vague

This is a terrible, unfocused plank that is a grab bag of random wishes and left-wing government expansionism.

Wages are an economic issue in every industry, including the military. If wages are too low, they will show up in poor recruitment and retention numbers. Given good recruiting numbers, there is little evidence of insufficient wages.

There is no credible movement to:

• Reassign commandment of the armed forces away from the President.
• Move away from a volunteer force.
• Recruit to fill ranks with unqualified people.

The issue of women in combat roles is an internal issue for the military and does not deserve mention here. If it comes down to it, women may decline to serve in the military if they do not want a combat role.

These are in fact left-wing and remarkably expensive policies:

• Removing disability pay offset: A lack of an offset for other disability pay is unfair: you collect twice for one disability!
• Full health benefits for National Guard and reservists: U.S. health benefits are typically a function of employment. National Guard and reservists do not work when they are not on duty, so it makes little sense to extend health coverage to off-duty times.
• Lifetime health benefits: Just like with any other employer-sponsored health plan, military health plan should terminate upon end of employment.

It is counterproductive and pointless to have a witch hunt for homosexuals.

There is zero evidence that the military is mishandling HIV.

Separation of men and women in basic training is counterproductive. They will have to work together in the field. Why create artificial barriers?

The G.I. Bill provision is accomplished. The current bill pays up to $47,556 in educational benefits over a maximum of 36 months.

This plank is wordy. For example:

• "Upgrading" and "modernizing" are the same thing.
• Vehicles are a type of equipment.
• Something that is safe and efficient is also effective.

This plank's point is unclear. Civil defense is still alive. It has shifted away from responding to miliary attack and is now focused on natural and general disasters.

Gun laws are handled elsewhere.

This is vague without better definition of what constitutes "critical U.S. interests." Also, if we are going to play the free trade and globalization game, we cannot use different rules for ourselves.

"unethical politicization of appropriations" is hopelessly vague. Congress is a political body. It's natural for issues to be politicized.

"We oppose trading of votes based on pork sharing, and promises of financial and other help during reelection campaigns." is also unclear.

It is unclear how the state can can fund programs without legislative approval. Budgets come from the legislature. While the governor has an authority called the "budget executive authority," this is statutorily authorized (source) and has limited legislative review. Modern government is complex, and the governor must have some discretion outside the biennial legislature.

Overall this plank appears to have a naive take on the art of politics. It is not pretty, like sausage making.

The part about emergency response personnel makes this plank unfocused.

"State mandates without full funding should be included in the government body's annual increase spending limits." Huh?

Also, do we really oppose all unfunded mandates? For example, consider how the Texas Public Information Act mandates openness. This is an unfunded mandate that imposes compliance costs on jurisdictions, but it's an excellent practice.

"Prisoners should not have access to private information of any citizen." and "We support alternative methods of prison administration." are hopelessly vague and unclear.

What are "basic, minimum skills"?

The first sentence is vague. It is unclear what state-given authority teachers lack, and the Support for Classroom Teachers plank already calls for increased powers to deal with misbehaving students. Any lack of authority is a district-level policy or procedural problem.

Supposely the platform is for "maximizing" local control elsewhere, but yet we want the state to tell the districts what to do?

The first sentence repeats earlier statements.

Parents have the right to withdraw children from special education as of December 2008.

"We urge the Legislature to enact penalties for violation of parental rights." is unacceptably vague.

The second clause makes little sense.