Iraq, Part One

John McCain and Barack Obama have two very distinct and different world views. The evidence played out in front of a national television audience last Friday night. John McCain, as I previously stated, still acts as if we are in the midst of the Cold War, while Barack Obama follows the moniker of John F. Kennedy, who said "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate."

John McCain is still convinced that the world is made up of friends and enemies and that victory is the ultimate deterrent to more violence. In essence, proving your military might against an adversary will strike fear into those who would like to harm America and safety and status quo will be maintained. I cannot blame McCain for this stance. He is 72 years old and he has seen and lived through many conflicts that played out this way. While I cannot blame him for this view, he is certainly responsible for the fallacy of this view.

McCain is an advocate of the Powell Doctrine, named for General Colin Powell, which states:

Do not commit U.S. troops unless the mission and exit strategy are clear and overwhelming force is applied. Then give the military, and your allies, full and unstinting support.

That is a solid and respectable declaration. Unfortunately, McCain does not follow it fully. He is too impetuous, too much of a maverick, if you will. This is evident in his "campaign suspension" last week to jump into the fray of the bailout and in his reaction to the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The day after the attacks, McCain and Joe Lieberman went on the CBS' The Early Show where Lieberman identified Iran, Iraq, and Syria as co-conspirators because they provided a safe haven for terrorists. McCain agreed and said "These [terrorist] networks are well embedded in some of these countries." How could he knew all of this less than 24 hours after the attacks with no intelligence confirmation?

Although an alleged proponent of the Powell Doctrine, McCain said on Larry King Live on December 19, 2002 that "Our technology, particularly air-to-ground technology, is vastly improved. I don't think you're going to have to see the scale or number of troops that we saw, nor the length of the buildup, obviously, that we had back in 1991." This is in direct opposition to Colin Powell's message to President Bush. Powell said "I tried to avoid this war. I took him (Bush) through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers." Powell, apparently, tried to persuade Bush for over two hours to avoid this conflict in Iraq. After he was unsuccessful, he encouraged Bush to add more military to the initial invasion, only to be rebuked. On the other hand, McCain told the Hartford Courant on March 5, 2003 "I have no qualms about our strategic plans."

McCain was among the most aggressive proponents of a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, co-sponsoring the resolution of force against Iraq. While debating the resolution on March 19, 2003, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia took to the Senate floor and said "We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. After the war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe." McCain also took the Senate floor that day to proclaim "When the people of Iraq are liberated, we will have again written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America."

President Bush and his administration (half-heartedly) were determined to accomplish whatever it was they set out to do in Iraq (I believe it was to liberate the Iraqis and find and destroy weapons of mass destruction under the guise that Iraq harbored and abetted terrorist organizations, thus being eligible for invasion under the Bush Doctrine), so the president rebuked all "think groups" and the American public, all of whom told him to get out of Iraq. Shortly thereafter, the idea for the surge came from some low-level underlings and Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. It was the fall of 2006, so Bush sat on the idea because he didn't want to publicly endorse more troops for Iraq until after the election season. McCain coupled himself with the surge idea because he had been rallying for more troops since 2003. Finally, the military, almost four years after the start of the war, was going to get its overwhelming force. Unfortunately, there was (is) still no clear objective or exit strategy in place.

In April 2007, McCain told Condoleezza Rice "We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime." This was unacceptable to McCain. He was more interested in victory than anything else. The legacy of the United States of America and its war record held more interest than the will of the American people and the lives of our servicemen and -women. Larry Sabato, University of Virginia political science professor, says that "McCain owns Iraq as much as Bush does now" in reference to the surge.

McCain claims that the surge is working, but it has been well-documented that the Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $10 a day (in between $700,000 and $800,000 per day) not to attack U.S. forces. Those payments began as soon as the additional troops began landing in Iraq. Military officials cannot seem to agree whether the additional troops played or the payoffs played the biggest role in reducing the violence, and we can never know since these two events occur ed simultaneously.

McCain says on his website, "The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home."

On May 15, 2008, McCain said this about the future during a speech in Columbus, Ohio: "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed so terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom."

On May 2, 2008 in Colorado, McCain said "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will-that will prevent us-that will prevent us from ever having to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." Later in the day he sought to clarify those remarks to an Associated Press reporter. He said "The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction."

It just doesn't matter why we went to war in Iraq (even though John McCain seems as sketchy on this as he is on the economy), it only matters that we get out of there. We cannot stabilize a society that has been at odds with itself for years unless we fill the role of Saddam Hussein as dictator. We've installed a form of democracy, many U.S. companies have gotten wealthy off the non-competitive contracts they have received from our government to rebuild what our military destroyed, and we have trained their armed forces. When are we going to leave like their government wants and our citizens demand?

Apparently the Bush administration is concerned that there will either be a civil war or that Iraq will be attacked by another Middle Eastern country if we pull our troops out. If it's a civil war, Colin Powell says "It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States." If another country attacks, we will be at fault because we left the door open when we kicked it down (military reports confirm that there were no terrorist organizations in Iraq until we attacked).

Victory, President Bush and Senator McCain, is too elusive, unless we let the Iraqi government start standing on its own. I don't know if the pipe dream will come true even then, but it's better than adding to the lists of those killed (4175), those wounded (30,662), and those effected (over 150,000 servicemen and -women have filed for disability and too many families who have lost loved ones) by this atrocity.

If you don't believe me, maybe Philip Butler, a fellow Prisoner of War with John McCain can convince you that he is not a good candidate as Commander in Chief. Butler said "The prisoner of war experience is not a good prerequisite for President of the United States. He was known as a very volatile guy and he would blow up and go like a Roman candle. John McCain is not someone I would like to see with his finger near the red button."

We Talk on Principle, but We Act on Interest

This past May, and again in June after reworking the bill, the Senate and the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, a five-year, $307 billion farm bill. President Bush vetoed the bill, but his measure was only symbolic because the bill passed with enough voted to override his veto powers (80 to 14 in the Senate and 307 to 109 in the House of Representatives).

President Bush vetoed the bill (symbolically) because he wanted to impose a gross income limit of $200,000 above which farmers could not qualify for any subsidy payments. Bush said the bill "continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase." John McCain agreed with President Bush. He said "I would veto that bill, and all others like it that serve only the cause of special interests and corporate welfare."

Although the legislation is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers — about $209 billion for nutrition programs like food stamps, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs. The bill also includes a $10.3 billion increase in spending on nutrition programs, including food stamps, as well as increases for rural development and land conservation programs.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste agreed with both Bush and McCain. They claimed that 60 percent of the payments would "go to the wealthiest 10 percent of recipients." That statement got me reminiscing to what McCain said about the proposed Bush tax cuts in 2000. He said "Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans–and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … I don’t believe the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans should get 60 percent of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10 percent should get the breaks." Yet, he voted for the plan anyway. Why are these people better than farmers? Why do they deserve tax breaks while farmers need to be capped at $200,000? McCain went on to say the bill aids large commercial farms with "an average net worth of $2 million," not small farms.

The net worth of a farm is the value of everything a farming business owns, less any loans or liabilities the farm incurs. Farming is an extremely expensive business and the overhead costs are enormous. There are plenty of farmers who farms have a net worth of over $2 million that struggle each year to turn a profit. These subsidies protect American farmers.

Bush claims that farmers are seeing unprecedented prices for their crops. That's true, but the cost of producing those crops is rising faster than the price per bushel. Wells Fargo & Co. estimates that the cost of farming an acre of corn has risen almost 47% over the last year, outpacing the 35% increase in the price of corn in the same period.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 contains items that McCain considers pork barrel spending or earmarks. This refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. Of course, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, knows all about pork barrel spending. This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million and Alaska ranks number one among all states, receiving an average of $506.34 from the government per citizen. I guess that's okay and a $700 billion dollar bailout for greedy corporate firms is okay, but $20 billion for America's farmers is unnecessary?

Fear Always Springs from Ignorance

Barack Obama tried to do something during the debate on foreign policy that was very risky. I should not have been surprised because he has consistently repeated the same messages throughout his campaign, but I was still a little taken aback. Obama basically said that we are not an empire anymore. He never acknowledged it that plainly, of course, but all of his answers and arguments proved that he knew that we are no longer the United States of America of Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation."

John McCain, on the other hand, still thinks that the Cold War is happening right now. I respect and admire the dedication that he has shown this country through his military service and his political career. He has sacrificed a great deal, and for that, I give a humble thank you. All that said, he spent the entire night trying to cast a light of naivety on his opponent when it is he who is truly naive.

The "War on Terrorism" is the new Soviet Union. The American Empire needed a new enemy because our culture is lost without one. Without another superpower in the world we had no reason to be spreading our military might around the world and demanding that other countries play by our rules. Unfortunately, military might is the last vestige of an empire. This is a last ditch effort to claim our superiority.

I'm not saying that there are not people around the world that would like to do us harm and I'm not saying that safety of our citizens and national security are not important. However, demanding that people and countries adopt our way of life has no basis anymore. Whereas we used to fight the spread of communism, now we are fighting terrorist cells. Unfortunately, we are trying to do it the same exact way and it has proven to be entirely ineffective. Do you know where the country of al-Quaeda is? Me neither.

Muslims don't hate America. I know that may be hard to believe because we have been told over and over again that they do. In a 2001 speech, George W. Bush wondered aloud "Why do they hate us?" Shortly thereafter, Gallup set out to determine the answer and launched an extensive poll. They polled over 50,000 Muslims in 35 nations and published this in 2008:

• 93% of the Muslim population is "moderate."
• 7% of the Muslim population is "radical."
• Being a religious Muslim does not make you a radical.
• “Radicals” are politically extreme, not necessarily religiously extreme; and give political reasons, not religious reasons, for condoning terrorism.
• “Radicals” are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful about the future than are “moderates”; they also support democracy/ believe in democracy more than the “moderates” do, but are just cynical about getting it themselves.
• Muslims don’t want secularism or theocracy, but a democracy based on religious values.
• Muslims don’t hate the West, they just don’t want Western ways imposed on them.

John Esposito, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University and one of the authors of the book Who Speaks For Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think, says "Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values."

This is what John McCain either doesn't know or chooses to ignore. This is exactly what George W. Bush has ignored or refused to acknowledge his entire presidency. Bush showed his disdain for diplomacy when he said "You can't talk your way to a solution to a problem." That's our president, folks. I don't know about you, but my parents never told me to hit first and ask questions later; and I didn't have the face of nation attached to me.

To be clear, there is no compatibility between democracy and Islamic fundamentalism. To fundamentalists, all foreign ideologies are evil. The question is whether there it is compatible with Islam itself. According to the Gallup poll, that seems to be a distinct possibility, but accusations and air strikes prevent that from happening.

Imperialism is over. Superpowers are things of the past. What we have is a clash of civilizations where there can be no winner, only understanding.

Choose the Bolder

Karl Rove, the former Bush chief strategist, said on Fox News Sunday (Sept. 14, 2008) that John McCain had stretched the truth in his recent round of attacks against Barack Obama. He said "McCain has gone in his ads one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent-truth test." This is a truly remarkable moment. Karl Rove has been depicted as the most ruthless smear campaign director in political history.

Just for background, during the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina, Rove was rumored to be behind a racist innuendo to undermine then-Bush rival John McCain. Voters in South Carolina began receiving calls asking them who they were likely to support. If the response was John McCain, the pollster then asked: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This snowballed into Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand to sending out an email to South Carolinians that said that McCain had sired a child out of wedlock. McCain was defeated soundly by Bush in 2000 despite winning the New Hampshire primary, directly before the South Carolina primary, over Bush by 19 points.

Before anyone starts to think that Karl Rove has had a change of heart, his point was that McCain had exaggerated so wildly that he left himself open to political attacks. It wasn't that what he was doing was bad, necessarily, it was just a little too much and a little too obvious to any rational person.

Apparently, John McCain learned his lesson well from "Bush's Brain." He has demonstrated that he will do anything to win this election, like show an utter disdain for the truth, obnoxiously divert voters from real issues and choose every path of deception to paint his opponent in a bad light. But just when you think you have seen it all, there's this: John McCain has "suspended" his campaign to go back to work in Washington on the Bush Administration's proposed economic bailout of ______ (insert Wall or Main) Street. (Amazingly enough, I did see multiple McCain television ads as I waited in the airport this morning and afternoon.)

Wow. Apparently this is what McCain thinks that a real leader should do: walk out on commitments, forsake one television appearance for another (Letterman vs. Couric), back out of the most anticipated event this campaign season (Friday's scheduled debate), and insert yourself into a negotiation where nobody asked for nor wanted your input or assistance.

John McCain looked very comfortable walking around the halls of the House of Representatives with Joe Lieberman as people snapped his picture and the media waited with baited breath for him to say anything of substance. He seemed very happy back in his element, diverting attention from Sarah Palin's latest train wreck one-on-one television interview. He appeared relieved that the newest in a line of political ploys was working.

Well, not so fast. In a poll by the released this morning by the Washington Post-ABC News, Obama had moved ahead of McCain by 9 points from nearly a dead heat just two weeks ago. One longtime GOP adviser who has been involved in past presidential campaigns and debates says that McCain's move will spin out one of two ways: if he goes back to Washington and is seen as a catalyst for a palatable solution to the crisis, it will be a "great way for McCain to stop his bleeding on the economy," the adviser said. "But it can also be seen as a transparent political ploy, when he could just as easily appear at the debate, insist the discussion be all about the economy, and talk this through with Obama." The adviser's prediction: it will play out as a political ploy.

McCain and his staff have said that if legislation is not passed prior to the debate that he will not be in attendance. They are backing off the strong statements now that the bill is in jeopardy and McCain looks foolish. McCain's strength has always been getting Democrats to cross the aisle, not vice versa. He must have assumed that Republicans favored this proposal because it came from a Republican White House and that he could mend some fences. What a terrible miscalculation in a political campaign full of them. Now he is faced with two choices. 1) Stay away from the debate and let Obama turn it into a free advertisement of himself and his plans, or 2) Go to the debate with his tail between his legs and get his clock cleaned by a man who has won every time he has come up against an obstacle that was supposed to defeat him.

W.J. Slim said "When you cannot make up your mind between two evenly balanced courses of action, choose the bolder." If W.J. Slim is right, who is the bolder candidate? I'll choose the African-American with the funny name who beat the Clinton political machine, the elitist tag, the too inexperienced to lead rap and the Muslim slander. But that's just me.

Vacation

Thanks to everyone who has been reading my blog. Only one person (I think it's the same person) has commented thus far, but I know that more people have visited the site because my profile has been perused and others have contacted me directly. Hopefully you will voice your opinion soon, even if it is only to voice support. I can't imagine that everyone who has read my views agrees with them though and that is okay. That is the essence of democracy and the thrill and privilege of freedom.

I will be on vacation for the next week and away from the access to the internet, but I will be writing more when I return. Although I won't be able to partake in discussion for a short time, everyone who visits this site is able to comment and begin your own conversation.

Once again, thank you for opening your mind and letting me express what's on mine.

Taxes Are the Price We Pay for Civilization

One of the readers of this blog asked me to go over the federal income tax plans of the candidates again. In a previous post, I listed several of the average incomes and the average amount of change each candidate's tax plan would have if enacted. Although I feel that the information I provided demonstrated a definite trend, I was pressed on this issue because the examples did not show enough information on the "middle class." I am going to try to outline this is clearly as possible with information from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

If your taxable income is:

$0-$19,000 (20% of population)
You would pay $567 less under the Obama plan and $19 less under the McCain plan.

$19,000-$38,000 (20% of population)
You would pay $892 less under the Obama plan and $113 less under the McCain plan.

$38,000-$66,000 (20% of population)
You would pay $1,042 less under the Obama plan and $319 less under the McCain plan.

$66,000-$112,000 (20% of population)
You would pay $1,290 less under the Obama plan and $1,009 less under the McCain plan.

$112,000-$227,000 (15% of population)
You would pay $2,300 less under the Obama plan and $3,200 less under the McCain plan.

$227,000 and above (5% of population)
You would pay $23,000 more under the Obama plan and $15,000 less under the McCain plan.

Obama's plan would also:

• not tax seniors who earn less than $50,000 per year
• issue a $4,000 credit per child in college
• issue a $500 per worker credit for those who make $150,000 a year and do not itemize
• change inheritance tax to 45% for those estates over $3.5 million
• continue to withdraw Social Security tax on those who make over $250,000 per year, but keep the moratorium for those who earn between $102,000 and $250,000; the current tax is taken out up to $102,000

McCain's plan would also:

• double dependent credit from $3,500 to $7,000
• set inheritance tax at 15% for all estates over $5 million
• cut corporate taxes from 35% to 25%

The overall impact on the federal budget is that Obama's plan returns $700 billion to the budget and John McCain's would cost $600 billion. To be fair, these figures are muddied by assumptions that we cannot make, like the cost of war, government spending and the world economy.

For comparison, here are tax bracket from 2007:

You pay 10% if you:

• file as single and and your taxable income is $0 – $7,825.
• file as married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) and your taxable income is $0-$15,650.
• file as married filing separately and your taxable income is $0-$7,825.
• file as head of household and your taxable income is $0-$11,200.

You pay 15% if you:

• file as single and and your taxable income is $7,826-$31,850.
• file as married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) and your taxable income is $15,651-$63,700.
• file as married filing separately and your taxable income is $7,826-$31,850.
• file as head of household and your taxable income is $11,201-$42,650.

You pay 25% if you:

• file as single and and your taxable income is $31,851-$77,100.
• file as married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) and your taxable income is $63,701-$128,500.
• file as married filing separately and your taxable income is $31,851-$64,250.
• file as head of household and your taxable income is $42,651-$110,100.

You pay 28% if you:

• file as single and and your taxable income is $77,101-$160,850.
• file as married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) and your taxable income is $128,501-$195,850.
• file as married filing separately and your taxable income is $64,251-$97,925.
• file as head of household and your taxable income is $110,101-$178,350.

You pay 33% if you:

• file as single and and your taxable income is $160,851-$349,700.
• file as married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) and your taxable income is $195,851-$349,700.
• file as married filing separately and your taxable income is $97,926-$174,850.
• file as head of household and your taxable income is $178,351-$349,700.

You pay 35% if you:

• file as single and and your taxable income is $349,701 and above.
• file as married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) and your taxable income is $349,701 and above.
• file as married filing separately and your taxable income is $174,851 and above.
• file as head of household and your taxable income is $349,701 and above.

An individual pays tax at a given bracket only for each dollar within that bracket's range. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $10,000 in 2007 would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,825th dollar (10% × $7,825 = $782.50), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,826th dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% × $2,175 = $326.25), for a total of $1,108.75. Notice this amount ($1,108.75) is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000 (for a tax of $1,500). This is because the individual's marginal rate (the percentage tax on the last dollar earned, here 15%) has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket (here the first $7,825 of income taxed at 10%). This ensures that every rise in a person's pre-tax salary results in an increase of their after-tax salary.

Approximately 2.5 million filers fall into the top two brackets listed for 2007 out of over 100 million plus filers and only the wealthiest 5% of America's households make over $174,000 per year. Obama is certainly appealing to the masses in this case while McCain joked that you are middle class if you make less than $5 million per year (yes, this was a joke). However, while McCain ran against George Bush in the Republican primaries in 2000, he said "I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big–it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans–and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … I don’t believe the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans should get 60 percent of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10 percent should get the breaks." He continued his objection in 2001 and 2003 when he voted against these same tax cuts before finally agreeing to pass them because he felt it would hurt the economy if tax laws were changed. Now his plan is just a continuation of these same tax laws.

I don't think that either of these tax plans are perfect. In my opinion, each plan has flaws (one more than the other), but hopefully, this brief outline helps you make a decision this November. Taxes, though, are a highly sensitive and highly personal matter and you need to decide what is best for your family and which candidate supports your ideals.

The title of this blog is a common misquote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, but the intent is correct.

Knowledge Speaks, Does Wisdom Listen?

In 1936 Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that "private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise." His response to the market collapse that kick started the Great Depression seems to parallel the current conundrum of the U.S. economy.

John McCain was quick on Monday to issue a statement calling for “major reform” to “replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street.” This contradicts the position that McCain has had as recently as this past March, when he said "Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."

Obama set out his general approach to financial regulation that same month, calling for regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds much as commercial banks are. He also supported streamlining the overlapping regulatory agencies and creating a commission to monitor threats to the financial system that would report to the White House and Congress.

McCain supporters cling to the belief that his extensive tenure in the Senate and his reputation as a reformer will see the country through this rough economic time. One of McCain's top economic advisers, Phil Gramm, was co-sponsor of the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act of 1999, which repealed legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks since the 1930s. McCain has pointed the blame squarely at the greed of Wall Street, but this is a greed that he has helped foster. The examples of his reputation as a "de-regulator" are too numerous for me list here, but you can find them all over the internet.

It seems as if no one saw this coming. But wait, in February of 2006 Obama introduced legislation to combat deteriorating mortgage lending practices called the Stopping Transactions which Operate to Promote Fraud, Risk, and Underdevelopment Act” or the “STOP FRAUD Act,” S.2280. The premise was simple. If enacted, the STOP FRAUD Act would have amended the U.S. Code so that it would essentially become a Federal crime for any “mortgage professional” to knowingly execute or attempt to execute a scheme that would defraud anyone, including financial institutions, in connection with an offer or extension of consumer credit secured by an interest in real property; or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, or money or property, including fees or charges, in connection with the extension of such credit. In March of 2007, Obama was the only one on the campaign trail talking about the impending housing crisis. He followed that up with his aforementioned six-point plan for economic reform in March of 2008.

As a matter of political and rational survival, McCain has had to change his tune. He quickly put out a commercial pledging that he will reform Wall Street and fix Washington. But his ad is a little light on substance. Obama, on the other hand, put together a two-minute spot detailing how he will do what McCain says he will do.

There are many obstacles here and neither candidate has extensive economic background or experience. I won't pretend to know if Obama's plans will succeed or if McCain actually has the diligence and wherewithal to change his decades-long stance. But I don't have to pretend that Obama has been trying to curb these problems since his election to the Senate and McCain has been there over twenty years contributing to these problems.

Everybody has had the opportunity to hear Obama speak. A lot of pundits and naysayers will tell you he's full of elegance and hyperbole, nothing more. I hope that somebody, besides me, has been listening.

The Greatest Wisdom Often Consists of Ignorance

Sarah Palin has been simultaneously protected and exposed since her unexpected pick for the Republican vice presidential nomination. She has served the Republicans well, sparking a resurgence in John McCain's campaign. Her gender, conservative views, and small town appeal have excited Republicans that did not want to vote for McCain and have independents and disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters taking a closer look at the McCain-Palin ticket.

Her selection has not come without criticism though. The McCain campaign kept her away from legitimate questions about her experience, questions that Barack Obama has been answering for more than a year, for over two weeks and even now she is still mostly shielded. I realize that she is not running for president, but she is the running mate of a 72-year-old candidate who has battled cancer four times. Her ability to interact in a global setting and her overall knowledge about issues seem germane to me, based on the circumstances. Anybody can read a speech that is prepared for them (before anyone thinks it, Obama writes most of his own), but what does she really think?

The evasiveness still continues, as yesterday, asked about her refusal to turn over e-mails to an Alaska investigator, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin looked up, smiled — and then stepped wordlessly into her waiting car. "The American people are going to get to know Governor Palin very well by the end of the campaign," says Steve Schmidt, the top strategist for presidential candidate John McCain. When?

She has done one interview thus far. Charles Gibson of ABC got the honor and now she is under even more scrutiny. When asked about the Bush Doctrine, the foreign policy that states the United States has the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorists as terrorists themselves, she stumbled and stalled for time until Gibson eventually told her what it was. She then contradicted McCain and agreed with Obama about proposed relations with Pakistan. She also said "I think he is regretting not picking now" in response to Gibson's question about whether Obama should have selected Hillary Clinton as his vice president. Her answer to the Clinton question indicates that she was simply a choice for political gain and not a qualified candidate.

I don't doubt Sarah Palin's sincerity or her desire to do the job well if she is elected to office. I do question her views and her ethics. Others have been much harsher, including members of her own party.

In the Washington Post, Richard Cohen went off on McCain, seizing on the Palin pick as a sign of how far McCain is willing to go just to get elected. He wrote "McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: they lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains - his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all - but just as honorably. No more, though."

He continues "His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir - the person in whose hands he would leave the country - is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not."

Here's the link for the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html

Ross Douthat, co-author of Grand New Party, called the "best single roadmap of where the [Republican] party should and is likely to head," is even fed up with McCain. He served up this criticism of Palin as the VP Nominee: "Yes, the questions were tougher than the ones that a Tim Kaine or Tim Pawlenty probably would have been handed, but they were all questions that a vice-presidential nominee needs to be able to answer. And there's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy - that it's just too much, too soon - and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage."

It seems that Palin, once the saving grace for the Republicans, is quickly burning up her fifteen minutes of fame under the hot lights of this campaign. Can the Republicans keep her safe from the forthcoming investigations and examinations? Can her overnight popularity stand up to 48 more days of campaigning? Can she do anything to deserve her immediate celebrity status? What can she do for America besides be the first woman to hold the office of vice president?

An Ounce of Action

John McCain provided the world with another gaffe yesterday. He said "I think our economy, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong." This comment came on the day that investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy.

In addition to the Lehman Brothers fiasco, the Treasury Department took control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Merrill Lynch agreed to a buyout by Bank of America. Furthermore, shares of Washington Mutual, the nation's largest savings and loan, have plunged due to growing concerns that it too would have trouble raising necessary capital and the Treasury Department is considering loaning American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurer, tens of billions of dollars. This has all happened in the last nine days. These are the nation's headlines and John McCain, even though he backpedaled from these comments with a lame line about the American worker (Rah!), seemingly does not see what is visible to the rest of America and the world. Our economy is crashing.

"Who has been the captain at the helm for the last eight years that's driven us into this god-awful economic mess at home and abroad? It's been the Republicans, the philosophy that John [McCain] has adhered to that's driven us in the hole," Democratic Vice President Nominee Joe Biden told CNN on Tuesday. "And when you have a doctor that's committed malpractice, you don't hire him for the second operation."

Blame for these economic hardships is irrelevant. The question is who is going to do something about it?

McCain has proposed a reduction in corporate tax from 35% to 25%. Aside from a few tax breaks for research and development and a bounty for who can create a more efficient battery, this is the only economic plan that he has put forth. His plan is simply the Reagan plan of "Trickle-Down" economics. Although there are many proponents of this brand of economic stimulus, most of them wealthy, it has a very sketchy track record. The following is an example of "Trickle-Down" economics that I borrowed from http://www.rationalrevolution.net/:

"Trickle-Down" can never really trickle down, and I'll expose the logic that was used to trick Americans into supporting the idea that freeing up money for the wealthy could somehow benefit the poor and middle class.

I'm going to use a very simplistic example to demonstrate the principles of "Trickle-Down" economics. No, this is not a 100% accurate model of our economic system, and it assumes that "all other aspects of the economy are equal," but the major principles are represented. I will give "Trickle-Down" the benefit of the doubt and assume that it actually does create jobs in my example.

We have a room with 5 people in it. The total value of all the money in the room is $10.00. The money is apportioned below:

Jim has $4.00, 40% of the total.

Susan has $3.00, 30% of the total.

Tom has $2.00, 20% of the total.

Amy has $1.00, 10% of the total.

Bill has $0.00, 0% of the total.

Sam enters the room and says that he has $10.00 that he wants to give to Jim. This makes everyone else unhappy of course and everyone says that they will beat Jim up if he takes the money. Sam then proposes a solution. He says that if everyone allows him to give Jim $6.00 he will give $1.00 to everyone else in the room. This sounds pretty good to everyone so they agree to let Jim receive the money. So, after Jim gets the money and everyone gets a dollar this is what the monetary breakdown of the room looks like:

Jim now has $10.00, 50% of the total (up 10%).

Susan has $4.00, 20% of the total (down 10%).

Tom has $3.00, 15% of the total (down 5%).

Amy has $2.00, 10% of the total (same).

Bill has $1.00, 5% of the total (up 5%).

As you can see, due to inflation most of the other people in the room either lost value or saw no real gain. As you can also see the size of the "economy" did in fact grow as the theory of "Trickle-Down" proposes, but the growth only benefited one person, Jim, and arguably Bill. Even though the economy grew overall most of the people in the room saw a loss of value. This is because the value of money is relative. It's relative to many factors, but one is how much money is in the system. If you have 1 dollar out of 10 then its worth more than 1 dollar out of 1,000. How wealthy you are in terms of dollars is not measured by the number of dollars you have, it is measured by the share of dollars that you have out of the total number of dollars in the system.

Now, your opinion of Sam and Jim can be one of only two options.

1) Jim and Sam were naive and actually thought that they were going to be helping everyone with their actions; the fact that the actions had a negative effect on everyone else was an accident.

2) Jim and Sam knew that taking the $10.00, keeping $6.00 of it, and giving $1.00 to everyone else wasn't going to help anyone but Jim, and they tricked everyone for the purpose of self gain using the $1.00 "gift" to the under-classes as a "Trojan Horse" to support the action. As in the example above, there are three basic possibilities for economic growth (and many variations in between). One, Growth of the economy can be spread equally among everyone. Two, the growth of the economy can be shifted towards the bottom of the population in which case the poor see a rise in relative value, becoming "less poor." Three, growth can be shifted toward the top in which case the rich see a rise in relative value, becoming "more rich."

The general economic policy of "Trickle-Down" that was put in place by Reagan has gone fundamentally unchanged since it was adopted by the country in the 1980s. The claim of Reagan was that "all boats would rise" by giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy. This did not happen. The majority of boats stayed the same or sank, while only between 5% and 1% of the boats actually rose.

The effects of "Trickle-Down" policy are evident. As would be expected from the policy, the largest beneficiaries of the "Trickle-Down" system have been the wealthy. There is no realistic way for "Trickle-Down" economics to work to increase the income of the working classes of America. In fact, I am certain that the developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this and that "Trickle-Down" has in fact worked as intended. This means that the intent behind implementing "Trickle-Down" was to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working class Americans. "Trickle-Down" hasn't failed, as many modern economists have suggested, it has succeeded in its goals, which is the increase of economic inequality and the shift of a greater portion of America's wealth into the hands of the wealthiest Americans.

McCain's chief economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Heweltt-Packard and the woman responsible for the for HP's market value crumbling by nearly half and heavy American job losses, says that McCain would like to see more transparency on Wall Street. Great! President Bush said the same thing in 2002 and nothing has changed, as evident from the recent disasters.

I simply cannot vote for John McCain. The policies are doomed to fail and we will not get out of this recession. The wealthiest Americans will increase their net worth and they may spend more money. This could lead to new jobs, but the poor of this country will only be marginally better off than they were before.

Regarding a comparison of Obama and McCain tax proposals, the Chicago Sun-Times put together its figures in June, 2008. By their estimates, for example, a person with taxable income of:

$19,000 or less would pay $597 less under Obama and $19 less under McCain.

A person with taxable income of:

$19,000 to $38,000 per year would pay $892 less under Obama's plan and $113 less under McCain's.

A person with taxable income between:

$112,000 and $227,000 would pay $2,300 less under Obama and $3,200 less under McCain.

A person with taxable income of:

$227,000 would pay $23,000 more under Obama and $15,000 less under McCain.

Obviously there are large differences here, and depending on your taxable income level, you can judge who has your best interests in mind. Friedrich Engels said "An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory." I prefer any action to a theory that does not work.

When Pigs (With Lipstick) Fly

The 2008 presidential election is the most pivotal election in my lifetime. Each candidate has a vision for this country based on ideals and beliefs. In most cases, these ideals and plans (or lack thereof) are in stark contrast of one another. Since the DNC and RNC have concluded, things have been heating up and each candidate has become more negative towards his opponent. For the longest time, I felt that both candidates had been running respectable campaigns devoted to the issues, but now I am disheartened by the attacks and distortions of the truth.

I feel that the Republicans have been the instigator and that the Democrats are now fighting back. I can't blame Barack Obama for sticking up for himself after being slandered across every media outlet. There is only one way to beat the bully, after all, and that is to punch him in the nose and see what happens. Sometimes the bully backs down and sometimes you get beat up, but it's better to fight and cry then it is to cry alone and wonder what could have been.

The Republicans have had a long history of opponent bashing and fear mongering; it has achieved success in the past two presidential campaigns, so it is not unprecedented to try to emulate those past triumphs. However, the outright boldness of falsehood in these attacks is truly reprehensible. The Republicnas have recently accused Barack Obama of supporting sex education for kindergarten students and of calling the potential vice president a pig. Really? I know politics is dirty, but did it have to go this low?

When John McCain was challenged on these lies on (of all places) The View, he answered that Barack Obama did in fact do these things. Even though he was saying the words of Karl Rove (maybe not directly, but certainly in spirit) you could see in his eyes that he was actually questioning his own character. Whether he wins the election or not, he will need to ask himself at the end of this elction if the presidency, or simply a run at the presidency, was really worth it.

I am a Libertarian who normally supports the Republican Party. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for their lives. If they find themselves in an unfavorable situation, they should simply change it. America is filled with opportunity. America loves a comeback. America has always helped those who are willing to help themselves. As a Libertarian, John McCain was one of the Republican senators that I always admired; in fact, he was the man I supported for President of the United States in 2000. He was always his own man. He voted on issues based on his personal beliefs and the beliefs of his constituents and not along party lines. He stood up for himself in Washington, D.C. despite the consequences. And now, he's turned into just another flunky of his party. His vicious attacks, out-and-out lies and pathetic choice for a runing mate have proven that he is not a steward of the people any longer. His "maverick" claim is no longer valid or believable.

Even if this is all a ploy by McCain to secure the election, he has sacrificed his principles and his character to achieve the goal. How can we ever trust him? I know that I cannot, in good conscience, respect a man who will sell his soul to get what he wants. There are more important things in life than winning, and one of them is fighting the good fight. Will I vote for McCain in November? When pigs (with lipstick) fly!