Help!

Help!  My highly politicized fellow senior passengers on our Viking cruise ship voyage to the Fijis, half of whom watch FOX News and  half MSNBC, half of whom read the Drudge Report and half the Huffington Post, upon learning that I swear allegiance to no particular political party or slant, voted me off the ship and marched to the Captain at the bridge, threatening mutiny if he did not accede to their demand.  I am now stranded on a deserted island--but opportunity, as always, knocks.  As a visit from a tornado is an opportunity to remodel your house, as flunking out of school is an opportunity to start a new career path, as divorce is an opportunity to revise your retirement plans, as PTSD is an opportunity to revisit key incidents in your past, as ADHD is an opportunity to set your mind free, as death is an opportunity to meet your Maker, so being marooned is an opportunity to reflect cooly on your political views, especially in light of the imminent U.S. presidential election.  Fortunately, before the crew jettisoned me, I was able to slip my iPad into my modesty-insuring plus-size Speedo, and thanks to my AT&T Internet subscription, am able to send you my thoughts.

After long hours of reflection lying under a palm tree, munching dates and occasionally sipping fermented coconut milk, I find that I hold the following beliefs, presented in brief.

Huge deficits are a serious danger to our economy, and we should work toward reducing them by:

Raising income taxes on all who make more than $250,000 annually, regardless of the source of their income.  In fairness, those who make more should pay more.

Instituting a modest national value-added tax.  In fairness, everyone, even those in poverty, should have some skin in the balancing game.

Eliminating tax deductions for home mortgages and charitable contributions.  Neither home ownership nor charity should be promoted by the government.

Eliminating farm subsidies.  Farmers should succeed or fail on their own.

Raising workers' contributions to Social Security.  Workers should bear more responsibility for their own futures.

Pushing back the age at which Social Security payments may begin, increasing the monthly premium for Medicare Part B, and increasing co-pays for retirees with Medicare Advantage programs.  Extended life spans have resulted in average retirees getting back considerably more than they and their employers have contributed to the fund and make them a burden to their children and grandchildren.

The U.S. should be content to "lead from behind."  Barring a direct attack on us from a specific country, wars and police actions should be undertaken only multilaterally, in conjunction with allies or the "international community."  Regime change and nation-building sap our economy, contribute hugely to our debt, cause the loss of American lives and limbs, and generally are either unsuccessful or have unintended painful consequences, as is the case with our attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan.  We should use cyber warfare and economic carrots and sticks to nudge regimes (Iran, for example) in the direction in which we want them to go.  If nudging doesn't succeed, we should acknowledge that the alternative--war--is worse.

We should decrease our military budget.  We should maintain our position as the strongest military in the world, but we already have more than enough weapons and personnel to do that.  We should replace what gets used or what wears out, and we should constantly be researching and developing new weapons systems, but we can do that without adding to our deficit by increasing personnel or current stores of equipment.

Neither "Big Government" nor "Big Business" is, in itself, something to fear.  "Big Government" provides security through a social safety net, disaster relief, environmental protections, and business regulations.  "Big Business" makes production efficient and innovative.  We should always cast a wary eye on specific government and business activities but,  in general, each is necessary to help us maintain our freedom and achieve prosperity.

We need to aggressively expand our sources of energy.  Our economy and our way of life depend on an ample supply of energy.  For the foreseeable future, that energy will rely primarily on fossil fuels.  Onshore and offshore, we should exploit all possible sources of oil and natural gas.  We should take reasonable precautions, and we should always clean up our messes, but in general economy trumps environment.  Natural parks and open federal lands are important for recreation and immersion in nature, and clean air and clean water are of course vital, but overall the benefits of things like fracking and drilling and pipelining outweigh the risks, and the preservation of ecosystems and particular species of flora and fauna is of lesser importance.  The earth is warming, and humans are probably responsible for some of that.  The consequences of that warming are unknown, but we should take moderate steps to reduce it by relying more on nuclear power, by requiring higher gasoline mileage averages for cars sold in the U.S., and by developing (with the help of federal funding for research projects) sources of green, renewable energy, such as from sun, wind, and biofuels.  We can probably adjust to most of the environmental changes that may occur without taking measures more drastic than those.

Abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or incest (in those cases, women are victims and have no responsibility to bear the child) or the endangerment of the life of the mother (she has the right to preserve her own life).  My fundamental assumption is that life begins at conception; to abort a fetus is to take someone else's life.  Women have the right not to get pregnant, and should have access through all medical plans to every type of contraceptive except the "morning after" pill.  Once pregnant, however, they are responsible for that someone else's life and may not destroy it.  Nature is unfair to women in that they and not men must bear the burden of pregnancy.

Gay marriage should be legal.  It's a matter of equal rights, of fairness.  Consenting adults should be free to enter into any kind of relationship that they choose, including polygamy and polyandry.

Capital punishment is wrong.  My reasoning is pragmatic.  I could accept the "eye for an eye" philosophy in principle, but in too many instances the use of modern forensics in reopened cases has revealed that innocent parties were wrongfully found guilty.  Further, the process to achieve capital punishment is long and expensive, involving many appeals.  It's cheaper to imprison the accused for life.

Illegal immigration should be tolerated.  My reasoning, again, is pragmatic.  Illegals are cheating, which is unfair to legal immigrants who wait their turn and play by the rules.  Illegals strain medical and educational services, and a few are involved in drug trafficking.  However, illegals also provide cheap labor and take on jobs that most Americans will not do for the wages offered.  Employers want them, and our economy needs them.  We should monitor the borders and deport all illegals with criminal records but should also develop a guest worker program and provide a path to citizenship for those who have established a life here.

Affirmative action in regard to college admission is wrong.  Diversity is admirable and desirable, but to achieve it through discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination, is unfair.  Admit college applicants on the basis of merit.  If applicants are equally qualified, use a lottery system.

Marijuana should be legalized.  Marijuana is certainly no more harmful than alcohol.  Like alcohol, it should be produced commercially and taxed, which would increase government revenue and reduce prison populations and gang violence.

Obamacare is an experiment worth exploring for a few years.  Providing insurance for some who do not have it now, including especially those with preexisting conditions, seems a fair compromise between the alternatives of single-payer system and voucher system.

There should be no limitations on campaign finance.  Money is speech, and people may use it to speak freely.  Corporations and unions may express their opinions through their leadership.

There should be no governmental subsidies for NPR or PBS.  NPR is my default radio station, and I often watch dramas, documentaries, and news on PBS.  However, like all other media, they should compete in the market place by selling ads and seeking pledges--which they mostly do anyhow, current governmental subsidies being a very small part of their budgets.

Now, irrespective of policy and philosophy, what about the men themselves?  Who would be a better leader?  Whom could I relate to?  Both are somewhat diffident, cool, self-protective.  Neither enjoys pressing the flesh or getting to know people just for the sake of getting to know people.  If he were my neighbor, Romney, I'm guessing, would always offer a polite hello or hand-wave, would notice my activities, would offer advice (but not necessarily help) on my projects, would loan me tools and equipment.  I sense that he'd be a bit judgmental and controlling; he'd know what to do and would tell you so.  Obama might or might not say hello, depending on his mood that day, and would have little comment on my projects but might decide to offer help if I were suddenly confronted by, say, a broken water pipe.  As a softball teammate, Romney would be earnest, always ready to play, hard-working, supportive, mechanical, a stiff power-hitting first baseman.  In conversation he would be analytical but literal-minded; he'd never swear; his jokes would be canned.  He would certainly not be going out to have a beer with the team after a game; his idea of a party would be a family birthday celebration with cake and ice cream.  Obama would be more inventive with his language and humor and would talk some trash.  As a slap-hitting second baseman, he'd make some creative plays (he'd have a better glove than Mitt) but display a weak arm.  Obama would not be one to party much, either, but would have one quick beer or diet soda with teammates before heading home to read, watch TV, or check the Internet.  In conversation, he would offer more breadth and more depth than Romney.  He would be up on pop culture and sports.  Romney would be much less interested in, much less aware of, such stuff.  Obama has the street cred and the Tweet cred; Romney has the Wall Street cred.

So, whom do I pick?  If only there were a formula into which I could enter my "data" to receive a definitive answer.  Oh, wait, there is.  An Internet test asking you to answer 15 domestic and foreign policy questions claims that its algorithm can tell you which candidate you should vote for.  And who, after I submitted my answers, did it say is Mr. Right for me?  Obama?  Romney?  Robama?  Obamney?  None of the above.  The algorithm says that for me the best choice would be Jill Stein of the Green Party!  Who--given my tepid response to the dangers of global warming and my belief that the economy trumps the environment--knew?  Now, will I actually sign for Stein?  Who knows?  I'm still waiting for an absentee ballot.  But somehow I think that, no matter who is elected to lead us in these parlous times, we're going to be okay.  A recent study of  median wages and average beer prices across 150 countries reveals that the average American has to work only five minutes in order to earn enough to buy a beer, whereas the international average is 20 minutes.  In just half an hour, Joe Sixpack can make enough for his daily essentials and still have seven-and-a-half hours of pay left to spend on frills.  Is this a great country or what?