According to a recent Gallop poll, half of Americans expect their tax burden to rise if Senator Obama is elected. Not so according to Tax Policy Center -- an independent, non-partisan off-shoot of the center-sometimes-center-left Brookings Institution -- whose latest study finds that 95% of American families would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan:
Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.
To find out how you would benefit under Obama's plan, check out Obamataxcut.com, a neat-o tax-cut calculator based on three simple questions. And no, not those questions three.
*Which makes sense to me, because both taste terrible; you on the other hand might love ranch, or Republicans.
"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system," Paul said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates.
He recommended Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and possibly others."
I'm so fed if with the two-party crap-fest everyone else is gagga over that this kind of news makes me want to kiss Ron Paul on the mouth (chastely and platonicly, natch). Playing along for the moment, here are my thoughts on the aforementioned candidates.
1) Chuck Baldwin: This guy scares the bejebus out of me. He has ties to both the Moral Majority and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Also, he left the Republican party in 2000 because he felt GW Bush was too liberal. Yikes. I grew up with folks like this, and while I love them to death, I have no desire for them to run for president. Sorry, Freedom Farm.
2) Bob Barr: Barr is one cool cat (see: Glasses). He grew up travelling the globe; worked for the CIA; served as the most conservative congressman ever; supported the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War before he was against them all; and now is a bonafide Libertarian. I can't tell if he's genuiely a new creation (politically speaking), but man, those glasses!
3) Cynthia McKinney: According to USA Today (which I trust forever and ever amen), Cynthia McKinney, a former Democtraic Congresswomen from Georgia, lost her seat in 2002 because of crossover voting from Republicans in the Democratic primary (they allow it). Additionally, she sort of suggested that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.
4) Ralph Nader: He's not on Ron Paul's list, but I'd rather sit at his feat than worship at the Church of Obama or Cranky-Pants McCain. Independent Lens ran a doc on him a while back that opened my eyes to all the crap he's gone through over the years. I mean, if you want to vote for a prophet for president, you don't have to look further than Nader. Hyperbole? Yes! Truth? Hells yes!!!1!11!
The latest Post/ABC poll shows that John McCain has pulled up even with Barack Obama in the race for president, 49 to 47 percent, with a sampling error of +/- four points. In fact, a whole slew of polls held over the weekend say essentially the same thing: McCain got quite the post-convention bump, anywhere from 4-13 percentage points depending on who you believe.
A couple of things to ruminate on though.
1) Both Slate.com and On the Media point out that the old phone-interview model tends to underrepresent those who only own a cellphone. Conventional wisdom says that cellphone only voters (who live without a landline) tend to be younger, and tend to lean left. Could that mean a percentage point or two for Obama that will remain unaccounted for until November?
2) Pollsters tend to force undecided participants to choose a side. Polls with a large number of undecided don't "sell" well. We want our two-party presidential polls to add up to nearly 100. However, as David Moore, a former senior editor at Gallop for 13 years, points out:
"One can take a look, for example, at the recent Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. They asked the question - if the election were held today, who you would you vote for, you know, Barack Obama or John McCain? They find that somewhere around 95 percent of the people have made up their mind.
But, of course, the election’s not being held today, so it’s a hypothetical race. The way you could ask the question is, do you support Obama, do you support McCain, or haven't you made up your mind yet? Right now there are probably around 35 to 40 percent of voters who are undecided.
Well, I think the reason the media pollsters don't want to emphasize the undecided vote is that they think the media, the journalists, would not be interested in a poll that said there are 40 percent of the people undecided. They’d say - but gee, if people haven't begun to just make up their minds yet, or such a large segment, why don't we wait and start polling later?"
That, of course, would put pollsters out of a job. Even by a more conservative estimate, Slate's Paul Maslin estimates the number of undecideds at around 10 percent, which means either candidate still has a good chance of pulling away from the statistical dead heat we're in right now.
All that to say, with the debates ahead (not to mention increasing tensions in Afghanistan), it's still anyone's game.
In the wake of last week's revelation that Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol "chose" to have her baby at age 17, much has been made in progressive circles that Bristol had the right to choose. One such example from the Huffington Post:
There was one overlooked part of Sarah Palin's announcement of her daughter's pregnancy. She said that her daughter had decided to carry the child to term. She later remarked that no one had pressured her daughter to do so.
I take Sarah at her word. Is it not wonderful, and will this not be a happier baby and marital circumstance, that they all had these unpressured choices? The issue is not abortion vs carrying to term, it is who gets to make that choice. Sarah Palin would have the government choose. My vote is for Bristol Palin.
What scares me the most about the abortion debate is that there is no more real debate on the issue. We've walled ourselves into two camps: those who believe in the right to choose, and those who believe there is really only one choice. We've stopped debating, and decided that shouting real loud is more cathartic and fun.
Maybe we ought to review the orginal debate. On the one side, Pro-choice/abortion advocates frame the issue thusly: abortion is a choice best left to individuals, not the government. On face value, it's a great libertarian argument. Why should the government get involved in medical decisions best left to individuals and the family?
The argument cracks, however, when you frame the debate as the Anti-abortion/choice camp does: abortion is, at its core, murder. Why should the government get involved? Because the government has been tasked to protect the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all Americans; especially, it could be argued, those Americans who are marginalized, oppressed, and out of sight.
With that being said, the debate over Bristol Palin having a choice vs. making the right choice amounts to two side shouting "CHOICE" at each other without first agreeing what "choice" means. For the left, "choice" is the ability to choose what's best for the individual-- it's a celebration of the free will of the individual. For the right, "choice" is the ability to choose rightly -- it's a celebration of the choice to put the rights of the unborn over the physical pain, emotional turmoil, and social pressures of pregnancy and birth.
This is why politicos and pundits ought to shut up four-fifths of the time when they have the urge to speak about abortion and choice. The two sides are using such wildly different vocabularies that only under careful moderation can any headway be made. We need facilitators of debate, not talking-heads shouting at each other for ratings or political points.
What I wish progressives would understand is that there are many thinking-religious-types who want to see change in Washington, who can stand with progressives on issues like health care, the economy, the environment, crime, drug policy, campaign finance reform and America's foreign policy. But every time progressives take a swipe at how if Sarah Palin had her way, her daughter wouldn't have had the ability to choose in the first place, they miss the point:
Free choice is a wonderful concept. But as soon it impedes on the rights of others, choice can and should be limited. I can choose to drive my car to the grocery store, yet if I choose to drive down on the left side of the road, I break the law. I can choose to own a gun to protect my home from burglars, yet if I choose to shoot someone on the street for no reason, I break the law.
When thinking-religious-types hear from talking-heads that Palin's a hypocrite because she praises her daughter's choice but doesn't want to allow choice in the first place, they hear something like this: Palin's a hypocrite because she praises Americans when they don't kill their co-workers over missed deadlines but wants to legislate against Americans killing their co-workers over missed deadlines. Hypocrite city!
I don't know how else to say it, but every time progressives bring up this BS argument, I find myself one step closer to voting for Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or no one at all.
O the plans! O the ruin! O my brakes are failing! O this blog sucks!
So little to say, so much to not care about.
The Straight Dope on Energy Policy in the Midst of Electioneering
On the Media, that bastion of media critique which airs while I ought to be at church, says great things. Why just last week, they said great things about energy independence. An excerpt from the oh-so-short piece follows in transcript form:
DAVID FIDERER: An example I wrote about in Huffington Post was John Harwood, who writes for The New York Times and is also a political correspondent for CNBC, talked about how the Democrats now are talking about building new nuclear plants because gasoline is selling at four dollars a gallon.
BOB GARFIELD: And there is no relationship between the price of oil at the pumps and nuclear anything, correct?
DAVID FIDERER: That’s correct. Nuclear is used for generating electricity. Oil is used in the United States primarily for transportation. And there’s no viable way of converting nuclear energy into fuel for transportation.
BOB GARFIELD: Now, since both John McCain and Barack Obama and every other national politician are talking about energy independence, can we just establish a few things about that premise?
DAVID FIDERER: Sure.
BOB GARFIELD: Like given the way petroleum deposits are distributed on Earth, is it reasonable to imagine the U.S. being fully independent of foreign oil, ever?
DAVID FIDERER: Not if we consume oil at anything close to the rate we have for the last 50 years. If we consumed oil at the rate we did in 1965, we would still be importing 40 percent of our oil.
BOB GARFIELD: Another contentious issue is that of offshore oil reserves.
DAVID FIDERER: Yes.
BOB GARFIELD: The Republicans want to start [LAUGHS] drilling tomorrow, and they portray those against more drilling as tree huggers willing to put our nation’s energy security at risk to save a few whales. At least that’s how the media has been framing the controversy.
DAVID FIDERER: Even if all the oil reserves were there that the most optimistic oil person says is off the coast of California or Florida, it still wouldn't have a major impact on the price of oil. It still would take at best five years to bring production to market and it still wouldn't change our dependence on foreign oil in any major way.
Let's review:
1. Nuclear energy, with plenty of long-term problems not discussed here, does nothing to curb our dependence on foreign oil (unless we all drove electric vehicles, which we don't, because we love blowing things up and NASCAR and driving uprugged mountaintops).
2. Unless we create a time machine, or harness the power of Einstein-Rosen bridges, we will never become dependent of foreign oil unless we drastically change the way we consume and produce energy.
2-a. Absolute best case scenario if we allowed offshore drilling? The price of gas would finally drop by 2013. Best. Case. Scenario.
This is why politicians are stupid, and stupid politicians are running for president.
Mike D'Antoni should be coaching the Bulls. Their roster fits his offensive system better than the Knicks. They're 2-3 years closer than the Knicks to competing in the Conference Finals. And look at that stash -- pure Chicago.
But the Knicks offered more money, proving, once again, that capitalism is friggin' awesome, and way more important than championship rings and working in a city where the entire waterfront is public property, "forever open, clear and free."
Between this and climate change, you'd think no one in this country had anything above a third grade education.
Run, do not walk, to the nearest computer (I'm guessing you're already there, however) and watch the latest Frontline Doc, Sick Around the World. Whether you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko -- whether you've shunned it outright, whether you've celebrated it with fireworks -- Frontline's short film about Health Care systems around the globe should be required viewing for every registered American voter. And for all you Michael Moore haters, know this: Sicko is to Sick Around the World, as Three Ninjas is to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's really not even worth comparing the two.
In the film, T.R. Reid travels to five countries -- England, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- and weighs the pros and cons about their respective health care systems; including cost to patients, cost to providers, quality of care, efficiency, wait times, and government involvement. There are drawbacks in every system to be sure, but there are things to be learned from each one as well. And very rarely do people, especially poor people, slip between the cracks to fend for themselves.
This isn't rocket science. It's common sense. Our health care system is broken. It's way past the point of ideology (and if you read this blog, you know I'm a big fan of ideology). I don't care about concerns over market intrusion, individual responsibility or anecdotal health-service nightmares. All I care about is that people get sick, and they can't afford treatment. We as Americans spend too much money on medical care, and get too little service in return. Our current system is inefficient, and it lacks any semblance of a moral responsibility to assist those who need it most. In this arena, the free market has proven to be completely inept. We literally turn into gibbering idiots every time we try and argue that health care isn't a basic human right. And there, I said it. Health care is a basic human right. Finally, I'm a complete, flaming liberal.
But think about it. We provide citizens with police and fire protection, whether they can afford it or not. We give kids an education, no matter their family income. Are these institutions perfect? Hell, no. But our streets are policed, house fires don't turn into city blazes, and most voters know a thing or two about civics and the political system. If you don't care for what's offered, and you can afford rent-a-cops and private schools, go for it. But if you can't, there's at least something to fall back on.
Why should health care be any different?
There is no such thing as free universal health care. We'll all have to pay for it, in whatever way we can. But people are sick. And they can't get treatment. What else is there to understand?
The dollar could never sustain its monolithic standing as the premiere currency of the world, especially as we near the globalised utopia as envisioned by Thomas Friedman and Ronald McDonald. I bet Fidel also predicted that the Roman Empire would one day come to a terrible end at the hands of the Vandals and Visigoths.
But Chavez couldn't just stick with the obvious: "I think if things continue on like this in the United States, we'll have to start preparing to receive the refugees here."
Oh that crazy, old codger. Refugee camp, here I come!
Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, reverends both, are appearing in a new commercial this week speaking up about the need to save our planet. In suits. On a couch. At the beach.
CBS News and 60 Minutes are reporting that Al Gore's non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection has hired the ad team behind Geico's Cavemen and Gecko commercials to create a series of ads that will bring climate change to the forefront of this year's election. The tongue-in-cheek ads will feature other odd pairings, such as Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks, and Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, in order to start a new, national conversation on climate change and environmental stewardship as the two major parties gear up for their summer conventions.
Below is the 60 Minutes story from earlier tonight that has a short preview of the Robertson/Sharpton pairing, at about 5:08 into the clip. It's not much, but I'm sure the videos will be up on YouTube soon enough. What I've seen so far looks like good stuff. It's yet to be seen how it will affect voters come November -- there's no doubt that Obama/Clinton will be vocal about it, but McCain is no stranger to speaking out against global warming either. Will he toe the "business first" line in order to stay pally-pals with Bush/Cheney and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal? If McCain and the GOP really want to make some noise before the convention, it might not be a bad idea to come out with a strong position either way.
Trying to delay a final decision on which lever I'm pulling for President (or however they do it in Vermont), I've spent most of today just bumming around the internets. You know, gettin' my Lost on, listening to Spring Training ball games, and finding sweet, sweet new music vids. Here's one, courtesy of Cee-Lo and DJ Danger Mouse, who are dropping a follow up to St. Elsewhere next month. If Gnarls Barkley had ever done Sesame Street circa 1987, it prolly would have looked alot like this:
An account of things in my mind, mainly concerning culture, politics, media, faith and herky-jerky stop/starts. But also web junk, floating through hyperspace, onto its way towards digital oblivion.
La Frontera: The United States Border With Mexico, by Alan Weisman
Opium: A History, by Martin Booth
The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman
The Soul of Christianity, by Huston Smith
What Paul Meant, by Gary Wills
Some Old Iron Man Comics, by Some 70s Comic Book Dudes
100 Years of Solitude, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Also, I just keep watching lots of TV* like Entourage, The Wire, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Extras, Shameless, Life on Mars, Spooks, Wire in the Blood, Eureka, Psych, Kyle XY, Battlestar Galactica, The Middleman, Fringe, and yes, Gossip Girl
