violent crimes that should be leniently treated?

Governments role. Does the candidate believe the government is the servant of the people or the answer to all problems? Does he/she believe the federal government should be small, and leave many roles to the states, or build a bureaucracy of unelected government employees?

The economy. Does the candidate believe our private enterprise, capitalist system is the best, with the federal government only inserting itself when there are excesses, or believe the federal government should dictate the economy?

Does the candidate promote real jobs growth of well-paying positions created by the private economy, or phony stimulus programs that do not create long term, well-paying private sector jobs?

Does the candidate advocate a high minimum wage, in spite of evidence that it cuts jobs, especially for those at that job level?

Social issues. Is the candidate socially conservative and believes in the traditional family and morality as constant, or social activism and situational morality? Is the candidate for the rights of unborn children or womens choice?

Race relations. Does the candidate denounce intolerance, bigotry, and racism, while emphasizing that minorities have responsibilities to address the breakdown of minority families, absence of fathers, crime, antagonism toward police, etc.? Does he/she profess that all lives matter?

National debt and the deficit. Does the candidate have a viable plan to substantially reduce both, but especially the deficit, and is the candidate strongly committed to doing so? If not, he/she is mortgaging our future.

Immigration. Does the candidate believe anyone should be allowed into the country, no matter how they get here, or where they come from, or that illegal immigration needs to be stopped once and for all? What is his/her plan for the millions of illegals already here, especially the violent criminal ones? Does the candidate want to give free college education and healthcare to illegals, while you pay for yours? Does the candidate support Kates Law?

Sanctuary cities. Does the candidate condone sanctuary cities, or believe they need to be dismantled?

Government regulation. Should the government do more or less regulating our lives and businesses? Does the candidate believe that the increased regulations are stifling business growth, or necessary? Does he/she use environmental regulations in such a way as to kill business?

The environment. Does the candidate believe that while we have responsibilities to protect the environment, government actions must be balanced with common sense, restraint, and protection of business, the economy and society?

Personal integrity. Is the candidate a person of strong personal integrity, whose personal and professional life is above reproach? There is no such thing as personal performance being irrelevant to professional actions, such aslying, cheating, untrustworthiness, etc.

EEO/AA. Does the candidate believe that EEO and AA efforts are reverse discrimination and no longer used for their original intent, or they are still necessary?

2nd Amendment. Does the candidate support the right to bear arms, with reasonable limits, or that guns, not people, cause crime? Does he/she support actions like an assault weapons ban in lieu of the real problem of illegal gun sales and use, especially in our inner cities?

School choice. Does the candidate believe that the best way to stimulate better schools is to create competition through school choice, teacher performance systems, and parents who encourage learning? Or does he/she want to keep the ineffectual status quo, because the candidate is beholden to the teacher unions?

College environment. Does the candidate believe college is a learning environment where students should be exposed to ideas from the conservative and liberal sides or a protected place where activist professors and students impose their ideas on everyone and brook no disagreement? Do the colleges encourage teaching professors, or publishing and activist professors?

College tuition. Does the candidate promote college as a right that should be free, and college loans waived or lessened, or a privilege that should be equally paid for? Does the candidate believe that the cost of college is to a large degree the fault of college administrations that hike tuition all out of proportion to inflation, and spend money on sports that should be spent on academics?

Unions. Does the candidate support and seek support from unions, especially teacher and public employee unions?

Joe Boscia, a former infantry officer, is a resident of Beaver.

View post:
Guest Op-Ed: Deciding your vote: Some thoughts on voting in upcoming election - The Times