Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Oct 6, 2008
McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, that is simply not true.
Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, "to spend more time with her family"? Having stayed in purdah for weeks, she finally agreed to a third interview. CBS's Katie Couric questioned her in her trademark sympathetic style. It didn't help. When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience, Palin responded thus:
"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
There is, of course, the sheer absurdity of the premise. Two weeks ago I flew to Tokyo, crossing over the North Pole. Does that make me an expert on Santa Claus? (Thanks, Jon Stewart.) But even beyond that, read the rest of her response. "It is from Alaska that we send out those …" What does this mean? This is not an isolated example. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. ("We mustn't blink.") But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.
Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector. It was designed to see if Palin understood that the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that's why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street's most toxic liabilities. Here's the entire exchange:
COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
This is nonsense—a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head. Some commentators, like CNN's Campbell Brown, have argued that it's sexist to keep Sarah Palin under wraps, as if she were a delicate flower who might wilt under the bright lights of the modern media. But the more Palin talks, the more we see that it may not be sexism but common sense that's causing the McCain campaign to treat her like a time bomb.
Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.
Domestically, the bailout and reform of the financial industry will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Health-care costs, unless curtailed, will bankrupt the federal government. Social Security, immigration, collapsing infrastructure and education are all going to get much worse if they are not handled soon.
And the American government is stretched to the limit. Between the Bush tax cuts, homeland-security needs, Iraq, Afghanistan and the bailout, the budget is looking bleak. Plus, within a few years, the retirement of the baby boomers begins with its massive and rising costs (in the trillions).
Obviously these are very serious challenges and constraints. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/161204
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Economic poll on McCain, Obama
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/
From the article:
• Adams hired a research firm to survey 500 economists on McCain, Obama
• Democratic and GOP economists favor their party's candidate, Adams says
• Independent economists say Obama would be a better choice, he says
We asked the economists which candidate for president would be best for the economy in the long run. Not surprisingly, 88 percent of Democratic economists think Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would be best, while 80 percent of Republican economists pick Republican Sen. John McCain.
Independent economists, who in our sample are largely from the academic world, lean toward Obama by 46 percent compared to 39 percent for McCain.
Overall, 59 percent of our economists say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31 percent picking McCain, and 8 percent saying there would be no difference.
From the article:
• Adams hired a research firm to survey 500 economists on McCain, Obama
• Democratic and GOP economists favor their party's candidate, Adams says
• Independent economists say Obama would be a better choice, he says
We asked the economists which candidate for president would be best for the economy in the long run. Not surprisingly, 88 percent of Democratic economists think Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would be best, while 80 percent of Republican economists pick Republican Sen. John McCain.
Independent economists, who in our sample are largely from the academic world, lean toward Obama by 46 percent compared to 39 percent for McCain.
Overall, 59 percent of our economists say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31 percent picking McCain, and 8 percent saying there would be no difference.
More about McCain's 300 economists
More about McCain's 300 economists
Salon.com - War Room
Two HuffPo reporters dig deeper among the 300 economists touted as supporting McCain's economic "plan," and hear a lot of denials.
Ed Kilgore
Jul. 11, 2008 Following up on the Politico's discovery that some of the 300 economists touted as endorsing John McCain's economic plan hadn't read it and don't support it, Nico Pitney and Sam Stein of the Huffington Post decided to dig deeper. They sent e-mails to about half of these dismal scientists questioning their attitude toward McCain and his platform, and a fifth of those responded.
Seems a lot of "McCain's economists" aren't all that supportive, with his "gas tax holiday" proposal and his first-term balanced budget pledge (the central point of his "plan") earning widespread mockery.
You can read it all, but my favorite response was from Peter J. Van Blokland of the University of Florida, who said he didn't support making Bush's tax cuts permanent, didn't support the gas tax holiday, didn't support the balanced budget pledge and hadn't, in fact, endorsed McCain. Other than that, I guess, he's a pretty solid member of McCain's economic team.
Combined with yesterday's over-the-top repudiation by McCain of his top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, it appears this hasn't been a great week for McCainomics.
-- Ed Kilgore
Salon.com - War Room
Two HuffPo reporters dig deeper among the 300 economists touted as supporting McCain's economic "plan," and hear a lot of denials.
Ed Kilgore
Jul. 11, 2008 Following up on the Politico's discovery that some of the 300 economists touted as endorsing John McCain's economic plan hadn't read it and don't support it, Nico Pitney and Sam Stein of the Huffington Post decided to dig deeper. They sent e-mails to about half of these dismal scientists questioning their attitude toward McCain and his platform, and a fifth of those responded.
Seems a lot of "McCain's economists" aren't all that supportive, with his "gas tax holiday" proposal and his first-term balanced budget pledge (the central point of his "plan") earning widespread mockery.
You can read it all, but my favorite response was from Peter J. Van Blokland of the University of Florida, who said he didn't support making Bush's tax cuts permanent, didn't support the gas tax holiday, didn't support the balanced budget pledge and hadn't, in fact, endorsed McCain. Other than that, I guess, he's a pretty solid member of McCain's economic team.
Combined with yesterday's over-the-top repudiation by McCain of his top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, it appears this hasn't been a great week for McCainomics.
-- Ed Kilgore
McCain's gas-tax holiday proposal universally panned by economists
Catching up on some old McCain stupidity here.
The Wall Street Journal Online, Posted By topeditor On May 5, 2008 @ 1:36 pm In Global
Unanimity isn’t easy to come by in any field, but sometimes a premise is so basic that it can’t be denied. That is, unless you’re running for president of the United States.
... a proposal, first put forth by Sen. John McCain, to suspend the federal gas tax over the summer in a bid to lower prices. However, economists have universally derided the idea. Justin Wolfers of Freakonomics put out the call for an economist who supports the plan last week, and still has no takers. Meanwhile, a petition against the policy drummed up some major names in the field of economics from across the political spectrum, including Austan Goolsbee, a top adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who opposes the plan.
More …
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain disses Letterman
Yesterday, McCain personally called Letterman to cancel his appearance on the Late Show, saying he is racing back to Washington to deal with the financial crises. During the taping of the Late Show, Letterman cuts over, live, to the CBS News studio where McCain is giving an interview to Katie Couric. Letterman yells at the monitor, "Hey, John! I've gotta question. You need a ride to the airport!?"
Earlier in the clip, Letterman laments about how previous candidates would have sent the VP candidate as a backup, and suggests that apparently Palin can't handle it.
The whole thing is entertaining, but the cutover to the interview starts at 6:37.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
Earlier in the clip, Letterman laments about how previous candidates would have sent the VP candidate as a backup, and suggests that apparently Palin can't handle it.
The whole thing is entertaining, but the cutover to the interview starts at 6:37.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
McCain Loses His Head
Following is a blistering indictment of John McCain's erratic and unpresidential temperament by George Will, a Pulitzer-Prize winning conservative writer.
The Washington Post
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; A21
"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."
Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)
By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."
The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
Original Article
The Washington Post
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; A21
"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."
Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)
By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."
The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
Original Article
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Obama says he may rein in spending plans
Nation's tax revenues could affect health care, education, energy initiatives
The Associated Press
updated 8:13 a.m. MT, Tues., Sept. 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday the deepening American financial crisis and prospect of a massive government bailout meant he likely would have to delay expansive spending programs outlined during his campaign for the White House.
In an interview with NBC television, Obama said he would have to study what happens to the United States' tax revenues before making decisions on budgeting for his promised initiatives on national health care, education, energy and other concerns.
As the Bush administration and Congress negotiated details of a $700 billion financial rescue plan, Obama said the problem should be dealt with as a short-term crisis with bipartisan action and then as a long-term structural issue.
"Although we are potentially providing $700 billion in available money to the Treasury, we don't anticipate that all that money gets spent right away and we don't anticipate that all that money is lost. How we're going to structure that in budget terms still has to be decided," Obama told NBC's "Today" show in an interview aired Tuesday.
"Does that mean I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign right away? Probably not," he said. "I think we're going to have to phase it in."
More ...
The Associated Press
updated 8:13 a.m. MT, Tues., Sept. 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday the deepening American financial crisis and prospect of a massive government bailout meant he likely would have to delay expansive spending programs outlined during his campaign for the White House.
In an interview with NBC television, Obama said he would have to study what happens to the United States' tax revenues before making decisions on budgeting for his promised initiatives on national health care, education, energy and other concerns.
As the Bush administration and Congress negotiated details of a $700 billion financial rescue plan, Obama said the problem should be dealt with as a short-term crisis with bipartisan action and then as a long-term structural issue.
"Although we are potentially providing $700 billion in available money to the Treasury, we don't anticipate that all that money gets spent right away and we don't anticipate that all that money is lost. How we're going to structure that in budget terms still has to be decided," Obama told NBC's "Today" show in an interview aired Tuesday.
"Does that mean I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign right away? Probably not," he said. "I think we're going to have to phase it in."
More ...
Monday, September 22, 2008
NRA Targets Obama
FactCheck.org
September 22, 2008
It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
Summary
A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.
Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."
The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."
Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users
Mobile users
September 22, 2008
It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
Summary
A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.
Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."
The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."
Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users
Mobile users
Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million
The New York Times
September 22, 2008
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.
More ...
September 22, 2008
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.
More ...
Capital Gains Tax
Following is a response to the post "Capital Gains Tax".
“When Barack Obama talks taxes clearly does not understand them. Not surprising for community organzier.”
You seem to imply that community organizers lack the intellect to understand taxes. By that reasoning, I suppose, they also lack the intellect to be a Constitutional scholar or president of the Harvard Law Review. Is that your position? Because Obama was both.
It’s odd that someone who has such disdain for government programs also has such disdain for community organizers. It begs the question whether there is a form of community activism that you would approve of, or rather if you believe that everyone is on their own.
“Heres why. Assuming his goal of raising the capital gains tax is to pay for his socialism he will do the exact opposite of what he wants to.”
Perhaps in another post you could define socialism and clarify which aspects of Obama’s plan you think fall into that category.
“The three times in history that taxes were raised where in 1981, 1997, and 2003. In the years following the revenue from those taxes soared 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively. The only time when the rate was raised, revenues decreased 44%.”
I assume you misspoke and meant taxes were lowered in 1981, 1997, and 2003. Regardless, the comment is completely devoid of context or references, for example what kind of taxes, how much, and what were the other economic circumstances?
Furthermore, many groups including the Economist editorial board(1) and the CBPP disagree with your conclusions. Even Lazear, Chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, had this to say in 2006: “Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim.”
“So how does Obama think raisng the tax from 15% to 28% think that he will get more money.”
You are misinformed about his tax plan. He originally said that it would be “not more than 28%.” And more recently: “The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.”
Read it for yourself: WSJ Opinion, August 14, 2008: The Obama Tax Plan
“Since 52% of americans own stock 52%, not the top 1% like he says, they will get a tax hike.”
Not true. See FactCheck.org for an explanation.
Q: Would raising the capital gains tax rate hit the middle class?
A: More than 80 percent of all capital gains income went to those making more than $200,000 a year in 2006. Very few making under $50,000 would be affected by any increase in the top capital gains rate.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
"'Fleeced' by Dick Morris"
Dick Morris … Dick Morris, hmmm. Oh yeah, he was the guy who resigned from the Clinton campaign for letting his prostitute listen in on conversations with the President of the United States.
(1) Economist: Tripe is back on the menu; Tax policy.(George W. Bush's tax reform)
“Instead Mr Bush has returned to the tried and tested: boosterism about the benefits of tax cuts…”
“…Mr Bush is not the first president to try to grab the credit for good economic news, ignoring the role, for instance, of low interest rates. The real chutzpah lies in the degree to which the Bush team claims that tax cuts are the cause of the economy's strength.”
“…Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office suggested that, after ten years, up to one-third of the cost of a 10% cut in income taxes can be recouped from higher economic growth. That fraction may be higher for cuts in taxes on capital alone. But it is nowhere near 100%. What is true is that the timing of temporary tax cuts can affect revenues temporarily. Thus, a chunk of last year's surge in corporate tax receipts was thanks to the expiration of the temporary investment incentive in 2004.
“When Barack Obama talks taxes clearly does not understand them. Not surprising for community organzier.”
You seem to imply that community organizers lack the intellect to understand taxes. By that reasoning, I suppose, they also lack the intellect to be a Constitutional scholar or president of the Harvard Law Review. Is that your position? Because Obama was both.
It’s odd that someone who has such disdain for government programs also has such disdain for community organizers. It begs the question whether there is a form of community activism that you would approve of, or rather if you believe that everyone is on their own.
“Heres why. Assuming his goal of raising the capital gains tax is to pay for his socialism he will do the exact opposite of what he wants to.”
Perhaps in another post you could define socialism and clarify which aspects of Obama’s plan you think fall into that category.
“The three times in history that taxes were raised where in 1981, 1997, and 2003. In the years following the revenue from those taxes soared 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively. The only time when the rate was raised, revenues decreased 44%.”
I assume you misspoke and meant taxes were lowered in 1981, 1997, and 2003. Regardless, the comment is completely devoid of context or references, for example what kind of taxes, how much, and what were the other economic circumstances?
Furthermore, many groups including the Economist editorial board(1) and the CBPP disagree with your conclusions. Even Lazear, Chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, had this to say in 2006: “Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim.”
“So how does Obama think raisng the tax from 15% to 28% think that he will get more money.”
You are misinformed about his tax plan. He originally said that it would be “not more than 28%.” And more recently: “The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.”
Read it for yourself: WSJ Opinion, August 14, 2008: The Obama Tax Plan
“Since 52% of americans own stock 52%, not the top 1% like he says, they will get a tax hike.”
Not true. See FactCheck.org for an explanation.
Q: Would raising the capital gains tax rate hit the middle class?
A: More than 80 percent of all capital gains income went to those making more than $200,000 a year in 2006. Very few making under $50,000 would be affected by any increase in the top capital gains rate.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
"'Fleeced' by Dick Morris"
Dick Morris … Dick Morris, hmmm. Oh yeah, he was the guy who resigned from the Clinton campaign for letting his prostitute listen in on conversations with the President of the United States.
(1) Economist: Tripe is back on the menu; Tax policy.(George W. Bush's tax reform)
“Instead Mr Bush has returned to the tried and tested: boosterism about the benefits of tax cuts…”
“…Mr Bush is not the first president to try to grab the credit for good economic news, ignoring the role, for instance, of low interest rates. The real chutzpah lies in the degree to which the Bush team claims that tax cuts are the cause of the economy's strength.”
“…Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office suggested that, after ten years, up to one-third of the cost of a 10% cut in income taxes can be recouped from higher economic growth. That fraction may be higher for cuts in taxes on capital alone. But it is nowhere near 100%. What is true is that the timing of temporary tax cuts can affect revenues temporarily. Thus, a chunk of last year's surge in corporate tax receipts was thanks to the expiration of the temporary investment incentive in 2004.
Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?
Take the PBS/NOW poll. It is stupid that PBS would conduct a poll in this fashion; I've been told that Republicans are organizing a Yes campaign.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama
One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks
The Associated Press
updated 8:04 a.m. MT, Sat., Sept. 20, 2008
WASHINGTON - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.
More ...Wednesday, September 17, 2008
NYT Editorial: A True Maverick Speaks About Sarah Palin
By The Editorial Board
People like to argue about whether John McCain is still a maverick — or ever was one — but Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) provided more evidence today for why he really deserves the title.
Speaking about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, the Nebraska Senator said it was a “stretch” to say she was qualified to be President.
He also said, in an interview in the Omaha World-Herald:
“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.”
Sen. Hagel also said, of Gov. Palin’s now-famous statement to ABC news that you can see Russia from Alaska:
“I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia. That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.”
In politics, a maverick is someone who puts truth, and the national interest, ahead of party loyalty. Senator Hagel certainly qualifies.
Original Article
People like to argue about whether John McCain is still a maverick — or ever was one — but Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) provided more evidence today for why he really deserves the title.
Speaking about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, the Nebraska Senator said it was a “stretch” to say she was qualified to be President.
He also said, in an interview in the Omaha World-Herald:
“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.”
Sen. Hagel also said, of Gov. Palin’s now-famous statement to ABC news that you can see Russia from Alaska:
“I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia. That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.”
In politics, a maverick is someone who puts truth, and the national interest, ahead of party loyalty. Senator Hagel certainly qualifies.
Original Article
Article: John McCain and the Lying Game
By Joe Klein, TIME
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2008
Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind?
Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government — but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.
McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.
Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.
This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President.
The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign.
Original Article
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2008
Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind?
Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government — but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.
McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.
Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.
This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President.
The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign.
Original Article
Funny McCain ZInger
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's president that he'll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys network in Washington.'
Now I'm not making this up. This is somebody who's been in Congress for twenty-six years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign.
And now he tells us that he's the one who's gonna' take on the old boys network. The old boys network? In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting. Come, on!
-- Obama on the campaign trail 9/17/2008
Now I'm not making this up. This is somebody who's been in Congress for twenty-six years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign.
And now he tells us that he's the one who's gonna' take on the old boys network. The old boys network? In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting. Come, on!
-- Obama on the campaign trail 9/17/2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
McCain’s call for regulatory reform rings hollow
In light of the failures of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, and now Lehman Brothers (1), both McCain and Obama announced today that they would reform regulatory oversight of the financial industry (2).
McCain’s pronouncements, however, ring hollow. As I’ve already posted on this blog, the deregulation that has directly contributed to the current financial meltdown and speculation-driven rise in oil prices was the brainchild of former senator Phil Gramm (3). This is the same man that McCain tapped to chair his campaign and write his economic plan. This is the same man that had to step down from McCain’s campaign for proclaiming that America has become a nation of whiners and that we were experiencing a “mental recession.” This is the same man who, when told that a proposal under consideration would hurt 80-year-old retirees, replied, “Most people don’t have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it’s hard for me to feel sorry for them.” This is the same man who wrote laws benefitting Enron at the same time that his wife served as one of its directors. (4)
That McCain has declared he doesn’t really understand economics should give you pause. That he would put the fate of our economy in the hands of Phil Gram, should make you outraged.
The question that remains is, is the fact that he would align with Gramm a symptom of poor character or poor decision making ability? In light of the smear fest that he has waged against Obama, one which Karl Rove himself said had gone “one step too far”(5), I tend to believe it is a reflection of his character.
---
Following are excerpts from “John McCain’s Gamble”(4):
"In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call 'a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,' the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm."
"Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed 'financial weapons of mass destruction.'"
"Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the 'shadow banking system,' an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe."
"That Gramm is now advising the Republican nominee for president on economic matters 'shouldn’t give people a lot of comfort,' says University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. 'Gramm has been a central player in two major economic crises -- the credit crisis and the incredibly high price of energy. ... He’s got his fingerprints all over legislative efforts that led to this.'"
"The impact of the 'Enron loophole' has been enormous. Since its passage, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has concluded that the loophole contributed to inflated energy prices for American consumers. In 2006, its report found credible expert estimates that the loophole--by encouraging speculation--accounted for $20 of the price of a barrel of oil, then at $70. In 2007, the same committee blamed the loophole for excessive speculation by hedge fund Amaranth Advisors that led to the distortion of the natural gas market."
---
(1) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/companies/lehman_brothers/index.htm?postversion=2008091515
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/wall.street.candidates/index.html
(3) http://jsj-election08.blogspot.com/2008/09/democrats-on-energy-rebuttal.html
(4) http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767
(5) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-economic-underst_n_82529.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007600
McCain’s pronouncements, however, ring hollow. As I’ve already posted on this blog, the deregulation that has directly contributed to the current financial meltdown and speculation-driven rise in oil prices was the brainchild of former senator Phil Gramm (3). This is the same man that McCain tapped to chair his campaign and write his economic plan. This is the same man that had to step down from McCain’s campaign for proclaiming that America has become a nation of whiners and that we were experiencing a “mental recession.” This is the same man who, when told that a proposal under consideration would hurt 80-year-old retirees, replied, “Most people don’t have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it’s hard for me to feel sorry for them.” This is the same man who wrote laws benefitting Enron at the same time that his wife served as one of its directors. (4)
That McCain has declared he doesn’t really understand economics should give you pause. That he would put the fate of our economy in the hands of Phil Gram, should make you outraged.
The question that remains is, is the fact that he would align with Gramm a symptom of poor character or poor decision making ability? In light of the smear fest that he has waged against Obama, one which Karl Rove himself said had gone “one step too far”(5), I tend to believe it is a reflection of his character.
---
Following are excerpts from “John McCain’s Gamble”(4):
"In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call 'a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,' the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm."
"Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed 'financial weapons of mass destruction.'"
"Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the 'shadow banking system,' an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe."
"That Gramm is now advising the Republican nominee for president on economic matters 'shouldn’t give people a lot of comfort,' says University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. 'Gramm has been a central player in two major economic crises -- the credit crisis and the incredibly high price of energy. ... He’s got his fingerprints all over legislative efforts that led to this.'"
"The impact of the 'Enron loophole' has been enormous. Since its passage, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has concluded that the loophole contributed to inflated energy prices for American consumers. In 2006, its report found credible expert estimates that the loophole--by encouraging speculation--accounted for $20 of the price of a barrel of oil, then at $70. In 2007, the same committee blamed the loophole for excessive speculation by hedge fund Amaranth Advisors that led to the distortion of the natural gas market."
---
(1) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/companies/lehman_brothers/index.htm?postversion=2008091515
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/wall.street.candidates/index.html
(3) http://jsj-election08.blogspot.com/2008/09/democrats-on-energy-rebuttal.html
(4) http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767
(5) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-economic-underst_n_82529.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007600
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Obama raises $66 million in August
Posted: Sunday, September 14, 2008 10:10 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Obama
From NBC's Mark Murray
A New York Times piece last Tuesday suggested that the Obama campaign's fundraising operation was struggling to reach its ambitious fundraising goals.
Well, think again.
NBC News has learned that Obama raised $66 million in August -- his biggest monthly haul of the campaign, which surpasses the more than $55 million the campaign raised in February. The Obama camp also notes that it added an additional 500,000 donors to its fundraising base.
By comparison, McCain raised at least $47 million in August, which also amounted to his biggest money month. Since the GOP convention, however, the Republican presidential nominee must now rely on the $84 million he received from the federal government.
Obama bypassed those federal funds, so he is free to raise and spend as much money as he can get his hands on.
*** UPDATE *** The Obama camp has just issued a press release on its August haul, which notes that the campaign had more than $77 million in the bank as of September 1, and that more than 2.5 million people have now contributed to the Obama campaign.
The release: "Senator Barack Obama’s campaign announced today that more than half a million new donors contributed to the Obama campaign during the month of August, bringing the total raised for the month to over $66 million and the cash on hand to more than $77 million. More than 2.5 million people have contributed to the campaign."
"'John McCain says that he’ll take on the special interests and lobbyists, but McCain can’t fix a problem he’s been part of for three decades. The 500,000 new donors to the Obama campaign demonstrate just how strongly the American people are looking to kick the special interests out and change Washington. We are proud of the millions of volunteers and more than 2.5 million donors to the Obama campaign who are contributing to help us deliver the change we need instead of letting John McCain just continue the same failed Bush policies while middle class Americans struggle,' said David Plouffe, campaign manager of Obama for America."
Original Article
Filed Under: 2008, Obama
From NBC's Mark Murray
A New York Times piece last Tuesday suggested that the Obama campaign's fundraising operation was struggling to reach its ambitious fundraising goals.
Well, think again.
NBC News has learned that Obama raised $66 million in August -- his biggest monthly haul of the campaign, which surpasses the more than $55 million the campaign raised in February. The Obama camp also notes that it added an additional 500,000 donors to its fundraising base.
By comparison, McCain raised at least $47 million in August, which also amounted to his biggest money month. Since the GOP convention, however, the Republican presidential nominee must now rely on the $84 million he received from the federal government.
Obama bypassed those federal funds, so he is free to raise and spend as much money as he can get his hands on.
*** UPDATE *** The Obama camp has just issued a press release on its August haul, which notes that the campaign had more than $77 million in the bank as of September 1, and that more than 2.5 million people have now contributed to the Obama campaign.
The release: "Senator Barack Obama’s campaign announced today that more than half a million new donors contributed to the Obama campaign during the month of August, bringing the total raised for the month to over $66 million and the cash on hand to more than $77 million. More than 2.5 million people have contributed to the campaign."
"'John McCain says that he’ll take on the special interests and lobbyists, but McCain can’t fix a problem he’s been part of for three decades. The 500,000 new donors to the Obama campaign demonstrate just how strongly the American people are looking to kick the special interests out and change Washington. We are proud of the millions of volunteers and more than 2.5 million donors to the Obama campaign who are contributing to help us deliver the change we need instead of letting John McCain just continue the same failed Bush policies while middle class Americans struggle,' said David Plouffe, campaign manager of Obama for America."
Original Article
Article: Palin cut own duties as mayor of Wasilla
This is an insightful/critical/sarcastic article about Palin's stint as mayor of Wasilla.
"... In September 2002, she presided over her last City Council meeting. The council took up an ordinance to ban sex shops. The police chief announced that Raymond Chiemlowski was promoted to sergeant. Keller 'reported that traffic lights on Knik-Goosebay Road will be turned on soon and encouraged everyone to use caution while adjusting to the new traffic pattern.'
"And with that, at 9:48 p.m., Sarah Palin's final meeting as mayor of Wasilla was adjourned."
"... In September 2002, she presided over her last City Council meeting. The council took up an ordinance to ban sex shops. The police chief announced that Raymond Chiemlowski was promoted to sergeant. Keller 'reported that traffic lights on Knik-Goosebay Road will be turned on soon and encouraged everyone to use caution while adjusting to the new traffic pattern.'
"And with that, at 9:48 p.m., Sarah Palin's final meeting as mayor of Wasilla was adjourned."
Another Energy Rebuttal
It appears that we may be starting to agree more than disagree. Following is a response to rebuttal #2.
---
You say: “What we need to do is all of the above.”
I say: Here, here! But the emphasis and incentives need to be on clean sources.
---
You say: “When you go after oil companies heres the point. They want to drill. If there was any oil there they would drill for it.”
I say: Oil companies want to make money (as any business does), and that doesn’t always mean drilling. I’ve already demonstrated that it’s enough for an oil company to simply say the oil is there in order to boost their stock price. Furthermore, geological variations result in oil reserves that are more or less expensive to extract, depending on where they are located. So it is rational, to some extent, that an oil company might want to acquire/hold leases on land that is too expensive to drill today on the expectation that oil prices will rise and thereby make it profitable tomorrow -- that's just another form of speculation.
---
You say: "You state that drilling would be enormously profitable for oil companies. So if your logic is true how does it make sense that they have land to drill on but are not drilling? The oil companies are also inveting billions in the land they lease, so it doesn't make any sense that they investing just to sit on lands."
I say: Good point. The assertion that they would be enormously profitable is based on the assumption that oil prices remain at ridiculous levels. So far oil prices haven’t sustained those prices long enough to make it profitable (I assume).
I’ll conceded that reserves in the existing leased areas probably aren’t economical at current prices, otherwise they probably would be drilled
---
You say: "Second, offshore drilling will not take 20 years. The energy department says about five years, but if the governement got out of the way I have no doubt the amount of time would be shortened."
I say: where’s your reference?
The EIA says: "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
---
You say: "With the current demand using just the oil from the Rocky Mountain Shale we would have enough oil for about 124 and a half years. Surely in that time we could find an alternative."
I say: It sounds promising … as a backup … once they figure out how to extract it. Oil companies are permitted to develop the extraction process, and they come and go as oil prices rise and fall. It will be years before they perfect a process that doesn’t spew CO2 or leak hazardous bi-products into the water supply. At the end of the day, it’s a carbon-based energy supply when we should be focusing on non-carbon supplies.
RAND says: “Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.” This means that any investments based on oil shale’s future are significantly speculative and long-term.”
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/rocky-mountain-oil-51062.aspx
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/hl1015.cfm
http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/08.31.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=XlrAAtCD4hoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0
---
You say: “Today we get 94% of our domestic energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, while the other 6% comes from alternatives like wind and solar. So how does Obama think that taxing coal and natural gas and not using nuclear power will lower prices?”
FactCheck.org says: “McCain's new ad claims that Obama ‘says he'll raise taxes on electricity.’ That's false. Obama says no such thing … As we read Obama's response, he is rejecting a tax on wind energy, saying that taxing ‘dirty energy’ is a better option, and then he is rejecting both notions by saying ‘the real way’ is for local communities to ‘step up’ and pay for education with ‘no shortcuts.’ Obama's phrasing does leave room for interpretation, but to our ears this is a feeble peg on which to hang a claim that Obama wants to ‘raise taxes on electricity.’”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_celebrity_cred.html
BarackObama.com says: “Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
---
You say: “Finally, it is your arguement that ‘misses the point.’ ... Although the goal of lowering prices may not be solved, one will. That is that we are taking money out of the hands of countries like Russia, Iran, Syria etc by not importing or importing less of their oil.”
I say: In your original post, you led off with price and closed with national security. As you point out, I have been focusing on price and haven’t addressed national security. Actually I would argue that a national energy policy needs to balance three components: price, national security, and the environment (not necessarily in that order).
With respect to environment, I accept evidence that human activity is causing climate change and claims that we need to severely cut greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the potential for catastrophic environmental events, such as drought, sharp increases in the frequency and magnitude of severe weather, collapse in food production rates, human displacement caused by rising sea levels, and possibly worse. Even if some of those outcomes are uncertain, the potential mandates prudence. And that means an asserted effort toward a carbonless energy supply.
Based on the reports from EAI and RAND, it appears to me that carbon-based energy strategies are weak on the basis of price in the 10 – 20 year range, weak on national security in the 10 – 20 year range, and weak on the environment in the 20+ year range – with the possible exception of natural gas, which is relatively clean burning.
---
You say: “What we need to do is all of the above.”
I say: Here, here! But the emphasis and incentives need to be on clean sources.
---
You say: “When you go after oil companies heres the point. They want to drill. If there was any oil there they would drill for it.”
I say: Oil companies want to make money (as any business does), and that doesn’t always mean drilling. I’ve already demonstrated that it’s enough for an oil company to simply say the oil is there in order to boost their stock price. Furthermore, geological variations result in oil reserves that are more or less expensive to extract, depending on where they are located. So it is rational, to some extent, that an oil company might want to acquire/hold leases on land that is too expensive to drill today on the expectation that oil prices will rise and thereby make it profitable tomorrow -- that's just another form of speculation.
---
You say: "You state that drilling would be enormously profitable for oil companies. So if your logic is true how does it make sense that they have land to drill on but are not drilling? The oil companies are also inveting billions in the land they lease, so it doesn't make any sense that they investing just to sit on lands."
I say: Good point. The assertion that they would be enormously profitable is based on the assumption that oil prices remain at ridiculous levels. So far oil prices haven’t sustained those prices long enough to make it profitable (I assume).
I’ll conceded that reserves in the existing leased areas probably aren’t economical at current prices, otherwise they probably would be drilled
---
You say: "Second, offshore drilling will not take 20 years. The energy department says about five years, but if the governement got out of the way I have no doubt the amount of time would be shortened."
I say: where’s your reference?
The EIA says: "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
---
You say: "With the current demand using just the oil from the Rocky Mountain Shale we would have enough oil for about 124 and a half years. Surely in that time we could find an alternative."
I say: It sounds promising … as a backup … once they figure out how to extract it. Oil companies are permitted to develop the extraction process, and they come and go as oil prices rise and fall. It will be years before they perfect a process that doesn’t spew CO2 or leak hazardous bi-products into the water supply. At the end of the day, it’s a carbon-based energy supply when we should be focusing on non-carbon supplies.
RAND says: “Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.” This means that any investments based on oil shale’s future are significantly speculative and long-term.”
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/rocky-mountain-oil-51062.aspx
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/hl1015.cfm
http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/08.31.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=XlrAAtCD4hoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0
---
You say: “Today we get 94% of our domestic energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, while the other 6% comes from alternatives like wind and solar. So how does Obama think that taxing coal and natural gas and not using nuclear power will lower prices?”
FactCheck.org says: “McCain's new ad claims that Obama ‘says he'll raise taxes on electricity.’ That's false. Obama says no such thing … As we read Obama's response, he is rejecting a tax on wind energy, saying that taxing ‘dirty energy’ is a better option, and then he is rejecting both notions by saying ‘the real way’ is for local communities to ‘step up’ and pay for education with ‘no shortcuts.’ Obama's phrasing does leave room for interpretation, but to our ears this is a feeble peg on which to hang a claim that Obama wants to ‘raise taxes on electricity.’”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_celebrity_cred.html
BarackObama.com says: “Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
---
You say: “Finally, it is your arguement that ‘misses the point.’ ... Although the goal of lowering prices may not be solved, one will. That is that we are taking money out of the hands of countries like Russia, Iran, Syria etc by not importing or importing less of their oil.”
I say: In your original post, you led off with price and closed with national security. As you point out, I have been focusing on price and haven’t addressed national security. Actually I would argue that a national energy policy needs to balance three components: price, national security, and the environment (not necessarily in that order).
With respect to environment, I accept evidence that human activity is causing climate change and claims that we need to severely cut greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the potential for catastrophic environmental events, such as drought, sharp increases in the frequency and magnitude of severe weather, collapse in food production rates, human displacement caused by rising sea levels, and possibly worse. Even if some of those outcomes are uncertain, the potential mandates prudence. And that means an asserted effort toward a carbonless energy supply.
Based on the reports from EAI and RAND, it appears to me that carbon-based energy strategies are weak on the basis of price in the 10 – 20 year range, weak on national security in the 10 – 20 year range, and weak on the environment in the 20+ year range – with the possible exception of natural gas, which is relatively clean burning.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Greenspan: We can't afford McCain's tax cuts
WASHINGTON - Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.
"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.
"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."
More ...
While John McCain does advocate spending reductions, he has yet to identify how he will come up with enough savings to offset his tax cuts.
"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.
"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."
More ...
While John McCain does advocate spending reductions, he has yet to identify how he will come up with enough savings to offset his tax cuts.
Drill, drill, drill?
Following is a rebuttal to the blog post titled Energy rebuttal
By pointing out that prices dropped in response to George W. Bush's declaration and not an actual change in supply or demand, you are making the case for me that oil prices are being driven by speculation more than supply and demand. Supply and demand’s effect is muted by speculation. Speculation's impact on prices is something that Republicans including Ted Stevens of Alaska have acknowledged.
Oil companies haven’t pursued available leases on 22.6 million acres within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), nor are they utilizing 10,000 of the drilling permits they sought and received. The number of drilling permits has increased more than 300% in the past 10 years at the same time that gas prices have sky-rocketed.
So why do oil companies want more leases if they can’t keep up with what they have? Oil companies have a financial interest to acquire leases even if they don’t develop them because their stock price is directly impacted by the amount of reserves they hold. For example, Shell’s stock price plummeted when they announced that they overstated their reserves by 20%.
I have no doubt that drilling would be enormously profitable to oil and gas companies, but the general consensus seems to be that it would have little effect on prices. If we only produce 3% of the energy we consume, doubling our output would have little impact.
But, again, whether we get oil from offshore in 20 years or from ANWR in 7-12 years, “the debate misses the point.” We need a comprehensive plan that emphasizes local, renewable, carbonless power supply.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3890045.stm
By pointing out that prices dropped in response to George W. Bush's declaration and not an actual change in supply or demand, you are making the case for me that oil prices are being driven by speculation more than supply and demand. Supply and demand’s effect is muted by speculation. Speculation's impact on prices is something that Republicans including Ted Stevens of Alaska have acknowledged.
Oil companies haven’t pursued available leases on 22.6 million acres within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), nor are they utilizing 10,000 of the drilling permits they sought and received. The number of drilling permits has increased more than 300% in the past 10 years at the same time that gas prices have sky-rocketed.
So why do oil companies want more leases if they can’t keep up with what they have? Oil companies have a financial interest to acquire leases even if they don’t develop them because their stock price is directly impacted by the amount of reserves they hold. For example, Shell’s stock price plummeted when they announced that they overstated their reserves by 20%.
I have no doubt that drilling would be enormously profitable to oil and gas companies, but the general consensus seems to be that it would have little effect on prices. If we only produce 3% of the energy we consume, doubling our output would have little impact.
But, again, whether we get oil from offshore in 20 years or from ANWR in 7-12 years, “the debate misses the point.” We need a comprehensive plan that emphasizes local, renewable, carbonless power supply.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3890045.stm
Friday, September 12, 2008
Democrats on Energy - A Rebuttal
Following is a rebuttal to the blog post titled Democrats on Energy.
---
"In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call 'a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,' the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm."
"Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed 'financial weapons of mass destruction.'"
"Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the 'shadow banking system,' an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe."
"That Gramm is now advising the Republican nominee for president on economic matters 'shouldn’t give people a lot of comfort,' says University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. 'Gramm has been a central player in two major economic crises -- the credit crisis and the incredibly high price of energy. ... He’s got his fingerprints all over legislative efforts that led to this.'"
"The impact of the 'Enron loophole' has been enormous. Since its passage, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has concluded that the loophole contributed to inflated energy prices for American consumers. In 2006, its report found credible expert estimates that the loophole--by encouraging speculation--accounted for $20 of the price of a barrel of oil, then at $70. In 2007, the same committee blamed the loophole for excessive speculation by hedge fund Amaranth Advisors that led to the distortion of the natural gas market."
- The Texas Observer, May 30, 2008
"For most of the past century, regulators put limits on financial actors to prevent them from dominating commodity exchanges, which were much smaller than the bond or stock markets. Only commercial operations, such as farms, airlines, manufacturers and the middlemen that handle their trading activities, were allowed to buy nearly unlimited quantities. The goal was to allow these businesses to minimize the effect of price swings.
"The first major change to this regulatory framework occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms.
"The CFTC granted this request. More exemptions soon followed, including one to the Houston-based energy trader Enron.
"When the CFTC granted the 1991 hedging exemption to J. Aron (a division of Goldman Sachs), it signaled a major shift that has since allowed investors to accumulate enormous positions for purely speculative purposes," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Now, he added, "legitimate businesses that hedge and take physical delivery of oil are being trampled by the speculators who are in the market purely to make profit."
"A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The law formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it.
-- washingtonpost.com, August 21, 2008
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1824538,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071302052.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html http://pickensplan.org/index.php
- $4 gasoline is caused as much or more by speculators than supply constraints.
- The rise of speculation in the oil business was caused by deregulation--the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in particular, also known as the Enron Loophole.
- The Enron Loophole was written by lobbyists from Enron and introduced by Phil Gramm, who tacked it on to an 11,000-page reauthorization bill mere hours before a Christmas break.
- The Enron Loophole is directly responsible for the current credit crises (housing meltdown) AND energy prices.
- Phil Gramm wrote John McCain's economic plan--before he stepped down for calling America a nation of whiners.
- Offshore drilling has also been opposed by real estate developers, tourism industries, environmentalists, and Florida politicians, including former governor Jeb Bush. Even John McCain opposed offshore drilling up until June 2008.
- Oil companies themselves are not drilling the 68 million acres that are currently available for offshore drilling. For example, 498 out of Chevron's 796 leases are undeveloped.
- The impact on prices will be "insignificant" and wont be seen until 2030, according to the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration.
- Even T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman, recognizes this is a problem that we can’t drill ourselves out of. “Did you know America uses 25% of the worlds oil but only has 3% of the worlds oil reserves? And the big debate in Washington now is whether or not to drill. I say, ‘drill, drill, drill.’ The debate misses the point. Either way, we’ll still be dependent on foreign oil and on the way to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.”
---
"In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call 'a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,' the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm."
"Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed 'financial weapons of mass destruction.'"
"Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the 'shadow banking system,' an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe."
"That Gramm is now advising the Republican nominee for president on economic matters 'shouldn’t give people a lot of comfort,' says University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. 'Gramm has been a central player in two major economic crises -- the credit crisis and the incredibly high price of energy. ... He’s got his fingerprints all over legislative efforts that led to this.'"
"The impact of the 'Enron loophole' has been enormous. Since its passage, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has concluded that the loophole contributed to inflated energy prices for American consumers. In 2006, its report found credible expert estimates that the loophole--by encouraging speculation--accounted for $20 of the price of a barrel of oil, then at $70. In 2007, the same committee blamed the loophole for excessive speculation by hedge fund Amaranth Advisors that led to the distortion of the natural gas market."
- The Texas Observer, May 30, 2008
"For most of the past century, regulators put limits on financial actors to prevent them from dominating commodity exchanges, which were much smaller than the bond or stock markets. Only commercial operations, such as farms, airlines, manufacturers and the middlemen that handle their trading activities, were allowed to buy nearly unlimited quantities. The goal was to allow these businesses to minimize the effect of price swings.
"The first major change to this regulatory framework occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms.
"The CFTC granted this request. More exemptions soon followed, including one to the Houston-based energy trader Enron.
"When the CFTC granted the 1991 hedging exemption to J. Aron (a division of Goldman Sachs), it signaled a major shift that has since allowed investors to accumulate enormous positions for purely speculative purposes," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Now, he added, "legitimate businesses that hedge and take physical delivery of oil are being trampled by the speculators who are in the market purely to make profit."
"A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The law formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it.
-- washingtonpost.com, August 21, 2008
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1824538,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071302052.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html http://pickensplan.org/index.php
FactCheck.org: Energetically Wrong
September 12, 2008
Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.
Summary
Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.
Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.
Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users
Mobile users
Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.
Summary
Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.
Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.
Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users
Mobile users
McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive
washingtonpost.com: McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive
Thursday, September 11, 2008; Page A04
A new John McCain ad caricatures Barack Obama's education record by claiming that his only achievement is to pass legislation ensuring "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. It implies that its critique of the Democratic presidential nominee has been endorsed by the nonpartisan journal Education Week, when in fact it is a hodgepodge of quotes from a variety of sources stitched together to form a highly partisan political attack.
More ...
Thursday, September 11, 2008; Page A04
A new John McCain ad caricatures Barack Obama's education record by claiming that his only achievement is to pass legislation ensuring "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. It implies that its critique of the Democratic presidential nominee has been endorsed by the nonpartisan journal Education Week, when in fact it is a hodgepodge of quotes from a variety of sources stitched together to form a highly partisan political attack.
More ...
FactCheck.org: Belittling Palin?
September 11, 2008
A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.
Summary
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin:
The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."
It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,' " But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."
The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users
Mobile users
A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.
Summary
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin:
The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."
It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,' " But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."
The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users
Mobile users
FactCheck.org: School Funding Misleads
FactCheck.org: School Funding Misleads
September 11, 2008
An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.
SummaryA new Obama-Biden ad includes misleading claims about McCain and education spending:
Desktop users Mobile users
September 11, 2008
An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.
SummaryA new Obama-Biden ad includes misleading claims about McCain and education spending:
- It says McCain "voted to cut education funding" and lists five votes. But one was a vote for increased education funding, although for fewer dollars than what Democrats may have wanted. And three others were votes against additional funding, not votes for funding cuts.
- The ad says that "McCain's economic plan gives $200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools." Not exactly. McCain has proposed a one-year freeze on discretionary spending in general. A freeze would mean that funds would not keep pace with inflation and population growth, but no dollars would be "taken away." The $200 billion for "special interests" refers to the cost of McCain's proposal to reduce the tax rate for all business corporations, not just a few "special" ones.
- The ad says McCain proposed abolishing the Department of Education. He did once say in an interview that he "would certainly favor" abolishing both the departments of Education and Energy, but he hasn't pushed for either.
Desktop users Mobile users
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin is abusing executive privilege? That's not change!
Sarah Palin is withholding 1100 emails claiming an executive privilege/deliberative process exemption that covers preliminary discussion with aids on policy matters. Yet the list of emails includes subject lines that appear to deal with non-policy matters such as rivals and journalists, and that are cc'ed to her husband, who holds no official government position. I assume executive privilege doesn't apply when you include a private citizen and spousal privilege doesn't apply when you include your staff.
Update: Appeal filed to overturn decision to withhold.
Update: Appeal filed to overturn decision to withhold.
Famed McCain temper is tamed?
Famed McCain temper is tamed
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff January 27, 2008
WASHINGTON - Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president.
Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office.
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff January 27, 2008
WASHINGTON - Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president.
Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office.
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Senator Hothead
Senator Hothead
By Evan Thomas NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 21, 2000
“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
- Republican Senator Pete Domenici
By Evan Thomas NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 21, 2000
“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
- Republican Senator Pete Domenici
McCain ranked among the worst senators for children
In 2007, McCain ranked among the worst senators for children according to the Children's Defense Fund's Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard.
The Scorecard, which grades every Member of the House and Senate based on ten key votes affecting children, calls on voters to hold their legislators accountable for their votes.
The Scorecard, which grades every Member of the House and Senate based on ten key votes affecting children, calls on voters to hold their legislators accountable for their votes.
On the environment
Despite self assertions that he is progressive on environmental issues, the League of Conservation Voters rated McCain a 0% for his 2007 voting record and 41% for 2006. During those same periods, Obama rated 67% and 96% respectively.
http://lcv.org/scorecard/
http://lcv.org/scorecard/
How Much Is Cindy McCain's $300,000 Outfit Really Worth?
How Much Is Cindy McCain's $300,000 Outfit Really Worth?
by Vanity Fair
September 6, 2008, 12:27 PM
Last week, the Vanity Fair fashion department priced out the ensemble Cindy McCain wore to the Republican National Convention. Far be it from those of us at V.F. to criticize people for buying fancy clothes (you've met our advertisers, right?), but even we were astonished when the estimate came back: thanks to a pair of earrings our expert valued at roughly $280,000, the prospective First Lady's get-up appeared was assessed at approximately $300,000!
That got us thinking: what does $300,000 mean to Americans who don't have the luxury of inheriting a gargantuan beer fortune?
To Cindy McCain, $300,000 is the price of an outfit.
To most Americans, $300,000 buys ...
... one and a half houses, given the national median home price of $206,500.
... a year's worth of health care for 750 people.
... the full array of back-to-school supplies and clothes for 500 kids.
... enough gas to drive cross-country 543 times.
... 365 round-trip flights from Washington, D.C., to Anchorage, Alaska. (John McCain should have splurged on at least one.)
... a three-course steak dinner (at Mat-su Resort) and a movie ticket (for the Mat-su Cinema) for every man, woman, and child in Wasilla, Alaska.
... enough money for three Troopergate investigations.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Palin, McCain lie about Palin supporting the bridge to nowhere - 3-minute video
Ignoring the fact that the commentator sounds like a Chicago cop, this is an informative 3-minute video rundown of Palin's support for the bridge to nowhere (before she was against it).
Did Obama request $1 billion in earmarks during his senate term?
Yes, but he received far less than that, he received far less than many other members of Congress, he requested none for 2009, and he was one of the few members of Congress to disclose his requests. At the same time, Sarah Palin sought $197 million in 2009, $256 million in 2008, and as mayor of Wisilla she hired a lobbyist to seek federal money, obtaining 14 earmarks totalling $27 million for the less-than 9,000 person town (McCain and Palin castigate the armarks she seeks, Associated Press).
CNN.com: Fact Check: McCain earmark claims examined
From Brian ToddCNN Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The debate over government spending is heating up on the campaign trail and raising greater focus on which presidential candidate will really change the way Washington does business.
But will that sway the American electorate?
Sen. John McCain has been a crusader against so-called earmarks and says his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, has asked for almost $1 billion in pork-barrel projects for his state in just less than four years in the Senate.
"Nearly a million dollars for every day that he's been in office! And that's change? My friends, don't be fooled," McCain said September 9.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often-unrelated government spending bills.
According to the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Obama has asked for nearly $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate term. But the group gives him credit for disclosing his requests, which most members of Congress don't do.
Obama has not made any requests for the next fiscal year, and even when he was asking for earmarks, he was far from the worst offender, the group says.
"Just to put it into perspective, he got $98 million worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2008. Sen. [Hillary] Clinton got more than $300 million in earmarks, and Sen. [Thad] Cochran, Republican of the [Senate] Appropriations Committee, got $800 million in earmarks," Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense said.
Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, doesn't come close to that. But Biden also has never disclosed what he's asked for, until this year. Biden's office said he's requesting about $300 million.
The Obama campaign points out that although McCain hasn't asked for earmarks, his running mate hardly has room to talk. Watch McCain rail against earmarks »
"When you've been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that is not change," Obama said Monday.
According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has asked for about $450 million in federal money since she became governor. But she also gets some credit.
"As governor, she has, by all records, started to reduce the number of earmark requests ... so it's a downward trajectory by our analysis but still significant earmark requests," Ellis said.
Palin also got into the earmarking game early, before she became governor. According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, she helped get about $27 million, some of which went to the small Alaskan town of Wasilla, during her second term as mayor there, from 1998 to 2002.
The watchdog group said one of the reasons was that she hired a lobbying firm run by a former staffer for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of Washington's most legendary earmarkers.
CNN.com: Fact Check: McCain earmark claims examined
From Brian ToddCNN Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The debate over government spending is heating up on the campaign trail and raising greater focus on which presidential candidate will really change the way Washington does business.
But will that sway the American electorate?
Sen. John McCain has been a crusader against so-called earmarks and says his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, has asked for almost $1 billion in pork-barrel projects for his state in just less than four years in the Senate.
"Nearly a million dollars for every day that he's been in office! And that's change? My friends, don't be fooled," McCain said September 9.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often-unrelated government spending bills.
According to the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Obama has asked for nearly $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate term. But the group gives him credit for disclosing his requests, which most members of Congress don't do.
Obama has not made any requests for the next fiscal year, and even when he was asking for earmarks, he was far from the worst offender, the group says.
"Just to put it into perspective, he got $98 million worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2008. Sen. [Hillary] Clinton got more than $300 million in earmarks, and Sen. [Thad] Cochran, Republican of the [Senate] Appropriations Committee, got $800 million in earmarks," Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense said.
Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, doesn't come close to that. But Biden also has never disclosed what he's asked for, until this year. Biden's office said he's requesting about $300 million.
The Obama campaign points out that although McCain hasn't asked for earmarks, his running mate hardly has room to talk. Watch McCain rail against earmarks »
"When you've been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that is not change," Obama said Monday.
According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has asked for about $450 million in federal money since she became governor. But she also gets some credit.
"As governor, she has, by all records, started to reduce the number of earmark requests ... so it's a downward trajectory by our analysis but still significant earmark requests," Ellis said.
Palin also got into the earmarking game early, before she became governor. According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, she helped get about $27 million, some of which went to the small Alaskan town of Wasilla, during her second term as mayor there, from 1998 to 2002.
The watchdog group said one of the reasons was that she hired a lobbying firm run by a former staffer for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of Washington's most legendary earmarkers.
McCain-Palin Distort FactCheck.org Article
FactCheck.org: McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
September 10, 2008
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.
Summary
A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "absolutely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.
Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.
The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."
September 10, 2008
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.
Summary
A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "absolutely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.
Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.
The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."
Was Obama's "Lipstick On a Pig" Statement Directed at Palin?
No, it's more Rovian disingenuous indignation. Obama was comparing McCain's platform to that of Bush. McCain made a similar remark about Hillary's health care plan in 2007.
CNN: 'Lipstick on a pig': Attack on Palin or common line?
... McCain's campaign said Obama's remarks were offensive and a slap at Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin -- despite the fact that the Arizona senator himself used the phrase last year to describe a policy proposal of Hillary Clinton's.
Obama's campaign responded by saying McCain was running a "dishonorable campaign."
Obama made the remarks at a Virginia campaign stop late Tuesday afternoon.
"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington,'" he said.
"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."
... In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination.
CNN: 'Lipstick on a pig': Attack on Palin or common line?
... McCain's campaign said Obama's remarks were offensive and a slap at Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin -- despite the fact that the Arizona senator himself used the phrase last year to describe a policy proposal of Hillary Clinton's.
Obama's campaign responded by saying McCain was running a "dishonorable campaign."
Obama made the remarks at a Virginia campaign stop late Tuesday afternoon.
"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington,'" he said.
"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."
... In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Obama Supports Age-Appropriate Sex Ed for Kindergartners?
Yes. Obama supports teaching kindergarteners about inappropriate touching and protecting themselves against abuse, not explicit sex.
Article: McCain Hits Obama on Sex-Ed Law
September 9, 2008, 7:55 pm
Nick Timiraos reports on the presidential race.
John McCain went up with a hard hitting ad Tuesday, ostensibly attacking Barack Obama on education policy on the same day the Illinois senator unveiled initiatives on education.
But the ad goes straight for voters’ attention with a different appeal: sex.
The ad bashes Obama for an Illinois state senate bill he supported that allowed for “age-appropriate” sex education for K-12 instruction. The ad said that measure represents Obama’s only accomplishment on education.
The McCain ad characterizes Obama as someone who supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners. The voiceover in the ad incredulously asks: “Learning about sex before learning to read?”
The Obama campaign cried foul, calling the ad “shameful and downright perverse” and pointing to the bill’s intent to protect young children from sexual predators — not teach them about the birds and the bees. “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” said spokesman Bill Burton.
The attacks are new in this election, but Obama has faced them before, in his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama defended the bill as a father of two young daughters who wanted to make sure his children knew about “the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” he said in a debate. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse.”
Later in the campaign, Obama told voters, “Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it.”
The issue arose again last summer when Republican candidate Mitt Romney made attacks similar to those raised today by McCain. Obama defended the measure “to provide age-appropriate sex education” as “the right thing to do.”
As for the Republican ticket, John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, both support abstinence-only programs. On an Eagle Forum questionnaire during her 2006 gubernatorial bid, Palin offered a terse statement: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
Article: McCain Hits Obama on Sex-Ed Law
September 9, 2008, 7:55 pm
Nick Timiraos reports on the presidential race.
John McCain went up with a hard hitting ad Tuesday, ostensibly attacking Barack Obama on education policy on the same day the Illinois senator unveiled initiatives on education.
But the ad goes straight for voters’ attention with a different appeal: sex.
The ad bashes Obama for an Illinois state senate bill he supported that allowed for “age-appropriate” sex education for K-12 instruction. The ad said that measure represents Obama’s only accomplishment on education.
The McCain ad characterizes Obama as someone who supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners. The voiceover in the ad incredulously asks: “Learning about sex before learning to read?”
The Obama campaign cried foul, calling the ad “shameful and downright perverse” and pointing to the bill’s intent to protect young children from sexual predators — not teach them about the birds and the bees. “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” said spokesman Bill Burton.
The attacks are new in this election, but Obama has faced them before, in his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama defended the bill as a father of two young daughters who wanted to make sure his children knew about “the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” he said in a debate. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse.”
Later in the campaign, Obama told voters, “Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it.”
The issue arose again last summer when Republican candidate Mitt Romney made attacks similar to those raised today by McCain. Obama defended the measure “to provide age-appropriate sex education” as “the right thing to do.”
As for the Republican ticket, John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, both support abstinence-only programs. On an Eagle Forum questionnaire during her 2006 gubernatorial bid, Palin offered a terse statement: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)