We are at the intersection of Constitutional history and holiday cheer. How often does that happen ?
December 5 marks the 75th Anniversary of the ratification of the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution.
You remember that one… it is the the repeal of Prohibition – the 18th Amendment.
So, if you are so inclined, raise a glass and toast the holiday season and the 21st Amendment.
Happy Anniversary.
It has been a deeply regretted sideshow to the long and bitter election campaign that the media has savaged the reputations of the sitting President and the Vice-President – neither of whom have been on the ballot for any office during the past two years. This has gone beyond politics or necessary trashing of the administration for political gain to unreasonable personal attacks on the public servants who have kept this nation safe for the past seven years. I will address the President’s legacy on another day soon, but would like to take note of the Vice-President and his recent time in the press spotlight.
You would think that the Vice-President was a member of the Duke University Lacrosse team. He and Former Attorney General Gonzales had been indicted November 17, 2008, in a South Texas County by a rogue prosecutor who appears in my view to be abusing his office and his authority in a way which suggests, in my view, that he may be mentally unstable and should be removed from office prior to the end of his soon to expire term as a public prosecutor.
Most people do not have reason (thankfully) to fully grasp the significant power and autonomy that is vested in the office of the public prosecutor in this country. He has nearly unfettered discretion to determine whether a criminal charge is brought against a citizen or, in jurisdictions which use them, whether a case should be taken before a grand jury. The grand jury is intended to be a check on the power of the prosecutor but, in reality, the prosecutor can control the outcome of a grand jury inquiry since no defense attorneys are present and only one side of a case is heard. The old joke is that New York grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.
So apparently it is in South Texas. Juan Guerra, Willacy County District Attorney, led a grand jury investigation against a private prison contractor concerning abuse of inmates in which he sought the indictment of the Vice-President as an investor in a private prison contractor (not the one being investigated), Alberto Gonzales for using his position as Attorney General to stop an investigation into allegations of abuse of inmates at a federal detention center in the county, a State Senator, and two judges, two special prosecutors and the district clerk who had participated in an investigation and indictment of District Attorney Guerra previously.
Administrative Judge Manuel Banales dismissed the local cases based on no probable cause to support the indictment and the Judge’s conclusion that Guerra’s presenting the cases where he was the victim, the witness and the prosecutor was inappropriate. The judge initially did not dismiss the indictments against Cheney and Gonzales as neither was represented by an attorney making an appearance for the defendants. He later dismissed all indictments in the case when an attorney for the prison contractor identified technical faults with the proceedings sufficient to request throwing out all indictments from the case.
In my view, apparent cases of abuse of prosecutorial discretion and other abuses of the criminal processes of the government are very concerning and show flaws in our criminal justice system. This case is just another brick in the wall.
My sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/cheney_indicted_3
and http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426420580
A proposal is making the rounds that would fundamentally change the political process in this country and create a significant shift in power in our Presidential elections.
As most of us should know, we do not have a system for the direct election of the President. When you cast your ballot on election day, you are choosing a slate of Electors from your state who will cast their ballot in December in the Electoral College. The votes are then collected and counted in Congress in January when we find out who is really elected as the new President.
In 48 of the 50 States, the Electoral votes of the state are given to the winner of the Presidential voting in that state – winner take all in each State. There are two States (Maine and Nebraska) that apportion their votes according to the popular vote in their State. (actually by the vote in each Congressional District with 2 Electors being elected statewide). Also the District of Columbia is now represented in the Electoral College.
So, according to our Constitution, our President is elected in a process involving 50 individual State elections (plus the federal District). So what is the problem. First, it is possible for the winner of the national popular vote to not be the winner of the Electoral College Process – as seen in Al Gore’s loss to President Bush in 2000. Second, it is in theory possible for the Electors to ignore the results of their State elections and reach a different conclusion than expected. This has not occurred in our history to my knowledge. Third, it is argued that the dominance of political parties was not a feature of the original Constitution and the process no longer produces the result expected by the people.
There are proposals to eliminate the Electoral College – but none have so far been passed by Congress to be submitted to the States to amend the Constitution. A new tactic, much more clever and insidious, is to have the individual State legislatures pass local legislation apportioning their State’s Electoral votes according to the result of the national popular vote – effectively eliminating the current Electoral College system without amending the Constitution.
I strongly disagree with these proposals and speak in favor of the Electoral College for the election of the American President. The traditions of our Federal system call for majority rule with protection for minority rights. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than the Electoral College process.
If the election of the President were just a popular vote contest at the national level, the larger States and the larger media markets would dominate the election, the selection of the President, the media coverage and the campaign process. The candidates would appear in the less than a dozen biggest media markets and the rest of the country (and by the way that includes the red states) would be ignored.
The Electoral College system provides the smaller States with representation and involvement in the process of electing the President.
If you look at the red/blue state maps you will see who controls the large urban centers of population – and you will see who is pushing for these reforms and why. Changing the rules of 220 years standing would strongly favor one political party over the other and would result in a significant shift in political power in this country.
The representation and involvement of the small States provides a unique opportunity for candidates to engage in “retail politics” at the grass roots level and to have impact. Governor Huckabee greatly influenced the Republican nominating process with a shoestring budget by playing to the crowds in the smaller states without the big budget media campaigns of the other candidates. If you eliminate the Electoral College, small state influence would vanish – Iowa and New Hampshire would be meaningless and our system would be forever changed - and not for the better, in my view. President Elect Obama defeated Senator Clinton largely on a strategy which focused on the small caucus states to remain competitive in the early going while Clinton targeted the larger media driven states. These small state activities are a part of our political fabric and their loss would be to forever change the political landscape.
The concepts of State’s rights had deteriorated in many ways for 200 years. This is not a healthy trend. To me the suggestion that a State should apportion its Electoral votes according to the result of another election held outside of its borders seems fundamentally unrepresentative.
That’s my story and I am sticking to it. An citizen editorial appeared in the Lakeland Ledger this morning (a local paper owned by the NYT) which presented the counter arguments and triggered my rant. In fairness, I quote it below. I am not able to credit the author by name as the Ledger uses usernames in their forum sections.
Florida will soon give 100 percent of its support to the presidency of Barack Obama.
Obama, in contrast, won 53 percent of the popular votes cast across the United States, compared with McCain's 46 percent - a decisive victory, but a margin that will be exaggerated if the Electoral College votes, as expected, 365-173. That would give Obama 68 percent of the electoral votes.
WHAT'S THE WORRY? Americans might ask, if candidates know (and rank-and-file voters should know) that the presidential election will ultimately be decided by the Electoral College, rather than the nationwide popular vote, why worry?
The winner-take-all approach isn't a constitutional requirement. The Constitution delegates to the states the authority to allocate their electoral votes: Florida and 26 other states use law and/or party pledges to require presidential electors to award all their votes to the winner of the popular vote; 22 other states use various means to direct electors in similar fashion. (The Office of the Federal Register reports that, throughout national history, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.)
The Constitution's framers envisioned that "presidential electors" would deliberate over the choice of the president, but the winner-take-all concept pre-empts the possibility of deliberations.
The nation would be better served if the Constitution were amended to eliminate the use of "electors" - chosen and directed by states - in favor of a simple system that results in the election of a president based on the nationwide popular vote.
This is not a radical concept: U.S. senators and representatives, governors and legislators are elected by direct vote of the people.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Amending the Constitution requires the approval of three-quarters of the states, thus, it's an arduous process and unlikely to occur soon.
In the likely event that the Electoral College remains intact, state legislators could and should eliminate winner-take-all laws, pledges or practices. The most compelling and practical alternative is promoted by a bipartisan group called National Popular Vote. The NPV proposal calls for state legislatures to pass bills committing them to awarding presidential electors based on the outcome of nationwide voting. (See Link for more information.)
The most recent presidential election showed again that the overwhelming majority of Americans registered to vote are intensely interested in casting a ballot in the presidential race. We hope they will someday become more focused on whether or not their vote matters when the Electoral College convenes.
As we discuss the future of the Republican Party or our nation I frequently bring up the name of Newt Gingrich. I have watched Gingrich as a Congressman, Speaker of the House, and elder statesman. I recognize the political baggage that Newt has acquired over the years (a nice matched set, very tasteful) but I continue to like the sound of his voice.
I do not agree with everything Newt says (or anybody else, for that matter). But I recognize him as one of the few strategic thinkers in our society in the last generation. He has a PhD in history and is broadly experienced in the world. He has a disciplined and organized mind. And he can deliver a speech on the most complex and esoteric concepts in language that I (and presumably most others) can understand and interact with. He is an remarkable resource for our Republic, our government, our society and our political party.
I listened this evening to a video presentation of Newt’s appearance on November 8 before the Indiana Chamber of Commerce in which he addresses our economy and the problems of our nation. The presentation is titled Solutions for America: Making Government effective and unleashing the entrepeneural spirit. The presentation is 34 minutes and is available in video form at this link.
We are beyond politics here. To me it is common sense. (or lack thereof) When I see the increase in size and intrusiveness by government and watch this weeks soap opera on the hill with the Auto Manufacturers and the bailout hearings. In the last generation we have progressed from a business model of dialing for dollars to a model of begging for billions – and this is not progress. When I hear Newt talking about accounting rules such as the mark to market rules for banks or the practical impact of Sarbanes – Oxley, I cringe in disbelieve. The cost of compliance with Sarbox for small public companies (less than 100m in revenue) exceeds 2.5% of their revenue – just to meet the new accounting and accountability requirements imposed by that single 2002 law. There is no increase in productivity – no new product innovation – just 2.5% of revenue siphoned out of the companies to meet government red tape requirements.
Is anybody but me struck by the irony of the Congress lecturing the top executives of the auto industry about efficient operation ?
I have watched national politics for fifty years and certainly been the beneficiary of the American capitalistic system all my life. Does it bother anybody but me that the majority of voting Americans seem to be comfortable with a lurch to the socialist liberal left. (and that is just the actions of the Bush Administration in recent months – can’t wait to see what the new Congress has in store)
You are not going to hear the truth in the media. You may not even read it here. But invest 34 minutes and go watch the Gingrich presentation. <link here> Then come back and tell me if you think I am wrong.
I could become very concerned as I read the media reports that President-Elect Obama is a reincarnation of Lincoln or the second coming of a political messiah. OK – the election is over and your guy won. I get that. But how about letting the man take office and actually do something before you start writing about his performance. It is not enough that we have elected a man, admittedly talented and charismatic, who has no track record – we want to put his Presidency into the laudatory chapters of the history books before he has even taken office. Horsepucky.
The other side of the coin is the group of bloggers who despair for life on the planet as we know it and condemn the incoming administration to the dustbin of history prior to inauguration day. Equally as egregious. I would prefer that the President-Elect be allowed by both sides to take office and actually do something before we praise or condemn his performance on the job. He certainly has a couple of major issues to address on Day 1.
President-Elect Obama brings a remarkable set of talents to the table but he faces a daunting set of problems in his first year. He is likely to disappoint many of the core groups who voted for him fairly early in the game. He will be constrained by events as all new administrations are. He may be the most radical liberal since Karl Marx – or not. We don’t know that yet. But we do know where Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid stand – and they think they are going to run the country from their end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The President-Elect is doing what all new administrations do – filling his staff positions with folks from the previous administrations of his party who know where the light switches are at the White House. But is a group of Clintonistas going to bring the change promised by the candidate to the landscape ? I have my doubts – but time will tell.
Uncertainty is the bane of our system – both political and economic. Once we know what the problem is and how we are going to overcome it, the American System is resilient and extremely capable of rising to the occasion. But we are also prone to mass hysteria and herd mentality (note that I have not yet mentioned the word “lemmings”) until we identify the leader and policies we need to follow. The media feeds the beast with their “the sky is falling” editorial style. We do not need a leader who will run down the stairs, jump on his horse and ride off in all directions. Mr Obama has demonstrated, when he does not know the answer, the capacity to stand calmly with his mouth closed. It is a talent that has served him well.
Jonah Goldberg writing for Townhall.com today addresses these questions. He is frequently a clear thinker and a talented writer whose point of view I have commended on many previous occasions. I do so again today. Enjoy.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
'No' To Obama's Experimental Government
by Jonah GoldbergOn Sunday night, President-elect Barack Obama told "60 Minutes" that Franklin D. Roosevelt would be a model of sorts for him. "What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things and experiment in order to get people working again."
This is a problematic standard. What do you want in a surgeon? One who "gets it right" or one who projects "a sense of confidence?" Ditto accountants, defense lawyers, mechanics and bomb-disposal technicians: cocky and self-assured, or gets it right?
Before you answer that, please ask yourself what your point of view on this question was during the eight years of the Bush administration.
In short, there can be a chasm between being right and merely appearing to be right. Why anyone stakes greater value on the appearance than reality is a mystery to me.
But as Obama clearly recognizes, that was a big part of the FDR magic. FDR came into office promising "bold, persistent experimentation" -- and delivered. Raymond Moley, an early member of FDR's "brain trust," saw the New Deal for what it was. "To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter's tools, geometry books and chemistry sets in a boy's bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator," Moley wrote later.
Yet Americans thought it was all part of a plan, even though experimentation and planning are in fact near opposites. Why? Because FDR always projected such confidence, even as he made things worse. But this isn't another column about how FDR prolonged the Depression. Been there, done that. I'd rather be forward-looking.
In fact, I want to be experimental, too. So here's my idea: Just stop.
Stop talking about bailouts and stimuli. Stop pondering ever more drastic action. Give it a rest. Let it be.
One of the main reasons there's all of this "money on the sidelines" out there among private investors is that Wall Street doesn't know what the government will do next. Will it bail out the auto industry? The insurance companies? Which taxes will go up? How far will interest rates go down? How long will the federal government own stakes in the banks? Will more stimulus checks go out? If so, how big will the deficit get?
Interventionists, bailout czars and "bold experimenters" in all parties claim to be like firefighters; they can't stop what they're doing until the fire is out. But this analogy only works if you understand the nature of the fire. If it's a credit crisis, that's one thing. If it's uncertainty, it's quite another.
And if the problem right now is uncertainty, then these aren't firefighters, they're arsonists.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress he'd spend his kitty of tax dollars on bad mortgage-backed securities. Instead, in the spirit of bold experimentation, he's spent much of it to date buying banks.
Obama insisted he had a specific plan for the economy -- but his plan seems to be to "project confidence."
The problem with this "In Obama We Trust" approach is that it makes private-sector decision-making very difficult. If your boss says he will lay off half his employees next month, but he doesn't know who yet, will you buy a new house this month?
In a time of stability and growth, government can afford bold, persistent experimentation. But in a time of uncertainty, the last thing it needs is more uncertainty. Yet Obama's confident pragmatism, like FDR's, is a threat to confidence where it matters -- among consumers, credit markets and investors.
Yes, letting GM go into bankruptcy would be scary. But a GM bailout merely kicks GM's problems down the road while spreading the fear about where Uncle Sam's big feet will land next. Besides, bankruptcy isn't the end of the world. It's the means by which bad companies restructure to fix themselves. Bailouts are the means by which governments subsidize bad companies.
The engine company in Washington has pumped more than a trillion dollars through the fire hose. It's time to turn off the spigot, not only to see where we are but to let the normal people start fixing things.
By all means, let's hope President Obama will project confidence. But maybe he should express less confidence in the government's ability to get people working again, and more in the ability of regular Americans to rise from the ashes of any hardship. In short, don't just do something, President Obama, stand there.
Well, the last few months have not be uneventful. I have found myself on the wrong side of a couple of political questions, but in true American style, I can continue carping from the backbenches as a member of the newly minted loyal opposition.
As regular readers will be aware, I opposed the 853 billion dollar bailout in September. I agree that elements of the economy needed emergency attention, but I felt the nationalizing of certain industries or companies was contrary to our traditions and our capitalist theories. I felt that changing some of the government imposed accounting rules (mark to market and Sarbanes Oxley) would have helped the problem without direct intervention with tax-payer dollars. I agree that the government stepping up to guarantee bank deposits was totally appropriate. The increase in FDIC coverage to $250,000 from $100,000 was a good move – and should probably have been increased further. But 700 billion requested by the administration (or $853b as provided by the overgenerous congress) was and is, in my view, a mistake. And the fact that Secretary Paulson (who is part of the problem more than the solution in my opinion) is shifting in his direction in disposing of the largest single appropriation in history is an indication that I may have been right (just this once).
Now we have the well intentioned and newly elected Democrats rushing to the aid of the middle class with a big fat stimulus – never mind the last one didn’t work – and a bailout for the automobile industry.
May I remind us all again of the basic rule of the American System – in order to give me a dollar – the government must first take a dollar from you by force. Anything the government gives to one of us – they had to take from another of us. It is a zero sum game and there are no exceptions. If we print the money – it just means we are deferring payment and either our kids will pay or we will all pay through inflation or taxation. And the problem is that the government is not the most efficient means to redistribute the wealth. There are private sector solutions available for many of the social problems which we all agree exist.
But talk about inefficiency – the Auto industry is perhaps the only industry on the planet that makes US government look efficient. But this will come to pass. Probably not under the lame duck congress and the current administration, but soon thereafter when the Democrats will have more muscle in the congress and President-Elect Obama at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Most agree that there will be negative impacts to a failure of the Big three Auto manufacturers. But is failure the only outcome ? A bankruptcy system is available for these corporate giants just as there was a system to sort out the Airline problems. Bankruptcy was an answer – the planes kept flying for most of the companies and most employees are still on the job. So why do we have to subject our collective wallets to further bailouts of industries ? I am not hearing it directly stated, but the answer is unions. Bankruptcy would permit the pension funds, medical coverage and union contracts to be changed by the Bankruptcy judge for present employees and past retirees. The union leadership will not want that and they have President-Elect Obama’s unlisted blackberry number.
Charles Krauthammer, for Townhall.com discusses the pros and cons of bailout for the auto industry.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Bailout's Fault Lines
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Finally, the outlines of a coherent debate on the federal bailout. This comes as welcome relief from a campaign season that gave us the House Republicans' know-nothing rejectionism, John McCain's mindless railing against "greed and corruption" and Barack Obama's detached enunciation of vacuous bailout "principles" that allowed him to be all things to all people.
Now clarity is emerging. The fault line is the auto industry bailout. The Democrats are pushing hard for it. The White House is resisting.
Underlying the policy differences is a philosophical divide. The Bush administration sees the $700 billion rescue as an emergency measure to save the financial sector on the grounds that finance is a utility. No government would let the electric companies go under and leave the country without power. By the same token, government must save the financial sector lest credit dry up and strangle the rest of the economy.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is willing to stretch the meaning of "bank" by extending protection to such entities as American Express. But fundamentally, he sees government as saving institutions that deal in money, not other stuff.
Democrats have a larger canvas, with government intervening in other sectors of the economy to prevent the cascade effect of mass unemployment leading to more mortgage defaults and business failures (as consumer spending plummets), in turn dragging down more businesses and financial institutions, producing more unemployment, etc. -- the death spiral of the 1930s.
Bush is trying to move the LIBOR or the TED spread, which measure credit flows. The Democrats' index is the unemployment rate.
With almost 5 million workers supported by the auto industry, Democrats are pressing for a federal rescue. But the problems are obvious.
First, the arbitrariness. Where do you stop? Once you've gone beyond the financial sector, every struggling industry will make a claim on the federal treasury. What are the grounds for saying yes or no?
The criteria will inevitably be arbitrary and political. The money will flow preferentially to industries with lines to Capitol Hill and the White House. To the companies heavily concentrated in the districts of committee chairmen. To clout. Is this not precisely the kind of lobby-driven policymaking that Obama ran against?
Second is the sheer inefficiency. Saving Detroit means saving it from bankruptcy. As we have seen with the airlines, bankruptcy can allow operations to continue while helping shed fatally unsupportable obligations. For Detroit, this means release from ruinous wage deals with their astronomical benefits (the hourly cost of a Big Three worker: $73; of an American worker for Toyota: $48), massive pension obligations, and unworkable work rules such as "job banks," a euphemism for paying vast numbers of employees not to work.
The point of the Democratic bailout is to protect the unions by preventing this kind of restructuring. Which will guarantee the continued failure of these companies, but now they will burn tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. It's the ultimate in lemon socialism.
Democrats are suggesting, however, an even more ambitious reason to nationalize. Once the government owns Detroit, it can remake it. The euphemism here is "retool" Detroit to make cars for the coming green economy.
Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it.
In World War II, government had the auto companies turning out tanks. Now they would be made to turn out hybrids. The difference is that, in the middle of a world war, tanks have a buyer. Will hybrids? One of the reasons Detroit is in such difficulty is that consumers have been resisting the smaller, less powerful, less safe cars forced on the industry by fuel-efficiency mandates. Now Detroit would be forced to make even more of them.
If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, but now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to fit five-year plans to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards -- to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia.
Republican minimalism -- saving the credit-issuing utilities -- certainly risks not doing enough. But the Democratic drift toward massive industrial policy threatens to grow into the guaranteed inefficiencies of command-economy maximalism.
In this crisis, we agree to suspend the invisible hand of Adam Smith -- but not in order to be crushed by the heavy hand of government.
Maybe the news media just wasn’t paying attention during the last election cycle. The question is were you ?
This video was pointed out to me on tywkiwdbi.com.
my source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
As I reflect on the meaning of Veterans Day, I begin with a bit of history. This day of observance began as Armistice Day – in recognition of the Armistice which brought hostilities to an end on the Western Front of World War I in 1918 on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month – November 11, 1918.
Actor John Houseman in a memorable line from a movie referred to “The Great War, as we called it before we knew enough to number them.” Over 40 million casualties including 20 million deaths (military and civilian) occurred in World War I. Veterans Day 2008 represents the 90th anniversary of the Armistice in 1918.
In honor of the men and women of the current United States military forces who willingly place themselves in harm’s way for us in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world in what Senator McCain referred to as service to a cause greater than themselves, I post the text of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address on Veterans Day and other appropriate national days of rememberance.
In 272 words, about a two minute speech, President Lincoln distills the American experience into a brief statement which is as moving and relevant today as it was on November 19, 1863, when he delivered this dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery at the site of the Battle of Gettysburg. It should be noted that at the time of the speech, the American Civil War was still being fought and the ultimate outcome and significance of the war was not yet certain.
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in
a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their
lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and
proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated
it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here
have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth.”
Let’s get one thing straight at the beginning. The election is over. Barack Obama is the President-Elect. And I accept him as my President for the next four years. I wish him well.
That said, I may, from time to time, find it necessary to offer some constructive advice or criticism – as I have concerning the administration of President Bush.
Even before taking office on January 20, 2009, I expect the President-Elect to have to view the realities of our situation in a manner that may not have occurred to him during his two year campaign. As he begins the process of endless daily briefings from professional staff and military officers, he will find, as he may have forgotten, that economics (and politics) is the study of allocation of scarce resources and the skilled manipulation of conflicting interests.
The man who has skillfully avoided, in complicit conspiracy with the news media, any specific definitions of “change” and “yes we can” is going to have to figure out how not to disappoint the millions of constituents who think they heard him promise them whatever it was that they wanted in return for their support or their vote.
There are limits to power, Mr President-Elect. And limits to money, manpower, taxation, Congressional good will and political capital. The problems which rocked the temple in September have been decades in the making. Your repeated assertions that we are the victims of the failed policies of the Bush Administration are a gross and incompetent understatement. There are solutions but they may be non-traditional. I wish you well.
Kevin McCullough, writing for Townhall.com nails this issue this week.
My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/11/09/no_we_cant
November 09, 2008
No We Can't
|
The day has arrived. Tomorrow we count.
It is reasonable to say that I have never seen a campaign quite like this one and I have been watching since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1956.
The smart money sees a victory for Senator Barack Obama tomorrow and an enhanced majority in both houses of Congress for the Democrats. Karl Rove, considered to be the architect of Bush victories in 2000 and 2004, is publishing his Electoral map with 338 Obama and 200 for McCain.
This does not mean that the election is over – only that the media has gone out of its way to proclaim Obama the early victor in an effort to keep the Republicans at home.
Mr Obama has several real advantages. First, he has run a good campaign against President Bush and attached Senator McCain to the Bush administration. So Obama has benefited from the President’s low approval ratings. Second, the public became very frustrated with the summer gas pricing – blaming it on the White House. Third, the public has (rightly or not) blamed the White House and the Republican party for the financial melt down and stock market volatility in September and October. Fourth, the Obama Team has raised unprecedented amounts of cash to fund their campaign. And finally, the media has been an active partner in a most unseemly way in the candidacy and campaign of Mr. Obama.
With advantages like this, the better question may be why isn’t Obama ahead by 30 points. Because doubts still exist with the competence and experience of the “Chosen One”. Barack Obama is a talented politician who is eloquent as a speaker and has exhibited excellent political instincts. But his experience and rhetoric do not line up. He is attractively packaged and brilliantly marketed, but an empty suit (in terms of record and history). He has, in my opinion lied and misrepresented every primary influence in his life, which is somewhat insulting to me. Obama certainly has demonstrated a concern for disadvantaged citizens of urban Chicago – so why should he disclaim his long association with people like Pastor Wright and organizations like ACORN who enabled him to have the impact that he may have had on those populations.
But the Obamedia has made it possible for Senator Obama to reach this critical point in history without the examination that should have accompanied his elevation. Regardless of the reasons, Senator Obama’s rise has been remarkable. From an exciting entry onto the national scene at the 2004 Democrat Convention as Keynote Speaker to his election in 2004 to the US Senate when his expected Republican opponent pulled out of the race. But Senator Obama proved his skill as a campaigner as he faced one of the premier political and fundraising machines in American political history when he challenged and defeated New York Senator Clinton for the Democrat nomination. But it could be argued that if the media had provided normal investigative coverage of a Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democrat nominee.
So what happens tomorrow ? The odds favor Obama, but there are scenarios that favor a different result. The polls have tightened and states like Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and Florida are no longer viewed as Obama property. The problem for Senator McCain is that he must win virtually all of the tight states – while Senator Obama only needs to win one. Karl Rove’s map gives Bush states Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Florida to Obama. I do not agree. I can see McCain victory in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. (268 McCain 270 Obama). But if Mccain wins Virginia, even with a loss in Indiana – 270 McCain and 268 Obama.
If we are successful, the following map is my route to President McCain.
By the way, the choice of Joe Biden for Vice-President nominee was probably not what Senator Obama had in mind. Considerable pressure was being exerted on the candidate to choose Hillary for his running mate. The invasion of Former Soviet Georgia by Vladimir Putin and his Russian army focused even the Obamedia attention on Senator Obama’s rather thin resume. Obama’s response was to bring Senator Biden onto the ticket to provide some believability for the ticket in areas of foreign policy. The Republican choice of Governor Sarah Palin was well done for the Republican base, but has become problematic as the Obamedia has viciously and personally attacked the Alaskan Governor leaving some members of the public with a distorted view of a rather extraordinary woman who will remain a Republican powerhouse in the future regardless of the outcome tomorrow.
Larry Thornberry, writing for the American Spectator presents his gloomy but realistic view in the following article. All supporters of John McCain will need to get out the vote tomorrow to bring this story to a Republican conclusion.
My source: http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/11/03/the-bitter-end/
Political Hay
The Bitter End?
By Larry Thornberry on 11.3.08
TAMPA -- The time left for the presidential race to take final shape has diminished from months to weeks to days, now to hours. Those who say the stars will align before tomorrow for the non-socialist, non-pacifist candidate in the race sound increasingly Pollyannaish and out of touch.
American politics is ever full of surprises. So the old fighter jock might still pull it out. Stranger things have happened. But it would take a while to think of one. Supporters of the conservative (relatively) alternative in this campaign are beginning to look a little desperate waving their frayed copies of the "Dewey Beats Truman" headline and nattering on about the "Bradley effect."
McCain is well behind in the national polls and trailing in a number of states W won in '04. He's even two to four points behind in red Florida (Florida!), without which state and its 27 electoral votes McCain has about as much chance of winning the presidency as I have of hitting a Scot Kazmir fastball (I'm 66 and wear trifocals). McCain boosters and campaign officials insist the business is "within the margin of error" in Florida. But ever since the economy tanked Obama has been on the up side of that margin in almost every poll in a state where McCain led by 10 points in the summer.
The other frail reed McCain supporters cling to is the hope that the polls are just wrong. Their case goes in this wise: When designing their samples, pollsters may be giving undue weight to the large numbers of new voters the Democrats have succeeded in registering, an undetermined but quite possibly large fraction of whom won't show up to vote tomorrow.
OK, there may be something to this. It's a more difficult business these days designing poll samples than it has been in the simpler past. And if the sample doesn't represent the universe being measured, the poll is worthless. There's been quite a variation in numbers arrived at in many of the polls taken during this race. Unfortunately for the McCain side, the variation has been mostly in how big Obama's lead is.
Pollsters have been gloriously wrong in the past. I can clearly remember the morning of Election Day 1980 when the pompous Walter Cronkite in his stentorian tones, and David Brinkley in his more down-to-earth and pleasing Carolina phrasings, told us the election was "too close to call." Of course it wasn't close at all. The Old Cowpoke beat Jimmy Bob that day by a hair under 10 points. It was a rout and the pollsters as well as the pundits missed it. Could they be this outrageously wrong again?
McCain boosters also point out that historically presidential elections get closer at the end, elephantine leads shrinking to more seemly proportions. This is true. But there's a world of tightening to be done in a lot of places for McCain to have a chance.
It is written that the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong. But that remains the smartest way to bet.
So it appears that, barring a miracle, America is safe from the dreaded third Bush term Barack Obama and his surrogates keep threatening us with if we don't vote for him. What we're in fact in danger of is something like a second Carter administration. (Remember malaise, double digit inflation and interest rates, Americans in prison in Iran, a shrunken and emasculated military, Andrew Young America's voice in the UN?) If this happens, I can predict that before Obama is in office a year America will be suffering from the most acute collective case of buyers' remorse in its history.
SO HOW DID we come to this peculiar point? Always before the Democrats have helped a fairly inept, un-energized, and sometimes aimless Republican Party by coughing up some liberal hair-ball of a candidate who not only whooped up leftist policies most Americans don't fancy, but who was also a downright peculiar character.
Michael Dukakis, aka Zorba the Clerk, tried to claim competence as his qualification. But voters sported him for a hopeless, lefty nerd and George the First succeeded the Gipper. Then recall Al Gore, who some of his own supporters described as "a man-like creature." Then there was the even more off-plumb, French-appearing Jean-François Kennedy Heinz Fonda Kerry. So how come Obama, essentially out of the same mold, is going into the final days with a solid lead?
The nearest answer to hand is that he's slick where the others were clumsy. I won't make the mistake others have made of describing Obama as eloquent, or even articulate. Both of these words imply substance. But he's certainly glib. And that's taken him a long way. Plus he looks good in a suit.
Obama has crooned all the right notes while running an effective but dishonest campaign. He's claimed to be a reformer who will bring a new day to Washington. But for the total of his political career to this point he's been nothing of the sort. He oozed up out of Chicago politics, perhaps the most corrupt and in-need-of-reform politics in the nation, where he got along and went along, causing his dodgy sponsors no inconvenience.
Obama claims to be the post-partisan healer who will produce the political ecumenism he claims Americans yearn for. Yet In Illinois and in Washington he's voted the straight liberal Democratic line and has never cooperated with Republicans on anything. He claims to be the post-racial candidate who will eliminate the racial divide, yet he's been a consistent supporter of the racist policy of affirmative action and has spent decades in the pews of the church of an anti-white bigot (20 years is 1,040 Sundays on which not to hear what the Rev. Wright was saying).
At least partly because the left-stream media, who treat Obama as a beloved pet, have not breathed a word about the yawning disconnect between the saccharine persona Obama has constructed for himself and the man's very real history, a majority of Americans have bought into the scam. Apparently the public's right to know does not extend to the fact that Obama is a palpable fraud.
As the poet said, past is indeed prologue. But thanks to the left-stream media, not one American in ten knows Obama's past. P.T. Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute. With the help of the national media, Obama has gotten that down to about 30 seconds.
MCCAIN, ON THE OTHER HAND, has predictably run a lame campaign. He seems to have borrowed too many strategies and techniques from the 1996 campaign of Bob "Bob" Dole, who foolishly put aside character issues when running against a vulnerable Bill Clinton. McCain this year foolishly put the outrageous Rev. Wright and his anti-America church out of bounds for the campaign. Then late, when people were worrying about an economy in free-fall, he tried to make a federal case of Bill Ayers, a great issue for last summer but one that got limited traction this fall. At least McCain is not referring to himself in the third person.
The Sarah Palin choice for VP was a master stroke, and even in the event of a loss on Tuesday she, along with other young stars like Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal, adds some bench-strength to a party that really needs it. A test: Name three long-time Republican elected officials who would make good national candidates or inspiring party leaders. OK, name one.
Neither side is acting like this one is over. They'll be campaigning down to the final hour, with a remarkable fraction of that campaigning in Florida. All the candidates and countless household-name surrogates are here, madly crisscrossing the state in search of audiences and TV cameras. This isn't just because the weather in Florida is better this time of year than in most of the rest of the country. Though future auditors of campaign expenditures on this one will surely puzzle over why so much was spent on sunscreen during the final month.
The McCain campaign is here because they know if they lose Florida it's back to the Senate for John for the remainder of his political career. Obama and friends are here because they know a win here is the coup de grace, and an Obama win in Florida, despite the political wisdom last summer, is clearly possible, though by no means assured.
So if you want to watch McCain strut his stuff one more time in the campaign, you can see him at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa this morning. Gates open to the public at 0600. Obama is in Jacksonville at Veteran's Memorial Arena today, gates open at 0830. But then tomorrow is for counting, and tomorrow night for victory parties for one pair of candidates. The chances that a frequent song at those victory parties will be "Anchors Aweigh" seem to be circling the drain. If this turns out to be so, we can only hope that America's first socialist government, for all the damage it will certainly inflict on us, will have immunizing effects.
I hesitate to feature the attached article four days before the election because I disagree with much of what is written and with the conclusion drawn. But I do not shy away from the opinions that I disagree with.
The Economist is a publication that I respect. They tend to see the world and when they view the United States, they view us in context on the bigger stage. It is a point of view that I sometimes find helpful.
I offer an editorial from the Economist endorsing Barack Obama not because I agree with it but because I have been strong in my pro-McCain presentations as we run up to the election and I think we all need to remind ourselves that no candidate is as good as his supporters say he (or she) is and no candidate is as bad as his (or her) detractors may say. And although I support Senator McCain and Governor Palin, I like a balanced view.
I should point out that historically I don’t seem to agree with The Economist endorsements for American President very much of the time. In 2004, they endorsed Kerry, in 2000, Bush. 1996 brought a Dole endorsement after a Clinton choice in 1992. The Economist editors endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980 but made no endorsement in 1984 or 1988.
The editors choice in 2004 to support Senator Kerry was a preference for change rather than continuity. That is not, despite Senator Obama repeated statements, our choice this year. Both candidates represent change from the Bush years. While I find much to admire with President Bush, there are also areas of disagreement – but the simple truth is that Mr Bush is not running this year. Get over it.
I continue to look favorably at John McCain for his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges and justices; his assurance to be conservative in his economic policies and to cut spending; and his recognized positions on the Iraq war, US strategic interests, the military and homeland security.
For a slightly different opinion, I cite the editors of the Economist.
My source: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1
The presidential election
It's time
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print editionAmerica should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world
IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.
At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the first in a series of quid pro quo actions to be expected with the liberal princes in Washington (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) and their supporters in the labor unions.
Briefly put, it removes the secret ballot protection from the process of union organizing.
Senator McCain has stated that strongly opposes the act (not yet passed in the Senate – passed as HR 800 in the House). “Not only is the title deceptive, the enactment of such an ill-conceived measure would be a gross deception to the hard-working Americans who would fall victim to it.” Later in 2008, McCain said of the measure, “It is dangerous for America, it’s dangerous to small business. And I think its a threat to one of the fundamentals of democracy.”
But opposition to the bill has come from an unexpected source – former Democrat Presidential nominee and Senator George McGovern who wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “We cannot be the party that strips Americans of the right to a secret ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.”
But Senator Obama supports passage of the EFCA.
Here is an ad paid for by George McGovern:
My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjp4Cx-3W0
As I have indicated recently, I have a few more rants left in me before the election. Fasten your seat belts – its going to be a bumpy ride.
I am getting very frustrated with the class warfare and name calling by the left and the chosen one. When you talk about taxing a corporation, you are talking about taxing shareholders. You punish everybody with a 401k that has Exxon/Mobile – every stockholder and every employee.
Only the left tries to target tax policies to further social engineering agendas. Senator Obama says that the Bush tax cuts only favor the rich. (which has nothing to do with Senator McCain, by the way – but I will come back to that another time). I have a news flash for you Senator – the rich are the only ones paying any taxes. When you cut tax rates across the board, the people who pay the most in taxes are likely to see the greatest impact. It wasn’t that we wanted to only give a tax cut to the wealthy – but they are the only ones left on the tax rolls. The top 5% of income earners are paying almost 70% of the income taxes now. The bottom 50% of income earners are paying less than 3% of taxes. At least, if we cut taxes to those persons and business that create jobs we will stimulate the economy, create jobs and increase government revenues. Not bad for a tax cut.
When Senator Obama talks about tax cuts for those who are not paying any taxes it is sophistry. He is going to send a check to those who do not pay any taxes – then call it what it is. Welfare or income redistribution.
Remember readers. There is a basic truth to our government system. In order for the government to give me a dollar - they have to take it away from someone else (probably you) by force. That is the basis of our tax system.
So Senator Obama – if you want to take from the rich and give to the poor – if that is your vision of government – then call it what it is and run on that promise. Stop speaking in code and stop lying to the public because we see you and we know what you are. But at some point, you will have too many people feeding at the trough and not enough paying to support it. When you soak the rich - everybody gets wet. There are already too many people trying to ride in the wagon and too few pulling it. That is enough mixed metaphors for one paragraph.
I have a brief parable that explains the operation of tax cuts. This story is not original with me. I have seen the following article on a variety of internet sites and in a number of emails. I and others have featured the story on Active Rain or in my personal blogs previously. I cannot establish a source, which is too bad - it is an excellent explanation for which I would gladly give credit. It is usually attributed to one of several economics professors - all of whom have disclaimed authorship. But it is too good to pass up - and contains more than an element of truth. So I propose a toast to the anonymous author and thank him (or her) for a clear explanation of a complex and politically controversial subject.
Understanding Tax Cuts
Author Unknown
Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
a.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
b.. The fifth would pay $1.
c.. The sixth would pay $3.
d.. The seventh would pay $7.
e.. The eighth would pay $12.
f.. The ninth would pay $18.
g.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. The first four would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
a.. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
b.. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
c.. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
d.. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
e.. The tenth (the richest) now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
This is a National Republican Trust PAC production.
Game on.
<y source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IAjphhw6E
I found last weeks Charles Krauthammer article to be a strong, even moving endorsement of John McCain.
It has been frustrating to listen to the Obama campaign complain of the negative attacks on their candidate while, from this observers perspective, the Obama campaign has been the leader in untrue and negative attacks.
Well, we are just a week from the finish line (the campaign finish line, that is – who knows when the result of the race will be known) and I for one will be glad to see it over. <
