Saturday Quick Hit

A TALE OF AUNTS

It has recently been discovered that Obama has an aunt on his dad's side that is living in Boston in Public Housing. Not that we need to know everything about the candidate's families, but I find it odd that Obama has been campaigning for over a year and the media is just now reporting on that. But the story is really interesting considering Senator McCain has an elderly aunt of his own, who he houses in a condo he owned in California. You would think the media would sensationalize a story like that: one candidate lets his aunt live in public housing and calls for more taxes so the government is able to take care of the poor, while another candidate, who pays for a home for his aunt to live in, calls for less government intervention. You can't make that stuff up. It certainly allows us to see where the candidates draw the line where personal responsibility stops, and the government takes over, which is after all what is important.

TAXES

I am trying to get a handle on Senator Obama's tax plan. Originally he stated that only those earning over $250,000/year would see a tax increase. Then he lowered that to $200,000/year. Three days ago, Senator Biden clarified that it would only be those earning more than $150,000/year who would be taxed more. This morning, Governor Richardson of New Mexico , currently campaigning for Obama, said the candidate's tax plan would call for increased taxes on those earning $120,000/year. I suppose it could just be little slip ups, but if that is the case I'd expect it to happen at larger amounts too, not just incrementally smaller earnings.

I suppose the lesson is to not trust a politician when they promise to tax one person and not another. If they demonstrate a love of taxes as policy, it might be just a matter of time before they get around to taxing you too. That's probably why the Wall Street Journal, when referring to Obama's economic plan, headlined the story "The Tax Man Cometh."

Quick Hit for Friday

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  It is kind of ironic how things worked out in this election.  Senator John McCain became the pariah of his own party and an herald hero in the Democratic party by crossing the political aisle and pursuing campaign finance reform.  The vast amounts of money in politics, and particularly who was donating it, has historically been more of a concern to Democrats who worry about a politician being able to buy an election.  Republicans had been more concerned with the limits placed on what they viewed as free speech when giving money to your candidate of choice was limited by the government.  Democrats wanted to create a system that was more 'fair' by getting money out of politics, while Republicans saw it as a violation of Free Speech rights. 

  The most recent action to reform was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or more commonly known as "McCain-Feingold" after its sponsors Senator McCain (R) and Senator Feingold (D).  Senator McCain's support for this Act, and campaign restrictions in general placed, him outside of the mainstream in his own party.  Oddly, it made him very popular with the media and the Democrats, with people like Senator Biden saying that McCain is the one Republican he'd vote into the Oval Office.

  Back in the primaries, both candidates signed documents accepting public financing for their campaigns.  What that effectively does is cap the amount of money they will accept from donors and accept public money for their campaign instead(for commercials, etc).  Senator Obama said he would accept Public Financing if his Republican counterpart did.  Senator Obama made that promise when he was still an obscure politician trailing in the polls, hoping that his promise might gain him some attention and political traction.  After he secured the Democratic nomination for president and realized the massive amounts of cash his campaign was capable of raising, he went back on his promise and did not accept the public money even though John McCain did.

  The irony is this: here we have a situation in which the Democrats, historically being in favor of public financing and complaining about how unfair it is when one party is able to raise more money than the other, have opted out of public financing.  On the other side, you have the sole Republican who was in favor of Public Financing accepting it, and even sticking to his word while his opponent did not.  The Republican, McCain, is now ironically stuck in a situation of his own making.  Senator Obama did break his word, but has managed to dodge any journalistic scrutiny for it.  Additionally, he has raised enough money to drown McCain in advertising, running an average of four ads to every one McCain ad.  In a society so attached to the media, how will such unbalanced media attention affect a general election?  If it is actually possible to buy the presidency, it would appear now would be the best opportunity.

  To add to the irony, I suggest the following: Senator McCain should suggest that in the spirit of Senator Obama's desire to 'spread the wealth', he should donate 1/2 of his campaign's money to the McCain campaign.  Since Obama has decried how 'unfair' it is that some have more money than others, it would seem entirely appropriate for him to accept McCain's offer.

Media Bias Update

To be fair to Jon Stewart, I wanted to mention that this weekend he reported on Senator Obama's remarks in San Francisco, calling small town Americans 'bitter' and what not.  He made those comments in early April, but even 6 months late is better than never.

I also wanted to post this link in case anyone wanted to reads someone else's opinion on media bias in this election.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

Understanding Media Bias

  Media Bias doesn't exist as Republicans would have us think it does, as they would have us believe that there is an active liberal agenda within all facets of the media (print, TV, blog, etc).  The first thing to know is that there is a big difference between a 'bias' and an 'agenda'.  

LIBERAL AGENDA

  I don't believe in a Liberal Agenda within the media.  An agenda is knowingly going out and distorting the facts in order to promote your own personal views.  I don't believe that is happening on a mass scale, certainly not as some sort of collective agreement between different forms of media.  There are no dark rooms where Katie Couric and Chris Matthews are meeting and discussing ways to destroy Republicans.  Brian Williams is not meeting over coffee with the editors of the New York Times, planning on new and awesome ways to distort the public record and get Obama elected.  That just isn't happening, and in order to have an effective Liberal agenda you'd have to prove some organization between the different media outlets.  On the flip side, a journalist portraying themselves as un-baised while holding a personal agenda is obvious, and generally more annoying than damaging (Chris Matthews, I'm looking at you).  

LIBERAL BIAS

  Liberal Bias is something completely different than Liberal Agenda.  Every single person on this earth has a political bias, even if there is no conventional name (Republican, Democrat) for it.  If you have an opinion, you have a bias.  Bias can certainly lead to an agenda, but even an agenda isn't a necessarily bad thing.  Personally, I don't care if a journalist has a bias.  But there are questions about their bias that are important to know the answers to. 1) Is their bias publicly known, or are they pretending to be unbiased?  2) What is their bias?  3) Why do they hold that bias?   

  I believe it is important to know the answers to these questions.  As an example, lets look at this blog.

THE MILBURN GRAVY TRAIN

1) Is my bias publicly known?

  It is important for bias to be publicly known, because the pundits out there trying in vain to be completely bias-free are dangerous.  Once the perception that they are bias-free is accepted, whatever that person says or reports is much more likely to be accepted as fact.  Not only that, but people believe it to be the whole story, which might not be the case.  It would be much more powerful if we knew where they were standing from the get go.  I don't try to hide my bias on this blog.  I don't pretend to be opinion-less.  I present my case for the issues based on the opinions I have formed (my bias), and leave it at that.  I want people to take it further though, and in order to really understand where I am coming from, you have to know what my bias is.  What is it that motivates my opinions? 

2) What is my bias?

  There are certain quotes that help clarify my opinions (bias) about government, and I've mentioned most of them here before.

Thomas Paine: "That government is best that governs least."  

  "Government, even it its best state is but a necessary evil.  In its worst state, an intolerable one." 

Daniel Milburn: "If government is the answer, it must have been a stupid question."

Daniel Webster: "There are men in all ages that mean to govern well, but they mean to govern.  They promise    to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

  I am naturally inclined to be skeptical of government and those who want to take part in it.  Our first presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, had to be coaxed out of retirement to take the office of President.  And when their campaigning began, the candidates themselves didn't do any of the actual leg work.  Jefferson sat at Monticello and left convincing the public to James Madison and others.  He didn't do any of his actual campaigning.  To do otherwise was actually viewed as automatically disqualifying the person for the job!  The early presidents wanted nothing to do with government, with Jefferson going as far as saying "every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone" (translated to the 20th century,  "people suck, and they'll ruin the government if you let them") and "I have no ambition to govern men, it is a painful and thankless office."  As of yesterday, Senator Obama has spent over $600 million trying to convince the American public that he is the one who can bring change to Washington.  Senator McCain hasn't spent nearly as much, but only because he isn't popular with his party's base, and no one wants to give him their money!  We're treated to campaign slogans about how one candidate is a 'Maverick' who will change things in Washington, while the other candidate has already designed his own presidential seal!  Who wouldn't be skeptical of these people?

  I make no effort to hide my bias because I am not biased towards a particular candidate or a party.  I do not try to be objective when it comes to the politicians themselves, but I do try very hard to be objective towards truthful positions and policies, whatever they may be.  I hold the positions I do because I think they have proved trustworthy over the history of our country.  Since I try to be objective when it comes to policy decisions, I am not against changing my mind if I think the truth lies outside my current understanding.  Having this type of mindset frees me to discuss both candidates with honesty.  So if when reading my blog you come the the conclusion that I favor one candidate over the other, you know that I got to that position not because of a loyalty I owe to a party, but because of my loyalty to my underlying theory on government.  To be clear, I don't like either one of the candidates.  I do think one is wrong less often than the other, but I base that belief not on my bias towards a political party or tendency to being swayed by a beautiful political speech, but my bias towards small government and skepticism of political leaders.

3) Why do I hold that bias?

  I believe it holds merit, based on these certain points.  I think our Founders were wise men, certainly more wise than most of our current leaders.  As a result, I believe it would be wise of us to listen to what they believed and how they set up this country to operate.  I also believe God didn't design government,  but our broken relationship with him necessitates it, so the smaller the better.  And perhaps most basic, I believe human beings are imperfect even when well meaning.  We screw stuff up, so the less power we give them the better.  I believe all of this is very well documented throughout history, repeated time and time again, and is something that can be relied on in the future.  

CURRENT MEDIA BIAS

  Those in the media are like you and me, they talk about things that interest them.  Because of that, the pertinent question isn't whether all media is conspiring to sink one candidate or another, but how each individual journalist is motivated to report on a particular story or not.  

Example 1:

  Recently Governor Palin made a pretty ridiculous comment about loving to visit certain parts of the country because they are more "pro-American" than others.  Of course she is referring to her like of Republican areas, which I would imagine some left-leaning Americans would take issue with.  Jon Stewart heard this comment, and replied in his own way by saying "F*$& You" and lamenting about it on The Daily Show.  A lot of Americans heard about this story, as it was reported on most major news networks.  The odd thing is, Jon Stewart didn't make a mention about Senator Obama's speech in San Francisco, where he said small town Americans "are bitter, clinging to their guns and their God with antipathy towards those not like them."  Antipathy means a dislike or hatred, and hating those not like you is called bigotry.  On one had you have a Governor calling certain Americans unpatriotic, and a Senator calling other Americans bigots.  Jon Stewart focused on the story that interested him, which I have no problem with (other than studies have shown most 20-somethings get their news from places like the Daily Show, so perhaps some bias would negatively affect the campaign).  

Example 2:

  Everyone has heard of Dan Quayle misspelling Potato.  Has anyone heard of Joe Biden saying, "For Obama, this election is about a three letter word: J-O-B-S, Jobs!"?  We all know how Governor Palin didn't mention which magazines she reads when interviewed by Couric, and she was thusly portrayed as aloof because of it.  She is also portrayed as a redneck with her accent and little colloquialisms.  Does everyone know about Joe Biden saying "When the stock market crashed, FDR got on Television and said, "Look, here's what happened."  Never mind the fact that the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.  Had Governor Palin said that, we would still be talking about it.  Why do we believe Governor Palin is a moron when she says those things, but just assume it's "Joe being Joe" when he screws up?

Example 3:

  Charlie Gibson interviewed both Senator Obama and Governor Palin.  Here is a list of the questions he asked each candidate.  

Questions asked to Senator Obama:

 - How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?

 - How does it feel to "win"?

 - How does your family feel about your "winning" breaking a glass ceiling?

 - Who will be your VP?

 - Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?

 - Will you accept public finance?

 - What issues is your campaign about?

 - Will you visit Iraq?

 - Will you debate McCain at a town hall?

 - What did you think of your competitor's (Clinton) speech?

Questions asked to Governor Palin:

 - Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking?

 - Specifically, have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?

 - Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?

 - Questions about foreign policy:

 - Territorial integrity of Georgia

 - Allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO

 - NATO treaty

 - Iranian nuclear threat

 - What to do if Israel attacks Iran

 - The motivations of Al Qaeda

 - The Bush Doctrine

 - Attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan

 - Is America fighting a holy war?

  Now, I think all the questions asked of Governor Palin were legitimate.  But, what was going on with the questions Gibson asked Senator Obama?  Palin isn't running for president, but Obama is, and I think here Gibson exhibits a perfect example of how a bias will affect a journalist.  We know that the Gibson and Couric issues had a very profound affect on people's views on who Governor Palin is, so in this case Gibson's bias (or, playing devil's advocate, perhaps he is just really bad at his job) had a really potent affect on Senator McCain's candidacy.  

  The issue isn't collusion between media outlets, it is rather each individual journalists bias and how it affects their reporting.  If you get enough liberal or conservative journalists, their bias will lead to a trend towards more negative stories about one candidate than the other.  

  A recent study by the Project of Excellence in Journalism, after comparing stories in print and on TV, found that stories about McCain are more often negative on a 2-1 margin compared to those about Obama.  Additionally, late night comedians malign Republicans more than Democrats on a 7-1 margin.  How dangerous this is is really in the eye of the beholder.  I would hope that people read more than just one paper, watch more than just one news organization, and actively read political papers from both Republican and Democrats in order to get a well rounded view.  This only becomes a real problem if most voters don't follow due diligence, but are rather convinced to vote for someone based on what they hear in the every day media.  In reality that might be more the case, as Churchill has said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."  I doubt he would have been so skeptical if the average voter was more informed than they are.

CONCLUSION

  Bias isn't that big of a deal, I just want to know what people are biased towards.  I started this blog referencing the sad fact that most aren't biased towards the truth or even a theory on government.  Most people are biased towards a political party, and by extension a particular politician.  That leads to more emotional debates, as people are now defending "my guy" rather than trying to get to the heart of the matter.  If taxing corporations more actually generates more jobs in a real world application, and someone can give an example of that, then lets talk about it.  If someone can demonstrate that a move towards socialistic policies (including those passed by President Bush recently) are a good thing, then please demonstrate that.  Until that time, I feel very comfortable resting on the side of our Founders, whose political philosophies have produces the most prosperous nation with the best standard of living in the history of the world.  

'Quick' Hit for Wednesday

Quick Editor's note: When people become allied with an individual candidate, they get emotional when discussing politics and tend to automatically defend that candidate's actions. I would hold us to a higher standard, realizing that these people mean to govern us and we should be able to constructively discuss their positions without getting personal. I'm an American way before I'm a Republican/Democrat, and pledge no allegiance to any candidate (and not just because I don't like either candidate). If we ever want to be able to work out our issues, we need to think that way. If someone states "Senator McCain has no vision, his plan on energy is worthless and he is erratic (to borrow from Obama)" we should be able to react without emotion. If I say "Obama is way too far left, and his economic plan will have disastrous effects on our economy" does your pulse quicken? If so, you're too close to the candidate, and I would gently suggest reorienting your priorities.

ENERGY

I like to take what I feel is a pretty middle of the road, common sense approach to energy. I am not delusional enough to think that oil will last well into the next century while satisfying both our needs and those of our friends overseas at the rate our global consumption is increasing. We need to find either a new way of living, or a new source of energy.

Examining the candidates positions has become ever more difficult, since both have moved to the center on the issue. It would be much easier to examine their positions as they held them in the primaries. A quick survey would find McCain against offshore drilling, and Obama against drilling (offshore or not), coal, and nuclear. Of course, now both candidates now favor all those positions, while adding their support for wind, solar, and whatever else they can think of (including Obama's vague position to 'fast track alternative fuels.' 10$ to whoever can tell me how you fast track something that doesn't, as of yet, actually exist).

There are two types of energy of concern to us: energy for the production of electricity, and energy that drives our modes of transportation (mainly cars). Lets start with the later.

DRILLING FOR OIL

There is only one reason to be against drilling for more oil: Harming the environment. There is no other good reason to not do this, including Global Warming. The reason Global Warming should have no affect on our decision to drill or not to drill is the very plain fact that we are going to use the oil whether it is ours or not. Not drilling won't reduce our consumption. So it darn well better be ours. Here is the logic behind drilling:

In June 1998, the price per barrel of crude oil was $11. Ten years later in June of this year, a barrel of crude oil cost $126. In ten years oil prices went up $115 per barrel, a ten fold increase. In June of 1998, the average cost for a gallon of gas was $1.23. In 2005 it was $2.10, a 'nominal' increase of 70% over 7 years. In June of 2008, the average cost for a gallon of gas was $4.07. In the three years from 2005-2008, gas went up by $2/gallon. If you extrapolate that out as a percentage doubling every three years, in ten years (2018) gas would cost $32/gallon. Unrealistic, obviously. If you extrapolate it as a real number ($2 increase every 3 years) gas would cost $10/gallon in 2018. Either way, in the next ten years gas is going to be very, very expensive. This is not only possible, but very likely because a cartel of oil producing countries set the price of oil, and people need to realize that some of those countries have publicly expressed a desire to destroy our economy (Iran and Venezuela). Letting them price the lifeblood of our economy is at best incredibly stupid, and at worst traitorous.

I didn't use a 10 year example as some random point in time. I am speaking in terms of 10 year blocks because that is the time frame Senator Obama uses for getting us off foreign oil and on to alternative fuels, without additional drilling (well, to be fair in the last month he has sort of embraced limited domestic drilling with certain caveats having to be met first).

Here is where I need Obama supporters to be emotionally detached from their candidate: Obama's plan on energy is perhaps the dumbest plan anyone has proposed in quite a while. While it is not devoid of it's benefits, overall it brings nothing to the table that would in any way benefit me or you or the average citizen. Let's look at things as they are, currently.

Statistically speaking, it takes 9 years for 1/2 of the American fleet of automobiles to turn over. In a real life application this means that if every single car sold in the U.S. this year was a fully electric automobile, then in 9 years 1/2 of all U.S. cars would be electric cars. The other 1/2 would still be a form of car we're driving today (gas guzzler, or hybrid of some sort). This is very important because it means that in 10 years the 1/2 poorest Americans (those who can't afford to buy a new, expensive automobile) will be driving gas run cars when gas will cost $10/gallon. The poorest Americans. Those who cannot afford those types of costs are going to be the ones paying it. Obama's plan does absolutely nothing to avoid this reality (except raise corporate taxes on the U.S. automobile companies trying to get us cheap electric cars to begin with...but that is a discussion on taxes, not energy). I believe this analogy is realistic, because right now the best cars we have only add 100% fuel economy with their respective hybrid versions. That may sound like a lot, but to get ourselves off oil we'll have to reduce our consumption of it by a lot more than getting 50 miles to the gallon instead of 25. Hybrid cars are a great step, but won't solve anything in the long run, because gas prices will continue to rise.

OPEC (Oil Producing and Exporting Countries) controls the price of oil, by getting together and deciding what to charge based on what they view the market's ability is to sustain those prices. Today, OPEC called for a decrease in the amount of barrels of oil produced per day. OPEC is reacting to a $70 decrease in the cost per barrel of oil over the last couple of months. Their reaction should alarm all of us. If we were paying $4.07/gallon this summer, what will lowering production do? Where will prices go if there is less oil to buy? It certainly won't lower prices. They only way to lower prices is to increase output. Or at least threaten OPEC's monopoly on the oil market by threatening to open up your own domestic drilling. And who in OPEC is calling for the reduction? Iran and Venezuela. Two countries very hostile to us, and two countries Senator Obama wants to sit down and talk without preconditions. Do we really want our economy and livelihood to be at the behest of dictators who have called for an end to the 'Great Satan'? Is that sound energy policy? Would it not be better to produce our own oil?

To bring stability to our energy market, Senator McCain wants to drill offshore. Our current government enforced restrictions on off shore drilling allow Cuba to install oil platforms closer to our shore than we can. Yes, you read that right, Cuba has oil rigs closer to American beaches than the U.S. government will allow U.S. companies to drill. Does that make sense to you? Removing those restrictions would allow our companies greater access to the rich resources in the ocean floor. And just so you don't think this means we'll have tons of platforms 200 yards off all our beaches, a lot of these oil rich areas are over 50 miles from the beach (the horizon is 25 miles away, so you wouldn't be able to see them). Opening those areas up to drilling would have multiple benefits: create jobs, create new taxable corporate income, increase the supply of oil, while sending a message to the world that the U.S. is serious about our oil consumption/production and our energy security, which would bring prices down.

We should also drill in ANWR, the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. I realize there is a lot of opposition to this, but the area most likely to be drilled is extremely small. If you picture a football field, this area would be the size of one link of chain on the first down marker. That is very, very tiny.

Senator Obama states that drilling wont bring down the cost of oil before 10 years. Ignoring for a moment that Shell was able to take an oil platform from conceptual drawings to operation in less than two years, our previous price estimations noted above would indicate that bringing the cost down in 10 years would be beneficial. Drilling now is an investment in the future, and perhaps if our past politicians had recognized that we wouldn't be in this mess.

No one is suggesting that we can replace all the oil we import with our own domestic supply. Although, current estimations have projected that the United States has more oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming than the entire Middle East has in 'liquid' oil. We also cannot rely on oil forever. It should merely be used as a stop-gap measure. Here is the general idea: If we start producing our own oil, with our own companies, and our own citizen-employees, to offset our costs while strengthening our domestic security, then as we gradually decrease our consumption over the next 20 years (by increasing automotive efficiency and moving towards alternative fuels) not only will we have given ourselves those new jobs, taxable base and security, but we will end up with an oil EXPORT rather than an oil IMPORT. When we are finally using more electric vehicles than gas guzzlers, we will be in the amazing situation of actually exporting oil to other countries rather than importing it. This is phenomenally important, as we are spending $700 Billion/year on importing oil. That weakens our dollar and increases our trade deficit. Think about it: a complete reversal of fortune in only 20 years.

Senator Obama completely lacks the vision of a situation like that. In fact, the last 30 years of both Republicans and Democrats have lacked that vision. Of course, when gas was 11$/barrel it was easier to look the other way. Senator Obama doesn't really have a policy that addresses fuel economy, except 'fast tracking alternative fuels.' Most of his policies are about electrical production, like wind, nuclear, or clean coal. So lets look at those next.

CLEAN COAL

Both candidates now support clean coal, which is good. It's clean, and since it is an American resource using it would 1) create jobs, 2) create $ for the economy and the government through taxing, and 3) would be relatively cheap as the product is local. As an additional plus, there is no international cartel (OPEC) to artificially inflate the price.

WIND

Before being overtaken by the UK this October, Denmark was the world leader in getting their power from wind farms. While wind is a fantastic means of getting power for our homes, it isn't without it's issues. More recently however, Denmark hasn't been building any more wind farms. They get approx. 20% of their energy from wind, and the reason their production has peaked at that amount is because wind is, generally, not reliable. Some days it is really windy, and some days it isn't. Additionally, there isn't any good and affordable way to store the energy on above than average windy days.

In the United States, we have a few hurdles to wind energy. First, our entire energy infrastructure would have to be rebuilt. The windiest parts of the country aren't the ones that use the most energy, and currently there is no way to transport massive amounts of energy from the Heartland to the Coasts. With no way to store the surplus power, we'd have to re-build our entire electrical network. Another problem is simple: on the days we'd require the most energy (very hot days), it is generally the least windy. Again, with no means to store the surplus power on good days, we would be faced with rolling blackouts. Both political parties have failed at making this a priority, voting over and over against establishing wind farms offshore or on hundreds of thousands of acres in the middle of the country. Which brings us to another problem, the massive amount of wind mills required to generate the amount of power we would require.

Again we're faced with the reality that this technology does not currently exist. It would be extremely difficult to 'fast track' a technology that doesn't exist, and if you're talking about redesigning the entire power grid for the United States, get ready for a massive increase in taxes to fund that construction.

NUCLEAR

Nuclear power is another good alternative. France gets 80% of its power from 58 nuclear power plants. Of course, 64 million people live in France while over 300 million people live in the United States. To get the same ration of energy production would require 5 times the amount of nuclear power plants for the U.S. We would need build 300 or so plants, and McCain is only proposing 48 additional plants to add to the 33 we already have.

The other problem is nuclear waste. Currently in France a family of four, using energy for 20 years, produces waste about the size of a cigarette lighter. Their current system has them store the waste, not bury it. They do this because they want to have access to it in the future when they are planning on scientists being able to deconstruct it in ways we don't know yet.

SOLUTION

There are two types of energy we need to worry about: automobile, and electrical power generation. On the first front, only Senator McCain offers anything even remotely helpful. His support for offshore drilling (and a running partner who supports drilling in ANWR) would drive oil prices down, create jobs, create revenue for the government, and increase our security. Senator Obama, because of his politically leftist affiliations, is very much against drilling. His solution, to 'fast track' alternative fuels is unrealistic. Additionally, the only way for the government to fast track them is to give money to the private sector to do the research. Essentially, they tax us more and give it to someone else. This relies way to heavily on the government. Again, we get a peek into his theory on how government should function, and in his world he would have a large government take over the role of the private sector. There is $7.5 Trillion in the private sector, compared to the $2.5 Trillion in the government's budget. Where would the discovery of alternative fuels probably arise?

As for electrical power production, they both have fair policies. A mixture of sources would be wise. While Senator McCain didn't originally preach wind energy, he has migrated towards that position. For his part, Senator Obama has changed his position on Clean Coal and Nuclear Energy. But for us to be able to capitalize on those technologies would require a massive change in their certification process, as right now the process is so convoluted it basically eliminates any new license applications before they are submitted.

The solution would be to diversify. We should have wind energy, nuclear, clean coal, and we should drill for oil and natural gas. The candidate who most believably offers that solution would be the most desirable. To me, that would be McCain. Senator Obama is so far left in his political ideology and affiliations, it is difficult to believe that his support for anything other than renew ables is more than lip service. He mentions his support for offshore drilling, but then doesn't want to lift the current restrictions that make it almost impossible to drill anyways. I can't believe his support of nuclear and clean coal is different.

Quick Hit for Tuesday

CORPORATE TAX

Set-up: The United States charges a corporate tax rate of 35%, making it the second highest corporate tax rate in    the world.

McCain's plan:  Reduce that tax rate, marginally, to 25%.

Obama's plan:  Close corporate tax loopholes to ensure American corporations pay the most possible tax and spin things by saying McCain wants to give Big Oil another $400 million in tax cuts (a natural default by cutting corporate tax rates for everyone).

Result: Think about it this way: if you're in charge of General Motors, and you suddenly have 10% more money for your business; is that better or worse?  Is it now easier to hire more workers, give raises, pay down your debt, expand your business, and invest in alternative fuel-run cars?  Or is it now more difficult?  Additionally, if you're trying to expand a slowing economy, stimulate growth, spur on alternative transportation, and create jobs, wouldn't it be wise to cut the taxes of the people who do all of those things really well?

  In case you're thinking "that is nice in theory", look to Ireland as proof that it works.  20 years ago, Ireland had one of the most stagnant economies in Europe (technically, the second lowest per-capita GDP).  In order to better compete, Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate to 12.5%.  The result: today Ireland has the second largest per-capita GDP in the European Union.  Interesting, but some would argue that is Europe and we're the United States, we're strong even WITH the taxes being high.  Well consider this: compared to the United States, Ireland raises 50% more corporate tax revenue.  That is while their tax rate is 22.5% less than ours (US=35%, Ireland=12.5%). 

The natural question is, if cutting taxes raises MORE money for the government, what happens when you RAISE taxes?

What Makes a Good Leader?

When the campaign nears the end, both candidates have generally done a pretty good job of moving to the center.  Thus, it becomes more difficult to determine what they actually stand for.  Taking a break from examining particular policy positions, let's ask:

WHAT MAKES A GOOD LEADER?

  Wouldn't it be prudent to ask ourselves this question before examining the candidates?  What are the most important qualifications for being president?  Too often our political leadership is able to make us believe our allegiance is to them and to the party, so we forget to constructively tear through the campaign rhetoric and look at the facts.  As a result, who among us feels really comfortable voting for the 'other' party?  Emotional and blind allegiance to a political party should have nothing to do with our vote. 

  It is from that vantage point we should ask: what do we value in our leaders?  Intelligence?  Faith?  Allegiance?  Wisdom?  Experience?  Patience?  Here is what I value in a leader.

GOD FEARING

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  What happens when the people defend their right to free speech not in order to evade government prosecution for their dissent, but in order to ensure their right to publish pornography?  What happens when a society doesn't realize that being created equal doesn't mean redefining marriage, but is intended to protect against government abuses?  And what happens when their elected leaders can't tell the difference either?  Well, what did happen when society refused to believe that ''all men are created equal'' applied to all races, not just whites?

George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

  I would be more comfortable with a man/woman who is Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or any other religion than I would be with an atheist or someone vaguely religious.  With someone who is devoutly religious (and by religious, I mean someone devoted to something larger than themselves, on the very most general of terms), you know where they are coming from and what they value.  With an atheist or someone who is 'sort-of' religious, who knows what you're getting.  Does the atheist value human life?  Why would they, to them humans are just glorified pond scum.  Where do your rights come from, who provides for them?  The true atheist would be completely unreliable, a constant variable you couldn't trust to react the same way twice.  The religious pretender is almost even worse, because they are essentially lying to you about what they believe.  I would much prefer someone devout, even if they are of a differing religion.

Again, John Adams: "Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases."  

  It is profoundly important for the person who resides in the presidency to be a person of great moral character.  A very large part of that is their religious beliefs. Argue about their religion, but the person who is honestly religious is the only person you can trust at their word.   Those people protect your rights not because government gives them to you, but because God does.

VALUES

  "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."  Jesus Christ said that.  The natural follow up question would be what do the candidates value?  Life?  Liberty?  Or just the Pursuit of Happiness?  What does how they act and who they socialize with tell us about them?  If we can decide what a candidate values, we know who they really are.  Then we can get a better idea of how they will react as president.  It is one thing to say what you'll do on the campaign train; it is quite another to follow through when you have the job.  Most people presented with an ethical dilemma default on the side of what they value most, so it is important to know what the candidate truly values.  In order to know this we need to know a lot about them.  What company do they keep?  What do they say when they think no one is listening?  If we are honest with ourselves we will acknowledge that this is the most difficult thing to discern about a candidate.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY

  Are we electing a libertarian?  A communist?  A socialist?  Someone who loves freedom above all else?  Someone who values a small/large government?  A powerful military?  It is important to not only know their positions on issues, but know how the implementation of those positions will impact the way the government functions.  At its core, that is their philosophy on government.

It isn't just the promises a candidate makes, it is how they will deliver on those promises.  

Let's take prosperity as an example and examine different philosophies on how to spread it.  For instance, lowering your taxes.  

  The Conservative will tell you that the government should tax you less, let you keep your own money, and invest it where you like.  Thus, through hard work and getting the government out of your way by keeping it small, you can achieve whatever dreams you want in a free society.  Ultimately, the limit is only what you chose to achieve.  It isn't without its drawbacks, as Winston Churchill noted, "the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

  The Socialist, however, will tell you that the rich are holding you down, and it is unfair that they possess so much.  As such, we should tax them more than you and redistribute that wealth to those less fortunate.   They will tell you the government is your salvation, and you just need to give it more power and money so it can solve all your problems.  You don't need to earn prosperity, the government will provide it for you.

  Both candidates are promising the same thing (lower taxes), but are motivated by very different agendas.  Followed through to their logical conclusion, both leaders would want to fashion vastly different governments.  We should have some interest in the 'end' our candidates want to achieve.

EXPERIENCE

  Experience is the most overrated qualification, really only important in specific circumstances.  What I mean is if you're trying to solve an economic crisis, it might be nice if you could demonstrate that you had solved one in the past.  If you're trying to win a war, it'd be nice to be able to demonstrate some accuracy on past military conflicts.  That is specific experience.  General experience just means you're older or have been in the political machine longer, and really of what value is that?  

  George Washington, when appointed General of the Continental Army for the Revolutionary War, stopped by a local book store on his way to take up his new post.  He bought books on how to lead an army.  He didn't have any experience up to that point, but he was successful because he was motivated by what he valued.  In his case, primarily freedom from British oppression.

Abraham Lincoln had political experience in line with what Governor Palin or Senator Obama has.  He wasn't a good leader in a time of war because he was in the Senate for 95 years, but because he followed through on what he valued: a united country.  When he freed the slaves, he did so because he thought it was morally wrong, saying "Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral...evil."  What a candidate values is what they are going to try an implement when they get the presidency, so we need to be seriously examining our candidates.

SENATOR OBAMA

  There are things that worry me about McCain, but in the interest of space I just want to examine Obama here based on the above points.

  God Fearing: I honestly don't know where he stands on this one.  He has said he is a Christian, and I'll take his word on that.  However, I haven't heard him come out and say anything about how his views would affect how he would lead, especially nothing so definitive as to what Washington said.  It would seem he is sort of quasi-religious, which I don't find appealing in any candidate.  For when does someone who is quasi-devoted find it acceptable to violate their beliefs?  

  Values:  As I said above, this one is more tricky.  We really have to know the person to know what they value, and there is little the media focuses on that help us get to know them.  Instead, we have to dig it up on our own. From what I do know, Senator Obama's values worry me much more than McCain's.  The people around him now and those in his past don't seem to be the type I would expect in a leader I'd like.  He has a 'spiritual mentor' (his words) who blames whites for everything and preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people.  His pastor of 20 years also believes that September 11th was justifiable, and that we had it coming.  He has a 'close friend' (his words) in a man named Ayers who has bombed the U.S. Congress and N.Y. Police department, and has said as recently as Sept. 11, 2001 (bad timing) that he wished he did more.  Then there is the man he has spoken well of claiming that Obama is the Messiah (Louis Farrakhan).  His wife has said she hasn't ever been proud of this country.  And when Obama thought no one was listening, he told a group in San Francisco that small town Americans are "bitter, clinging to their guns and their God with antipathy towards those who aren't like them."  If we are being fair, we'll look at the friends we keep, and ask ourselves if we know one person who has bombed a building, or who thinks September 11th was anything but evil.  Have we known anyone who believes that white people created AIDS to kill blacks?  And if we did know these types of people, would we listen to such garbage for over 20 years and call the person saying those things a 'spiritual mentor.'  If that is what you're being mentored to be, what are you becoming?  Would we have that man baptize our kids?  Would we have him officiate our wedding, one of the most important days of our lives?  If you're a Christian, would that person be the one who finally showed you how Christ loves you and died for you?  Would we chose to launch our careers out of the home of an American terrorist?  If we are a politician, could we marry someone who has never been proud of our country?  Would we find that attractive in a potential mate?  If we wouldn't do those things and keep those friends, and Obama has, I think it is fair to ask what his values truly are.  We all can understand one person in our past turning out to be a real tool, but what would it say about us if the same type of people kept popping up time and time again?

  "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are."  What do his acquaintances tell us about the man?  I'm not sure, but it certainly isn't anything positive.

Governmental Theory:  As a Conservative, Senator Obama worries me.  

He has said he intends to tax the rich and give it to the poor.  He wants to raise taxes on the rich only, while the     lower 40% of us pay no taxes to begin with.  

He supports legislation that would take State's rights away in regards to abortion and marriage, providing more power to the federal government.  

He has requested, in his four years in the Senate, over $800 million in pork projects, and promises over $700 Billion more worth in new programs. Is he conveniently ignoring how one would pay for that while currently running a $450 Billion deficit.  

He has said that paying taxes equates to being a 'good neighbor' and his running mate said it is 'patriotic,'  but I don't agree we owe the government anything, I think the government owes us.  "Government for the people, by the people."

He supported legislation to prosecute a home owner for shooting an intruder.

He looks to the government to solve the financial crises, welfare, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, natural disasters and the like through larger federal problems.  

He wants to tax us in the U.S. to the tune of $80 Billion, and give it to poor countries throughout the world.   Sounds good, but again he thinks government will solve the poverty problem when only freeing those people and letting them create jobs will get them out of poverty.  At the end of the day, even $80 Billion will eventually run out.

He doesn't ever say that the government should be smaller, and only when McCain said he wants to cut pork projects did Obama say the same.    

  Those are stands he has taken that indicate what his theory on government is.  Those beliefs have long standing and serious consequences on the way our government works.  Every president wants to spread their ideology, and Senator Obama will spread his by appointing judges and working with a Democrat controlled House and Senate.  

  Electing Senator Obama does mean change, because we were founded with the intent of small government.  The real question is do we like the change he promises?  If after knowing all we do about Senator Obama you still support him that is fine.  Just know that what you're supporting isn't what our Founders fought for.  It isn't free enterprise.  It isn't small government.  It is the beginnings of socialism, pure and simple.  No major party candidate has espoused redistribution of wealth without failing miserably in the end.  Could this time be different?  Have we as a society really become this liberal?  Is this why John Adams said "Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."?

CONCLUSION

  The things I chose as being important in a candidate might not be the same that you list.  I don't know how religious Senator Obama is, or how far he is willing to compromise those beliefs.  I do not like what his acquaintances say about his character.  And I do not like his theory on government.  To me, those are the three most important things about a potential leader, and Senator Obama doesn't meet any of them.

  I also realize that McCain isn't exactly the pillar of conservatism I would prefer, but how far left or right are we willing to take this country before we say enough is enough?  We have in Senator Obama the most liberal major party candidate in the history of this country.  Most of his policies, while well-meaning, would mean implementing a government that would be totally foreign to our Founders.  

So three questions await:

Are we willing to elect someone who is vague about his religious beliefs, whatever they may be?

Are we willing to elect someone who, if like those friends he keeps, has such radical values?

Are we willing to change from a system of government and trade that has produced the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet to a system that has demonstrably failed every time it has been attempted?

  

Debate Round 2

ALL ABOARD!

  The Gravy Train left the station last night in a big way.  Perhaps this election will come down to who promises more to the American people, without actually being able to follow through on any of it.

Last night's debate did nothing more than further solidify the average voter's position.  Whether that be in Obama's camp, McCain's camp, or undecided I cannot fathom that anyone saw anything that would convince them to switch their vote.  What we witnessed last night was a scathing condemnation of our debate system as it stands right now.

 Might I make a suggestion?  Lets have Rush Limbaugh question Senator Obama, and Bill Maher question Senator McCain.  At least then we'd get interesting questions, and the candidates would have to really grind it out against someone who literally is out to destroy them.  It would be a great way to get more than 40 million to watch the debate, and it would answer a lot more questions about how these men would govern than the same softball questions that they answered in the first debate.

A FEW QUESTIONS I'D LIKE ANSWERED

  "Senator Obama, how is it that during the primaries you were against drilling domestically, using coal or nuclear power, but are now a supporter of all three?  Is it better to have a leader who is willing to change their mind when they're wrong, or a leader who wasn't wrong to begin with?"

  "Senator McCain, a big tenant of your campaign has been your opposition to pork spending in Congress.  So why did you vote for the latest Bailout plan knowing it was heavy loaded with hundreds of millions worth of pork projects?  How can the American public trust you to veto legislation in the future if you don't vote against it now?"

  "Senator Obama, what do you say to Americans who are uncomfortable with your position that abortion should be legal up to and including the 9th month of pregnancy?  Or your opposition to providing children born alive due to botched abortion medical care, preferring that they are left to die because it might undermine the legality of abortion if we give them medical rights?  How do you support those positions on an ethical level, and how do you get the American people to agree with you?"

  "Senator McCain, how do you justify spending an additional $300 billion on buying bad mortgages on top of the Bailout plan, when we are in such difficult financial times already?  Where is the money coming from?"

  "Senator Obama, why did you launch your political career at the home of Bill Ayers, someone you said you are 'friendly' with, someone you worked with closely in Chicago, and who provided you with $50 million of funding in Chicago to disperse as you willed?  What do you think the American public would think of your close association with him, considering he has bombed the American Capitol and Pentagon and said he wished he bombed more?"

  "Senator McCain, what does your choice of Governor Palin say about your judgement and view on government?"

  "Senator Obama, when you referred to small town Americans as being "bitter, clinging to their guns and God with antipathy towards others" what did you mean by that?"

  "Senator McCain, was your support for the War in Iraq justified and why?"

  "Senator Obama, when you supported the idea of prosecuting someone who shoots an intruder in their own home, were you at all concerned with violating the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?"

  "Senator Obama, why do you want to provide the federal government with so much more power when time and time again, with FEMA, Social Security, Education, Welfare, the War on Poverty and many more programs like that the federal government has demonstrated it's complete inability to successfully implement strong and effective programs?  Why is now different?"

DEBATE MEMORIES THAT WILL STICK

  Senator Obama, in an effort to balance his opposition to the Iraq War and support for U.S. rights to military intervention in foreign countries, made the point that when genocide is occurring, the U.S. should get involved.  Either the Senator doesn't know that Saddam Hussein killed over 300,000 of his own people, or he 

ignores that fact.  I don't know which is better.

  Senator Obama still refuses to explain how, when we are already running a $450 Billion deficit and just spent $700 Billion on a bailout, he will find money for his $700 Billion in new spending (I realize he says that number is incorrect, but I'm using it based on what independent economists estimate his plans will cost).  The Senator says he'll get rid of wastefully spending, but there are two problems with that.  First and foremost, taking into account his spending and the deficit and the bailout, we're talking about a $1.8 Trillion swing from the red into the black.  In a government with a $2.8 Trillion budget, how are you going to cut enough costs to 'find' an additional $1.8 Trillion? You would have to cut over 50% of the current spending.  Secondly, can we trust the man who has requested $900 Million in his own pork spending to eliminate wasteful spending?  How against pork could he be if he requests it in the tune of that amount? 

  Senator McCain needs a strong debate performance more than Senator Obama does.  There is a large section of Senator Obama's fan base that, no matter what they learn, are so on board his rally for 'Change' that they won't switch to McCain for anything.  However unfortunate that is, it leaves room for McCain to point out just how liberal Senator Obama is.  According to the National Journal, which records our representatives voting record, Senator Obama's voting record shows he is the most liberal Senator in all of the Senate.  What that means is he votes straight down party lines, rarely (if ever) crossing over to work with Republicans on any measure.  That should cause people to pause when he calls for a new kind of politics.  While that might not bother people in love with the image of Senator Obama, it certainly will bother the moderates.  People who would be concerned with the Democrats controlling both the House and the Senate, and sending their most liberal representative to the White House.  

  Senator Obama's assertion that Health Care is a 'right' is an indication of how he views things and how he would govern.  The Socialist state wants everything to be owned by the public.  Not only the food that is grown, but where it is sold and the profit it makes, all is to be owned by the public at large.  Conversely, the rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are free and are designed to keep us free.  What that means is the only way to take those away is for the government to get involved and forcibly remove them from us, or provide us with additional 'rights'.  That is why our Founders wanted small, limited government: so it doesn't have the power to do that.    What Senator Obama is saying with Health Care is the opposite of what our Founders wanted.  The only way to implement a 'right' to Health Care is for the government to force people to provide it to us, at whatever rate we deem 'fair.'  Either by taxing everyone to pay for it, or forcing prices down with legislation (neither of which has worked in other countries), it isn't about removing the government as an obstacle as the Founders did with our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Contrarily, it is about imposing the government on us, with enough power to force this 'right' into our lives.  Once again, at his very core Senator Obama has revealed that he is way too close to Socialist principles for us comfortable with.

CONCLUSION

  These debates are only useful for one thing: telling how a person would govern.  Let's be honest, the individual points the candidates speak of are just regurgitated political talking points.  We have to get our hands dirty and examine what their policies mean for how they would govern, and what they reveal about their theory on what a successful government is and does.  

  At this point, it should be pretty clear that for good or bad, Senator Obama thinks a big, strong, federal government is best.  Senator McCain thinks the opposite, although frequently he isn't Conservative enough to really get a lot of support from the Conservatives among us.  There is a saying among Conservatives that the only person who could make them vote for McCain is Obama.  Meaning, while McCain isn't a true Conservative on many issues, Senator Obama is so far left that there is no other option than voting for McCain.

  Whether we like individual policies or not, this election comes down to big government vs. smaller government.  What we decide will impact us for years to come, as the president will have power to elect judges to the courts who agree with their interpretation of how the government should work.  Do we want someone who is as Liberal as Senator Obama appointing judges, who are unelected, to posts that they'll hold for the rest of their lives?  

  Additionally, if Senator Obama wins the election, he will have a House of Reps controlled by the Democrats, and the Senate controlled by the Democrats.  So we really need to ask ourselves, what is the cost for the 'change' that Senator Obama is selling? 

Senator Obama the Conservative?

SENATOR MCCAIN

Senator McCain missed an opportunity. With the passage of this massive bailout package, Senator McCain missed an important opportunity to show the American people that he is good on his word. The Senator has been really big on stopping pork barrel spending. When the Congress passes a bill, in order to grease the wheels they back load it with tons of additional spending. To get the approval of their fellow senators/representatives, they throw in additional spending on frivolous programs. Senator McCain has made getting rid of pork a tenant of his campaign. To be true, Senator McCain hasn't over the course of his career requested any pork projects (compared to the $900 million that Senator Obama has requested over the first four years in the Senate). The opportunity he missed was that loaded into the bailout package was:

$223 Million for Alaskan Fisherman
$192 Million for Rum producers in Puerto Rico
$128 Million for auto racing
$33 Million for companies in the American Samoa
$6 Million for the producers of wooden arrows

If Senator McCain acted truthful to his promise of vetoing every bill with pork that comes across his desk, then he would have voted against it. He didn't. So we have to believe one of two things: either the Senator isn't really going to veto those bills, or he isn't trustworthy to follow through on his promise on that issue. I'm not sure what is better.

SENATOR OBAMA

If the wise thing to do is keep government small, keep their power limited, and be very skeptical about our leaders, I don't know how wise it would be to elect Senator Obama. If the Founders were right in asserting that the government that governs least, governs best, and God is correct in warning his people of the dangers of strong government, then I don't know if it would be smart to ignore them and vote for Obama. If we have any conservative blood left in our body, then I don't know how we could vote for the man. Let me explain.

ABORTION

Lets not debate the ethics of abortion right now. Instead, lets examine the Freedom of Choice Act that Senator Obama supports. This act would make it illegal for any state to pass any restriction on abortion. What that means is that no state could make partial birth abortion illegal (abortion up to the moment of birth, which does happen in this country). No state could pass laws regarding parental notification for minors. The Act would strip the states of all their rights in passing legislation in regards to abortion. Additionally, Senator Obama would re-instate federal funding for abortion. The Constitution granted the states every right that was not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the federal government any rights regarding restricting (or not restricting) abortion. To give them that right is a gross violation of the Constitution. Stripping states of their rights and giving them to the federal government is something totally foreign to the Founders.

MARRIAGE

Senator Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act passed by President Clinton in 1996. This Act re-inforces the state's right to not recognize another state's marriage laws. In action, that means if Colorado says a man can marry a goat, Nevada doesn't have to recognize that as a legal marriage. Senator Obama's opposition to this act means that every single state would have to recognize any marital relationship from any other state. Again, this strips the state's of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and sets a dangerous precedent for a movement towards a powerful federal government. Not just a powerful federal government, but one that is unrestricted by states power that was designed to counterbalance the federal power.

TAXES

Senator Obama advocates cutting taxes on the bottom 95% of wage earners in this country. Ignoring for a moment that 40% of those people pay no taxes at all to begin with, we still have to acknowledge that the top 5% already pay over 40% of federal income tax. The top 1% pay over 60% of federal income taxes. I realize that people don't like how 'unfair' it is that people make more money than they do (Paris Hilton, anyone?), but as an economic policy, taxing people who have more money does in no way put more money in our pockets. What it does is increase the power of the federal government, set a precedent of taxing the rich at insane rates, and move us toward a socialistic system rather than capitalistic. The idea that this would become acceptable is pretty mind boggling, considering that just 17 years ago we won a decades old war against a failed socialist state....why move closer to become what we defeated? The last time I looked, being the exact opposite of the Soviet Empire created the most powerful and prosperous country, with the best standard of living, this world has ever seen.

Furthermore, who do you work for? Where do you buy gas? Where is it you pick up your groceries? Who makes your clothes? Who owns your TV station? Even if you're not rich, raising taxes on the people who own these things that provide for our basic needs does not make our bills less expensive. Who in their honest opinion thinks that when the government raises Comcast's taxes, they just say "oh, bummer, looks like we're making less money this year"? That's ludicrous, from an economic standpoint. They pass that fee right on to you and me. It might hurt less when it happens to Comcast (we can always cancel that service), but it will hurt plenty when it happens to our food producers (not just the stores, but the suppliers). Big government thinks backwards on these issues. You don't create wealthy by taxing companies that create jobs. You create wealthy and jobs by letting our companies (both small and large) use their own money to expand their business.

ENERGY

Senator Obama wants to "fast track alternative fuels." I think everyone is for using renewable, alternative fuels. In two years, we have GM releasing the Chevy Volt. That car will get 40 miles on its battery after 6 hours of charging. Nice, but by no meant impressive, and it is the best we have. So, he wants to throw hundreds of billions into new research into solar, wind, geo-thermal, and other energies. Let's look at this further as well. First off, that is yours and my money. The idea that you take money from the private sector to give back to the private sector to encourage research into something that doesn't exist is a policy of a big and powerful government. Again, it sets a dangerous precedent. Secondly, who invented the car? Was it the government? Who invented flight? The President? Did the Wright brothers get $100 billion from the government to spur on their research? Today GM, which is drowning in debt, is using its own capital to research the next, best, greatest thing, in order to make money and expand their business. Likewise, so is Toyota, Honda, Ford, and every single other car maker. If the government throws $100 billion of your money at GM, would that make them discover a new technology any faster? The government can't throw enough money at the problem to solve it, there is way more money in the private sector than in the government. In fact, the government can't get money to begin with without taking from the private sector to begin with. Aren't we tired of seeing these huge spending programs crash and burn?

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

Senator Obama has called for supplying a $1,000 tax rebate to all Americans. What he hasn't telegraphed is that he is getting this money from taxing 'Big Oils' profits. This is very lain and simple redistribution of wealth, a tenant of socialism. Senator Obama has called this 'fair.' Fair is nice, but it isn't an economic policy. A socialist government can steal money from whomever it wants, but that doesn't encourage growth, and it certainly doesn't reduce your bill at the pump. Consider this: Big Oil, while making a ton of money, has a profit margin of 7%. Google has a profit margin of over 20%, as does Microsoft. The reason Big Oil makes so much money is because of how expensive oil is to begin with. If oil didn't cost so much, then they wouldn't make as much profit. Lowering the cost of oil will lower their profits, if that is your goal. But it shouldn't be the goal to begin with. The government makes more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies do. For every gallon you spend, there is a 17 cent federal tax. Then, depending on where you live, you have a state tax ranging all the way up to another 68 cents.

A very large federal government is already screwing us when it comes to gas, much more than the oil companies are. If we taxed governments profit on oil instead of the oil company's profit, we could actually get an even larger refund than the one Senator Obama is promising. Either way, the Senator's plan is socialist in its core.

We cannot afford to put a man in the Oval Office who represents socialist principles. I cannot imagine how that would be a wise idea.

RESULTS

Big government has resulted in many failed policies. Social Security, Welfare, a War on Poverty, and many more. Not even to mention the fantastic failures of socialist principles throughout the world in the U.S.S.R., China, Vietnam and others.

The problem lies at the core: Senator Obama believes that the government can solve our problems. When we are presented with a problem, the answer is tax more. Another issue pops up? Create a new program. States want to do something we don't like? Take away the state's right and reserve it for the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson thought Alexander Hamilton was a traitor to his country. Why? He wanted to create the National Bank. He wanted the federal government to have a little more control over the country's finances. What would he think about the Bailout our congress just passed? What would he think about the feds taking control over defining marriage and abortion? What would the man who warned of the dangers of "mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" think of a politician gaining votes by promising to take money from others and give it to you?

If there is a conservative bone in our collective body, these are policies we cannot support. I don't believe that they are policies our Founders would support.

This election, we have been asked to embrace 'Change.' We could elect a monkey and that would constitute as 'change,' and that is not the point. The real question is, what should we change to? We have a candidate in Senator Obama who says, in his own words, that he is a product of the American dream, and yet told a ten year old that America isn't as good as it used to be. It is fair and just to ask what direction someone who thinks like that would like to take the country.

The people in Russia faced a populist push by Lenin during a very difficult time. The Italians faced the same opportunity to change things up with Mussolini. The Israelites yelled for change as well, and exchanged a governmental relationship with God for a human king. And the Germans, under post WW1 oppressive economic conditions, were promised change and a fight for the common man. Be sure: I don't bring these men up to compare Senator Obama to Lenin, Mussolini, or Hitler. I make reference to it to highlight the importance of making sure we realize what change is being peddled to us. Change for the sake of change isn't going to cut it.

If it did, we might as well elect a monkey.

V.P. Debate

IMPRESSIONS

The debate was full of political talking points with very little substance. If all you base your vote on is which side sounds better and just trust them to come through on their promises, than this was the debate for you. If, on the other hand, you want to know how they're going to come through on what they promise and, more importantly, what that effectually means in terms of the government's power, than you must have been left wanting like I was.

To be honest, the debate left me very conflicted. I want to talk about everything they discussed, from taxes to Iran, from the War in Iraq to Health Care. But I've been thinking this over for an hour and a half and have come to realize that to really treat each issue with the attention I want, I am going to have to do it in successive posts. Which was my plan all along, so that works out quite nicely. But I can't not comment on the debate so here are some of my quick hits:

- People wanting to see a train wreck must be disappointed. Governor Palin didn't self destruct like many were hoping and thought she would. She proved she is more than capable of going toe to toe with someone who has been part of the political machine for over 30 years. On the other hand, Senator Biden didn't get himself in trouble by saying something silly, insulting, or by plagiarizing someone else's work like some on the right were hoping. It was a pretty uneventful debate on that front.

- I can't help but watch Senator Biden and end up thinking that the Democratic ticket should be reversed. Senator McCain and Senator Biden both have the experience, have been to the foreign countries, visited the rural areas of which they speak, and discussed policy with the foreign leaders that they quote. Senator Obama and Governor Palin are much more similar in how they can speak in general terms about what they would like to do, but can't draw on a wealth of experience. Senators McCain and Biden honestly look like they are teaching their respective opposition as much as they are debating them.

- It was nice to see Governor Palin call out Senator Biden and the Democrats for constantly referring to President Bush as though they are running against him. I have grown quite tired of every one of their answers being premised with, "If the failure of the Bush Administration has taught us anything..." It is a political trick that should have been addressed a long time ago.

- I was impressed with Senator Biden's restraint in not correcting Governor Palin when she misspoke the name of the Commander in Afghanistan. He just kept on debating as if it never happened. Pretty classy.

- On the other hand, did Senator Biden honestly talk himself up for his insight in advocating action in Kosovo and Bosnia, and then chastise President Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq? He spoke of the great success in uniting the different cultures in those areas, while mocking President Bush for thinking he could do the same things in Iraq with the Shiite and Sunni. I don't know if Palin missed that, or if she was returning the courtesy favor.

- When asked how each candidate would get past all the partisanship that cripples the Congress, I think their answers were telling. Governor Palin said that you lead by example, as she did by appointing Democrats in her administration in Alaska. Senator Biden said you do it by not second guessing people's motives, but second guessing their judgement. I would tend to agree with the Governor on this one, I don't see how thinking that everyone else is a moron would help you work with them better.

- The most poignant thing mentioned in the debate goes to Governor Palin. When asked what makes her qualified to be V.P., she said, among other things, her World View. Amen! Shouldn't this be the single most important think about a candidate? Their personal philosophy about government will play an enormous role in how they govern, and as such should be something everyone should question.

Lastly, I don't think anyone won this debate in the traditional sense. Both did a good job, and while I don't agree with a lot of the principles Senator Biden asks us to adopt, he does a superb job communicating and speaking about them in a rational and well thought out way. Governor Palin did a great job of holding her own, and in the minds of a lot of people who were getting worried about her should look a lot better.

I wish I could get into the issues more, but since the debate was pretty superficial I'll keep my post the same. I'll get into more specifics in future posts.

Current Economic Woes

THE BAILOUT

  $700 Billion is a lot of money.  It is roughly the amount of money we pay to import oil every year.  The question we are all faced with is should we let the government use our money to invest in the credit market?  Before any of us decide on that, I think we need to have a better understanding of how this happened.

MAJOR PLAYERS: FREDDIE MAC AND FANNIE MAE

  The first and most obvious question about these two entities is: what are they?  Both are Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), meaning that the government, while not exactly 'owning' the property, was the primary proponent behind it.  Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) was created as part of FDR's New Deal in 1938.  It was designed to participate in the secondary mortgage market.  When 'Bank Awesome' makes a loan to a homeowner, they can then take that loan and sell it to someone else on what is called the secondary mortgage market.  Fannie Mae was designed to buy up and guarantee loans so that 'Bank Awesome' could then take their new money and re-loan it to another wannabe homeowner of small business owner.  The result would be freeing up credit for the next person who needs/wants it.

  Congress chartered Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp) in 1970 to balance their budget and provide competition to Fannie Mae in the secondary mortgage market.  In practice, shat Freddie and Fannie do is buy and guarantee the liquidity of mortgages.  By 2008, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed 50% of the $12 Trillion worth of mortgages in the United States.  

  As a result of their growth, we now have two entities controlling over $6 Trillion worth of the mortgages in the U.S.  The process 'worked' until the Real Estate market took a turn south, interest rates increased, mortgage payments went up, and people who couldn't afford the home they borrowed on started foreclosing.  The ownership went back to the bank (in many cases Freddie and Fannie), who couldn't sell the property because the market tanked and the property wasn't worth the mortgage on it.  So Freddie and Fannie, guaranteeing or owning 1/2 of these mortgages, are in serious financial trouble.  

  But why would Freddie and Fannie take such risks on bad loans to people who can't afford them?

THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

  The Community Reinvestment Act was passed under Jimmy Carter in 1977.  This Act was an attempt to get people who couldn't qualify for a loan for whatever reason the ability to obtain some financing for a home purchase.  Essentially, get poor people in houses that they owned instead of rented.  Despite serious opposition from the banking industry, Congress passed this Act and it became law.  The loans given out to people with bad credit, poor income, who couldn't originally qualify for a loan are what is commonly referred to as 'Subprime' loans.  Basically, 'less than ideal' or 'high risk' loans.  

  The Act evolved over time.  In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed another Act called the Federal Enterprises Financial Safety & Soundness Act.  It required Fannie and Freddie to devote a % of their lending to offer and guarantee mortgages for affordable housing.  Affordable Housing is also designed to get people who financially find it straining to buy a home into something they can afford.  

  In 1995 the Clinton Administration made more changes, forcing financial institutions to make loans to distressed rural and inner city areas.  In addition, it encouraged people to sue financial institutions that they believed were violating the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by not providing financing in the form of subprime mortgages.  

  Between 1993 and 1998, CRA loans increased by a whopping 39%, while conventional loans increased by only 17%.   In addition, home prices 'values' at a pace no longer closely related to inflation, created an illusion of value. 

  In 2002, the Bush Administration responded to a review of the changes made in 1995 by suggesting heavy regulation of Freddie and Fannie.  That move was opposed to Democrats in Congress, and since the Republicans didn't have enough of a majority to override them the motion stalled.  In 2005, Senator McCain offered the same warning.

OTHER PROBLEMS

  The CRA isn't the only problem.  50% of all subprime loans were issued by independent banks not covered by the CRA.  The overarching issue is subprime loans, and forcing banks to loan money to those who cannot afford it.

  Adjustable Rate Mortgages, commonly referred to as ARMs, are part of the problem.  Interest Only loans contribute as well.  Bank Greed is another problem.  In order to get people who can't afford the mortgage into a position that they can make the payments, financial institutions got creative.  They structured loans that had no interest for 3-5 years, loans that had no interest at all for 10 and then due in full.  Those loans work fine, as long as at the end of 5 years interest rates haven't gone up and property values have.  Combine higher interest rates with lower property values, and you get foreclosures.

  The Realtor Association (of which I am part) not being willing to tell people to be careful when obtaining financing is a problem.

  But people aren't as stupid as some would have us believe.  Borrowers aren't victims of a heinous crime.  Misled, maybe.  But the final decision is always the borrowers.  As such, I would suggest the general American attitude of "I want it now!" while carrying $10,000 in credit card debt is a serious issue as well. 

HOW TO SOLVE IT

  Senator Obama and Senator McCain are offering very little leadership on this front.  Neither has proposed anything above telling us to advocate that Congress pass this bailout plan, while ignoring the fact that even this plan isn't a sure thing.  There are varying positions from many different economists as to whether this bill is required.  Everyone does agrees that without it, things will tighten up and get very difficult in the short term.  As for how long before the market recovers, no one knows.

  Those for the bailout point to the fact that the government will be buying mortgages that, hopefully, will at some point be worth more than what we pay for them because the Real Estate market will recover.  It would also inject almost $1 Trillion into the credit market that is right now tightening, which would stop the current trend that is making it more difficult to obtain financing to buy a home or expand your business.

  Those against it point to the fact that it increases our debt by almost $1 Trillion, and we don't even know the full cost of the bailout yet, because everything the government touches gets more expensive than the estimates.  Additionally, we already paid $150 Billion in the spring to try and stimulate the economy, so what if this bailout doesn't work either?  Will we see them asking for another $700 Billion in March?

  As a Conservative, I lean towards not bailing out the massive companies that made these horrible decisions.  I'd prefer to see the private sector work this out.  On the flip side, if we trust what the president and some economists are saying, we're sitting on the edge of another Great Depression.  Either way as of right now, we don't know enough to solve the problem.  Too much political jawboning and finger pointing has clouded the water so bad we can't even see our feet anymore.   Both Senator's are content with pointing out the other's shortfalls, without really offering any real solution.

  This is a good starting point: the one thing the bailout plan is lacking is any real solution as to what actually got us to this point in the first place.  We're willing to throw $700 Billion at a problem we haven't fixed.  As a voter, it makes me extremely peeved to know that my elected officials are willing to throw that much money at a problem they don't understand and haven't even tried to solve at the source.  It's like trying to fill up a bathtub without first putting in the plug.  

  It is easy to point fingers at one party or another.  The CRA and other mandates by the Clinton Admin. had very honorable intentions.  There is nothing wrong with trying to get people into their own homes.  To avoid this in the future I would suggest a different focus: providing them with a better education, so they can get a better job, and actually afford the home on their own accord.  We can talk about how unfair life is, but in the end people can either afford a home or they can't.  Forcing one on them only creates problems that didn't exist.

  If we had restrained ourselves and stuck by the ideals of our Founders, we might not be in this mess.  The government has no business in the private sector.  They can regulate to make sure there isn't racism/sexism in the lending process, that is well and good.  But the government should never tell you how to conduct your business.  The problem was and is Big Government forcing the private sector to loan and obtain loans.  You'll excuse me for having doubts that the problem can now become the solution.