The Freedom Party America Platform is the party’s anchor. It is designed to serve as a basis for legislation and the general management policies of the United States of America which, successfully campaigned, will bring our civil code and national conduct to within the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the nation’s founders. In short, it is a platform for the generation of public policy in service to the individual citizens of the United States. As conditions may merit, the platform will change to address those conditions. However, FPA will always immediately update those changes for your review. Absolute clarity for American voters is our goal.
- Tax Policy
The present system of progressive taxation is blatantly unequal. It punishes excellence and success with higher rates of taxation while it offers a free ride to other citizens who enjoy the benefits of life in the United States, but who have no financial stake in those benefits. The FPA seeks to replace the current tax system with a uniform tax code which does not vary from person to person depending upon economic circumstances. It will be a tax code which is consistent, unchanging, predictable and simple. The current US tax code with its (2014) 73,954 pages hardly fits that description.
With a view to restoring the concept of “equal justice under the law” while simultaneously keeping more money in the hands of the people and private enterprise, the FPA will drive to pass the following legislative actions:
- National Sales Tax legislation
- Repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax amendment)
- Abolition of the IRS
- Abolition of capital gains taxes
- Drawdown of corporate income taxes
- Repeal of state property tax law
- Repeal of all federal and state estate and gift taxes
- Foreign Policy
In social intercourse, a person who inserts himself into the affairs of others of his acquaintance and attempts to effect changes in that person’s life, unbidden, is known, at best, as a “busybody”. They usually come to be roundly despised, even when they have effected positive outcomes. Unfortunately, that describes US foreign policy for decades.
Critics of those who would turn the United States away from the broad embrace of such activities call these proponents “isolationist”. There is nothing “isolationist” about maintaining relations with one’s personal acquaintances – or diplomatic relations with one’s fellow nations – and simultaneously avoiding gratuitous involvement in their internal affairs. The FPA believes that the United States should avoid entanglement in the internal affairs of other nations, while encouraging, wherever practical and beneficial, trade and other normal relations with those nations. The FPA would urge or apply non-interventionist foreign policies, excepting instances where the nation’s vital interests are jeopardized.
The United Nations has devolved from an attempt at promoting peace among the various nations to a forum for anti-American rhetoric. As a part of its largely fruitless, though expensive, activities, the UN is attempting to pass laws which would be binding not only on the United States as a nation, but also upon the activities of American citizens in their own nation. The FPA strongly opposes any such intrusion into our domestic affairs, especially where constitutionally guaranteed individual rights are concerned. The FPA recognizes no authority over the citizens of the United States other than that authority delegated by our constitution. The FPA opposes and will fight any attempt to undermine or dilute American sovereignty. Neither does the FPA recognize the authority of any congress or president to submit to or offer to submit to any such waiver of US sovereignty. In consequence of the above, the FPA will seek to effect a permanent disengagement from the United Nations as soon as possible. As a corollary to this drive to disengage from the UN, the FPA strongly opposes and will seek to prevent the deployment of US troops under the command or authority of foreign officers.
Certain treaties exist which should be re-examined for relevance. NATO is one of these. Formed to present a military block to Soviet expansion into Western Europe, at present it seems only a device to “legitimize” US intervention in regional brush fires. When such a disturbance emerges, it seems that the US is always cajoling its NATO allies to join us there, if only with token forces. It would seem that at this point in time, bilateral relations on an ad hoc basis might be preferable.
In matters of trade with foreign nations, the FPA will seek to keep barriers as low as possible, avoiding whenever possible costly tariffs on goods coming to the United States. However, to protect American enterprises, the FPA believes that tariffs are necessary on goods coming from any foreign source, the production of which has been subsidized by the nation of origin. FPA believes in Fair Trade not Free trade.
The FPA believes that aid to foreign nations in the form of money, food or armaments should be very sparing, very carefully considered and, in instances where it is given, monitored. No nation generally hostile to the United States and/or American citizens should be given any amount of aid of any description. Some nations such as Haiti have been receiving US aid for decades. Yet they show no ability to manage their affairs. Aid should be ceased to such nations demonstrating a chronic inability or unwillingness to manage their internal affairs. Neither should any nation granted any form of aid from the US simply be given the aid. Accounts and accounting should be established, verifying the use of the funds or goods and tracking distribution. Diversion to unintended or unstated uses of such funding should be cause for cessation of aid.
Helping those in foreign lands from time to time who are worthy is a noble activity and a prudent one. However, the FPA believes that while being a force for “good” is fine, it is first incumbent on the government to be a force for “good” for its own citizenry and that any thought of “good” to others should be weighed for any effects which might result for the American citizen. “How will this action affect the citizens of the United States?” should always be the first concern of the government. It will be for the FPA.
- Immigration Policy
The FPA believes that our borders should be secure and its members of congress will do their utmost to insure that they remain so. Ideally, those entering illegally will be immediately returned to the nation from which they entered the United States and all force necessary for such enforcement will be employed.
The FPA believes that immigration to the USA is a privilege which is to be granted only on merit. Birth rates should be monitored and the census should serve as a guide in determining how many immigrants may be permitted. At present, there is room for immigration. Nonetheless, the USA must be selective and be certain that they are not a problem. Obviously, highly educated applicants are desirable, but our present census of something over 300 million people already contains many citizens of incredible talent and intellect.
The FPA believes that immigration should not be apportioned by race, sex or national origin. In short, there should be no quotas except in the total number of immigrants. There should be no social engineering considerations in determining those who may or may not emigrate to the USA. No person advocating the overthrow of the United States, or anyone who has in the past advocated the overthrow of the United States, even if here legally, shall be granted citizenship. Anyone who is here on a visa who advocates the overthrow of the United States, shall be sent back to their own country and denied further entry. At present, those might be persons from nations under Islamic rule. The FPA is not opposed to limited immigration, provided that the following is observed:
- All must pass the citizenship test in English.
- All must agree in writing to be assimilated into the American culture.
- All must pledge their allegiance to the USA.
- All must provide clear evidence of their ability to support themselves without federal or state assistance of any kind.
- National Defense Policy
The FPA believes in readiness. In order to provide for the defense of the nation, the USA must be ready at all times to meet challenges from the world’s strongest military powers and if necessary, engage them emerging victorious. More desirable, however, would be to present such a capability that no nation or regime would consider such a challenge.
To be prepared to meet such challenges and to believe that such challenges will occur are two different things. Because we cannot know that such challenges will appear, but because we know that historically from time to time great nations do come to blows, the USA must be prepared for such an eventuality in order to protect the lives of its citizenry and its very sovereignty. To be in such a position requires significant knowledge of the capabilities of other militarily significant nations and an arsenal sufficient and military apparatus trained and equipped to defeat them.
Thus, FPA members of congress will be in touch with military leaders, will consult with congressional intelligence committees and will conduct themselves with regard to congressional funding to ascertain that the necessary readiness exists at all times. Today’s world is so immediate that it’s not enough to have reserves and, should trouble arise, call them up, hand them a rifle and send them to the area of interest. Things happen far too quickly today and constant readiness is the only state which can be counted upon to reliably repel or deter attacks on our nation and its interests.
In the meantime, as a function of its foreign policy, FPA congressional members will work to eliminate US participation in “brush fire” actions occurring in other nations where US vital national interests are not at stake. The FPA does not believe that it serves our national interests well to be perceived as either militarily aggressive or as a perennial interloper. Such a reputation would tend to invite thoughts of pre-emptive strikes against the United States.
- Gun Control
The FPA believes that there is no ambiguity in the second amendment to the constitution, which gives citizens the right to bear arms. FPA members to congress will vigorously uphold that right and defend it against all assaults, however veiled. The FPA recognizes that the only reason to compel citizens to register firearms is to facilitate confiscation.
- Energy/Environmental Policy
The FPA recognizes that energy is the engine of production in the United States. It is therefore incumbent upon political organizations and their members elected to congress to be sure that nothing stands in the way of the abundant retrieval and refinement of energy resources. The Environmental Protection Agency has far exceeded its founding purpose and has morphed into a department of Energy Prohibition blocking and opposing nearly all energy exploration, retrieval, refinement and distribution. Originally the only such institution in the nation, now every state has its own department of environment. The FPA will work for the dissolution of the EPA, returning energy policy to the states and their citizens, where such questions naturally reside. Additionally, the FPA also support the dissolution of the Department of Energy which neither finds nor produces energy. As for the development of new energy sources, the FPA believes that is work for the private sector. It didn’t take the federal government to develop coal, gas and oil as sources of energy. Neither is it the government’s role to find alternative sources of energy. That’s strictly a function of energy markets, markets which reflect real production costs, not costs due to government meddling in the guise of “environmental protection”. As for nuclear energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission governs that. There is no need for taxpayers to fund and carry a Dept. of Energy.
The FPA believes that the federal government has no business using taxpayer dollars to fund various energy and energy production schemes. The FPA also believes that our energy uses are strictly an American concern. Therefore our members of congress will oppose any compliance with regulations or restrictions on energy production, refinement or uses within our territorial borders attempted by the United Nations or any other nation or nations.
- House and Senate Rules
The FPA strongly opposes the rules which permit “riders” to legislation. It is completely illogical and a disservice to the citizens of the United States for members of congress to permit unrelated legislative questions to be subject to the same, single vote. FPA members of congress will support rules changes which will prohibit “riders” as well as prohibiting the drafting of any single bill containing unrelated legislative questions. The members of congress have the power to make these changes. That these changes have not yet been made and that they were ever instituted in the first place is shameful.
- Social Issues
- Abortion – The FPA believes that abortion is a matter for the individual states. There are strong regional differences of opinion on the matter and there is not constitutional treatment of it. Thus the FPA believe that the individual states should decide to what extent the practice will be permitted, if at all. In any event, the FPA believes that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. In no case is abortion a presidential question. The president cannot introduce legislation
- Religion – The FPA believe that the states should decide matters such as prayer in schools, displays in public places and etc. As with abortion, there are strong regional differences in religious makeup. Where the US Constitution is involved, there is only the statement that the government shall not form any state religion. Religious displays in public places in no way constitute formation of a state religion. The often bandied term “separation of church and state” is nowhere in the constitution, but relates to a court decision from the 1940’s. Religion plays an important role in the lives of many Americans. There should be no interference in the practice of their faith – provided it is legal – nor should the government seek to impose value judgments on religion by its actions, again, provided the religion is peaceful and doesn’t lead to the commission of crimes. Because the FPA seeks to abolish the IRS and reform taxation, there would be no concerns of taxation of churches or their tax status once the FPA has been successful in this reform.
- Healthcare Insurance – Before the ACA all Americans had access to health care. That’s not true today. The ACA has taken that away. Prior to implementation of the ACA, people may not have been able to pay for their healthcare services — but they nonetheless received it. The FPA strongly opposes the ruinous Affordable Care Act. FPA members to congress will vigorously fight for repeal of that legislation with no replacement for it. The FPA believes that private sector insurers operating at a profit on sound underwriting practices will provide the best guarantees for quality insurance. The FPA understands that “insurance” is not a birthright. Moreover, insuring someone who has already incurred the casualty or when it’s known that soon the person will incur the casualty isn’t “insurance” at all. It’s welfare. Additionally, the FPA supports the concept of medical savings accounts, administered by private banks. Government sponsored healthcare programs or healthcare insurance should be decided upon and administered by the individual states if the voters in those states deem them desirable.
- Gay Marriage — The FPA believes that our bedrooms are not the business of our government. If gay people wish to marry, the FPA sees no role for government involvement in this unless as a state issue.
- Bureaucratic Review of all federal social programs –The FPA supports review of all HHS and other social programs including welfare, food stamps and etc. for relevance and effectiveness. Again, because the constitution is a document of omission, only eighteen powers were delegated to the federal government. All others were reserved for the states and the individual. The FPA therefore believes that what are currently federal social programs rightly belong to the states and that the states should decide, each for itself, on any social programs for residents of that state. Understanding that such a shift could have undesirable consequences for some, the FPA views the shift as a long term goal with reviews of the current administrations a first step in relieving the federal government of the burden of these programs
- Education — The FPA believes that education should be left strictly to state and local control. To that end, we oppose the federal Department of Education, knowing full well that there is nothing about Washington, DC which uniquely qualifies anyone to determine what is best in education. Every state has people fully well as qualified to advise and make decisions regarding the education of residents of their respective states. This applies equally to universities and colleges. The FPA believes that any subsidies to such institutions should come from either state, local or private sources. No federal money should be spent on education at any level, except within federal institutions such as the armed forces, military academies and etc.
9. Monetary Policy and Banking
The FPA believes that ultimately, the country must revert to the gold standard. However, in the interim, the Federal Reserve Bank must return to its design purpose of maintaining a stable currency. No attempts to achieve other goals, such as “keeping unemployment low”, should be undertaken by the Fed.
The FPA further believes that the Dodd-Frank legislation should be repealed to allow bankers, not government, to make banking decisions and decisions regarding their own solvency.
10. Budgets and Bureaus
The FPA believes that the federal government is far too large and is far too involved in the everyday lives of American citizens. There are too many agencies generating rules for private citizens in the conduct of their businesses, in their civic activities and in their private lives. In view of this, the FPA favors a congressional review board to review every government agency for relevance, including any and all rules promulgated by the agency. The object is to cull out excessive and/or deleterious rules and regulations, especially where there is no discernible benefit to the general citizenry. The object will also be to seek out and eliminate overlapping areas of authority.
Regarding funding of government bureaus, the FPA supports the submission of a zero-based budget every year. There should under no circumstances be the current practice of automatic budget increases every year, in addition to any new requirements.
11. Tort Reform
The FPA are in favor of tort reform. One form of tort reform we support is the concept of “loser pays”. The person who loses a civil lawsuit would be required to pay the legal fees of the winner. This would greatly reduce frivolous law suits and suits based on contingency legal fees, a feature of a high number of lawsuits. With such contingencies, should a plaintiff sue, his lawyer agrees to take a percent of the financial award as payment. If the plaintiff loses, he pays no legal fees. For the Defendant’s part, however, there is no escaping the high cost associated with his defense. Win or lose, he pays. If a plaintiff has no financial penalty for losing – meaning that his case was probably unworthy from the beginning – the Defendant spent all that time and money for nothing. The present system encourages “fishing” expeditions where innocent defendants are hauled into court just to see what the plaintiff and his lawyers might be able to squeeze of them.
The FPA believes that, in addition to providing relief to thousands of individuals and business entities from spurious lawsuits and ensuing costs, such reform would loosen up tight court dockets, allowing trials of merit to proceed at a more rapid pace.
Once Again Representing The American People
The FPA believes that the American people have been poorly served by political parties which have become too subservient to special interest lobbies. They feature rules of conduct which put more emphasis on the money which members of congress bring to the party than to the sober financial management of the nation or to enactment of legislation which both reflects the will of the citizenry and which serves that citizenry as a primary consideration. The result is that, at present, the two dominant parties are merely varying degrees of the same thing, both taking the nation ever closer to an authoritarian socialist setup. The FPA is created to return a choice to the American public, a choice which taken that will work to advance the interests of our founding principles and precepts through our representatives in congress.
To the stated end of serving the public, first the FPA had to remove lobbies from prime consideration. Our party and members of congress will treat them with the same regard that the individual citizen will be treated. However, to remove the corrupting influence of their money, the FPA members of congress will not be deciding policy on their own. They will vote on any given question according to the direction of the party’s Legislative Policy and Agenda Council, a body of 100 men and women selected by the various, state committees each year. Elected members to congress will also serve as advisors to the LAPC, but will not decide the policy on any given question. With this structure, insulating members of congress from policy decisions, they are also insulated from lobbies. Yet the voters can be sure that their interests will be upheld in the formation of policy because it is 1) posted in advance, and 2) must conform to the party’s stated platform. Because the FPA is serious about bringing fidelity to its platform and legislative goals, any FPA members to congress who fail to vote in accordance with LAPC instructions will be thereupon expelled from the party.
Without the controls described above, what is the point of introducing yet another political party? What would prevent the same breach of the voters’ trust from repeating itself? (Hint: it’s not their statement that it won’t happen. We’ve already heard that.) That rejection of both platform and campaign statements by our elected officials is the heart of the issue facing Americans and reason for starting a new party. The benefit to the voting public in this is that, prior to an election, they will be able to visit the FPA website and see the FPA positions on given subjects, as well as its current legislative agenda. FPA candidates for office will adhere to that agenda and adhere strictly to the FPA platform. Thus, the voter can be assured that, installed in congressional office, the FPA congressman or woman will follow through with those legislative initiatives and goals. Neither will FPA members to congress initiate legislation or co-sponsor any legislation without prior LAPC approval. In this way the public will not be left scratching its head or, in many cases, grinding its teeth, wondering why it ever voted for that person to public office. The platform and the agenda – barring emergencies – are inviolate.