The Top 3 Non-Issues of 2008

I took a few days off this week due to some medical issues with a good friend of mine, and related errands. In the course of running around, I got most of my news through radio and and the occasional perusal of The Guardian headlines on my phone. It was remarkable the number of things that occurred in that timeframe, from Hillary's tears floating her campaign through New Hampshire, to Ron Paul's campaign brushing up against the shoals of an ugly death with the recountings of his apparently racist and anti-semitic newsletter being slung at light speed around the blogosphere. Despite the tittilating infotainment that all provides, it was a notable example of some of the non-issues at play this election season.

With that in mind, I wanted to highlight what in my opinion are the top three Non-Issues of the 2008 election year:

1. Tax Reform
As much as I would love to see the system change, the IRS is well entrenched, and the accounting industry stands to lose billions of dollars. Noting the effectiveness of political lobbying on congress, I'd place the odds of a President initiated tax reform of the Huckabee magnitude succeeding at about a gadzillion to one. The only way that true tax reform will occur is if FairTax, or another tax reform organization, is able to be influential enough to swing a few rounds of congressional and senatorial elections. Currently, there's nowhere near enough representatives or senators on board to give this form of legislation any hope of success whatsoever, which makes this a presidential non-issue.

Associated issue:
Tax relief is a critical need, particularly among the middle class, and for entrepreneurs, but a balanced budget is also extremely important. The President has the power to trim some fat out of the nation's budget. Downsizing the bureaucracy and increasing efficiency would allow some savings which can then be passed back to the tax payers. Fiscal responsibility and economic savvy are two traits we need to focus on in our candidates.

2. Gender and Race
It's a truism that I would be castigated for saying: "I voted for John Kerry because he is a white man!" (I didn't vote for Kerry, but for example's sake...). The inverse, for some reason, seems to be acceptable. Do not vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Do not vote for Barak because he is black. If you choose to support these candidates, do so because you have researched their political and business histories extensively, and see evidence that leads you to believe that one or the other is qualified to be the Chief Executive. (I personally think at least one of those two could do a fine job, and that conclusion was based on the message and the qualifications, not on the race or gender).

Associated issue:
Voting against either of these candidates because of race or gender far surpasses the ignorance required to vote for these candidates based on these qualifications. If you are one of those troglodytes from a bygone era who would consider race or gender to be a detracting factor in a candidate, then you're an idiot, and please don't vote at all.

3. Global Warming
Before it even starts, I'll let you know right now, I'm not looking for the comments on this post to be filled with every green party member posting every study and report ever published regarding greenhouse gases, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and statistics on the number of squares of toilet paper used. The simple fact is this: Climate Alarmism is a profitable industry, but the number of scientists in vocal dissent to the pseudo-science behind it is growing, not shrinking. Basing domestic energy policy on climate alarmism is not only a non-issue, it's a bad idea. The Kyoto Protocol would have cost over half a trillion dollars in GDP impact in the US (PDF), and in best possible results returned practically nothing in environmental impact, while allowing developing countries such as China and India exemptions to rules which would economically strangle the U.S.

Associated issue:
The saddest part of the climate alarmist debacle is that it draws attention away from the real responsibilities of sound environmental stewardship. Has everyone completely forgotten that there is chemical pollution running off into our oceans, bottom dredging that is destroying critical sea bed coral, and private development expanding unchecked and quickly paving over every square inch in America? Environmentalism used to be a whole concept, relating to the preservation of our ecosystems, from the micro to the macro. If you protect forests, you contribute to a better atmosphere. Mitigating human impact to the environment across all fronts has a much more substantial payback in environmental conditions, and mutually beneficial co-existence with nature. The Global Warming groups have hijacked the Green Party, and potential suggested "fixes" for global climate change include pumping pollutants into the atmosphere! Make sure your candidate has a responsible environmental policy that meshes smoothly with sound economic policies, and doesn't base his or her decisions on current media doomsday trends.

Just about everything that you see or hear from the candidates at this point will be non-issues. Campaigns are built around buzz words, slogans, and talking points, and it's rare that anyone of them has enough concentrated time in an uncensored environment to really get a good feel for their real stances on the real issues. To get there, you'll need to dig, research voting histories, alliances, legislation authored, supported, stood against. It's your responsibility as a citizen to be an educated part of the process. Don't let your vote be decided by a non-issue.