got the regular issues back.
here are the issues I want to add.
what am I doing wrong? How to download these without knocking everything out?
</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>
<Tag>CorporationTaxCuts</Tag>
<Display>Corporation Tax Cuts</Display>
<Image>Economy</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">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</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">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">42</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">35</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENT</Tag>
<Display>Infrastructure Investment</Display>
<Image>Economy</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>SimpsonBowlesPlan</Tag>
<Display>SimpsonBowlesPlan</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">26</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">15</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">17</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">96</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">56</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
