Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

A few weeks after my previous Clinton/Obama post, here’s an Op-Ed post from the New York Times in many ways reiterating what Hart (and many others) are saying:  The Long Defeat - New York Times

Maybe—just maybe—Hillary can win. This article suggests her advisers are giving her a 5% chance. But if not, what is she doing for the party?

Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans.

I kept up with election news daily for a while, but this has been a long campaign. By this point I’ve done my research and made up my mind. The occasional shock piece has emerged, but mostly it has been pundits speculating and repetition repetition repetition.
McCain has had the luxury of changing his stride and focus on his general election messages while the Democrats continue to wallow in turmoil.

What a crazy year this has been for American politics.

The Huffington Post is sporting a nice little blog entry by Gary Hart—check it out here: Breaking the Final Rule.

It’s interesting reading the perspective of someone in the system characterize Hillary as being too power hungry for our good. It makes a lot of sense: this is a mighty close race, and in the event that Obama gets the nomination, where does that leave the Dems? McCain and his crew will tear apart whoever is nominated—that you can be sure of. And the Democratic nominee will go after McCain. That’s how it works.

But to have these types of attacks within a party—especially when Obama is narrowly leading the delegate count—is dirty boxing. It’s worse than that. As Hart says, it’s an all-or-nothing tactic, and if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination guess who gets the “nothing”.

Hillary aired an ad that questioned Obama’s ability to govern, invoking fear that When Bad Things Happen It Better Be Her Answering The Phone. Obama’s response to the ad is elegant and well said (as usual). His argument is rooted in the fact that he spoke against the Iraq invasion—something that’s turned out to be the type of call Hillary is proposing will happen at 3am.

You can see the ad and Obama’s response below.

Hillary’s “Red Phone” Ad

Obama’s Response

I just came across this speech courtesy of Digg. You can read the speech here or watch the embedded video.

This really resonated with me. I myself feel the last 8 years (or so) of the prevailing government’s attempt to integrate a strand of religion very disenfranchising; in an inherently diverse population like America, made up of cultures from all over the world, we need to be more willing to listen and accept and less eager to dictate and exclude.

Obama’s words were related as a prayer: “A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all”. Obvious, yet (in the light of what I feel has been going on in America) profound.

It’s a very healthy exercise to figuratively put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Seeing the world from another perspective is one of the best ways to grow as an individual. Cathartic Relief brings us this little gem, which helps put things in a different light.

From We fight for freedom - or “What if someone else did it to us?”:

It’s been eight years now. Eight long years. Sure, initially I was glad when China toppled the Bush regime…

I can say with a high degree of certainty that I’m not the only American that’s doubting the altruistic motives of our country’s foray into Iraq. And I don’t believe this is our first exercise of this kind. Cathartic Relief’s post is a poignant, profound riff from the perspective of the invadee.

Chris Rock has a line about how we don’t pay income tax—they take it. The method with which tax is calculated, how much you owe and the various penalties and benefits you are eligible for is so sophisticated that the US IRS Tax Code is a whopping 54,846 pages long. 54,846 pages! It’s so complex that CPAs specialize in various fields, much like doctors and lawyers.

I’ve grown up with this system and have accepted it as part of American life. Color me surprised when I find that many of the Republican candidates for the 2008 Presidential election are proponents of something called Fair Tax. In a nutshell, Fair Tax would get rid of income tax, disband the IRS, and all government taxation would be derived from a 23% sales tax. You keep your whole paycheck, and the government gets theirs from what you purchase. From Americans For Fair Taxation: About the Fair Tax:

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

Whoa! I might have my head in the sand, but I really didn’t see this coming. What a fascinating idea! There’s apparently a New York Times bestseller written by Neal Boortz called The Fair Tax Book which fleshes out this idea in greater detail.

To make it more fair to folks earning less, the government hands out “prebate” checks every year, so people near the poverty line won’t have their income drowning in taxation. From CNNMoney.com: Behind Huckabee’s radical ‘Fair Tax’:

But the sales tax plan would partly offset this effect by sending every household in America, from the family of a poor single mother to Warren Buffett, a check to cover the taxes on their spending up to the poverty level.

Factor in that cash from the government, and each family’s net tax burden goes down, so that the Fair Tax looks more progressive.

For example, a family of three earning $30,000 a year and spending all their income would give 7% of their pay to the government; one earning and spending $125,000 would pay a net rate of about 19%.

At first blush, this seems pretty brilliant. At the very least, it’s a fresh new look at an existing problem. There are many things to consider—decreased consumption and spending, for one—but on the other hand it would start drawing tax from people that have successfully avoided them in the past (think: illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc).

That Boortz’ book made bestseller is evidence itself of the interest in something like this; let’s see where this goes in the coming months.