Obama Problem 2 of 2

OK, I'm cooled down now about Obama's infomercial last night. I swear.

In an effort to get some more useful information about both Senators Obama and McCain, I'll discuss the other roadblock preventing me from voting for Obama now, and then discuss some of McCain's flaws, and then on Monday night, I'll possibly disclose who I'm going to vote for Tuesday morning:

The bogus attack on Obama's tax plan as being "Socialist" is not the reason to dislike his ideas. This is the one area in which I think Obama is somewhat wrong, but not because it's Socialist. I cringed every time during the campaign, when Obama would be at a rally somewhere, and took the liberty to drop the phrase "the last 8 years are a result of the failed economic policies of George Bush and John McCain." As if John McCain, as a Senator, can be blamed for Executive decisions...
But anyway, Obama is wrong to say that. That's a hollow attack, and I thought his worst during the campaign, because a lot of people don't buy it. He should have tried to explain what the hell his tax plan means instead of bad-mouthing McCain, 'cause I don't think anyone understands it, so I'll attempt to explain it:

The big crux of Obama's plan is just who exactly gets a tax cut. His website says the following:

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Obama and Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

* Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

This is central to Obama's progressive tax ideas, but it isn't a "massive re-distribution of wealth" as McCain claims, it's just sort of re-allocating money that people make and giving it to retired people and people on welfare who are too lazy to get jobs. Make sense ? But it's not Socialism, and I'm serious about that fact. Now, it *seems* like it would be a good idea to tax the rich people more, but not the way that Obama wants to do it. He's constantly changed his number for what the line is for the higher tax bracket, and every time his advisers are asked about it they dodge the question and say they didn't hear that. It started at $250,000 (which gave way to the Joe the Plumber mess), then he said $200,000 at another speech, then his idiot running mate Biden said $150,000 at some speech, and then Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico said $125,000 (without permission, really. He doesn't know what he's talking about). I just want a straight answer out of Obama.

Obama's economic plan also says:
Support Small Business

* Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.

I give Obama brownie points for publicly admitting that small business drives the American economy...but they aren't all Democrats. Some small businesses make quite a bit of money, and would have a higher tax rate if Obama got this plan passed. Do you think a business owner wants to have to hand more over to the government so they can turn around and give it back to people who "need" it more? My Dad owns a small business (it consists of himself) and he's buried in bills and expenses while trying to pay his mortgage and current taxes. Do you think he'd be happy with paying more money in taxes when he has to file for extensions every year cause his income is so sporadic ? I'm not saying Obama's plans wouldn't help people, but at the same time it hurts people. I like the idea of a progressive tax, but there's a certain ceiling it needs to be at in order for companies to be able to keep hiring people and churning out growth. What Obama fails to comprehend, and this is where McCain has him beat, is that the taxes on business are *too* high, and should be cut along with middle income tax brackets. Leave out the part where people who didn't work for it get a tax cut just because Obama told them he'd do it. That's dishonest and it doesn't make the economy compete on the global scale. Yea, he wants to cut the capital gains tax, but that doesn't do crap unless business have a reason to invest in our own economy. He says he'll give tax breaks to companies who keep jobs here, but the jobs are already gone, and won't come back when the Presidnt says "sorry you don't get a tax cut cause you had to outsource to a better business environment so you can make money." Damn you, logical business choices !

More analysis:
I just type in "Obama tax plan analysis" into Google, and pull up one of the top pages, from a credible source that I recognize, and here's what I found: The Heritage Foundation, in sum, thinks McCain has the better economic plan, overall, but Obama does have some things McCain's doesn't, and perhaps McCain would pick out a few things he likes and put them in legislation if elected (entire report here).

One Key Point:
Jobs respond more to McCain's plan than to Obama's. Job growth over the 10-year forecast horizon is more than twice as high under McCain's plan than under Obama's. Total employment grows an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2,126,000 under McCain. Both plans encourage job creation in each year of the forecast, but McCain's approach leads to sig­nificantly larger job growth, and sooner. By 2018, McCain's plan, which makes the Bush tax reduc­tions permanent and lowers the tax rate on cor­porate profits, creates an additional 3,426,500 jobs. Senator Obama, however, raises taxes on many of the economy's key investors and busi­ness owners. Job growth under his plan for that same year is lower, at 1,576,200.

It's important for voters to cut through all the stuff and realize that the Obama does not have the almighty economic plan that they think he does, and it is the one reason I may not vote for him.

www.barackobama.com/plan for more on Obama's extensive ideas.

Obama Problem 1 of 2

I'm angry with Senator Obama right now. Don't act like you don't know why. 4 hours ago, flip on any major channel on television (with the exception of ABC. Ha!) and there he was, in primetime television, preceding the final game of the World Series, explaining to the American people what we already know: He's Barack Obama, and he's running for President. OK, I'm not angry that he felt the need to do a little face time and maybe stump for a few more votes, but I'm angry with how he did it, for two reasons: (1) A times, didn't it seem like the typical Democrat "Oh, let's exploit working America and say how we're gonna save the world" ? (2) I want to know: how much freaking money did that cost to do tonight? I say that because, if not for one of Obama's straight lies during this campaign, he never would have been able to do that. McCain can't counter what I saw at all tonight, because McCain can flat-out not afford it. There's something wrong with the American political system when the candidate who raised $600 million can purchase a tactical, political advantage 5 days before an election and his opponent can only sit and watch as McCain tells those who interview him: "He vowed to use public financing, and got me to commit to it...I'm still waiting for that call."

I'm talking about when at the start of this 20 month (!) campaign, Barack Obama publicly vowed to buy into public financing for his campaign. But, in June, he did a 180 and decided to opt out and allow his campaign to raise as much as humanly possible. Hence, $600 million. Now, I give Obama credit for trying to take an ideological stand against something that in his view doesn't really serve its purpose anymore. But it's disconcerting that he is on record as both singing a document and telling Senator McCain that he would sit down with him and work out a compromise. That meeting never took place.

It doesn't damage his credibility or his image *that* much, but I have a problem with Obama thinking that the system John McCain is using was going to put him at a disadvantage because he claimed the Republican party had its dirty fingers in the thing and had figured out all the loopholes. So it's questionable that he saw a way to sidestep everything and give himself the upper hand to beat something that isn't there....McCain doesn't take money from the big donors that Bush had, that's why if you go to JohnMcCain.com and look at the donation page, it's called the "Compliance Fund" not the "Corrupt Republican Coffer Fund".

This doesn't mean Obama is a liar, but it's dirty politics. I recall a column by David Brooks over the summer right after this happened (voila)...it's just dirty politics, and Obama got away with it. He went back on a promise, and not many people cared to find out why or call him out on it, but if McCain beats him in 6 days, it's because people convinced themselves he was the most trustworthy of the two...and that's scary.

Election-related Post #4

In an attempt to start to dissect the economic policies of Senator Obama and Senator today, Paul Krugman (whose columns have really started to grow on me of late) uses everyone's favorite working-class hero, Joe the Plumber to dissect a portion of the tax plans (column here). Mr. Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics a few weeks ago, and he definitely deserved it. The guy's a liberal but he reminds me of Alan Greenspan a little bit when he explains trade systems and interest or tax rates. Just a brilliant guy.

Powell's Amazing Endorsement

I flipped on "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, totally unaware of who would be on, and was glued to the television listening to Colin Powell endorse Barack Obama for president. Yes, Powell is one of the most successful African American public servants in our country, but that doesn't have anything to do with it. He has recognized that his friend John McCain has departed from his original promises and principles. I'm sure this will sway some more voters to vote for Senator Obama, but by itself, this is a pretty inspiring few minutes of television that Powell provided me.

Video and text of what he had to say goes here.

Obama and McCain at the Al Smith Dinner

It's pretty remarkable when two candidates who pretty much hate each others' guts on the campaign trail can shift gears and mutually appear together at a charity event. Senators Obama and McCain each gave "keynote-type" addresses at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York, and I was pretty impressed. McCain was a tad more raucous than Obama was, but that's OK...Obama gave a very subtle and moving bit about Tim Russert at one point, and McCain took the moral high ground by catching Obama a tad by surprise when saying "I can't wish him luck, but I wish him well." Great stuff.

Big Mac atones to Dave Letterman

Senator McCain finally made it back to "The Late Show" to make it up to poor Dave for slighting him in the wake of the financial emergency that caused his cancellation a few weeks back. I think McCain gets brownie points for as many talk show interviews as he does. He really is quite a personable man if he lets it come out. I don't understand why Senator Obama is so reluctant to do mass market appearances like this, aside from this weirdo block of time he purchased to air during the World Series (good way to drum up votes of more "Joe the Plumbers," Barack). I can only recall him going on Oprah and the Ellen Show, but that was many many months ago, before he was the nominee even, I believe. Oh, wait, he did go on "The Late Show" pretty recently, but for some reason, he seems stiffer in that environment...uncomfortable even, like he's afraid to open up too much. Anywho, here's Big Mac (he wins points for flat-out saying, "I screwed up"):

Election-related post 1 of ???

OK, so I gather that a lot of Americans, including myself, are becoming extremely frustrated with the presidential campaign. Both Senators Obama and McCain are sort of reverting to plain-ness in these final days so as to not upset anyone. Last night's debate was pretty stimulating at times, but if you strip it down, they didn't say a whole lot of new ideas or expand upon anything they have been asked along the campaign trail. McCain explained his mortgage-buying idea a little more, and Obama gave a pretty detailed explanation of his healthcare plan that I hadn't heard before (McCain explained his a tad also). The bottom line is, would either of these men be so terrible as President? At the start of the general election battle -- that is, when these two had sowed up enough delegates in the primaries -- I recall a fantastic cover of an issue of The Economist. It read, "The Best of America" and had Obama and McCain, side by side, on the front cover behind an American flag. No matter which one wins, he is still going to have to work with everyone to fix a whole host of problems, and they can add the stock market to the enormous list. The second-to-last piece I ever wrote for the Daily brought up a simple point: both of these two deserve the office they seek. You can't deny this has been fascinating to watch, but I feel stupid for once writing that neither of these men would resort to negative politicking (that lasted for about two days didn't it?)

I'm a conservative social democrat libertarian of sorts, and there is a lot to like on both sides (Sarah Palin and Joe Biden's hairplugs not withstanding) but I want to see more out of these guys. They have to impress me more, and actually look us in the eyes and say "I will do x x and x to fix problem a b and c" instead of griping over a long-ago meeting with a domestic dissident or how many times one voted in support of George W. Bush. I don't care. I don't care about how many homes John McCain owns or that Obama's middle name makes him an Arab. I don't care about a Plumber in Ohio who has apparently not started his own business and owes the government $1,200 in back taxes.

I am going to dissect these two men as best I can with several posts-in-waiting, and will hope to provide a service a lot of media folks don't want to and the two candidates sidestep around: real information on the issues.

I mentioned I'm a conservative social democrat libertarian, and while that sounds made up, here's my initial assessment:

McCain: Pros - Energy Policy, commitment to nuclear energy
Climate change, Iraq policy, Health care plan, Judicial appointments
Cons - Sarah Palin, Pro-life, part of his education ideas (though he is against NCLB), gun rights

Obama: Pros - Education policy, Joe Biden (in some respects), His health care plan really is quite excellent, women's rights, Energy policy, National service idea

Cons - I absolutely hate his tax cut plan and his economic package in general, Joe Biden (the other respects), that's about it...if Obama understood the economy at all, I would pledge to vote for him right this instant.

Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show

I love Dennis Miller. I think he is one of the most politically-smart comedians out there, and he was always the least-liked member of the notorious SNL casts of the 1980s, but he is as smart as a whip.

I couldn't find just a clip of Miller, so fast forward about 30 minutes in :)

Pick-ens Some New Energy Policy

Yesterday I attended a talk and town hall event featuring everyone's favorite reformed oilman, Texas' own T. Boone Pickens. He shuffled onto the stage after an overdone introduction by the MSA Vice President, receiving some final whispers in his ear for instructions, and greeted the crowd politely for the warm welcome. Pickens easily took command of the stage, totally in his own world almost, foregoing any formality or rhetoric normally heard around campus, and just plain talked to his audience. A bare whiteboard sat behind him, dressed in a plain gray suit and lipstick-red tie, his thin white hair cropped as if he was doing to church on a hot Dallas day. But this guy is an oilman, he can't possibly have real convictions about what he preaches can he? Wrong. Pickens has both bought into and personally calculated the reality that oil is running out, and America in particular is facing a not-so-long emergency to compensate for its drunkenness on Saudi sweet crude.

"I'm doing this for you. I am working for you," he said at the start. At his age, he gets it that he likely won't see his cause through to its (hopefully) successful end, even though if Pickens had his way, it would be taken care of in ten years flat. "It is up to you to finish the job I start," Pickens flatly told the crowd. His mission is simple: no imported oil in America by 2018.

The United States spends $700 billion annually on importing oil, and our consumption is around 85 million barrels of oil. Pickens thinks that using natural gas in place of oil can eliminate 38 percent of that $700 billion, wiping out a significant chunk of U.S. import costs.

Now, I'm still a little skeptical of the viability of using natural gas as a major source of energy. That's not to say that it doesn't work or wouldn't be a good solution, but it sort of reminds me of the ethanol bust. If the government commits to converting 38 percent of the US energy supply to a different source, how long will it take in terms of actual conversion, for US Government speed? I mean, we were promised corn-based ethanol about five years ago, and where is it? In about 1 out of every thousand gas stations (made-up estimate). We produced so much corn with the subsidies on Big Farm, that countries that import our corn asked us to stop because they didn't want it anymore! Pickens says that there is a vast supply of natural gas under parts of Texas, the Canadian border, Appalachia, and the Pacific Northwest, but with a lot of industry now committed to drilling for oil off of our own shores (A ridiculous option according to Pickens), how can we afford it?

One guy tried to burn Pickens during the Q&A by saying that as a commodity, gas would somehow find its way onto the global market. Wrong. Brazil didn't put sugarcane ethanol on the commodity market, did it? This is the point of the Pickens Plan: this would be OUR commodity, to sell at a price we determine and to serve as the placeholder while the other alternative energy sources are streamlined and plugged into the grid. The one thing that I do not think is viable is Pickens' desire to convert much of the US truck transportation fleet to natural gas. Even though diesel fuel is more expensive than unleaded gasoline, I think a truck that runs on batteries or a hydrogen cell is much more efficient. It's unclear how damaging the use of natural gas is to the environment, but look: If using unleaded gasonline or diesel fuel at 4/5 dollars a gallon for another few years is gonna help pay for solar cells and wind turbines (Pickens wants to build a wind belt along what is basically the Mississippi River area...why doesn't he just focus on that??), then I'm all for it. The gasoline tax has got to be increased. Anything we do right now to decrease our carbon output or whatever it is, is immediately wiped out by one day of China's or India's energy use. We build one new coal plant every few years. They build one every two weeks. It's that unbalanced.

The point is, Pickens is doing something no one else will: taking a lead on what to do to fix part of America's energy problem. A private citizen has done what government will not: stand up and offer solutions. It may seem like a conservative principle, but hey, if no one else is doing anything, somebody's got to come out and do it, and I'm glad Pickens is out there with such a large support base. He's nearly there to perfecting his plan, but that's the beauty of it: it can never be totally perfect, but it's a start.