It’s always nice to have some forms of confirmation that I’m not out picking daisies in left field when I put forth these kinds of positions. So it was a pleasant surprise to read to articles this weekend that offered opinions similar to my own with regards to American socialism and wealth redistribution. Without reprinting the entire articles (which you should go and read anyhow), here are some salient points to consider…

The first I’ll share is from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Is it really socialism to talk of “spreading the wealth”?

Actually, it has been part of the American economic system since its founding.

In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”

Although the income tax was abolished in 1872, the idea of using taxes to share the wealth remained an important part of the public discourse. Teddy Roosevelt was a vocal proponent of this idea in the early 1900s.

“I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate,” he said in 1910.

In times of economic peril, the tax rates were raised – rather than lowered – to ensure that money was more evenly distributed. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration boosted the highest tax rate from 63 percent to 79 percent in order to fund his New Deal programs. He pushed it to 94 percent during World War II.

Roosevelt was matched by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, who, with the aid of a Republican Congress, maintained an income tax rate of more than 90 percent for top earners. It took Lyndon Johnson to lower the upper tax rate to 77 percent. It remained near that level until the second year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

But doesn’t a high tax rate strangle economic growth? It’s hard to make that case. During the 1950s, when the upper-income bracket was taxed at its highest peacetime rate in history, the economy grew at a robust 4 percent per year, using inflation-adjusted figures. The 1950s growth rate certainly did not occur because of the high taxes, but the tax rate apparently didn’t impede it.

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt,” Eisenhower warned in the 1950s. “The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer.”

Clearly, over this nation’s history until very recently, both major parties had candidates and presidents who understood that America’s real promise of a better life for all relied on both socialism and wealth redistribution. But the Republicans and theif frenzied fans can’t seem to concede the point, even when the evidence comes directly from their own mouths and actions.

From the New Yorker Magazine:

On October 12th, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how his tax plan would work, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state.

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Hmmmm…..McCain says higher incomes should mean higher taxes…at least he did back in 2000. And Palin governs a state where socialism (taking money from the big wealthy oil companies and giving it back to every person in her state) is the main rule.

Even the deniers of socialism and wealth redistribution, as we know and practice it here in America, are tied to our history, and not so subtly practicing the very things they now say will make Obama “unfit” to lead.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Everything has an opposite. Day and night. Happy and sad. Good and bad. Progression and regression. The list is endless. How does this apply to the current presidential election? It’s easy to say that Democrats and Republicans are opposites, but in truth, both parties share similar philosophies about governing. Ideologically they have some stark differences, primarily in the arena of social policy, but when it comes right down to the nuts and bolts of running the country, both parties, and their respective elected officials, share a certain disdain for true public stewardship and instead seek to dominate the opinions and news cycles in order to gain and retain power. Once they have that power, they tend to slip into the status quo of political gamesmanship, and instead of trying to effect real, dynamic change for America they revert to the patterns we are familiar with: massive fundraising, ties to lobbyists, misrepresenting reality to push an agenda that benefits few citizens, and an endless series of calculated slams against each other for perceived public support. The last eight years have helped to highlight these similarities between the parties while at the same time seeking to erupt culture wars on the ideological front. For the most part, these efforts are ploys that are understood by the public but often ignored. As voters, we tend to concentrate on the ideological social differences and lose track of the fundamental problems with our government. The politicians love this because it allows them to distract the American public with topics like gay marriage or abortion or flag burning-things that won’t disrupt their cozy little behind the scenes plans. The politicians of both parties know that if they can distract us with things like those then we won’t keep an eye on the real issues that are destroying our democracy- issues like economic malfeasance or corporate welfare or environmental destruction.

This presidential campaign started off in the same vein. And then along came Barack Obama. His began as a message of change-not just a change from a republican to a democrat in the White House, but a fundamental change in the way government does business. He spoke of returning American politics and government to the American people and taking it away from the monied interests that now own the political landscape. He talked about an era where the government and the people worked in concert to solve the real problems of the day instead of a continuation of the same. His message was so resounding to so many people that he turned the Democratic race upside down, in the process wreaking havoc on the GOP candidates who could find no new path or who would walk no new trail. He exposed both the GOP and his Democratic colleagues as frauds who only pretended to want a new way but in reality would stick to business as usual. Obama was a new light in the political arena, and his message resonated with voters of all stripes. His campaign spotlighted the emptiness of the GOP platform and sent the GOP nominee, John McCain, into a tailspin. The GOP base was less than enamored with their candidate and their ideas for a new administration looked just like the one we’ve labored under for the last 8 years.

Then McCain found Sarah Palin. And her nomination as his VP changed the game. Where republicans were dismal about their chances to retain the Oval Office they now have hope. Why? Not because they have a new candidate, but because they have a champion who embraces their darker side. When the GOP failures were exposed under the light of the Obama campaign, the conservatives of America were forced to accept that their party was bankrupting not just the country, but their own ideological identity. But the GOP is nothing if not tenacious and accepting that their ideas were not only NOT helping America but were hurting them as individuals too, they have decided that it is better to fight for what is wrong than to accept that is IS wrong and seek better ideas to follow.

Sarah Palin is the anti-Obama in the political arena. She endorses that which has been shown to be wrong for America. And the GOP is eating it up. To understand why they would do this, one must look farther than the sound bites in the news and investigate human nature.

Deepak Chopra perhaps understands the human psyche better than I do, and is, by any measure, more lucid on this topic than I am. I was recently pointed in the direction of an article he posted on his website that I want to share here.

Obama and the Palin Effect

Deepak Chopra – September 04, 2008

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses . In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:
–Small town values — a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
–Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.
–Family values — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don’t need to be heeded.
–Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
–Patriotism — the usual fallback in a failed war.
–“Reform” — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn’t fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

I reprinted this here to help elucidate the conservative infatuation with Sarah Palin, a candidate who is (IMO) poorly suited for the second highest office in the land. Palin isn’t where she is today because she has the desire to serve so much as because John McCain needed an anti-Obama to invigorate his voters. Her selection was calculated and cynical and makes this contest a much clearer choice for me at least.

There is the light and there is the dark. We’ve been heading towards the darkest part of the cave for almost a decade now. It’s time to return towards the light again. It’s time to reclaim out better selves.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Taking a cue from the King of Made-Up Reality, George W. Bush, the GOP and their candidates have unleashed an alternate reality that they want all Americans to believe.

King George has spent the last 8 years not listening to reality. According to Bush, the economy is fine, Iraq was the best place to target terrorism, nepotism makes for the best government, drilling for off shore oil will bring gas prices down immediately, and massive debt is what future generations of Americans really want and need.

GOP heir-apparent John McCain has so much trouble with the truth that he hasn’t spoken realistically for months. According to McCain, the middle class consists of people who make about $250,000 a year, being a maverick means bucking the party line as much as 10% of the time, POW and POTUS are really interchangable, and his VP choice is someone who hates earmarks as much as he claims to.

The newest member of the GOP glamour gang is Sarah Palin who wouldn’t know reality if it bit her in the knee. According to Palin, abstinance education really works and is the only method worth teaching, God rejoices over pipelines, and that shooting animals from an airplane is the only sporting way to hunt for your trophies.

SEE NO REALITY.  HEAR NO REALITY.  SPEAK NO REALITY.

Better yet…just make up your own reality and repeat it over and over and over again.

You want reality? Here is the reality that the 21st century GOP has brought to America.

Iraq War…torture…gross mismanagement of funds…record deficits…corporate malfeasance…Dick Cheney…Katrina…cronyism…Donald Rumsfeld…economic meltdown…anti-science…politicization of government agencies…Terry Schiavo fiasco…Alberto Gonzales…high unemployment…outsourcing to mercenaries…swiftboating of politics…Iranian nukes…tension with Russia…John Ashcroft…Walter Reed Medical Center…domestic spying…massive future debt…Condi Rice…bankrupted state treasuries…national security theater…Samuel Alito…billions of dollars sent to Pakistan and nothing to show for it…bin Laden still at large…skyrocketing energy costs…widening income gap between rich and poor…Harriet Myers…suspended endangered species act…denial of environmental crisis…The Bridge To Nowhere…foreign distrust…falling dollar value…Karl Rove…tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans…nuclear proliferation…biggest expansion of government in generations and nothing to show for it…Tom DeLay…attorneygate…power to the lobbyists…religious disharmony…

And that’s just the “easy to identify” list. Some say reality is what you make it. This is the reality that the GOP has made in America. Is this the reality you want for another four years or more?

McCain/Palin are now promising change. They lie. The only change they seek is more regressive social and economic policies for Americans. The only change they desire is more debt and war and religiously based laws. The only change we can count on from them is even more government bullying and lies. That is the reality they can promise and that you can expect from the GOP.

If reality really is what we make it, it’s time for a new reality.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Really? Were none of those other six candidates crooked enough for the Alaskan GOP? Not enough bribes under theie belts? Not enough willingness to fleece American taxpayers out of tax revenue so another stupid bridge over an ice field could be built? Is this the best the Alaska GOP has to offer to the U.S. Senate?

Or maybe this is just indicitive of why the GOP in general is so rotten to the core. See, instead of opting for a clean start and gaining back some credibility as a party that wants to work FOR America, the GOP in Alaska prefers to try to hold on to their senatorial seniority so someone can keep bringing the pork back home.

The GOP is ripe with rotten fruit, and Stevens is just the lowest pit on the branch today. It would have been pretty easy to tell the old codger to take a hike and turn the page towards a better, more honorable representative, but the GOP will do anything to keep the Democrats from gaining a solid majority, even if that means holding on to a federally indicted bribe taker through the election.

Odds are that Stevens will be brought to justice sooner than later. But for the GOP, holding on to a loser is a way of life. One need look no farther than the White House to see how resistant the GOP is to saying, “We were wrong.”

What’s next? McCain-DeLay ’08 Bumper Stickers?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

(photo credit www.werescrewed08.com)

Convention fever is lighting up the 2008 presidential elections here in the United States- the time for the major political parties to formally nominate their candidates for the general election, for the party faithful to gather and pat each other on the back while mending wounds inflicted during the primaries, and for the political poobahs to flower the nation with promises of a better world ahead. It is a time when the candidates will try and persuade us that they have the right vision and the right stuff to pull America out of the slump of economic decline, foreign war entanglements, and healthcare nightmares. It is a time when the Democrats and the Republicans will seek to prove that only they have the cure to America’s ills, the magic elixir that will make everything all right again.

As if…..

Folks, it’s time for a little reality check. This election is not about fixing America, per se, as much as it is about putting America on a new path forward. Truth of the matter is this: 8 years under George W. Bush (6 years with a compliant GOP Congress and the last 2 with a spineless DEM Congress) has turned the foundation of America on its head, divided the electorate more than ever before, created a less safe and more unstable world, bankrupted the national treasury, demolished our international reputation, and laid the path for continued ecologic and economic ruin and havoc. Of the two main choices for president this election year, one candidate will continue down this path with glee; the other, at best, can slow the forward momentum into the abyss and attempt to lay the groundwork for an altered tomorrow.

Here’s the rub…

Economic future- unless you are an oil company, or a high paid executive, or a politician, the economic outlook for the near future is gloomy. You’ve lost ground with the dollar, your property, and your wages at a time when energy costs have skyrocketed and boosted up the costs of all goods and services. Looking farther ahead, the treasury has reached record deficits and the congress keeps allowing themselves to spend more and raise the legal debt limits, meaning that your grandkids will be paying back China for the Iraq War and the recent questionable tax “rebates” among other things.  Social Security and Medicare are reaching insolvency.

Energy Supply- Despite spurious claims that drilling for oil in America will solve our short term energy problems, the fact is that our oil economy is headed for a brick wall. No amount of forewarning was heeded in America and the crux is that we will face serious lifestyle alterations fueled by an oil crisis. You think we have it tough now with gas at $4/gallon? If we continue to resist a changed course these may well seem like good times, vis-a-vis our energy needs. Our national ignorance and lassaiz-faire attitude towards oil usage and all that is incumbent on its availability will create a serious fault in the foundation of the American dream. It will happen, and the longer we delay real, serious alternatives, the worse the fall will be.

International relationships- The War in Iraq was by far the worst international ploy ever undertaken by an American administration. It has made an already dangerous region even more unstable, zapped American military strength and reputation to the point of paralysis when other world situations arise. Our presence in that debacle has emboldened Russia to return to its own empire building machinations and oil resource power plays. The Bush “with us or against us” mantra has alienated former allies and ignited other regions to become more active foes. And the duplicity with which this “policy” has been applied has further damaged our reputation as champions of freedom and democratic values.

Internal Damage- From illegal domestic spying to politicizing the Justice Department to appointing inept cronies to important positions of responsibility to outsourcing federal responsibilities to mercenary corporations to playing theater with national security….the damage Bush has done to America is both immense and self-perpetuating. Decades of dismantling the messes Bush has purposely created will be required to put this country back on an even keel.

Make no mistake- of the two plausible contenders for president, neither can come close to achieving the promises they put forth. No, wait a minute…actually McCain could. But that’s only because he promises to continue down the path Bush has forged. And with the reality being that the make-up and mental attitude of Congress will not change dramatically this election, a McCain presidency modeled after Bush would almost certainly accelerate the disaster we’re already ensconced in.

For Obama, the task is much harder. Campaigning on the mantle of change, he has raised the expectations of his base and the rest of the nation to a level of unreality. As usual, most Americans live on the sound bites without seeking to know or understand the reality behind the lens. Politicians know the reality but just don’t give much of a damn. They seek to get and hold power. And while Obama may indeed by a new breed of politician, one who actually cares about service over power and politics, his hands are as tied by Bush’s misdeeds as McCain’s mouth is watering to be the next big GOP failure.

In 2006, I wrote a post about what I expected from the Democrats once the regained a majority in Congress. To my chagrin, they have done nothing of substance to change our path and indeed have continued to abet Bush in his own calamitous course. These same folks will continue to make up the majority of our law making body. If McCain succeeds in the election, they will continue to bluster while making few efforts at change. They may stall some policy plans, but in the end, the will either acquiesce or spend time making political hay and further alienating Americans from their government. If Obama can win, he’ll spend the next four years having to explain why his promises haven’t become reality and fending off GOP attack dogs.

Don’t get me wrong…I’m going with Obama. I think that his view for the future is infinitely more palatable that that of McCain. But this time, when the Democrats regain the White House, and when they achieve a slightly larger congressional majority, the best I think I can hope for is 4 years of repair work. The real change I seek isn’t universal health care in 4 years or an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a realistic and viable energy policy. And it’s not that these things aren’t desperately needed. It’s just that those aims aren’t realistic.

The best we can hope for is some restoration of common sense governance and principled public service. We need a leader who is not only willing to propose and make changes, but who can guide us through the painful times ahead…who can not only make this country understand the need for serious and drastic changes in the way things work, but who can bring us to accept those changes as necessary for a better future for our children and the dream of real freedom and democracy. In short, we need a leader who will make us finally face the truth that how we’ve been doing things can’t continue and then do something about it.

If McCain becomes the next president, we’re totally screwed. If Obama becomes the next president, we’re still screwed, but maybe less so. For at least Obama recognizes that the status quo is broken and seems willing to change things.

Hope and Change? More like hope FOR change. Our path is unsustainable by any measure. We need to abandon this path completely. McCain charges ahead down the path to ruin. Obama at least seems ready and willing to make a new path altogether.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

A quick primer on taxes and government: government levies taxes (and fees) to pay for the services its citizens demand. Without taxes there would be no public enterprises: no roads, no schools, no fire departments or police, no libraries, no national defense, no social security, and so on and so forth. In theory, every tax collected by government is supposed to be used to advance the public good and pay for the overhead of government.

In 2005, I wrote this about taxation:

“Most Americans don’t really mind having to pay taxes. We understand that in order to get the things from government that we demand they provide, we must all share the burden of paying for those services. What really angers us though, is the obvious waste, corruption, diversion, and outright theft of our tax dollars at the hands of the people who are supposed to protect our precious dollars and us. And equally in our wrath, are the handfuls of corporations and millionaires that exploit an over-complicated tax code and weasel out of their share of the burden.”

I still believe this to be true- most Americans don’t mind paying taxes when they see the benefits. The anger comes when taxes are misspent and poorly accounted for. Bridges to nowhere, no-bid contracts, outright fraud by government contractors…these are the things that piss people off. And these are the things that get people up in arms whenever a politician talks about changing the tax code or hiking taxes and fees. In the view of most people, we pay enough in taxes already and its not our fault that the politicians spend more than they take in. So when someone hints that a politician wants to raise taxes, our initial reaction is “Screw You Buddy!”

In an election year, talk about who will raise taxes becomes even more rancorous, and the “truth” about the parties, their candidates, and taxes gets trotted out again. Republicans say that Obama will raise your taxes. Democrats say that McCain will simply extend tax cuts for the rich while continuing to spend as wildly as Bush has. Both positions are true. But they are not really so cut and dried.

Historically, Republican presidents have made efforts to reduce taxes in general, but the prime beneficiary has been the wealthy and the corporations. As they cut taxes to those groups, they also marginally reduce income taxes on the rest of us, but the real saving for the vast majority is barely a drop in the bucket compared to what the high-rollers get back. In addition to cutting taxes, GOP administrations also like to cut services. Seems to make sense- less taxes coming in, less services going out-perfect fiscal sanity, right? Well maybe if it were true. But what Republican administrations also do is spend a ton of money-on credit-while in office, leaving their successors with a huge deficit to contend with. They spend money on the military and on foreign meddling and promotion of American businesses abroad. What the GOP likes to spend the most money on isn’t programs at home for the benefit of Americans, but rather of the might of the American government abroad. Reagan’s deficit spending forced his Republican successor (the first George Bush) to raise taxes, and in turn, conservatives vilified him completely. The current president also began his reign by cutting taxes, mostly for the rich, and by increasing military spending on credit. Bush the Second may have lowered the taxes of the wealthy today, but his rampant spending of money he doesn’t have has all but guaranteed that future presidents will have to raise taxes just to pay the interest on the money Bush is spending now.

Historically, Democratic presidents have raised our taxes and then spent those revenues on programs that help Americans at home first, and then the outside world with the left overs. FDR and LBJ are the posterboys for tax and spend presidents, but they spent the money on projects that invigorated the American economy and gave the common folks a chance to better their position in life. Sure, these two men also spent a hell of a lot of money on war efforts (WWII & Vietnam respectively), but at least in the case of FDR it was a defensive war effort and not a war of choice. And when these two men explained to the American people what they wanted to do and why they needed the new taxes, a majority of America agreed with their ideas and felt that at least their taxes were being used well.

But for the last 8 years  Americans have watched their local, state, and national government gobble up more and more taxes while providing less and less services. Almost every legislative budget session ends with a cry from politicians about how they need more taxes to keep things running, and as they trot out the standard lines about how without taxes we’ll lose schools and police officers and the like, the voters pony up the dough. We’ve become so used to governmental waste and excuses that fiscal reality doesn’t even enter the picture. They say they need the money to give us what we say we want. Such is life. Or is it?

California state government is entering its umpteenth consecutive years of budget shortfalls. When voters were asked if they would support tax increases or spending cuts to balance the books, 63% of voters said they wanted government to cut spending. Yet when asked where those cuts should occur, no single category of services got more than half agreeing to cut costs. Most public spending in California goes to schools, health care and public safety. (Well, most really gets eaten up in nonsense studies, commissions, over-spending, and fraud, but that’s another facet of the story.) Nearly 70% of the voters would not support spending cuts in any of those areas. So the reality is that voters don’t want to cut spending or raise taxes-they want to continue to live in Fantasy Tax Land where they get all the goods and someone else (like their children and grandchildren) pays all the bills. That sounds to me a lot like taxation without representation-you know, one of those little issues that led to the American Revolution-and future generations will have financial obligations they never agreed to or even benefitted from. Our tax policies are really setting the stage for a future revolt. But again I digress…

Getting back to the current presidential election, I have heard time and again from conservative leaning voters that although the do not like McCain and do not see him as a “real conservative,” they simply won’t vote for Obama because “he’s gonna raise my taxes!” In fact, its become the latest GOP talking point in an effort to derail Obama’s growing popularity. But will it work? Not if voters really examine the issue and try to understand the dynamics of the reality.

The reality is this: our government is broke and operating only on imaginary currency and borrowed cash. The War in Iraq has created a multi-trillion dollar sinkhole, financed by loans from abroad and the guarantee of future generations toiling for a foreign master. The Bush Administration has continued the fine GOP tradition of slashing taxes, but they forgot to cut costs as well. If the old “truth” we started with ever did apply, it certainly can’t be true today. In todays world, Republicans not only tax less, they spend more than ever before, and in the prpocess create the worst fiscal imbalance ever seen in such a short time.

So what’s the next president to do? Cut taxes even more and keep fighting wars of choice or raise taxes and adjust spending to accomplish the things we need and want to accomplish?

In trying to decipher the difference between Obama and McCain on taxes, the truth can be boiled down pretty easily, and Business Week does a good job with it:

“Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their aftertax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts, and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their aftertax income rise much less.

In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise. “

Of course, the details become a bit convoluted, but that is the crux of their attitudes on taxation. If you are really rich and taxes are your only concern, by all means vote McCain. But to say that Obama is going to raise taxes on Americans, and then to fear his leadership because of that, is simply not logical.

But suppose Obama does indeed raise taxes on us all. What if he has to? He has said that he would help fund many of his ideas from the savings we are spending in Iraq. Sorry Obama, we don’t have that money anyway. Any money not spent on Iraq is only money that future generations won’t have to repay. It’s not money we have that we could spend at home today. So maybe he will have to raise taxes. If he does, you only have the GOP to blame.

And might McCain also have to raise taxes at some point? Or would he continue to heap debt on future Americans?

When it comes to taxes, and the waste of the whole system, both political parties share the blame. The current Democratically controlled Congress has been as fiscally irresponsible as their GOP predecessors, and certainly in state governments like California, Democrats deserve more of the blame for bad fiscal policy.

But this presidential election is more important than just who might raise taxes, and if you really look at the details, Obama’s tax policy ideas are much friendlier to the average working American than McCains are. And more importantly, Obama’s thoughts on how best to use America’s tax resources-for Americans in America-make for a better future than McCain’s tax and bomb mentality ever will.

(Cross posted at Bring It On!)

Most of the world has known, and accepted, that the Bush Administration “cooked the intel” with regards to Iraq and forced the United States into a war of choice that has cost far more in money and lives than we were expected to accept. In proving that they are only several years behind the curve, the U.S. Senate today issued a report that blames the Bush Administration of leading the nation into war under false pretenses.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia in written commentary on the report.

At the same time, a British newspaper is today reporting on a secret deal between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government that, if agreed to and signed, would keep the United States in Iraq indefinitely with more than 50 military bases, allow the US to conduct military campaigns against “terrorists” without Iraqi authority, keep control of Iraqi airspace, and offer immunity from Iraqi law for all Americans working in that country, whether employed by the US government directly or through one of its mercenary contractors.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Of course, immediately on the heels of the article in The Independent, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq comes out with the denials. Which is why we know that this “secret plan” as revealed is more truth than not.

“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing.

Translation: Yes, this is exactly what we’re trying to do, and if it weren’t for you darn kids and your stupid dog we’d have gotten away with it.

Iraqi politicians and Iraqi’s in general seem to be opposed to any such deal, and US officials fear that if the plan is put to a general referrendum it will fail.

Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. (msnbc.com)

Which could explain why the Iraqi government is being put under great pressure to finalize this deal in the coming months. With a signed accord in hand, Bush could not only claim (once again) Mission Accomplished, but he could tie the hands of the next president by agreeing to a long term treaty.

Or would he?

Although almost every precedent Bush has engaged in has been unsavory at best and un-American at worst, he has initiated a precedent for ignoring treaties signed by past US administrations that could be useful in this case. Clearly, following the lead set by Bush, our next President could duly bypass any Bush-signed treaties that would bind us to Iraq for several generations. We already know what McCain thinks-he’s happy to keep us embroiled in Iraq for another 100 years. But a President Obama might just decide that any Iraq treaty engineered by Team Bush and coerced through a reluctant Iraqi government isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on. He’d be right too.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Even Republicans, who for at least the last 8 years have operated under a “shoot first, negotiate never” policy, are starting to come around to the old adage we’re taught on the schoolyard- try to solve your problems first with words and not fists.

And it’s not as if a president who talks with America’s stated foes is a new concept here. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Nixon and Mao. Reagan and Gorbachev. Hell, two of those guys were Republicans! Yet once the GOP got a frat boy into the Oval Office, we don’t talk to enemies? Better to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran than to have a sit down? Again, most Americans don’t think so…

If anything, this poll indicates that Americans are tiring of the “cowboy diplomacy” employed by the Bush Administration and being co-opted by the McCain campaign as the best way to move America forward in the world. Even Hillary Clinton has towed the Bush-McCain doctrine in this arena. Americans are ready to move on to a more cooperative, more adult-oriented, more reality based foreign policy, and clearly McCain isn’t on the same page.

But Barack Obama has already said that talking to our enemies is the best first step towards solving our problems. And Americans agree with him.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL CONFIRMS RUMORS

According to an anonymous Clinton campaign official, Mrs. Clinton feels she has a better chance of realizing her lifelong dream to become president of the United States by switching parties now. Once the pre-ordained Democratic nominee, a string of primary losses to Obama have put the Clinton campaign into a downward spiral.

“She sees the writing on the wall. Clearly, this isn’t her husband’s Democratic
Party anymore,” said the campaign official. “If we’ve learned anything over the
past few years, it’s that sometimes experienced politicians have to do
courageous things in order to continue to help America. Joe Lieberman did it in
2006. Hillary is doing it now.”

SUPPORTERS STAND FIRM, OPPONENTS INDIFFERENT

Some Clinton supporters think the move is brilliant, and will continue to support Hillary no matter what ticket she’s on.

“I think it’s brilliant, “ said Nancy Bigbee of Westchester, Vermont. “McCain’s
like, what, 75 years old or something? She’ll probably be president in no time
this way.”

And that nugget may well hold some gold in it. McCain’s health hasn’t been much of an issue in this campaign, but he is 70 years old, and would be the oldest president ever sworn in to a first term if elected. A bitter Democratic primary season has battered Mrs. Clinton among her former party, making it a long shot for her to get the nomination at this point. This is likely her best shot now at getting back into the White House.

Obama supporters have mixed feelings about the announcement, being somewhat happy that the bitter in-fighting will finally end, but mostly being indifferent, having stopped listening to Clinton months ago.

WEEKS IN THE MAKING

Rumors of a possible Clinton party switch have been circling Washington recently following Sen. Clinton’s media appearances with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Richard Mellon Scaife, a vociferously staunch opponent of Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, for years. Even Ann Coulter loves her. Democrats have been not so quietly rumbling about what they saw as her attempts to cozy up to the “vast right wing conspiracy” she once railed against. Senator Clinton’s own recent comments also seem to have been quietly laying the groundwork for just such a tactic. Earlier last month she repeated on several talk shows that both she and Senator McCain had the lifetime of dedicated experience needed to run this country, something her former Democratic opponent Barack Obama didn’t have. In fact, up until today’s announcement, Senator Clinton had been Senator McCain’s best campaigner, with her repeated attempts to derail the Obama campaign.

“All of the dirty tricks of the last few weeks, from the NAFTA frame-up against
Obama in Ohio to the subtly drawn out race issues and Reverend Wright
associations to the sublimation of the primary rules in Florida and Michigan-
all these things and more have been part of the Clinton campaign’s efforts to
divide the Democratic party and bring some votes over to a McCain-Clinton
ticket,” said the unnamed Clinton campaign official.

When asked about the timing of the announcement, coming on the heels of Senator Clinton’s steadfast refusal to leave the Democratic race before the end of the primary season, this same official noted that, “April is clearly the time to strike. We know what we’re doing here. We’re not a bunch of fools.”

WIN-WIN FOR GOP?

But what does a McCain-Clinton ticket hold for Republicans? For starters, Hillary Clinton began her political life as a Barry Goldwater disciple, the former Arizona Republican and presidential candidate in 1964. Long embraced by the more conservative Republicans, Hillary’s early associations with Goldwater’s brand of politics probably runs deep in her own political psyche, proving her to be a Republican at heart. It’s not just coincidence that McCain also hails from Arizona.

But more than just her conservative underpinnings, Clinton brings to the GOP ticket that tough, but feminine touch that’s been missing all these years- like Margaret Thatcher did for Britain’s Conservative party in the 1980’s. Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans, especially women, wouldn’t vote for Clinton come hell or high water, but that truth probably won’t hold at the ballot box. During her husband’s Oval Office infidelities, Mrs. Clinton stood by her man to the end. While derided at the time for by many women’s groups, then First-Lady Clinton unknowingly started a trend that has been seen all too often these last seven years during GOP prominence. For every Congressman convicted of taking bribes there’s been a wife by their side. For every GOP sex scandal (from cruising for page boys to soliciting in the airport bathroom) there’s been a tightly smiling GOP wife by her man. These women credit Hillary for their strength almost as much as they do their faith. Clearly Clinton can hold her own with this demographic at the polls. And that’s one area McCain clearly needs help with.

Hillary also shows promise that she is willing to carry on with some of the more popular Bush policies like the War in Iraq, by giving life to the falsehood that she had to dodge sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia while serving as First Lady. Such inspired untruth telling shows she’s not only ready, but also willing to say anything to get her point across. This is the kind of trait Republicans love in there politicians-the power to change reality to fit the situation at hand.

Both Clinton and McCain bill themselves as Bi-Partisan leaders and they’ve proven this much. Both reached across the aisle to support the Iraq War. Both supported the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill brought forth by Senator McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before they opposed it. Both supported Bush’s No Child Left Behind program too, and still support it generally despite its high costs to states, narrowed curriculum geared towards testing, and less than stellar results. In these and many other issues, Hillary Clinton and John McCain seem to make the perfect political couplet in generations.

LAST, BEST SHOT AT WHITE HOUSE

But the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton has had her sights set on the presidency for decades. It is her life long dream and from her point of view, this year was supposed to be “her” year. She’d hoped to take the prize under the Democrats banner, if only to tie the double-shot secured by the Bush clan. But with Barack Obama clearly the popular choice among registered Democratic voters, and among many Independents too, Mrs. Clinton is realist enough to know that her only ride back to Pennsylvania Avenue is in the back seat of John McCain’s limo- and faced with the prospect of losing it all, a short stint as VP looks pretty good to her now.

The announcement, scheduled for release on April 1, 2008, also noted that both Senators McCain and Clinton would be unreachable for comment for most of the day, as they will be coordi
nating their campaign strategies for the next phase of the campaign.

(cross-posted at Bring It On!)

To say that world opinion of America has degraded under the hand of George W. Bush may be an understatement, but I’m not going to belabor that point today. Suffice it to say that Bush has undermined our national reputation even among our allies during his tenure, both with his belligerance and his policies, and his concerted lack of curiosoty and ability reality haven’t helped things much either. Where this country used to be viewed as a beacon of hope, promise, and freedom by the nations of the world, the United States today is viewed with skepticism by many, with scorn by many more. Instead of a country that helps, we’re perceived as a country that takes and pushes its way through the global arena. Rule of Law? Not under this president. America may still be king in terms of brute force, but our prestige is sorely bruised, and declining world opinion makes it harder for America to lead the way towards a better world future. The damage Bush has done to America at home has been grave. But the damage he has done to America abroad has probably been even worse for this country.

American tend to discount the thoughts and concerns of the rest of the world in most everything we do. Hell, throw down a world map and most Americans probably couldn’t find more than half a dozen foreign countries without computerized assistance. So it’s only natural that when electing our president we think only about what a person offers us here at home, completely discounting the importance of what that person could offer us around the world.

The truth of the matter is that the American president sets the tone for how every other country will act towards American inspired goals and ideas. The world knows that America has the might to make happen the things it wants to make happen, but it isn’t might that shows leadership. True leadership relies on both might and the ability to gather partners around a common goal. And while might may force others to the table, albeit with a sour taste in their mouths, true statesmanship allows the participants to sit at the table both eager to listen and willing to participate in our goals, not out of fear of retribution but out of eagerness to forge a better path.

Which bring me around to the point of this post. World opinion surrounding the current U.S. presidential elections shows excitement about the possibility of Barack Obama becoming our next president. Like many Americans, Obama is perceived as a chance to change not just the direction of American politics and policies but the face of America in general. To many abroad, McCain looks a lot like Bush, with his continued support for the Iraq War and the broader Bush War on Terrorism and all its faulty premises to his Cold War mentality towards foes and U.S. foreign strategy in a world that has moved on. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is hardly viewed as the groundbreaking candidate abroad, especially in areas of concern like the Middle East. Remember that during her husbands reign of power, attacks in Iraq continued the war of the first President Bush. She carries the baggage of Bill Clinton’s presidency around with her whether she wants to or not, and despite her husbands popularity in general, not all things “Clinton” are viewed favorably around the globe.

But in Obama, non-Americans see a glimmer of hope that under his leadership America could not only regain her standing as a right and honorable nation among the world community, but that she could again assume a leadership role in solving world problems like global climate change, energy diversity, and a path towards global prosperity and peace. But don’t take my word for it. Read what people are saying themselves…

From Australia:

He’s (Obama) cosmopolitan, he offers a fresh framework for conceptualising global issues, and he is a defence against fundamentalist Christianity in the US.
This quote from an older Australian male living in Sydney is a good example of the symbolism surrounding the Obama “nomination”: “I think Barack Obama represents the best hope for a world entering a dangerous state of confrontation between Islam and Christianity. Obama is a Christian but he had Muslim parents and grew up in the world’s most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia …”

From England:

For the rest of us the Obama campaign is more than about mere American domestic politics. That moment on a freezing January day in Washington when a black man and his family stand on the steps of the Capitol to take the presidential oath will be flashed up all over the world. The wordless message to young black people from New York to Nairobi, Johannesburg to Brixton will be of a whole new world of personal possibilities. America’s sense of itself will be redeemed. The way that the world sees it will be transformed.

From Russia:

After presenting the question to nearly 50 Russians, the answer is clear: one hundred percent of our not-so-random sampling said Senator Barack Obama is their first choice. The reasons are varied. Some of Russia Blog’s Russian friends have had great experiences in the U.S., and they genuinely believe that the first-term junior senator from Illinois is a leader who is capable of bringing positive change to America. They like Mr. Obama’s goal of withdrawing the troops from Iraq and agree with his health care and education policies. Other Russians are more concerned about Russia, and don’t like the anti-Putin rhetoric of Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton. (It is important to remember that Vladimir Putin still enjoys nearly 80 percent approval rating, and most Russians view themselves as enjoying more freedom and wealth today than ever before in their country’s thousand-year history.)

Russians have been keeping their savings in U.S. currency for over a decade. Some Russians believe that America’s aggressive foreign policy, negative image abroad, and high military spending contributed to the weakening of the dollar. Whether there is a defensible correlation or not, even if Mr. Obama spends more federal budget money on healthcare and education, the Russians in our informal poll hope that withdrawal from Iraq and increased “friendliness” of the United States abroad will help to strengthen the U.S. currency.

From France:

In an informal poll of the French Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution. Their members are descendants of French aristocrats who fought in the American Revolution. They are about as conservative a group as you can find in France, and yet they all preferred Obama. And they are not alone. The French as a whole say Obama is their favorite candidate. He has caught their imagination with his image and soaring oratory. When they talk about him, they almost always mention Kennedy. Even French Socialists, who chose a woman to run as their candidate in France’s presidential election last year, prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton by a slight margin.

And Iran:

“…the whispers of a Democratic candidate winning the US presidential
election could soften the dark and frozen atmosphere in Iran. Iran’s current president – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – was elected two years ago to face the foreign threat of having Iran considered a part of the ‘axis of evil’. Two years ago, Iran could have been attacked any moment, and a person was chosen to counter the foreign pressure. If the foreign threat diminishes, a slow democratic movement can go forward. Obama’s ideas on foreign affairs and Iran make reformists happy… maybe some do not know but peace and dialogue is like poison for a group whose political existence relies on violence and war.”

Now I’ll happily grant that these few glimpses into the minds of others across the globe do not equate to some kind of wholesale international support for Barack Obama, but if these are the average thoughts of average people across the globe then the international outlook for America with Obama at the helm could be promising.

As important as what a candidate can do for Americans at home is what can a candidate bring to America from abroad. Obama hasn’t the international political experience that Hillary has, but he has more practical international experience borne out of living in several foreign countries. Obama hasn’t the “war toughness” of McCain, but he has a more mature concept of when and how to use the power of the sword. Obama brings a face of hope (that a black man can become president in a country born from prejudice and slavery); he brings youthfulness (compared to the 72 year old McCain and the 60 year old Clinton); he offers infectuous ambition (challenging average citizens to help colve national and international problems); and he brings the message that in a new world, we must sometimes cast off the oppressive bonds that create gridlock, especially when we’ve been bound up so long we barely recognize the chains for what they are.

How the world perceives America is directly related to how they see our president. Right now, we are the bully in the playground and foreign attitudes towards us and our policies are very low. As important to solving our national and international problems is the face of our leader. Electing Obama will go a long way towards repairing American prestige abroad. That’s something that McCain and Hillary can’t do, not so long as they cling to the old way of governing-which they seem very likely to do.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)