TeddyJosiah

Join Date 11/2009

Forum to share issue mods-Everybody contribute!

<Issue>
<Tag>CLEAN COAL TECH</Tag>
<Display>Clean Coal Technology</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Clean Coal Technology
Many Republicans and moderate Democrats [particularly if they are Blue Dog or coal state Democrats] endorse clean coal technology as a solution to getting carbon emissions down, energy dependence and the need for cleaner air. The theory goes that carbon capture and storage processes can mitigate the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions and smog pollution while allowing America to continue using [arguably] its most abundant energy resource, whilst maintaining jobs and even creating new ones through the deploying and foreign trading of the clean coal technologies to other countries.
Liberal Democrats aren’t convinced. Firstly, they point out that clean CCS processes haven’t been perfected and that there could be problems implementing it. Secondly, it is more fossil fuel use, is highly pollutant when dug up from mines, and doesn’t help break the national addiction. Thirdly, they point out that even the coal-based utility companies are not great fans of the technology because they are reluctant to spend money to invest in it, and they will see it as merely an extra cost they would rather not have. Moreover, some carbon-capture storage companies may threaten other vested interests in that they could use the captured gases to manufacture cement, greening another carbon-intensive industry, much to the chagrin of that lobby.
Aside from the vested interests, Republicans also pose a problem. Some conservative Republicans are climate change deniers, and therefore, say there is no need to invest in such processes, making coal more expensive and thereby leading to lost utility jobs and higher bills for consumers. Other Republicans, while they believe in climate change caused by man, are reluctant to endorse measures such as cap and trade and the carbon tax meant to encourage the energy market to adopt such technologies, preferring the idea that the free market would sort the problem out. </Description>
The emergence of vast reserves of natural gas also poses a problem. While it is a good idea to use a combined strategy of natural gas, energy conservation, ethanol, nuclear, renewables, oil, more research in game changers like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion, and clean coal, many say it is cheaper, cleaner and faster to convert turbines in coal fired power stations to natural gas burners than to invest in an unproven technology.|

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>GLOBALIZATION</Tag>
<Display>Globalization and The iEconomy</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Globalization and The New iEconomy.
The 21st century global economy is dramatically different from that of the mid-20th. In the words of the NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, the world has become “flat” in that the movement of goods, services, people, capital and ideas is both faster and more efficient than ever before. At the same time, the development and rapid economic growth of emerging markets such as that of China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe and continuing technological gains have contributed to increased commerce, the middle class in many established economic powers, especially the US, have seen declines in income and wage growth as their jobs are undermined or at risk of being replaced or outsourced/offshored. The sense of American decline, terrorism, environmental degradation and the growth of immigration add further to the unease felt by Americans across the political spectrum regarding this topic. Liberals feel pressured to adopt protectionist rhetoric whilst Conservatives sometimes adopt nationalist and in some cases, isol ationist rhetoric. Ross Perot, a noted independent, for one, called NAFTA “a giant sucking sound” in which American jobs would disappear into.The growing elderly population means that Americans worry how the US economy could cope in this new age.
However, there is hope that the right mix of bipartisan policies and political courage would not only increase the enthusiasm for globalization amongst the voters, but ensure that America can maintain its edge as a dynamic economic superpower. Overhauling entitlements, defense spending, and making government more responsive and efficient frees up funds and human resources that could go into investing in infrastructure and helping the American workforce adapt. A more sensible tax code would cut bureaucratic wrangling on all sides and allow the US Federal Government to collect and distribute more effectively and equitably, and encourage American households, businesses and entrepreneurs to invest. A strong commitment to adequate reform of elementary and secondary education, along with support for higher education and community college, as well as anti-poverty and worker retraining programs, will ensure that the workforce possess the right combination of knowledge, innovative, entrepreneurial, technical and analytical skills to succeed in a changing environment. Measures to help communities adjust to some of the negative effects of creative destruction such as plant closures and job offshoring could provide resilience. Further reform of healthcare, adding in cost control measures [fee for outcome instead of fee for service] will further improve dynamism, as well as a smart energy policy. Keeping America open to immigrants and foreign talent will keep the workforce flexible and continue America’s comparative advantage. Trade agreements, if properly negotiated and enforced, and backed up with these policies, could provide Americans with better paying jobs.</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ISOLATIONISM</Tag>
<Display>Isolationism</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>

America has always had a strong tradition of isolationism in how it engages with the rest of the world, particularly in the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. However, isolationism officially ended upon the coming of WWII and FDR’s alliance with Churchill and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This isolationism was itself politically isolated in the aftermath of WWII when Democrat Truman and Republican Eisenhower worked to ensure that America would be in a strong position to uphold the position of that of herself and her allies to check the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War saw a minor resurgence, with Buchanan and other right wing populists arguing it is of no interest to America what takes place in other parts of the world.
This resurgence was itself left isolated by the advent of 9/11, when it became clear that America’s national security is indeed impacted by the workings of other countries present states and their pasts.
However, the botched handling of the Afghan War, the excesses of the War on Terror, the misjudged invasion of Iraq and the contribution of it all to America’s fiscal crisis has led to renewed calls for isolationism.
Some liberal Democrats, although they are instinctively not isolationists, see American foreign policy, particularly its use of military force and the perceived arrogance and insensitivity it implies, as a major source of the country’s problems as it encourages accusations of imperialism and hegemonic ambitions. Traditionalist conservative Republicans like Buchanan re-iterate that the world’s problems are not America’s and that only threats come from engagement, while Libertarian Conservative Republicans like Ron Paul, as well as claiming that isolationism is the way to re-claim national sovereignty, also endorse the Democratic arguments and further enhance it by saying, that by getting involved in costly problems abroad, it infringes upon individual American liberties at home.
Buchananites, Donald Trump and independents like Perot, and populist rustbelt state Democrats also express economic isolationism in varying degrees, when they condemn free trade and outsourcing.
However, it is unlikely that the isolationists can overwhelm the realists-pragmatists, liberal internationalists, humanitarian interventionists, and neoconservatives, who despite their differences, agree that isolationism is a threat to national security. Whichever route is best, however, can’t be agreed upon, possibly strengthening the isolationist cause.</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">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>COIN</Tag>
<Display>Counterinsurgency</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description> Counterinsurgency is a method of warfare that has been developed to deal with wars fought in less developed countries against asymmetric opponents, i.e. insurgents or guerillas. The doctrine’s origins can be traced to studies by military leaders and political science scholars that took place in the aftermath of the lost war in Vietnam, and various campaigns [successful and unsuccessful] waged by the British during the dying days of empire, as well as the US occupation of the Philippines.
The theory states that to win wars in countries and regions that lack a strong central authority, such as failed states in the middle of a civil war, the occupying power should not just be focused on fighting the enemy in the military spheres, but also in the social-economic and political spheres. If the general population experiences tangible improvements in areas such as economic growth, the rule of law, security, human rights, and the provision of services such as education and health, then, they will recognize their leaders as legitimate actors deserving of their support, and, will therefore endorse American backing of these leaders [in the form of a temporary occupation] until the concerned country can stand on its own two feet.
Eventually, so the theory goes, the insurgents fighting the new government and the US and Allied forces will become demoralized, divided and weaker, as not only more of their attacks will be thwarted by effective indigenous fighting forces, but the people will demonstrate their opposition to the guerillas by openly acknowledging that they are safer under the new US backed leadership and by cooperating with it. Insurgent groups then stand a risk of breaking up, as more ‘moderate’ elements seek political reconciliation and lower ranked fighters who are involved purely because of economic needs defect because they are confident that they will be protected from reprisals.
The gradually growing isolation faced by the insurgency leaders will in the end lead to their defeat as the new state is able to command the mobilization of expanding resources in population support, political stability, economic development, improved military proficiency and law and order delivery.
Counterinsurgency today is often seen as an extension of the theory of state-building, in that both center on creating institutions that have the authority to act within a territory.
For counterinsurgency to succeed, America and her allies, such as Britain need a lot of resources at their disposal. Good intelligence, knowledge of the local languages, history and culture, academic and technocratic expertise, excellent communication between diplomats and soldiers, and the willingness to spend a lot of time, money and lives to achieve this goal in the long term. Moreover, training of the host nation’s security forces is vital so that eventually, they could sustain the counterinsurgency campaign on their own.
"Political, social, and economic programs are usually more valuable than conventional military operations in address the root causes of the conflict and undermining the insurgency." As quoted in the Counterinsurgency field manual by David H Petraeus.
However, counterinsurgency operations may very well be unwinnable in certain, if not ultimately all circumstances. The Bush Administration, [like administrations dealing with Vietnam] failed to apply effective counterinsurgency strategies until well into the Iraq War and counterinsurgency was only seriously tried in the Afghan theatre under Obama. However, the sheer length of the conflicts and the human and economic toll have been hugely damaging to American power and prestige. Many liberals, as in Vietnam believe that the trust of the host nation’s peoples has long evaporated and that a lighter footprint is needed, alongside a speedier withdrawal. NGO’s could take over the humanitarian aspects. More resources could therefore be focused on intelligence, military training and counterterror operations. Moreover, both liberal Democrats and foreign policy realists among the Republicans believe that the Afghan government is not a reliable partner in that it tolerates corrupt officials and warlords in its ranks and is headed by a weak leader in Hamid Karzai. Without the support of a credible government ready to take full responsibility, counterinsurgency operations are doomed to fail and only further damage America’s reputation.
Obama has partially shifted to a counterterror approach since he announced the timetable for Afghan withdrawal.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>USEDUCATION</Tag>
<Display>Transforming America's Schools</Display>
<Image>School</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_School_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Reviving US Education
The US has struggled in recent years to maintain a leadership role in the opportunities available to its children and teenagers through educational achievement. Consistent international standardized test scores show that the mathematical, scientific and literacy and literary skills amongst American youngsters are slipping relative to their peers in other countries. College and university attendance is also slipping as a result. Aside from the fact that this prolongs the existence of poverty, it makes the American workforce uncompetitive in the long run, especially given the fact that other countries, particularly China are making major investments. That means that America will slip behind in the jobs and the innovation race.
There are obvious reforms that could fix the problem. First, a renewed focus on early childhood intervention, parental counseling, healthcare and education, coupled with sustained funding could better prepare children for elementary and, eventually secondary school in that it would boost cognitive development. Second, there has to be recognition in both parties that the inequitable funding system is a problem. Schools in prosperous, upper middle to high income neighborhoods [largely white] are bound to have an advantage in that they have more resources than schools located in places of high poverty and high unemployment, because of property tax revenue. Schools that have been in bad situations like this for decades are harder to rescue due to an atmosphere of hopelessness and neglect. Therefore more funding would help. Thirdly, teachers’ unions pose a problem in that their tenure system and their collective bargaining mean that new teachers, with new ideas that can actually help students, backed by new leaders, are often stymied. Reforms would have to address the inability to remove ineffective or bad teachers and to reward exceptionally gifted teachers through merit pay, leading to greater prestige for the profession and the attraction of university graduates of the highest caliber to the profession. Fourth, the voluntary and private sector could play a role, in that failing schools could be taken over or replaced with charter schools operated by charities and social enterprises. Even universities, both private and public, like Stanford and Berkeley, as well as established private and public schools like Boston Latin and Bronx Science could play positive roles in guidance. Corporations that have an interest in sustaining and advancing an innovative and entrepreneurial society could be encouraged. Fifth, parents and students should have greater choice, whether through limited use of vouchers or through the ability of students to attend schools away from their deprived areas. Finally, the right balance between integrating technology, pediatric neuroscience and psychology, new methods of teaching and learning and evaluating students’ needs to be found, with the understanding that experimentation could lead to results.
The problems are many: Conservatives and states’ rights advocates say that it is entrusting too much power to the federal government. Many Republicans also want to concentrate on vouchers. Teachers and their unions often feel vilified unfairly and underappreciated by reformers from both parties and could wreak havoc with Democratic Party politics. New and eager teachers could easily get demoralized by the conflicts. For all of the talk of experimentation, there is always the risk that experiments fail, wasting valuable time and money, whilst the answer-more government guidance- could limit flexibility and end up penalizing schools that don’t make up ground quickly. Also, the lack of interaction between the different Americas’ [affluent regarding middle class regarding poor and whites regarding minorities] mean that people may resent having to pay taxes to fix other people’s problems.</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>HUMANITARIANINTERV</Tag>
<Display>Humanitarian Intervention</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Humanitarian Intervention
The doctrine of the right to protect [R2P] states that as members of the international community, it is the duty of countries to intervene diplomatically, and often, militarily in the sovereignty of other states so as to halt ongoing crimes against humanity, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, for America and her allies to be seen as credible in this policy, they must be prepared to act consistently, and to be prepared for open-ended commitments, especially in the aftermath. While America has had some successes, such as the operation to stop Gaddafi from massacring Benghazi, the forcing of the Sudanese belligerents to peace talks to end their civil war, and interventions in the Balkans, there have been more than a few failures dating from WWI onwards. Prominent examples of have been the American response [a rapid rush for the exits] in the aftermath of the failed operation to capture a warlord in Somalia, the initial reluctance to get involved in the Balkans [by which time many have died], the genocide in Rwanda and the on again, off again Sudanese conflicts in that country’s borderlands. The earliest failures are said to be the failure to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz and the initially slow relief efforts for the Greek and Armenian inhabitants during the genocide perpetrated by the Young Turks. Other failures involve the lack of protection offered to Kurds and Shiites in Saddam’s Iraq while the Syrian and Lebanese conflicts are prominent examples.
The reasons why American leaders, even those who are strongly idealist and liberal in outlook, are reluctant to engage in such conflicts are many: Cases involving a civil war and atrocities are rarely clear cut. Although governments such as those of Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir and Assad’s Syria are clear perpetrators in that they seek to encourage sectarian conflict, many in the opposition could be just as vicious and as dismissive of human rights, if given the opportunity. Among the persecuted peoples, there is often a myriad of rebel groups, making it unclear as to who the international community would be empowering should it intervene to stop a conflict.
There is always the inherent risk of double standards.
Moreover, American voters may not approve of such operations, especially in the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, because of war weariness. This is especially true, as pointed out by realist policy makers, if there isn’t a clearly discernible interest to US national security or to that of its allies.
If there isn’t a clearly discernible national security interest, then, so realists argue, there is a risk that America will be distracted from actual strategic threats.
Aside from the risks of open-ended conflicts, there is a risk that America’s rivals would use such operations as an opportunity to bog America down in quagmires and inflict damage. The evidence of this lies in the aftermath of America’s intervention in Lebanon under Reagan, where Iran [and possibly Syria] possibly sponsored the Hezbollah militia in its bombing of the US Embassy and Marine barracks, leading to hundreds of lives lost amongst diplomatic and military personnel. Other examples where external actors took advantage of foreign wars to bleed America white include the occupation of Iraq [links between Shiite militias and the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis] and the War in Afghanistan [members of the Pakistani secret services arming the Taliban].
Moreover, good intentions could be construed and manipulated by America-skeptics and anti-Americans as “imperialism”, serving to sow discord at home [amongst pro and anti-war groups] and fear and hatred of America abroad. The lack of cooperation with veto-wielding Security Council Members such as Russia and China mean that quite often, although interventions may be morally right, paradoxically, they are illegal for violating the sovereignty of another country without UN blessing. This leaves American leaders open to charges of war crimes themselves in the event of collateral damage. At the same time, geopolitical competitors are always eager to take advantage of anything that could sap American diplomatic credibility.
Yet, despite all of the arguments, American leaders often like to think that America must practice American exceptionalism in defending her core values of freedom, particularly the freedom from fear. Neglecting to uphold freedom from fear and the rule of law on the world stage would be going against America’s responsibilities-and interests- in maintaining international security as the world’s leading power.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
</XMLBody>

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

<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

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>

Successfully updated karma reason!

<Issue>
<Tag>BUFFETRULE</Tag>
<Display>The Buffet Rule</Display>
<Image>ECONOMY</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Named after Warren Buffet, the rule is basically a rule combined with a slogan, calling for more progressive taxation so that the middle class could benefit, versus millionaires and billionaires who could take advantage of loopholes.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</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>EASTERNEUROPE</Tag>
<Display>Supporting Poland and CE Europe</Display>
<Image>WAR</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Hawks argue that Obama has ignored Eastern European allies such as Poland in favor of resetting relations with Russia. Democrats retort that maintaining workable relations with Russia is more likely to lead a more secure Poland and Eastern and Central Europe. The main issue comes down to the missile defense shield meant to deter Iran. Obama wants to scale back the Eastern European Missile Defense Shield to a more workable model that would also placate Russian concerns and national pride that is really aimed at neutralizing Russia’s nuclear missile capability. Although some compromise has been reached, to the satisfaction of Poland and others, the fact that Putin is now back in charge raises questions as to whether Obama may abandon the shield altogether. Although Poland recognizes [as any sensible person can] that the shield is no way strong enough to stop Russia’s nuclear arsenal, they see it as a symbol of America’s commitment to Eastern Europe and of Poland’s importance as a valuable ally.
There are also concerns that America isn’t ready to support countries trying to get out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and into democratic transitions, and that America won’t stand up against Russian bullying against new NATO and EU members like Poland and the Baltic states.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</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">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>

Successfully updated karma reason!

<?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 each other. 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>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>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>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>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">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">9</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">10</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">10</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">6</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">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</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, or that tax cuts should be part of a quid-proquo- that businesses commit to investing their savings.</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>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.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">18</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">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</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 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>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>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">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">13</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">12</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</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>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>

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>IMMIGRATIONREFORMDREAM</Tag>
<Display>Dream Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Comprehensive Immigration Reform-DREAM Act

</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>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>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>WARONPOVERTY</Tag>
<Display>The War on Poverty</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The War on Poverty|From the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt onwards, progressives and social liberals from both parties proposed a variety of measures meant to tackle the prevalence of poverty in America, with Lyndon Baines Johnson explicitly calling for a war on poverty. Aside from opposition to the Vietnam War, it was the cause of Bobby Kennedy in his fated 1968 campaign. However, it could be argued that the various New Deal, Square Deal, New Frontier and Great Society programs of liberalism have failed, in that they contributed to the development of an “entitlement society”, “welfare fraud”, and a “dependency culture,” according to many classically liberal conservatives. Whilst some admit these programs are well-meaning, they claim that it undermines the individualist work ethic, racks up American deficits and debt and sometimes contributes to inflation.
Some conservatives go so far as to say that hard-working middle and upper class Americans shouldn’t have to pay taxes for scroungers and that, by involving the Federal Government involved in the affairs of the states and people’s lives, liberty is undermined.
Some neo-liberals in the Bill Clinton mold admit that there should be more assertive efforts to move poor people, particularly single mothers, into the workforce so as to break the poverty trap.
However, progressives and liberals say the War on Poverty has failed because it needed broader and more in depth coordination and more funds. Moreover, the welfare reform of the 90’s could be seen as contributing to the problem experienced by low income families in that it pushes them into work that is unsatisfying and low paid. The termination or drastic reduction of benefits could also hurt families. For a war on poverty to be successful, a massive new effort is needed focusing on job creation, effective law enforcement, family counseling and support, early childhood development , access to high quality and nutritious food and investments in education and healthcare.
Other ideas that have attracted the support across the political spectrum have been education reform, housing vouchers and Special Enterprise Zones, in which businesses are encouraged to invest in deprived areas. The latter idea was championed by RFK before his death, and was later adopted by conservative icon Jack Kemp.
Moreover, the focused and strong attention paid to tackling extreme poverty amongst all groups, regardless of race, benefits the economy as a whole, because increased incomes for the poor lead to higher growth and opportunities to expand the middle class. Other benefits include reduced crime.</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</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">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FEDERALGOVERNMENT</Tag>
<Display>The Federal Government</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Federal Government
The debate about the role of the Federal Government has existed since the founding of the United States and the Constitution. Conservatives argue that the Constitution was established so as to check the Federal Government’s power by ceding sovereignty over most issues to the states. Liberals argue that this isn’t the case and the Constitution was drafted so as to improve on the Articles of Confederation- which ceded too much power to the states- and provide a framework for the Union to function more efficiently by pooling sovereignty. The Federal Government derives power from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to levy taxation, regulate commerce, provide for a national defense, pooling of finances to fund services and defend individual rights. It also derives the power to intervene when it feels it can better uphold the common welfare of the people.
The Tea Party claims that the Founders wanted the maximum possible freedom for the States and the people. However, evidence points to founders such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton that wanted a strong government that can protect liberty from itself. Moreover, even staunch state rights advocates like Thomas Jefferson modified their views once in office. They also point out to how Andrew Jackson [ironically a Democrat like Jefferson] contributed to an early 19th century Great Depression with his populist abolition of the National Bank [an early Federal Reserve].
The Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian debate will go on.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</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">-5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CLEAN COAL TECH</Tag>
<Display>Clean Coal Technology</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Clean Coal Technology
Many Republicans and moderate Democrats [particularly if they are Blue Dog or coal state Democrats] endorse clean coal technology as a solution to getting carbon emissions down, energy dependence and the need for cleaner air. The theory goes that carbon capture and storage processes can mitigate the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions and smog pollution while allowing America to continue using [arguably] its most abundant energy resource, whilst maintaining jobs and even creating new ones through the deploying and foreign trading of the clean coal technologies to other countries.
Liberal Democrats aren’t convinced. Firstly, they point out that clean CCS processes haven’t been perfected and that there could be problems implementing it. Secondly, it is more fossil fuel use, is highly pollutant when dug up from mines, and doesn’t help break the national addiction. Thirdly, they point out that even the coal-based utility companies are not great fans of the technology because they are reluctant to spend money to invest in it, and they will see it as merely an extra cost they would rather not have. Moreover, some carbon-capture storage companies may threaten other vested interests in that they could use the captured gases to manufacture cement, greening another carbon-intensive industry, much to the chagrin of that lobby.
Aside from the vested interests, Republicans also pose a problem. Some conservative Republicans are climate change deniers, and therefore, say there is no need to invest in such processes, making coal more expensive and thereby leading to lost utility jobs and higher bills for consumers. Other Republicans, while they believe in climate change caused by man, are reluctant to endorse measures such as cap and trade and the carbon tax meant to encourage the energy market to adopt such technologies, preferring the idea that the free market would sort the problem out. </Description>
The emergence of vast reserves of natural gas also poses a problem. While it is a good idea to use a combined strategy of natural gas, energy conservation, ethanol, nuclear, renewables, oil, more research in game changers like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion, and clean coal, many say it is cheaper, cleaner and faster to convert turbines in coal fired power stations to natural gas burners than to invest in an unproven technology.|

</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</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">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>AMERICAEXCEP</Tag>
<Display>American Execeptionalism</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>American Exceptionalism
It is argued that America is a truly unique nation destined to be a model of freedom to the rest of the world and that its contribution to human history was for the greater good.
While Democrats don’t dispute the notion of American sacrifice during WWII and its effort to win the Cold War, as well as the unique status as one of the founders of modern constitutional democracy and of a free market society, they argue that too much proclaiming of American exceptionalism is grating on America’s allies and foes alike. The US has the issues of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans in its history and wasn’t above imperial expansion in the Americas and the Pacific. Also, there are ways that America’s uniqueness isn’t something to be widely admired, such as its higher than average social-economic inequality for a developed country, the corrupting influence of money on politics and so on and so forth. They also take note of failing to acknowledge the histories of other countries ranging from Britain to China .
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</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">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>REFORMLAW</Tag>
<Display>Overhauling Law Enforcement</Display>
<Image>gun</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Gun_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Reforming Law Enforcement
The War on Drugs, “the various three strikes and you are out laws”, Arizona style crackdowns on illegal immigrants as well as other overly zealous tough on crime legislation, such as sex crime laws that inadvertently snare teenagers engaged in consensual relations, has led to a massive problem in America’s criminal system. Many people, particularly young minority men, teenage runaways forced into prostitution, drug addicts who are forced to deal, are trapped in that their crimes are relatively minor [such as dealing crack cocaine] or are rooted in adverse circumstances, rather than a desire to gain by breaking the law. Long prison terms, zealous prosecutors, lawmakers and judges and overworked defending lawyers end up leading to a situation where the prison system is serving no one but the prison guards’ lobby and the prison industrial complex. Inmates exposed to dangerous and unhealthy, as well as overcrowded prisons aren’t reformed and re-habilitated, but end up coming out hardened criminals without any clear path to take that would change their lives, and that of the wider community, for the better. The result is that those convicted and punished harshly for minor crimes will inevitably commit more extreme crimes. Furthermore, it leads to the situation where state and federal law enforcement both end up concentrating too much time and money dealing with minor offenders rather than going after the major criminals, like human and drug traffickers, pedophiles, and closing unsolved murders. Also, by threatening to convict, rather than rehabilitate teenage prostitutes and drug addicts, and by painting all inner city gang members with the same brush, it guarantees that these people will be afraid to go to the authorities for help and to provide information on the criminals who control them.
It also carries a massive economic and social cost in that a more efficient and more just system would save money.
However, any politician talking about reforming law enforcement could be accused of being soft on crime.

</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">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>RYANPLAN</Tag>
<Display>The Ryan Plan</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Congressman Paul Ryan put forward numerous budget proposals earning him the title of a classical economic conservative policy wonk. Calling it a road map for prosperity, he outlines various proposals including turning Medicare into a voucher program [in which seniors could purchase health insurance from either Medicare or competing plans], transforming Medicaid into block grants for the states to use as they see fit, and possibly privatizing social security so as to get America’s debt burden down. The Federal Government will be required to cut trillions of dollars in both mandatory and discretionary non-defense spending so as to ensure that America remains solvent. Economic freedom and fiscal responsibility at both the individual and state levels would be encouraged as citizens, firms and states won’t be hindered by ‘assistance’ from Washington D.C.
However, the plan is attacked by Democrats and independents, [including liberal Republican leaning independents] for three reasons. One, it is seen as harsh on the poor and various other vulnerable groups. If Medicaid is turned into block grants to the states and its funding is cut, without any federal oversight, then some states may decide to implement the funds using draconian terms and eliminate some of the funding all together, deepening poverty and increasing the psychological and physical hurt incurred during tough times such as unemployment. The Catholic Church, although it tends to side with Republicans on issues like abortion, went so far as to say that it goes against community and family values. In the same vein, the reforms may win popularity from voters, but when it becomes clear how far reaching and how severe the Plan will be, those who initially backed the GOP would reject it should a Romney-Ryan Government attempt to implement it. The second criticism is that, while entitlement programs and the role of government both badly need reforms, these reforms, may be counterproductive. Young adults and heads of households often find the task of buying insurance in the free market to be a complex undertaking, leaving them open to making decisions that may not just be wrong for their current and future health care needs , but catastrophic as well, leading to economic hardship as well as ill-health. Senior citizens may make even less rational choices. Moreover, the vouchers may be capped at a certain value, leaving more and more seniors out of pocket, regardless of their income and wealth scale. With social security privatization, this uncertainty may be increased. Also, by drastically reducing programs that alleviate poverty and support the middle class, economic growth may be suppressed as a whole and any growth would be unbalanced leading to social dysfunction. Thirdly, it has been seen as not viable because the same Plan calls for tax cuts at the same time. It is estimated that the Plan calls for every $1 of spending cuts to be accompanied by 3 or $4 of tax cuts. While Republicans who back the plan optimistically say that they combined effect of greater economic freedom, a smaller state and lower taxes on income and investment will generate enough growth to close the deficit, others say the forecasts are way too optimistic and haven’t been scrutinized properly. They say that the only way such tax cuts could be paid for to avert fiscal catastrophe, would be to take the ax further to spending programs. While Ryan and Romney say they will be able to lower taxes by closing loopholes, because they have refused to specify what savings they will make, it is suspected that the loopholes that will be closed will be to tax breaks for the middle class-in effect raising taxes on 95%.
There will also be a strong opposition in the Senate to break through a filibuster.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>

<Tag>KEYSTONEXL</Tag>
<Display>TheKeystone XL Pipeline</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Keystone XL project is a pipeline extension designed to transport tar sands oil from Canada to America’s Gulf Coast refineries. It attracts a lot of political support because it crosses at least seven states if not more. All of these states, ranging from North Dakota to Louisiana have strong oil and gas growth engines and the pipeline is seen as a source of jobs in that it would not only provide access to cheaper, North American oil [strengthening trade between America and Canada] instead of Middle Eastern crude, but there would be a lot of job creating investment to construct and maintain the pipeline, as well as more jobs at the refineries to process it. Energy prices and utility bills would be marginally lower in that it would take a shorter amount of time to transport the oil to market and the investment, by boosting the industry’s skills and capital base, could have positive spillover effects on other areas, such as investment in pipelines for shale oil and shale gas.
Although Democrats in the concerned states are sympathetic to the plan, a lot of liberals are skeptical and the environmental community sees it as a potential disaster for the planet in the making. Firstly, tar sand oil is a much tougher crude substance than conventional oil, and it isn’t entirely clear whether the existing pipeline regulation would be able to effectively prevent and clean up any spills or leaks. If the project is to be undertaken, then it should be done only after the relevant studies are done and legislation is passed, or the EPA is granted more powers through Presidential directives. Otherwise the cost of a spill-economically, environmentally and socially, could be high.
Secondly, it isn’t even clear if this type of oil is even desirable. The tar sands oil recovery process is very intensive in that critical environmental damage is inflicted during exploration and extraction, leading to loss of North America’s natural heritage in its forests in both Canada and America. Buying this oil may merely encourage the Conservative Canadian Government of Stephen Harper to grant more drilling permits and also encourage Republicans in Congress to push for, and succeed in undertaking drilling in America. With the destruction of the said forests, CO2 and other harmful emissions will be released, accelerating climate change before any meaningful mitigation action is taken. Moreover, transporting this heavy crude, processing it, and then burning it, is very energy intensive, leading to more carbon emissions being released. With Canada, and perhaps America having lots of this crude, and encouraging other countries to get into the game, the planet may enter a tipping point in which catastrophic climate change is inevitable. Democrats and others also say that we may not need it in light of our natural gas discovery and the potential for alternative energy.
Obama has halted the Keystone XL Pipeline extension pending further review on the consequences and if anything could be done to mitigate them effectively. However, many Republicans and energy security minded independents say this is needlessly angering one of our closest allies and trading partners, Canada, and that the Canadians could just turn around and sell the oil to China, which is not only against our strategic and economic interests, but may be even more environmentally destructive in that the Chinese government may put in place even more lax regulations than America already imposes, and that they are unlikely to be enforced.
Moreover, jobs in America will be created from refining the oil for export outside, in that part of the profits the Canadians earn from extracting the oil will be channeled to America, helping correct the trade deficit.</Description>
|

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>KORUS-FTA</Tag>
<Display>US-Korea Free Trade Agreement</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The free trade agreement with South Korea is seen as an important indication of America furthering globalization and demonstrating its commitment to Asia and to the world economy. Although it was initially a Bush Administration idea, it was completed and ratified under Barack Obama. It is believed that a trade agreement with such a developed and technologically savvy Asian country would provide a big market for US goods and services. The treaty's provisions eliminate 95% of each nation's tariffs on goods within five years, and also create new protections for multinational financial services and other firms [Wikipedia] and will also allow US auto manufacturers to sell a greater number of their products in the country.
Critics from the left point to flaws such as that it doesn’t guarantee full market access for US services, such as healthcare and education, high tech consumer goods and that it doesn’t adequately open up the farm sectors in either countries and could lead to job losses.</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">3</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">5</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE</Tag>
<Display>Contraception Coverage in Health Care</Display>
<Image>Health</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Health_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The right to choose when to start a family is seen by liberals as a constitutional and natural right for women, and, as an issue of personal health. However, contraception, specifically a supply of regular doses of the birth control pill, is very expensive, and therefore, poses a monetary burden on single and married women. The end result of not having access is an increase in unplanned for pregnancies, family difficulties, and inevitably more abortions, something that neither those who are “pro-life” or “pro-choice” should want.
The Obama Administration therefore decided to proceed with measures to ensure that contraception would be covered in health insurance plans offered by employers and organizations to their employees and members.
The problem is that this issue of individual women’s needs and their freedom to meet those needs to run her life successfully clashes with ideas of religious liberty and the personal and cultural opinions held by those who don’t necessarily agree with pro-choice views. For example, Catholic hospitals, charities, schools and universities [such as Notre Dame and Georgetown], see contraception as wrong in that it interferes with God’s gift of being able to create new life. Forcing them to provide coverage for contraception in their health plans is seen as tantamount to disowning their beliefs. Moreover, they fear ultimately that contraception coverage could be expanded to areas many in the Catholic rank and file and the hierarchy are adamantly opposed to, such as the “morning after” pill, or emergency abortions undertaken to terminate rape induced pregnancies or to save a woman from a serious medical condition. Even more doctrinally liberal Roman Catholic organizations are reluctant to endorse the measures, for fear of incurring the wrath of the Vatican.
Others say that since all employees pay into workplace offered health insurance plans, it isn’t fair to expect someone to contribute towards coverage for colleagues to have access to medications and procedures that they believe encourages a relaxed attitude to morals and relationships, or could be construed as being disrespectful to life.
Some compromise is possible in that insurers could carry the burden of the mandate, as the goal should be to avoid unplanned pregnancies that destabilize lives and lead to more abortions, and thus, more fetuses that will never become people.
It is a tense issue, especially since Rush Limbaugh labeled student advocate Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law School student a “slut” for wanting people to pay for her sex life. Liberal Democrats and independents see this as part of a Limbaugh and Conservative Christian Right initiated “War on Women”-and the separation of Church and State in the constitution.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</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">2</Default_Party_Position>

</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ANWR</Tag>
<Display>Drilling in ANWR</Display>
<Image>Energy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Most Republicans want to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration. They feel that, rather than depend on Middle Eastern oil, America should be allowed to take advantage of all of the energy resources within its territory, and especially given the fact other countries bordering the Arctic are bound to do the same upon the thawing of the sea ice. Furthermore, it will create jobs in that it would spur demand and supply of oil rig workers and drilling equipment, boosting the US economy. Furthermore, they believe that any environmental damage would be limited, as the area that the oil majors are interested in covers less than 8% of the ANWR, and therefore, accidents could be contained.
Democrats by and large oppose ANWR drilling. They say granting a permit to explore just one part of it would be a dangerous precedent, inevitably leading to a greater proportion of the protected area being opened up. It sets a precedent for opening up wildlife refuges all over the country. Furthermore, environmentalists and climate scientists believe it is foolish to go drilling up there because the whole Arctic is fragile as it already is. Expanding drilling could further erode the sea ice coverage during the summer months, leading to higher water levels, and thus greater risks of flooding. More importantly, the more pressure put on the Arctic sea ice, the more it would melt, releasing currently trapped carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Combined with the increased levels of carbon emissions, in the atmosphere, and the growing amount of dark colored water, more heat would be trapped, further melting the sea ice and further contributing to dangerous climate patterns as the water circulates.
Accidents, even those that have been prepared for well in advance, rarely go according to script and there is no telling how badly a spill would affect the region until it actually takes place, making drilling a risky proposition.
Community activists and environmentalists say that is part of the Alaskan people’s [including natives] and America’s as a whole natural heritage, and that it is a violation of the positive freedom to enjoy natural beauty and to enjoy the ecological services that nature brings to the economy and the quality of life. There is a far higher benefit to keep the ANWR intact compared to drilling for the limited quantities of oil and gas-so limited in fact, that it most probably won’t make a difference to the global oil price. OPEC and Russia could just cut their production and therefore put up the price per barrel. Moreover, drilling will interfere with the natural habitats of protected species. It is a distraction that a country that should be focusing on [alternatives and more easily recoverable reserves of natural gas could do without.

"Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou."
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope." The FWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."

Republicans counter that unlike Yosemite National Park and the Grand Canyon, very few voters actually visit the ANWR and that it is of no concern to the average voter. They point to increasing technological expertise that could mitigate risks of disasters and they also say, that although the oil and gas is currently limited, more could be discovered and rendered recoverable, and coupled with a focus on continental natural gas and Canadian tar sands oil, America could indeed play a role in dampening oil and gas prices and achieve energy independence.
As Palin was leading chants of “drill, baby, drill!” she said that the porcupine caribou and all the other wildlife have to learn to “take one for the team”.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</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">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>SOCIALVENTURE</Tag>
<Display>Social Venture Capitalism</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Social entrepreneurs are people who seek to harness the powers of the market to solve social problems such as poverty and lack of opportunity. Advocates, such as Britain’s David Cameron and America’s Wes Moore believe that government could devolve authority and funds to social entrepreneurs. The freedom to operate will lead to community building and would lead to growth in bottom up and innovative solutions. However, taxpayers are reluctant to shell out money for it, while Democratic constituencies such as teachers ‘unions see it as a threat.

</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</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">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CAMPDAVID</Tag>
<Display>Camp David Push</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Camp David Push/Palestinian State/J-Street
It is time to resolve the Middle East Peace issue and prevent future conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians and spillover into the rest of the region. Most Democrats and traditional Republican foreign policy heavyweights such as Henry Kissinger [himself a Jew] and Bush Senior allies James Baker and Brent Scowcroft believe that a deal exists, just not the political will to push it through and implement it. However, despite the fact younger, liberal Jewish Americans are beginning to coalesce around a peace lobby called J-Street, the sense around Jewish Americans and Americans at large that the Palestinians aren’t credible partners remains, as does the power of AIPAC and Jewish Republican donors such as Sheldon Adelson. Furthermore, no one wants to be blamed for the failure of talks or for the violence from extremists that may follow. Also, pressuring Israel on settlements, Jerusalem, security and the right of return isn’t popular. At the same time, it is widely admitted that the situation isn’t demographically sustainable and that the Jewish State may be overwhelmed by Palestinians it directly and indirectly controls, putting its survival at risk. Also, the Palestinians have been making reforms to their law enforcement, service provision, administration, humanitarian development and economy in the last few years despite the divisions between Fatah-controlled West Bank and the Hamas governed Gaza Strip, so if now is not the time to empower the Palestinian pragmatists, then when?
Hawkish Republicans say not to recognize Palestine until Hamas reforms or disbands as they are terrorists

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</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">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ATLANTIC</Tag>
<Display>Trans-Atlantic Alliance</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Democrats believe that America should pay more attention to its European allies, rather than act unilaterally.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</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">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>

<Issue>
<Tag>MUSLIM</Tag>
<Display>Better Relations with The Muslim and Arab Worlds</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Barack Obama came to power promising to revive America’s standing in the Muslim world, which has fallen throughout the 20th century and accelerated its decline during the Bush years. So far the results have been mixed, with America still being quite unpopular, although there is greater approval for Obama than for Bush.
Democrats argue that invading certain countries in the Arab and Muslim world and toppling their dictatorships is not the correct way to bring about a new, liberal, pluralist and modern Middle East. It leaves America open to charges of double standards in that it tolerates oppressive allies and crushes oppressive enemies, and it feeds into theories of imperialism, in that America has replaced the former British and French Empires in its search for Middle Eastern satellite states and oil and gas markets. It shows a lack of appreciation and understanding of Islamic and Middle Eastern histories, cultural, socio-economic and anthropological make up, as was exposed in the aftermath of the Iraq War. While military force is sometimes necessary to check the balance of power [Gulf War 1991] or to stop ongoing and especially egregious crimes against humanity [as may be the case with Syria], such actions undertaken on a whim could feed into ancient narratives of a crusading West-“Great Satan.”
Instead, the United States must show that it has benign intentions for Middle Eastern societies through greater diplomacy, of both the traditional and untraditional kind. America must choose when and how to support people power movements in Iran and other countries that are US opponents, based on exactly how strong the current regime is and how likely they are to survive challenges to their rule. By reaching out with “an outstretched hand rather than a clenched fist”, America can prove that it genuinely wishes for peace and for more productive relations and to assist Middle Eastern societies on the way to freedom, with or without their government’s support.
The US has to be willing to stand up to allied autocrats and throw its support behind pro-democracy protestors so as to secure long –term friendship. In abandoning Mubarak and others to their fate, it has partially achieved this. Now, it must try to re-orient aid to countries like Egypt and Tunisia away from military to military aid towards aid for humanitarian and economic development. The spread of opportunities for the under-employed Arab youth and the promise of a better life would inevitably ensure a pro-American population and the sustained growth and maturity of thriving and constitutional and democratic societies.
However, reality is far more problematic. Decades of supporting autocrats in exchange for crushing Islamists of various sorts [as well as Communists during the Cold War] can’t disappear overnight, leaving much of the Arab and wider Muslim world distrusting and resentful of the United States.
Two examples are the situations in Syria and Bahrain. In both cases, the Iran and the oil issue complicated matters. America is reluctant to stop the atrocities perpetrated by Assad’s government with military action because it fears that Assad is stronger than he really is because of Iranian support and he will survive, or drag America into another quagmire. Should Iran step up its support of Assad from covert to overt, then a military clash involving the whole region could become inevitable, as does its quest to build a bomb. Similarly, the US couldn’t overtly back the pro-reform faction of the [Sunni] Bahraini royal family and the pro-democracy demonstrators [majority Shiite] against the authoritarian faction and the Saudi monarchy, for fear of possibly damaging its strategic position [Navy Sixth Fleet in Bahrain] against Iran in the Persian Gulf. A war with Iran or a rift with the Saudis [who are anti-liberal, anti-pluralist themselves and are tolerant of fundamentalists of the most extreme variety, hence damaging America’s credibility] would send oil prices soaring.
The real and perceived failures of the wars in Iraq and, to some extent, Afghanistan have damaged key Middle Eastern allies’, such as that of Turkey’s, confidence in the durability of American power and its ability to guarantee against wider chaos. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as with Lebanon and others, is a continuing thorn in America’s side as it tries to rebuild broken bridges. Moreover, it serves as an anti-American propaganda recruiting tool for a diversity of US opponents, ranging from Pan- Arab nationalists to Iran and her allies and proxies. The War on Terror remains intense as a result, as it serves as a recruiting tool amongst the fundamentalists and disaffected to defend the “House of Islam against the House of War and Infidels”.
The Pakistan issue is also troublesome, as it is a country supposedly allied to the United States, yet it has fundamentalist sympathizers in the military [initially created by the US against the Soviets] who covertly back the Taliban and other insurgents as well as an assortment of terrorist groups operating in South Asia. The lack of cooperation means that the US has to resort to drone strikes, violating Pakistani sovereignty, and possibly killing civilians, as it does in Yemen and Somalia.
Many Republicans say that the US should fully back Israel, no matter the cost. Furthermore, they say that the Administration has badly handled the Arab Spring and that it either has been too easy on Islamists, however moderate, too hard on allies like Mubarak, and too unwilling to use force for the sake of “an apology tour”. They feel the US could achieve greater respect from the Middle East and greater freedom and national security through a more muscular and hawkish posture. Democrats counter a more hawkish posture would just aggravate the problems.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</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">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>AFFIRMATIVEACTION</Tag>
<Display>Affirmative Action</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Since the 1960’s laws were passed enabling the Federal Government to intervene to correct inequalities between whites, particularly white men, and minorities such as African-Americans and Hispanics. The Federal Government hopes to use affirmative action to create opportunities for women of all colors and for the emergence of a Latino-Black middle class, though, among other measures, preferences given to university applications, minority firms making less than a certain amount given contracts, preferential hiring, etc.
People are divided. Conservatives, including some minority members themselves, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, say it is demeaning to think that they didn’t achieve their success based on their own efforts and that they needed the federal government to give them a push through charity and pity. Others say it breeds complacency and dependency among minority communities- even to the point they still claim affirmative action when they don’t need it.
Even some liberals say it could have unintended consequences, for example, a Latina who, although she may be incredibly intelligent, may come from a background that leaves her psychologically unprepared for admission to an elite university on affirmative action, and that she should be encouraged to take a smaller, less risky step.
Liberals and centrists won’t get rid of the system because they believe that ultimately, it will build a fairer and more dynamic society. However, centrist Democrats are exploring the idea of broadening and narrowing affirmative action, in which minorities above a certain income group would receive less assistance while people from poor, working class white backgrounds who weren’t typical applicants would be included in future reforms.</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</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">-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>COLLEGE</Tag>
<Display>Aid for College/University Students</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description> America was once a leader in terms of the proportion of its population obtaining further academic and vocational qualifications post-high school. However, due to the growth in inequality and the difficulties facing working and middle class families over the past 12 years, the rates of enrolment have dropped at the same time the dropout rates have increased across the entire spectrum of further education- from two year community colleges, to four year colleges and liberal arts institutions to full-fledged universities. Furthermore, colleges and universities have seen a marked decline in the amount of tuition funding guaranteed to them by state governments that have been hit by crisis, as well as shrinking research grants and endowments. The result is that higher education institutions have to increase fees for their students and reduce the amount of investment across the academic spectrum, leading to a decline of the quality of the university education and experience and lower student dissatisfaction. This, coupled with the loans that students have to take out, often from unscrupulous private lenders, leads to a depression in the potential qualities, motivations and abilities of graduates in an already difficult job market.
Add in the fact that America faces stiff competition from other elite Western [state] universities such as Canada’s McGill, Britain’s Durham, St. Andrews, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, UCL, and Imperial College, and the rise of prestigious institutions in China such as Tsinghua in Beijing and Singapore, there is a risk that America may be left behind in the race for innovation, enterprise, knowledge based, technology and economic leadership, hence heralding national decline. Foreign students thinking of coming to our best universities may hesitate because they hear about their relative [and maybe even real] decline and feel they can get a better investment on their futures elsewhere, further contributing to the narrowing of America’s talent and knowledge base and a decline in standards, funding and expectations.

Furthermore, due to the growing use of sophisticated information and robotic technology in manufacturing processes, businessmen are even demanding greater vocational and technical expertise out of their highly skilled factory workers, and demanding fewer lower skilled workers. For them to keep their operations here, the US will have to ensure that more are enrolled at community colleges for two year courses. As Obama said, you can’t be expected to operate a $1million piece of equipment on the strength of a high school diploma, alone. There is also less demand for lower skilled workers expected to do mundane jobs, as those too can be replaced.
American middle class and working class families want their children to have better lives and more opportunities than they did. However, this aspect of the American Dream is slipping away.
Democrats say that it is up to the job of the Federal government to step in where the states are failing and provide programs that make colleges more affordable, [with scholarships, tax credits, aid, grants], to ensure that students and their families are protected from private lenders -and private for profit colleges- and to ensure that America’s public university, 4 year college and community college system remains strong and capable of thriving in face of the challenges, otherwise private colleges and universities [non-profit] such as Columbia and Stanford would also fail in their objective of educating the future workforce and preparing American youngsters for their role as responsible citizens, as they will become complacent about their competition from public rivals such as Berkeley, University of California.
Democrats point to Thomas Jefferson, who founded one of the first state universities, the prestigious University of Virginia, as a source of the American ideal that, for a country of liberty to succeed, and for a people to acquire greater self-esteem and fulfillment, as well as greater economic freedom, university systems need to be supported. Abraham Lincoln was also a champion of this idea.
Republicans say that it is up to the students and their families to learn personal responsibility and pay for their own tuition and that there should be a greater movement towards the free market. Again, as with other issues, they question the role of the federal government as the guarantor of such freedoms, claiming it impinges on the sovereignty of individuals and the constituent states. If states cut funding, then colleges should learn to adapt and become more efficient with how they allocate their funds, thus improving their standing, so the theory goes. More self-reliant students would lead a more self-reliant and responsibility oriented society in a free market economy.
Todd Akin accused the federal government and the states of falling for a British left wing inspired conspiracy to spread “a Stage 3 Cancer” of socialism by offering student loan aid.
Some white working class voters, particularly men, also resent the college educated, feeling that they are looked down upon by “elites”, “intellectuals”, “snobs” and so forth who do not share the same traditional values. To a certain extent, unfortunately, this is true, as there is a gap of mutual antagonism, misunderstanding, that acts as a class dividing line between Americans of varying levels of education. As a consequence, although support for college education would help their demographic by equipping themselves with better skills and job prospects, and their children with more economic opportunities and social-economic mobility-as was the case of the GI Bill, which put returning WWII soldiers through vocational and academic courses that helped build the middle class and America’s economy in the first place- they tend to vote for tax cutting Republicans who would reduce this very funding to pay for the tax cuts, and against the Ivy League educated liberals who want to provide the student and college aid.

</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">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>STRONGUNIONS</Tag>
<Display>Strengthening Unions</Display>
<Image>Jobs</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Private sector unions have been in decline due to de-industrialization and the transition to the new economy. This has had a bad impact on workers in the retail sector, where Wal-Mart has been found to mistreat its employees.</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>FAIRPAY</Tag>
<Display>Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay for Women</Display>
<Image>Family</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Family_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Democrats decry that women receive salaries much lower than men in the 21st century. Conservatives say don’t interfere with the market: if women have family commitments that override their work, of course pay will be lower. Liberals say this argument can be skewed in that women who are more talented and hardworking than male colleagues are passed over for promotion and that it causes difficulties for families in that it doesn’t allow for a fulfilling work-life balance.
</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">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>FEDERALLANDS</Tag>
<Display>Opening Federal Lands</Display>
<Image>Energy</Image>
<Icon>Gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Exploring Federal Lands/Protected Areas
The Federal Government owns large percentages of land throughout the United States, especially in the West. A lot of these lands are designated as National Parks, in that they are to be treated as unique parts of America’s natural heritage from a time when it was an environmental paradise, with forests, untouched mountains, rivers and lakes covering most of the continent.
The American wilderness has been a part of America’s cultural tradition from even before its founding, and before the New World was colonized. Thomas Jefferson sponsored the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore and map the entire area covered by the Louisiana Purchase. Teddy Roosevelt was seen as the first environmentalist president and the driving force behind legislation to protect and conserve natural habitats on the grounds of not just their beauty, but to benefit future generations. Therefore, sustainable management of natural resources could be seen as a value that goes deep into American political ideals.
While the vast majority of Democrats, many independents and some liberal, moderate and centrist Republicans endorse this idea, others are doubtful whether the federal government should have the authority to overrule the states when it comes to the lands within their state borders-and the minerals and potential energy reserves under the soil. They believe that state and local governments can better decide how to sustainably manage the land, so that the economic benefits regarding mining and energy exploration could be maximized, therefore creating jobs.
The local people themselves are a better judge of what should be preserved, and how to manage it, according to this view.
Conservative Republicans and some independents say it goes against America’s frontier experience, in which the hardscrabble and enterprising pioneers moving out West can claim the land they find so that they can achieve prosperity for themselves and their families.
Moreover, in an age where America’s global economic position is being undermined, , it is seen as an imperative by Republicans to open up some federal lands, such as the Arctic National Wild-Life Refuge, to oil and gas drilling.
However, most Democrats are opposed to handing over control over federal lands to the states and limiting the powers of the EPA to block mining and drilling rights. They fear that without the enforcement of the Federal Government, and the implementation of universal and tight standards, local and national special interests may find it easier to undertake regulatory capture in the states themselves, leading to increasing amounts of what is left of America’s natural heritage to be drilled, mined, or concreted up, further harming the planet and exposing America to condemnation for failure to exercise environmental leadership.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</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">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>PRIVATEEQUITY</Tag>
<Display>Private Equity Capitalism</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The 1980’s were the years of deregulation and the beginning of the era in which the Wall Street/financial sector came to dominate the US economy. One of the key forms of capitalism that emerged from this era was that of private equity.
There are clear positive and negative aspects of this issue. The positive aspect lies in the fact that private equity firms-essentially partnerships of wealthy investors and consultants- step in to take a struggling listed company back into private share ownership by buying a majority, if not all of the shares. They then look at the management structure of the firm and the industry it is a part of [cars, engineering goods, publishing, tech, energy, retail, restaurants, etc.] and the potential paths to recovery and growth that can be taken. After ironing out the inefficiencies by cutting waste, investing in better production processes or adopting a better market focus, the private equity firm [like Romney’s Bain Capital] re-sells its shares either to the original owners, the new management, other investors or hold another public offering at the stock market.
Private equity firms are credited with saving many enterprises that could have fallen apart, and by making companies more competitive, serve the US economy well overall. These partnerships of private investors could claim that because they are isolated from stock market fluctuations and public shareholder demands for dividends, they could focus on the long term.
However, there are flaws to this aspect of capitalism. Often, their intervention involves job losses, plant and office closings and outsourcing/offshoring overseas. As a result, communities and families whose livelihoods depend on these jobs are threatened. The fact that private equity income earned by the partners is taxed at a low rate is a further problem, in that it adds to the debt crisis, and the revenues collected could be used to help displaced employees adjust to the situation. Warren Buffett says that it is a key issue of unfairness and income, wealth and opportunity inequality.
Defenders of private equity say that creative destruction is the price America must pay to ensure that economic growth can remain dynamic in the face of competitors and that it could benefit from the new economy.
Critics say that on closer inspection, private equity doesn’t contribute that much to growth. Often, private equity investors borrow lots of money on the strength of their credentials and past successes and the target corporation’s potential to buyout the firm, rather than invest their own funds. They can be accused of short-termism as well in that once they achieve success in returning a firm to profitability, they sell their shares back for a profit and often leave the debts they took in the bought out firm’s name behind. This poses a problem and may even defeat the purpose of rescuing the firm in that a few quarters or years of profitability aren’t enough to achieve a turnaround big enough to pay off the debts taken by the partners, leading the firm into greater trouble. The result is that there is more downsizing, more cutting of workers’ benefits, and even the risk of bankruptcy.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</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>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>PACIFICTRADE</Tag>
<Display>Trans-Pacific Partnership</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Trans-Pacific Partnership, should it bear fruit, could be the largest free trade agreement including US in the world, as it could include not only the whole of North America and the Pacific coast of Latin America, but would also take in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, and maybe even, Japan, should it agree to liberalize its agricultural and other sectors.
The economic benefits to all the countries concerned could run into hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars and would deepen globalization and the emergence of Asia as the new center of the global economy. Aside from benefiting the peoples of these countries, several of which are still poor, by creating jobs and opportunities, it would also simplify and reduce the hurdles to cross-border investment. The spillover benefits to other arenas of the world economy would be beneficial as it would lead to other countries boosting competitiveness and it would open markets for US exports. It would also spur a solution to deadlocked WTO Doha talks.
Critics across the spectrum say that America may give too much away in concessions. Some subsidies and tariffs will remain. It is too big and the negotiations may very well fail. Furthermore, they point to flaws in other multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements that America has signed such as CAFTA and NAFTA, in which labor and environmental standards were not properly followed, leading to abuses and “unfair trade and unbalanced trade”.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</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">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>

<Issue>
<Tag>NAFTACAFTA</Tag>
<Display>Nafta/Cafta</Display>
<Image>JOBS</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_JOBS_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Area are supported by the business community because it integrates the combined economies of North America [NAFTA] and [CAFTA] Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, with that of the United States.
It is hoped that , aside from lowering tariffs on US and Central American goods, it would help stabilize these countries’ societies and allow economic growth to take place, leading to investment in infrastructure, good governance, and humanitarian services such as health and education, as Latin American countries become more interdependent and interconnected with each other. Also, it is believed that by introducing greater opportunities for work in these countries, and that of Mexico under NAFTA, the illegal immigration flows could be limited and more productive legal flows of people could take place.
Wikipedia: With the addition of the Dominican Republic, the trade group's largest economy, the region covered by CAFTA-DR is the second-largest Latin American export market for US producers, behind only Mexico, buying US$15 billion of goods a year. Two-way trade amounts to about US$32 billion annually.
Meanwhile, Mexico and Canada are among the US’s largest export-import markets, with two way trade totaling $917 billion in 2010.
However, there has been criticism, namely that US factories have moved south [and north], and that there are unfair provisions that favor US agribusiness -whose subsidies haven’t completely ended- and undermine rural communities in these Central American countries. Labor and environmental standards are an issue, particularly with CAFTA, which was passed under Bush II, and wasn’t overhauled by a Democratic Administration before it was passed, unlike with NAFTA during Bill Clinton. Sweat shops are a problem.
However, issues could be corrected by smart government policies in all the countries concerned and by careful, gradual but complete liberalization. At the same time these countries suffer adjustment shock, the US should be willing to help them make the transition.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</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">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>PANAMA</Tag>
<Display>Panama-Colombia Trade Agreements</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Colombia-Panama-Peru-Chile- US Trade Agreements
Similar concerns have been raised by these agreements; the first two were completed under the Obama Administration. However, there are added concerns regarding human rights, child labor and environmental depredation, given that these states are more fragile in several respects. Moreover, it may increase resource export dependency on Chile’s part, while ignoring the murders and intimidations of union activists by right wing paramilitaries in Colombia. The risk of damage to the rainforest is also prominent.
Defenders say that it is an imperative of the United States to assist in building middle class, professional and entrepreneurial societies in Latin America as they will back politically and economically liberal governments rather than right or left wing caudillos. Also, when other countries, especially other emerging markets such as China, are signing trade agreements, the US shouldn’t be left behind. Furthermore, it provides the alternative of paid work instead of drug trafficking and kidnapping.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</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">5</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>CHINESECURRENCY</Tag>
<Display>Branding China as a currency manipulator</Display>
<Image>JOBS</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_JOBS_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The Chinese currency is pegged to the dollar, raising concerns that China is artificially, and unfairly, boosting the competiveness of its export sector at the same time it is damaging prospects for US businesses selling goods and services to the Middle Kingdom’s market. If the dollar declines in value, so does the yuan, thus neutralizing any drop in prices and boost in Chinese demand for US exports to China.
Americans across the political spectrum, including the staunchest free traders, are angered by this because it allegedly goes against the rules of the World Trade Organization and various trade agreements, especially since America has worked very hard to integrate China into the global economy and since US corporations have outsourced and offshored their manufacturing operations to China. They see it as a hidden tariff on US exports to China, and a hidden subsidy to Chinese exporters.
It further complicates global economic imbalances as it continues to fund the American propensity to over consume and the Chinese propensity to over-save.
Mitt Romney promises to break with free trade doctrine and brand China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and impose emergency tariffs.
Critics of that idea say that will provoke a massive trade war, as China will retaliate and place its own tariffs on American products and pressure Chinese entrepreneurs to cancel contracts with US investors and corporations. It could lead to a breakdown in cooperation over larger economic and strategic issues such as intellectual property rights and North Korea and would increase Chinese nationalist sentiment. It would be such a consuming issue for Chinese leaders that they will ignore the needs to make structural reforms that will build a more equitable, sustainable and consumer friendly market economy and society in the long run, which would actually benefit the United States as a wealthier and more economically secure Chinese middle class would buy American products like Ipads.
It would also be unwise to pick a fight in the beginning of China’s own leadership transition and after the Chinese have made some adjustments to take into account of American concerns.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</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">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>VETERANS</Tag>
<Display>Supporting Veterans</Display>
<Image>generic</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Many veterans from the Iraq and Afghan Wars are experiencing increasing symptoms of mental illness and trauma, leading to family breakdowns, domestic violence, decrease in military and civilian work performance, drug and alcohol dependency and suicides.
Given that America invests a lot in its soldiers, it is a national security, economic and humanitarian imperative to assist veterans as they recover from tours of duty. Returning soldiers, who are unable to function in the military, or, in society as a whole, drag everything else down by contributing to spiraling health care costs and productivity losses. This is especially true of a soldier who’s academic and workforce training was funded by the Armed Forces, and is even more so the case regarding a soldier who possess the highest intellectual and leadership potential. If the Army spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on a soldier so that he can be a leader in both a civilian or military setting, and the soldier can’t function due to traumatic brain injury and a lack of support, then the investment turns bad. Furthermore, the impression that the Armed Forces can’t protect their own members’ and the concerned military families acts as a disincentive to the general population to join, posing problems for recruitment. It also leads to problems within the ranks in that serving officers may fear that disclosure of mental health related war wounds would only generate contempt in a tough institution at best, discharge at worst.</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>SBA</Tag>
<Display>Small Business Administration</Display>
<Image>JOBS</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Jobs_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Small Business Administration
Democrats believe the SBA provides vital support to small businesses and should be strengthened. It helps SMEs through the three c’s: capital, contracts and counseling.
By ensuring the thriving of an agency devoted to helping small and medium sized enterprises achieve their potential, liberals believe they are helping the overall economy, as small firms are a major source of jobs and growth. The federal government could be a source of contracts, could provide loan guarantees, and could use its capability to network to create mentoring programs as well as to better enable entrepreneurs to get their products to market, attract more capital, or export abroad.
The federal government could also support small business owners with the Affordable Care Act, tax relief, patent process streamlining, etc. It could also help minority, women and returning veteran entrepreneurs.
Conservative Republicans say it is tampering with the free market and leads to wasting of taxpayer’s money on projects that may fail. They say that the best way for all businesses to benefit is through tax cuts and deregulation, not by setting up another government agency.
Progressives say that small businesses left on their own are likely to face pressure in the form of unfair competition from larger firms, who could act as oligopolies and monopolies in the different markets. As a result, new products and growth markets may never materialize. They also say that Small Businesses are America’s backbone, in that it provides prosperity for the middle class.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>MCCAINFEINGOLD</Tag>
<Display>Campaign Finance Reform Constitutional Amendment.</Display>
<Image>GENERIC</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Generic_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The conservative led Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act during the Citizens United case, allowing unlimited contributions from individuals and organizations to political campaigns, even under anonymity, as long as the go to so-called Super-Pacs. It is seen by liberals and moderates as giving too much power to a few select wealthy individuals who can donate millions of dollars at a time, as well as to special interests, such as, Big Oil, for example. It is seen as a form of legalized bribery. Conservatives, however, see political advertisements as ‘free speech’, and therefore preventing corporations and millionaires from donating as much money as they want to a politician’s campaign, is oppressive, in that it prevents them from exercising their legitimate interests and those of their employees, as corporations are “people”. Others charge it’s undemocratic, as someone else may have a far more valid point, but they can only contribute at most $100 instead of 10 million dollars. Also, it allows for increased negatively, as candidates from both parties could claim plausible deniability regarding untruthful ads run by associated Super-Pacs.
Some proponents of campaign finance reform believe a constitutional amendment could override the Supreme Court. However the sheer difficulty of passing an amendment would make it an uncertain proposition of time and fortunes, putting off many supporters who want to deal with other issues.

</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>HUMANRIGHTS</Tag>
<Display>Defending Human Rights</Display>
<Image>WAR</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>America should always stand up for human rights in its diplomacy throughout the world, even at risk of compromising its interests.

</Description>

<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</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">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>SYRIA</Tag>
<Display>Syrian Intervention</Display>
<Image>WAR</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>The war in Syria between pro and anti-Assad forces is now the bloodiest of all of the uprisings of the Arab Spring/Awakening. What started out as peaceful protests by pro-democracy demonstrators of all ethnic and religious groups has quickly deteriorated into an 18 month long civil war. President Assad and his ruling clique figured that if they fired on demonstrators and killed civilians, then the majority Sunni opposition will realize that peaceful people power protests and negotiations would be futile and that only an armed revolt would lead to change. Then, as the war becomes bloodier and radical elements start to appear within the Sunni opposition, then minority Christians, Kurds , and Alawites [Assad’s religious-tribal group] as well as some secular Sunnis with regime connections, will opt for the devil they know, Bashar Al-Assad.
It is becoming clear though that Assad’s plan may have backfired. The revolutionaries are stronger than initially thought and have managed to strike several strategic blows through assassinating many of Assad’s security apparatus. Although the minorities are scared of backing the revolution, the mounting atrocities committed by the government and the most extreme elements of the opposition are creating a humanitarian catastrophe, with hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons, 25,000 dead and now deep sectarian and ethnic animosities. The likelihood is a prolonged civil war, regardless of whether Assad falls or not.
The civil war could reach the same intensity as that of Lebanon’s and could lead to instability in the Middle East for years to come. Should Assad win, his regime will be an international pariah and his country’s economy and social fabric will be destroyed and will probably be a tighter satellite of Iran. Should he lose after a protracted struggle, there would be a greater chance of intercommunal atrocities carried out for revenge. The opposition Free Syrian Army may even turn on itself by splitting into factions, while the civilian opposition government in waiting may not be able to hold the Free Republic of Syria together. Being sandwiched between Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, it is easy to imagine a multi-faceted regional conflict; especially should Iraq fall into instability.
There is a danger Al-Qaeda could set up bases in a failed state.
Supporters of intervention claim that the strategic arguments in favor are strong: actively supporting the rebels would remove an ally of Iran and contribute to the weakening of Hezbollah and its power over Lebanon. The risks of a regional conflagration would only grow as time goes by, and the deterioration of the opposition to extremists could lead to future trouble. Also, a bleeding conflict in the center of the Middle East could set in motion a power play, pitting countries against each other, both within and outside their borders. Furthermore, it is a good chance to implant democracy in a pivotal Arab state.
The humanitarian case is also strong in that the refugee flows and the scale of the killings are a blight on human rights.
Opponents of intervention say that a full-scale war to oust Assad could play into the wrong hands. Iran could see this as its best opportunity to bleed America white after the Iraq debacle and could also instruct Hezbollah to launch attacks on the West, especially Israel. It would end any negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and may even prompt the Iranians to launch a pre-emptive strike of their own. Moreover, many Americans are weary of the revolutionaries, in that they do not know the exact make-up of the Free Syrian Army and that they may end up empowering fanatics of the Sunni-Muslim fundamentalist sort. There is also the financial cost, as well as cost in human lives that a war-weary public may not tolerate.
Opponents also say that unlike Libya, whose demographic and stragetic centers were located within a coastal stretch, and had a small military, Syria is more geographically difficult and Assad's army and air defenses are relatively sophisticated, indicating that a large scale operation, including an invasion, may be called for.

Others argue that the US and her allies could provide non-lethal support to the revolutionaries, develop strong communications with genuinely pro-constitutional democracy elements, use air power to create zones that protect civilians and refugees, share intelligence on troop movements, embargo Assad’s clique, etc. . It wouldn’t necessarily be quick, but it may persuade Assad’s remaining support to dwindle until he is removed.
Obama has said that if it is clear Assad’s regime will either use the chemical weapons it possesses against civilians or that they may fall into the wrong hands, then he will use force.

</Description>

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">2</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">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>

<Issue>
<Tag>FAIRTRADE</Tag>
<Display>Fair and Balanced Trade</Display>
<Image>ECONOMY</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Progressive Democrats endorse these concepts and say they can be practiced along with free trade. Fair trade is when greater effort at sustainable and inclusive growth is made so that small farmers and agricultural workers could receive a greater share of the profit from selling commodities such as spices, coffee and cocoa. Balanced trade is when a country implements legislation to ensure that trade must equal out so as not to create trade deficit and surpluses that contributes to massive imbalances. Conservatives say this interferes with the free market and that the mechanisms could prove hard to manage and easy to distort.

</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left"><4/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">-3</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">0</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
</XMLBody>

Successfully updated karma reason!