I have re-installed and de-installed again and again today.
And I have taken the issues out and modded them back.
Here are all my issues.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="yes"?>
<XMLBody>
<DataChecksum NoParse="1">
<Ignore>Display,Image,Description,Icon</Ignore>
<Translate>Display,Description</Translate>
</DataChecksum>
<Map>TODO</Map>
<Issue>
<Tag>CHRISTIANNATION</Tag>
<Display>A Christian Nation</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Religious conservatives look to restore the nation to the Christian values they see as eroding all around them. Liberals see this as a thinly veiled assault on the seperation of church and state.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="0">0</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="0">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="0">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="0">2</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="1">0</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="1">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="1">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="1">2</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="17">0</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="17">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="17">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="17">2</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="21">1</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="21">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="21">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="21">3</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="39">0</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="39">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="39">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="39">2</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>STRONGMILITARY</Tag>
<Display>A Strong Military</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Some feel that the best defense is a good offense. Others, however, see a strong military as too much of a temptation for an adventurous administration.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ABORTION</Tag>
<Display>Abortion Rights</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Abortion rights is a very controversial issue. On the one hand, the group that refers to themselves as "pro life" argues that life begins at conception. On the other hand, the group that refers to themselves as "pro choice" argues that the decision to abort a fetus must be left to the woman on the basis that the fetus is, at that point, part of a woman's body. ||It is an issue with little compromise possible. If life begins at conception, then aborting a fetus is infanticide. If the decision is to be left with the woman, then the issue is when a fetus is considered a legally protected entity.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>AFGHANISTAN</Tag>
<Display>Afghanistan Withdrawal</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The war in Afghanistan has been raging for over 10 years, but the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Some Republicans see the planned full withdrawal in 2014 as an obstacle to stabilizing the country.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ALTENERGY</Tag>
<Display>Alternative Energy</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Fossil fuels have a number of negatives attached to them. First, they pollute the air and in many cases must be imported from hostile regimes.||Alternative energy advocates desire federal programs to subsidize new energy sources to help them compete in the market. Opponents argue that it is not the place of the federal government to play favorites in the market and that no alternative energy is remotely ready to take the place of fossil fuels.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>AUTOBAILOUT</Tag>
<Display>Auto Bailouts</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The government bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler has managed to avoid the collapse of two of the nations largest employers. ||Democrats see this as a remarkable success. Republicans see it as an unprecedented government intrusion into the free market, and the setting of a dangerous precedent.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">9</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="21">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="21">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="21">-3</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="21">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="21">6</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>BANKBAILOUT</Tag>
<Display>Bank Bailouts</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The $700 billion TARP program is despised across party lines as a bailout of the the same wealthy bankers who caused the financial crisis. Despite the mutual hatred, both parties still try to lay the blame on eachother. Debate still rages as to whether it was a necessary evil.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-4</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>BIGGOVERNMENT</Tag>
<Display>Big Government</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Conservatives charge that the American left supports "big government". By this, they mean a very large federal government that seems to be slowly usurping the rights of individuals in the name of the "public good".||Liberals, by contrast, see the government as an impartial player that can protect citizens from the encroaching power of multinational corporations.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CAPITALPUN</Tag>
<Display>Capital Punishment</Display>
<Image>Gun</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Gun_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The termination of a human life by the state is a controversial issue. Supporters of capital punishment believe that with freedom comes responsibility. If someone murders another person, the people, via their elected government, demand the right to decide whether to end the life of the perpetrator.||Opponents of capital punishment argue that most western nations have ended the practice and that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CHICKFILA</Tag>
<Display>Chik-fi-let</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>When the CEO of Chik-fi-let recently revealed the company's opposition to gay marriage, activists exploded into a flurry of boycotts, counter boycotts, and 'kiss-ins'. And all you wanted was a tasty lunch.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>COALMINING</Tag>
<Display>Coal Mining</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Coal-fired power plants generate over 40% of electricity in the United States.||Democrats want to increase environmental regulations and limit the environmental impact of these plants. Conservatives see this as threat to jobs, and a threat to energy independence.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="48">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="48">0</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="48">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="48">9</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="48">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="48">6</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>DEFICITREDUCTION</Tag>
<Display>Deficit Reduction</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The federal government spends more than it takes in. Over time, these deficits create massive debts whose interest payments take significant amounts of the yearly budget to pay.||The problem is, no one can agree with how to reduce deficits. Republicans tend to believe that cutting spending is the way to do it. Democrats tend to argue that raising taxes "on the rich" will do it. This results in a dead lock with deficits continuing.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>DOMESTICSU</Tag>
<Display>Domestic Surveillance</Display>
<Image>Generic</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens is seen by liberals as a violation of the rights of Americans, and the first step towards a "Big Brother" state. Conservatives see it as a vital tool in the global war on terror. ||Ever get that feeling like you're being watched?...</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>EXPANDINGE</Tag>
<Display>Expanding Ethanol Prod.</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Ethanol is an alternative fuel source that is renewable. In the United States, most ethanol comes from corn.||Many groups wish to see the federal government subsidize ethanol in order to help launch it as a sustainable domestic industry that will lessen dependence on foreign oil and create jobs.||Opponents argue that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it produces currently. Moreover, if corn being diverted from food to ethanol, it causes food prices to go up. Moreover, ethanol, unlike oil and gas, cannot be transported using existing pipelines thus resulting in ethanol being transported by trucks that burn gasoline or diesel. Opponents also argue that there is not enough corn in all of the United States to make a significant dent in current fuel use.||Supporters counter that as new technology arrives, better ways of making ethanol appear. For instance, new processes are on the rise to create ethanol from switch grass or from the corn husks themselves which would greatly decrease the cost and energy efficiency.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="11">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="11">7</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="11">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="11">4</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="11">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="11">6</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FARMSUBSID</Tag>
<Display>Farm Subsidies</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The American farmer has been a staple of our culture for centuries. Unfortunately, automation of farming has advanced so rapidly that farmers have been able to produce vastly more food than has been needed. As a result, crop prices have fallen to the point where many farmers have gone bankrupt.||Moreover, farming is often a boom or bust industry. Weather and other factors can make for dramatically different production years which makes it difficult for farmers to maintain their livelihood.||Farm subsidies have been put in place to help soften the peaks and valleys of the market and protect a strategic resource -- food production.||Opponents of farm subsidies argue that most farms have been bought out by large corporations collectively called agribusiness who are already extremely profitable.||Supporters argue that farming is too important a resource to allow to be imperiled by unstable markets and that there are still plenty of small farmers who need the support.||As a practical matter, the farming lobby is one of the strongest in Washington. Both Democrats and Republicans tend to be unwilling to do anything to cut subsidies.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="11">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="11">10</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="11">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="11">9</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="11">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="11">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="15">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="15">8</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="15">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="15">8</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="15">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="15">7</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="28">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="28">9</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="28">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="28">7</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="28">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="28">5</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>DOJSCANDAL</Tag>
<Display>Fast & Furious Inquiry</Display>
<Image>Generic</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) conducted Operation "Fast and Furious" in an effort to arrest high level arms traffickers working for the Mexican cartels. In the botched operation, over a thousand weapons were sold to the cartels and never recovered.||Republicans look to hold Democrats accountable and score political points, while Democrats hope the whole issue will blow over.||</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FIXINGMORT</Tag>
<Display>Fixing Mortgage disaster</Display>
<Image>Mortgage</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>A few years ago, housing prices were skyrocketing. This led many lenders to offer adjustable rate mortgages to families who had relatively poor credit ratings and wanted to purchase a home that was beyond their means.||When interest rates increased while home values decreased, some of these families found themselves unable to make their monthly mortgage payment thus creating a credit disaster.||Many advocates argue that the government should step in and bail people out of the credit crunch. Opponents argue that this punishes those who borrow responsibly and that the market should be left alone.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FIXINGOBES</Tag>
<Display>Fixing Obesity Crisis</Display>
<Image>Cheese</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Americans are getting fat.||Health advocates argue that the federal government should begin passing laws that tax unhealthy foods and lifestyles to encourage people to eat and live better.||Opponents argue that it is none of the government's business how private citizens eat and live.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FUELEFFICI</Tag>
<Display>Fuel Efficiency Standards</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>With the cost of fuel going up, dependence on foreign oil growing, and the impact on the environment by fossil fuels a rising concern, many environmentalists argue that the best way to solve all three is to raise the fuel efficiency standards.||Opponents argue that doing so limits consumer choice and costs American jobs.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="21">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="21">-2</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="21">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="21">-8</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="21">6</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="21">-5</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>GAYMARRIAG</Tag>
<Display>Gay Marriage</Display>
<Image>Generic</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Most states only recognize a legal union between a man and a woman. Gay rights activists have argued that the government should not discriminate against two consenting adults in creating a union.||Traditionalists and religious leaders argue that marriage is between a man and a woman and wish the federal government to protect marriage against alteration. ||Supporters of gay marriage argue that the federal government shouldn't have gotten into the marriage business in the first place but since they have, they should not be interfering with legal unions of adults based on sexual orientation.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>GOVBUILDSB</Tag>
<Display>Gov. Builds Business</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>"You Didn't Build That"?||Democrats argue that the services the government provides play a vital role in the businesses entrepreneurs create. Republicans see the role of the individual as the defining factor, and government often as an obstacle.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>GREENJOBS</Tag>
<Display>Green Jobs</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Green Jobs refers to work in fields that preserve or restore environmental quality, often by reducing energy, materials, or water use.||Democrats look to give this sector a boost through subsidies and incentives, while Republicans oppose government intrusion into the market.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="4">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="4">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="4">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="46">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="46">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="46">9</Party_Importance>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>GUNCONTROL</Tag>
<Display>Gun Control</Display>
<Image>Gun</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Gun_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Thousands of Americans die due to hand guns. Proponents of gun control argue that if we limit access to guns, people will be safer.||Opponents of gun control point out that people commit crimes, by definition, break laws. Making laws that prohibit firearm ownership merely disarms law abiding citizens.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>HIGHGASPRI</Tag>
<Display>High Gas Prices</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Expensive gas is un-American. Worse than that it's European. You will likely have no influence on this issue if you manage to get yourself elected, but it makes a good carrot to dangle in front of some of the more clueless voters.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-5</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ILLEGALIMMIGRATION</Tag>
<Display>Illegal Immigration</Display>
<Image>Generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The United States is a land of immigrants. But in the past decade, millions of illegal immigrants have entered the country causing local social service problems, crime, and job displacement.||Supporters of illegal immigration come from across the spectrum. Some Republicans support it because of the demand for cheap labor. Many Democrats support it because of belief of free movement of people and because illegal immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the economic spectrum and their off-spring, who are American citizens, are likely to vote for Democrats.||Independents, however, tend to be outraged and want our borders secured.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="3">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="3">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="3">-8</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="3">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="31">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="31">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="31">8</Party_Importance>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CRIME</Tag>
<Display>Law Enforcement</Display>
<Image>Gun</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Gun_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Federal funding for law enforcement is a more complex issue than it might first appear. ||First, significant portions of the population do not necessarily agree with the laws. Secondly, many groups are suspicious of law enforcement and believe that the law is enforced unequally based on racial or ethnic background. Third, many citizens believe that federal money for law enforcement might be better spent on social programs to educate people to help keep them from engaging in criminal activity in the first place.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>LEGALIZINGMARIJUANA</Tag>
<Display>Legalizing Marijuana</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Marijuana is a recreational drug that is relatively non-addictive. However, its health damaging effects are even worse than smoking and studies have shown that it can cause brain damage even with relatively little use.||Proponents of legalizing marijuana argue that individuals should be free to make that choice for themselves.||Opponents argue that with all the existing welfare programs that legalizing drugs, such as marijuana will simply create a larger dependent class and the direction should not be to make it even easier for people to access dangerous substances.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="4">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="4">7</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="4">6</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="4">-5</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="4">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="4">-2</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>INVADEIRAN</Tag>
<Display>Military Strike on Iran</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Iran continues to make overtures towards the development of nuclear weapons. Some feel that an immediate military strike is necessary to prevent them from achieving this goal. Others wish to pursue harsh sanctions and a diplomatic route.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>MISSILEDEF</Tag>
<Display>Missile Defense Shield</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>With the increasing possibility of rogue nations acquiring intercontinental nuclear missiles, there has been support from Republicans for constructing a series of anti-missile defenses to destroy incoming missiles.||Opponents see this as a waste of time and money as well as inciting a new arms race.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FEDERALEDUCATION</Tag>
<Display>More Money for Education</Display>
<Image>School</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_School_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Historically, the states paid for schools through property taxes. Over the years, the federal government has attempted to help finance public schools as well. This amount has grown and grown over time.||The advantage of the federal government providing money is that the money can be distributed in a way that is more "equitable" on a per school basis. ||Opponents of this system argue that is inefficient and interferes with local control over schooling. Moreover, many parents resent having their tax dollars re-distributed to other people.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>UNIVERSALHEALTHCARE</Tag>
<Display>ObamaCare</Display>
<Image>Health</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Health_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Obama Administration's "Patient Protection and Afforadable Care Act", commonly known as "ObamaCare" has been a lightning rod for all sides of the political spectrum.||Liberals hope it will help protect against insurance company loopholes while providing improved medical care to the nation's poor.||Conservatives fear health care rationing and government bureaucrats dictating personal medical decisions.||</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="8">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="8">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="8">9</Party_Importance>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>OCCUPYWAL</Tag>
<Display>Occupy Wall Street</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Income equality is a serious issue in the United States. Liberals tend to see the Occupy movement as a positive force for change. Many conservatives view the protesters as self-entitled, and often the instigators of criminal behavior.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>OUTSOURCINGJOBS</Tag>
<Display>Outsourcing of Jobs</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>As globalization takes hold, global competition becomes increasingly fierce. Consumers shop on price regardless of where the products and services are coming from.||In turn, companies have moved many jobs off shore to countries with lower labor costs. ||Supporters of outsourcing argue that the net results are cheaper goods for Americans to purchase. Opponents argue that large swaths of America's industrial and technological might are being moved overseas.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-10</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="4">6</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="4">5</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="36">6</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="36">5</Party_Importance>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>PROVIDETAX</Tag>
<Display>Provide Tax Returns</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Candidates for President are often very wealthy from success in past careers. Conservatives argue that there are limits to how much privacy someone should have to sacrifice to run for office. Liberals think voters have a right to know the details of a candidates financial life, including years in their past. </Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>JOBS</Tag>
<Display>Reducing Unemployment</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Everyone is in favor of more jobs right? Rhetoric is powerful.||With a recovery slowly trudging along, unemployment has stayed stubbornly high.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>SCHOOLVOUCHERS</Tag>
<Display>School Vouchers</Display>
<Image>School</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_School_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The concept of school vouchers is provide a "voucher" that could be used to allow parents to change the school a child goes to. Thus, if a public school is "failing", the parent can move their child to a private school or better public school.||Opponents of school vouchers argue that such a system would be damaging to public schools. If a school is failing, then more funding could be used to aid that school. ||Supporters argue that parents should have a choice where to send their child and that poor and inner city children should not be trapped in failing schools.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>SOCIALSECU</Tag>
<Display>Social Security</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Social Security is a program in which the employer and the employee deduct a certain amount from their paycheck to put into a social security trust fund. Under normal circumstances, when a citizen reaches a certain age, they begin to receive social security payments.||The program is generally popular but opponents argue it is wasteful and oppressive. Forcing people to pay the government money to take care of them later violates a fundamental freedom according to them.||Supporters argue that social security has helped transform the United States from a country in which the elderly were the most likely to be impoverished to a country where the elderly are much better off.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">0</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="8">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="8">10</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="8">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="8">5</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="8">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="8">7</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>STATEUNION</Tag>
<Display>State Unions</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Conservatives see oversized influence of State Unions as one-way ticket to bankruptcy. Liberals view efforts to limit the role of unions as an assault on the livelihoods of the working class.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="47">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="47">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="47">10</Party_Importance>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ISRAEL</Tag>
<Display>Supporting Israel</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The nation of Israel is an ally of the United States. But many Americans do not like Israel's policies with regards to the Palestinians and resent American aid to that country.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="8">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="8">7</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="8">10</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="8">9</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="8">9</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="8">7</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Left" StateID="33">8</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Left" StateID="33">6</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Right" StateID="33">7</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Right" StateID="33">8</Party_Position>
<Party_Importance PartyID="Indy" StateID="33">6</Party_Importance>
<Party_Position PartyID="Indy" StateID="33">6</Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>TAXCUTS</Tag>
<Display>Tax Cuts</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>In the United States, the richest 1% pay a third of the taxes. The richest 5% pay two-thirds of the taxes. Economists are split as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.||Supporters of tax cuts argue that individuals are far better at making purchasing decisions than the federal government. Individuals care a lot more on how they spend their own money than a politician would.||Opponents of tax cuts point out that the federal government provides essential services for millions of people and does many jobs that the private sector either can't or won't do. The wealthiest make the most money and therefore pay the most in taxes.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ENVIRONMENT</Tag>
<Display>The Environment</Display>
<Image>Energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Everyone supports the environment but not everyone wants to see the government regulate what can and can't be built on private property.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>WARONTERROR</Tag>
<Display>The War on Terror</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The global war on terror is an attempt by the United States and its allies to seek out and destroy terrorist cells around the world. ||The war is not universally popular as many human rights groups are concerned about invasions of privacy and of unlawful detentions.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>TRADITIONALVALUES</Tag>
<Display>Traditional Values</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>There is a concern that traditional American culture is under assault. Traditional values versus secular humanism tends to be the primary focus point for the debate.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>VIDEOGAMEV</Tag>
<Display>Video Game Violence</Display>
<Image>gun</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Gun_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>There is anecdotal evidence that video game violence may be having a negative impact on our youth.||There have been calls for more laws to curtail what is and isn't allowed in video games. Others argue that it's a free speech issue and it is none of government's business.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>DIPLOMACY</Tag>
<Display>Greater Role for Diplomacy</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Greater Role for The State Department
The Bush Administration of 2001 to 2009 was often accused of being arrogant, blind, divided, ignorant, incompetent and uncoordinated when it came to managing American Foreign Policy.
Liberal Internationalists despaired over the contemptuous attitude conveyed by Bush Administration hawks such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton towards institutions such as the United Nations and the Atlantic Alliance. They were also angered by the Administration’s lack of coherence when it became increasingly clear that the Vice President’s office and the Rumsfeld Pentagon were actively undermining the influence of the State Department under Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, only to be checked in the aftermath of the Defense Secretary’s “resignation”.
Democrats and Realists amongst the Republicans charged the Bush Administration with overestimating the capabilities of American military power, specifically the use of American military power, to reshape the post 9/11 world. They point to the chaos of Iraq as an example of ideological hubris, poor diplomacy, bad planning and lack of intellectual curiosity.
Whilst the Realists want to restore the State Department to its role in managing alliances, concluding treaties, building coalitions and maintaining workable relations with adversaries, Democrats want to broaden the soft power of the United States. They believe the State Department should be empowered with the entire intellectual, cultural, technological and economic tools at its disposal so as to adapt American power to the 21st century. This would enable America to improve not only its relations amongst governments, but through working with NGOs on issues such as conflict reconciliation, education and women’s rights, actually boost positive impressions of America amongst citizens of different nations and make them receptive to American ideals. A State Department with more resources is also better able to deal with issues that require international cooperation such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change, pandemics, economic crises and opportunities, energy security, etc.
The most hawkish of Republicans, however, believe that the world’s and America’s interests, are ultimately better served through the development of, and deployment of military strength.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">12</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENT</Tag>
<Display>Infrastructure Investment</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>America's transport, energy, bandwidth and water infrastructure has declined in quality and effectiveness over the past decade or so due to lack of funds. Many commentators believe that America’s economic competitiveness could be strengthened and maintained only if there is a major overhaul. They point to China’s rapid airport modernization, France’s high speed trains and South Korea’s powerful internet connections as examples of America being left behind. Democrats and centrist Republicans endorse the idea of a national infrastructure development bank that would leverage $10bln of start-up capital to attract private investment on low interest loans. The plan pays for itself by generating infrastructure jobs, revenues from tolls and by ensuring the rapid communication of goods, services, people and ideas in a more dynamic economy. However, despite the fact the idea has been endorsed by business leaders, Tea Party Republicans say it’s a lot of pork barreled Big Government and that American infrastructure is fine. <Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">38</Default_Party_Importance> <Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">38</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">30</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">25</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>NUCLEARENERGY</Tag>
<Display>Nuclear Energy</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Nuclear Energy
Many physicists believe that nuclear energy should play a prominent role in the energy policy risk so as to combat climate change. A nuclear power plant emits basically zero emissions after it comes online, and a strong investment into it could shift America into a clean energy economy: whole cities could eventually be powered by it, as well as transport systems such as high speed trains and all electric plug-in cars. It could also act as a bridging fuel until renewable sources of energy are upgraded to a level that would power the whole economy.
National Security Hawks and Doves alike also see nuclear energy as a way of reducing American reliance on oil from unstable or unsavory regimes. Combined with sustained investments in energy efficiency, renewables, the new found abundance of natural gas, access to oil from allies such as Canada and Mexico, and the possibilities of clean coal technology, nuclear energy could be the make or break factor as to America becoming an energy independent superpower-economy. America would be in a stronger position in dealing with authoritarian states like Russia as a result.
Republicans wholeheartedly endorse the idea for energy security purposes, whilst Democrats and Independents are divided. The environmental community itself is divided. They point to accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima and to evidence that Al Qaeda considered crashing a plane into a power plant, and the many lapses in security that could allow terrorists of whatever stripe to get in and set off a nuclear disaster. They also fear proliferation. Moreover, what to do about the waste? Could it be recycled, and if it couldn’t, what state would be willing to store it? Nevada has the best surroundings but its citizens said no for the past 30 years.
Technology optimists such as Bill Gates believe that the right amount of government, academic, private sector research, environmental regulation and incentives could provide a solution to these problems by pointing the way to smaller, more efficient, safer, more secure, modular nuclear reactors and to innovative solutions to the waste. Strategists also believe that it could even be a solution for nuclear proliferation worries as it would provide a perfect outlet with which to dispose of old nuclear stockpiles from the Cold War.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">26</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-17</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">43</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">42</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">25</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-4</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>Simpson-BowlesPlan</Tag>
<Display>Simpson-Bowles Plan</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Simpson-Bowles Plan, named after the bipartisan chairmen of the deficit reduction commission, envisaged a grand bargain to restore America to fiscal health and economic growth. Both parties’ would have had to make sacrifices; The Democrats would have had to accept reforms of entitlements and some cuts to discretionary spending, whilst the Republicans would have had to accept that the tax rates for the wealthiest would have to return to Clinton era levels and that the Pentagon would have to slim down. Both parties would make good on pledges to reduce the scope by which members of Congress could slip in earmarks, for their constituencies. In the long run, tax rates would be lowered for almost everybody because the closing of various loopholes and the ending and or reduction of energy and farm subsidies would generate new revenues. Corporation taxes and income taxes could also be lowered in exchange for the imposition of various other levies.
so as to get the country on a path to growth so as to nullify any initial side effects.Independents and centrists from both parties loved it.Those further from the centerground disliked it.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">16</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">16</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>STARTUPTAXCUTS</Tag>
<Display>Start up Tax Cuts</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>America has long been the country of innovators and entrepreneurs,with the likes of Google and Apple emerging out of small ecentric projects.Tax cuts for innovators can create the jobs and technology needed to compete in a globalized economy.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">24</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">18</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">12</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">42</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">35</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>NATURALGASEXPLORATION</Tag>
<Display>Natural Gas Exploration</Display>
<Image>Energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Natural Gas Exploration
Americans used to believe that it would have to import natural gas in vast quantities, just like it was doing with oil. However, the combination of Energy Department and private sector funding has led to the innovative processes of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”: now trillions of cubic meters of gas reserves once deemed unrecoverable can be explored and utilized. The positive consequences could be profound. Firstly, natural gas is cleaner than coal and oil, so the expansion of natural gas power stations and the conversion of small trucks and large utility vessels to natural gas engines could lead to a sharp drop in CO2 emissions, acting as a bridge fuel to a renewable economy. Secondly, a smarter energy mix means that America would develop some immunity to the volatile oil price and also gain strategic strength in dealing with various authoritarian allies who currently sell it oil. Moreover, the gain in strategic strength would correspond with a strategic loss suffered by adversaries who either sell oil/gas or use price rises to benefit themselves during geopolitical tensions. Terrorist groups ranging from Hezbollah to Al Qaeda would also be negatively impacted. Thirdly, the abundance of cheap natural gas could fuel a new industrial revolution in America, as cheaper energy means certain manufacturing industries could bring jobs back home. Jobs would also be created in building the infrastructure and in selling some surplus quantities of the gas, narrowing the trade deficit with the rest of the world, especially China.
However, Democrats, Independents and the Environmental community are divided. People in states such as New York and Pennsylvania are worried that “fracking” for gas or shale oil, if done shoddily, could lead to higher CO2 emissions, destruction of countryside and wildlife areas, the contamination of water supplies and the potential for explosive accidents, as well as earthquakes. Strong regulations are needed to ensure that the cost/benefit analysis works as it should.Conservative Republicans say strong regulations will only keep the gas underground and that Palin’s cry of “Drill,Baby,Drill!” is the answer.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">13</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">13</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CONTAININGIRAN</Tag>
<Display>Containing Iran</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Containing Iran
The toughest hawks believe that a quick and decisive military strike is what is necessary to halt the Iranian nuclear program. Moderates and doves believe that regardless of whether a confrontation with Iran is inevitable, a combination of patient coalition building, harsh sanctions, diplomatic isolation and intelligence operations [including targeted assassinations and cyber warfare] could at least prevent Iran from achieving full nuclear weapons capability and entering the “zone of immunity” by which a strike by Israel, Israel with the US, the US alone, or an US led coalition would be difficult, if not impossible. The optimistic scenarios is, faced with a collapsing economy and growing public anger, the Iranian leadership might see sense and try to negotiate, that there may be a coup by more pragmatic forces within the regime, or that a Tehran Spring would arise to overthrow the combination of Iranian Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards, clerics and fundamentalist civilians in power.As Churchill said,"better jaw-jaw than war-war".</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">24</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">0</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">13</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">25</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>Corporation TaxCuts</Tag>
<Display>Corporation Tax Cuts</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Some Believe Cutting Corporation Taxes help buisness, and therefore help the economy. Others believe that cutting these taxes are a bad thing.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>THE NEW START WITH RUSSIA</Tag>
<Display>The New START With Russia</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Obama Administration came to power promising a reset in relations with Russia under Dmitry Medvedev. So far the results have been mixed; Russia has cooperated in tightening the sanctions against Iran’s military and its nuclear program and has concluded an update of the START Agreement to reduce the amount of strategically deployed nuclear warheads. Moreover, Russian support is also necessary to pressure North Korea, work against organized crime, terrorism, intellectual property rights. Aside from giving the US crucial support in removing the remnants of Gaddafi’s nuclear program, Medvedev, by abstaining at the UN, gave tacit backing to the Coalition working to oust him.
The Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle nuclear warheads and loose nuclear material throughout the former USSR stands to be updated if things go smoothly.
It is also believed that trade, diplomacy, joint educational, cultural and technological efforts would weaken the KGB holdovers and oligarchs who prefer a nationalist, authoritarian and corrupt government in Russia by strengthening the hand of any reformers. Even if that isn’t the case, a stable relationship is beneficial for security purposes
However, despite some moderate Republican support for the reset and the START, opponents argue that Putin is the real power in Russia, as emphasized by his return to the Presidency after a stint as Prime Minister. They point to his support for Assad’s Syria, his signals he may walk back on further Iranian sanctions, his consistent efforts to undermine East European states that were once Russia’s satellites, his bellicose rhetoric, his crackdown on freedoms and the blatant disregard for the rule of law. They also point to Putin’s thuggish treatment of the US Ambassador, the academic behind the reset, as well as the sour experience felt by foreign investors at the hands of corrupt officials.Human rights activists among the Democrats are also concerned.
Democrats and moderate Republicans argue that if the US overplays its hand, that will play straight into the hardliner’s hands for a more militaristic, authoritarian and confrontational policy.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FEDERALRESEARCHFUNDING</Tag>
<Display>Federal Research Funding</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Federal Research Funding
The US has a large network of national laboratories, programs and universities [public and private] that contributed to America’s position as the science and technology superpower of the 20th century. DARPA not only ensured that America remained strong militarily; its research eventually laid the groundwork for the Internet and an explosion of economic growth. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are also seen as growth engines that have a large role to play in enhancing the quality of life in the respects of fighting disease, energy insecurity and ecological crises.
Whilst Democrats, Independents and some Republicans believe that funding for these programs, in partnership with the private sector, must continue, Tea Partiers believe that the market should be solely responsible for deciding what areas of research should be supported, without any input from the government. Tax payers shouldn’t be called upon to fund research that may fail, or even if it succeeds, may not be directly applicable to them. The only area of research in which the Federal Government should play a role is in Defense and National Security. Moreover, Conservative Populists like Limbaugh accuse these institutions of having an elitist and sinister agenda that aims to dupe ordinary Americans.
Liberals say that the free market can’t be solely relied on to fund potentially long term breakthrough scientific discoveries because private sector firms eager for profits that generate gains for their shareholders may want to invest only in projects guaranteed to be completed quickly, leading to potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of net losses in benefits to society. An America that invests in expanding the knowledge base is far more likely to remain economically powerful than an America that doesn’t make an effort to utilize all of its resources in the New “New” Economy. For example, a society that could cure pediatric leukemia is one where there is less inequality of opportunity, more social justice, greater quality of life, happiness, and where the potential workforce is stronger and more energetic, as well as more innovative and economically dynamic. They also point to the fact that some energy exploration innovations that could unlock trillions of cubic meters of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil [fracking] was supported by research grants from the Energy Department.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">14</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">12</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">14</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>WORKING FAMILIES</Tag>
<Display>Working Families-American Dream Opportunities</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The middle class and lower income families have been struggling because of high inequalities in wealth, income and opportunity from 2001 onwards. Adjusted for inflation, the economic crisis, globalization, and the decline of unions and compared to the gains made by the wealthiest, their incomes have stagnated. The Obama Administration tried to redress the issue through repetitive tax cuts as part of the various stimulus packages. Liberals believe that progressive policies supporting tax credits expanded and reformed welfare benefits, universal health care, access to quality education, and a sound financial system are necessary to get the American Dream back on track.
Republicans believe that such initiatives corrode the ethics of rugged individualism, responsibility and enterprise in a free market economy. They also believe that prosperity is guaranteed by a low-tax, small government state.
Some Republicans even voted against tax cuts for the middle class because they wanted to pay for tax cuts for “job creators”, i.e the one percent. </Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>BRITAIN</Tag>
<Display>The Special Relationship</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Special Relationship
Since WWII, Britain has been America’s strongest and most reliable of allies. The two countries share the historical heritage of economic and constitutional liberalism as well as cultural and genealogical ties.
After Britain’s power decline, the US took on the role of the British Empire as the Great Power responsible for upholding the economically and institutionally liberal world order. The ideal is that the United States would safeguard the sea lanes, defend human rights and be willing to maintain the balance of power in favor of the rule of law and the free market by standing up against autocratic regimes, be they peaceful or aggressive.
The vast majority of American politicians and presidents claim to value the Relationship as much as for the symbolism as for the strategic value it offers.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>DODD-FRANK</Tag>
<Display>Repeal Dodd Frank</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Repealing Dodd-Frank
The Dodd-Frank bill was meant to address the many financial regulation shortcomings that led to the crises that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Whilst some aspects of the law are broadly popular amongst liberals and moderates, specifically the transparency in high risk trades, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and mortgage refinancing provisions, many conservatives and even some centrists take issue with the size and scope of it. It is believed that the web of complexity could stifle growth, put too many regulations on community banks and allow the investment-commercial banks to game the system through loopholes which they will surely discover. Moreover, people across the spectrum believe that it will not end “too big to fail” and the so-called winding down provisions would be ignored should another big financial firm get into trouble.
Republican business leaders say that it would undermine American competitiveness as a financial center.
Liberals such as Warren Buffet point out that the costs of not having any strong regulations at all fall on the world economy and American middle class families. A situation that leaves the ground open for perennial financial crises will eventually lead to lost growth due to uncertainty. Moreover, the financial derivatives trading sector could be argued as a misallocation of resources, hence a market failure even before the crash as the talent and funds involved could have been contributing to more sustainable and potentially more dynamic growth engines, such as the innovation economy.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-18</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">22</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>PRICE-TAXONCARBON</Tag>
<Display>Price/Tax on Carbon</Display>
<Image>Energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Carbon Tax or Cap, Trade and Dividend
Many economists, climate scientists and clean energy investors believe the only way Americans will make a credible shift to low or zero carbon technologies and living patterns is by putting a price on emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The general idea is that consumers of energy be they households or businesses will switch to goods, services, energy sources and production processes that are of green technology origin, on the grounds that they will be cheaper than fossil fuels. Moreover, established firms and entrepreneurs would respond to the market signal by increasing the quantity and quality of greener products, whether it is by manufacturing energy efficient consumer electronics, converting coal burning power plants to clean coal processes or natural gas turbines, lighter materials for cars, smart grid technologies, etc. This economic activity would be spurred on through the cap and trade program; the government will issue a certain number of carbon emission per ton permits to industry and then declare an auction on the rest of the annually fixed amount, thereby restricting supply and setting a price. Corporations that actually need more permits to pollute will be forced to either buy at a higher price from the government, or turn to green businesses that wish to sell permits so that they have more funds to plough back into their enterprises.
The carbon tax will offset any funds granted in tax credits.
Many conservatives object the above programs and refuse to pass it in Congress for various reasons. One, they doubt climate change is taking place and that it is man-made. Two, they believe such programs are just an over-extension of the federal government into the states and into the economic lives of America’s households and firms. Inevitably, they will raise utility bills for American families, contribute to inflation by reducing the available supply of fossil fuels, and lead to job losses as fossil fuel based industries will struggle and manufacturers may move their operations to countries that don’t have such regulations. Thirdly, even if climate change is real, it is too late and efforts should be focused on adaptation.
Liberals, independents and moderate conservatives counter that the job losses will be far outweighed by the job gains in what could be new industries that would create hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of global economic growth. Furthermore the job losses and massive losses of quality of life in the event of catastrophic climate change could be massive. Sometimes regulations even create jobs in the same industries-you need engineers and scientists who can develop clean coal technologies that work and you need skilled manufacturing workers who can construct batteries for all electric vehicles. Moreover, the threat to national security from oil producing states acts as an economic drag.
American tax payers could actually benefit in that households, depending on income could get rebates that more than offset the higher energy bills in the form of dividends and corporate, income and payroll taxes could be eventually lowered.
John McCain once worked on such a bill with Lieberman which was defeated, as was the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill when Graham defected.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ASIA-PACIFIC</Tag>
<Display>Relations with Chian:Asia-Pacific Pivot.</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Relations with Chian:Asia-Pacific Pivot
China is the rising Great Power of the 21st century and could stand to challenge America for its leadership role. It has been vastly expanding its navy and air-force capabilities so that it could prevent the US from exercising strategic power within what China sees as its historical sphere of influence in the Pacific region, particularly in Taiwan, and waters and sea lanes that are not only crucial for world trade, but may be hydrocarbon rich. This increases tensions with South Korea, Japan, and the ASEAN countries.
Obama announced a pivot to Asia in diplomatic and defense resources because he believes that, whilst America should not try to contain or stop China’s economic and political rise, she has a responsibility to ensure that China realizes that any overtly aggressive and hegemonic ambitions over Asia would be checked. America’s allies ranging from ROK, Japan, Taiwan, India and The Philippines as, well as old foes like Vietnam and Burma, need to be reassured that their interests would be protected. The rest of the world also has an interest in a strong American presence to ensure that the global economy, whose new center of growth will be Asia-Pacific, isn’t undermined by military tensions.
Meanwhile, amicable relations with China must continue. By exposing China to liberal international and institutional norms, it is hoped that the dragon will eventually evolve into a genuinely free society with economic and political liberties guaranteed. Even if this premise doesn’t bear fruit for a long time, if at all, it is believed that a China that is fully engaged in multilateral world order and economically interdependent with the US won’t act to pull the system down. America also needs Chinese cooperation on intellectual property rights, the global financial system, climate change and energy, and security issues such as the nuclear armed and unstable North Koreans. The North Korean state may collapse sooner or later and America, China, South Korea and Japan will have to coordinate their actions to prevent nuclear, civil war, failed state, humanitarian and economic catastrophes.
Finally, trade relations shouldn’t be viewed as a zero-sum game in which China wins by producing goods with contractors of American and other Western multinationals. Whilst there is a trade deficit in China’s favor, a lot of the goods are American designed, such as Ipads, Nikes and some General Motors vehicles, the profits for actually innovating, designing and marketing the goods still flow to America. The trade balance stands to be further corrected in America’s favor because a Chinese economy and society that is assisted in its development stands to demand high end American goods and services, whether it is buying Apple and Hewlett Packard products, Boeing airplanes, agricultural, energy, mining and industry related machinery, legal and financial services, and the work of American engineers and other professionals such as venture capitalists, consultants and architects. America’s college and university system also stands to gain, as do American workers whose jobs will be created due to changes in America’s favor, such as rising labor and bureaucratic costs in China, and new energy discoveries.
However, relations with China are not especially popular with the voting public. Democrats and unions fear lost jobs, human rights violations [especially on workers, hence the low cost of production] and sloppy environmental standards while Republicans wish to take a stronger military stance as they see a potential threat. It doesn’t help matters that China has a history of uncompetitive and uncooperative trade relations and that some Chinese nationalists love to stymie the US in key areas of strategic interests and that its government, by promoting the China model of development, implicitly promotes authoritarianism in developing countries.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>IMMIGRATIONREFORMDREAM</Tag>
<Display>IMMIGRATIONREFORMDREAM</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Comprehensive Immigration Reform-DREAM Act
The immigration system is broken. There are at least 11 million undocumented persons in the US. A vast proportion of them can’t be held morally responsible for being here illegally because they were brought to the country as children.
The concerned individuals and their families have gone on to build lives, social fabrics and could stand to contribute to the country’s well-being by being hard working and enterprising pillars of society.
Many organizations such as the Catholic Church, human rights and community support groups, schools and colleges, and business leaders say there is a great cost to tossing out people who consider themselves Americans and are generally law-abiding. They see it as a social justice as well as an economic issue, particularly in the event of several immigrant born teenagers being arbitrarily deported when they have won scholarships. They also oppose ripping apart families and friendships. Moreover, a society that tries to integrate law abiding individuals who are undocumented is better able to apply effective law enforcement.
Democrats and some Republicans also believe that they should be allowed to stay if they wish to serve the country they call home by joining the military.
Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of highly educated and skilled foreigners who are seeking visas to the US, some of whom even graduated from top US universities. However, they are refused permission to come, thereby putting America at a competitive disadvantage as other countries, including their own, are more than willing to benefit from their growth potential.
Many American start-ups and technology companies count immigrants as their founders. Furthermore, trade is advanced globally through the presence of talented foreign nationals in the US.
Americans across the political spectrum agree that this situation must be fixed. The border issue and the fear of crime, as well as xenophobes from the right, complicate matters. Conservatives of the more right wing variety feel that immigrants can’t adapt to American values. Blue collar workers also object to competition for their jobs.
There have been attempts to fix this problem. Ted Kennedy of the Democrats and John McCain of the Republicans crafted a bill that would have incorporated the DREAM ACT, guaranteed a modified form of amnesty with some penalties and opened the way for foreign students who do well in American universities to stay in America and create jobs. George W Bush lent his support.
The bill was killed by a rebellion in the House encouraged by Rush Limbaugh. The DREAM ACT also was stalled during Obama’s term for the same reason. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans feel they can’t vote for reform until they get stronger concessions from liberals such as enhanced deportations and airtight border security. Some have even regressed because they fear being primaried.
The post 9/11 xenophobia hardly helps matters and the lack of politicians willing to defend globalization is also a factor.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FIXWALLSTREETREFORM</Tag>
<Display>Fixing Wall Street Reform</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Fix Wall Street Reform
Some Liberals and moderates who supported the Dodd-Frank Act are growing aware that the Act may pose problems due to its complexity. However, they believe that the act could be fixed in a more market oriented, corporate governance sort of way as advocated by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera and economist Karen Petrou, such as bonuses and salaries of top executives directly tied to performance and risk-based bonds. “Top bank executives and senior management should be paid in bonds as well as stocks — and in the same percentage as the bank’s risk profile. Thus, as she envisions it, a bank that had a dollar of debt for every dollar of equity would pay its chief executive half in debt and half in stock. But if the bank was accumulating, say, $30 of debt for every $1 of equity, the executive’s pay would also be skewed 30 to 1 in favor of debt. One would be hard pressed to imagine a more surefire way to focus a banker’s mind on making sure the bank could pay back that debt.”</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">12</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
</XMLBody>
