My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part X: Policy Considerations

Policy Issue Guidelines for this Conservative

Here is how i think people should view policy issues/bills.  Ideally, they would all be clean one topic bills with no unnecessary add-ons.  Scroll down for Decision Criteria Section.

Problem 🠞 Goal 🠞 Methodology (How to Deal with Something) 🠞 Specifics 🠞 Follow Up

So, what does all of this stuff mean?  This is how legislation should be written.  

First you find a "problem" that need to be solved, then you develop a specific goal (like increasing spending by X%).  A bill should focus on only one goal.  Next you get into your methodology - your overarching way of dealing with the problem (how you will do it).  Finally, you get into the specifics (ie what needs to be changed to accomplish your goal, how much, and in what manner should things be changed).  After you are done, at some point, you have to look at the bill you made and see what the actual results are.  There may need to be tinkering in the specifics if you did not get the results you wanted.  

This in not continuous quality improvement stuff, but it is closer to it than the current congressmen use. Most bills seem to be "set it and forget it".

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIIII: Science, Media and the Arts: Part 2

Science Media (mostly) and the Arts Part 2

The Media

One of the most important things about the media is that they are supposed to be free and independent of the government.  i think it goes without saying that the government should limit its usage of the media.  The government should not use the media for propaganda purposes, as it potentially takes away commercial opportunities.  The media exists as a free enterprise to entertain and inform people.  

The government depending on a propaganda machine suggests that the government is trying to justify a horrible course of action.  

What the Media Should Not Be Used For 

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIIII: Science, Medicine and the Arts

 Science, Medicine, the Arts and Government

What Government Funded Should Science Do?

Firstly, i guess i should state the role that i see appropriate for the government and funding scientific research.  That role is... nothing.  Taxpayer dollars should not be spent of scientific pursuits (unless these pursuits can be shown to make money for the government).  Humans have a natural curiosity about them, about the universe and their place in it.  Science can give answers, but at great cost (especially financially).

Think of it more in an investment model - only pay for things that financially enrich the country.  This would mean that a group like NASA shouldn't send up shuttles/rockets (at great expense) for missions that are just a cash drain.  Missions with real money on the line (like deploying satellites) might make sense if the cost of the mission is covered by the revenue from the mission.  Planning a manned exhibition to Mars would be a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere.

Some amount of scientific research may be needed for certain government agencies, like maybe the CDC and FDA, but should be limited to what is strictly necessary.  Science should advise, never rule. The highest paid government employee should not be a scientist - even if he thinks he is "science".

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIII: The Economy: Part 5

 The Economy Part 5

i tried to break up these posts into shorter, parts for easier reading.  Did that work?  i know i missed a bunch of economic concepts - if anyone wants my views, just ask.

The Economy: What Works

i am a big fan of free market economics and capitalism; therefore, i will say much of it works.  i prefer a hands-off approach.  Supply and demand conditions create a more efficient usage of resources and tell the companies what people really want.  With innovations like online shopping, prices for consumer goods are less stick (as prices can be adjusted if a product doesn't sell, or sells well), the markets have become slightly more efficient. 

 Capitalism has a way of rewarding those who take the right chances and are responsible.  People and organizations are better at managing their money than the government, precisely because they have a reason to do so.  The profit motive is good and leads to innovation and, at least economically, leads to a better situation.  

The Economy: What Doesn't Work   

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIII: The Economy: Part 4

 The Economy Part 4 (sort of)

Regulation: When is Enough Enough?

i probably touched on this a little... Regulation becomes necessary when it helps protect the nature of the free market and it prevents fraud.  Regulation may also be necessary when a product's true cost is not reflected by the price the consumer pays.  Regulations are also necessary to promote ethical (legal) activity and a level of safety for the consume for whatever endeavor a person is in.  

So, regulation in and of itself is not evil.  What is evil is when politicians misuse/overuse regulation.  Regulation should be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.  Conditions may exist where regulation make sense in the short-term, but longer term make no sense.

Monopolies and the Anti-Trust Act 

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act started out with good intentions of preventing those with great market power from exploiting their customers with exorbitant prices.  

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIII: The Economy: Part 3

 The Economy Part 3

Free Trade

From the minimum basics of recessions, i clumsily segue into free trade.  So what is the big deal with free trade and why do people want it?  i will borrow a little from Adam Smith (though he didn't like corporations).  This deals with the division of resources (one of which is labor).  

i want to maximize the efficient usage of resources.  To do this you have to accept that different regions have different strengths and weaknesses - no one country has it all.  Countries like China and India have huge amounts of potential labor.  There are so many people available that wages should be low (especially compared to the US, not the greatest example).  

Some countries have ample supplies of resources that other countries can use in manufacturing or other productive pursuits.  Some countries have a more educated populations who are better with technology.  It is these strengths and weaknesses that necessitate free trade.

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIII: The Economy: Part 2

 The Economy Part 2

Now that you have a rudimentary understanding about what the supply and demand curves are or look like (sorry i didn't have the chart imbedded, can i even do that?) i can get even more confusing and discuss some policy implications.  Remember, i value efficiency over the normative concept of "equality".

There is normative and positive views. Normative are more along the lines of "in my opinion", positive are more along the lines of "here's the data". 

My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite Part VIII: The Economy: Part One

 The Economy

Introduction:

Without the economy, you couldn't have economics.  That would have made my Business Administration and Economics double major even more useless than it has proven to be (or exactly as useless).  

So, what should i talk about here?  Maybe it should be a surprise even to me.  Bottom line, i like free market economics and free trade.  Should i try to explain why?  Ok, if you beg me i will.  Anyone, anyone, anyone... Beuller?