Free Trade Video

Pretty interesting. Despite the lame music, I think this is very effective. Let Obama speak for himself.

Onward!

I can't say I didn't feel that Sen. Clinton was the better candidate and, if elected president, would be better for the country as a whole. Clearly I disagree with her on a lot of things, but she does have consistent logic about many things we disagree on that Sen. Obama lacks. Her experience, particularly with foreign policy, put her ahead for me. I do feel Obama is easier to beat in November.

Where McCain needs to go now is to prevent the nebulous change rhetoric from continuing ad nauseum.

1) Take on Obama's earmarks (specifically things like hundreds of thousands to buddy Pfleger, or $1 million to his wife's employer) Compare this to McCain's track record against pork and earmarks and how this stance differs from Bush and the republicans who have lost their seats because of their reckless spending. Think highway bill - fun fact, not a single democrat voted against that gem of spending.

2) McCain suggested the surge before the White House came around, he needs to continue to hit up how this was different from the Bush lack of plan and suggest how his direction is different than Bush's current plans. Obama is simply regurgitating the same argument since the beginning and not dealing with the realities on the ground. You break it, you buy it.

3) I'd love to see a good list of the billions of handouts Obama is using to buy votes. Sure, "free" college, "free" health care, $1000 tax cuts, "cheap" hybrid cars all sound wonderful... but a good job adding up those costs as well as other expansions of government (including 70k more troops) could do well to show the utopian pipe dream he has created.

4) McCain desperately needs to make his health care case more succinctly and in terms Americans can connect to. Mindless democrats will continue to suck up the feel goods by trying to do something for the little guy while ignoring facts and continuing to assume anything but throwing money at an issue is simply evil and greedy. Many will incorrectly assume that McCain wont do anything about health care, whereas Obama is making this a cornerstone of his campaign. McCain needs to do a better job of making it the cornerstone of his - it's in my opinion the issue this campaign and why I'm not considering a third party vote.

Here's hoping Clinton doesn't end up VP and the moderate end of their party has hope for some real change by voting McCain. I like listening to Obama speak about as much as I like listening to Bush speak if that says anything, so I hope McCain gets on the offensive so I can stop watching rewinds of Obama's same speech again and again.

Bob Barr, Libertarian?

There's a lot of talk now about Bob Barr as the presidential candidate for the libertarian party. Many articles in Google News indicate speculation that former Paulites will flock to Bob Barr as the "next Ron Paul." Being unfamiliar with Bob Barr I did a quick Wikipedia search and found the following tidbits:

• Strong supporter of the War on Drugs stating there is a "constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotic"
• Against gay marriage and author of the Defense of Marriage Act preventing the federal government from recognizing gay marriages
  
• Supported the Patriot Act because of its sunset causes, but now regrets that decision

Doesn't sound like a Libertarian to me. It will be interesting to hear more about his foreign policy ideas, ideas about the economy and size of federal government, and how he reconciles his past with any current changes in policy positions that would make him more likely to garner a Libertarian vote.

Farm Bill Vetoed

Good news: Bush vetoed the "irresponsible" farm bill. $300 billion not wasted so far, but I imagine with some tweaks they'll still end up signing something fairly hefty. To roundup nationally and locally:

• Obama supports
• Clinton supports
• McCain opposes

• Udall supports
• Pearce supports
• Wilson opposes

Why might you want to oppose? Some obvservations here or you can enjoy selected earmarks from Swine Line:

-$500 million for the Qualified Forestry Bonds Program. This program was added to the Farm Bill to benefit one company, the Plum Creek Timber Company.

-$170 million for distressed salmon fishermen in California, Oregon and Washington. Maybe they just need a good therapist.

-The Equine Equity Act. According to Sen. McConnell (R-Ky.), “My legislation will remove the unfair tax burden on horses that discourage investment in the horse industry.”

Fun stuff! Of course I'm not interested in subsidies that affect the market and in the end hurt everybody involved but the minority that are making money from the rest of our hard work. Even in cases where one might be absolutely needed, $750,000 is a bit much for us to consider needing a lot of help through subsidies. It also doesn't help when senators don't understand basic terms and cite those reasons for their vote.

Please Stop Name Dropping

There's two names I wish I could never hear again this election cycle: Bush and Reagan. Usage of either is a cop-out to avoid talking about real issues or specifics and an appeal to emotion that only distracts from the reality of a candidate.

Let's face it, if you're at a point where you adore Bush now, no appeal to how terrible he is will change your mind or change your vote. Unlike the previous election, Bush is not on the ticket. Despite what Sen. Obama would like you to think, Sen. McCain is not Bush. That doesn't mean he is a good candidate or a bad candidate, it just means more time should be spent talking about Obama and McCain. For all the calls of non-partisan politics, I hear Obama use Bush's name as much as any nebulous warm-fuzzy phrase.

All it does is appeal to the crowd that loathes Bush. While it probably gets them all excited to feel good about hating Bush, it doesn't gain Obama any votes and if this country really is going to move on, it needs to start focusing on these two candidates and not the past. Apparently "hope" spends a considerable amount of time dwelling on the past.

Reagan. You can't accuse me of not being an fan of him: of the two books by former elected officials I have sitting at my desk right now, one of them is Reagan's. He did a lot, both good and bad, for this country. None of that matters in this election. Just like Obama wants to appeal to my hatred for Bush falls flat, McCain's (and earlier all the republican candidates) appeal to my love of Reagan will fall flat. It wont get you any votes from Democrats, it wont convince Republicans that you're "conservative enough." It isn't 1980 and the issues we face are very different. Saying "I'm a Reagan Conservative" means nothing unless you qualify that with exactly how and wasting the breath on a sentence about Reagan doesn't help.

Senators, stop name dropping appeals to emotion and just get to the issues.

44.8 Million Uninsured

I checked census.gov about this number and came to the following conclusions about the number of individuals without insurance:

• 8.7 million - make more than $75,000
• 8.3 million - make between $50-75,000
• 9.3 million - not US citizens
• 8.5 million - between 18 & 24
• 10-14 million - eligible for Medicaid but do not apply

You'll notice there's some overlap there because the total is 48.8 million. Some of these large groups of people don't really deserve my pity when it comes to them choosing not to have insurance. There is on disturbing number: 8.3 million are under 18 years old and do not have insurance. That's one thing that my love for freedom, choice, and limited government begins to take issue with. Of course, the question is who is going to pay for these children to receive health care and how many of these children belong to parents in the above groups that are choosing not to have insurance. Of those 8.3 million children, another source puts 6 million eligible but not receiving government provided care making that number a bit lower.

Gas Price "Fixes"

I could go off a little bit more about it, but I think it's pretty clear to most people that gas tax holiday is a bad idea and wont fix anything. The media is hammering Sens. Clinton and McCain pretty well and I think most people can come to that conclusion after thinking on the matter a little bit or crunching some numbers for themselves.

I think most people can do the same when it comes to Sens. Obama and Clinton's windfall profit tax, though the media isn't spending as much time with that one. While it's popular to want to stick it to the corporation, I think some reason can figure out exactly what might happen if you try to do it too much to a corporation. I also challenge the spin with raw numbers - and not profit margins - that the oil companies are making so much money. Here's the real scoop:

On average, the profit margin of the oil industry is 8.3%. As a former retail employee in what feels like a past life, I can tell you that a profit margin that low is very atypical. Retailers such as Best Buy or Wal-Mart have massive profit margins on the goods they sell. For example, when working at Best Buy, I found that the cost of a simple printer cable was $1.21. We sold that same cable for $32 to the public, a 2,644% profit margin! Granted in dollars we are talking about profiting only $30 and some change off the cable. But, let’s put it into the proper perspective. With a barrel of oil teetering just over $100, and an average profit margin of 8.3%, the oil companies are making a whopping $8.30 off the barrel of oil! Hardly a wild profit to accuse an entire industry of price gouging over.

Oh, and about that price gouging...some info from FactCheck.org:But what Obama doesn't mention is that the FTC has conducted price-gouging investigations before, most notably in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The FTC found "no instances of illegal market manipulation" and concluded that the price increases "were approximately what would be predicted by the standard supply-and-demand model of a market performing competitively."

That's not to say that market manipulation (or price-gouging) is impossible. And the FTC, as well as state attorneys general, may well be conducting further probes even as we write this (they're generally supposed to be confidential until they're completed). But most economists say that gasoline prices have more to do with market forces than with oil company shenanigans.

But, let's get past that. Let's try and punish these oil companies because profit is evil and people are suffering. How do we stop their suffering? A windfall profit tax. We've done that before... how did it work that time?

Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. Mr. Obama nonetheless pledges to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." Someone should tell him that oil imports would soar if his tax plan becomes law. The biggest beneficiaries would be OPEC oil ministers.

Of course, just like the capital gains tax, Sen. Obama is okay with hurting people in the terms of the fairness of hurting the oil companies.

None of these plans actually solve what they say they'll and cause lower gas prices. All are pandering to a group of Americans who want the government to do something. I'm guessing that the government can't do anything to help these prices in the short run. There's drilling and all sorts of other ideas that I might agree to for reasons that have nothing to do with lowering gas prices in the short run and in a separate argument than this one. In an election year a cry for government to do something about something it can't really (and shouldn't really) affect in the short term ends up with government doing something terrible.

Edit: Justin Wolfers at the Freakonomics blog chimes in. Thanks to Brad for the link.

Food Aid: 770 million worth

Bush calls for approval of $770 million in food aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush urged Congress Thursday to approve $770 million to help alleviate dramatically escalating food prices that threaten widespread hunger and increasing social unrest around the world.

In a surprise midafternoon appearance at the White House, Bush announced he is asking lawmakers to approve the additional funds for global food aid and development programs. The money — to be directed primarily at needy African nations — is being included in a broader $70 billion Iraq war funding measure for 2009 that the White House sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Yes, this is exactly what I want to be spending my tax dollars on right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-poverty, I'm not saying individuals shouldn't donate to charities to achieve this goal. I just think it's ridiculous that our federal government is in that business. Anybody disagree?

McCain's Health Care Plan Kicks Off

I really like the start McCain's health care plan so far based on two important pieces:

Mr. McCain’s health plan centers on eliminating the tax breaks for employers who provide health insurance for their workers — a marked departure from the current system — and giving $5,000 tax credits to families to buy their own insurance. His goal in shifting from employer-based coverage to having people buy their own policies is to encourage competition and choice, and to drive down the costs of health insurance.

The decision to put the choice of insurance with your employer is an extremely bad idea. It started as a result of wage freezes and employers looking for ways to attract workers through ways other than a direct wage. Company sponsored health care is born.

Never mind the fact that I can only choose from one provider. Or the fact that the two veterans that work for me receive a lower total value of their job than someone who is accepting the company insurance. Or those who work for me who are under 25 and still on their parents insurance also have a lower total value. Or the fact I could buy a "cheaper" plan elsewhere, but it would actually be more out of pocket to me. Apparently employee provided health care is good for Americans.

Shifting those same tax credits to individuals is a much better idea and would provide me with better choices for health care. Sure, I'd rather tax burden be lessened overall and credits like these eliminated altogether, but this is a start and I'll pick it over the other side's plans.

I do like that he does take a moment to pay attention to this fact:

Mr. McCain proposed that the federal government work with the states to cover those who cannot find insurance on the open market. With federal financial assistance, states would be encouraged to create high-risk pools that would contract with insurers to cover consumers who have been rejected on the open market.

He admits his plan isn't comprehensive yet and this is where he needs to do some more thinking. I appreciate the fact that the "I'll promise you" attitude he has about gas prices isn't here with health care. I'm torn on this issue, but I do understand that companies can't be held liable for individuals who choose not to get health care until they are sick. That's like me getting in a car accident and then complaining that State Farm wont fix my car because I didn't have insurance beforehand. If that is your primary goal with a health care plan, it only makes sense for Government to take over all insurance and make it mandatory for everyone. But I digress... some plans, especially local plans, to address this issue deserve discussion.

There's one more quote that I want to promise I'll get to in another post: "There are 47 million uninsured people in the United States, or 16 percent of the population." This number is misleading... I need to do a bit more research on the subject, though. (edit: and I did)

100 years in Iraq, continued...

Responding to comments from Dan about my comments on the DNC ad "McCain 100 years":

Instead, an interesting question to pursue is whether Iraq has a chance to make it to a situation similar the post-war Japan, Germany and Korea. If so, what is the potential cost?

I pointed out that McCain's understanding of foreign involvement was to engage and use our military alongside our diplomats in an array of uses that includes continued support in Iraq. I suggested the DNC strategy was essentially the same as McCain's but set Iraq aside for political reasons and that is inconsistent with the logic of a large international intervention policy. While I espouse non-intervention in foreign affairs except in the direst situations that affects the US, I failed to point out that having an foreign intervention policy also means making choices and assessing trade-offs of our interventions. I didn't make that point and I think made it seem like either we intervene and have troops everywhere or we simply keep our troops at home and have no foreign bases.

Dan is correct when he says, "'pulling out' or a large reduction in forces wouldn't impede us from striking strategically at al qaeda IF they set up Afghanistan-esque bases," if that is the goal of US foreign policy. That goal could also be achieved and is one I might agree with provided that we were okay with widespread violence in Iraq and it was coupled with withdrawal from other US foreign bases except a very few. If you consider hitting Al Qaeda bases with missiles, it would be done from a naval platform like Clinton did and bases in North Korea and Germany may no longer be of strategic importance.

But the key is assessing the goals of foreign intervention. If it is purely to protect direct and immediate US interests, the DNC falls short by also cherry picking when and where it wants to intervene due to political expediency. Dan continues:

Anyway, you're right. The argument by Dean is disingenuous - McCain, at the time, was not talking about staying 100 years in an Iraqi civil war that would cost thousands of more American (and 10,000s Iraqi lives). He was talking about an Iraq that exists only in the figment of his imagination - and he hasn't presented a plan for HOW he will realize this daydream.

This is where I also think Howard Dean has an opportunity to make everything line up but doesn't. He says that even if Iraq were post-war Germany or Japan he wouldn't stay because of the cost to the US taxpayer. That should be immediately followed with a statement that we should leave Korea, Germany, Iraq, and everywhere else that fits the test of being unuseful to immediate US interests.

Also, FactCheck.Org discusses DNC vs. McCain and looks at this ad and another earlier ad about the economy. If that blog isn't in your Reader, you're missing out.