Every four years, the American people have
the opportunity to directly vote for the chief executive of their country, the
President of the United
States .
While most pundits and political scientists begin tracking the
candidates from the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, most citizens do
not truly start to form an idea about the candidate of their choice until each
party holds its convention. While the
nomination of a candidate is the result of this gathering, internal work is
done. Of primary importance is the
creation and ratification of the platform of the party. A platform is the principal objectives and
positions a party ascribes to on certain economic, social, and foreign policy
issues. This paper will compare and
contrast the Republican Party’s platform of 2012 and the Democratic Party’s platform
of 2012 on the issues of taxation, military and veteran funding, and energy
policy.
The Republican
platform addresses the issues of taxation by stating, “Taxes, by their very nature,
reduce a citizen’s freedom.” (McDonnell,
2012). From this point, the platform
develops the idea that taxation should only be used for national defense and providing
care for those who cannot care for themselves.
However, the platform makes clear that any “restructuring of federal
taxation, to guard against hyper taxation of the American people, any value
added tax or national sales tax must be tied to the simultaneous repeal of the
Sixteenth Amendment, which established the federal income tax.” (McDonnell, 2012). This linking of restructuring the tax code,
while abolishing the federal income tax seeks to recreate how the government is
funded, however it does not address the issue of how taxes would be collected
by the federal government. If repealed,
would taxes be based on the census of the states and levied in that fashion, or
would the government be based on a flat tax rate? Neither of these integral points is
addressed.
The Democrat’s
platform approaches taxation from a different point of view. Rather than address taxation through
repealing the income tax, they propose, “creating a tax code that lives up to
the Buffett Rule so no millionaire pays a smaller share of his or her income in
taxes than middle class families do.” (Schultz, 2012). By embracing the Buffett Rule, the democratic
party sees taxation as a necessary part of governance, and that those who are
in the higher income brackets are able to pay a proportional amount of taxes as
those who are in lower income brackets.
Both political
parties show their economic tendencies in their tax policies, as the democrats
tend toward a more Keynesian model of taxation in the economy, whereby the
republicans view taxation as a hindrance to the goals of a free market
society. In this context, the role of a
tax rate that is balanced in order to fund government agencies falls on the
side of the democrats. It Is my opinion
that maintaining the current tax code and reforming the loopholes created in
the law is the most prudent way with which to address the current short fall in
income for the government. Furthermore,
by widening the base of taxes, the government is also able to pay down its
debts, and reduce the overall deficit.
If, as the republican show in their platform, the income tax is
repealed, it becomes necessary to restructure the entire system of taxation and
as such, creates a higher deficit level as the money that is taken in would not
have an appropriate outlet for being either received or spent.
The republican
party, long known as military and veteran friendly, uses their platform to continue
robust defense spending and by ensuring that veteran’s care is “the gold
standard” (McDonnell, 2012) for those who have served. However, the platform does not outline how it
will fund or improve the systems that are in place, other than requiring that
VA department heads be appointees rather than careerists. Military spending is seen as of paramount
importance, and any cut to that spending is not viewed as acceptable under the
current republican platform. As defense
is non-mandatory discretionary spending, the platform maintains the current
levels of defense spending and growth, while at the same time, desiring to
lower the taxes that come into the government to fund both.
The democratic
platform embraces a strategy based defense-spending plan, which would base
military budgets on the current national defense strategies. This approach allows for cuts on systems that
would not work, or would not be viable in future conflicts. Veteran spending is outlined as being of
major importance, with the legislative record of accomplishment of the first
Presidential term, as well as addressing the issue of Veteran
homelessness. With a goal of ending
veteran homelessness by 2015, the democratic platform put forth clear goals by
which to govern, and identified issues that are more current than the
republican platform identified.
As in the first
comparison, the contrast in spending on military and veteran issues is not
nearly as different on paper, however the plan put forth by the democratic
platform clearly identifies issues that can be addressed and achieved. It is my feeling that this approach of having
clear goals and achievable ends is more in line with not only most of the
population, but also with my personal feelings.
The final comparison
between the republican and democrat platforms addresses the energy policy that
is pursued by both. The republican
platform is most concerned with energy independence, and touts the use of coal,
natural gas and oil, and nuclear energy.
The concept of renewable energy is addressed; however, the caveat is
that the taxpayer should not be held to pay the bill for its research and
development. The republican platform
states that by using coal, natural gas, and oil, the U.S.
The democratic
platform, by contrast, clearly supports the foundation of renewable energy as
the cornerstone of any energy policy. By
using an “all-of-the above” energy strategy, the democrats’ platform states
that it can increase employment by rebuilding infrastructure. This also creates cost savings to the consumer,
as the cost to transport energy sources goes lower. This approach to energy policy is more in
line with the rest of the international community, as many European countries
have embraced solar, wind, and other forms of energy reliance.
This embrace of a
more global energy policy seems to make more sense than the one espoused by the
republican platform. Rather than being
insular in nature, renewable energy can create jobs through infrastructure
growth, new markets, and utilize the inventive nature of the American people to
position the U.S.
Both political
parties have addressed the major issues of the day in their platforms; however,
the differences that they espouse show more than just a difference of
opinion. Rather, it shows that the
democratic party is more willing to use different options to move the country
forward than their republican counterparts are.
This disagreement and dialogue is at the core of the U.S.
References
McDonnell, B.
(2012). 2012 republican
platform. Retrieved from http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
Schultz, D. W. (2012). Democratic party platform.
Retrieved from http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-
