I Agree

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11658.html

I agree with Phil Gramm who said that the "economic downturn" is mental and that we are a nation of "whiners." Here's my take on this whole economic downturn thing. Is the economy not as good as it once was? All signs point to yes. Are people out of work? Sure, but compared to the really low unemployment rate all during Pres. Bush II's presidency, it just looks worse than it really is. I have a real-life example. I work in tax, and get to work on mergers and acquisitions and the like. During times of economic downturn, mergers and acquisitions is generally a quiet area... no companies want to buy other companies, they want to save their money. However, I have not been busier with mergers and acquisitions than I am right now. Not to mention, I'm busy in general, as a tax attorney, that's pretty weird in a time of economic downturn.

What troubles me is that everyone wants the government to fix things. I want people to fix things, not the government. Gas prices got you down? Don't drive, or trade in your gas guzzler for a more economical vehicle, or move to the city. Don't make the US government solve your problems for you. Don't whine.

Obama v. McCain - Round 4 - Retirement

I'm going to retire at some point. My ultimate goal is to not rely on government subsidies during retirement... it does not mean that I don't think I'm entitled to social security monies that I paid in (that's the point of the program).

McCain

• Meeting social security obligations to retirees and making the "hard decisions to restore the program's solvency without raising taxes." - YES By making hard decisions, he means cutting government programs.
• Personal investment accounts as part of Social Security reform. - YES I do not understand what the Dems find so bad about personal investment accounts.
• Lowering Medicare premiums through wider use of Medicare Advantage HMO plans. - NO I do not understand what this means.
• Eliminating the Medicare Part D prescription drug subsidies for the most affluent Americans and using the savings for the government retiree health program. YES To the eliminating Medicare Part D prescription drug subsidies. NO to the using savings for the government retiree health program.

Obama

• Maintaining the current retirement age. - NO It's stupid to have a "current retirement age" anyway, it should be whenever you retire.
• Extending the social security payroll tax beyond the first $102,000 of income made by a worker to help keep the program solvent - YES Meh.
• Blocking efforts to create private social security investment accounts. NO Capitalism and personal choice instead of government control? Please
• Automatic enrollment in company 401Ks or IRAs for employees not covered by 401K plans. - NO Government does not need to dip it's hand into 401Ks or IRAs.
• Elimination of income taxes for 7 million seniors making less than $50,000. YES I like less taxes.
• Bankruptcy code changes to keep companies from filing Chapter 11 to avoid pension obligations. NO You start messing with the bankruptcy code, bad stuff happens.
• Federal negotiation of drug prices for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program to help reduce costs for seniors. NO What does federal negotiation mean? "If you don't lower these prices, the rangers are coming for you.

McCain - 3 Yes, 2 No

Obama - 2 Yes, 5 No

McCain in a landslide. Looks like the old man is pulling ahead.

Great Stuff

I completely agree with this guy, especially the last few paragraphs:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145155/page/1

The best part is: "People complain about governmental gridlock. But what often obstructs constructive change is public opinion. The stalemates on immigration and retirement spending are typical. We avoid messy problems; we embrace inconsistent and unrealistic ambitions. We want more health care and lower health costs; cheap energy and less dependence on foreign energy; more government spending and lower taxes. The more unattainable our goals, the more we blame "special interests," "lobbyists" and other easy scapegoats. "

Yeah, no kidding boss. It's not "what can I do for myself" anymore, it's "what can the government do for me."

Obama v. McCain - Round 3 - Energy

The preface for this topic is as follows: I'm all for new and improved and clean fuels. However, what I am against is government subsidies vis-a-vis new and improved and clean fuels. I think companies/consumers should take care of this themselves. GM should make electric cars, so that they don't go out of business (for example). I'm not overly concerned about the environment because it has not yet affected me.

Obama

• A $150 billion investment over 10 years to promot biofuels and fuel infrastructure, plug-in hybrids, commercial-scale renewable energy development, low-emissions coal plants and a new digital electricity grid. - NO I'm all for these things. However, I have a feeling the $150 billion investment is actually not an investment (i.e. there is no cash return to me). Therefore, I'm against this.
• Creation of a Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund by investing $10 billion a year for five years to fill a gap in US technology development - NO See above.
• Partnering with existing investment funds and national laboratories to ensure promising technologies are commercialized - NO The investment funds and laboratories can commericialize the products themselves. If the government needs to help commercialize something, it probably should not be commercialized.
• Keep nuclear power an option as long as there is nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and the public has information regarding the facility. - YES I'm fine with nuclear power and the safety thereof.
• A windfall profits tax on oil companies to help Americans pay their heating and cooling bills and reduce energy costs. - NO I'm against windfall profits taxes in general (see previous posts). I'm also questioning the "help Americans pay" part. The government should not help Americans pay for anything, and, further, I question whether Americans will actually see money from the windfall profits tax or if they will just go into the US coffers.
• Doubling fuel economy standards within 18 years. - YES I'm fine with this generally.

McCain

• Temporarily suspending the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax and the 24.4 cent diesel fuel tax to help motorists offset rising fuel prices. - YES I'm all for reduced taxes. However, someone needs to point out that a reduction in taxes does not necessarily mean a reduction in fuel prices. Let's say fuel costs $5.00 a gallon plus $.18 and $.24 in taxes (so totaling $5.42 per gallon). There is no guarantee that upon the suspension of the taxes the gas station's charge to you the consumer will be $5.00.
• Encouraging private sector efforts to develop alternative fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass, natural gas, and waste products. - NO Stop giving people money!
• Expansion of nuclear power as a way to generate energy without producing greenhouse gases. - YES See above re: Obama
• Developing clean coal technology to avoid emitting excessive greenhouse gases. - NO Mostly because this probably means giving coal companies money. I'm not for that.
• Encouraging a market-based approach to setting "reasonable caps" or limits on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change; providing industries with credits they can trade on the open markets for a profit. - NO Tax credits are great, except what they really involve is giving companies money, which, in case you haven't noticed, I'm against.

Obama - 2 yes, 4 no

McCain - 2 yes, 3 no

Again, McCain by a nose. McCain now leads, barely, through three rounds of "economy."

Obama v. McCain - Round 2 - Jobs and Foreign Trade

Let me preface this section by saying that (1) I have a job and I like it and (2) Anything that makes stuff cheaper, I'm all for.

McCain

• Eliminating US tariffs on agricultural imports. YES (this will make stuff cheaper by more competition)
• Phasing out unneeded farm subsidies. YES (make the US farmers compete a little)
• Providing assistance to older workers who accept lower-paying jobs while they acquire new skills at community colleges and technical schools. NO (I want to like this, but I can't help but think of welfare. Save your money, go back to school, get your job. You didn't pay for me to go to school, I'm not paying for you to go to school).
• Consolidation of the half-dozen federal job-training programs. YES
• More H1-B VISAs for educated, skilled foreign workers. YES (although, I'm for letting anyone in who wants to come in... illegal, legal, martians, whatever)

Obama

• Trade agreements that open foreign markets to US goods and include labor and environmental standards. YES (More money for the US)
• Amending NAFTA so it works better for Americans. Um... YES (I have no idea what "better for Americans" means
• Extending the Trade Adjustment Assistance program which trains workers dislocated by trade, to service workers, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain; funding retraining workers in sectors vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs. YES (This calls for an explanation... I'd rather spend my taxes training someone to work than paying them to not work. Ideally they figure it out for themselves, but that's never going to happen again.)
• Providing assistance to the US auto-industry to ensure new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers. NO (The auto-industry can do this themselves. I ain't paying money to them to do it. Self-correction through capitalism baby).
• Investing in science, technology and renewable energy to create jobs. YES (Sure, why not. I like science and technology and renewable energy. I only hope invest means there will be some return, as opposed to "here's some money, you can keep it forever.")
• Strengthening the right to organize unions, banning permanent replacement of striking workers, increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. NO (The first part is fluff... unions have the right to organize, there is no permanent replacement for striking workers as it is already illegal... I studied this stuff in law school. Since I don't believe there should be a minimum wage, at least nationally, I disagree with the second part as well.)

McCain - 4 yes, 1 no

Obama - 4 yes, 2 no

McCain by a hair in the second round. Although, it was probably more than a hair since the two things I disagree with Obama on are both hot button type issues for me.

Obama v. McCain - Round 1 - Health Care

My feelings on socialized health care are as follows: DO NOT DO IT! I have some experience as my dad's a doctor, I've followed the issue, and I used to do some healthcare work. I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans who have healthcare would prefer to have the high quality remain, rather than be subject to government-regulated healthcare. Anyway, here's the deal.

Obama

• Make affordable and quality coverage available through a mix of private insurance and expanded public programs, with employers offering health benefits or constributing a percenage of the payroll to finance the new public programs. - Federal health care? Yeah, sounds like it - NO
• Requiring all children to have health insurance. - NO
• Allowing Americans up to age 25 to continue family coverage through their parents plans. - This should end at age 18 or upon graduation from college. - NO
• Banning insurers from denying insurance coverage because of illness or pre-existing conditions. - YES (although watch out for rising insurance costs commensurate with this)
• Allowing Americans to buy lower-priced medications from other developed countries such as Canada if the drugs are safe. - YES (a thousand times yes!)
• Letting the government negotiate with drug companies to get better prices on prescription drugs for seniors under the Medicare Part D program - YES (I'm all good with more competition and lower prices)

McCain

• Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines, to maximize choice, heighten competition and help businesses reduce overhead, administrative, and compensation costs. - YES (competition!)
• Expanding Health Savings Accounts for families. - YES (although they are government sponsored)
• Providing federal assistance to states so they can create high-risk pools that would contract with insurers to cover consumers who have been denied health coverage on the open market. - NO
• Lowering drug costs through safe re-importation of less expensive drugs from Canada and elsewhere. - YES
• Passing medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. - NO (you would think YES, except that I'm a lawyer and I hate laws that prohibit lawyering).

Obama - 3 yes, 3 no

McCain -3 yes, 2 no

McCain by a nose in the first round. Also, tell me you think Obama's rhetoric on the subject matches his plan... it doesn't.

Good Stuff

MSN.com has a great comparison of Obama and McCain on a variety of issues. I'll handle one issue per candidate per day... see what stuff I agree with.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/ObamaOnTheEconomyCampaign2008_SeriesHome.aspx

In the News Today

So, evidently the ACLU is not pleased with the Dems either.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092

Good. I hate that free speech is the Dems' hot button issue.

Here's another good one:

http://www.observer.com/2008/style/one-more-reason-hollywood-support-obama

I think my favorite part is that the New York Observer thought that Baldwin was serious, as opposed to, say, making fun of his brother and other Hollywood types. My lord, the people in this country are so stupid sometimes.