Obama IS My President!!!
Finally, an end to the madness! Eight years of insanity have finally ended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buy me coffee! Sphere: Related ContentWords From Justin M. Kolenc…
Sailor turned writer.Archive for General
The Truth
Have you ever noticed that people really dislike being told the truth? It gets worse when the person doing the telling is more intelligent than the person doing the listening. For some reason the sounds of what should be heard as the pristine reality—almost holy even—tend to fall upon the ears of the intellectually challenged like a cacophony of wild animals all trying to speak English for the first time, and all at once.
“Gee, that doesn’t seem to make any sense to me, so it must be a lie.”
Come on people, get your heads out of your asses. When someone tells you something you don’t like to hear, consider for just a moment that the possibility exists that they are smarter than you! It doesn’t have to come down to you removing your helmet and taking a knee on the battlefield, either. Do some of your own research. Try to figure out where they were coming from. The worst thing you could do to yourself is to assume that they are wrong, or even foolish, based on the fact that they sounded knowledgeable.
Only a fool condemns his dictionary.
JMK
Buy me coffee! Sphere: Related ContentThe McCain Economic Plan
I’ve decided to conduct an independent study of the economic plans maintained by our two mainstream Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. I came to this decision after enduring much consternation this election season regarding people who talk about these policies as if they have themselves authored the plans, despite the fact that most of what they say tends to seem very misinformed. There are people out there, and far too many I might add, who are planning to vote for a particular political camp based on their own, poor interpretations of the economic plans that McCain and Obama have put forth.
Here then is my careful analysis of each plan. The information and quotes that you will find here have come directly from the official campaign website of the relevant candidate. I will not be quoting any third party sources, nor will I be adhering to any third party analysis. The point of this exercise is to get an unfiltered look at each plan in order to better inform. As such, I will not be taking any third party shortcuts. Today we will begin with the John McCain economic plan.
The McCain website (JohnMcCain.com) immediately establishes that their economic plan covers eight major economic areas:
- Workplace Flexibility
- Relief for Families
- Government Reform
- Supporting Small Business
- Cheap and Clean Energy
- Better Health Care
- Simpler and Fairer Taxes
- Lower Barriers to Trade
Prominently placed on the front page of the McCain economy plan, in addition to the eight major areas, is the list of economic advisors who endorse McCain’s economic strategies. An aesthetic little banner scrolls through a list of names and credentials, though there is no indication of who supports what, exactly. This may be intended to imply that each of those on the list supports every facet of the McCain plan, though this seems unlikely. We’ll begin with Workplace Flexibility.
“John McCain understands that today’s changing economy is making it harder for parents to balance the demands of family life and their jobs. He believes that strong families require that parents be involved in the lives of their children. Flexible work arrangements can help families strike the right balance.”
This page opens with two examples of previous workplace flexibility related legislation that John McCain claims to have been involved with, including the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (incorrectly titled on the McCain website as “Family Medical Leave Act of 1993″), and the Family Friendly Workplace Act.
While McCain’s vote for “Yea” on the former can be found in the United States Senate Roll Call Vote record (103rd Congress), McCain’s name is strangely absent from H.R. 6025 (110th Congress). In fact, even amongst several lists of amended co-sponsors to the bill, his name appears nowhere. Odd that he claims to be a co-sponsor when the congressional record seems not to support the allegation. This could be a typo or perhaps the congressional record is out of date, but it does warrant a mention.
The McCain workplace flexibility page goes on to explain that McCain supports portable health care benefits along with worker driven training incentives in order to allow for upward mobility within the middle and lower classes. The language does seem to paint a positive image of the McCain workplace, at least for motivated employees who intend to better themselves and further their careers. The requirement does not seem unreasonable to this analyst.
McCain would create a National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice:
“…This Commission would bring together a bi-partisan set of leaders representing workers, small and large employers, labor, and academics. The Commission would make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs.”
It seems odd that the candidate whose platform is based squarely around smaller government and fiscal responsibility should want to create a commission with such a narrow focus, and right out of the box no less. It almost seems to be an unnecessary growth in government rather than a reduction. And to be totally honest, as a member of the working class I have to say that I feel there are far more important economic issues facing our nation right now. I’ve never had any real trouble with getting days off when I have needed them. This is probably because I don’t abuse my sick days or call out for clearly arbitrary reasons.
According to the McCain website, the commission would focus on the following issues:
- Modernizing the nation’s labor laws so that they allow for more flexible scheduling arrangements
- Ensuring that the nation’s labor laws don’t get in the way of working at home
- Promoting telework so that workers can spend less time commuting
- Making health more portable so that workers don’t lose their benefits when they switch jobs
- Ensuring that workers can choose retirement plans that best suit their needs
- Providing workers with more choice in job training assistance so that they can build the skills they need for new and better jobs
“John McCain will help Americans hurting from high gasoline and food costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.“
McCain’s method for reducing gas prices, according to his website, is to strengthen the dollar and give warning to foreign oil producers that our national plan includes oil independence. He professes that these two items, when used in tandem, will simultaneously bring the price of gasoline down. But realistically, “strengthening the dollar” is not something that can just be done at the push of a button. There are factors in that equation that exist independently of U.S. policy, no matter how well written or how widely supported that policy may be.
Even if McCain had some kind of an “ace in the hole,” able to bring immediate strength to the dollar, the impact would not specifically be on gasoline but would actually include many other commodities. To say that this is a means of reducing the price of gasoline is to make a blanket accreditation. It’s like claiming that by spending less of your money you will become more wealthy. Of course one affects the other, because it actually affects every part of the equation. It’s also much easier said than done.
McCain would support a “gas tax holiday” from Memorial Day to Labor Day. According to the figures posted on his website, this would alleviate $6.8 Billion of tax burden from the American worker. What the site does not mention is how it intends to make up the resulting $6.8 Billion gap in the U.S. budget. With two wars that are shaping up to be the most expensive armed conflicts ever in terms of dollars spent, it seems fiscally irresponsible to offer a gas tax holiday that would create such a huge gap in our budget while simultaneously giving out tax breaks to the oil companies. That money has to come from somewhere, obviously, and it certainly won’t come from reducing taxes or creating $7 Billion tax holidays.
McCain also claims to support the repeal of a $.54-per-gallon tax on imported ethanol. He mentions no means by which to support the American farmers who have reluctantly made the switch to ethanol markets for their corn harvests. They will likely be unable to compete with an untaxed foreign source of ethanol and will find themselves in the position of having changed their business model only to find that they can’t compete with foreign suppliers.
If you think that ethanol is a non-player in our economy, that is to say that if you don’t believe that by cutting off support for American producers of the corn-based hybrid fuel we will experience any ripples in our markets, just consider the recent moves made by General Motors toward their line of FlexFuel vehicles. They now offer 11 models that are E85 ethanol capable. To walk away from ethanol altogether at this point would have a negative impact on American farmers and industry alike.
For homeowners McCain has what he calls his “HOME Plan:”
“Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home’s market value. “
This is an interesting claim, though the language of “deserving American family or homeowner” worries me some. Who will be making the assessment of what “deserving” means in any given context? McCain also states that he would prevent 200,000 to 400,000 Americans from losing their homes by adopting elements of a proposition being floated by Democrats.
“…at the same time, McCain is calling for aggressive federal action to help keep 200,000 to 400,000 families from losing their homes. That plan has many of the elements of a proposal by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn...”
Think carefully about the math there. “200,000 to 400,000″ is the same as stating, “200,000 plus or minus 200,000.” That’s not a margin of error, that’s a non-claim. If you are comforted by a statement like that then let me assure you that I too can be of assistance to you and yours. I will gladly give you $1,000,000…give or take $1 Million. See my point?
Plus, according to the McCain website, he would put the burden of distributing applications for the HOME Plan program upon the U.S. Postal Service. Cross-tapping of government agencies is not an efficient way of running a bureaucracy. You can’t save one agency money by charging items to another. This doesn’t offset costs, it merely shifts them around.
Finally, McCain makes a very brief reference to assisting college students who face the potential of evaporating loan opportunities as a result of the present trend in the American banking community toward seeking government bailouts. McCain claims not to support bailouts for financial industry businesses that might fail as a result of improper credit risk assessment, yet he closes out this page by saying that he intends to “expand the lender-of-last-resort capabilities for each state’s guarantee agency.” In other words, he wants to federally subsidize loans for companies that offer them to risky borrowers, a policy stance that he claims to be against as I have already pointed out.
“John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term. The near-term path to balance is built on three principles:
- Reasonable economic growth...
- Comprehensive spending controls...
- Bi-partisanship in budget efforts…“
It is no surprise to hear that a Presidential candidate would like to balance the budget. But, much like “strengthening the dollar,” it is a claim that is far easier to make than to make good on. The first bulleted point on this McCain campaign page seems like a no-brainer, “…historically the greatest success in reducing deficits (late 1980s; late 1990s) took place in the context of economic growth.” How profound; we paid off more debt more often when we’ve had more money. What a massive realization!
McCain’s next statement is perhaps the most frightening for Lower and Middle Class Americans yet:
“In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.“
Sure, turning our backs on senior citizens in their retirement and denying the poor critical medical assistance is a guaranteed way of reducing expenditures. It’s also a surefire way to go to hell if you subscribe to traditional Christian values. If you do not count yourself as a Christian, as I myself am somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist, it is at least a questionable way to show voting Americans that you stand behind them.
If you look at the McCain website, you’ll notice the lack of any alluding toward where Americans will turn for sustenance in their retirement, or when they are gravely ill but too poor to pay a doctor. Then again, back on the “Workforce Flexibility” page McCain did make mention of allowing seniors to work until later in their lives. Perhaps he plans to do away with Social Security by simply not allowing us to retire?
McCain would also show deference to “Small Businesses” by “…minimizing expensive mandates - such as those for health insurance and pro-union initiatives like card check.” Yet another head scratcher in the McCain economic plan. He states that he wants to increase workplace flexibility, partially through making health care benefits more “portable,” but he concurrently supports eliminating the need for small businesses to provide health care to their employees. Sure, no health care is more portable than any health care. But is that really a solution that we want to explore?
McCain goes on to state that he will provide incentives for corporations to keep good jobs in America as well as deterrence to corporations who would otherwise export their labor needs. He says that he will do so by providing tax incentives to corporations who employ Americans, by encouraging corporations to invest in technology, and by balancing the budget. I’ve already pointed out that the third item in this group is not something that anyone can claim to have direct control over.
As for the first item in that group, I personally believe that tax incentives have proven wholly ineffective at reigning in big business. In fact, more often than not such fiscal experimentation leads to creative energies being put toward tax avoidance rather than toward labor market improvement. And as for the second, and only remaining item in that group, I would first state a question. Has investment in technology improved the labor picture or worsened it? If you consider automotive manufacturing, it has clearly cut jobs by the thousands. Conversely, it does create a few tech sector jobs, but the number of jobs lost is never equal to the number of jobs created. This is not to say that our nation would benefit from avoiding technology, only that by embracing technology we do not aid our labor markets.
In terms of government spending controls, McCain begins with what seems to this analyst as a very strange statement that seems to be made in detachment from reality:
“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.“
Two questions; 1) What victory?, and 2) What savings? Honestly now, is Senator McCain suggesting that we’ve been profiting from this war and therefore we’ve somehow been able to create a savings from that profit? Because that certainly doesn’t seem to be the tone of the headlines that I’ve been reading:
- Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion (MSNBC)
- Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark (NY Times)
- The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More (Washington Post)
And the list goes on, and on, and on. I’ve chosen to list only the first three to pop up in the Google search results for the purpose of brevity. But the simple fact remains that the cost of current U.S. policy is no secret. The payout, however, certainly seems to be.
The McCain website then provides an answer to one of my above questions, “What savings?”:
“A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction.”
Read that as absolutely anything that isn’t directly related to the business of war will phase out of existence for at least one year, assuming that the McCain administration wouldn’t then find it decidedly convenient to continue such a policy. Folks, that means health care, that means education, that means Homeland Defense. This essentially means that—for the term of no less than one year—your government will not be there to serve you, unless you consider furthering the depletion of our already nonexistent funds (hence the deficit) through the continuation of one very nearly failed war with Iraq and one wholly ambiguous War on Terror.
Both of those wars are inflating the national deficit exponentially. Neither has provided an immediate, tangible benefit to the American people. If Americans are concerned about their safety at home, they should encourage their representatives to fund the department of their government that is actually charged with providing that safety—and people, that just is not the Department of Defense, somewhat ironically. Onus for providing national security actually falls upon the Department of Homeland Security. If the goal is to defend our nation, why open our coffers to the aggressive, occupational department of our government rather than fund the defensive and protective department? This just simply does not make sense. But it’s standard procedure, and so Americans often just go along.
McCain then mentions the importance of bi-partisan cooperation when addressing the economic factors facing this nation. This may be because so much of McCain’s fiscal policy tends to borrow from concurrent efforts being made by Democrats. It’s almost as if the Senator from Arizona has chosen to “upgrade” Democratic policy as opposed to floating his own.
One policy that appears to be truly germane to a potential McCain administration:
“McCain could use the bi-partisan commission structure used for the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). Such a commission could be required to report to the President who would then submit the recommendations to the Congress for a straight up or down vote. “
For those who don’t know, the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) was responsible for the closure of a slew of military bases and installations around the globe. Now, I am not arguing that reigning in military spending is a bad idea. But certainly if John McCain wants to make the case that America is in the position of needing a strong military, then why is he suggesting on his campaign website that we should close down more bases and further restrict our global military operations? Again, it makes no sense.
Having served in the Navy myself, I can tell you that the BRAC agenda was one of the most reviled by members of the armed services. I can recall countless “old timers” complaining about the effect that BRAC “realignments” (the term was almost always accompanied by the speaker pantomiming quotation marks) had on the nation. The effects weren’t limited to military strength and agility either, though those are two major problems that result from BRAC base closures. The local economies that surround a closed military base are often decimated by the sudden withdrawal of millions upon millions of government dollars from their incomes and tax revenues in the form of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines spending their hard earned checks “out in town.” Take that away from an otherwise small town, and watch the bankruptcies begin to roll in with the tide.
There is a good bit of what comes across as fluff text filling up the next few screen fulls of this page. McCain makes the typical political claims that he aims to reduce corruption, enhance accountability, serve with indifference to party or creed, and so on. These are conversations that any politician would have well rehearsed and ready to go at the drop of a hat. Then he returns, albeit briefly, to Social Security.
McCain apparently supports private retirement accounts as a supplement to, but not as a replacement for government entitlements. But he has also already indicated that Social Security is one of three major areas of government spending that he intends to eliminate. He talks here about reform, but he does not reassure the voter that he will not simply make Social Security go away.
Finally, he states that he will do what amount to good things for health care, but he excludes any mention of what exactly those good things might be. Of course, being that Medicare and Medicaid are the other two items on that list of government programs to be phased out by McCain, one is left to wonder what McCain’s idea of a good thing really might be. It also leaves them asking the question, “Good for who?”
Here the McCain website seems to wander a little. There was more mention of policies that might support small businesses on the Government Reform page than I found in the opening paragraphs of the Small Business page. The page begins with a short word about reducing energy costs. There is mention of new construction for tens of new Nuclear generation sites as well as investment in clean coal technology. How this is supposed to relate to the small business is not exactly clear.
The Small Business page continues with a short word on Health Care. Once again the McCain campaign paints the corporate “burden” of providing health care to employees as a problem with the economy. But I ask, how much larger will the burden then be on the American Hospitals who provide health care to an increasing number of uninsured? Do we “save” the small business by sticking it to the Health Care industry? Health care is one of the fastest growing industries in the country right now. Why in the world would we put a stop to that growth—which provides high wages in skilled and rewarding professions—just to reduce the ability of the American workforce to pay for the care that those new jobs were created to provide? This doesn’t seem to be an overtly wise approach to Health Care in my analysis.
Roughly midway through the Small business page, the conversation returns to Small Business. Arguments are again made for reducing corporate taxes and encouraging R&D and technology investments. While technology is a wonderful thing that often brings high paying jobs for highly skilled workers, it doesn’t often bring the “highly skilled workers” along with it. If McCain won’t be supporting lenders who provide tuition assistance to American college students—arguably the riskiest demographic to lend to—how exactly are Lower and Middle Class Americans supposed to get qualified for all those wonderful new jobs?
McCain closes out the Small Business page by stating that the creation of new markets abroad is vital factor in the success of our economy. He then contradicts a previous policy stance that claims to shunt the idea of exporting labor. Here he claims that allowing American corporations to export goods and services will have a positive effect on our economy. But earlier in his economic strategy he claimed that he is interested in, “Enhancing international competitiveness to keep jobs here; not abroad.” Well Senator McCain, which is it?
Here the McCain campaign seems to find some coherency, and if not that perhaps at least a hint of clarity. This page opens with some background and policy plans for three major areas of energy reform:
- Nuclear Power
- Coal
- Renewables
McCain intends to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, though the fact that his term in office faces a maximum expiration date of December 2016 seems to be an item for consideration when examining this intent. Ultimately McCain sees American building 100 new nuclear plants.
“A rough estimate is that 45 new nuclear power plants will create roughly 700,000 jobs - jobs in construction, engineering, operation and maintenance.”
Notice though that two of the four categories of these “new jobs” are temporary. They only include the designing and building phases which means that once the projects are completed, those jobs go away. Only the other two categories of operation and maintenance would create long-term employment opportunities, and then only to those elusive “highly skilled workers” that I have already mentioned.
When it comes to coal McCain intends to, “commit $2 Billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies.” This is an admirable plan; it would be more admirable though to promise that those $2 Billion would come directly from a Department of Defense spending reduction. Such promises are not likely to come. McCain also mentions that he would like to enhance the coal production capabilities of our nation in order to allow for larger export of our coal to nations like China who have the infrastructure to consume the coal. No mention is made regarding the environmental impacts of allowing an unregulated nation such as China to see such growth in their consumption of unclean technologies for power generation.
The area where McCain seems to have it right is in his affirmation that renewables are of growing importance in the larger energy picture of this nation. He states that permanent tax credits for the booming solar and wind power industries will enable the gradual shepherding of the fledging industries into a commercially viable market. He does not, however, say what those credits would be or what one would have to do in order to qualify for the credit. Such ambiguities are not often fertile grounds for political support.
Some very moving words are then said about domestic oil and gas production. If the claims made by the McCain camp on this issue are true, then we are certainly losing much American wealth by exporting oil and gas production overseas. This much I agree with. But the numbers can be deceiving. McCain points out that:
“Estimates from the Minerals Management Service indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.“
Here are the numbers they don’t offer you:
Average number of barrels of oil pumped daily by OPEC nations: 31.9 million.
Number of months required for OPEC nations to pump the entirety of the 18 billion barrels available for production domestically within the U.S.: 18.
A drop in the bucket, for sure. What happens to all of those new jobs when we’ve tapped our domestic resources, in under two years, and there simply is no more oil to pump here at home? Unless concurrent investments in renewables are able to completely offset the American market for fossil fuels, a major economic crisis will loom on the horizon. I hate to sound so ominous, but the fact is that domestic drilling really is a stop-gap measure at best. To base a nation’s entire energy policy around a two-year, temporary fix is like playing Russian Roulette with America’s economic and energy futures.
Next on the Cheap and Clean Energy page, McCain suggests some fiscal incentives for companies who play an active role in the transformation of America transportation. But the figures he has posted are laughable, even when compared to his $2 Billion in planned funding for the development of the notoriously dirty use of coal for power. He would offer $600 Million in what he actually calls “prizes” to a company who improves battery technologies for electric vehicles. A $300 Million prize would go to a company who improves battery and gasoline efficiency in hybrid vehicles. It almost seems that his sincerity for supporting renewables is less than candid.
McCain continues to discuss transportation reform and suggests that through more efficient energy consumption we can reduce the need for energy production. He cites high-efficiency light bulbs for American homes and the “greening” of our federal government as priorities.
This page is perhaps the least impressive of the entire McCain economic plan. The majority of the ideas on this page are presented in an incredibly brief list of buzzwords where each idea is described in less than a paragraph. Though the list does outline some concepts that the McCain campaign wants us all to know that they feel are important, there is almost no depiction of how they would bring a resolution for any of these concepts to fruition. In fact, this page comes off sounding more like a list of wishes than a plan for action.
The list of McCain’s health care buzzwords is as follows:
- Cheaper Drugs: Low cost medication is desirable.
- Chronic Disease: Chronic disease is undesirable and expensive.
- Coordinated Care: Having multiple caregivers is preferential.
- Greater Access and Convenience: More is better, and quicker.
- Information Technology: Technology improves safety.
- Medicaid and Medicare: Reform is needed to avert fraud.
- Smoking: Cessation is desirable.
- Tort Reform: Rampant suing of medical caregivers is a burden.
- Transparency: Secrecy and complexity are undesirable.
I am really disappointed by the massive lack of any sort of suggestion relating to how any of these issues will actually be addressed from a policy standpoint. The list does, however, fill up an entire page or more with what seem to be well thought health care catch phrases. Still though, considering the fact that there is an entire section of the McCain website dedicated to health care, one is left wondering if this page was seen as fluff material by the web design team.
Following the list are three paragraphs that deal with reform and the promulgation of portability and lower prices within the health care system. As with the list above them though, these issues are broached but never quite addressed from a policy standpoint. Here McCain mentions that he would give a blanket tax credit out to all American families in the amount of $5,000 ($2500 for individuals), what it calls “cash towards insurance,” though it clarifies by mentioning that the money would actually go straight to the insurer and not ever into the hands of the taxpayers themselves. This seems more to me like a health care industry subsidy than it does a tax credit for the American worker.
This page follows the example set by the previous page on health care in that no one item seems to have warranted more than a single paragraph of discussion. The very first item on the page relates to maintaining low taxes. “John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. ” You’ll notice that the McCain camp have taken care not to mention middle or lower class tax changes here.
This seems to be the single most common item of misunderstanding between the McCain and Obama followers that I have spoken with in person and, as such, is the primary reason behind my decision to write this analysis. The simple fact is that while McCain tiptoes around telling us that under his plan corporations see tax cuts of 10% and the rich keep their current tax rate, but the Lower and Middle classes will see tax hikes. One can at least take comfort in Obama’s tax hike floor, which has been openly declared at the $250,000 per year income level. This means that unless a family makes a quarter of a million dollars per year or more, they will not see their taxes go up.
In fact, under Obama’s plan an effort would be made to triple the Earned Income Credit—which, as a parent I can tell you for certain is the single most important fiscal policy that relates to me as a lower class income earner and a parent of two) . Obama would also move to reduce or eliminate taxes on retirement benefits. It seems odd to me when I hear senior citizens and my fellow members of the American Lower Class talking about how Obama wants to increase the size of government and therefore raise taxes on us. This notion is purely misinformed.
The Simpler and Fairer Taxes page of the McCain economic plan closes with more discussion, albeit brief, relating to technology and innovation. There is mention of eliminating taxes on the Internet which McCain says, “threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.” This sounds well and good, though for the life of me I can’t recall the last time I heard Americans complaining about how the “Internet Tax” was destroying their lives. Also, McCain would halt any new taxes that might otherwise be placed upon cell phones.
Oddly enough, there are only three paragraphs on this page, and at that only the first has anything to do with Lowering Barriers to Trade:
“John McCain believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers lie outside our borders, and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written. To do so, the U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules. “
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the final two paragraphs of the Lower Barriers to Trade page deal with unemployment benefits reform and improved access to local and community colleges. The shortest page of the entire McCain economic plan, I almost get a sense that the author was growing impatient by the end of writing this section of an eight-part plan for the economy.
All in all, being that I don’t own a corporation and that I’m a member of the American Lower Class, I really have not seen any indication from the McCain website that his party has any concern for me. Indeed, as per the relative norm, I tend to get a sense of their penchant “bootstrap” phraseology, and that has always left a bad taste in my mouth.
JMK
Buy me coffee! Sphere: Related ContentIn a Funk
I apologize to the handful of you who are “regular” readers here. I’ve been incredibly boring of late, and even when I have made an effort ot entertain I’ve performed with mediocrity at best. I really have no answer for this except that I am nearly done now with all of the baked goods that have been making their appearances here in my house for roughly a week or so and, in addition, I’ve cut out added salt altogether.
Thank you.
JMK
Buy me coffee! Sphere: Related ContentBest of Luck to Barack!
Even though we weren’t able to get tickets to see the first presidential candidate to campaign in Grand Junction, Colorado in some 40 years, we’re planning to show up at Cross Orchards today regardless. Actually, I’ve read that Bob Dole stopped in at our airport during his campaign in 1996, though he didn’t schedule an event like Obama’s and rumor is that he only stopped here because his father-in-law was born here.
Having grown up on the Western Slope I was worried that the valley was too conservative to provide a good turnout for Senator Obama—boy, oh boy, was I ever wrong! The line for tickets stretched around the block from the Obama headquarters at 844 Grand Avenue. It looked almost like the lines for the release of the latest Star Wars movies looked, replete with camping chairs and coolers full of refreshments, except that the patrons that were waiting for their tickets here weren’t dressed up like aliens or Jedi Knights.
Though I knew right away that I had arrived too late even to hope for a ticket, I was overtaken by a sort of giddiness to see so many supporters for the Democratic nominee right here in traditionally conservative GJ. My wife suggested that I stop the car and at least ask about tickets, even though it looked less than likely that any would be available. Sure enough they were all out, in fact they were out of yard signs and bumper stickers as well.
Luckily for me (and for the fellow manning the table) there was an independent entrepreneur selling pins, shirts, and stickers next door to the Obama headquarters building. I bought a bumper sticker for my vehicle so that I could proudly display both my U.S. Navy decal and my Obama sticker. I am so sick of people assuming that just because I was in the military I am supposed to be a staunch and die-hard Republican voter. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As a Navy veteran I am here to tell you that the concept of a “weak” Democrat is not only a misconception, but a childish one at that. As a military man and a Democrat alike, I would proudly serve again under Obama and Biden, in fact I would be much happier to serve again for them than I ever would under a McCain Palin ticket. Franky, Palin scares me with her lack of working knowledge regarding foreign policy, and McCain seems only interested in staying the course.
The trouble is, even with the current deployment posture of our military, if something major were to happen like a conflict with Russia over the Georgia dilemma and/or the ensuing chaos (like two Russian, long-range bombers landing in Venezuela), we simply would not have the manpower or the resources to defend ourselves because most of our military presently sits in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and Germany. Under McCain’s leadership we would be further stretched to include occupation of Iran, North Korea, and Syria at the very least. If you can do simple math, you can see that this would leave very little here at home. Without instituting a draft, such a posture simply could not safely be maintained.
How are we supposed to be “strong at home” if we have nothing left here with which to defend ourselves? Is it “weak” to want to maintain the ability to defend our homeland rather than hemorrhage Trillions of dollars on the largest welfare program since the rebuilding of Germany after WWII—i.e. Iraq? The popular phraseology of the Republican party is, “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Except that if we continue to spread our forces around the globe, we’ll wind up fighting them here and there, which means that we will be able to do neither effectively.
Anyway, long story short: Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!
JMK
Buy me coffee! Sphere: Related Content
