Go Politico

Workers and Taxpayers Are Not Sacrificing Enough

2009-02-19T10:22:00.011-05:00

Here is a fascinating video of the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan, Virg Bernero on Fox News discussing the auto workers:

The video has been discussed by Greenwald and over at Kos. I just want to provide my take.

What was so fascinating about that interview was how uncomfortable, and condescending, the Fox News host appeared with someone expressing the anger and frustration most Americans are feeling. The Mayor, although not necessarily providing specific answers, was simply venting the frustrations of people. The way the Mayor was speaking is the way I hear most Americans talking right now, that is, with indignation and anger. When this gets expressed on TV, particularly Fox, the corporate media starts looking very nervous. It is striking how rare that kind of language and anger is witnessed on TV or in the mainstream media. The anger is usually directed the other way, at the "spoiled" auto workers.

Another interesting part of this exchange was the often quoted, and repeatedly debunked, $70 per hour statistic. The statistic is misleading for a variety of reasons, which is a whole other post, but we know that FOX does not hamper themselves with information or facts.

The common assumption floated around is that the UAW has not given up enough to make the car companies competitive. I don't know enough about the subject to argue one way or the other, but I do know how many people feel. They feel that the American worker has been kicked around for decades. The fact is that the sacrifices all come from the worker and the taxpayer, while the people at the top sacrifice nothing.

This all fits neatly into the "blame the homeowners" for the economic crisis meme. Or we can point to JP Morgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, whose industry is in the middle of the largest taxpayer bailout in world history, today suggested that homeowners that are underwater on their mortgages have an obligation to stay and pay them:

we should teach the American people, you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them. Because you have a mortgage doesn't mean you should run away as it goes down.

The calls for responsibility always seem to go to the homeowner, or the taxpayer, or the worker. Who is calling for responsibility from the corporate leadership?

For example, Bloomberg reports that Citigroup, which lost $18 Billion dollars last year, laid off 36,000 and got a $52 Billion government bailout still provides perks to directors and former CEOs such as airplane travel, helicopters and drivers costing millions of dollars. Whether its the auto workers, the taxpayer, low level bank secretaries, homeowners; they all are not sacrificing enough, meanwhile according to the mainstream media, the suggestion that a CEO should not have a private plane is ludicrous.

I ask who is not sacrificing enough?

I think Doug Hanscorn, a 32 year veteran in an auto plant put it best:

"I know one thing: I I lose my pension, I bet you Rick Wagner (the GM CEO) and all those guys won't lose theirs."

The Republicans and Spending: A story about Credibility

2009-02-16T12:46:00.005-05:00

I just want to make some brief points about the importance of credibility in politics, as it relates to stimulus, followed by some general points about the merits of stimulus. In doing so, I'd like to try to make a subtle distinction here between the argument that Republicans have no credibility to oppose spending versus whether or not spending is actually necessary. The Republicans have no credibility on spending,which is not say spending on stimulus is correct or incorrect. I just want us all to remember, the next time you hear a Republican expressing deep concern over the stimulus spending, that these are the same people who passed a $1.2 trillion Medicare Bill, a $1 Trillion Iraq War, a $250 Billion War in Afghanistan, and a $1.2 trillion tax cut all in the same eight year period.

Ofcourse this point does not address the merits of a stimulus bill, it just is saying the Republicans have no credibility in opposing spending and what they say in that regard cannot be trusted. They have lost a seat at the spending debate table. This point is not, however, intended to offer a license to Democrats to enact stimulus or any other spending program. Once we agree that Republicans have no credibility, and get that out of the way, then we can begin discussing the merits of a stimulus bill. So why do the Republicans have no credibility on spending?

The eight year spending binge previously mentioned is a good start to answering that question, but does the responsibility of that spending extend throughout the Republican party? The answer is a resounding Yes. The Republicans are complicit in Bush-Cheney's profligate behavior because they either looked the other way or were involved. They were not standing up against the wasteful spending of the Bush Administration. In fact, they were relishing in the profligacy when it was Republicans doing the spending. Therefore, they have lost all credibility to say they are against "spending."

It would be as if the Democrats looked the other way at the Blagojovich scandal and then a year later tried to argue that they are the party opposed to political corruption. They would have lost credibility on the issue. In fact, they were vocally in opposition to him from the get go. Since they stood up to Blago, they have the credibility to say they are opposed to political corruption.

Now with that point out the way, a few points on stimulus spending. I keep hearing the argument that "spending got us into this, more spending won't get us out." Or "if you are in a hole stop digging." I have also heard arguments that, "since we don't know if stimulus will work, we should do nothing." All fair points, but not entirely well thought out.

First, spending really did NOT get us into this mess. Spending has been a problem, no doubt. But spending is not the problem, or at least the central problem, that caused the economic crisis. This crisis was caused by an unregulated banking industry gone wild. Derivatives, mismanagement and banking sector risk caused a systemic freezing of credit, causing a general loss of confidence and spending power throughout the economy. So to say spending caused this crisis, although tempting to say, is not entirely true.

The stimulus is classical Keynesian economics and is largely considered the best solution in a deflationary spiral. No one is positive it will work, but economists think it is the best solution. No decision ever carries a certainty of success and they often have mixed results. If you look at economist's views on the stimulus I think they would say there is a 50/50, or some similar probability, of success and there will be side effects. However, they argue, the pros outweigh the cons and we should, therefore, bite the bullet.

If you consider the effects of a deflationary spiral it is sort of the economic equivalent of cancer. It feeds on itself and destroys an economy. It has to be stopped, almost at all costs. If fiscal conservatives are worried about the national debt, or the American standard of living, with the stimulus plan imagine the national debt and the American standard of living with a great depression. Not to mention the geopolitical risks associated with a U.S., or even worldwide, depression. It is much worse than the deficit concerns posed by a stimulus.

Its like radiation treatment for cancer. Cancer is awful. Radiation is slightly less awful. It is not guaranteed to succeed and even if it does there are harsh side effects. Our economy has cancer and it needs radiation treatment. The stimulus treatment is not guaranteed to succeed and even if it does the economy will still be very sick. So it is very easy to put forward arguments about why radiation is awful, we can all agree with that. Similarly spending money you don't have is awful, but allowing a deflationary spiral to occur unchecked is unthinkable.

"Deficits Don't Matter" No Wait... Unless they Create Jobs for Americans

2009-02-14T01:26:00.022-05:00

In relentless defiance of economic reality Republican Representative Paul Ryan is arguing, in a NYT editorial, that the Stimulus package threatens the nation's fiscal health! This is the same man who repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War,voted for a massive new entitlement program known as Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, and then to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. In fact, he voted with his Republican colleagues and President Bush to create the largest deficits in U.S. history exactly 98.6% of the time.

In this surreal editorial he also implies that the words "crisis", "emergency" and "catastrophe" are not necessarily accurate ways to describe the current situation:

Amid a rhetorical debate centered on words like “crisis,” “emergency” and “catastrophe,” it acted too fast.

Where is he getting his economic data because I am hearing a lot of comparisons to the Great Depression being made by highly respected economists, i.e., Paul Krugman. If he hasn't noticed unemployment is increasing at an alarming rate, all economic numbers have gone off a cliff and we appear to be caught in a downward deflationary spiral. Notice that he did not provide a single statistic on unemployment or anything related to the current economic plight of the American people. Instead he argues that a vague threat is looming, inflation! Hello, Mr. Ryan, we are in a deflationary spiral. You might have noticed the plummeting home values, car values and the cost of just about everything!

Instead of a stimulus package to create jobs through infrastructure and other types of investment, Mr. Ryan feels we should have cut the corporate income tax rate! In other words, maybe the Banks and other multinational corporations, if we give them bigger tax cuts, will miraculously start hiring American workers!

Coming from the party that, for eight years, argued that "deficits don't matter", this is truly remarkable. Apparently deficits while Republicans are in power, don't matter. Ronald Reagen, the Republican icon, practically invented massive deficits. What a complete joke of a political party. Their allegiance is only to power and money.

Stress Testing Banks: You mean we haven't done that already?

2009-02-13T12:24:00.005-05:00

Stress testing is the big catch phrase coming out of Geithner's bank rescue plan. Even the incessantly critical econoblogosphere has greeted the stress test aspect of the plan with open arms. Calculated Risk put together a much better analysis of the Stress test than I ever could, so I refer you to that.

In short, the stress test will send government regulators into all the major banks to go through their books. The regulators will do an analysis and determine whether the banks are solvent. The huge gaping whole in the plan is that no one is sure what the plan calls for if, and more likely when, they find several insolvent banks.

Putting aside the question of what to do if banks are insolvent, why have we not done a stress test already? This crisis hit last September. That is almost six months ago. It became obvious, after we realized that we were caught in a credit crisis, that the banks were not lending because their balance sheets were a mess. The government, within weeks, had committed hundreds of billions of dollars to propping up the banking system. Why did they not demand a look at the books?

Why does the "bold" new plan from Geithner basically consist of the most obvious plan of action? It does not strike me as very bold to look at the books of institutions into which you have dumped billions dollars. Do an analysis of the Bank's books? This means we have been throwing billions at banks having no idea what their books look like?

I don't know how anyone in the government could have been pretending to do anything about the banking crisis without the most critical piece of data, the bank balance sheets!

This does not bode well for our future. We are so far behind the curve it is scary.

The two tiers of Justice

2009-02-12T11:10:00.003-05:00

It does sound unbelievable, but I saw it with my own eyes. I had the pleasure of sitting in Municipal Court today to have a ticket dismissed. It was dismissed for lack of prosecution, in other words, the cop didn't show up. The municipal court system is a game and I won today. However, I witnessed the most ridiculous display of "justice" I have seen in awhile.

The guy didn't pay a ticket for riding the train without a ticket. A warrant was issued. He was stopped for riding the train again without a ticket and, because he had a warrant for the initial ticket, he was cuffed and brought to court.

The judge asked him, "Why didn't you pay the ticket"

He said, "I need to borrow the money from my mother, but she doesn't have enough"

The Judged indignantly asked, "why do you need to borrow this money from your mom, you are 35 years old?"

The man replied, "I have been sending out my resume every day, I go and ask people for jobs, but no one calls me back"

The judge gave him two weeks to come up with the money.

Now clearly, the handcuffs were purely for the humiliation factor. To remind this man that he is subhuman and not worthy of the freedom of his hands. After not having paid a train fare, why else would handcuffs be necessary? On top of that it looked incredibly humiliating for this man to explain in a packed court that his mom doesn't have enough money to loan him the payment, he can't get a job, and he rides the subway without paying. The judge even took pleasure in asking why a 35 yr old man can't pay his tickets.

Was Bernie Madoff handcuffed? He might have been, but I never saw it. Was he dragged in front of a judge and made to explain why he is not man enough to make money legally? In front of his Park Avenue community? Ofcourse not!

Hard to believe. We have a merciless justice system, unless you are connected, have massive wealth, or steal enough that you can hire a team of attorneys. We have 2.2 million people behind bars in this Country, which gives us the honor of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. (1 in 100 Americans behind bars). The U.S. has 5% of the world population and 25% of the world's incarcerated.

This is what is meant by the two tiers of American justice. It is relentlessly applied to the poor, but sparingly applied to the rich.

Geithner's Big Plan: We Don't Have a Plan

2009-02-10T14:41:00.005-05:00

It is clear to anyone who listened to Geithner's presentation today that the Administration still has not made a decision on how to deal with the Banking component of the economic crisis.

Why would you hype a big announcement, as Obama did in his first press conference, by your Treasury Secretary when you do not have a plan ready?

It seems the market, Wall Street, Main Street and the economic blogosphere are a bit underwhelmed by Geithner's big announcement.

The general sense is that they are still evaluating option to deal with toxic assets, which is essentially the heart of the Banking problem. So we were not offered any plan to speak of.

No wonder the markets reacted so poorly.

The Collapse of the Middle Class

2009-02-09T16:07:00.004-05:00

I just watched this lecture, given by Professor Warren of Harvard Law School, explaining the reasons for the collapse of the middle class. It is worth watching.

Professor Warran presents data explaining the difference in the middle class of the 1970s to today, looking at the change to dual income households, increasing cost of healthcare, etc. It is a complex, data driven, view of the demise of the middle class, but I think it overlooks the most obvious, glaring reason for this phenomena, the class war. The wealthiest Americans have been engaged in a systematic class war, which has completely decimated the Middle Class.

We are going through hoops trying to figure out why the middle class is falling apart, but the answer is right in front of our eyes. The wealthy have captured more of the nations wealth, leaving less for the middle class.

Over the Republican rule of the 1980's and through the present, the costs of healthcare and retirement have been shifted from corporations and large institutions to the individual. That is massive wealth transfer.

Also, until Reagan we had a 70% tax rate for the top bracket. Through out the period the professor is looking at, the 1970s, the wealthy carried a larger share of the nation's burden. That top rate was slashed by Reagan, then Bush. Now we have a top tax rate of 36%. Ofcourse that has transferred wealth to the top.

Our economy has been growing at a solid rate since the 1970s, but all of the growth was going to the top. We are engaged in a class war, but one side isn't even aware there is a war taking place. The Republican party has the middle class so confused that they aren't even aware they are getting there ass kicked. The Republicans drag out "Joe the Plumber" and talk about tax cuts for Small Businesses, when in reality all the Republican agenda has done is to make the rich richer than they have been since the gilded age.

The Middle Class needs to wake up, stop struggling for one minute, and realize that they hold the political power in this Country. The top tax bracket must go back above 50%, which would allow us to lift healthcare costs and some retirement risk off the shoulders of the middle class. This class war has gone on too long with one side completely unengaged.

It is Time to Protest

2009-02-08T00:21:00.011-05:00

I think it is time for the people to send a message to Wall Street and Washington DC. There are protests around the world, but we Americans, are not doing a thing! The economy and politics have gotten so out of control, it is time for us to do something.

Let me be a little more specific. A lot of people have a general sense of frustration and anger at the way things are going. I am proposing a protest theme that is general enough to encompass most of those concerns, but sets a specific message.

So I would boil it down to the following:

When the political elite, Republican and Democratic, do not pay their taxes that makes us all look foolish for actually paying ours. It is unacceptable.
Bailouts to Banks may or may not be necessary, we can debate that. But there is no debating whether Bailouts to Banks with absolutey NO STRINGS ATTACHED is corrupt and unacceptable. It is unacceptable.
The influence of corporations, particularly Wall Street, on our Government is choking our Middle Class and ultimately the Country. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama administration are full of corporate insiders. It is unacceptable.

Dave Sirota's Piece "Obama's Team of Zombies" and Frank Rich's NYT op-ed "Slumdogs Unit" sums up why we cannot rely on Obama or anyone else to undo the corporate influence in Washington. This is up to us, the people.

Any other suggestions?

Main Street Bailout: States and Cities Need the Stimulus

2009-02-06T00:33:00.011-05:00

I am hearing so many negative reactions to the stimulus package being thrown around without any consideration for the economic future we are facing. It has been so long since Americans have had to do without, I think we have all forgotten what that will be like.

Imagine SUBSTANTIALLY less teachers, fireman and policeman. Remember, all the heroes of 9/11? Yes, there will be many, many less of them. Aside from the social costs associated with that, there will be economic ripple effects as this happens across the Country. All of the cities across the Country with historically low crime rates will see that trend rapidly reversed.

Several examples of why aid to localities is a necessary part of the Stimulus:

New York City will be cutting its work force by 8%, including 14,000 teachers.

Governor Corzine of NJ said "We're going to have cuts regardless of what is included in that package, but they're going to be even more severe -- billion dollars or more severe -- for the upcoming fiscal year."

And we have all heard about California's troubles.

The City of Philadelphia, slowly clawing its way back from a bad case of Urban blight, is facing a $2 Billion shortfall over the next few years and has begun cutting back on fire fighting services.

It is possible, even likely, that every City and State in the country will be in a similar position cutting back on workers and services at exactly the time those jobs and services will be most needed. That is how you take a dire situation and make it into a catastrophic one.

UPDATE:

California, today, began furloughing employees. 200,000 employees were told not to come into work.

One Man's Stimulus is Another Man's Pork

2009-02-05T22:37:00.006-05:00

I don't understand why the Democrats are getting all flustered when the Republicans call the stimulus package "pork." Ofcourse it is pork, pork means spending. Stimulus means spending. They both mean spending, we get it!

Pork has a negative connotation because it implies "wasteful". Ofcourse any spending can be termed Pork, but you can't have stimulus without spending. So in a sense you can't have stimulus without it also being subject to being called pork.

Embrace it. Yes, the stimulus is a huge piece of fat, juicy PORK! Pork that just happens to be designed to create jobs! It is also designed to have lasting value updating our aging infrastructure, schools, healthcare, broadband, transit, etc. It will also help those hardest hit by the economic crisis in the form of foodstamps, unemployment benefits all of which will be spent and stimulate the economy! Here is a wonderful list of all the things in the bill!

Enough with the Pork vs. Stimulus Game!

UPDATE:

I just came across this Gem. Nebraska's freshman senator, Mike Johanns (R) said today that "This is not a stimulus plan, it's a spending plan." This man should get an award for the stupidest comment of the day!

You Say you Want a Revolution?

2009-02-04T18:32:00.014-05:00

There is a revolutionary spirit spreading. That spirit is not of the WTO protest sort. The mish mosh of social, political and economic movements type of spirit. Rather, it has a singular, universal source. The vague sense that our government is not only not helping people, but it is actually hurting people. Money and power is being systematically transferred from the middle class to an elite class of politicians, businessman and their heirs. How much more can the middle class swallow before there is swift reactive justice?

First, the people at the top, Democratic and Republican, are not paying their taxes. Geithner, Daschle are just the tip of the iceberg. We common folk, in contrast, cannot afford to mess up our taxes because the IRS will come down hard on us if we don't. Even worse, we can't afford accountants and lawyers, but we are managing to pay our taxes. Even with professional guidance the elite seem to "mix up" their taxes. Funny how the mistake is always in their favor though, huh? Lets not even get into the corporate tax havens that have been shifting the tax burden from the wealthy and business onto the middle class for thirty years. Or the 15% capital gains tax rates that hedge fund managers pay on their ordinary income.

Second, the bailouts are turning into handouts. There may well be, and likely is, a well-reasoned economic argument for government activity in the form of a stimulus and bank bailouts to stem this financial meltdown. However, providing stimulus in the form of corporate retreats, office makeovers and chartered jets for the people who created this mess will incite a revolutionary spirit in the most benign of American citizen. The executive pay cap Obama has proposed was met with resistance from Wall Street. Your average American is not as dumb as they think; they don't buy these arguments that the talent will go somewhere else or that we need to compensate the best and the brightest. And they should not buy it because it is bullshit. We don't need the best and the brightest. The pay packages designed to get us the best and brightest bankers got us the greediest and the most selfish bankers. We need the ethical and the competent bankers. That is all. How much does it cost to find a bank CEO that is ethical and competent? This bank CEO doesn't have to invent complex mathematical models, he just needs to loan money to people that can pay it back. That is what banks do.

Third, while the bankers, the politicians and the businessman are riding higher than ever, the middle class is well aware that when the check comes due they are going to get stiffed. They are already getting stiffed by an economy that is in free fall. The middle class has not been living high on the hog, but they are paying the price. When the final bill for these bailouts, stimulus and whatever other handouts are taking place come due, the middle class will be paying for that too. The Dashcles and the Gheitners of the World will conveniently make other tax mistakes, while the middle class scrupulously struggles to figures out how much they owe, and makes sure it gets paid. They do it because it is the right thing to do, but they also do it because they don't know anyone in high places to bail them out.

The American people believe in rewards for hard work. We don't want complete economic equality. However, stealing is not going to fly. Complex schemes to take hard working people's retirement plans, homes, healthcare, and hard earned savings will be met with resistance on the scale of this crisis. The American people are tolerant, but if you mess with their retirement, their home, and their family's future than you are going to see a revolution. Our entire economy has become one big scheme to do just that and the spirit of resistance is growing.

Cheney Terrorizes the Public

2009-02-04T15:43:00.007-05:00

Dick Cheney warned of new terror attacks if we continue with the Obama administration policies. In typical fashion Cheney placed our American ideals at odds with the safety of our nation:

When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry

Perhaps Mr. Cheney should be reminded that terrorism is a tactic. Its primary goal is to induce terror in the targeted population. True to form, Cheney is helping the terrorists achieve their goal by inducing terror in the population. He is not only helping terrorist create terror he is helping terrorist use terror to undermine the American belief in civil liberties. I thought he had done enough damage in office, but apparently he has more to accomplish.

Wouldn't the courageous and American reaction be that we will NOT be ruled by fear? We will NOT abandon our beliefs because we are afraid? We will not let the terrorists win? Cheney's view of America is that we let terror and fear lead us, rather than our American ideals.

UPDATE:
It is also worth pointing out that Cheney's quote implies that Obama administration policies would include "reading the rights to an Al Quaeda terrorist", which is just silly on so many fronts. I'm not even sure what Cheney is referring to here. It could be closing Guantanamo or ending torture, who knows.

Obama administration policies clearly do not require reading rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist. This just evidences Cheney's defiant and intellectually lazy approach to policy matters. The details of what is being proposed by the Obama administration don't seem to matter. There is a difference between NOT torturing because it is a crime, and reading rights to Al Qaeda terrorists. Many of the people in Guantanamo were not even Al Quaeda terrorists, they were just suspects. These minor details don't matter to Mr. Terror, Dick Cheney.

Obama: the First 10 Days

2009-02-04T15:15:00.007-05:00

This has been a disheartening first ten days for Obama supporters.

So far, three appointments have revealed that, despite large incomes and accountants, they could not pay the correct amount of taxes. Obama took responsibility, so lets move on.

Obama introduced a stimulus package that began with huge concessions to, well, no one. He offered tax cuts to Republicans who rejected the package entirely and never intended to support anything that was proposed. They want no part of this, but Obama kept trying to negotiate with himself to get their votes. Not good.

Now we have a stimulus package that no one likes, no one thinks is a good package and may just get worse before it gets passed.

Lessons learned:

1. Republicans do not want to be involved in anything that is not a tax cut, so bipartisanship will have to come in style, not substance. Stylistically, having Republicans over to the White House and visiting them on the Hill was great Public Relations and earned likely earned Obama points with the public. It may actually go a long way towards changing the tone in Washington. Substantively, however, to give up those tax cuts for no Republican votes was text book bad negotiating.

2. Appointees who are so-called Washington experts are not so desirable after all. Daschle was a good example. The tax situation was much less bothersome than the $5 million he has made from the healthcare industry. We have a lot of talent in this country, we do not need to keep hiring the same compromised individuals for the sake of their "invaluable experience". Find new blood.

Glimmers of Hope:

1. The bailout executive pay limits looks very promising. It is promising that Obama ignored the Wall Street establishment thinkers who believe we will lose talent if we don't pay. In fact, we have a broad pool of talent to run banks and, if this crisis has shown anything, you do not need a doctorate in Math to run a bank. That is where derivatives came from, the mind of overcompensated mathematicians hopped up on risk and bonuses. We need prudent, ethical, talented, but in many ways conservative, individuals to run banks. $500K per year will give a long line of people with those credentials from whom to choose.

2. Perhaps in the end, ridding the administration of Daschle will be a good thing. He was obviously compromised by the lavish money of the healthcare industry. Perhaps Obama can find a true advocate of the public, someone like Howard Dean, to run his healthcare reform plan.

The Best and the Brightest

2009-02-04T12:47:00.006-05:00

Today, President Obama announced a salary cap of $500,000 on executive pay for bailout recipients. Wall Street has immediately pushed back against the President.

Meredith Whitney of Oppenheimer, who to her credit predicted much of the banking problems and was right on the ball on the credit crisis, came out today against executive pay limits in the bailout packages. She points out that

“If you can’t compensate your employees, they’re going to go somewhere else,” she said. “You’re going to get a different variety of folks who are going to come in.”

In similar news, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan came out today and argued that Obama's proposal to cap executive pay for bailout recipients is unfair. Dimon said

“Pay got a little exuberant, and there were some legitimate complaints,” Dimon said. “But I don’t think the president of the United States should paint everyone with the same brush.”

Pay did not get a "little" exuberant. Pay got completely out of control and it was true across the board on Wall Street. Now that banks have nearly bankrupted the Country and put an enormous debt burden on future generations extreme compensation should be an error of history. The fact is that the entire banking sector has had to be bailed out, so it is completely reasonable for the President to paint everyone in the sector with the same brush. In addition, Obama is not painting all of Wall Street with the same brush, it only applies to firms that have received bailout money.

I disagree with Ms. Whitney, the payscales on Wall Street did not, and do not, necessarily attract the best and the brightest. It attracted the greediest and most unscrupulous. As Ms. Whitney points out, changing the pay structure will attract a very different kind of person, which I would argue is exactly the point.

I could point to countless examples of "the best and the brightest" that actually take lower paying jobs. For example, physicians are amongst the best and the brightest, but their pay rarely exceeds $500,000 per year. If you compare the standards to attend medical school versus Business School, it would be medicine that actually attracts the best and the brightest. I would argue that is because Medicine has a clear social benefit and that attracts smart people. Another example would be the many public servants who are enormously talented, but in the interests of public service accept less money.

What we need to attract into banking are ethical, responsible and talented individuals. A $500,000 pay package will give you a long line of qualified people. We tried attracting the best and the brightest with obscene pay packages and look what we got. An insolvent banking system and a near depression.

The Hudson River Landing; Competence on Display.

2009-01-17T18:10:00.001-05:00

I think the reason this event reminds us of Obama is that it is so refreshing to see competence on display, something Obama has come to symbolize. We have suffered so many years of total incompetence viz a vis Bush and Company, particularly in the case of Fema and Iraq.

This is the anti-Katrina if you will. The anti-Iraq. The pilot, the rescue workers, everyone did their job and the result was great.

This reminds me of Obama in a few ways. Similar to that pilot Obama is steering the Country, which is facing seemingly insurmountable challenges as if he were flying with no engines and no where to land. Hopefully Obama can defy the odds and steer the Country in for a soft landing. At the very least it will be refreshing to see the results of competence in Washington.

Caroline Kennedy: No More Legacy Political Appointments!

2008-12-08T13:56:00.005-05:00

I would like to start by saying I have absolutely nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She appears to be a nice woman and I am in total agreement with her judgment to support Obama.

However, in our celebrity obsessed culture she has risen to the top of the list for Hillary's Senate seat. I ask why?

From the public record, she appears totally unqualified to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat and if she does, it would be for no reason other than her Kennedy name. She has accomplished very little that is not directly related to, or a play off of, her last name. This is a not a personal attack, but rather a plea to move away from legacy political appointments to appointments based on experience, competence and ability.

I really don't like having to shoot down this woman's accomplishments, but when she starts put her feelers out to snatch a Senate seat, she opens her record up to scrutiny. So let us scrutinize.

I have been discussing this issues with people recently and have heard people explain Caroline Kennedy's accomplishments as:

1) She has done amazing things for the NYC public schools.
2) She is an accomplished author
3) She went to Harvard and Columbia
4) She is on the board of and has several honorary titles with several organizations.

First, if you think it is an accomplishment to get into Harvard with the Kennedy name, I simply refer you to one George W. Bush, who despite being a poor student went to Yale and Harvard Business School. The college admissions process in this Country is worse than our political system. The elite colleges do not even pretend that there is an even playing field. Legacy children get in. Its that simple.

Second, Caroline has not written any scholarly work. Her two legal books were not written by her, rather she is a celebrity co-author. They were written by Ellen Alderman. Check for yourself! She attached her name to them for publicity.

Third Caroline's role as the President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP are all honorary titles and related to her name. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute for Politics, a living memorial to her father. In the world of big names and big donors, these titles are handed out as compensation for the use of the family name or the family fortune. I am sorry, but these titles are not accomplishments.

Finally, with regard to the NYC public schools, Caroline has received great praise for her work as chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education. However that worked consisted almost entirely of fundraising, which is in elite circles means throwing parties and asking friends for money. These are all functions of every young elite lady in America. It is like your average little girl has a pretend tea party. The elite little girls, like Caroline, play "fundraising" party. I commend her efforts and would agree that it is a good use of her time, but it does not qualify her for a Senate seat.

These are not hard accomplishments in the sense that they required hard work, competence and ability. I have not heard anyone point me to a concrete accomplishment that would justify appointing this woman, who has no political experience whatsoever, to the Senate.

I know there are a variety of candidates with years of experience in politics, business, and government willing to serve in that seat. They would be capable and serve their constituents well. Or ofcourse the seat could also be used to provide yet another honorary title to an American Princess. I remind people, you get the leadership that you deserve.

Election Day

2008-11-05T02:00:00.004-05:00

I am just enjoying the elation of this day. After starting my day at 5am at the polls in North Philadelphia this joy is coupled with grogginess. I am reflecting on what has turned out to be a truly rewarding and inspiring day.

Working as an election observer for the Obama campaign at polling sites in a largely minority and working poor section of Philadelphia was amazing. I think i will always remember working with Janice, Kissa, Candance and others to make sure every vote was counted.

Witnessing an entire community inspire one another and bring each other to the polls was incredibly inspiring and humbling. The energy that the people I encountered displayed, I hope, will always be an inspiration for me.

One anecdote I'd like to share. One young man, an 20 yr old african american, showed up at our site and turned out to be at the wrong polling site. I didn't catch this guys name and I didn't get a picture with him, but I will always remember him. Using the resources available to us my co-workers, the local democratic committeemen, and this gentlemen worked together to find his polling site, which was a few miles away. The local committeemen brought a priceless local knowledge, while my fellow out-of -state attorneys brought confidence, and this gentlemen brought an unwavering focus on doing his part by voting. I was lucky enough to simply be asked to take him to the correct site and with the help of a wonderful local committeewoman, Jen, found his correct polling site. On the way this young man revealed to me that he had a criminal record and this was the first time he would vote. After he cast his ballot he came out of the polling site, gave me a hug and with a huge smile on his face told me that "he could walk from here." He was not the only person I saw that day walking away from the polls with a perma- grin and and some confidence in their step.

I think this story exemplifies the spirit and energy of the day. I think I will always remember this day as one of unity, energy and hope! There was a singular focus amongst almost everyone, with a few exceptions, on making change. This is how you make change from the ground up and I am humbled and inspired to have played a small, but amazingly rewarding, role in it.

Fox News Gets Even Lower; Mangles Clinton Quote

2008-10-30T22:07:00.014-04:00

Fox's lead story on their website today has a subtitle:

Bill Clinton says at a rally that Barack Obama called a round of advisers during the height of the economic crisis and said, "tell me what ... to do."

With this quote Fox News managed to make Obama look lost and like he did not know what to do in the crisis and to perpetuate the myth that Bill Clinton wants to torpedo Obama. In fact they say as much in the article:

And when John McCain suspended his campaign to dive head first into the fray, Obama's campaign accused the Republican of being "unsteady."
But to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.

However that quote is so mangled, misused and taken out of context as to be a complete joke. The full quote of what Clinton thinks Obama said to his advisers is as follows (remember this quote comes from Bill Clinton, who is paraphrasing Obama in conversations with his advisers that Bill Clinton could not possibly have personally heard)

"He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"

Out of this quote Fox takes two parts of it, adds some ellipses in between and comes up with Obama asking "tell me what...to do." However Clinton claims Obama actually said, "tell me what the right thing to do is." There is a major difference. It is the difference between looking completely lost; and as was the case, asking advisers to come up with the right solution to a complex problem.

There is also no explanation for why you would shorten that quote. with the ellipses It is the difference between this:

Tell me what the right thing to do is.

and this:

Tell me what ... to do

Those ellipses are not a big space saver are they? But they sure do change the quote to make Obama look lost!

don't think this flies with the average voter and it says nothing about Obama accept that he seeks the advice of wise people in complex matters. However, it says a great deal about fox news. This is the most egregious example this election of a news organization taking a quote out of context and mangling it to suite an agenda. In this case to perpetuate the myth that there is a fued between Obama and Clinton and to make Obama look lost during the economic crisis, neither of which are true.

For a different perspective on Obama during the crisis see Joe Klein from Time magazines reporting on the matter here and here.

Polling Frenzy! Prohibit Election Eve Polling?

2008-10-29T17:26:00.019-04:00

If you read any of the major political blogs, or follow much of Mainstream Political Media, you will have noticed the polling frenzy taking place. You will have seen so many polls and analyzes of polls that your head is probably spinning. I find them as interesting as anyone and love following the trends in the horse race, but is this a good thing for democracy? Not to mention, publishing the results of early voting, which gives later voters the advantage of knowing where the race actually stands when they vote.

I would argue that publishing the results of polls, and even worse early voting results, unduly influences public opinion, suppresses turnout, discourages substantive debate and adds to the divisiveness of our politics. First, many voters stay home because the polls show the election is already decided, thereby suppressing turnout. Second, when a voter knows who is leading in a race there can be a bandwagon effect. There may also be other effects on the strategic decision making for voters as it relates to third parties.

Third, it encourages the media to obsess over the horse race rather than analyze actual policies, which discourages substantive debate. Fourth, the worst of all, is the constant slicing and dicing of the electorate into voting groups based on race, sex, income, education, region and religious affiliation. It just adds to the perceived divisions in the country.

My friend recently reminded me of an interesting aspect of the Italian political system. According to the Italian par condicio law, it is forbidden to publish any opinion polling in the 15 days which precede the election.

I propose we do as the Italians do. Im sure there will be 1st amendment challenges and the polling and news industry would go nuts, but if it can survive those legal challenges, I think it would be a wise thing to do. Granted the Italians don't have the greatest political system in the world, but in this case I think they are right to prohibit opinion polls on the eve of elections.

UPDATE: Just by coincidence, Slate just considered this very question!

Assassination Plot or Political Distraction

2008-10-27T18:58:00.010-04:00

Salon's Alex Koppleman has questioned the seriousness of the threat that the alleged assassination plot actually posed to Obama and I agree that it was minimal. Ofcourse all threats should be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. Obviously these guys sound like scumbags and probably should have been arrested, but according to the ATF affidavit, they also do not sound very intelligent or to have been capable of forming a serious threat to Obama. But some questions linger.

It may sound conspiratorial, but the timing of the story is dubious. Ted Stevens guilty plea, which came just minutes before the assassination plot was announced, raises the question of whether this assassination charge was delayed or inflated to draw attention away from the long serving Republican Senators' guilty verdict. The Stevens verdict came down right after lunch., sometime around 2pm. The ATF claim was released very shortly thereafter. According to the affidavit supporting the charges and complaint, the complaint was filed on October 24th, which is more than 3 days ago. The local authorities arrested the suspects last Wednesday, almost 6 days ago. Why the delay?

The AP reports the following:

Jasper Taylor, city attorney in Bells, said Cowart was arrested on Wednesday. He was held for a few days in Bells, then moved over the weekend to another facility.

"It was kept under lid until today," Taylor said.

No explanation was offered for "keeping a lid" on the story.

Remember also that the ATF is under the auspices of, the much politicized, Department of Justice. This office of the executive branch has been politicized by the Bush Administration and may have been used as a tool to distract attention from the Stevens indictment and to re-ignite the issue of race and the threat of assassination right before the election. It will be very difficult to prove such a claim, but at the very least, it exposes yet another reason that the politicization of the Department of Justice is so harmful. Questions about politicization will be injected into criminal matters such as these. Why are these charges being brought by the ATF and not the FBI or secret service?

The ATF affidavit explains that the Obama assassination attempt involved, a high powered rifle, the suspects driving their car directly at Obama while shooting, wearing white tuxedos and top hats, and perhaps dying in the act. Sounds like a cowboy fantasy. The document also explains that the pair thought about and began to undertake, but "chickened out" on actually committing, a home robbery. So all in all, the allegation includes a great deal of talk between this pair about what they were going to do, without any actual follow through. Remember that these allegations are being recounted in this affidavit by an ATF officer. Therefore the evidence, so far, provided consists of recounting of discussions between the two suspects as interpeted by the ATF officer and detailed in this affidavit. Otherwise the details and evidence are vague.

The AP reported that

The secret service said "We don't discount anything," Zahren said, adding that it's one thing for the defendants to make statements, but it's not the same as having an organized assassination plan.

I'm not saying that threats should not be taken seriously and perhaps these guys are rightfully in custody. However, one thing is clear though, this plan to kill Obama is ludicrous on its face and likely posed little threat of actually succeeding. Questions remain, however, about the timing of the release of this story and whether it may involved further politicization of the DOJ.

UPDATE:
ABC news is reporting that Obama's secret service detail was not even informed of the plot because it was not a serious threat to his safety. The plot was more aspirational than a realistic threat.

Wealth Redistribution

2008-10-27T14:57:00.006-04:00

The McCain campaign is now arguing that Obama is a socialist and would redistribute wealth. My favorite example of this charge is Biden's interview with the local Florida TV Station in which the reporter, an obvious right winger married to a GOP strategist, asks him if Obama is a Marxist. His reactions are really funny and appropriately dismissive.

The argument is ridiculous for a lot of reasons not the least of which is that the government is, by its very nature, a wealth redistribution mechanism. You'll recall that the American Revolution came about because of "taxation without representation". Implicit in that slogan is the acceptance that taxes are a permissible role of government, so long as it is part of a representative democracy. Taxation, and thereby Government, are inherently a redistribution of wealth and for centuries have been considered good and necessary.

The debate should not be whether wealth redistribution is good. That question has been answered in the affirmative by hundreds of years of social advancement. The question is how much wealth should be redistributed and to what end should it be redirected. That is the choice in this election.

Both candidates support the concept of taxation, which is redistributive. McCain proposes to continue the current wealth redistribution system, which has concentrated wealth at the top.

Obama is also proposing to redistribute wealth, by no means much more than McCain, to a broader middle and lower class. The top tax bracket over the course of this century has ranged from a high of 95% to somewhere around 30%. Even up until the 1970s the top tax rate was 70%.

The current top rate is now 36% and Obama is proposing to raise that to 39%, affecting a small percentage of people making over 200K, and still at the low end of historical top tax brackets. Whereas McCain is proposing to keep the top tax rate somewhere in the mid 30s% as well. Regardless of who wins the top tax rate is still half of what it was historically and it will surely be redistributing wealth.

The election does not present a choice of wealth redistribution or not, it is a question of having a top tax rate of 36% or 39%.

McCain's Dismal Economic Performance

2008-10-27T11:07:00.006-04:00

Much of the pundit class is giving John McCain a pass for his awful performance on economic matters despite that being incredibly relevant to the decision voters will make in 8 days. Assuming that the economic crisis is a natural explanation for McCain's fall and Obama's rise in the polls gives McCain a pass that he does not deserve.

I understand that the incumbent President is a drag on McCain, but the economic crisis is not the only explanation for McCain following Bush downward in the polls. In fact, the reason McCain has seen such a drop in the polls is not because there IS an economic crisis, rather it is because he has been erratic, reckless and unhelpful in the economic crisis. Lets take a look at his performance.

Even until May of 2008 McCain was proposing a gas tax holiday. He may actually still support that measure, I'm not sure. I think every major economist has come out against that proposal because lowering the price of gasoline would simply increase demand. For many reasons we do not want to be increasing demand for gasoline while losing much needed revenue for road and transportation improvements.

Then McCain's erratic flip flops began. On March 26th, 2008 McCain unequivocally rejected aide for homeowners struggling with mortgages. McCain said,

It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.

By April 11 McCain had completely shifted and said,

There is nothing more important than keeping alive the American dream to own your home, and priority No. 1 is to keep well-meaning, deserving homeowners who are facing foreclosure in their homes.

This is a total change in position and sparked the beginning of McCain's erratic handling of the economy. To add to this list, look at what McCain has said on regulation. Several years ago McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. "I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal. Now obviously McCain has seen the light on regulation.

In another bizarre McCain episode, during the height of the AIG bailout and financial turmoil McCain then called for the firing of the SEC Chairman Cox, which the conservative George Will called "decidely unPresidential". Perhaps it is unpresidentail because it is also literally outside the scope of Presidential Authority to fire the SEC chairman. Aside from the President not being able to fire the SEC chairman, during a time of crisis firing the SEC chairman would simply promote further panic. A crisis is a time to increase confidence in governmnet, not undermine it. McCain's reaction reaked of panic and fell flat.

And the king of all McCain erratic moves was the incredible campaign suspension followed by a White House meeting where McCain had absolutely nothing to say or offer in the heat of the economic crisis. That meeting likely contributed to the delay of the bailout, a week that economist now say will seriously damage the economy. McCain then is crazy enough to suggest that the bailout delay was Obama's fault! The campaign suspension has largely been seen as a political stunt, which I believe, more than any other single event (perhaps save the Palin choice), has caused McCain's drop in the polls.

The economic crisis presented an opportunity for both candidates to show their style, crisis management skills and economic understanding. McCain could have used the economic crisis to overcome his incumbent party disadvantage on the economy, but rather exacerbated that disadvantage by making ill-advised impulsive decisions that hurt his campaign and the economy.

For these reasons it is McCain who is responsible for his fall in the polls, not President Bush, not the economy or the crisis surrounding it. McCain actually made Bush look calm and Presidential during the economic crisis, which is no easy feat. More importantly Bush and McCain together made Obama look wildly Presidential in comparison.

Fox News Exec: Election will turn on deranged girl!

2008-10-24T14:30:00.007-04:00

This blog post by the Executive Vice President of Fox News, John Moody, trying to place an inordinate amount of relevance on the face mutilation story (now revealed to be a hoax) is amazingly insane and worth reprinting in its entirety. Mr. Moody writes:

It had to happen.

Less than two weeks before we vote for a new president, a white woman says a black man attacked her, then scarred her face, and says there was a political motive for it.

Ashley Todd, a 20-year-old white volunteer for John McCain’s presidential campaign, says she was mugged at an ATM machine in Pittsburgh (my hometown) by a big black man. She further says he threw her down, then disfigured her by carving the letter “B” into her face with a sharp implement when he saw that she supported McCain, not Barack Obama.

Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination.

That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand.

Can this man be any more illogical and lacking in substance? Although the victim has now admitted her story was a hoax, this blog post should go down in history as one of the worst in blogging history and the fact that it comes from the Executive Vice President of Fox News should not be a surprise.

Mr. Moody writes,

"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee"

On what is this claim based? Does this man seriously think that voters pick their candidate based on the actions of bizarre lunatics? How would these actions, even if it were true, reflect on how well voters know Barack Obama?

This is the most simplistic idiotic political discourse I have ever seen and is typical of Fox News. The actions of a a random black man say nothing about Obama's campaign, just as the actions of a lunatic white girl have no bearing on McCain's campaing. To assert otherwise is to use the worst form of racial association. While feigning disapproval Mr. Moody advances the argument that these campaigns can be reduced to the aboslute worst actions of someone who happend to be of the same race as the candidate. It is negligently mindless coming from a news source.

So now that the story has proved to be a hoax I suppose, if we follow Mr. Moody's argument , "Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting". Does Fox news intend to blame McCain's loss, if he loses the race, on the hoax of an obviously mentally deranged woman? How does this hoax link McCain to race-baiting?

It is no wonder that Fox News promotes the absolute worst in political discourse when its Executive Vice President places such a dangerous amount of weight on the acts of deranged bizarre lunatics. Of course Fox News has mastered the art of presenting the views of deranged lunatics as, not only relevant, but central to the Nation's political discourse, but this one takes the cake!

I don't understand how this man can be taken seriously ever again, particularly in a journalistic capacity. His thinking is dangerously simplistic and his argument actually accomplishes the race-baiting that he feigns to deplore. It is insidious.

McCain's Surreal Populist Appeal

2008-10-24T13:42:00.004-04:00

As John McCain continues his "Joe the Plumber" tour he positions himself further and further outside of the mainstream of American opinion. His anti-socialism appeal could not render him farther out of touch.

Most polls have McCain somewhere in 40-42 range right now. The real prize in this election are the undecideds. Those voters, along with a substantial portion of the McCain leaners appear to be heading towards Obama, whose numbers are firmly in the low 50s. Why is that?

A simple answer; The Country is experiencing the greatest disparity in wealth in its history and McCain is unabashedly proposing a continuation of the policies that have created that wealth disparity. The "Joe the Plumber" anti-tax argument will not work. McCain seizes on Obama's claim to want to "spread the wealth" as if it is a bad thing!

This argument is ridiculous because, first, most independents have no wealth to spread! Even Joe the Plumber, who actually makes 40K per year and merely dreams of owning a business making 250K has no wealth to spread! The wealth has been concentrated in 1-5% of the population and no one is buying the Reaganomic fear-mongering that liberals want to spread the wealth. The vast majority of the poplulation has no wealth, and in fact, has an enormous debt load.

Second, most independents need healthcare and debt releif and know that it will cost money. Wealth depserately needs to be spread in the country and everyone, besides the die hard conservative 27% Bush supporters, knows that! The wealth in a democratic society cannot be so concentrated without social and policial instability. As average Americans struggle to provide for their families, particularly with regard to healthcare, it is unacceptable for billionares to pay less percentage of their income in tax than their secretary.

Finally, most American know that the national debt is over $10 trillion and would rather not leave that legacy to their children. This will involved raising government revenue in order to pay down that debt. John McCain's argument might hold weight, and attact more libertarian voters, if it included any realistic approach to reducing government debt. But, in fact, McCain is continuation of outrageous government spending on, among other things, two wars and a $300 Billion bailout of homeowners.

Therefore I cannot imagine a politician being farther out of touch than telling a population that has seen its wealth evaporate and land in the hands of the wealthiest 2% that Obama's plan to "spread the wealth" is a bad thing! This Country is smarter than that and the poll numbers are proving it.

The Hypocrisy of John McCain and Joe the Plumber

2008-10-23T17:51:00.010-04:00

There is a new pattern arising out of the McCain campaign. This pattern can be described as an anti-tax populism. John McCain continues to call Obama a socialist and, despite evidence of countless errors in his story, to use Joe the Plumber as his anti-tax populist propaganda tool! In fact, John McCain is now on a "Joe the Plumber" tour of Florida. So clearly McCain's strategy is to attempt to create some sort of populist movement around taxes. For the following reasons this argument is hypocrisy at its finest.

First, McCain offers no corresponding proposal to cut spending or end the incredibly expensive wars in which we are engaged. So his plan may cut taxes for everyone, including the wealthy, but it also exacerbates an already unmanageable national debt? So under capitalism, a Country can spend as much as it wants and not pay the money back? No wonder everyone wants to be capitalist! I guess socialist nations the ones who pay their debts?

I would also remind McCain that going back to 1917, before he was born believe it or not, there has been a progressive tax system in the country. In fact,in order to fund the war effort during WWII, the top tax bracket was 94 % for income over $1 million!!! Would it have been patriotic to stop funding WWII? Was the WWII generation socialistic or did they just pay their debts?

Second, Sarah Palin, in her debate with Joe "the Senator" Biden, said that where she comes from it is not patriotic to pay taxes. However, Sarah Palin comes from the most socialist State in the Country, handing out checks to every citizen of the State. The oil resources, are collectively owned and redistributed! If that is not socialism, than what is? It may be not be patriotic to pay taxes where she comes from, but it sure is patriotic to take checks from the government! I did not hear her repealing that socialist program in Alaska!

With regard to the patriotism of paying taxes, Thomas Friedman had a startlingly appropriate response for Palin reminding her "if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq?"

Third, for those who forget, take a look at John McCain in 2003 vehemently arguing against the Bush tax cuts in war time!:

Finally, to the extent that Joe the Plumber, who actually makes $40K, will actually be buying any business he would likely see no tax increase, and may actually get a bigger cut, under Obama's plan than John McCain's. As has been pointed out by a variety of sources, here are some interesting facts about Joe the Plumber:

1) An official at Local 50 of the plumber’s union, based in Toledo, said Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a license.
2) He also has never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union.
3) According to some tax analysts, if Mr. Wurzelbacher’s gross receipts from his business is $250,000 — and not his taxable income — then he would not have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut.
4) The truth about Joe is that he is not a licensed plumber and he's never made more than $40,000 dollars a year in that trade.

So Joe the Plumber is voting based on his dream scenario, not reality. In reality John McCain and Joe the Plumber in his fantasy world may benefit under John McCain's tax plan. However, even under Joe the Plumber's fantasy scenario, he would likely see no tax increase under Obama's plan because I think his dream plumbing business has 250K in revenue, not profit! Only profit is taxes, not Revenue, which includes owner's salary!

So lets remember that in reality, the real Joe the Plumber, making $40,000, would do a lot better under the Obama's tax plan. Oh, and I'm sure Joe the Plumber could use some healthcare relief as well and that $5,000 tax credit John McCain is offering him won't help him one bit. But I guess healthcare would be socialistic so Joe the Plumber can continue to fantasize about owning a business making 250K while he scratches and claws to pay his bills and to provide healthcare for his children. Or he could just get real and vote for Obama!