The Citizen Post

Obama Watch

2009-02-23T14:58:00.003-05:00

I know, same old story, there is simply too much going on with the economy to keep up, so why even try. Don't worry, we'll get through it, bit by bit.

So the economy sucks. What is Obama doing to fix it? Essentially it's a three-pronged approach:

Spend a bunch of government money to get things going again;
Fix the banks so that they can loan people and businesses money again; and
Help people with their mortgages so they don't lose their homes.

Let's start with #1. The official name of this prong is the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." The gist is that if company's don't have the money to give people jobs, the government does. The White House launched a web site called recovery.gov where you can read up on the plan and see where the money is going.

A couple of opinion articles about this mess by two of my favorite columnists:

If you're feeling brave, here is a link to the full text of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Still don't understand how we got into this mess? Don't worry. Here's a great article from a fellow C.Post contributors to help explain.

Freedom of Conscience

2008-11-25T10:35:00.003-05:00

A thought provoking article titled Legislating Immorality on NRO.

Judgement is a vital necessity of life. We formulate our opinion and navigate our life according to this belief. It allows us to function. As a society we hold certain values and beliefs as communal and call them laws. As individual values change, so do the laws. But at what point is another's opinion legislated as right or wrong? Are there two truths?

I believe marriage is a sacred union between man and woman, ordained by God, to be performed by the power of the priestood in the Temple of the Lord. Applying this definition, marriage by the state and civil unions differ greatly from MY view of marriage. Honestly I do not care if civil unions are renamed marriage in the state of California: others' definitions of marriage are clearly different from my own and I don't advocate legislating my definition upon them. Although a majority in California felt to do so, I feel it will be overturned in the court system as it was in the past.

Yet the court system, designed to protect the rights of individuals, is a double-edged sword, currently swinging in a dangerous direction. The article sited two instances: doctors sued for not providing elective treatment according to their own conscience and a company threatened into providing services that they had previously refrained from giving. Do the doctors have rights to refuse IVF? It depends if it is a moral question or a civil rights question. Can eHarmony refuse to offer same-sex couples? Once again it depends on which truth you subscribe to.

I have felt for some time that conservative beliefs have been targeted, disparaged and renamed as narrow-minded, ignorant and even oppressive. Yet at the same time, liberal beliefs are called accepting, reality or even rights. While I recognise that many do not agree with my personal beliefs, conservatives and liberals alike, I maintain that I have a right to believe, act and vote according to my conscience. I maintain that others have a right to do so as well.

Proposition 8, 14 simple words, has opened Pandora's box. Which values and beliefs are moral and which violate civil rights?

I cannot interpret the delphic riddle, but I fear the sword of Damocles hangs over the Freedom of Conscience, ready to pierce the Diversity of Belief which we hold dear in this country.

-Al

Introducing: Obama Watch

2008-11-13T19:38:00.001-05:00

While it might sound like something you would read on the cover of Us Weekly or see on E! News, hopefully "Obama Watch" will be a bit more substantial. Let me explain.

Obama Watch is simple. It's a new feature of The Citizen Post in which I, or anyone else interested, will post articles, blog posts or other news articles detailing the actions taken by the Obama administration and compare those to what Obama said he would do during the campaign.

As many of you already know, I voted for Obama. I've supported his campaign for quite some time, I wrote posts in support of it, I contributed money to it, I almost made calls for it . . . almost. However, as the politicians like to say, now that the election is over it's time to put partisanship aside. I agree. I also think putting partisanship aside should work both ways. And so, while I supported Obama during the election, now that he's going to be President it's time to put that support aside and watch what he does with a bipartisan eye.

This blog has received some criticism for being too left-leaning, even bordering on Obama worship. While I personally maintain that the opinions I shared during the election were based on a decision I made as a result of independent research, I also take such criticisms seriously--though I try not to take anything too seriously anymore.

Enter the Obama Watch. Hopefully this will help to bring more balance to The Citizen Post, while at the same time helping us to stay involved in the process and keep our politicians connected to their campaign promises.

I'll go first.

Here's a link to an article in yesterday's edition of the New York Times outlining the role of lobbyists, and their money, in the Obama transition team. Lobbyist influence was a main talking point of the Obama campaign. He argued time and again that lobbyists' influence in Washington came between the interests of the people and those meant to govern on their behalf, and that he was going to stop it.

Here's a link to another New York Times piece talking about Obama's decisions of late on education reform and it's priority in his Presidency. As a reminder, in his Democratic nomination acceptance speech, Obama said in part, "I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American--if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."

So how's he doing so far? In the spirit of bipartisanship, I prefer to let you read and tell me what you think.

Why Keep It?

2008-11-12T20:12:00.006-05:00

Interestingly enough, and perhaps most applicably, one of the issues we have debated a lot in American Heritage lately has been the electoral college. At first I used to consider controversy over the electoral college inappropriately unimportant. However further consideration dispelled this assuredly; it appears to be one of those issues utterly unsolvable, with extremely valid arguments on both sides. Who knows. We've been required to write several essays this semester over impending political issues, and I figured I would include the main points from my essay. Judging by the poll at the side (currently a 4/5 ANTI vote) I can see I have my work cut out for me. But here goes! These are in order of relevance and importance:

Because of

1. Preservation of state sovereignty

Since the college is based the representation from the Senate and House, each state has a certain amount of power in each election, that is almost ideally balanced. The larger states are more important to winning an election than the smaller states, as they have the most electoral votes. Perpendicularly, the smaller states have more influence than the larger states. States like Alaska and Wyoming actually end up being overrepresented in electors. If it was based completely proportionally, Alaska would only get 1 elector, and Wyoming would have less than a fraction of one (both currently have 3 electors). I see this as a good thing—the smaller states aren't shafted by the larger states, but they aren't granted too much power either. Without state sovereignty state borders might as well not exist; it becomes less about where people live as all areas are ultimately equal. Which isn't fair; each state is its own specific entity entitled to its own specific influence.

2. Dispersal of representation

This is an extrapolation of the first, but nevertheless important. Without the electoral college and state sovereignty, all a candidate would have to do would be to win over the more populous areas of the country. Since this is almost always synonymous with cities, the urban vote would be the only vote voiced in the election. Think of how many past elections would be different if they each relied on the urban vote! The electoral college keeps the rural vote from getting shafted, while still allowing other areas their say as well.

3. Removal of the public from the election

Generally this is used as an argument against the electoral college, but its important to note that this was intended by the founders of the Constitution. Obviously there are the occasional elections where the winner didn't as much of the popular vote as the loser. But this was foreseen by the founders, and it is always justified due to state sovereignty. Another thing to note is that of the House representatives, senators, and the president, the president is the only one still elected by an indirect election. Its important to remember that in this case the power of the public isn't being lost, it's just being applied differently.

4. Centralization around moderate politics

While third parties can often earn admirable portions of the popular vote, they almost NEVER earn any electoral votes for their cause. If they ever did, it would work much like the way other pluralist popular vote systems work, with the third party merging with a closer party in an attempt to beat the opposition. Keeping the two-party system intact prevents any extremist candidate from winning, as control of the middle is ESSENTIAL to an electoral victory.

5. Lack of past problems

This just refers to the idea that we depend on electors for our vote; what if they ever voted against the public? Its never happened since its inception, and I have a hard time believing it will ever happen. Electors who voted away from the norm (“faithless” electors) would almost certainly lose their public trust, political position, and likely any chances for future political careers.

6. Prevention of disaster

But if an elector ever did need to vote contrary to the public, it would almost undoubtedly happen in mass form. Say Ozzy Osbourne or somebody was running for president. Can you imagine? He would DEFINITELY win over the popular vote. It would be the electors' decision in this case to choose a more competent candidate in the interest of the public. They would certainly do it as a group, and I have a hard time believing they would be afterwards deemed faithless electors. Obviously this is an extreme case. The electors will only vote against the public if circumstances are ESPECIALLY demanding.

In essence, I guess it would be conclusive for me to say that while I do understand the opposition to the electoral college, in the end I don't feel like there's anything wrong with it. Aren't there other things we could be focused on fixing?

The Silver Lining

2008-11-11T21:53:00.002-05:00

I was pretty happy about the fact that the guy I voted for won the election (Kim still won't tell me who she voted for). I was one of the few who were happy around these parts. I have not gloated at all. In fact I have not once brought up the election results with anyone. As a show of my relief that the election is over, I took the Obama '08 magnet off my car. All that's left is an oval shaped clean spot.
A few days after the election, Kim was at a church activity. One of our friends came up to Kim and said they would like to talk to me to help them find the "silver lining" in the results of the election. He knew how I had voted. We invited them over for dinner this past Sunday.
I really appreciated the olive leaf that he was offering, and his sincere offering to try to understand my democratic viewpoint. He says he doesn't know very many democrats. Nobody in Idaho knows very many.
I wasn't really sure what to say to him. We discussed republican and democratic philosophy. We talked about pure socialism and pure capitalism, the spectrum that lies between, where on that spectrum we have been and where we could expect to be in the future. He was concerned that his boss would have to lay off workers because the business makes over 250k/yr. I was glad that the years of bully boy foreign policy (quoting Bishop Desmond Tutu) appear to be over. We were both concerned that maybe Joe Biden will turn out to be a Democrat version of the jerk VP we've had for the last 8 years. We were both upset about the way the Iraq fiasco went down. We were both glad we get to be part of history seeing the first African American US President.
We found that we had some core philosophical differences, we also found that we had a lot of common views.
I've come to think that the silver lining is this...we live in a free country. We're free to share and express our views, disagree openly with authority, and vote the way we see fit. We enjoy the protection of an inspired Constitution and we've just been witness to the miracle of democracy played out on a grand stage. I'm glad I was here to see it - and that my guy won:)

An Electoral History

2008-11-09T17:17:00.013-05:00

The election is finally over. I don't know about you, but I could use a break--sorry CNN, you've been temporarily black-listed (I'll miss you Wolf). Still, that doesn't mean we have to stop blogging, right? I hope not.

I thought it might be fun to take a stroll through some political history . . . you know, talk about politics without "talking politics." I found this really cool website (at least for politi-nerds like me) that contains detailed results of all of our country's presidential elections--way back to Mr. Washington himself. I thought I'd share some fun facts from the site:

Washington won our very first election in 1789 with a total of 85.2% (69) of the electoral votes
Washington did such a great job in his first term that he won re-election in 1972 with a whopping 97.8% (132) of the electoral votes
Washington's 97.8% number surprisingly isn't the highest percentage of electoral votes earned. That award goes to FDR who received 98.5% (523) of the electoral votes in 1936
Roosevelt's opponents in '36 were Alfred Landon (Republican), William Lemke (Union) and--check this out--Norman Thomas (Socialist). That's right, Socialist! And the guy got 0.41% of the popular vote...eat your heart out Obama (sorry, we're taking a break, I forgot)
According to the site, on four occasions the winner of the election actually lost the popular vote: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and George W. Bush (by the narrowest of margins) in 2000

Speaking of electoral votes, you probably already know by now that, in this country, when we vote for our presidents we're actually voting for how we'd like our state's "electors" to vote. Each state has a certain number of these electors (based mostly on population) who meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their official ballots for president. These votes are then sealed and sent to Washington D.C. where they are read before a joint session of Congress in January.

While these electors generally vote based on the results of the popular vote in their respective states, they are not obligated to do so. Only two of these electors in recent history have voted to the beat of their own drum. A Republican elector voted for Reagan instead of Ford in '76 and another Republican voted for the Libertarian rather than Nixon in '72 . . . blasted Republican mavericks (oops, can't help it). However, such rogue electors have never decided the outcome of an election; then again, there is still hope for the faithful McCain supporters out there (that was the last one, I promise).

Why the electoral college in the first place? Why not a simple majority vote of the people? Well, the framers of the Constitution were worried that "the people" were too spread out and would not have access to enough information to make informed decisions about who should be president, so they didn't want to leave it completely in our hands. They also didn't want to leave it completely up to Congress, fearing that would shift the balance of power. And so our good friend Alexander Hamilton came up with a compromise that is essentially our current electoral college system.

But what about now? Surely we have easy access to enough information such that we can make informed decisions (did I hear three cheers for The Citizen Post just then?), can't we move to a popular vote? Interesting question. More than 500 constitutional amendments have been introduced to alter the electoral college system. Obviously they've all failed. Partly because it's pretty hard to amend the Constitution, but also in part because a lot of people aren't too excited about changing the current system. Anyway, that's a debate for another time after we've all rested enough to be ready to start debating again.

Speaking of which, I hope that time comes soon for you, but if not, don't worry, take your time, we'll be here waiting when you're ready to come back.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. Have ideas on how we can improve The Citizen Post? I'm all ears: thecitizenpost@gmail.com

History

2008-11-05T21:02:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was indeed a momentous day in America's history. Regardless of your opinion of either candidates' opinions, I think we can all appreciate the significance of this election. Here are the words of our future president:

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

Its the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

Its the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

Its the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

Its been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and hes fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nations promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nations next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy thats coming with us to the White House. And while shes no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what youve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didnt start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generations apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didnt do this just to win an election and I know you didnt do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how theyll make the mortgage, or pay their doctors bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, its that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if Americas beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one thats on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. Shes a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldnt vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

The End of the Beginning

2008-11-03T19:05:00.003-05:00

Here it is, tomorrow's the big day, unless of course you're one of those who had an "early" big day. I know I've said it before, but I want to sincerely thank all those who have posted and commented on this blog in the past two months. I personally have found many of the discussions very helpful and have enjoyed learning about others' opinions and views.

I encourage everyone to vote tomorrow and to make sure that everyone they know votes, too. Regardless of how we may feel about the impact our vote has on the outcome or about the worthiness of the candidates on the ballot, the opportunity to vote and be a part of the democratic process is a unique privilege we each have and of which we should all take advantage. For those who don't know where to vote, either candidates' website can help you: McCain | Obama

Finally, a word about staying involved in the democratic process. While the traffic on this blog in the past two months has been great, if it stops here then this blog will have failed. For example, I personally feel that our current discussion about health care is too meaningful for us to have it only once every four years. I think the same could be said for energy independence, education and many other issues. I hope these conversations continue. In addition, I intend to watch how our next President--regardless of who that may be--governs and compare it to how they campaigned. I encourage each of you to do the same--and hopefully at The Citizen Post.

Thanks again and, whomever you support, good luck tomorrow.

Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, 230

2008-11-03T01:21:00.003-05:00

Rightly so, it was pointed out that the post on socialized medicine does not entirely relate to the current election. Here are summaries of the plans presented by the two candidates, as well as several other points applicable to topic.

Senator John McCain’s plan

This summary is from his statement in the Journal of the American Medical Association4.

Senator McCain states that the foundation of his plan rest on the belief that families, not government bureaucrats or insurance companies, should choose their own coverage, as government controlled systems will diminish health care quality. He identifies four ‘pillars’ to outline his reform: affordability, portability and security, access and choice, and quality.

Affordablity: This portion includes is tax credit to help individuals pay for health care, $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families.

Portability and Security: There will be government supported coverage for individuals that follow individuals or families from job to job, or job to home.

Access and Choice: Law would open up health insurance markets nationally, creating greater competition to lower cost. Also a Guaranteed Access Plan would help those who have difficulties getting insurance due to existing health conditions. Law would also set reasonable limits on premiums for health insurance.

Quality: Institute a pay for performance system within Medicare and Medicaid to cut excessive costs and streamline medical workups, paving the way for other health care providers to do the same. Address the growing epidemic of obesity, diabetes and heart disease through early intervention programs, education and healthy eating initiatives. Enact tort reform to limit frivolous law suits.

Senator McCain concludes by stating that he will conduct a bipartisan effort to achieve these goals.

Senator Barack Obama’s plan

This summary is also taken from his statement in the Journal of the American Medical Association5

Senator Obama’s plan rests on the goals of reducing the rate of uninsured and decreasing the cost of health insurance for everyone.

His three part plan consists of (1) providing affordable, accessible health care to all; (2) modernizing the US health care system to contain spiraling costs and improve the quality of patient care; and (3) promoting prevention and strengthening public health to prevent disease and protect against natural and man-made disasters.

To provide affordable, accessible health care, he proposes a new National Health Exchange—a government health insurance plan at a low affordable cost. Those that cannot afford it and do not qualify for SCHIP or Medicaid will receive a tax subsidy to purchase health care. Financing for this plan will by by requiring employers to make a ‘meaningful contribution’ or to ‘contribute a percentage of their payroll’. Small businesses will be exempt from these ‘contributions’, and will even receive tax credits up to 50% of the premiums paid.

To modernize the system to lower cost and improve quality, the plan will invest in electronic medical records, help with reimbursement of employers in the even of catastrophic illness if they use their savings to lower workers premiums, require disease management programs to promote good health, require health plans to disclose the percentage that goes to administrative costs, launch efforts to tackle health care disparities, reform malpractice, eliminate medicare subsidies. It will allow Americans to import inexpensive drugs from other countries and stop big drug companies from paying to keep generic drugs out of the market to preserve their profits, and will also allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for better prices.

To promote prevention and public health, Senator Obama states he will work with every sector of society—employers, school systems, community groups and families—to ensure that Americans have access to preventative care. He will require that federally supported health care plans cover the costs of preventative services. He will also increase community based preventative interventions to help Americans make better choices to improve their health.

Senator Obama concludes by stating that his plan will guarantee that every American has health care when they need it, and promises to sign it into law by the end of his first term.

Which plan addresses health care reform more effectively?

The data I refer to here was published by the Lewin Group, an independent national health care and human services consulting firm.13

McCain’s plan reduces the number of uninsured by 21.1 million, and Obama’s reduces it by 26.6 million over the next 10 years. Both are admirable in reducing the number of uninsured. Although 5.5 million more that McCain’s plan, Obama’s plan has not completely reduced the number of uninsured as his promise that “every American will have health care when they need it” might lead one to expect.

McCain’s plan is estimated at a net federal cost of $2.0 trillion and Obama’s at a cost of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. At first this may seem to weigh in favor of Obama’s plan, but lets look at the what net federal cost means. McCain’s plan will cost the government more because it will be taking less taxes from the people. Obama’s plan will be paid for by increases in payroll taxes to companies with 25 employees or more, among other myriad of questionable savings—ie electronic medical records, drug negotiations, etc. Other estimates place McCain’s plan at a cost of about $1.3 trillion over ten years and Obama’s at about $1.6 trillion.14

Which plan will lead to loss of insurance at work? Estimates of McCain’s plan state that approximately 9% of employers will drop health care coverage. No estimates are given on how much increases in payroll taxes will effect companies with more than 25 employees.

Whose plan will lead to decreasing the cost of health insurance per individual? McCain’s plan is significantly more effective than Obama’s at reducing the cost of family health spending across all income levels.

My Opinion

Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University, said, "It's garbage in, garbage out. Every econometric study is an effort in persuasion. I have to persuade the other guy that my assumptions are responsible. Depending on what I feed into the model, I get totally different answers" (Sack, New York Times, 10/22).

Since the details and laws that will be put into place to enact the vision of each candidate have not been written, I whole heartedly agree with Reinhardt. Depending on how you play with the model, either candidate can come out on top.

I base my opinion on which program will be better by carefully looking at whether or not the candidate has a clear understanding of the problem, and if the candidate presents a plan that can actually work. Both candidates do an adequate job at identifying the issues of improving access to care for the uninsured. Both address the causes of rising health care costs, although their plans either vague or of questionable value.

My Opinion on Access:

Lets talk about the uninsured. 45.8 million or 15% of the total US population is uninsured1. 25 percent of the uninsured are below the poverty line (precise income varies by number in household and by state11, mostly this directly relates with minimum wage12). 28 percent are between 100% and 199% of the poverty line. These 24 million individuals are less likely to be working (full or half time), less likely to receive health insurance through a job, and of course are unable to afford an offer of coverage. Many of these 24 million low income individuals are eligible for coverage under Medicaid and SCHIP.7,8 Although qualifications guidelines vary from state to state, generally those in these first two tiers that qualify are children, parents of dependent children, pregnant women, the disabled, and the elderly.1

Surprisingly their also exists 27% of uninsured that have incomes above the 300% poverty level, and 11% at 500%. This is over 17 million of the total 45.8 million individuals who should be able to find affordable health care, as estimates place affordable insurance to consist of only 2-5% of total income at these levels.1

Looking at the age distribution of the uninsured is also educational. 21% of the uninsured are below age 18, 19% between 18-24, and 22% between 25-34. This gives 63% or 28.8 million of the total uninsured under 35.1

Conclusion: approximately 38% of uninsured individuals have a non-financial reason for being uninsured. The majority of uninsured are younger than 34. Both candidates plan will provide incentives to gain access to care. McCain does it by opening up the market to interstate competition and tax rebates to return money to American’s pockets. Obama does it by creating a new government health care exchange program—a government subsidized HMO of sorts—that will be cheap for low income families to buy. I am a free market, freedom of choice type of person, and less of a depend on the government for help type. I chose McCain’s in regards to access.

My opinion on reducing rising cost:

We’ve talked about a few of these already: inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud.2

Unhealthy behaviors such as obesity and diabetes have doubled during the past 25 years, and more than a quarter of health care spending growth in recent years is attributable to the rise in obesity and related growth of diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart disease.3 Smoking, alcohol abuse, as well as motor-vehicle collisions, gun violence, domestic violence, and other forms of trauma6, contribute as well.3

Unnecessary medical tests are costing the U.S. health care system millions—and potentially billions—of dollars annually, with an estimated annual costs of unwarranted use of just three low-cost tests alone—urinalysis, electrocardiograms, and X-rays—cost $50 million to $200 million a year.3

Overuse of medical services also occurs because of the high risk of medical liability lawsuits. A March 2003 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that defensive medicine cost the nation between $70 and $126 billion in 2001.3

Both plans call for initiatives to improve education and preventative medicine, but are vague at what these might be. I don’t know if the government can do much about controlling the obesity rates in the US. Doctors can’t even do much about it—success stories are rare. Americans are going to pay for their poor eating habits not only with years of life, but with dollars as well. Neither talks about smoking, a tremendous burden to the health care system.

Both address inefficiencies: McCain calls for a pay for performance measures within Medicare and Medicaid, and Obama calls for electronic medical records. Point to McCain. It is unclear how much electronic medical records will improve inefficiencies. Where pay for performance measures are a clear way to streamline health care excess and eliminate unnecessary tests.

Both address tort reform. Defensive medicine is bad everyone.

I think McCain has a slight advantage in cutting the costs, and his understanding of what is causing the problem is a little more insightful.

Conclusion

If you’ve read this far, kudos. You must have more time on your hand than I do.

When you get down to looking at both plans, they’re very similar.

I think McCain has an advantage in the fact that he opens free market forces to drive down prices, gives tax rebates to help make health insurance more affordable, and addresses the rising cost of health care with a clear pay for performance system within the existing framework of Medicare and Medicaid. He doesn’t increase government administration in doing this.

Obama seems to promise too much. His plan covers many more problems, many of questionable benefit and of unclear meaning (ie how does launching efforts to look into health care disparities decrease cost of care?). Creating a government HMO for lower income individuals to purchase creates more bureaucracy, at a cost that may be passed on to employees. He also promises to sign it in by the end of his first term.

I get the feeling McCain has a clearer understanding of what CAN be done. His plan is simpler yet affective. Obama’s youthful inexperienced zeal leads him to promise quite a bit.

The [younger candidate] doth protest too much, methinks.

-Al

1) http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#income
2) http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
3) http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18295.html
4) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/16/1925
5) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/16/1927
6) http://encarta.msn.com/media_701508606_761557270_-1_1/leading_causes_of_death_in_the_united_states_by_age.html
7) http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/01_Overview.asp
8) http://www.cms.hhs.gov/LowCostHealthInsFamChild/02_InsureKidsNow.asp#TopOfPage
9) http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/Home.asp?dest=NAV|Home|GeneralEnrollment#TabTop
10) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200806.htm
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
12) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
13) http://www.lewin.com/Home/
14) http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12321573

State Issue 1: Proposition 8

2008-11-02T18:08:00.002-05:00

While this is not necessarily a national issue, California Proposition 8 is an important issue to many of us. As one of the main goals of this blog is to increase our education as voters, I thought it might be helpful to share some information on the proposition, not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with taxes for once.

Click here for an official California State website that contains a summary of the proposition, an analysis of the possible economic effects, arguments for and against the proposition and the actual text of the proposition (it's very short). I found the website very helpful and encourage you to take a look.

Click here for the official website of the coalition that placed the proposition on the ballot in California and supports its passage. Click here for a list of organizations that make up the coalition.

For those of you who may be interested, click here for an official letter from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlining the church's official position on the proposition.

I personally feel that it is beneficial to consider why the LDS church has chosen to be officially involved on this issue and not others of a political nature. Perhaps it can provide useful insight into how we can be guided by our religious beliefs as we make voting decisions. However, I feel strongly that our conclusions based on such considerations are personal and should not be discussed on a public blog such as this. As such, any comments of this nature will be deleted.

I hope this helps.

Hoover and Roosevelt

2008-11-02T16:00:00.002-05:00

Early this morning we were watching the History Channel air a piece called Presidents. It was a short history of all the presidents, where they came from, what they accomplished, etc.

According to THC, Hoover was extremely intellegent, well thought of, with a reputation for good business decisions (he was a millionaire), and very popular with the public.

His problem was that he had the misfortune to be president when the Great Depression hit the country in 1929. He tried to help, of course, but his other problem was his solution. It wasn't to use the resources of the government to bail the country out, but to ask industry to voluntarily come to its assistance. Of course industry failed to step up to his requests, and the Depression deepened.

When Roosevelt defeated Hoover in his bid for re-election, he immediately stepped in with massive help from the federal government, thus saving the country.

He subsequently went too far, in my opinion, but this little bit of history may be somewhat relavent to our current situation.

Issue 5: Comic Relief

2008-11-02T10:54:00.003-05:00

I'm extremely encouraged by all the recent lively debates about health care and other issues. I hope they continue. I also, as editor of this blog, want to sincerely apologize to anyone who has been offended. I hope that all of you continue to share your valued opinions. Without you this blog isn't worth much.

I thought we could use a little comic relief--help to lighten the mood. If you haven't seen these gems, enjoy. The first is an SNL skit with John McCain and Sarah "Fey-lin." I think it's hilarious and am actually very impressed with McCain both for his display of comedic timing and for his willingness to go on the show--almost makes me want to vote for him . . . almost. The second is a piece on The Onion about Obama participating in a "Presidential Internship" in order to boost his resume.

Along with making us laugh, I hope these clips can also help us to not take our political opinions too seriously.

Thanks again for contributing. I sincerely appreciate everyone's opinions and contributions.

Onus Probandi: The Burden of Proof

2008-11-01T18:44:00.002-04:00

Al Tanner

The US health care system is a mess. Ask anyone in the health care profession. Doctors fight insurance companies for their pay, many only getting paid 30 cents on the dollar. Frivolous malpractice suits drive up insurance not only for doctors, but for patients as well. Patients fight with insurance companies for certain benefits. A significant portion of the population struggle even to find insurance that is affordable. There exists a disparity in access to health care. The problems with the health care system go on and on. And yet the United States has the best health care in the world—the world looks to the United States for its innovation, research and cures for illnesses. The best doctors are in the US. The best researchers are in the US. The best medicines, technology and procedures are in the US. But is there another system which works better? Will changing the system destroy the best health care in the history of the world? Can Government do a better job than the current system? These are trillion dollar questions, and I submit that the burden of proof lies at the feet of those proposing change.

Let’s break this down further and ask some more questions.

How much is spent on health care?
The US spends more than UK on health care as measured by %GDP in 2006: Canada: 10%, Japan 7.9%, Germany 10.4%, UK 8.4%, US 15.3%a. Approximately 70-80% of this is by the government in foreign countries, and 45% of expenditures in health care in the US is by the US government. Government expenditures on health care as a percentage of GDP are calculated: Canada 6.9%, Japan 6.7%, Germany 8.2%, UK 7.1%, US 6.8% h. If the US government spends approximately the same percentage of it’s GDP on health care, yet does not provide universal coverage, how does it reason that giving more responsibility to the US government will lower costs once universal coverage is in place? Doesn’t it seem to reason the opposite? An inefficient institution will continue to be inefficient.

Who are the major players in medicine?
US health care consumers—the patients are the most important in this debate. Lives depend on access to and quality of health care. Health care workers, those that train to provide these services, are number two: doctors, nurses, PAs, social workers, mental health workers, dentistry workers, etc. Also important are the innovators: pharmaceutical workers, health device researchers and manufacturers, medical and biological science researchers. Also, like it or not, insurance companies and trial lawyers have a place in the debate. There are many players, but we can simply state correctly that all those involved in medicine should be there for the benefit of the patient. So let’s focus on the patients health interests.

How do we measure health?
Mr. Eastman shared two ways: average life expectancy (ALE) and infant mortality rates (IMR). ALE is the average number of years that a newborn is expected to live if current mortality rates continue to applyb. IMR is not a rate but a probability of death derived from a life table and expressed as rate per 1000 live birthsc. The World Health Organization keeps track these statistics world wide. These numbers are based on individual governments which release their own health information. In countries that do not have such resources, a best guess is made by WHO. There are other measures of disease such as prevalence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypertention, etc.

Is there a statistically significant difference between the US and wealthy nations with socialized medicine?

Let’s first talk about statistics. The ALE and IMR are calculated statistics based on life tables, and as such, there involves a standard of error with calculationsd. Conventionally, science accepts any value for the calculated statistics within a confidence interval—2 standard deviations (2σ) above and below the meane. For example, WHO publishes yearly the ALE and IMR by countrya. I’ll give a few (in years): US: 78, UK: 79, Canada: 81, Germany: 81 Japan: 83. Let’s suppose that σ = 1 year for the calculation of these statistics. The accepted ALE for an American would fall between 77 and 80. Only Japan would have a statistically significant difference from the US, for the accepted values of Canada (79-83), Germany (79-83) and the UK (77would overlap. But what if σ = 2? There would be no statistical significance between any of the five countries. See the importance? The same holds for IMR (deaths between birth and 1 year of age per 1000): Japan: 3, Germany: 4, UK: 5, Canada: 5, US: 7.

So is there a statistically significant difference in these statistics between countries? I don’t know, after hours of searching for the sources that WHO based their calculations. (for further work in this area, WHO uses a modified logit life table). Without knowing the error, nobody can correctly say that there is a statistically significant difference. Let’s find another measurement.

ALE and IMR are affected any condition which is detrimental to a persons health, such as disease (congenital, acquired), nutrition, sexual health, substance abuse, sanitation and access to caref. The statistic is also influenced by cultural, religious and political decisions to report deathf. It is inaccurate to state that government controlled health care directly correlates with changes in ALE and IMR alone. It is known that there is a difference between health status between the US and other countries.

Looking at the US and the UK, The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancerg. Other differences exist between countries as well. Look at percentage of years lost due to injuries: Canada: 15%, Japan 16%, Germany 10%, UK 9%, US 17%a. US demographics differs quite a bit than UK, Germany, Japan, and Canadai,j k,l m. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarctions, stroke, lung disease and cancer are multifactorial diseases affected by genetics and cultural differences.

What about the higher US IMR? Genetics and environment are strong players here as well—the most common causes of IMR are congenital anomalies (genetics is huge here), short gestation/low birth weight (genetics & environment), SIDs (known to be more prevalent in the AA population and recently genetic defects have been identified), Maternal complications, and Infant Respiratory distress (related to genetics and short gestation). What else could increase the IMR in the US? What is the earliest that a baby has been delivered in the US? Do high risk pregnancies fly to Europe or Japan to be treated? Where is the best care for premature infants? What about attitudes in the US toward abortion? It is a well known fact that this country is much more religious and conservative than Europe when it comes to abortion. Do mothers with babies with birth defects carry their baby to term more in the US than in other countries? I think the answer would be yes. Such infants would increase the US IMR.

So what other examples of socialized systems are there? Canada, England. Go look at their system. What is the wait for care when compared to the wait in the US? What about the wait for elective surgeries? What options do patients have about second opinions? What if you get stuck with a primary care physician that graduated last in his class at The Cancun School of Medicine and Binge Drinking? Can you go somewhere else under a socialized system? What about new experimental treatments? Can you do something that you think is right for you and your health when there are government enforced guidelines concerning your treatment? Do you get arrested for choosing alternative treatments? If you are thinking: “Ridiculous! This would never happen!” just remember that this has happened do our friend Darren Jensen in a private system!! What about end of life issues? When the government is footing the bill, what happens to the Terri Shiavos? These cases will be decided in court, so remember we’re the country that let the Juice loose, and awarded $2.9 million to Liebeck for spilling her hot McD’s coffee in her lap! Once government starts regulating your health care, what happens to your basic human right to make decisions concerning your health and your life?

What about medical innovations, drugs, research—those institutions that have DOUBLED the US ALE within the last century? As the government controls access and regulates procedures, what will happen to these institutions—the future of our health care? We are entering a genetic era. Treatments at the end of my life time will be radically different than those we are using today. Genetic sequencing of each patient will give the risks they face in life. Drugs will be customized to each patient and their specific disease! GATTACA is in the not too distant future. But what will government controlled spending in these fields lead to? What is the R & D in the socialized countries compared to that going on in the US? Who is leading the way? Each part—research, technology, and pharm play a vital role in this expanding field. Will government controlled health care destroy this? Hard questions. Just let the same people that run UDOT delve into these problems!

I will go on the record that the health care is much better in the United States than in any other country in the world—in the history of the world. Is the system a pain to get through? Yes. Are there disparities? Yes. Is there enough of a problem that the entire system be changed? Do we really want elected officials making decisions about your health and the future of medicine in this country?

For those of you voting for McCain, think of Obama making the decisions; for those of you voting for Obama, think of McCain making the decisions. Finding answers to these many questions is not and easy task, but it must be done before we go about advocating change in a system that could affect our lives, the lives of our children and grandchildren. As we well know from Social Security once an institution is put in place that provides some care for the individual, neither party is willing to fix the it regardless of the ominous collapse looming on the horizon. Do we dare to place our health in the same hands?

I don’t. But that is just my opinion.

Don’t belittle my wife again.

References:
a) http://www.who.int/whosis/en/
b) http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/compendium/2008/2let/en/
c)http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/compendium/2008/3mr5/en/
d) http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper39.pdf
e) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
f) http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/whr02_ch4.pdf
g)http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/295/17/2037
h) http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS08_Table4_HSR.pdf
i) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States
j) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity
k) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_germany
l) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan
m) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Demographics

Will There Always Be An England?

2008-10-31T09:28:00.002-04:00

In the 1970's Sixty Minutes aired a piece called "Will There Always Be An England?" It showed all the problems the British economy was experiencing then, long lines at the doctor's office, and at the unemployement office, the disincentives caused by socialism, etc. In one example it compared the British Triumph motorcycle, which had a manual starter with a Japanese Honda motorcycle which had an electric starter. It was a stinging endictment of too much government. It went viral, and was repeatedly shown across the country. And it made me proud to be a Republican, and glad I lived in America.

Now, 30 some odd years later, I notice that England is still here. Her standard of living seems to be just fine. Her health care system is better than ours. There doesn't seem to be a mass exodus from her shores.

And I'm not sure any more that Republicans have all the answers. I know that it's not as simple as some of them make it seem. (I have my liberal sons, and a tendency to try to see the other side, to thank for that.)

The fact is that some segments of the economy don't lend themselves to free market forces. Education is one of those, and, I believe, health care. And the simplistic statement, "get the government out of our faces, and we'll be fine" is just not true any more, if it ever was.

By the way, I'm going to risk total embarrasment and make a prediction -- landslide.

Issue 2.2: The Economy

2008-10-29T16:01:00.003-04:00

I know many of us are tired of the economic debates, but our friends at the Tax Policy Center have recently published their analysis of the candidates' newest tax proposals (see Issue 2.1) and I thought I'd share. Besides, their analysis is pretty grim for Obama so I thought that might lift the spirits of our McCain-inclined readers as well as provide a bit of balance to the C.Post.

In order to make this as quick and painless as possible, I'll quickly outline each candidates' ideas again and include what the Tax Policy Center has to say about them.

Both Candidates

No federal taxes on unemployment insurance benefits - TPC says this would mostly benefit unemployed workers who have substantial "other" income. Doesn't really help the people who need help.

Obama

Remove penalty for early withdrawal from retirement accounts - TPC says encouraging people to withdraw money from their retirement accounts to pay the bills today is dangerous and wouldn't help people in the long run. They also say it would encourage people to withdraw money while that money is temporarily worth less--doesn't really make sense.
Give companies $3,000 per new employee they hire - TPC says this would mostly benefit companies in already-expanding industries and wouldn't do much to help companies that are hurting.

McCain

Suspend rules requiring 70.5 year-olds to pull money out of their IRA - TPC says this would largely benefit the wealthy because they 1) gain more from tax deferral and 2) are in the best position to use other money to live besides their IRA.
Lower the tax rate on IRA and 401(k) withdrawals - TPC says the benefit goes largely to those in the highest tax bracket.
Lower the tax rate on long-term capital gains - McCain camp says the purpose is to encourage investment, TPC says it wouldn't work and would instead give people who already have investments an incentive to sell them now instead of later.

I know that's entirely too much tax jargon, but I think the gist is this: Obama's ideas wouldn't really work and McCain's ideas would benefit people who don't really need help. Tough choice. The good news is the entire TPC report is only 5 pages long. If you want to read it, click here.

The Real Problem With Obama's Tax Plan

2008-10-29T09:19:00.000-04:00

This is from the Washington Post:

Almost Everyone Would Do Better Under the McCain Health Plan

2008-10-27T15:05:00.001-04:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

Immigration

2008-10-24T17:39:00.004-04:00

akdoxey asked that we talk about something new: Immigration. I thought it was a worthy request.

Neither candidate has focused much on immigration, probably because it has the potential to be such a polarizing issue and perhaps because there's not much difference in their positions on the issue. I took a look at the candidates websites to see what they say.

Obama admits that our immigration system is broken. His website outlines the following components of a plan to fix it:

Create secure borders through additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology.
Fix the dysfunctional immigration system, while helping ensure that families are kept together.
Remove incentives to enter illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers.
Allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Work with Mexico to promote economic development there, to address a major underlying cause of illegal immigration.

McCain also admits that our immigration system is broken. His website outlines the following plan:

Secure our border through "physical and virtual barriers". Ensure that funding is adequate. Implementing software and infrastructure.
Prosecute "bad actor" employers and implement an "electronic employment verification system."
Implement temporary worker programs to meet our labor needs, including specific plans for highly-skilled workers, low-skilled non-agriculture workers, and low-skilled agriculture workers.
Require undocumented workers to enroll in a program to resolve their status. Identify and deport criminal aliens.
Eliminate the family backlog.

Although the candidates' websites use different terms to describe their respective plans, the plans themselves are remarkably similar.

The Economist's special section on the election, to which I have referred in previous posts, includes an article on immigration that goes beyond the candidates' plans and looks at their records. Here are a few excerpts from the article:

Like many politicians with roots in troubled cities, Mr Obama is much less keen on increasing the number of guest workers... He backed a measure cutting the number of guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000. He introduced another measure that would have banned companies from employing guest workers in areas of high unemployment and required them to pay prevailing wages.

Until recently Mr McCain’s record on immigration was so liberal that the National Council of La Raza has twice given him an award for his political work. He has long fought for “comprehensive” immigration reform—code for any change that would provide a route to citizenship for illegals... When Mr McCain talks about the issue these days he sounds chastened. The failure of immigration reform taught him a lesson, he says—that Americans will tolerate a move to legalise illegal immigrants only if they are assured the border has been fixed.

The phrase "until recently" about McCain's record reflects the belief that his position on immigration seems to have changed. For example, he admitted that if his own immigration proposal came to a vote in the Senate, he wouldn't vote for it.

Issue 2.1: The Economy (updated)

2008-10-18T12:22:00.002-04:00

It's been awhile since we've had an "issue" post, so I thought I'd update us on some new economic policies that were proposed by the candidates in the past week to deal with our current economic woes. Lucky you, most of them have to do with taxes. Don't worry, I'll try to make it as painless as possible.

As expected, both candidates have some similarities between their proposals. For example, both McCain and Obama want to give people the option of withdrawing some of their retirement money to help pay the bills. McCain wants to do this by lowering the tax rate to 10% on IRA and 401(k) withdrawals up to $50,000. Obama wants to let people withdraw up to $10,000 in 2008 and 2009 without paying an early withdrawal penalty (normally if you withdraw money from your 401(k) before you're 59.5 years old, you pay a penalty of 10% of the amount you withdraw). Under Obama's proposal, you'd still have to pay the normal tax amount on your withdrawal even though you'd avoid the penalty. Under McCain's, you'd still have to pay the penalty even though the tax rate would be lower.

The two candidates have also suggested differing proposals. McCain wants to use $300 billion of the recently passed bailout plan to buy people's bad mortgages and allow them to refinance for a more manageable rate and terms. This is similar to McCain's earlier proposal of allowing qualifying homeowners to refinance their bad mortgages (see here for more on that).

Obama wants to give a tax credit (don't remember what a "tax credit" is? don't worry, refresh your memory here) to companies that create new jobs here in the United States by giving them $3,000 per each additional full-time employee that they hire in the U.S. during 2009 and 2010. This is also similar to an earlier proposal to give companies tax incentives to create jobs here in the U.S. (see here for more on that).

Obviously there are other proposals in each of the candidates new plans, but I think that'll do for now.

In case you're interested, the Obama campaign refers to their plan as the "Rescue Plan for the Middle Class." You can read the whole thing here. The McCain campaign refers to their plan as the "Pension and Family Security Plan." You can read more about it here.

If I Were King

2008-10-16T17:52:00.002-04:00

I think it would be fun, and possibly instructive, to imagine what one would do for our health care system if one were king, if there were no political impediments to taking a machete to the whole thing and then building it back up in a logical and proper form. This is what I’d do.

I’d get rid of the HMO’s. I’d give the insurance companies 60 days to revise their policies and procedures. I’d force them to:

• Cover catastrophes more thoroughly and inexpensively.

• Cease covering office calls.

• Cease covering any dental care except for complications.

• Eliminate pregnancy coverage except for complications.

• Forget about pre-conditions.

• Require that they cover everyone, but subsidize the coverage for high risks.

I’d let the doctors become entrepreneurs again. True competition would then begin to influence their pricing and quality.

I’d allow ER’s to refuse service for anything that isn’t a true emergency.

I’d leave the decision of what constitutes adequate preventive health care to the individual. The argument that the government should dictate or at least strongly influence a person’s preventive care, because to not do so would cause us all to have to pay for the consequences of poor care would be largely eliminated by the other provisions herein. I would, however, make government funds available for adequate prenatal care, and I would provide a combination of public funds and insurance funds for MRI’s and other expensive tests.

I wouldn’t legislate against abortion, but I would not enable it in any way, that is, if an individual wants an abortion she would have to pay for it, and I wouldn't let the insurance companies cover it. I would make partial birth abortion a felony, just like murder, which it is. I’d provide extensive education on the consequences of unplanned pregnancy, but I would recognize that education does not necessarily produce responsible behavior. Ted Bundy was very well educated, for example.

I’d make it illegal for the drug manufacturers to advertise on TV, thus eliminating their current rampant scare tactics to try to get us to “talk to your doctor about Avidart”, or whatever.

This is not a complete list of everything that would need to be done to kill the old system and cause the new one to rise up out of the ashes, but it’s a start. I invite anyone to add to it in the spirit of brainstorming.

Here are some of the effects I believe this program would produce.

• The entire system would be a combination of private and public funding.

• People would pay for their routine health care the same way they do for the food they eat.

• Catastrophes would be covered by insurance, which would truly become “insurance” again.

• Doctors and hospitals would have much less paperwork to fill out. They could then reduce their costs somewhat.

• Because prenatal care, so vital to a healthy populace, would be covered by the public, there would be no excuse for mothers-to-be to not get good care.

• Drug manufacturers would save huge sums that they currently pay for advertising.

• Expensive tests, such as MRI’s would be left to the discretion of the doctor.

Here is a summary of our family’s experience with health care over the past 26 years.

• In 1982 we became self employed and couldn’t afford to convert our group policy.

• We lived without insurance, with much fear and trembling, for a couple of years.

• Then we noticed that the sky didn’t fall in, as we had feared.

• Over time we became comfortable, then jubilant over our lack of insurance. It wasn’t that we were “without” insurance; we “chose” not to have it.

• In the 26 years since, we have paid far less, magnitudes less, for health care than we would have paid for insurance premiums.

• We had small children, so we had our share of scrapes, bruises, and broken bones, and we paid as we went.

• I remember on one occasion the ER sent us a bill for what seemed to us an exorbitant amount for a half hour of the doctor’s time, so we wrote them a letter. They cut the bill in half. (Free market forces at work.)

• We recognized, and still do, that we are at risk for a catastrophe, but we also know that the risk, statistically, is minimal. We’re prepared to live with the consequences if the dice rolls deuces, but we honestly believe that somebody up there is looking out for us. We believe with Dr. Norman Cousins that attitude is huge where health is concerned.

• We do not skimp. If a health care provider is needed, we go see him. We strongly disagree with the idea that people will deny themselves proper care because of the cost, unless that cost is huge.

• We also don’t run out to get every test the TV suggests, implying that we’d be fools not to. We take our health seriously. We listen to the inner voice, and occasionally to our son, the physician, and our vitality in the face of advancing years is proof of our philosophy.

• We’re of course not suggesting that anyone else follow our lead, but we believe it can serve as a guide to the crafting of a comprehensive universal health care system.

Summary

Our children’s education is run by the state governments, with some oversight by the feds. This is a good thing, because it falls under the mandate of the Preamble to “promote the general welfare”. It’s not perfect by any means, but it works. If it were left to free market forces, it wouldn’t work, and this is possibly the best example of how some things don’t lend themselves to free market forces.

Health care may be another example. It appears to be so in many other developed countries. Alex, having lived with his family in London for 9 months, has first hand knowledge. To make it work here, however, will require a thorough understanding of the forces that resist it, political, ideological, and emotional, and I don’t think we have that understanding yet.

But I do believe that if we take an idealistic view such as this one, for brainstorming purposes, we might add to the body of knowledge.

...So Help Me God

2008-10-16T11:17:00.000-04:00

We talk all the time about making sure not to mix politics and religion, it’s dangerous. It has even come up several times in this blog that we should not use religion to support our own political views. While, in no way, am I condoning an acontextual twisting of scriptural passage to support an otherwise weak argument, I would like to suggest that “religious” views and “political” views are not, nor should they ever be, completely separate.

When the President of the United States takes office, he promises his country, “I solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.” If politics were indeed meant to be wholly separated from faith, why would George Washington have added the phrase “so help me God” to the end of his presidential oath, and almost every president since then repeat it.

In support of Washington’s addition to the presidential oath, John Adams said, 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

We revere the founding fathers as men endowed with enough courage and foresight to establish a country that can be ruled by moral principles. So why then should we shy away from making political decisions based on religious and moral principles? If we are ever to achieve sustainable economic prosperity, won’t it be based on the moral notion that success is gained through hard work, and that everyone deserves a fair chance? If we are to have a healthy nation, shouldn’t it be because we believe that no human life is more important than the next? If we are to have a country with a strong foreign policy, shouldn’t it be based on the idea that all humans are God’s children, that he is no respector of persons, and so neither should we?

I realize that I am not making specifics argument about policy plans. I’m not quoting numbers, nor am I even supporting one party in favor of the other. What I am saying is that if what we are striving for is “Liberty and Justice for all,” should we not elect every president based on his ability to lead us as “one Nation under God”?

Why I'm Voting for Obama

2008-10-11T18:05:00.063-04:00

Jed recently invited us to share our decisions and express the reasoning behind them. Here's mine.

I'm voting for Obama for these reasons:

On balance, I agree more with Obama on the issues.
I've observed Obama to be thoughtful and intelligent and to be a careful and wise decision maker.
I've lost some respect for John McCain.

I'd like to elaborate on each of these points.

The Issues

In a comment on an earlier post I mentioned that, weighing the candidates' positions on all the issues, I conclude that Obama's positions are more consistent with my beliefs and values than are McCain's positions. Here's why:

Taxes: I side with Obama - Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have failed to stimulate the economy or create jobs and they have contributed to the largest federal budget deficit in history. McCain wants to extend those tax cuts and even further them. Obama wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. I find Obama's position more fiscally responsible.

Economy: I side with Obama - Obama seems to have a better understanding of the economy and of the factors that led to our current economic crisis. I believe that Obama's interest in intelligent, effective regulation and oversight is appropriate. Obama has been surrounding himself and consulting with intelligent, trustworthy economic experts. McCain, on the other hand, once admitted that economics is a weakness for him and was taking economic advice from Phil Gramm who was a prolific deregulator and who complained that those who didn't believe the economy was doing well were "whiners".

Education: I side with Obama - Obama's education plan is much more specific than McCain's, and I find Obama's ideas fresh, creative, and compelling. I believe that education is critical to reducing poverty and crime, ensuring our country's continued competitiveness, and fostering an effective democracy. We all have a personal stake in ensuring that our fellow citizens receive a good education. I think Obama's proposals would do more to improve our educational system.

Health Care: I side with Obama - I don't think we're getting our money's worth for what we spend per capita on health care. (The US spends more, per capita, on health care than any advanced nation, yet our health, measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, is among the worst across advanced nations.) I believe that insurers spend too much time and money working to deny coverage and claims for those who need and deserve them and that this practice adds undue administrative overhead to the cost of private insurance. I believe that underinsurance discourages people from preventive care, so that by the time they're in real trouble they require expensive, emergency care (and the rest of us paying customers bear the cost of that care). I believe that Obama's health care policies will do more to ensure that more people get access to decent health insurance and to reduce the cost of health care for everyone.

Foreign Policy: I side with Obama - I believe that Obama's disposition to engage in more diplomacy and to work better with our allies will improve our standing in the world, help us regain the trust of our allies, and help us work more effectively with other nations to fight our enemies. I agree with Obama's positions on Iraq and Afghanistan. I conclude that McCain is too predisposed to act unilaterally and to strike militarily before exploring diplomatic options. I think his foreign policy positions are too similar to the neoconservative philosophy that has yielded such terrible results over the past 8 years.

Abortion: I'm ambivalent about the two candidates' positions - Abortion is not an issue that has featured prominently in this election and, to be honest, I think it too often distracts us from issues that are more immediate and have more of an impact on our lives. I mention abortion here because I know it is an important issue to many who read this blog. I agree with McCain that abortion is an issue that should be decided by the states, not by the federal government. However, I think Obama's positions, as evidenced by his voting record, would do more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions (read Matt's summary of the candidates' voting records here). So, while I tend toward McCain on the general issue, I agree with Obama that we should have a multi-pronged approach to the problem.

As you can see, on my scorecard on the issues Obama comes out way ahead.

Obama's Character

From what I've observed of Obama he is thoughtful and intelligent. He surrounds himself with bright people and he listens to their advice. He weighs the options carefully before making a decision.

Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate is evidence of this. Biden is well-known for speaking his mind and for not being a "yes-man". Obama knew this. His choice suggests to me that he's interested in hearing dissenting opinions. Biden also fills what many considered to be gaps in Obama's resume: Biden has extensive experience while Obama is a relative newcomer. Biden is a foreign-policy expert where Obama has little foreign policy experience. Obama's choice indicates that he carefully considered what he needed in a Vice President and chose someone that would help him govern well, not just win an election.

When the economic crisis swelled in mid-September, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Obama convened a meeting with economic and financial experts including Robert Rubin, Warren Buffett, and Paul Volcker to help him understand the situation and develop ideas for addressing it. I am reassured by the fact that Obama seeks out smart people and turns to them for advice when he needs it. On the other hand, the advice that McCain has received and the behavior he's exhibited during the crisis do not give me confidence.

I was fascinated by this analysis of Obama's talents by conservative commentator David Brooks.

Why I've Lost Respect for McCain

Back in 2000, if John McCain had won the Republican presidential nomination, I would have voted for him against Al Gore (in retrospect, though, I think Gore would have been a better president). I was very disappointed that McCain lost the nomination to Bush. I thought McCain offered much better proposals than Bush. When Bush's was campaigning for huge tax cuts, McCain was calling for paying down the national debt. I was repulsed by the brutal smear tactics the Bush campaign used against McCain. I was impressed with how McCain ran his campaign: granting unfettered access to the press and talking "straight" whether or not his audience agreed. During Bush's first few years, I was impressed that McCain continued to offer a voice of reason. He voted against Bush's first tax cuts and opposed some of Bush's worst judicial nominees.

But sometime during Bush's first term, McCain must have realized that he would never win a Republican presidential nomination unless he tacked right and appealed to the conservative ideologues his moderate positions had alienated. He befriended those he used to refer to as "agents of intolerance". He hired the same operatives that so unfairly smeared him in 2000 to advise his 2008 campaign. While he still travels in the "Straight Talk Express", his talk doesn't seem so straight anymore. He changed his position on Bush's tax cuts. He reversed course on immigration.

I question some of the decisions McCain has made during his campaign. His decision to suspend his campaign in mid-September seems rash, unnecessary, and ineffective in hindsight. I think McCain's choice of running mate betrayed his mantra of country first. In my opinion, if McCain really put his country first he would have reached across (or at least into) the aisle and chosen someone like Joe Lieberman as his running mate. (Rumor has it that's what McCain wanted to do, but didn't out of fear of the backlash from conservatives.) Instead, he put his party first and chose someone that appealed to the evangelical base, that he hoped would help him win an election, but that arguably couldn't do much to help him govern.

In short, McCain isn't the maverick he used to be. Of course, if he was he probably wouldn't have won his party's nomination. But I've lost respect for him and I disagree with the new McCain on practically every issue.

Countering the Counter-Arguments

Allow me to address one of the most common arguments against Obama: his lack of extensive experience. John Kennedy had little experience when he ran for president. His only political experience was as a state representative for six years and a US senator for eight. Abraham Lincoln's experience when he ran for president consisted merely of a few terms as a state representative in Illinois and a single term in the US House of Representatives.

Obama's brief experience would matter more for me if I didn't know where he stood on the issues. But I believe that if you've researched the issues and the candidates' positions, and if you've cut through the mudslinging to the real substance, then you know where Obama stands, whether you agree with him or not.

I feel like I know where Obama stands and I agree with him on so much more than I disagree. That's why I'm voting for Obama.

A Letter from the Editor

2008-10-11T09:23:00.005-04:00

I want to first thank all of those who have and continue to contribute to this blog. Whether in posting your thoughts or commenting on others', I appreciate everyone's contributions and feel encouraged that this fledging blog is gaining somewhat of a following. I also sincerely hope that for many, if not all of you, this blog has been helpful in providing both a forum to voice your opinions and information to help us all make more informed voting decisions. None of this would be possible without your contributions--thank you.

To that end, I wanted to say a few words about constructive discussion and destructive arguing. Unfortunately, I think this blog has seen some of both. When it comes to politics, I think we're all much too familiar with the consequences of destructive arguing. For many of us this is the very reason why we can't stand politics or politicians and why we choose not to engage in the process at all. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, our political opinions quickly become very personal to us and so I think we tend to defend them and argue against others' in emotional and destructive ways. The problem with this is that not only is it unhelpful and may even discourage people from participating, it focuses on who is right and who is wrong rather than what is right and what is wrong for us and our country.

Here's what I mean. In Matt's recent post regarding abortion, one line stuck out to me, "Sen Obama voted against every piece of legislation that would restrict abortion and . . . voted for legislation aimed at increasing education, including abstinence education, and access to pregnancy prevention. Sen McCain voted for every restriction on abortion and against education and prevention." I take this to mean that both Obama and McCain agree that abortion is wrong and is a problem that needs fixing, where they disagree is on their proposed solution to that problem. When viewed in this light, the differences between the candidates can be discussed in the same way we discuss differences in their policies on Iraq, the economy, foreign policy, energy or the many other important issues at stake in this election. Some of these issues are, and should be, more important to us personally, but that should be the driving force behind our voting decision, not behind how we discuss the issues that make up that voting decision.

Unfortunately, on this and other issues, instead of focusing on the policy differences and engaging in constructive debate, we argued--truly unfortunate and for which neither side of the arguments have been completely blameless. The arguments were destructive and provided no means for common understanding or further education.

Fortunately, we've also seen comments focusing not on the differences between us, but the differences between the candidates' positions. These contributors commented with respect for other's opinions and in return were given respect for theirs. It's important to note that these people disagreed--I'm not suggesting we all agree, quite the opposite--but they also came to respect each others' decisions as a result of their awareness of the factors that make up those decisions. Such understanding and education is exactly why I started this blog.

When we discuss constructively we (hopefully) allow ourselves to look at the decisions we are making and think about why it is that we disagree. This then allows us to either reconfirm our opinions or decide they need a shift, making us that much more informed and confident in our decision. When we argue destructively, we not only deepen the divide between us but deny ourselves the opportunity of continued education.

Now, my point is not to discourage further contributions by any who wish to do so--all are welcome at The Citizen Post, regardless of their opinion. What I am suggesting is that as we voice those opinions we do so with respect for those with whom we disagree and with a focus on the issues, and not on each other.

Thank you again for your contributions.

How (I think) it all began

2008-10-09T17:20:00.006-04:00

Today the markets plunged, with the major indices falling around 7%. (Usually the Dow and S&P 500 average a 1 or 2 percent change in a day.) The immediate cause of this is the tightening credit markets, but our "real" economy, or our productivity is also suffering and will lead to more long-term problems. I wanted to discuss the immediate cause of the recent volatility, which is the mortgage crisis. How did it happen? The following is what I have pieced together over the last months, and I look forward to hearing your theories as well.

The growth of the global economy has created a great deal of wealth, and institutions and governments need somewhere to put this money that is safe and provides a reasonable return. It used to be US treasury bonds, until Fed Chair Alan Greenspan lowered the federal funds rate to 1% in 2003. After this, the investors needed somewhere else to put their money that was secure and had a good return. Wall street decided that residential mortgages would be a safe bet, and figured out how to sell mortgages to investors. Here is what they did:

1. A citizen wants to buy a home, so he gets a mortgage from his local mortgage broker. Presumably the citizen can afford to pay the mortgage.

2. The local mortgage broker sells this mortgage (essentially an income stream) to another mortgage broker.

3. Mortgage broker number two packages hundreds of mortgages together and then sells them to investment banks. At this point, when packaged correctly, these mortgage-backed securities have a AAA rating (very, very safe).

4. These Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) were sold to Wall Street and then sold to governments and institutions as a safe place to invest that had a decent return. According to credit rating agencies, it was as safe as a Treasury bond.

5. Insurers, like AIG, insured these securities but didn’t have the cash to pay out. They never expected things to go so wrong.

It is important to note that at every step in this process, almost every player was using borrowed money to carry out these transactions, leveraging themselves at ratios as high as 20 to 1. At Lehman it was 40 to 1. Now everyone was happy, that is until they ran out of mortgages. Once everyone that could afford to buy a home bought a home, the supply of MBSs dried up. Wall street called mortgage brokers demanding more. So, the brokers gave them more, but they had to lower their standards when it came to screening homebuyers. This process spiraled lower and lower until there came into existence the NINA loan: No Income No Assets. An individual could get a loan without any proof of income and without any assets. By the time this loan was packaged and sold to Wall Street, no one knew what the real risk was because all of their risk assessment tools were based on old data, from a time when a homebuyer was carefully screened. There was no data on these new sub prime mortgages.

Even with all of the holes in these investments, the payments from homeowners continued to come in. These securities were working the way that they were supposed to and there was no reason to complain. But, the reason they were working was that home prices continued to increase as demand continued to increase. So, when a homeowner couldn’t afford to make the mortgage payments, he could borrow money on the value of his home in the form of a home-equity loan. Many people were using home-equity loans to pay their mortgages.

Then, in 2006, home prices stopped increasing and homeowners stopped making payments. Once they couldn’t make payments, they defaulted and their home was now on the market. The market flooded with homes and prices started dropping leaving homeowners unable to even borrow money to pay their mortgage. This created a chain reaction that killed all of the middleman mortgage brokers. They died because they never truly had the money in the first place. They borrowed money to buy mortgages, then flipped the mortgages to the investment banks and used the proceeds to pay off their debt. As soon as they couldn’t sell the mortgages and pay off their debt, they went out of business, but not before they had poisoned every major investment bank on Wall Street.

This was the “sub prime housing crisis,” which frightened the global investors and they went running back to investments like treasury bonds. This fear created what we are currently referring to as the “credit crisis.” Now, global investors are afraid to invest in anything that even resembles a potential risk. Because of this, businesses can’t get financing, which they are dependent upon to operate. And borrowed money is the lifeblood of our financial industry, as made evident by the extinction of the investment bank as we knew it.

All of this began with a rational proposition: that investments based on home mortgages would be safe and stable. And they were safe when these securities were invented decades ago. At first, the mortgages were based on a sound investigation of the homeowner’s ability to make the payments. But, a combination of greed and diffusion of responsibility turned what could have been an investment fad of little consequence into a crisis.

Abortion

2008-10-08T12:28:00.005-04:00

I wanted to test the waters a bit on this "hot button" issue and get a sense for the opinions of those of us voting for Sen Obama. I had an email fight with a friend about this the other day. She plainly states that she won't vote for Obama because of his stance on the abortion issue.
The voting record of the two candidates on the issue is not unclear. Click here for a voting history.
They're on opposite sides of the issue.
I think this is an issue my right wing friends feel like they have me on. They feel like they're on the moral high ground and in an inarguable position. They've even insinuated that I can't be a good Mormon and vote for someone who supports abortion rights.
Personally, I think this issue is somewhat of a distraction. But I also think the debate about abortion focuses on the wrong thing. I think that whether or not abortion is legal has little bearing on the issue. It's legal in certain circumstances now. What will changing that do? On the other hand, we can look at what I think is a more significant cause of babies dying - teen pregnancy and unwed mothers. The rate of teen pregnancy in our country is among the highest in the civilized world. These women who get pregnant are most often poor, uneducated, and without access to basic health care. The fact that these women don't get prenatal care contributes significantly to the fact that America ranks 41st in the world in infant mortality.
When you look at the voting records you'll see that Sen Obama voted against every piece of legislation that would restrict abortion and that he voted for legislation aimed at increasing education, including abstinence education, and access to pregnancy prevention. Sen McCain voted for every restriction on abortion and against education and prevention.
In my mind, the way to reduce abortion is not to make it illegal, it's to educate and prevent. As with all other issues, we have a clear choice in vision.
I fully recognize and am seriously pained by the moral quandary. Can I really support a man who supports abortion? What I have not seen from my republican friends is an acknowledgement of the moral quandaries presented by their own candidate. How can they support a man who promotes tax decreases for the super-wealthy and a spending freeze on programs that help the super-poor?
I see the moral issues presented by Sen Obama's positions. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of the moral issues presented by Sen McCain's positions.

Education

2008-10-05T16:56:00.010-04:00

The current issue of the Economist has a great special section on the election. It's a well-balanced, issue-based look at the candidates. (Why is it that only foreign publications take the time to discuss the issues?) The Economist analyzes the candidates tax proposals, economic policies, foreign policy, approaches to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care proposals, and more. It's a great credit to Jed that if you've been reading this blog, most of what you'd read in the Economist's special section would be very familiar.

One issue that the Economist covers that we haven't yet discussed here is Education. The article opens with a discussion of how the US education system has been underperforming for years. It then details what the candidates say about education. Having read the article, I decided to check out the candidates' websites to verify what they say about education.

Obama's website offers a number of specific proposals, only a few of which I've excerpted below:

Increase funding and quality of Head Start programs.
Reform (but keep) No Child Left Behind (NCLB), including properly funding the initiative.
Increase funding for the Federal Charter School Program, but make charter schools more accountable and close low-performing charter schools.
Make math and science education a national priority.
Increase access of high school students to AP or college-level classes by, for example, providing grants for students seeking college level credit at community colleges if their school doesn't provide those classes.
Recruit more teachers by offering new college scholarships for students who agree to teach after graduation for at least four years in a high-need field or location.
Assess, mentor, and train teachers and provide more rewards for successful teachers.
Offer tax credits to cover college tuition, in exchange for community service.

McCain's website is light on specifics, but mentions these concepts:

No Child Left Behind has exposed inconsistencies in how we apply standards to students.
Students in underperforming schools should be able to change schools. Parents should have freedom to choose among schools for their children.
Schools and teachers should be accountable and responsible.

The Economist summarizes the candidates proposals as follows:

[Obama's] plans run the gamut, from grants for preschool programmes to a $4,000 tax credit for university fees. He is vague about NCLB, but has resisted calls to throw out the law. He suggests improving it through more sophisticated tests, measuring students’ progress over time and giving schools more resources. In September he announced new plans to double federal funding for independent or “charter” schools. A separate “innovative schools fund” would help districts to create a portfolio of successful school types, including charters.

Perhaps most interesting are his plans for teachers. He would give extra money to districts that work with their unions to form “career ladders”. These could include pay increases for a list of achievements, from teaching in hard-to-staff schools to lifting students’ performance. But a good scheme on paper may be diluted in practice. Negotiations over pay are messy at best.

For his part, Mr McCain offers promising opinions but few details. He supports NCLB but has said little about how to strengthen its main tenets. He supports charter schools (like Mr Obama) and voucher programmes (unlike Mr Obama, who is dead-set against them), but has said little about how he might expand them. His boldest ideas centre around using federal money to let parents choose tutors and principals reward good teachers.

But don't take the Economist's word for it and don't take my summary as a detailed analysis. Check out the candidates' education pages (Obama | McCain). They're a quick read, there are some clever ideas, and contrasting the two pages is pretty interesting.

Issue 4: Iraq

2008-10-01T19:36:00.012-04:00

Much has been said about the differences between Obama and McCain on Iraq. However, a closer look at the candidates' policies reveals that the two actually agree on the underlying goal of the Iraq War: leave Iraq with a functioning government that can protect itself and promote peace in the Middle East. The main differences between the two candidates lie not in what they want for Iraq, but in how they propose to achieve it. With that in mind, let's look at their policies.

McCain's proposal for achieving stability in Iraq is continued U.S. military support. Obama, on the other hand, proposes a steady withdrawal of military support. McCain's argument is that the "surge" has worked and, if we stick to that strategy, it will continue to work, thus providing the Iraqi government the necessary peace to build a sustainable system. Obama's counter-argument is that, while the surge has worked from a military perspective (lowering the violence in the area), the political objectives for Iraq have yet to see much progress and will not be achieved unless we force the issue by withdrawing military support.

Along with the continued surge effort, McCain has two other proposals to help build a self-sustaining Iraq--boost the Iraqi economy and apply pressure to Syria and Iran. McCain proposes to boost Iraq's economy by encouraging the Iraqi government to invest a portion of it's budget surplus into employing Iraqis in infrastructure projects and projects to restore basic service to Iraq. McCain claims that this will also help "move young [Iraqi] men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists," thus continuing to lower the violence in Iraq. McCain has also suggested that the international community provide micro-financing in Iraq to help bolster local-level entrepreneurship. I should point out that McCain's bottom-up strategy for boosting the Iraqi economy appears to differ from his strategy for the U.S. economy (see Issue 2: The Economy and Issue 1: Taxes). In order to apply pressure to Syria and Iran, McCain's website states that he will do this by getting the international community to "apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior" and not by "unconditional dialogues." The website does not currently provide specifics regarding what such "real pressure" would entail.

Obama's strategy for a self-sustaining Iraq is to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades of American troops per month, claiming that such will force the Iraqi government to take ownership of their political system, a point the Prime Minister of Iraq also recently made. However, Obama also proposes maintaining a small "residual force" in Iraq to help train Iraqi military and conduct "targeted counter-terrorism missions," but not to hold permanent bases in Iraq. Along with his military strategy, Obama also calls for "aggressive diplomatic efforts" with Iraq and it's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in which he includes the possibility of Presidential level talks with Iranian and Syrian leaders without "pre-conditions" but with "preparations." Finally, Obama's strategy for Iraq is largely intertwined with his overall defense and counter-terrorism strategy. Namely, Obama proposes re-deploying many of the troops withdrawn from Iraq to Afghanistan to help fight al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden, an area Obama argues is overlooked as a result of the war in Iraq. Obama also claims that his "diplomatic efforts" will place the U.S. in a stronger position to enlist the help of the international community in fighting the war on terror.

If you'd like to know more about either candidates' proposals for Iraq, you can find them at their respective websites here: Obama | McCain

I can't vote for McCain because...

2008-10-01T13:51:00.008-04:00

Since I live in a country where I must fit all of my political views into one of two parties, I decided that supporting Barak Obama is really the same as opposing John McCain. (My third option is not voting at all, or voting for some third party candidate that didn’t have the $1 Billion that the two major parties will spend.) So, this post is in the format of reasons why I can’t vote for McCain.

He isn’t concerned about the economy. “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” is his mantra. Four days after Paulson distributed his three page bailout proposal, McCain said, “I have not had a chance to see it in writing.” And, after suspending his campaign because of the crisis, he did an interview with Katie Couric, then went to dinner in New York, then spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative, then went back to DC almost 24 hours after suspending his campaign. Before he arrived, republicans and democrats had reached a preliminary agreement about the bailout. After he arrived, the deal fell apart. And, at no point did he suspend television and radio advertising.

His tax policy favors the wealthy. I do agree with McCain, that the American worker is at the heart of the economy (this is his reasoning for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong), so why don’t we make the American worker the beneficiary of our tax policy instead of the wealthy 5%? My take is obviously biased, so read Jed’s post “Issue 1: Taxes” for an unbiased explanation of the candidates’ tax policies.

He appointed Phil Gramm as his economic advisor, and who is a likely candidate for Treasury Secretary if McCain is elected. In July, Gramm said about those that thought the economy wasn’t so healthy, “We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Denial isn’t a strategy. My favorite Gramm legislation is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a bill slipped into a 2000 appropriation bill that deregulated energy trading (see Enron, which helped write the act, and employed Gramm’s wife at $915,000 a year) and credit default swaps, which have played a big role in the recent financial meltdown. This guy will make a great economic advisor! It would be a greater irony if he were appointed Treasury Secretary and put in charge of deciding which credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities the government will buy from failing banks. And don’t forget, he was a lobbyist for AIG after leaving the Senate.

He uses the troops in Iraq to get votes. This is a common republican strategy: speak lovingly about the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, then use it to question the patriotism of democrats. In the debate, McCain told a heartwarming story about a speech he gave in Baghdad to a group of American soldiers who had voluntarily reenlisted: “And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming here. And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.” This is brilliant rhetoric: summon the brave and noble troops who want to be successful, and then use them to sell your military strategy. And just for good measure, subtly imply that your opponent doesn’t support the troops. One can support the troops and disagree with the overall strategy, because, as far as I understand, the troops don’t get to choose the strategy.

He won’t set a timetable for leaving Iraq, and he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the deterioration of Afghanistan. If you really support your troops, you will put them where they can do the most good (Afghanistan) and you will at least attempt to get them out of there safely. McCain doesn’t seem to mind the idea of sending generation after generation of Americans over there. And, by the way, we can’t actually afford to be there right now, much less a decade from now.

He selected Sarah Palin as his VP. Read any Associated Press (no liberal bias) article about her and you are sure to find some mention of her corruption. I can’t blame her though, it seems impossible to be a politician in Alaska and not be corrupt.

His election would show the world that the American people agree with the Bush doctrine of foreign policy. (If you don’t know what the Bush doctrine is just ask Sarah Palin.) In the end, the two candidates actually end up agreeing on issues 95% of the time. To be elected they have to be middle-of-the-road. What I believe sets them apart more than anything is how the world views us through them. When we elect McCain, we will be saying to a world that hates us and our foreign policy, “we don’t care.”

I doubt that, if elected, Obama would be able to get much of his policy through congress, but he can renew our standing in the world and give us hope. He can start to get us out of the cycle of fear: for too long America has made decisions based on the fear of terrorism and have thus helped accomplish the goals of Al-Qaeda. Obama reminds me of JFK, who wasn’t necessarily a Washington heavyweight, but inspired us to put a man on the moon. With some inspiration, we did the impossible: we strapped some brave men on top of a missile, sent them to the moon, and brought them back home alive. Every American was right there with Neil Armstrong as he took those historic steps and inspired a generation to grow up to be astronauts and pilots and scientists and, perhaps more importantly, patriots. What is our space race? I hope it isn't conquering middle-eastern nations, because that doesn’t inspire me much at all.

The Economy

2008-09-29T17:15:00.005-04:00

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

2008-09-27T14:58:00.006-04:00

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

2008-09-24T23:08:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-22T16:24:00.005-04:00

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

2008-09-21T23:23:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-21T19:50:00.011-04:00

“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

2008-09-18T11:39:00.005-04:00

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)

2008-09-15T10:51:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-12T15:59:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-11T22:01:00.022-04:00

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

2008-09-11T14:37:00.009-04:00

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

2008-09-10T20:12:00.005-04:00

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.