The Economy

While this post is not directly related to either of the two presidential candidates, I think it is still a valid point of discussion. This is an editorial from a professor of economics at Harvard. Professor Miron obviously subscribes to the theory that the economy will take care of itself, if the government will just butt out. While I typically subscribe to the opposing theory, he does make some pretty compelling arguments. Anyone have any opinions about what he says?

I'm Voting for Obama

As promised in my previous post, I'll put my neck out there first in what I hope will be a series of "I'm voting for [CANDIDATE] because..." contributions.

So here goes.

I’m voting for Barack Obama because of a lot of reasons, but most of all because he inspires me. I’ve written a lot on this blog about the importance of the issues and how they should be the driving force behind our voting decisions. I really do believe everything I’ve written. 

And so, make no mistake, I support Barack Obama for the policies that he suggests and his stances on the issues that matter most to me. I agree with most of his ideas for the economy and feel that, of the two candidates, he is the best equipped to handle the challenges that lay ahead--an opinion I personally feel was strengthened by last night's debate. I agree with his tax policies and his assertion that the less fortunate in this country deserve a break. I myself was able to graduate from college and graduate school almost entirely because of student loans and grants provided to me by my government. I also relate to his stance on foreign policy--that we should continue to invest in our military so that it is the strongest and best in the world, but that we should use that military more wisely, and only after we’ve exhausted all other efforts of diplomacy. 

In addition I have been asking myself the question Reagan asked when he ran against Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off than you were four [or eight] years ago?” The answer for me, in some ways is yes, but for my country I feel it’s a resounding no. And personally, I do not see any significant differences between Bush’s and McCain’s policies as McCain has outlined them during the general election.

So yes, I’m voting for Barack Obama based on the issues. But for me, his stances on the issues merely serve to support my feelings about him as an inspirational leader. Here’s what I mean. 

This comes from the epilogue of Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope:”

“That’s what satisfies me now, I think--being useful to my family and the people who elected me, leaving behind a legacy that will make our children’s lives more hopeful than our own. Sometimes, working in Washington , I feel I am meeting that goal. At other times, it seems as if the goal recedes from me, and all the activity I engage in--the hearings and speeches and press conferences and position papers--are an exercise in vanity, useful to no one.

When I find myself in such moods, I like to take a run along the Mall. Usually I go in the early evening, especially in the summer and fall, when the air in Washington is warm and still and the leaves on the trees barely rustle. After dark, not many people are out--perhaps a few couples taking a walk, or homeless men on benches, organizing their possessions. Most of the time I stop at the Washington Monument, but sometimes I push on, across the street to the National World War II Memorial, then up the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial.

At night, the great shrine is lit but often empty. Standing between marble columns, I read the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address. I look out over the Reflecting Pool, imagining the crowd stilled by Dr. King’s mighty cadence, and then beyond that, to the floodlit obelisk and shining Capital dome.

And in that place, I think about America and those who built it. This nation’s founders, who somehow rose above petty ambitions and narrow calculations to imagine a nation unfurling across a continent. And those like Lincoln and King, who ultimately laid down their lives in the service of perfecting an imperfect union. And all the faceless, nameless men and women, slaves and soldiers and tailors and butchers, constructing lives for themselves and their children and grandchildren, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, to fill in the landscape of our collective dreams.

It is that process I wish to be a part of.

My heart is filled with love for this country.”

I actually find it ironic that some people use the argument that Obama is unpatriotic as a reason not to vote for him. It’s ironic because, for me personally, Obama’s patriotism is one of the main reasons I am voting for him. When I read passages like this in his book or when I listen to Obama speak, I relate to him in a way that I’ve yet to relate to a political leader since I’ve been following politics. When I hear him speak, I am so proud to be an American. I too have walked the path in Washington of which Obama speaks. I’ve also been to the birth of our nation in Philadelphia. And in those places I find myself struck with an overwhelming sense of both gratitude for the acts of those who have gone before me and pride in my membership in the nation they founded. 

It’s important to me that, based on what I’ve heard and read from him, Obama feels that, too, and makes me feel that there is indeed hope that our democracy can accomplish great things. 

That’s why I’m voting for Barack Obama.

Thanks to all who've contributed to the discussion so far, I hope this helps further the conversation.

Health Care 2

Here's a new summary highlighting the different health care plans that was just published by AAFP News Now.

Here's a summary excerpt:
"The McCain plan reflects the vision that it is a social responsibility to make sure everyone has a choice, but that it is not the government's responsibility or a social responsibility to make sure everyone is covered," explains Nichols. "Obama's plan reflects the vision that it is our social responsibility to make sure everyone has access to affordable coverage."

Issue 3.1: Misinformed

Unfortunately, I have further proof to back up my most recent post that we, as voters, tend to have problems keeping our facts straight. A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted earlier this month asked registered voters, "If Obama/McCain were elected president, do you think your federal taxes would go up, down or stay about the same?" 51% of the people questioned said they thought if Obama were elected that their taxes would go up. 51%!

Either, by some statistical miracle, every one of those "51%" makes over $250,000 per year, or we're misinformed--again.

If you don't understand why these "51%" are mistaken; don't worry, no one's blaming you or insulting your intelligence, it's a crazy world out there and politics is pretty boring. But please read my post on the candidates tax policies. Or just read this: if you make less than $250,000 per year, Obama wants to LOWER, not raise, your taxes, and even wants to lower them more than McCain.

Health Care

First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am Jed’s brother Matt, not Jed. I am a Family Physician practicing in Boise, Idaho. I am a registered Democrat, though not quite as angry and liberal as my socialist little brother Alex, who posted about foreign policy.

I’ve read a lot about the healthcare situation in this country, and because of my job I deal with the issue on a daily basis. Health care policy is a national issue but it affects real individuals in real ways on a daily basis. I’ve written a little about the personal side of the issue in my Daily Doctor Blog.

I think an understanding of this issue requires some background knowledge about the current state of affairs in the health care system. Current estimates put the number of people without any health insurance at about 45 to 47 million, about 8 million of whom are children. A significant number more, estimating the number is difficult, are underinsured. Meaning that they have some medical insurance, but it does not cover routine or preventative care or the cost of medications.

The mentality in this country is that if you don’t have health insurance, you can’t go to the doctor. Of course this isn’t true, you can pay for an office visit like you pay for groceries. But, the reality is that people who are uninsured or under-insured do not go to the doctor. They don’t take care of routine problems, they don’t get preventative care, they don’t manage chronic medical problems. All of this leads to more severe medical problems that don’t receive attention until the problems are very severe and very expensive. These people most often access the health care system at this point by going to the emergency room, the most expensive place to get health care. Because they are un- or under-insured they most often cannot pay the cost of their care. This leads to huge write-offs of bad debt by hospitals, causing community and urban hospitals to go out of business by the thousands, and high numbers of personal bankruptcies. In fact, health care debt leads to 50% of individual bankruptcies in the United States, estimated at about 2 million bankruptcies annually. Ironically, a significant number of those individuals had insurance at the onset of their illness. But because of high deductibles, exclusions, and coverage limits those people lost insurance at some point during their illness.

"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.

This is a huge problem. Our population and our economy are suffering because of this problem.

Senator McCain and Senator Obama have both talked about the problem, both have made proposals.

A detailed side-by-side comparison of both sides’ plans with links to campaign websites has been prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Click here for viewing.

An analysis by the Brookings Institute has estimated that McCain’s plan will cost 1.3 billion, Obama’s plan will cost 1.6 billion. The same analysis estimates that McCain’s plan will reduce the number of uninsured by 1 million in 2009 and up to a maximum of 5 million by 2013. The estimate for Obama’s plan is a reduction in uninsured of 18 million in 2009 and 33 million adults by 2018. Under Senator Obama’s plan all children would be covered by mandate. Senator McCain’s plan makes no similar provision.

This issue represents a clear choice. Senator Obama proposes dramatic decreases in the number of uninsured and proposes to get there through a combination of government mandates, personal subsidies, and changes in insurance regulations. Senator McCain’s plan hopes to decrease costs by a combination of tax incentives and insurance industry deregulation, thus putting health care coverage within the reach of more Americans.

The deeper issue here is what you think the role of government should be, more particularly the federal government. Senator Obama proposes a very significant, far reaching role for the feds. Senator McCain proposes a much more limited intervention.

I close with a few stats.

The World Health Organization ranked the health systems of the world’s countries in 2000. The US was 37th. They stopped doing the rankings because the US complained loudly.

The United States ranks 41st in the world in life expectancy and infant mortality.

As a primary care physician I feel like only Senator Obama's plan truly addresses the issue in a real and meaningful way. This is one of the main reasons I'll be voting for Senator Obama.

Feel free to post comments or ask questions about anything in the material on the AAFP website.

Issue 3: The Point of all these Issues

“Just how stupid are we?” That’s the title of a new book that talks about the failures of our democracy--because we as voters make ill-informed decisions. The book apparently (my David McCullough book on Harry Truman is so thick I haven’t been able to finish it in time to read this one) points out the fact that polls have consistently shown that, for the past seven years, the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, was involved with Al Qaeda and was an international terrorist. It also points out the fact that the truth about Saddam--brutal thug? yes, international terrorist? no--was easily available to any American who wished to know the facts (the 9/11 commission said definitively in early 2004 that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda). Even still, the presidential election was held later in the fall of 2004 with roughly half the country still mistaken about these important facts--and we re-elected George Bush.

My purpose in starting this blog was to do my part in ensuring that such misinformed voting doesn’t happen again. Am I saying that we’re stupid? Not at all. Am I saying that we tend to make important decisions based on sound bites, talk radio and chain emails? Maybe. 

The trend of decision-making we saw in 2004 appears to be continuing today--on both sides. Many people who side with Obama are operating under the impression that John McCain wants the Iraq War to last 100 years when that’s not what he said at all. On the flip side, many people who side with John McCain believe that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes for middle class families--also not true. Or even worse, some people probably still believe that Obama’s a Muslim--we’re not even going to go there.

As I said in the introductory post (see The Introduction), I don’t blame us for not wanting to sift through the political muck to find the facts. But I do blame us for refusing to use the facts that are made available to us in making decisions that matter as much as this one.

And . . . scene. Be a dear, help me off this soap box, would ya? 

So what’s the point? This blog has so far been largely focused on the issues, and (I believe) rightly so. But the point of all these issues is to eventually make a decision. I think it’s worthwhile for us to talk about the decisions we intend to make and the reasons we’re making them. Here’s what I’m proposing.

Anyone who wishes, can post to this blog by completing the following, “I’m voting for [YOUR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE] because...” 

Let’s get it all out on the table. We can hear what each other has to say in a safe environment and, perhaps, together we can all do our part to ensure that this election season we’re making our decisions for the right reasons and for the good of our country. Does this mean that we should all agree? No. What’s the fun in that? Does it even mean that, were we to all make “informed” decisions in November, that we’d all vote for the same candidate? I don’t think so. It simply means that we’ll have a chance to voice our opinions and hear what others have to say about it. Call it a scientific/social experiment to test the validity of our thinking. 

If you’re having a hard time articulating your completion of that sentence, well maybe now is the time to think about it. If you don’t want to voice your opinion, that’s fine, rest assured the “issue posts” will keep coming and you can feel free to read and digest them safe in the comfort of anonymity. But if you would like to voice your opinion, I’ve come up with a few ground rules to put your mind (and your neck) at ease:

POSTING

1. There are no rules (except for no cussing or name-calling of  course). It's your sentence, so finish it however you want.

2. A background in writing, literature or (heaven forbid) political science is not a pre-requisite. This is government (and blogging) for the people and by the people--that includes everyone.

3. If you want to post, just send me an email and I’ll add you as an author to the blog.

COMMENTING

1. Be nice.

2. Be objective. If you disagree with someone, do so in a fair and objective manner. Our political persuasions can become a very personal and emotional thing; however, now is not the time for emotion but for expression of our opinions without fear of reproach.

3. No commenting on people’s writing ability or grammatical proficiency.

4. I reserve the write to remove comments that don’t follow the rules.

Now, while it would be sweet if this blog were to solve all our country’s and democracy’s problems, I’m more realistic than that. But still, we can at least try to do our part, not to mention the fact that my curiosity is killing me--and I think it’ll be fun.

Tell you what, I’ll get things started. Look forward to my next post, “I’m voting for [HOLD YOUR HORSES] because...”

Issue 2: The Economy

People have been talking a lot about the economy in the last few days, especially here in New York City. How bad is it? I'm by no means an expert, but it's bad, and probably going to get worse before it gets better. The point is it's definitely worth looking at what each of the candidates proposes regarding the economy. So here goes.

First, here's what our friends at the Tax Policy Center have to say about the economic effects of Obama's tax plan:

"Senator Obama's proposal would increase marginal tax rates on very high-income households . . . As we modeled it, the federal effective marginal tax rate on labor income would be 46 percent. In a high-tax location like New York City, where state and local taxes are about 10.5 percent of compensation, the total combined effective tax rate would be over 50 percent. Given that high earners, especially the self-employed, often have ways to make labor income look like business income, such high tax rates could spur a lot of avoidance activity, undermining fairness and economic efficiency. Holding spending fixed, the additional revenues would, however, reduce government borrowing and its negative effects."

Here's what they have to say about the economic effects of McCain's tax plan:

"Expanding the scope of expensing (allowing companies to expense short-lived investments rather than depreciate them) would move the tax system in the direction of a tax on consumption, rather than income. This could encourage domestic investment in equipment and could raise wages by increasing capital per worker, but would also create new avenues for tax sheltering . . . The biggest drawback of [McCain's] proposal is that it would add enormously to the public debt. By 2018, tax revenues would be 16.3 percent of GDP, a level not seen since the early 1950s . . . It seems clear that the promises Senator McCain makes (or implies) in his speeches could not be sustained without a radical and unprecedented downsizing of government."

Okay, now to the candidates' economic proposals. Let's break it up into the major areas of their plans and talk about what each of them wants to do.

GAS PRICES

Obama wants to enact a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies in order to fund a $1,000 per family "emergency energy rebate." As far as how quickly he thinks he'll be able to do this, his website doesn't say.

McCain wants to send a "strong message" to world markets by telling oil-producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end, claiming the impact of such will be lower prices at the pump. McCain also claims that his "policies" will increase the value of the dollar, thus reducing the price of oil.

HOME OWNERSHIP

Obama wants to create a universal mortgage tax credit (See Issue 1: Taxes) that would provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year. He also wants to create a couple things to help protect homeowners in the future: 1) a STOP FRAUD Act to help protect against mortgage fraud and 2) a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit ("HOME") score that would essentially rate mortgages on their riskiness and cost (similar to an APR for car loans or credit cards).

McCain wants to enact something called a "HOME Plan" that would allow qualifying home owners to trade their burdensome mortgage for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. People would "qualify" by 1) having obtained their current mortgage after 2005, 2) using the home in question as their primary residence, 3) proving credit worthiness, 4) being in trouble on their current mortgage and 5) being able to meet the terms of the new mortgage. McCain also does not support using taxpayer money to bailout real estate speculators or home owners who failed to do their homework in assessing credit.

SMALL BUSINESSES

Obama wants to provide a "Making Work Pay" tax credit that would provide $500 to almost every worker, arguing that such a credit would help offset the cost of small business owners having to pay both the employer and employee portion of payroll taxes. He also wants to invest $250 million per year in a national network that would help facilitate entrepreneurial activity.

McCain wants to keep the top individual tax rate at 35% and maintain the 15% rate on dividends and capital gains pointing out that many small business owners actually pay taxes under the individual tax system and arguing that Obama's $250,000 cap would hurt small businesses as a result (see Jeff's insightful comment on this). McCain also wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% (see Alex's comment on this).

Both candidates want to extend tax credits to businesses for money they spend on research and development.

TRADE

Obama wants to end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas (although gives few specifics) and provide a tax credit to companies that 1) maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those in foreign countries, 2) maintain their corporate headquarters in the U.S. and 3) pay "decent" wages, prepare workers for retirement and provide health insurance. He also opposes the Central American Free Trade Agreement and wants to work with Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that "it works for American workers" (again, no specifics).

McCain wants to "engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules" (no specifics for McCain either).

LABOR

Obama wants to continue the fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (he co-sponsored it) which he claims is "a bi-partisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize" (see what George Will, a Washington Post columnist, has to say about the act). Obama also supports workers rights to bargain collectively and strike if necessary and wants to raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit.

McCain's economic plan currently does not offer any policies on labor.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Obama wants to create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (an independent entity) and give it $60 billion in federal money over 10 years to fund infrastructure and transportation projects, arguing they will create up to 2 million jobs and $35 million per year in economic activity (see what Harold Meyerson, a Washington Post columnist, has to say about investing in infrastructure).

McCain's economic plan currently does not offer any policies on investments in infrastructure.

Both candidates' plans also talk about their ideas for energy and health care and their effects on the economy, but those are issues that I think are big enough to warrant their own posts. Look forward to a post on the candidates' health care policies by Matt, a real-live practicing doctor.

Sorry this one was so long, but I hope it helps. If, by some miracle, you still want to know more, here's Obama's economic plan; here's McCain's.

Issue 1.1: Taxes (Again)

In a continued effort to (hopefully) impartially inform, I thought I'd share some information regarding Obama's tax plan that came up in Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson.

Regarding taxes, Gibson asked, in part, "Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise people's taxes? It's been pretty clear what he intends . . . cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country."

To which Palin responded, in part, "He's had 94 opportunities to either vote for a tax cut or not support tax increases. And 94 times, he's been on the other side of what I believe the majority of Americans want."

I'd never heard this bit of information before and it struck me as something important to the issue of Obama's tax plan. So I did a little research to confirm the validity of Palin's statement. Here's what I found from FactCheck.org (who I think is reliable, but please correct me if I'm wrong):

"The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded. After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.

Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.

The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.

The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year."

Hope this helps. And yes, I do plan on writing about other subjects besides taxes.

Fuel Efficiency

I got my hair cut today at a local, traditional barber shop. It's the kind of barber shop where the owner rides a Harley and the barbers know their customers' names because they've been cutting their hair for years.

While I was getting my hair trimmed, the locals all started joking about how Obama suggested that we could get better fuel efficiency if we all made sure our tires were properly inflated. I guess he said it a couple of months ago, but they thought it was so funny it was still worth joking about.

If you think it's silly, too, click here. Then admit that politicians aren't all stupid.

Foreign Policy

Apparently Sarah Palin said today that she'd be willing to go to war with Russia. According to an Associated Press story:

Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: "Perhaps so."

Pressed on the question, Palin responded: "What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against..."

Her talking points seem to reflect the militant neoconservatism that has prevailed over the last several years. I don't have the energy to debate neoconservative foreign policy right now. But I have to admit that rhetoric (from either party) about protecting sovereign nations sometimes strikes me as hypocritical, considering that we have a history of interfering in the affairs of democratic countries ( the 1973 coup against Chile's Salvador Allende, the 1954 coup against Guatemala's Jacobo Arbenz, the 1953 overthrow of Iran's elected prime minister, and the attempted coup against Venezuela's democratically elected Hugo Chavez in 2002 ).

Anyway, let's take this opportunity to contrast the stated foreign policy positions of the two major candidates.

Barack Obama's website has this to say about his foreign policy:

The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership.

Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

When Obama articulated this position in an early democratic debate, others derided him. Of course, now even the Bush administration admits that its obstinacy against talks with Iran wasn't working and has since met with Iran.

John McCain's website doesn't address foreign policy directly. It focuses instead on national security, saying that we need to increase the size of our military and be prepared to fight. Here's an example:

In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

The word "diplomacy" doesn't seem to appear anywhere on his issues pages. He's been known to joke about bombing Iran by singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys song, Barbara Ann.

The Economist put it this way:

Many Americans see him as a warmonger, a man who would be happy to bomb Iran if that is the only way to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, who is more than ready to confront Russia, and who supported toppling Saddam Hussein before George Bush was elected and New York and Washington were attacked. This fear is surely overdone: even though Mr McCain is presumably more minded than Mr Obama to attack Iran, neither the joint chiefs of staff nor most of his advisers think that is a good idea. But it is not a completely unreasonable worry. Mr McCain needs to find ways of correcting this perception, rather than making jokes about bombing.

The contrast seems clear. If you believe that we should be predisposed toward military action, vote for McCain. If you believe that we should be more willing to engage diplomatically, vote for Obama.

Issue 1: Taxes

For most of us, they're one of the most boring and least enjoyable things to talk about--and pay. But taxes affect our paycheck probably more than anything else that politicians do, so let's talk about them. We'll get through it, I promise.

First, a very brief education on taxes; namely, the difference between "deductions," "exemptions" and "credits." Deductions and exemptions lower your taxable income; credits lower your tax bill. Here's an example. Let's say I make $1,000, and my tax rate is 10%. Without any deductions or credits, I'd owe $100 in taxes. A $200 deduction would lower my taxable income to $800 and I'd owe $80 in taxes. A $200 credit would lower my original tax bill of $100 to either $0 (if it's a "non-refundable" credit) or make the government owe me $100 (if it's a "fully-refundable" credit). Make sense? Not so bad, right?

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's talk Presidential tax policies. If your family makes less than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for un-weds) and you vote for either Obama or McCain, you're voting for a lower tax bill. Both candidates want to continue President Bush's tax cuts for people with the income levels we're talking about. They also both want to make fewer people get nailed by that pesky AMT. However, if you vote for Obama, then you're actually voting for a lower tax bill than if you vote for McCain.

Here's why. Aside from the stuff above, Obama also wants to give people more deductions and credits than McCain does. For example, Obama wants to give you a $500 credit for working, expand the one you get for having kids and expand the one you get if you make very little money at all. He also wants to turn the mortgage interest deduction into a credit and make it refundable and turn the non-refundable credit you get for paying for college into a fully-refundable credit and increase the amount of money you can receive. There's more, but I think that's enough for now.

What about McCain? Aside from continuing Bush's tax cuts and the AMT thing, McCain wants to increase the exemption you get for having kids and other dependents. McCain currently offers no other forms of additional tax relief for people with these income levels.

Now, what if you make more than $250,000? Well, then your tax bill goes in different directions depending on your vote. Vote for McCain and it'll go down; vote for Obama and it'll go up. Two reasons why: 1) McCain wants to continue President Bush's tax cuts for these people, too; Obama doesn't and 2) McCain wants to lower estate taxes (taxes your "estate" pays after you die) more than Obama does.

Translation? McCain's tax cuts mostly benefit those people with relatively high incomes and do not do as much for people with lower incomes. Obama's tax cuts, on the other hand, offer much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase the tax bills of high income taxpayers.

Sound different then what you've heard on TV? Well, that's American politics for you. Gotta love it. Hope this helps clear up any confusion. If you want to know more, check this out.

The Introduction

I’m getting old. How do I know? Because I follow politics...and I like it. I’ve been following the Presidential campaigns in varying degrees since the primary season started heating up last year. And yes, sometimes it makes me feel old, boring and even a little too serious for an almost 29-year-old kid. Still, I’ve come to terms with my recent place in the ever-rotating circle of life. So what if I’m getting old, following politics, both current and historical, makes me feel like an American, and makes me proud of the democracy to which I belong.

For those of you who don’t share my affinity for policy debates and mindless slander, I feel your pain. I’m guessing that you don’t like politics not because you don’t care about America, but because you’re tired of the fact that there’s too much mindless slander and not enough policy debate, or because you feel overwhelmed by all the “smarty pants” who’s political conversations are way over your head. Believe me, I’ve been there, I know how you feel.

And yet, politics, especially national politics, is too important to ignore. Tired of donating your arm and your leg every time you stop at the gas pump? Been watching the price of bread go up for months and wondering when it’s gonna stop? Your favorite day of the year April 15th? Well, to a certain degree, that’s politics. Don’t like it? Now’s the time to do something about it.

So, I’ve decided to write a series of short and, hopefully, easy-to-understand articles describing what’s going on with the current Presidential campaign. Pretentious? I hope not. In fact, quite the contrary. Despite what my mother might say, deep down I’m just an average American trying to have a happy and healthy life and provide for my wife and (someday) kids. That sounds like most of us. But I’m thinking that since I happen to be abnormal enough to enjoy wading through all the political mumbo jumbo I’ll wade through it for you and present it in a way that normal Americans can stand reading.