Health Insurance For Illegal Immigrants

Congress has made a lot of statements about Health Care Reform and specifically providing a public option. People who have read the bills proposed have shown serious concern about supporting a bill that funds a government run health insurance plan, especially a plan that can be utilized by people who are not here legally. Here is the idea...

In a nutshell, not everyone benefiting from the plan will be paying taxes. In fact, quite a few will not be paying taxes. So those who are paying taxes (that's you middle-class) will be financially backing this plan and so naturally you might prefer the the idea that IF you are going to pay then you would rather limit your financial investment to only paying for people who are currently citizens or who have undergone the complicated, lengthy and costly process of earning the right to be here legally. Now... I have lost most of your at this point! Most of you either don't want the public option (because it has almost nothing to do with reform in reality) or don't want a plan that pretends to save you money on health insurance only to crank the cost back up again through new taxes! I get you!!! But stay with me.

As a protective measure to at least mitigate some risk with regard to paying for illegal immigrant health care a number of senators have proposed passing an amendment to any health care bill that closes the illegal immigrant loophole. Well, as reasonable as that sounds, Dems won't have it.

"I would find it extremely difficult to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care," said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat. He said undocumented workers should be allowed access to insurance coverage provided that they get no tax assistance.

This sneaky little health care quote above is from the Washington Times newspaper. Breaking his verbiage down, this is what he means:

• I would find it extremely difficult to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care: the missing word here is "coverage." Nobody is talking about denying health care. If someone gets sick in America and they are not FROM America, we do not refuse them health care. What we don't do is pay their bill... well, in some cases. To date, many hospitals have philanthropic arms that "forgive" medical bills for people. So, nobody is really talking about refusing health care to anyone. The Illinois Democrat is simply making an emotional appeal here. What he really means is that he WANTS to allow people who are living here illegally the ability to participate in the public health care insurance option.
  
  
• He said undocumented workers should be allowed access to insurance coverage provided that they get no tax assistance : This means that the illegal immigrant CAN take part and sign up for a public option. What he doesn't want to allow is the Federal Government cutting that illegal immigrant a "tax credit" check that further subsidizes that public health care option provided by the Federally Funded Health Insurance Plan!!!

You see there are two moving parts in this plan. First, the whole plan will be funded through taxation (now basically admitted when Congress asked state Governors to sign a letter that committed states to help fund the Congressional Health Care Scam.. I mean Plan.) Secondly, in addition to the existence of a Federally run Health Insurance public option plan they want to cut checks to people (also paid by you in taxation) in the form of a "tax credit" to make the plan more affordable.

Note that this week Republicans are also going to present a plan to help control the rising cost of Health Care. This is a very limited plan with a number of reforms (many in the legal realm) that would likely lower the cost of health care due to reduced number of fraudulent lawsuits which would in return likely reduce the number of unnecessary butt-covering procedures that doctors have learned to employ to simply reduce their legal exposure but that do not help the person who is undergoing the procedure or bearing the cost of that procedure. Keep an eye out for that proposal and read up on it. It actually works to achieve the initial goal of Health Care reform!

Virginia And New Jersey Go Conservative

Sending a significant and critical message to Washington, both Virginia and New Jersey selected conservative leadership in their Gubernatorial elections. With a year-long Federal power grab led by the current Presidential Administration, selecting conservative governors (important for a state so strategically located next to DC and huge for a state as historically liberal as New Jersey) means defending states rights against an out of control and out of touch Congress and White House.

Just two days ago President Obama called incumbent liberal Governor Jon Corzine a "key component" in his ability to keep his campaign promises. according to the Associated Press. Tonight, according to CNN's political ticker White House aides claim that President Obama isn't even watching those same "key" election results roll in.

I guess that means President Obama can't keep those campaign promises?

The Many Faces Of Health Care Reform

I can't keep up these days... and I am really trying. But the winds at the White House are changing so fast. or maybe they are not and it is just a tactic, I don't know. I hate to think the worst but when something totally stumps you, you have to look at the possible alternatives.

The big debate right now on Health Care Reform is "the public option" meaning government would provide a competitive alternative to current insurance plans. Many people fear that because the government will play the role of both "health care insurance company" as well as "health care insurance rules judge" that they will always beat out any competition. This will result in the government taking over health care both in terms of (1) health insurance and (2) health insurance regulation, but also in providing health care (because of new regulations on Doctors and the fact that they would then be paid by the government.)

The other side of the debate has everything to do with providing health care for uninsured people. Forget the fact that not everyone wants to buy insurance and that senior citizens would be forced into the government program (if they don't spend their money on a government-approved alternative.) The fact is that the other side of the debate is concerned with providing health care insurance to the currently uninsured. Whether they understand how this gets paid for or if millions of Americans flooding into that new solution creates health care rationing, just about anyone agrees with the altruistic goal of helping people. That isn't the debate. The problem is in the "how."

So, this blog post is not about the details of the plan. This post is about the mixed messages coming from the bills largest proponent, the President.

Over the weekend the Washington Times (and a number of other news groups) wrote that the White House communicated President Obama was not married to passing a Health Care Reform bill that contained a "public option." Since that time other Democrats went on the record saying that the Public Option didn't have enough Democrat support in the Congress to pass the reform bill and that we should move on to focus on "reform" and stop flogging that dead horse. The White House even did a little more face-saving by saying, ...We have been saying this for about two months now. Now, I thought I was paying attention and I don't recall them ever saying they were fine with supporting a bill that didn't include the "public option."

Next in the time line comes a letter from the Congressional Democrats sent to Obama asking, "What the? No Public Option?" This only just happened and was likely the result of so many Democrats hitting the road to pimp Health Care Reform including the public option and taking a beating in public forums.

Now, in today's Washington Times President Obama is said to be back in vocal support of the Public Option. The source: his letter back to Congressional Democrats. Obama basically writes back and says, wait a sec... I still want a public option and nothing has changed.

So how do we take this? Here are my alternative explanations for this kind of double-talk:

Semantical Accuracy: If you look at both sides of what President Obama is saying at the same time, then he is communicating... I want the public option just like you, Liberals, but I am not married to it and would sign health care reform bill into law without it, like you, Conservatives.

Liberal Bias: If you look at this as a liberal, then you think that the President saying he is fine without it but really wants it simply means that he wants people to cool their jets in opposition to it, while he gives a wink to the liberal folks and says, ...hey, keep pushing for it because we really still want it. At the same time liberal folks who have stuck their necks out and said stuff like health reform without a Public Option is a waste of time (Nanci Pelosi) are worried that Obama might be simply pandering to them if he is really willing to sign a Health Care Reform bill into law without it.

Conservative Bias: If you have your conservative hat on then while you thought that the President's wavering commitment to the Public Option felt like a move in the right direction, now you simply wonder if he was pandering to conservatives while still sending support to the senators who are hitting the road pimping the Public Option. The conservative mind feels worried that the President is pandering at best and lying at the worst if he isn't really willing to sign a bill into law without the Public Option.

At this point the double-talk only serves up one outcome for those who are paying attension: a loss of trust for somebody. If you are a liberal and you want him to simply be pandering to the conservatives but in the end he signs a bill into law that doesn't include the public option, well, then you lose trust. If you are conservative and he refuses to sign a bill without the public option, then he is a liar to you, and you lose trust. Someone loses trust as a result of this experiment in words.

There is one other reaction at this point that I can think of and it goes like this...

Fan-boy: The substance of the President's words matter less that your ability to spin them into unwavering support. One week ago you were championing along with the President for Health Care Reform that included the Public Option and this week (for at least a moment) you were celebrating the seemingly bi-partisan move to not be married to a bill that must contain the Public Option.

The problem with fan-boy is that the only guiding value in that scenario is unwavering support for the icon that is the President. If you were a proponent of the Public Option and looked at the details then you would likely have a very difficult time cooling your jets and suddenly be fine with not including it. If you opposed the bill then you understood the ideological, social and financial difference that the Public Option made and were not about to simply start endorsing it. If none of that mattered to you, then I have a difficult time imagining that you were paying attention, because one way or the other a decision in this category would end up shaping the lives of Americans. So the details matter.

Partisan Pandering

I hear a lot of debate over the Stimulus Bill and the first Federal Budge under the new Obama Presidency. Here is the consensus opinion (from conservatives and liberals)talking points that I am hearing:

• The government should be doing something.
  
  
• I am uneasy about the amount of money congress is talking about spending.
  

It seems that only the biggest "fanboys" on either side of the congressional carpet are completely and blindly agreeing with a hard-party-line perspective. For example, ultra-conservatives would rather the government simply slim down and spend less, while some would see room for a more Ronald Reagan type of approach. Equally as true, there are folks like Obama who believe that the only way to pass a stimulus bill is to pass a high-priced spending bill, while some Democrat senators are making public announcements about the risk of saddling future generations with insurmountable Federal debt.

In a related note, recently I had a conversation with some company leaders about "career development." A number of ideas came out with regard to (1) career pathing, (2) expanding the scope of employee empowerment, (3) personal continued education, etc. After a bit of talking some of those leaders shared the fact that they had not previously imagined "career development" equaling anything other than climbing a corporate ladder (i.e. giving title changes and matching raises.) While most people probably aren't loosing any sleep over the title of their job, they likely wouldn't be opposed to receiving a raise. At the same time, money is clearly not the only motivator. I think that the facts bare out the idea people want purpose, personal growth and measurable movement that feels like progress. Assuming that you can survive on your current salary, are you more likely switch jobs for a moderate raise or title change? Or could your current company retain your interest and commitment if they focused on mutually beneficial opportunities that help you grow professionally and help you see how you work has purpose and results in measurable success and progress? All things being equal, I think the later could well be described as "career development."

Likewise, right now President Obama is showing the limitation of his understanding of what a Federal Stimulus Bill could be:



I find the fanboy "right!" remark at the end entertaining. To be fair, I have no idea what she said next, but it is that kind of lack of deeper introspection that plagues the President and the Democrat-liberal congress right now. Rather than truly examine what is being said by either side in an open and free discussion, the alternatives are being blown off by simple name-calling them "old" or "tired." Let's look at another example:



By simply listening to this video it almost sounds like a cross-section of America is chiming in to support these seemingly profound statements about how this bold move by the President is new or fresh, while any alternative yet-to-be-debated-or-even-discussed is blown off as tired or worn out. But are all those whoops and hollers coming from a cross-section of American people, or is this video-op really just a planned event with a hand-picked crowd? The Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this President is the most honest we have seen in years (how often are you hearing that right now?) But I recall President Bush and his press secretaries allowing themselves to make announcements across the room from people who were willing to debate them on the spot. Let's hear another perspective about this speech you just heard:



So, how is this really newly bi-partisan or more honest? It seems to me that President Clinton and President Reagan were more bi-partisan. To me, the point is that it seems that President Obama is more interested in motivating people to action through social pressure, scare tactics and name-calling than he is through real political discourse. I've said it before and I will say it again. This is a sound-byte president. He buys Op-Ed space in news papers and gets TV time to spin significantly non-substantive statements that simply render a "yeah!" response rather than encouraging people to engage in the topic at hand.

In conclusion, I will offer a piece of advice to challenge the logic of the rhetoric coming from the current Presidency: If the statement can be applied to both parties, then it is not substantive but rhetoric. Take the idea that President Obama is explaining Republican talking points as "tired" or "worn out." He clearly described these perspectives as such to encourage the American people to reject those ideas simply because they are old long-held ideals of the Republican mindset. So here comes the test. Is what President Obama proposing with regard to spending a new Democrat approach? Or is he proposing the same old long-held ideals of the Democrat party? Likewise, could we not then call President Obama's approach "tired" and "worn out"? Should we then also just reject them, out of hand?

Or should we stop the rhetoric and demand that politicians begin to engage in a real discourse with each other and their constituency about how to expand the limited narrow-minded understanding of what a Stimulus Bill could be?

Barack O'Copy

So it is week number two and I am sweating on an elliptical trainer at the gym over lunch. To pass the 30+ minutes I typically listen to my iPod and watch the news on mute and read the closed captioning.

Today, once again, I saw Barack follow after John McCain, pretending yet again that he is a pioneer. About a week ago today during the debate John McCain was undermined by both Obama and later the press for suggesting that the government should specifically bail out mainstreet by specifically addressing the fact that many Americans are struggling under mortgages that many can't afford. Regardless of what you think about any of the bailout plans there has been a hort-load of speculation about how expensive or unreasonable or redundant a specific mainstreet bailout would be. Now, John McCain is talking about the federal government buying up those mortgages and then, over time, the government makes its money back from the value of those mortgages. The idea is that the U.S. government can wait out a very long term investment a lot easier than banks or home owners.

Now take a look at Barack O'Copy's plan. His answer for mainstreet is to simulate the market and create jobs, assuming that a lack of employment is what is responsible for people defaulting on loans. Next, he wants to block foreclosures on homes where the owner only owns one home, for three months. Next, he wants to give tax-breaks to companies that create jobs here in America. Let's look at what this will do for home owners. Employment might be one reason for defaulting home loans, but we know it is not to blame for variable rate loans from predatory lenders. The three month delay on foreclosures will do just that: delay the foreclosure for three months. If renegotiating loans can't get done in time (this is incredible pressure on a currently stressed out banking system) and jobs are not to blame, or people cannot get jobs quickly enough, then three months is too little too late. Finally, giving companies a tax break sure sounds like John McCain. I think the distinction is that O'Copy only wants to give those breaks to mid-sized companies (not the evil large corporations) ... why????? Oh... My.... Goodness....! Wait for it!? Because tax breaks for companies mean simulating the economy toward growth! Whaaaaat? Wait? Obama said that this is the very exact "failed policy of Bush and the Republicans." Obama!? Isn't this basically the same trickle-down policy by another name? Isn't the net effect the same (lowered tax burden for everyone equaling more jobs!?)

But the bottom line is that companies don't just create jobs so they can get a tax break. There has to be work for those new employees to do. And if those companies could create jobs, and Obama is promising them tax-burden relief for two years, how would that really work? Two years means this whole job creation thing wouldn't kick in quick enough to solve the mainstreet mortgage issue in reality.

Obama is a stinker! But we don't have to be! He is showing his true colors. Taxing the rich isn't our duty. He isn't about justice through taxation, or fairness through taxation, or duty or patriotism! He is simply holding a federal fundraiser for his expensive programs. But once again, in true form, Obama is taking a lesson from the guy who should be president, John McCain, but somehow the ignorant public are thinking that if Obama says it, well... it must be his idea, right?

Does Obama Denounce and Reject Farrikhan?

Honestly, so far I haven't been a fan of imagining that Obama really supports Farrakhan. I really have imagined that he is not in support of that dude. In fact, I think if he was really in support of Farrakhan it would be a game-changer for him. So I was thinking back to the Tim Russert challenge on this topic during the Obama / Hillary fight for the democrat nomination and how Obama said that he both "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Farrakhan. Naturally, I am crazy about researching this stuff and I wanted to be sure I have a clear understand.

Now, I want to be reasonable and imagine that Obama himself doesn't support him, based on his words. And I was able to quickly find his words. I also did some research to find out what Farrakhan really said about Obama and the fact is that he calls him the "Messiah", and specifically calls him "the stone that the builders rejected" and the "chief cornerstone" (both New Testament references to Jesus, basically calling Obama the second coming.) Farrakhan is mobilizing his followers to vote for Obama under this rhetoric. That is pretty scarry stuff. But in response to that Obama has said that he doesn't want nor has he solicited Farrakhan's support and more specifically he says that he rejects and denounces the things Farrakhan is saying.

To be fair and reasonable, I tend to believe that candidates do in fact believe the last thing they have said, but I temper my trust in that by examining what they said previously on the same issue. Now, I cannot find any previous statements about Farrakhan from Obama except for what he has said on this topic. It only seems at best that Obama moved from saying that his pastor's award to Farrakhan was for something specific and had nothing to do with anti-semetic statements, and then within a short period moved over to rejecting and denouncing. Some might look at that history and say that Obama minimized Farrakhan perspective and then later denounced it (showing yet another flip-flop once revealed.) At the minimum, it seems that Obama has never said anything directly supportive of Farrakhan. But really, that is not what this blog post is about.

I am writing this blog post because I have bumped into the same rhetorric of support for Obama despite various revelations of his contraditory opinions.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a conversation I had with a friend who felt that Obama isn't like McCain with regard to war and strategy, even though he is currently pandering toward McCain's perspective over the weeks gone bye. More importantly, he said that even though Obama sounds more and more like McCain, he is convinced Obama will end up being the Obama that he liked at some previous point during the campaign. he feels that the current tougher version of Obama is just pandering and that inevitably Obama will return to the version that my friend liked the most.

Jump over to the Chicago Sun-Times. With all of this rejecting and denouncing of Farrakhan, it seems like Obama is poised to lose the support of Farrakhan supporters. Surprisingly that is not the case. Why you might ask, like me? You would think that if Obama is seriously rejecting and denouncing Farrakhan then both Farrakhan and his supporters would be up in arms and definitely not supporting him. Check out this quote from Sun-Times Columnist Mary Mitchell.

"When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

Fortunately for Obama, most black people understand the game."

You can read the entire article here which communicates that while black people are upset at Obama for denouncing and rejecting Farrakhan, that the black population understand the game, implying that Obama must reject Farrakhan to get broader support, but black people really know that Obama is playing a game.

Now I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what she is saying. Rather I am surprised at this common dialog. The shocking piece of this would be that people can't seem to justify the contradictions of Obama. The harder part of the contradictions would be that they go against the fundamental reasons they were originally going to vote for Obama (e.g. His fight against warmongers, timelines for getting out of Iraq, being anti-nuclear power, various entitlement programs that have changed, etc.) So rather than continuing to support Obama's new platform, they, like the author above, have decided that Obama is just playing a game and he will return to an earlier version of himself once he is President.

This is the worst kind of politics and the emptiest hope of all. Here is the miracle of what seems to be Obama's political approach:

1. You say you believe in perspective "A"
2. As a result all perspective "A" voters come running to vote for you
3. Later you say you believe in perspective "B" but sell it as "A+amendment 1"
4. As a result all perspective "B" voters come running to vote for you. They doubt you ever really believed in perspective "A" -- you were only "pandering"
5. As a result all perspective "A" voters still vote for you and they doubt you every really believed in perspective "B" -- you were only "pandering"

The inevitable danger as a voter is... you really don't know who you are voting for. Is this candidate 1-version A or candidate 1-version B?

Frankly I am not sure how to figure this out, but I would rather the American people just demand that the candidates truly speak out a resoundingly consistent message without pandering.

Here is my new definition for pandering: Pandering is not telling the truth. It isn't a game. It isn't a half-truth. It is a lie, and we shouldn't send a signal that we will be OK with seeing them lie if it means they get to be president.

McCain connections versus Obama connections

I watched a couple videos that were sent to me about McCain associations with political "terrorists." As a voting American it warrents examination (especially if I am planning on voting for McCain.)

Having watched those videos and researched the players involved I think there are obvious factor that differentiate McCain’s associations in comparison to Obama's on these talking points. Let's examine them:

1. The Keeting 5: McCain had a connection to the group, but was quickly exonerated for having not actually participated in any poor behavior. It is worth note that other in the group were not exonerated. Only John Glenn (Democrat) and McCain (Republican) were said to have not done anything wrong (so you cannot say that Republicans let him off the hook since a Democrat and a Republican were said to be guiltless.) This happened in 1989. McCain still apologized to Americans for what that group had done. He didn’t take ownership, but he did verbalize sympathy for any harm that group caused.
   
2. His Attendance at the controversial meeting: In this case he was invited to speak but didn’t have a long time association with this group or specifically any tie directly to people who were a part of radical groups. In fact there is no ongoing connect for him with these groups.

So, in that sense he has been around people who have gotten into trouble, but in neither of these examples do we find him teemed up with these people in long-time relationships surrounding a direct connection to goofiness. We all know that politicians from Chicago will always win a contest on "number of objectionable associations through proximity." Obama's list is too long if we are simply going to mention who he sat next to at a meeting. In both of the above examples McCain was either completely peripheral or implicated but exonerated. This isn't quite the case with Obama. Now let's look at Obama:

1. Obama chaired on an “education” committee founded by Ayers that did all sort of goofy experimental education thing that resulted in the undermining of school leadership and the promotion of his campaign. Read the wall street journal expose:
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
2. The fundraiser meeting McCain attended was a one time thing in 1993 and hardly comparable to the decade or more that Obama has known Ayers and been involved in implementing his radical agenda (according to the Washington Post) / political fundraising. As well it is worth mentioning that the mention of the woman who shot the doctor was noted in a prayer and the Oregon Citizens Alliance is not known for radical involvement. It is simply a grass roots political group that is trying to get legislation passed. Unlike the Weathermen they aren’t responsible for blowing things up or hurting people or disrespecting property. To say they are simply because a woman was mentioned at a meeting in a prayer in 1993 is a huge exaggeration.

The associations on the McCain side are obvious but harmless at best. The Obama side is also obvious, but they are apples to oranges at best. You don’t go to prison or land on the FBI top-ten wanted list for attempting to pass controversial legislation. Give me a break.

NOTE: Ayers is not the only character of ill repute associated with Obama. Click to read more about Obama's poor judgments and associations.

An Appeal To The Left

I recently rote an email to someone who sent a letter to John McCain explaining his frustration over McCain's selection of Governor Palin. He replied with the typical banter one would expect to hear from someone who is supporting Obama.

I would say that in my short voting history I feel more educated on the history and plans of the Democrat and Republican candidates now as compared to any other election. Like nearly everyone else at first I went with my gut and conservative nature supporting McCain. But now, based on my research of the major issues of these candidates pasts (voting histories as well as experience), getting an understanding of their proposed presidential goals, as well as following the trending and life of their campaigns, I can now say with all confidence that John McCain seems both the most reasonable and experienced candidate.

When investing toward retirement you are always told to make measured investments that are a balanced mix of conservative low risk and higher yield, high risk. The reason they say this is because the conservative low risk base investment will help you ride the ups and downs of the inevitable high-risk losses that might occur. This is why so many are in a panic over the stock market right now. The risk was obviously too high for too many and now that it is crashing, reasonable people are weighing the fact that they put too much of their investment in the high-risk bucket. At this stage of our economy Obama's inexperience coupled with his list of inexperienced "change"equals high risk. I think that in better days we as a nation could throw more into a high-risk set of change goals, but what our nation needs is stability. I am not willing to play with those outcomes at this point. Having said that, change is inevitable, so I am speaking to the kind of change that Obama envisions. A simple example of this change would be the inevitable changing of the guard within the government financial leadership in a transition to an Obama administration. Market speculation is already saying that this transition equals risk and an inevitable downturn (again) of our markets. Forgetting lack of experience and character issues, we can't afford Obama on this issue alone.

Having shared there thoughts, here is the letter I gave to the person I mentioned above, in response to the letter he said he sent to McCain. please, consider the points in this letter as you think about the coming election:

I read your note and appreciate you putting thought into the letter, but my hope is that you gain a greater understanding of the actual voting history (in Illinois and Washington) of Obama before you actually vote. I understand that most folks feel strongly at this point about their candidate of choice, but it is never too late to examine the history and character of the candidates within the context of their campaign promises. For example, I think Obama gets a lot of credit for:

1. Obama wants to reform Washington.
2. Obama wants to implement power in Washington to the benefit of main street.
3. Obama wants to tax the the rich and give to the poor.
4. Obama wants to legislate medical benefits.
5. Obama will get us out of Iraq.
   

Things to consider when thinking about the above statements (item for item):

1. He and the 110th Congress were elected on the same campaign for change and reform (this is a redu of that same campaign.) The 110th Congress will go down in history as the "do nothing" Congress with a larger disapproval rating than President G.W. Bush. If we vote for this same campaign again and expect something different than the change Obama didn't ever try to do in the 110th Congress (he didn't lead a single effort for change in the 110th) then we end up being the fools. Fools, not because we didn't rightly want change. We would be fools for voting twice for a campaign that yielded nothing close to the promised result the first time.
2. Obama said this same thing in Illinois when he was elected. And people thought he was going to deliver good change to the benefit of the people on main street. As a result he gave millions of government dollars to the public sector to build "affordable housing" in Chicago. It sounds good if you don't examine the outcomes. The results were the largest slums in Chicago many of which are now condemned. Many of those slumlord are in the middle of lawsuits or in Prison. Some of the others are working for Obama's campaign. I can share the stories from the Chicago Tribune. There were other write-ups in the Boston Globe that followed the story from the main streets where this craziness happened all the way to re-employing those corrupt private sector real estate developers into seats in his campaign.
3. I think we all agree that we should be helping those who are less fortunate. I am not a fan of the concept of "redistribution of wealth." The most writing on the values of redistribution of wealth as a government concept are found in socialist manifestos, and unfortunately those examples didn't work out very well either. It seems that Americans are willing to help each other out each year by giving billions of dollars philanthropically. My concern with the sensibility of Obama's hopes is that if we leave it to the government to create new situations that care for our neighbors, then we won't do it ourselves. A study not to long ago showed that conservative people give more (financially and of themselves) than liberals. Why? The study asked why and it said that liberals feel that their taxes take care of philanthropy through entitlement programs. But even Obama admits those programs are failing. It just doesn't seem like "good" or "change" to take a failing program and throw more money at it. If he throws money at it like he did in Illinois, then those tax dollars will just go into the hands of federal slumlords rather than just the ones he previously knew in Illinois. Some people even think his law experience was good legal experience and philanthropic because it was a non-profit law firm he worked for (some don't even know about that.) The truth is that his firm was the group that got those slumlords the government dollars. As a lawyer he worked to get government funding for those slumlords and later those slumlords helped him get elected to the Illinois State senate. A number of them continue to work for his campaign today. I know we want change, bu I cannot believe this is the kind of change we want.
4. In the very early 1900s federal taxes were made into law by the 16th Amendment. Under President W. Wilson they were used to provided funding for World War I. Before 1913 the U.S. Congress tried to pass federal tax rulings a number of times, but it was always deemed unconstitutional. So Congress had to amend the constitution to make it possible. Jump forward about 100 years and now according to Senator Joe Biden, paying taxes is "our American duty" and "patriotic." Federal taxes are reaching deeper into our pockets compared to many other countries and compared to our rich American history. A UK Paper recently told of companies that were moving out of countries where the corporate taxes were incredibly high compared to other mature developed nations. America was very near the top of that list of nations with already high corporate taxes. Somehow over the last 100 years and our countries ability to forget the fate and facts that have befallen many a socialist governments across the planet, it makes no sense in any shape or form to grow a form of government using a form of taxation that only 100 years ago was considered unconstitutional by our legal system as well as Congress itself.
5. Obama talks a lot about getting out of Iraq. And I hear many, many people talk about "warmongers" and contrast Obama with those war-mongers. The problem is that Obama hasn't kept his plans and promises on any front of the Iraq war yet, and he is already talking about moving troops to other regions of the world. Obama is using the momentum of anger around Iraq to simply split hairs between him and McCain. Fundamentally Obama's plan now looks each day more and more like McCains plan. If you were to draw a diagram plotting Obama on the far left side of the "Iraq plan" and McCain on the far right side, what you would see is Obama progressively looking more and more like McCain every day.
   

In conclusion, in almost all of his plans outside of the plans that are traditionally held Democrat perspectives, Obama has shifted toward McCain along a diagrammatic scale and typically in response to either something McCain has said (as if Obama is learning how to be presidential from McCain while on the campaign trail) or due to some new revelation about some person in his life or campaign that is revealed as problematic or un-American (examples are: Robert Malley who has terrorist ties in the middle east, Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin who helps architect the deregulation of wall street, his pastor of 20 years and "spiritual mentor" Dr. Wright who has given awards to Farrakhan, Illinois slumlord Tony Rezko in prison for his real estate scandals and who helps Obama buy his personal home, Vallerie Jarret who is another Slumlord in Illinois and a part of Obama's campaign, Mr. Raines who was sought for advice by the Obama campaign and who is an ex-Fannie Mae CEO who was successfully sued for millions for financial fraud.

Again, I agree we need change. So, why not vote for McCain who has an actual track record of pursuing change regardless of what hot water he find himself in inside his own political party? Why not vote for McCain who has a 20+ year record of not pursuing pork-barrel spending (something Obama has only just recently decided he would be about for a few months after 4 years and nearly $1 billion in pork-barrel spending alone!) Imagine Palin presiding over Congress (despite what Biden says about the role of the Vice President, the Constitution says that the Vice President is the "President of the Senate": http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm) Understand that Palin led her state into a momentum of change toward responsible spending and governance. Within the scope of Congress I have no doubt that she would lead our Congress toward the right spirit of change and into a fiscally responsible direction (more than anyone else.) Palin has proven experience and undeniable success in this area of governance and would be poised and emplowered by the Constitution to lead all 535 people in the U.S. Congress.

Example of Rhetoric Versus Evidence

In my heart I really don't think that people get the difference between rhetoric and evidence. Let me show an example.

I am having a conversation today with a Democrat that is personally involved in politics (and has been for a long time.) He is throwing around a lot of conclusions and when I ask him for some evidence so we can consider that evidence with him he replies...

"The reason we cannot vote for McCain is because it was their de-regulation in Congress that is making main street poorer and making Bush Republicans richer and we MUST NOT ALLOW THAT ANYMORE!"

He looks around the room with a smile, eyes chasing for support of this statement. I replied, "Well, that is a conclusion, but isn't evidence. It makes an assumption of evidence but it doesn't contain anything but a conclusion and an assumption. For example, evidence does tell us that the deregulation of wall street with regard to the mortgage crisis started with President Carter in a federal mandate to the banking industry to make mortgages more affordable. It was under the administration of Clinton that wall street was de-regulated so that banks could sell the interest from mortgage loans as if they were stocks, and it was a lack of voting for the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act co-authored by McCain that kept us in harms way since 2003. Those are published facts. Maybe there are more facts to be considered, but those are facts. From those facts we should be able to conclude that it isn't the fault of "Bush Republicans." Here are some additional facts. Under Clinton, guys like Rubin, Summers (co-authors of the deregulation) and Fannie Mae executive Reines have profited from that same deregulation. So clearly "Bush Republicans" weren't the only people getting richer. In fact Fannie Mae's second largest recipient of campaign contributions is Barack Obama, and Obama has in one way or the other asked for help or retained the help of these Democrats who de-regulated wall street, which means that Obama is interested in seeking the council of the architects of the deregulation and profiteering of wall street and the mortgage situation on main street. How does this support your view?"

All of this said, people are not willing to review or even tollerate the facts. They seem to rather want to fill their pockets with the rhetoric of generalized stereotypical blame that says that Republicans are bad for various reasons. It is evident to me that if Obama were to become president that this level of introspection (or lack thereof) would likely continue and blameshifting through stereotypes would continue. I would give anything for someone to review the facts as a Democrat and explain how their paradigm fits in with this history (either minimize it in a reasonable manner or produce facts that bring a more whole perspective.) Instead I am left hopeless, imagining that they would rather simply not really care about this stuff and ride their horse to the whitehouse in November.

To me, this sticking your head in the stand to a degree is starting to feel pretty un-American. Other folks I have worked with have brought up stuff they have heard about McCain or Palin and we are able to talk about their strengths and weaknesses (we did do that for a very long time where I work.) I am starting to feel like Obama folks would rather just vote him into office rather than look at the details. I would rather be brought evidence from Democrats and then we would all be forced to consider a more complete perspective rather than just reduce this whole thing to something less than reasonable.

Obama avoids making judgments or makes poor ones

(UPDATE: I have updated this blog post to included links to sources on most of this critical voter information, to help you with your political research.)

In the first presidential debate, Obama accused McCain of making poor judgments about Iraq, saying that he made the right ones. Unfortunately he is leaving out a few facts.

When Obama made statements about iraq in 2002, he wasn't in Congress... he was in Illinois. he also made those statements in a speech to unquestionably the most liberal audience / district in his campaigning area, hence nothing other than a liberal message could have been well received. how do we know this Obama judgement on Iraq is pandering? Well, mostly because in 2004 he told the ChicagoTribune that "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." and in 2006 he said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices." What does this mean? It means that he is at best shooting from the hip, pandering, and then being revisionistic when momentum and new information benefits him.

So what of his other judgements? Let's take a look at his time as an Illinois State Senator.

Is Obama a brave soul that sticks to his position on the tough issues? Well, we know when we look at his constantly shifting positions on Middle East issues that he has a hard time knowing what we as a nation really need to do. EVERYONE AGREES that we don't want to be at or in war. Obama just can't seem figure out if Hillary was too weak on the issue (he said her timeline was too long) or if he should adopt more of her "weak" perspective now that he is the Democrat nomination for President (his plan now look more like hers than his.) He can't figure out if McCain is a warmonger who doesn't know how to do diplomacy, or if he is the warmonger who doesn't know how to do diplomacy rather than drop bombs (to chase terrorists) on Pakistan without their support.

Maybe we should break it down to something more simple. What if Obama is trying to look tough on crime, but doesn't want to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults for fear of offending some consituents? What should he do? I can only tell you what he did. He did the same thing that the 110th “do nothing” Congress did about wall street... he didn't vote. In fact, when the vote came around he voted “present” communicating, “Hey, I am hear, but I am politically scared to vote, so I won't.” What was the bill really about: It was about prosecuting 15+ year old kids who committed a crime with a firearm on or near school grounds. If it was the right thing to do, why didn't he vote for it? Likewise, if it was right to vote against it, then why didn't he? We will never know because he didn't have the courage to be counted either way.

Don't even get me started on the fact that Obama has given a horrible list of excuses why Obama was continually unwilling to support a bill in Illinois that would require doctors to give life-saving medical services to babies that survive an abortion. Google that one yourself... it is actually pretty sad stuff. Worse yet, again, after making a bunch of excuses why he wouldn't vote for it, he wasn't actually convicted enough to vote (again.)

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesperson, said of Obama, “No politically motivated attacks in the 11th hour of a closely contested campaign can erase a record of leadership and courage.” I agree. It is too bad for Obama that he doesn't actually have a track record like that. In fact Obama proved that he didn't have the courage to vote 130 times as a state senator in Illinois alone!

But what about other types of judgements? Surely, with an undebatable significant lack of experience, he would at least surround himself with the right people (I hear this all of the time as an excuse to forgive his lack of experience)? Well, let's meet some friends of Obama.

First there is Robert Malley (his father was associated with Arafat and the PLO.) Robert himself has written a number of articles and made statements that put him squarely in a position of weakening the American support of Israel through revisionist propoganda during the Clinton days and since. Even Clinton disagreed with Robert Malley's perspective on Israel killing peace talks between Palestine and Israel. At one point Arafat called Clinton to tell him he was a great man (after a peace talk.) Clinton replied to Arafat, “No, I'm not. On this i am a failure, and you made me a failure.” So Robert's dad would be a horrible choice but is Robert himself a horrible choice with a fairly horrible bias in the wrong direction. I mean, Obama had selected this guy to be on his foreign policy team. THEN Robert Malley admitted to The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, a terrorist organization. He claimed that he does peace talk work with them, but if you read his track-record on treating Israel like a whipping-boy and look at the politics of his father, it is obvious that his Hamas connection is questionable at best. The news came out about Robert Malley and suddenly now Obama fires him. What kind of judgment and leadership is this?

Biden has taken campaign contributions from credit company MBNA, consulting pay from them and has gotten one of his kids a job with them after graduation all while a senator participating in working on bills that gave benefits to the company. In addition and directly related to the current issues on wall street Obama is the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. If all we were talking about was Fannie Mae we would see enough lies coming from Obama to call him a liar and “scary.” (1) Again, he is in second place for receiving the most campaign contributions from FanMae and FredMac, second only to another Democrat, (2) He's had four years of a voting majority in Congress to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and hasn't done anything. In fact, if this was so important to him, why didn't he push to get the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (bill co-sponsored by McCain) passed? Answer: because he is too busy letting the majority Democrats telling him how to vote (not a leader; he's a follower simply voting the Democrat party line), (3) his campaign DID INFACT pursue advice on mortgage and policy issues from Franklin Raines, the defunked CEO of Fannie Mae, who pulled down $90 million for five years of work at FanMae, later successfully sued for millions because he committed financial fraud to get bonuses. Now, all of this news hits the fan, the truth about Raines comes out, and Obama has once again bailed from the connection (seeing a pattern here? I think he imagines that if he gets exposed all he has to do is disassociated himself, and then we are supposed to forget his bad judgments.)

Consider that the deregulation of Wall street was architected in a large part by Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin, financial advisers in the Clinton administration, the deregulation signed by Clinton (let me say that again so it is clear - wall street was deregulated using a plan architected by and during the Clinton Democrat Administration.) So the big issue that Obama has with deregulation of wall street ENDS UP BEING a Clinton era result... but wait, there's more!? Those same guys (Rubin and Summers) right now continue to be financial advisers for Obama... Hmmm? So is this whole wall street thing really a Republican thing by people like John McCain as said by Obama to McCain in the first Presidential debate? Come on. Lies and more rhetoric. More revisions Obama, really? I am geting a little tired of it (as you can imagine.)

His pastor had some harsh stuff to say earlier this year consisting of a completely un-American sermon asking God to damn America (that is no joke. The sermon was called for his congregation to ask "God (to) Damn America"). Keeping things real, Obama attended his church for 20 years and called him his “spiritual advisor.” During that 20 years his church published a magazine titled “Trumpet Newsmagazine” where they gave the Dr. Jeremiah A Wright Jr Trumpeter Award to a man they said “truely epitomized greatness,” Louis Farrakhan. What? FARRAKHAN!? Farrakhan is an anti-semite and is full of hate-speak!!! So, staying true to form, when all of this comes into the light, what does he do? Obama suddenly withdraws himself from his spiritual leader of 20 years. Now, I don't think for a minute that Obama likely agreed with everything that Dr. Wright has said, but it is amazing to me the list of people by which Obama seems to surround himself. Is this good judgment?

Who else does Obama hang out with. Let's talk about radical William Ayers who's group (led by him in the 1960s, Ayers' Weathermen) took credit for bombings at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol four decades ago. He, Obama, chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge co-founded by Ayers. Ah, but maybe that means he really doesn't know Ayers right? Wrong. Ayers threw him a “meet-the-candidate” party IN HIS HOME when he first ran for a political seat in the mid 1990s. Don't kid yourself. They are connected.

Let's make the count so far: Pandering over Iraq, dodging his senatorial responsibility to vote because the issues were tough (how presidential is that?), associated with some of the more scandelous part of the deregulation of wall street, selected someone connected with the Hamas terrorist organization to be a part of his campaign, personal friend to an American terrorist that bombed the U.S. Capitol. This should be enough for a reasonable person to say, "Who is this guy?" and some of you should be asking yourselves, "Why am I thinking of voting for this guy?" Maybe at this point you are still thinking that Obama himself is not corrupt or given to using his political authority in corrupt ways with personal relationships that affect the average mainstreet person in a negative way? Keep reading.

What about the current bailout plan in D.C? I think people are upset that this is happening, but feel like something needed to be done. At the same time there is a lot of talk about how that money might go to people on wall street and not help people on mainstreet. Obama banged on this drum, right? In fact Obama said it reminds him of the S&L bailout in the 1980s and claimed, “our economy went into a recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?” How insightful of Obama. Typically I don't give him credit because I don't think he has much proven understanding or experience. In this case he does actually have some experience. Too bad it is on the wrong side (wait for it!) As a State Senator in Springfield, Illinois, he used his elected office and clout to help unscrupulous low-income slumlords like Tony Rezko get millions of dollars in state grants, that later turned into uninhabitable “projects.” When Obama was questioned about giving millions of tax dollars to these crooks who were claiming to solve housing issues on mainstreet, he said he believed in programs where public funds back private companies to develop housing.... what? Wait a minute? I thought privatization was evil according to Obama, and was going to fix this sort of thing? Worse yet, as president he is talking about building a fund that pushes more than half a billion tax payers dollars PER YEAR into the hands of guys like Tony Rezko who are going to continue to NOT build affordable (rather uninhabitable) housing for mainstreet. Wow, he doesn't know what he is doing, even after he does it!? How do I know this?

How do I know he hasn't learned anything from this? Well, because Valerie Jarrett the previous chief executive of Habitat Company (the group that managed Grove Parc, the worst of these uninhabitable housing “projects”) is a senior adviser to Obama and a part of his Finance committee. He wasn't kidding when he told the country that his lack of experience didn't matter. It appears that a lack of experience or even the wrong kind of experiences still seem to make for good qualifications to join his campaign in high seated places.

What about Allison Davis, fund raiser for Obama and a lead partner at his lawfirm in Illinois? Well, ends up she is not just a lawyer, she is a real estate developer as well, and was not only involved with Grove Parc but is the recipient of more Government money to rehabilitate her slumlord property where the plumbing was in such disrepair that raw human feces sludged it's way into her uninhabitable "mainstreet" apartments.

Who is Tony Rezko really, you ask? He is one of those other fundraisers for Obama. You see he knows people who like what Obama has to say (and are likely waiting to receive part of that cool half a billion a year grant for housing once he is elected) and so he raises money to get and keep him elected. Rezko has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama, and that money comes from guys like Cecil Butler, who controlled Lawndale Restoration, unquestionably one of THE largest government subsidized slumlord in Chicago. With no surprise the government (reminder: Obama = Illinois Government) had to eventually seize Lawndale Restoration when city inspectors found around 2000 code violations on his property. So pay these guys to build this crap, then take their campaign contributions, and then the taxpayers have to pay to seize the housing once it is uninhabitable. Nice Obama! Wow!

But don't forget about that darn Tony Rezko! I wonder what Tony would say about his connection to such slimy folks who were ready and did provide campaign funds for Obama? Well, the only way of knowing would require you to call up the prison where he now resides and see if you can get him on the phone to find out. Better yet, I wonder what Obama would say of his relationship to Rezko? Well, you would have to call Obama up in the house that Tony sold him. Ouch!

Updated: Let me make one more connection for you. I have heard a lot of people talking about how Obamas law experiences someone how pushes him over the top in terms of having special qualifications. Upon further investigation, the lawfirm we were led to believe was all non-profit nearly philanthropic in the end simply specialized in getting real estate grant contracts from the government for people like Tony Rezko. Are you putting it together? If this were a movie, his firm would have been the slimball lawyers working for the slumlords that didn't have the mainstreet folks best interests at heart. It is amazing how in the face of these undeniable facts about corruption, that Obama comes away unscathed by the press. It might be one thing if he was out there trying to fix the messes of these people. Instead, he financed them, and they threw parties for him and gave him money! Enough is enough!

To read more about the validity of this Obama / Rezko fiacso read these:

• Rezko and Obama facts from Chicago Sun Times
• The whole scandal in the most complete write-up in the Boston Globe with a detailed breakdown showing all of the associations between Obama, his campaign and the continued connections to this fiasco.
  

Palin Record on Reform (an example)

In the case that you missed it, this article outlines Palin's efforts to inspire and enact reform on key issues in Alaska.

Wallstreet Journal reports on Palin and Oil Reform for Alaska

I have noticed that in interviews with Katie C. of CBS she is working hard to confound and confuse Federal political outsider Vice Presidential candidate, Governor Palin, by asking her to answer questions as if an insider on topics that no other candidate is being ask to bring answers to (compare the kinds of questions Katie brought to Gov. Palin and compare that question list with the questions and compliments Katie brought to her interview with Sen. Biden... oh wait, you didn't even know about that fluffy pup-piece interview with Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden?) There will obviously be downsides to employing federal outsiders, but between her experiences in achieving reform, working with industries and other political leaders, I would rather see this outside become VP and do what she says, rather than have a president that says one thing and does another (an unchasable ubber-list of flipflops and political reinventions of his own political agenda by shifty re-word-smithing of his goals.)

Side-note:

Recently, a few new friends confided in me that they considered McCain to be truthful about what he wanted to do for the nation, but they didn't like what he wants to do so they are not voting for him. On the flipside, they said that the more recent military / economic flipflopping of Obama was likely Obama just "pandering" to look "tough" and they believe he will go back and do what he said at the beginning, so they will vote for him. When I showed them some new facts that outlined Obamas involvement with receiving benefits and seek advice from folks who are under investigation and have been conficted of shifty dealings (not unlike Enron) with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I was told that they were "all politicians and all liar." When I asked if they thought the press was being biased when they were reporting badly on McCain but not reporting on shifty Obama facts, they replied that the sentiment in the country is very anti-Bush and so it is understandable that they would want to get people to vote on a candidate that doesn't like Bush.

On the first point, I think that I can respect the notion that people might not want to vote for McCain because they don't agree with him. I don't know why they don't agree with him, but if they don't like what he stands for, I can at least see their reasoning behind not wanting to support him. Seems pretty straight forward to me. What I don't understand is why McCain and Palin are getting sifted like sand and Obama and Biden get a pass, no matter the public opinion of President Bush. Anything less than even-handedness is bias, in my opinion. If they are suppressing the Obama / Biden stories by not reporting them then they are influencing through omission.

A perfect example of this would be two interviews that Katie Curric Recently did with (1) Senator Biden and later with (2) McCain and Palin.

Check this out: Video of Katie, McCain and Palin on the issue of the press non-contextually parsing and nitpicking over words, calling it "Gotcha Journalism".

Later CBS News published an article asking if "Gotcha Journalism" was just Republican candidates wanting a double-standard.

Now, check this out: Video of Katie and Biden talking about Biden not wanting to be held to the same standard of contextually parsing and nitpicking over his words ( same as Gotcha Journalism, but without calling it Gotcha Journalism.) (it starts about one minute into the interview)

No difference! Same issue! CBS had interviewed Biden a week before they interviewed McCain and Palin. Why didn't they object to what Biden suggested in the form of an article a week earlier?

The timeline goes like this:

1. Katie Couric interviews Biden who says people (Republicans) shouldn't nitpick his words. He claims that he isn't going to parse his words or censor himself. -9/21/2008
2. (No articles from CBS News claiming that this is a ploy for a double-standard.)
3. Katie Couric interviews McCain and Palin claiming that Palins statement about not letting Al Qaeda get a foothold in Pakistan is as much a military statement in poor diplomatic form as Obama saying that he would drop bombs on Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda with or without the support of Pakistan. McCain said in reply that you don't say stuff like that and that these soundbyte grabs where there are issues with non-contextual parsing of words is in fact a lower form of journalism he is calling "Gotcha Journalism." Note that Palin's words said nothing about doing such a thing with or without the support of Pakistan like what was said by Obama. - 9/29/2008
   
4. NOW CBS News suddenly calls this non-contextual nitpicking a plee for a double-standard by publishing an article accusing the McCain campaign of nitpicking over Senator Biden's claim that the Obama camp doesn't support "clean coal technology." - 9/29/2008
   

Obviously, outside of the issues, this non-contextual nitpicking needs to stop. If Biden was nitpicked on a policy statement in a non-contextual manner, then that is wrong. If Palin was, it was wrong too. Anything else is in fact CBS wielding the news with a double-standard. Consider the facts of the issue now. Which looks like nitpicking to you?

• Palin says she would definitely support cross-border attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan (CBS news leaves out that she said nothing about having or not having the support of Pakistan... this is called a lack of context, in my mind, and was in fact the very point McCain was making when he took exception with Obama's "with or without" the support of Pakistan statement.)
• Biden was questioned on video, asking if he supported clean coal technology and he said that they did not support clean coal technology (do we know the rest of that context? How is this non-contextual nitpicking?)

Final thought:

Even if I were to assume that Palin was making a naive statement about cross-border attacks on a country without the support of that country, the one common denominator between what she said and what Obama said is one thing: limited experience. At best, if the first were true, then the second is that much more true. The facts seem to be, however, it is a stretch to say that she said that. How do we know it is a stretch? Because even the CBS news article has to conceed that at best the similarity between what Palin said and what Obama said requires deduction, interpretation and inference stating that it was "implied."

Finally, during the coming Vice Presidential debate tonight I would like to hear what Palin and Biden think for themselves. I am less interested in what these candidates think of their running mates platform or more importantly what details they can recall on demand by the interviewer. What I would like to see happen is an honest set of questions about the key issues in America and what these candidates would personally want to see happen as a result of being elected. They were both just selected to be running mates and I expect them to be filled with personal opinions but possibly still working to find their place within the priorities of the inside view of their respective campaigns. In my opinion, this is why Biden said he didn't support "clean coal technology." He may not personally support it. My guess would be that he would be compatible with what Palin recently said about her views, that she is willing to share her views and perspective, even if that perspective ended up not being the goals of that administration. I think Biden will not agree with Obama on all points, but he will likely let Obamas goals run the administration be it elected in November. Having said that, I still want to hear what they think.

Obama in the middle of the Mortgage Scandal

It is becoming known, more and more, that the individuals who were largely responsible for the wallstreet deregulation plan / scandal under President Clinton, Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin, are a part of the economic advising group connected with the Obama campaign. In other words, these same folks are molding and shaping the Obama perspective on the economy. What the rest of us are also learning is that Obama has more of a connection to the fiasco that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama is Seeking the Advice of Fannie Mae Leadership Who are Involved in Mortgage and Financial Scandals?

The Washington Post did an interview with Franklin Raines, now in the press for receiving notoriously supersized-paychecks totally $90,000,000 for five years of work as the CEO of Fannie Mae. Raines claimed to have helped along the early days of the Obama campaign who went seeking his advice on “mortgage and policy matters.” Raines was one of three individuals providing leadership for Fannie Mae that are now involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.

In the details, the Associated Press reported that Raines, in an Enron-like scandal, and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered to pay nearly $31.4 million as the result of a civil lawsuit for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings so that they would receive additional pay bonuses (sound like Enron all over again?)

While is seems clear that Raines does not sit in a formal position in the Obama campaign, it is disconcerting to imagine that these are the types of people Obama advisors are reaching out to for advice. I thought it was a value of Obama to clean up such behavior in Washington, rather than reach out to it for advice?

Obama is the Second Highest Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac Recipient of Campaign Contributions?

It is no surprise then to imagine that Obama is found in the top 25 politicians to receive campaign contributions by these organizations. Of the top twenty five politicians to receive contributions, Obama ranks second from the top, behind only Christopher Dodd, the Democrat from the state of Connecticut. To be fair John McCain also received contributions. They totaled less than $21,000.

Republicans in Congress like John McCain tried to fix Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in 2005?

As evidenced by the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, Congressional House Republicans have made attempts to fix the problems with these organizations. The bill never even came up for vote in the Senate. There is plenty of speculation as to why it didn’t come up for vote, but there isn’t a lot of understanding as to why it did not happen. What is notable is that McCain, a co-author of the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act legislation in 2005 said at that time, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government-sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market…"

As fact-checking goes these historical revelations seem to upset the accusations of the Obama campaign to connect McCain with the deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It ends up that Obama has a greater conflict of interest and connection with this scandal than McCain. If you are still looking for change in America, it seems that McCain actually has a track record of seeking the kind of change that Obama talks about on one hand, but doesn’t seem to back up in the details of his Washington, DC dealings.

Bailout Shot Down BY EVERYONE

Well, not by everyone, but a majority shot the bill down. What I find surprising is the amount of spin it is getting in the press. The spin goes something like this:

"Republicans in the House of Representatives shot down the Bailout legislation causing the largest single drop on Wallstreet to date. Could this result in a modern economic depression?"

I do not want to devalue the many folks who's investments are in flux at this moment as a result, but it is just shoddy reporting to blame the Republicans. Let me explain why.

On Monday the bill was voted down in the House of Reps: True enough.
Republicans voted it down: quite true to a large degree.
Democrats voted for the bill but were squashed: Not quite true.

In the House, 133 Republicans voted against the bill, leaving 65 Republicans voting "for" the bill. That's nearly one third of all of the Republicans in the House voting "for" the bill, for the record.

At the same time, in the House, 140 Democrats voted"for" the bill, while (surprisingly we don't hear about THIS in the press) 95 voted against it. Again, more than a third of the House Democrats voted the bill DOWN.

Let's do the the math another way to keep things honest here. In the House the Democrats have 235 members. At the same time, right now there are 198 Republicans in the House. That means that Democrats comprise a bit more than half of the House. Now, I hear a rumor going around that says that to pass a Bill successfully through the House you need a 2/3rds majority. Let's imagine that this was true and so, if 65 Republicans voted for the Bill along with all of the available democrats (235) then you still only have 65% of the House, right? So that must be why the Bill was shot down. Those horrible Republicans!? Wait? Oh, it ends up you only need a majority. Wait? If the President was about to veto the Bill then you would need a 2/3rds majority to overrule the veto (now, that is where that 2/3rds rule comes into play.)

So let's consider the real facts as a result of this number crunching. Since it was Bush who presented this legislation his administration wouldn't likely fight it to hard. So he wasn't to blame... hmm? And since it only takes a simple majority to vote the bill through the House, since the Democrats comprise a solid majority (4% more than is required) that means that even if all of the Republicans simply refused to vote it shouldn't change the outcome, so they aren't to blame... hmm? In fact 36 Democrats could have voted against it, and the bill could have still passed... double-hmmm?

So who is left to blame then? Democrats anyone?

When Obama talked about Iraq in the first presidential debate he said that the real question is, "Why are we in Iraq to begin with?" Later when discussing the economy he blamed McCain for voting in favor of deregulation. So let's take a tact from Obama's playbook and ask a few similar questions.

Why is wallstreet in the position it is in, to begin with?

Well, Obama would have you believe that it is the fault of McCain. But the fact is that under the Clinton administration, financial advisors Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin architected the deregulation of Wallstreet.... under Clinton. Let's watch the timeline a little bit.

So Bush comes into office and four years later the Democrates take both the House and tied it up in the Senate. So, in Congress, the Democrats are sitting as the "king" of the proverbial "hill" and have for the past four years. How did this happen? The 110th Congressional Democrats ran an unprecidented campaign for "change" and overturned more seated Republicans to take the majority. Does a campaign for change sound familiar?

So what has happened in the last four years then? Each Congress (this is the 110th Congress of the U.S.) gets a nickname and this Congress has been called the "do nothing" Congress. Wow? Really? Campaign for change, then do nothing. Wait don't they have a majority? That is enough to push bills through, right? What happened? Who cares if Republicans all voted against their bills, how didn't they seem to get the job done? Remember, they aren't known as the "the republicans shot us down" Congress. They are the "do nothing" congress.

The 110th Congress has worked less than any Congress on record. Talk about Falling asleep at the wheel. So, then if that were true, wouldn't we be all upset about that? Well, we are. Polls show that the 110th Congress has the lowest approval rating in HISTORY. To compare it to another poll that gets a lot of press, for quite some time now, the 110th Congress has lower approval rating than President Bush. Ouch! So, should we really be blaming Republicans? Equally as important, is McCain to blame as Obama asserted?

To bring this full circle, do you know any of the names of Obama's financial economic advisors? Here are two named you might now know: Mr Summers and Mr. Rubin. So if we are pointing fingers, Mr. Obama, who is to blame again?

To be fair, Mr. Obama decided on Sunday that we shouldn't care about why we are in this situation right now, but just rather focus on fixing it. Interesting that on Friday he wants to blame McCain and when the truth comes out about Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin, the Clinton Administration and his desire to take the advice of these same folks, now we should suddenly stop pointing fingers.

The voting in Congress is all about getting this bill right. Nobody wants to make the situation worse, so I am in favor of making smart decisions about getting this right. The bottom line is that Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of deregulating congress and it is politics at its worse to simply blameshift. I am in favor of working to fix stuff, but I am not in favor of the obvious revisions to history Obama is trying to sell to the American people.

Keep it real. Don't be hoodwinked.

The Bridge to Nowhere: The Records of Obama and Palin on Earmarks

I have definitely been one to say that I am surprised there haven’t been more comments about the amount of inexperience that Barak Obama is personally bringing to his campaign. Compared to almost all other candidates, Republican or Democrat, Obama sits somewhere in the middle (just below Palin) in the “years of elected public service” category. Obama takes his non-elected service scenarios and adds them to his service record, but for that matter so could any candidate. It doesn’t bump his “service record” above Palin or anyone else. The upside of a politician not having a lot of experience is that there are less years to examine when it comes to trying to figure out their record of involvement.

Big on discussion boards is the topic of “The Bridge to Nowhere.” Here is some history for you on that project, so that you are getting a little more than spin. If someone mentions the Bridge to nowhere without knowing this info at the minimum, then they are simply riding the soundbite train like many other lemmings. Read on to get off the soundbite train.

You can judge if I am being biased or not by my perspective. Read on!

The Bridge to Nowhere project started many years ago. In fact some Alaskan state politicians have claimed to have been a part of trying to fund the bridge project for the better part of twenty years. Here is a quick overview of that story.

The island Ketchikan, has the second largest airport in southern Alaska. That part of the country only sees about $1 million in tourism dollars per years and the island itself has a population of around 50+ people with traffic of about 350,000 by ferry and 200,000 by the airport per year. The bottom line is that the island community has no chance of bolstering the local economy through the inconvenient location of the airport and tying the airport to the mainland via a bridge seemed like a good idea to increase the flow of tourism and business. The proposed bridge was to be taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, and nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge (I think a lot of people imagined a smaller bridge and tinier community, but that is neither here nor there.) From cruise ships to accommodating ships that drive through the “Alaskan Marine Highway,” this bridge would have to be tall beneath it to allow water-transportation to pass under.

Two political champions of the project were Alaskan senators Ted Stevens and Don Young. They felt it was important to pursue funding for this project on behalf of Alaska.

When Sarah Palin ran for governor in September 2006 she made remarks about supporting solving the transportation issues in that community and funding the bridge project.
Now, let’s take a step back. In 2005 Ted Stevens’ efforts to fund the bridge assisted by federal funds was nearly a reality. At about the time the bill was going to be enacted by Congress Katrina hit and the funds were reallocated from Alaska to aid recovery. So, no “bridge to nowhere.”

But wait… there is more. In October, during the election Sarah Palin was asked if she supported the continued state funded pursuit of the bridge(s). She said yes. She felt that there was good continued support in congress to send earmarked funds to Alaska in this specific infrastructure project.

Recall not too long ago bridges collapsing in Minnesota? This was a smaller bridge but it took the lives of people. I do recall people making an emphasis at that time about the importance of investing in America’s infrastructure. Again, neither here nor there. This isn’t about a transportation being a fundamentally bad need. This is about an expensive bridge partially federally funded being the wrong answer.

In December of 2006 Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska. She started her Governorship continuing to talk about turning Alaska toward a more fiscally responsible set of values and financial ideals by reforming spending. Everything in the budget was going to be examined and potentially revised to match a fiscally responsible set of values.

Since 2005 Congress, who had diverted bridge funds from Alaska to help in Katrina aid decided to provide those funds to Alaska... again. The state senators were happy but a smaller contingent of Congress (much led by Senator John McCain) continued to argue against earmark funding.

A few months later in 2007 Governor Palin, in keeping with her fiscally responsible agenda, stated that Alaska would be submitting a budget that would force the state to “live within their means” and reject the $185 million earmark for the bridge project. In July of 2007 she said that Alaska would find a “better way to reach the airport” and added that “a $398 million bridge is not the answer.” She didn’t say that the need for a transportation scenario like a bridge was a bad idea. She simply said that the plan for $398 million bridge project was the wrong answer. Like she later told the nation, if Alaska needs a bridge then they will find a way to build a bridge without Federal funds. (It is worth mentioning that at the same time Palin is turning down the $185 million earmark bridge budget, Obama is earmarking around $330 million for Illinois.)

Governor Sarah Palin within six month of coming into office rectified a nearly half a billion dollar expense. That isn’t the only cut she made to the state budget plans. Government officials across the state have noted that the state’s budget runs in a surplus and continues to make cuts that match the Governor’s fiscally responsible agenda.

As a result of the cuts, are Alaskans angry at Palin and see this as a political flip-flop? A typical result of “Angry Alaskans” should show up as a negative popularity poll, traditionally. Based on the press’ coverage of the topic, one might think her state would likely despise her. Surprisingly enough popularity polls show her to be the #1 most popular State Governor in the nation with a score of 90.

So, in summary, the need in their state isn’t bad or wrong. Under Sarah Palin it was determined that the bridge was simply the wrong answer to a relevant question inside her state. Federal funding given to states isn’t necessarily wrong either. I think that generally speaking Democrats and Republicans agree that the Federal Government plays a valid role in maintaining our transportation infrastructure. So, in my estimation the Democrats and the Republicans both had it right:

Dems: Sarah Palin did support the “bridge” (project.)

Reps: Sarah Palin acknowledges the need for solving the issue of transportation in that part of Alaska, previously known as the bridge to nowhere, but feels that the bridge was not the answer when it was time for her to set a budget as the elected Governor of Alaska.

Final note: So what of Earmarks? Both McCain and Obama don’t want them? What is that about?

Obama/McCain Earmarks Quick History:

McCain has never sought earmarks for Arizona, where he is the senior Senator for the state. He has been opposed to them from the beginning. That means he hasn’t asked for an earmark in his 26 years of Congressional service. Senator McCain calls this responsible.

Obama has petitioned for $860 million in earmarks over his total of four years as a junior Senator for the State of Illinois. Last year alone he sought more than $330 million in earmarks. Obama has joined McCain in not asking for earmarks for fiscal year 2009. Obama calls this “not asking” a moratorium. Why is he not asking? Obama said, “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project.” This isn’t too surprising coming from a junior senator with only four years under his belt.

I am not saying I don't agree. McCain himself said that if a project is worth investing in, it gets supported in a New York minute! I just think it is not at all suprising that the reason Obama gives for not supporting earmarks has to do with the fact that senators with less experience (him) don't get funded as often.

The smartest thing I have heard Senator Obama say in the last months was his desire to not put a timeframe to the war in the Middle East until he might be president and could review the situation from that vantage point with advice from on-the-ground leadership. This is what he has said. Obama is imagining how the view as President might affect his decision process. He has to imagine, because he doesn't have a parallel experience to draw from since State Senators are not empowered like that to make such decisions.

Governor Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she can make a tough decision to reverse years of poor investing to turn down millions of dollars as a result of having analyzed the situation from the vantage point of an empowered Governor. These aren’t words about change after years and nearly $1 billion of a track record in the wrong direction. She doesn't have to speculate or imagine. She has been there and made the tough decision. You don’t have to simply say something for it to be a lie. You can also just live the lie for years like Senator Obama.

Sounds Funny When It's True

I remember growing up in the south (well, Florida, and while that is geographically southern in the U.S. it isn’t considered the “south”) and when I moved to Minnesota in the seventh grade everybody talked funny. It was a goofy time because I remember listening to this kids that sounded like they had marbles in their mouths and they all thought I was the funny sounding one.

A few decades later and I sound like I have marbles in my mouth and I am listening to East Coast accents everyday (since I’ve moved to New Jersey.) People here sound like stereotypical “New Jersey” and “New Yorkers” while I am told I sound like I am from “Canada.” (What? Canada? Really?) In any case accent is a funny thing.

Nothing much has changed since I was a kid. Movies used to make the New York accent sound “tough” and the southern accent sound “ignorant” or “narrow minded.” Later, movies like Fargo made northern U.S. folks sound naïve at best. Accent just helps entertainers exaggerate a point in a super humorous manner (regardless of whether or not the stereotype is true.) I think I can say that from an observed perspective. Anyone who travels much at all knows that there are ignorant, narrow-minded, naïve folks all over this fine country, regardless of their accent.

Did you watch Saturday night live recently? The presentation of Governor Palin was a classic presentation of a stereotypical naïve beauty queen. Fundamentally it is the same treatment (funny stuff.) But then I read people say stuff like “Funny because it is true” and it gets me thinking. I still think the skit is actually very funny, but as a follow-up to a previous blog post I wrote on humor on Presidential candidates, it isn’t funny because it’s true. It is funny because it is familiar (the jokes are familiar.) Here is a funny set of facts that are actually funny because they are true.

On Palin credentials compared to other candidates during this election period:

First a review of Gov. Palin’s credentials: 4 years of town council experience, 6 years as mayor, 1 year on state regulatory commission, 2 years as governor.

On the Democrat side:

Obama: 8 years in the Illinois state senate, 2 years as a federal junior senator from Illinois.

Hillary Clinton: nearly 8 years in government elected positions.

Kathleen Sebelius: 8 years of experience in the state legislature, 8 years as state insurance commissioner, 6 years as governor of Kansas.

Mark Warner: seriously considered as a possible candidate for election before publically stating he didn’t want to be considered (he only served 4 years as governor of Virginia.)

Tim Kaine: served as a mayor in Virginia for 4 years and more recently as the governor of Virginia for 3 years.

On the Republican side:

Mit Romney: considered a viable choice for Presidential candidate as well as Vice Presidential candidate (served only 4 years as Governor of Massachusetts.)

The issue for me is that overall this is the election that will go down in history as the first set of candidates with the least Washington experience. Oddly enough, at the same time, some of the candidates have copious amounts of experience. McCain (Republican Presidential candidate with 26 years of government experience and 15 years of military experience) and Biden (Democrat Vice Presidential candidate at 34 years of government experience) are leading the pack.

To be specific McCain didn’t get into politics until 1981, while Biden has been in Washington since 1973 (McCain, at that time was finishing up a 15 year career in the military, after being released as a prisoner of war after 6 years in 1973.)

The funny but true part: Palin sits in the middle of the “group with not a lot of experience” list, and ahead of Obama in number of years serving in an elected government position, yet after many, many months of having had an opportunity to laugh at Obama for not having much experience, it is late-comer Palin who is the butt of the jokes. If SNL did a skit about Obama not having a lot of experience, would it suddenly not be funny or would the same folks say “funny because it’s true?”

SNL joked about her foreign relations experience amounting to “seeing Russia from (her) backyard.” More funny but true:

As Governor Sarah has been on the ground in Kuwait visiting troops (Alaskan National Guard troops to support her state.) http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-kuwait-gallery/

Governor Palin has visited troops in Germany (again, this is about supporting her state’s U.S. military citizens from Alaska.)

Governor Palin manages a large border state with Canada and so an element of our U.S./Canadian relationship.

As Commander in Chief for Alaskan National Guard troops, they train Mongolian troops each year (both PR as well as military experience for Palin.)

Alaska has the largest area of U.S. International waters to deal with (and all that this includes as a point of practical management and experience.)

As Governor she is responsible for the Missile Defense System that protects the U.S. from countries like North Korea.

As governor of a state with a critical oil pipeline that serves the country, she is responsible for the protection of that pipeline.

The funny but true part: Palin is the butt of jokes about not having foreign relations experience.

As governor, she deals with Canada, Mongolia as well as Japan with a number of State related issues. Again, we are not simply talking about “visiting troops” or “shaking hands with foreign dignitaries.” We are talking about real responsibility in addition to shaking hands. But yet where are the Obama jokes about his “extensive” foreign-relations experience? Nobody is questioning McCains foreign-relations experience… then again McCain is running for President not Vice President. Would this joke remain funny if SNL made fun of Obama’s experience?

There are other funny moments that make all of us laugh in the SNL skit (amongst other SNL political skits.) And I continue to think they are funny… well, because stereotypes are funny. But not so much because they are true but because they help us not take ourselves too seriously. I am not sure, though, that people are saying these jokes are “funny but true” for such reasons.

I will never understand why Palin who seems to get talked about for issues like (1) having religious beliefs, or (2) not having enough experience, but at the same time Obama is getting a pass on (1) having religious beliefs, or (2) not having enough experience.

I will end with a joke.

Two candidates are running for office. One candidate says, “Hey, they tell me I don’t have enough experience and you have about the same level of experience I do! What gives?” The other candidate says, “Yeah, well, you see I have the right kind of "not enough experience" while the problem is that you have the wrong kind of not enough experience!”

Funny because it’s true.