You want to talk about President Bush's popularity (or lack thereof) you try to make it an indictment on John McCain and the Republican party in general. The problem is that the entire congress is viewed similarly and the Democrats control both houses. While the President's aproval is between 1/4th and 1/3rd, congress, according to most polls, is even lower(in the teens). All three senators in this race (Obama, McCain, & Biden) are parts of it. So the stench of Congress is larger than the stench of the President.
The real point here is that running away from the Bush administration toward congress is not setting up change. The real point is to follow who more closely follows your political beliefs. While it is largely a popular election based on whose rhetoric makes them more popular for those who either sit on the fence on political issues or just vote purely on who is the more likable (or less unlikeable) among those running. Even if one has ideas that appeal to you (such as a quick end to the war), you have to consider how realistic those goals really are.
Will Barack Obama actually get us out of Iraq more quickly than John McCain? Can Obama furnish us with a workeable universal healthcare coverage that doesn't bankrupt employers that provide jobs or create a large bureacracy that taxes and spends with regards to either efficiency, access, or quality of healthcare?
All of these issues are open for debate. Then there are the values issues. Do you support Gay marriage, abortion without restriction, freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion. Clearly McCain and Obama stand differently on these issues. Even if you wanted to vote for a Democrat (for change), do you still want to vote for Barack Obama?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Who is rich (Obama vs McCain)
Who is rich? I can assure you that to those of us from Talco Texas, someone who made $4.2 Million last year would definitely be perceived as rich. Clearly, the McCains are richer. I think Senator McCain was trying to say some weeks ago that Mr. Obama shouldn't try to label himself as not rich and the McCains as rich. He missed the mark. The bottom line is both of them are pretty comfortable.
If you divide the $4.2 Million the Obamas made last year by a 45 year work life you get something over $93,000 per year. So in one year he made slightly less than double the median the average US family income for a 45 year work life. This $93,000 figure would put him in the upper quintile (20%) of wage earners in the US period. He made 84 times the average US family income. 1/46th of his income would still leave him in the upper 20% of us incomes.
I do not begrudge the money he has made. I am proud for him, the problem is his trying to differentiate between himself and Senator McCain economically fails the test. His background may be humble. In the here and now, he is NOT just a humble Joe.
If you divide the $4.2 Million the Obamas made last year by a 45 year work life you get something over $93,000 per year. So in one year he made slightly less than double the median the average US family income for a 45 year work life. This $93,000 figure would put him in the upper quintile (20%) of wage earners in the US period. He made 84 times the average US family income. 1/46th of his income would still leave him in the upper 20% of us incomes.
I do not begrudge the money he has made. I am proud for him, the problem is his trying to differentiate between himself and Senator McCain economically fails the test. His background may be humble. In the here and now, he is NOT just a humble Joe.
The Web and the political process
Eight years ago, the web was still somewhat in its infancy. It was a hodge-podge of pages with pictures and virtually no video. New news was still broken primarily on television and radio. In-depth reporting was still primarily the realm of print journalism such as newspapers and magazines. 2000 was the year my company moved from dial-up access to DSL. Most of the world was still using dial-up and marvelled at its ability to bring information into our homes and businesses.
In the political process it was more of a town meeting instead of a medium for prepared advertising. On the GeorgeWBush.com site, there was a bulletin board (sort of like the comment boxes seen today on many sites [this one included].) I put in my ten cents worth and it actually was read by someone significant in the campain. I am sure of that because my ten-cent quip was practically verbatim in a speech that put a dent into Vice-President Gore's definition of middle class. Governor Bush used two sentences of mine nearly directly.
A major part of Mr. Gore's platform was a tax credit to help the middle class to pay for college. My point as that a family of five had to make over $40,000 per year to see the first penny. Nearly a decade later, it boils down to more a question of who the middle class are as opposed to were the middle class going to get a tax credit. The bottom line is a family of five who makes $40,000 per year pays little or no federal income tax in the first place. A credit for tax liability when there is none results in no change in tax liability.
The point here is that eight years ago, there actually was access to the inner workings of campains by those of us on the internet. Today the sheer volume of people online makes it prohibitive. The internet has just become another media stream for the campains to use to spread their message. It serves them well, but the two way forum of the past is seemingly dead. Today (for me) just getting this blog read by ANYONE is a stretch.
In the political process it was more of a town meeting instead of a medium for prepared advertising. On the GeorgeWBush.com site, there was a bulletin board (sort of like the comment boxes seen today on many sites [this one included].) I put in my ten cents worth and it actually was read by someone significant in the campain. I am sure of that because my ten-cent quip was practically verbatim in a speech that put a dent into Vice-President Gore's definition of middle class. Governor Bush used two sentences of mine nearly directly.
A major part of Mr. Gore's platform was a tax credit to help the middle class to pay for college. My point as that a family of five had to make over $40,000 per year to see the first penny. Nearly a decade later, it boils down to more a question of who the middle class are as opposed to were the middle class going to get a tax credit. The bottom line is a family of five who makes $40,000 per year pays little or no federal income tax in the first place. A credit for tax liability when there is none results in no change in tax liability.
The point here is that eight years ago, there actually was access to the inner workings of campains by those of us on the internet. Today the sheer volume of people online makes it prohibitive. The internet has just become another media stream for the campains to use to spread their message. It serves them well, but the two way forum of the past is seemingly dead. Today (for me) just getting this blog read by ANYONE is a stretch.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama and Senator Biden
For weeks people have speculated about who Senator Obama would choose as a running mate. The possibilities ran from the obscure (Texas Congressman Chet Edwards) to safe (Senator Biden). He chose safe; someone who shared his liberal views on a majority of items. When most pundits line up the list of the most liberal Senators, Obama is usually first and Senator Biden is usually third or forth. This means that he chose so that his Obama's) liberalism IS the issue.
How liberal are these guys? They make Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy look like scrooge when it comes to hand outs. They make Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) look like simply Pro-Choice Republicans. To put it in even better perspective (not one I am sure the examples would enjoy, ) Obama is so far left that Ted Kennedy is closer to Arlen Specter than he is to Obama. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is close to the same distance from Kennedy that Kennedy is from Obama (on domestic issues.) Simply, Mr. Obama is twice as liberal as Senator Kennedy and I believe Mr. Kennedy would chafe at the label of moderate. I don't think Obama can run away from the liberal label. I am not even sure he intends to.
Even moderate democrats need to look beyond party labels to the issues. SImply the issues are Obama is a tax and spend liberal. He plans on a massive redistribution of the wealth of Americans and that will simply dry up venture capital or put the government into the business development business even bigger than it already is.
This guy is not Bill Clinton. He is not Hillary Clinton. He certainly isn't Abraham Lincoln (but if he can get extra votes based on Lincoln's legacy against slavery he certainly is willing to grab them.) Barack Obama is not an AMERICAN NEGRO (see previous postings to see why I use this term.) Barack Obama is the progeny of a white LIBERAL and a foreigner who happened to have dark skin.
Some would tell you, I am sure, that regardless of his herritage, electing Obama will surely help the legitimacy of African-American candidates across the board in the future. I don't dispute this. The problem is the here and now. We cannot afford Mr. Obama now. Are the long term benefits worth the costs today?
How liberal are these guys? They make Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy look like scrooge when it comes to hand outs. They make Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) look like simply Pro-Choice Republicans. To put it in even better perspective (not one I am sure the examples would enjoy, ) Obama is so far left that Ted Kennedy is closer to Arlen Specter than he is to Obama. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is close to the same distance from Kennedy that Kennedy is from Obama (on domestic issues.) Simply, Mr. Obama is twice as liberal as Senator Kennedy and I believe Mr. Kennedy would chafe at the label of moderate. I don't think Obama can run away from the liberal label. I am not even sure he intends to.
Even moderate democrats need to look beyond party labels to the issues. SImply the issues are Obama is a tax and spend liberal. He plans on a massive redistribution of the wealth of Americans and that will simply dry up venture capital or put the government into the business development business even bigger than it already is.
This guy is not Bill Clinton. He is not Hillary Clinton. He certainly isn't Abraham Lincoln (but if he can get extra votes based on Lincoln's legacy against slavery he certainly is willing to grab them.) Barack Obama is not an AMERICAN NEGRO (see previous postings to see why I use this term.) Barack Obama is the progeny of a white LIBERAL and a foreigner who happened to have dark skin.
Some would tell you, I am sure, that regardless of his herritage, electing Obama will surely help the legitimacy of African-American candidates across the board in the future. I don't dispute this. The problem is the here and now. We cannot afford Mr. Obama now. Are the long term benefits worth the costs today?
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Oboma and the black underclass
Barack Obama is being criticized by the black underclass as not being responsive to their needs. The "What about the black community, Obama?" poster drives home a point: even Obama knows that the woes of the poor are not solved immediately. While obsessively liberal, he is not nor will he ever be a descendant of slavery or uncle Tom. Obama is just the child of a very liberal white mother and a man who happened to have black skin. His father WAS NOT an African American. He was African. Everyone seems to miss (or dismiss) the social significance of this. . We understand Jesse Jackson and his goals (while I disagree with much of what Reverend Jackson espouses, I believe he believes that he is right. He actually has the background to have experience.) Obama is a child of textbook liberalism. Anthropology as a social science tends to lean liberal, often to the point of socialism.
The point here is to define Obama by his race is a mistake. Since Mr. Obama is technically African-American there is a need for a different term to define traditional Black Americans. I will use the term American Negroes. I realize it is a somewhat archaic term and has a negative connotation in some quarters, I will still use it for African Americans whose African ancestors arrived in America prior to the twentieth century. The bottom line is Obama is NOT an American Negro. While he wants them to embrace him as one of their own, he is not. He is the same as a white liberal.
The problem is he is liberal far beyond the Clintons. Beyond that of Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Bill Clinton's life experience actually closer to that of the black underclass than that of Obama. The bottom line is that Obama's brand of social activism is being lost in the race issue. If you equate American Negroes with liberalism and equate Obama as an American Negro you would totally miss the point of his liberalism.
While his skin is black, he is still M&M or worse Vanilla Ice. He wants you to think he has the cred, but regardless, he doesn't.
The point here is to define Obama by his race is a mistake. Since Mr. Obama is technically African-American there is a need for a different term to define traditional Black Americans. I will use the term American Negroes. I realize it is a somewhat archaic term and has a negative connotation in some quarters, I will still use it for African Americans whose African ancestors arrived in America prior to the twentieth century. The bottom line is Obama is NOT an American Negro. While he wants them to embrace him as one of their own, he is not. He is the same as a white liberal.
The problem is he is liberal far beyond the Clintons. Beyond that of Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Bill Clinton's life experience actually closer to that of the black underclass than that of Obama. The bottom line is that Obama's brand of social activism is being lost in the race issue. If you equate American Negroes with liberalism and equate Obama as an American Negro you would totally miss the point of his liberalism.
While his skin is black, he is still M&M or worse Vanilla Ice. He wants you to think he has the cred, but regardless, he doesn't.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
McCain and the Running mate debate
John McCain is playing the running mate game much like every candidate in the past 100 years or so. In some cycles the running mate is chosen for what he brings to the table, in other cases they are chosen to just not be disruptive.
I think we need to balance a non-traditional candidate (Barack Obama) with a non-traditional running mate. I really think Senator McCain's chances are pretty slim unless he has a woman as his running mate.
A quick look at the field:
Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani would likely beat anyone except Hillary Rodham-Clinton in New York if he were the candidate. McCain's level of conservatism will stand independent of Giuliani's stances and Giuliani would deliver a nominal number of votes in New York and elsewhere.
Mitt Romney: While the religious right and ultra conservatives are not fired up about John McCain, Romney sends it from tepid support to outright apathy bordering on a mass exodus to any viable alternative such as Libertarian Bob Barr. He is viewed as being pro-choice despite his recent cries otherwise. Many Evangelicals even view his Mormon faith as a cult as opposed to just another Christian Denomination. Romney shatters the conservative base.
Mike Huckabee: One of two on the list I have actually met. Huckabee is a safe choice in the realm of Al Gore for Bill Clinton, Fritz Mondale for Jimmy Carter He may help invigorate the religious right, but it does little to draw moderates and independent voters into the fold. His relative youth would help bring in a few younger voters who seem to all be on the Obama parade. If safe is the ticket, Huckabee is the choice.
Charlie Crist: Governor Crist's main draw is to deliver Florida and we all can remember from 2000, Florida is important. This said, I am pretty political savvy and about the volume of my knowledge of Crist is that he is on a list someone is putting out and is Jeb Bush's replacement.
Michael Steele: His biggest plus is also his biggest minus. His race. Lt Governor Steele draws few voters away from Obama and sends some voters toward alternative candidates such as Bob Barr.
Kay Bailey Hutchison: A female who will draw some of the Clinton voters assuming there is not a female on the Democratic ticket. For McCain to choose a sitting senator, he needs a Republican governor to appoint their replacement. Governor Perry would likely resign in a heartbeat if he could broker a deal with Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst to get himself appointed if Hutchison were to become VP. She brings women back to the GOP table AND doesn't have any huge negatives. Being from Texas, I know her pretty well. I am not sure what kind of national profile she has.
Condaleeza Rice: Dr Rice is an excellent candidate. She has both the allure of being female and being black. She would likely draw even more moderate women away from the Democrats She also has never run for office which has more positive than negative. Simply she has not had to shift her views to match those of a particular race or particular time. The real question is Dr. Rice comfortable as the GOP nominee for VP. Is she ready for the scrutiny?
Colin Powell: As good a vice president as Powell would make, he gives little to the ticket as VP> His Age (71) is no improvement over McCain. His moderate stances seem to echo McCain, and establishing his birthplace might just be the kind of distraction that could derail the entire ticket. I could easily support him as the candidate, but as the running mate. Powell makes little sense.
So the no's are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Michael Steele, Colin Powell and any sitting Senator with a democratic governor or seriously contested governor's election.
The rest are maybes. There are names on the lists that I didn't cover. Frankly, I believe that McCain needs a female running mate unless Obama has one too (then that point is moot.) Time will tell. I have said, that McCain cannot win without a female running mate, but that is based on neither campaign making positive inroads or having tremendous gaffes. In ten years this will be history and we can see where the mistakes were made and the opportunites were exploited.
I think we need to balance a non-traditional candidate (Barack Obama) with a non-traditional running mate. I really think Senator McCain's chances are pretty slim unless he has a woman as his running mate.
A quick look at the field:
Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani would likely beat anyone except Hillary Rodham-Clinton in New York if he were the candidate. McCain's level of conservatism will stand independent of Giuliani's stances and Giuliani would deliver a nominal number of votes in New York and elsewhere.
Mitt Romney: While the religious right and ultra conservatives are not fired up about John McCain, Romney sends it from tepid support to outright apathy bordering on a mass exodus to any viable alternative such as Libertarian Bob Barr. He is viewed as being pro-choice despite his recent cries otherwise. Many Evangelicals even view his Mormon faith as a cult as opposed to just another Christian Denomination. Romney shatters the conservative base.
Mike Huckabee: One of two on the list I have actually met. Huckabee is a safe choice in the realm of Al Gore for Bill Clinton, Fritz Mondale for Jimmy Carter He may help invigorate the religious right, but it does little to draw moderates and independent voters into the fold. His relative youth would help bring in a few younger voters who seem to all be on the Obama parade. If safe is the ticket, Huckabee is the choice.
Charlie Crist: Governor Crist's main draw is to deliver Florida and we all can remember from 2000, Florida is important. This said, I am pretty political savvy and about the volume of my knowledge of Crist is that he is on a list someone is putting out and is Jeb Bush's replacement.
Michael Steele: His biggest plus is also his biggest minus. His race. Lt Governor Steele draws few voters away from Obama and sends some voters toward alternative candidates such as Bob Barr.
Kay Bailey Hutchison: A female who will draw some of the Clinton voters assuming there is not a female on the Democratic ticket. For McCain to choose a sitting senator, he needs a Republican governor to appoint their replacement. Governor Perry would likely resign in a heartbeat if he could broker a deal with Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst to get himself appointed if Hutchison were to become VP. She brings women back to the GOP table AND doesn't have any huge negatives. Being from Texas, I know her pretty well. I am not sure what kind of national profile she has.
Condaleeza Rice: Dr Rice is an excellent candidate. She has both the allure of being female and being black. She would likely draw even more moderate women away from the Democrats She also has never run for office which has more positive than negative. Simply she has not had to shift her views to match those of a particular race or particular time. The real question is Dr. Rice comfortable as the GOP nominee for VP. Is she ready for the scrutiny?
Colin Powell: As good a vice president as Powell would make, he gives little to the ticket as VP> His Age (71) is no improvement over McCain. His moderate stances seem to echo McCain, and establishing his birthplace might just be the kind of distraction that could derail the entire ticket. I could easily support him as the candidate, but as the running mate. Powell makes little sense.
So the no's are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Michael Steele, Colin Powell and any sitting Senator with a democratic governor or seriously contested governor's election.
The rest are maybes. There are names on the lists that I didn't cover. Frankly, I believe that McCain needs a female running mate unless Obama has one too (then that point is moot.) Time will tell. I have said, that McCain cannot win without a female running mate, but that is based on neither campaign making positive inroads or having tremendous gaffes. In ten years this will be history and we can see where the mistakes were made and the opportunites were exploited.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
TTC - The Trans-Texas Corridor
DO I oppose the TTC? Boy what a question. DO I oppose what some people seem to believe it is ( an international roadway patrolled by foreign or international police agencies (the Federales or Interpol.) You better believe it. Do I think we should allow a foreign conglomerate to hold Texans hostage with a toll road? Again no. Do I think that Texas farmers and ranchers should have to lose their ancestral properties to this behemoth? Again not really.
Do I think we need improved infrastructure especially in the IH-35 corridor. YES. Do I think we need north- south rail lines that can run a full 65 miles per hour in express service? Again yes. I even believe there should be dedicated lines in EACH direction. On the argument that we would be subsidizing "private companies" (the railroad companies). I would say it isn't that simple. Why is IH-35 so congested? Is it the cars and pickups on pleasure and personal business? Nope, outside the cities, it is commercial trucks: Vehicles owned by "private companies". Even a majority of the light trucks and cars are traveling for business of one sort or another. SO even the free interstate highways are used for the betterment of business. So the rail component of the TTC is no more egregious than any other part of the TTC to me.
I do not believe we can finance these improvements either to the highways or the rail lines any other way except for a HUGE increase in taxes of some sort. So a public-private toll consortium seems like the best model to get it done. While there was some discord over property loss when the Eisenhower Interstate system was initially in the planning stages, it seems the bigger problem was the speculators buying up the property in its path and holding out for windfalls!
The real question is not whether we need the transportation capacity, it whether we believe that the goods it carries are desirable. I will talk more later about the goods carried on these lines and their impact; the alternatives to loss of huge amounts of farm and ranch lands; toll roads generically; and maybe with some questions, something different and perhaps worthwhile.
Do I think we need improved infrastructure especially in the IH-35 corridor. YES. Do I think we need north- south rail lines that can run a full 65 miles per hour in express service? Again yes. I even believe there should be dedicated lines in EACH direction. On the argument that we would be subsidizing "private companies" (the railroad companies). I would say it isn't that simple. Why is IH-35 so congested? Is it the cars and pickups on pleasure and personal business? Nope, outside the cities, it is commercial trucks: Vehicles owned by "private companies". Even a majority of the light trucks and cars are traveling for business of one sort or another. SO even the free interstate highways are used for the betterment of business. So the rail component of the TTC is no more egregious than any other part of the TTC to me.
I do not believe we can finance these improvements either to the highways or the rail lines any other way except for a HUGE increase in taxes of some sort. So a public-private toll consortium seems like the best model to get it done. While there was some discord over property loss when the Eisenhower Interstate system was initially in the planning stages, it seems the bigger problem was the speculators buying up the property in its path and holding out for windfalls!
The real question is not whether we need the transportation capacity, it whether we believe that the goods it carries are desirable. I will talk more later about the goods carried on these lines and their impact; the alternatives to loss of huge amounts of farm and ranch lands; toll roads generically; and maybe with some questions, something different and perhaps worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)