Political Meanings

Anti-Incumbent Voters, Alive, Well, and Growing.

2008-11-08T19:26:41Z

From Michigan's Supreme Court race to the many incumbent losses in the House of Representatives, to the incumbent losses in the Senate (Oregon's Smith, N. Carolina's Dole, New Hampshire's Sununu), the anti-incumbent vote made its presence very visible in this election. It was decidedly an anti-incumbent vote against the GOP. However, both major parties can no longer ignore the power of the independent voters (6% of whom decided the Democratic direction of this race), nor the power of voters exercising their right and obligation to vote out incumbents when government disappoints the voters.

]]> Adding to the momentum of the anti-incumbent vote of the 2006 races, this election marks, what has all the appearances of becoming, a national anti-incumbent trend in American elections. This trend is underwritten by several factors.

First, is the dramatic growth in registered Independent voters. They now out number either Democrat or Republican registered voters.
Second, is the growth in interest, memberships, and signs of Vote Out Incumbents sentiment.
Third is the dramatic growth in 3rd Party candidates on ballots all across the nation.
And lastly, the growth of state based 3rd and independent parties, not yet well organized or competitive, most conservative oriented, but growing.

Anti-incumbent leaning voters go to the ballot and find two parties they recognize and reject, the Democratic and Republican, and some third parties they don't recognize and do not trust for a variety of reasons. However, like all growing factions of discontent, one day these splinter groups are likely to find or create a national 3rd party to challenge the duopoly party, with name recognition, extensive media coverage, a growing grass roots revenue stream, and a party platform that is lean and focused on key challenges facing the nation.

Until then, however, the anti-incumbent sentiment is going to mostly be presented with the choice of a democrat or republican incumbent and the other party's challenger. Which inevitably leads to Republicans and Democrats alternating roles as the majority and minority party in federal and state government. These swings do give the major parties cause to reevaluate their agendas, their ideology, and their policy plans. To the extent those changes reflect demands of the voters for more responsible, more accountable, and more transparent government, this very good.

The problem however, is that such changes are marginal, fleeting, and typically get reversed each time the majority and minority parties switch, giving no continuity and sustainability to reform measures over time. That is why, at some point, there must be a third party choice on the ballots across the nation that reflect the demands and wishes of the broad center of the political spectrum and which moderate working class and college educated voters can get behind.

This party must be based on reforms primarily, as opposed to temporary short term issues, though they must be capable of dealing with short term issues as well. But, their focus will likely have to include campaign finance reform, lobbyist reform, fiscal responsibility and plan to lower the national debt and end deficit spending save for national emergencies, voting reform to include moving election day to a weekend and providing accountable mail in voting, verifiable but easy voter registration, as well as extending early voting to permit everyone to vote without wasting precious time and money, or having to overcome other obstacles to voting. Lastly, this party will have to present credible foreign policy credentials along the lines of maintaining a highly effective but vastly lower cost military structure with the ability to defend our nation, while supporting international organizations designed to effectively deal with nations which threaten the peace of other nations.

This new centrist, moderate, pragmatic, independent party will have to avoid adopting divisive cultural and religious values issues, leaving those to be championed by the duopoly party. Unity, common sense, pragmatism, and a laser focus on solving the international, domestic economic, and infrastructure challenges will have to be the cornerstones of a new broad based third party to give the anti-incumbent voter not only someone to vote against on election day, but, challengers to vote for on election day as well.

The anti-incumbent movement is alive, well, and growing. If this does not seem immediately obvious from the election results, it is because the challenging party to the Republican incumbent Party was the Democratic Party. And where there were 3rd party choices, the moderate, centrist, pragmatic voters had little trust or confidence in those 3rd party candidates. As long as government continues to disappoint voters on how government is run however, there will be an anti-incumbent sentiment awaiting leadership to chart another course on election day.

To all of you who voted against an incumbent this election, you fulfilled your obligation in attempting to change the future course of this government which has failed 10's of millions of Americans and hundreds of ways, and failed the American ideals our nation was founded upon. You will strengthen your cause by finding opportunities to share your hopes and vision for a better future with the others in your life. This is a growing movement. The more we communicate our common purpose, the faster this movement will grow and become an effective counter to the destructive, short sighted policies of the Democratic and Republican Parties, based more on securing power than saving and elevating our nation's future.

In 2012, Democrats will have had sufficient time to prove whether they are making solid progress on solving the international and economic challenges of our day. It is up to each of us to fairly and objectively evaluate whether or not that progress exists. If it doesn't, we must be prepared to seek and solidify unity amongst ourselves to create an alternative choice on the ballot to the Democratic and Republican musical chair parties.

Election Day: Blues & Celebration?

2008-11-04T13:08:11Z

As early as 8PM this evening, we may have clear indications as to who our next president may be. Be that as it may, there are an enormous number of other important races and candidates to be determined from the Eastern most point of Maine to the Western most tip of Hawaii. For 10's of millions of Americans today, a case of the blues will try to settle in because their horse didn't cross the finish line in first place. But, this election is as much about process as results. And the process, though in desperate need of reform, continues to work.

]]> The primary purpose of elections is to stay off revolutions and civil wars. This election cycle, though riling the passions of many and frustrating the hopes of more, will nonetheless, represent a peaceful and orderly transition of power from certain leaders to other leaders, and a reelection of too many others.

America continues, however, to be the example of democratic process. While it is a disgrace that America forces its workers to lose, in far too many cases, an entire day of productivity waiting in lines to vote, and a disgrace that 1/3 of all votes will have no verification due to electronic voting machines, our peaceful transition and handing off the roles of power remain the example for the rest of the world to emulate. And this remains a just cause for celebration.

It continues to amaze me that election day every two years is not a national holiday, or, that our election day is not scheduled for an entire weekend, instead of during the middle of a work week. I entreat readers to visit and consider supporting Why Tuesday. America's voting system can and should be vastly improved. It is long overdue that American citizens get behind the effort to force their representatives, local and federal, to address these disgraces in our otherwise, commendable democratic elections.

Celebrate our democracy this evening, or this weekend coming. It is worthy of celebration. And make a resolution tonight to write a letter, make a phone call, or, join an organization to make our democratic process even more responsible, available, and worthy of emulation by the rest of the world. It is up to us to make it so. Our politicians, without our ultimatum, will continue to try to game the system and twist it to meet their needs, not ours. It is up to us.

Whether or not you voted for challengers, in order to vote out irresponsible, corrupt, or ineffective politicians who have brought an economic malaise upon our nation and our society, we would all do well to give some serious consideration to the Vote Out Incumbents Democracy caution.

From the beginning of history, those in power, used power to keep power. The vote is the only peaceful means the people of the world have to secure for themselves the power to remove those in power who would use it for their own purposes, instead of the purposes of the people and their nation.

When government disappoints, there is only one rational response in the voting booth, and that is to vote out those responsible in power, and vote for challengers, issuing them the mandate, that they NOT follow the steps of the politician they just replaced.

The election of 2006 and this current one, according to the latest polling, reflect a growing awareness by American voters of the central theme founding Vote Out Incumbents Democracy. Anti-incumbent sentiment that remains home on election day, rejects the power of the vote secured for Americans by so many who have suffered and died to extend and defend it. Any action by any person, which seeks to interfere with, make more difficult, alter, or block American's votes, is an act of dishonor and contempt toward those brave Americans who, for more than 2 centuries, have given their lives to extend and defend our right to vote.

If you found the process difficult or cumbersome or unaccountable, it is your responsibility to act to change those circumstances, and give your part to extend and defend our right to vote, as so many have before us.

If you voted, celebrate!

Election: Crisis of Confidence and Judgement

2008-10-31T22:05:55Z

As always, elections are about variables so myriad as to make polling effective only in trend for some elections, and entirely unreliable in others. It appears to me this 2008 election however, is about a crisis in confidence toward authority and the presidential winner will be the person having shown the most credible judgement.

]]> Crisis in confidence.

Consumer confidence just reached an all time low. What began as a crisis in confidence toward U.S. presidents during the LBJ and Nixon administrations, has reached unparalleled proportions in the George W. Bush administration. And in between, there have been all manner of assaults upon the confidence of the American people toward authority, such as:

The Oil Embargo of the 1970's and failure to move away from import dependence thereafter
The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980's which cost taxpayers $324.6 billion dollars, and Americans more than a half trillion dollars
The cultural issues crisis over 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms, abortion, religion in schools and government, and of course, the defiling of the Oval Office by a promiscuous William Jefferson Clinton
And in the first decade of .the new century, the pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church and American schools, the growing crisis of deficits and debt, and the current mortgage and credit crises.

The American people, while not recalling this specific litany of historical crises in the U.S. and world, are nonetheless responding to their cumulative effect. The Republican government, which was to bring America fiscal sanity, smaller and lower cost government, and a reduction in corruption of values, politics, legislation, and policy, disappointed the American on all these fronts. There is a crisis in confidence toward authority figures. It appears in the polls as less than a 65% favorable polling toward Obama, a dramatic and rapid drop in approval of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP choice, even amongst segments of Republicans, and serious doubts regarding the judgement of the veteran Senator and war hero, John McCain.

Approval ratings for Congress are near all time historical lows. The American people have lost a great deal of faith in their government and those elected to run it. Who can blame them? Yet, the American sense of hope for the future is a quality not easily diminished nor snuffed. A majority of American voters and the Electoral College will select a president in four days, in whom they will again invest their trust and hope for a better future. There can be little doubt that a measurable portion of this hope and trust comes from voters under 30, who are intrinsically hopeful and trusting, and they may well prove to be the numbers needed to put Barack Obama into the White House.

Whether Obama or McCain wins, however, there are challenges facing our nation, which if ignored any longer, will spell the ruination of a hopeful and confident America going forward. In September of 2003, I wrote here at WatchBlog:

The United States National debt, now approaching 7 trillion dollars, will be in the 10 to 12 trillion dollar range in 10 to 12 years.

and:

The Perfect Storm, was partly about an historical convergence of a hurricane, a cold front, and a low pressure center, if memory serves, which created a storm of such magnitude that it could not be entered and survived by normal vessels. Such a storm is growing on the economic front and the convergence of three main trends will occur in the next 8 to 12 years resulting in a wave of devastation across the American economy and possibly the world economy. The three trends are growing U.S. national debt, the retirement of the baby boom generation, and the incredible growth of foreign economies.

I confess to being wrong about it taking until 2013 to 2015 to arrive at 10 trillion dollars of national debt. But, over the years since 2003, I have, in many other articles here, updated the debt projections in light of actions of the Bush Administration and Congress to reflect this shortening of the calendar.

Standing before the next president is an additional 44 Trillion Dollars of debt in the form of unfunded mandates via the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs. There are at least two ways to deal with it, the simple minded stupid way, and the vastly more difficult and challenging intelligent way.

The Simple and Stupid way, the McCain way, is to privatize these programs and let those who can't afford to self-insure their health care and retirement, suffer and die of poverty in the 10's of millions, which will sow the seeds of civil war or revolution in this country. It is incomprehensible that anyone today could believe that so much suffering by the parents of the shrinking middle class would not result in a revolt after witnessing their parents and grandparents suffer the pain and misery of poverty, having paid a portion of their earnings throughout their lives to the government to insure against such poverty.

I wish I could say the the intelligent but challenging way is the Obama Way, but, we simply don't have enough information from Obama to make that determination. This way however, does incorporate Obama's single payer health insurance plan. But, it must go much further. And there are no guarantees that a more intelligent threading of the needle on this issue will be successful. But, to not even try, will spell the economic and political collapse of our nation within 30 years.

The intelligent way includes:

incentivizing not-for-profit health care delivery clinics, hospitals, and private practice partnerships, in which doctors, nurses, administrators, janitors, and all the other personnel in the medical care field continue as they do now, earning a competitive living providing health care, but, without shareholders and execs skimming profits of the health care dollars spent.
Halt the influx of illegal immigrants. America can no longer afford to continue its practice of mandating health care to those in need by law, and provide that health care to uninsured illegal immigrants in the 10's of millions.
Incorporating voluntary healthy lifestyle promotion in schools, work places, neighborhoods, and empowering the FDA with truth in advertising enforcement with teeth.
Establish smoking cessation check-in clinics at the cost to the smoker of the smoker's budget for cigarettes. This could incur a tax payer expense up front, but, successful programs would return tax payer benefits in reduced long term smoking related illnesses. This could also be partially, or fully funded by current taxes on tobacco products.
End the war on drugs (except toward toward sellers to children): redirect 25% of the current budget for drug law enforcement into clinics for drug users to quit. The savings here of the other 75% could be redirected to pay for single payer health insurance lowering taxes for this purpose.
Force the pharmaceutical companies to sell Americans prescription drugs at the same cost they are being sold overseas and stop their discrimination against American consumers.
Establish medical review courts populated by retired judges and doctors/RN's, to screen out frivolous medical malpractice suits from entering our court systems, and make public all records of complaints regarding malpractice claims against hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel both for purposes of screening malpractice suits before entering the court system, and providing consumers with the power to research, shop, and compare their health care provider choices.
Relieve all businesses of obligations to provide health care insurance, and enact a tax on all businesses employing more than 50 people to help fund the universal health care insurance system, at a fraction of what businesses would otherwise pay to provide health care insurance themselves to their employees.
Allow the U.S. Government to negotiate royalty rights, at a fraction of a percent, for any, and all patents, resulting from tax payer subsidized research and development. This one simple step could, over the course of the baby boom generation, generate trillions of dollars in revenue to offset the costs of Medicare/Medicaid.
Lastly, put to bed forever the notion that unregulated markets will self-correct without incredible harm to the American people. If this current crisis and previous ones prove anything, it is that unregulated market bubbles in an interdependent global economy are no longer to be tolerated or allowed.

This is not a comprehensive list, but, includes some of the major initiatives that could and would drive down the cost of health care in America to more manageable levels, and shave trillions off the unfunded mandates for Medicare/Medicaid.

Crisis in Judgement

Of course, all of these ideas and solutions are meaningless, unless increasing numbers of voters hold their own representatives accountable for enacting such solutions. Reelecting incumbents who fail to enact such solutions, for whatever reasons of incompetence, corruption by lobbyists and campaign donors, or ideology, will only compound the current looming crises into actual crises in coming years. And that means the voters must hold our next president to the same standard, making them a one term president if in their first 4 years they are not out in front using the bully pulpit to push the Congress toward these tough solutions which will be fought intensely by corporate and wealthy special interests.

America's future was never intended to belong to the wealthy special interests. Our founders overthrew the King and his aristocracy to insure that America's future belonged to all Americans. It is time Americans fulfilled that great promise and exercised its democratic process of, by, and for the people. Vote!

People in power will use that power to keep themselves in power. The vote is unnecessary for those in power to remain in power. Our founders understood this about King George. It is time Americans exercised their vote for the purpose it was intended, to remove politicians from office when it appears they are serving their own interests instead of the people's. Vote Out Incumbents Democracy is working to make the latter a reality, for this election, and those to come. Do your part, and vote to replace at least one ineffective, incompetent, or corrupt incumbent politician in this election.

Socialist Tag: Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall...

2008-10-30T02:31:54Z

McCain/Palin and other Republican politicians running for office are throwing the 'socialist' tag at their Democratic opponents in the hopes it will stick to voter's foreheads while lining up to vote. Rather odd and illogical tactic unless they are targeting voters who have been oblivious to the socialist doubling of the national debt by Republicans these last 7 and 3/4 years.

]]> Socialist is a word with about as many meanings as there are political parties in the U.S. (66 of them). For the sake of brevity, I shall use the definition as it applies to economies defined by Wikipedia this way: "Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution."

This is a workable and applicable definition to what is currently taking place in part, by the U.S. government in terms of the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, popularly known as the "Bailout" of financial and bank institutions. This law was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and voted for by both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. The provisions of the Stabilization Act allow for the government to buy shares of private companies as a sort of collateral against the tax payer money issued to them. But, by the definition above, this is government taking partial ownership of these private institutions.

It is then, a bit of a stretch for Republicans to try to label Democrats as socialist, in light of the Stabilization Act being first proposed by Republicans in the White House, and then adopted by Republicans and Democrats alike in the Congress, including duopoly party candidates, Obama and McCain. Sen. McCain tries to use the term "socialist" to refer to Obama's intent to 'redistribute the wealth'. However, it was McCain's vote to collect tax dollars from regular working Americans and offer it to private corporation's shareholders and executives to rescue the value of their stock and prevent them from falling into bankruptcy, that is by definition socialist, taking ownership of private sector enterprises.

Sen. McCain is an advocate, at least on the campaign trail, for military personnel support. He advocates taking civilian tax dollars and redistributing it to military families in the form of bonuses, better housing, and medical care, after voting against such spending in some cases. Is his campaign rhetoric socialist?

In fact, the military is one of America's oldest targets for socialist spending of tax dollars, redistributing the wealth of tax payers directly to a specific group of individuals to meet their needs and wishes as they go about their job of national defense. The ancient Greeks of Athens at one time employed the services of the Spartans as a private contractor for defense. That was the non-socialist way to go about national defense.

McCain's approach to military spending is not dissimilar to politicians taking voter tax dollars as pay and compensation for themselves. Though many would argue our military provides tax payer's with better earned services than our politicians, but the military is owned by the U.S. government, not private enterprise. (Eliminate the military and we would be vulnerable, eliminate politicians and we would quickly experience the true meaning of anarchy). They are both necessary, but, could they not be contracted from the private sector for such services? This is in fact, in part what Pres. GW Bush attempted with the IRS, only to discover that the cost of collecting taxes increased with private contractors, instead of decreasing as was intended.

The government is the sole investor in some of our military private industries, and a major benefactor in others. We tried outsourcing military operations in a big way in Iraq to the likes of KBR and Halliburton. The result was taxpayers getting soaked for 10's of billions of wasted dollars, some of which electrocuted and killed some of our soldiers while taking showers, or washing a vehicle.

Such deaths would not have occurred if GI's were responsible for wiring the electrical circuits in US facilities in Iraq, instead of private contractors. Government run operations like the IRS and military actually save tax payer dollars over outsourcing to the private industry, which takes short cuts for profits and increases the cost for profits, when and where it can.

There are some things the government can do better and cheaper than the private sector. That fact does not mandate a socialist economy nor even warrant the socialist tag. Just as Communist Socialist China incorporates capitalism as part of its mixed economy because it simply works better than command control without earning the title of Capitalist, so too, must America employ government social programs like government itself, military, IRS, infrastructure management, and a host of others, which are more efficiently run and successful in meeting their intended objectives than the private sector would be, without being tagged a Socialist nation.

There isn't a single nation in the world today that is not a mixed economy of both capitalism and socialism. It works. Some work better, some worse depending on the mix, but, the mixed economy model has become the preferred choice of every nation on earth. That is no accident or coincidence of history either. It is high time Americans got over the use of terms like capitalist pig, and socialist commie as labels employed for political purposes, and got on with the debate of how much of each is most appropriate for our nation and in what sectors of our economy they can best be employed.

Unregulated capitalism is what created this financial institution bubble which burst. This bubble was built on irresponsible greed. That is not an indictment of the concept of capitalism, only on how it was employed. The same is true of the Social Security concept. If employed as intended when envisioned by the FDR administration, as an insurance against poverty, instead of entitlement to all regardless of success or wealth, the plan would not be approaching deficits as quickly as it is now positioned to.

And let's not be so quick to label parties by these labels. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who "via a 1982 Executive Order, President Reagan established the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. In each year of his presidency, Reagan increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. In a 1983 speech he declared, "We support the National Endowment for the Arts to stimulate excellence and make art more available to more of our people." [Wikipedia] Did this make Reagan a socialist? Government investing in private artists and their works?

Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, established the national park and federal lands preservation ideal and system. Did this make him a socialist? Ronald Reagan protected Social Security and Medicare programs even as he attempted to remove from Medicare's rolls disabled individuals. Did this make Reagan a socialist. The corporate subsidies by Republicans were enormous and widespread. Did this 'redistribution of wealth' earn Republicans the moniker of socialist or worse, fascist? Of course, not.

Richard Nixon is responsible for Supplemental Security Income (or SSI) which is a monthly stipend provided to aged (legally deemed to be 65 or older), blind, or disabled persons based on need, paid by the United States Government. The program was to be administered by the Social Security Administration. Did this earn Nixon the moniker of a socialist? It was by definition of Sen. John McCain, wealth redistribution.

Sen. McCain's attempts to brand Obama as a socialist should only follow labeling Ronald, Reagan, G H. Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon, socialists. McCain simply doesn't want to pay for government, and his tax plan creates a trillion dollars more national debt that Barack Obama's tax plan, 4.1 trillion cost vs. 2.9 trillion. Increasing national debt is quite directly levying increased taxes on future generations to pay for the benefit of government spending for current voters. Is this not just another version of redistributing the wealth, from future citizens to present citizens?

Let's dispense with, and rebuff labels of socialist and capitalist in our political jargon. They serve no useful purpose, and do the nation harm by influencing voters to vote on the basis of irrational and false information and ideas. Republicans simply employ a different brand of socialist policies with differing recipient targets, than Democrats. It is the mix and blend of social policy and private sector policy that we should be debating. Not labels that truly have no relevant information to convey.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most socialist of them all? Is it Republicans or Democrats on socialist steps who stand more tall? It is a non-sensical question, because America is not a socialist nation, and neither are McCain or Obama socialists for campaigning on different mixes and targets for social and regulated enterprise policies. Let's move on Senators McCain and Obama to discussing policy details instead of meaningless political labels.

Anti-incumbent Sentiment Opens Door of Opportunity

2008-10-22T14:59:43Z

The details in some of the polls now show 12% of Republicans intending to vote for Barack Obama. This reflects an anti-incumbent target bigger than individual incumbents, aimed selectively at the Republican Party itself. Given Republican control of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007, where all spending and tax law finds its beginning, and control of the Senate from 2001 to 2007, in addition to a Republican President from 2001 to the present, and given the dire economic condition of the country and world economy today, it is no great surprise that voters would focus anti-incumbent sentiment on the Republican Party and its incumbents primarily.

]]> Ordinarily, this would not be considered a healthy anti-incumbent movement, but yet another round of musical chairs between the duopoly parties. One can logically argue that this switching of parties does not even reflect an anti-incumbent strategy, or movement. But, as with many logical arguments, that conclusion may prove to be false, if one or more of the premises is proven false. An explanation is in order.

First, let's provide some preliminary data. From the close of the 3rd debate and Couric's interview with V.P. nominee Sarah Palin, the polls averaged, showed Obama widening his lead significantly. The last 3 days polls show a slight narrowing again, but at a rate that does not bode well for McCain given less than 2 weeks to election day.

Republicans for Obama reports a Time Magazine poll will show a 14% divergence in the crossover vote for Obama. A crossover vote is conservative voters choosing to vote for liberal candidates and vice versa. The numbers are 20% conservatives for Obama, and 6% liberals for McCain. If these numbers are valid, and combined with other polls showing a 60+ % independent vote for Obama, a potential landslide victory for Obama would appear to be in the making.

But, is this an anti-incumbent movement amongst voters, or simply a reversing of the pendulum from Republican back to Democratic party choice, as happens cyclically in American political history? Enough data is not available to make that determination. The exit polling from the election on Nov. 4 may be sufficient to answer this question definitively. But, some educated guesses are possible.

An anti-incumbent movement is a reaction toward politicians and their way of doing things across party lines. A shift in popular party choice is quite something else again. What makes the difference so very difficult to distinguish at this time is the approval ratings for all incumbents and both parties in Congress. The extremely low approval ratings of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, would point to a broad anti-incumbent sentiment. Yet, the lopsided polling in favor of Democrats in Congressional races would indicate a simple shift in popular party preference.

What appears to be occurring, using the polls as a guide, is both a sweeping anti-incumbent sentiment, combined with a populace rebuke of Republican control of government dating back to the 1995 takeover of the House of Representatives. Combined with the cumulative losses of registered voters from both the Democratic and Republican parties to independent voter status, it appears clear their is a very strong anti-incumbent undercurrent to this year's election.

There isn't however, any Ross Perot or fresh, charismatic Ralph Nader type to take on Obama and McCain as a focal point for independent voters. Which would explain the dynamic shift in the polls toward Democratic candidate Obama. And there isn't yet, a viable contending organized Independent Party capable of vying with the duopoly parties. Hence, the anti-incumbent disapproval of politicians in general is being channeled through the only alternative to Republican rule of the recent past.

If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven't a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.

During chaotic times, people seek order, uniformity, and consistency which lend themselves to predictability. Voters are seeking an orderly path out of the chaos. They are seeking an end to the threat leveled at their jobs, mortgages and homes, and ability to borrow to further their ambitions for their children, their careers, and their retirement years. None of the above, or candidates with no broad based support, are not voting options under these circumstances, even if the anti-incumbent sentiment runs deep and wide. Retaliation does not build a future.

The anti-incumbent strategy is one which sends a clear message to politicians that the public will not tolerate their actions, and will choose others, even if they are unknown and untested. In this regard, the Obama lead in the polls reflects just such a strategy by a majority of independent voters. But, at the Congressional level, gerrymandering districts by both Democrats and Republicans, to insure independent and swing voters are not concentrated in any one district diminishes the potency and even potentiality of an anti-incumbent message being sent in a time of uncertainty and need for an alternative policy direction.

This gerrymandering of districts, both hides the anti-incumbent breadth in the election data, and renders it impotent in the absence of a viable competing third party alternative. But it doesn't diminish the growth of the anti-incumbent sentiment as evidenced by the approval ratings of Congress and the President's administration. If it weren't for the desperation for an alternative economic policy direction, the disapproval ratings would be reflected in a greater anti-incumbent vote against Democrats, as well. But, the Democrats, in the absence of a competing party alternative or viable independent presidential contender, are the only alternative for a change in policy direction.

What this means, however, for the 2010 and 2012 elections cannot be understated. Even if Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster proof Senate on Nov. 4, they will, with the election of Obama, be saddled with the full responsibility for economic outcomes no later than the 2012 election. Failure to both rescue the economy, the health care system, and dramatically lower the deficit, will make Democrats the target of anti-incumbent sentiment as early as the mid-term elections in 2010.

The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate. If they don't, Republicans will use the filibuster to prevent Democrats from succeeding in addressing the economy, health care costs, and deficit reduction. That is the Republican road back to power from a GOP strategist's point of view. Never mind that this means ruination for the United States and all the people within it.

Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse. Obviously, the coming political situation opens the door of opportunity for a viable third party to make tremendous progress in establishing itself as a contender for the 2012 elections. Will it happen is a question that cannot be answered without a working crystal ball. But, it is an opportunity, and unlocked door, for independent voters to avail themselves if they can find a leader capable of uniting them, and drawing off ever more Democrat and Republican voters to the independent cause, backed by anti-incumbent discontent.

What would that independent party have look like to make these kind of inroads? While it can take many shapes, some essentials are necessary for success. First, it must be a party with the simplest of platforms and agendas focused on the 3 primary issues of coming years, health care cost, economy and deficits, and political - lobbyist reform.

If such a party can simply refuse to add any other agendas to its platform, it could potentially create a maelstrom of support from a third or more of all registered voters, and potentially rout half or more of Democratic and Republican politicians over the following decade, even becoming the dominant party in America's political system. This assumes of course, that it can find enough capable candidates to run as challengers for office in the Congress and for the White House.

Of course such a scenario depends upon such a Party finding its own leaders. People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished. Any takers?

Opportunity Cost: Tax Payer's Enemy

2008-10-22T02:02:04Z

Most American tax payers could not give a definition of the term "opportunity cost". Just as most Americans could not tell you what al-Queda was, prior to 9/11, 2001. Not knowing however, did not stop al-Queda from attacking America, and not knowing what opportunity cost is, will not stop those oppressive and suffocating costs from forcing future tax increases on income earners in America and pushing the nation toward bankruptcy.

]]> There is a simple economic truth that is lost in the political battle for your vote. That truth is this: During positive economic growth, taxes should generally be raised, and during economic downturns, taxes should generally be cut, if balance is to be maintained for the government and taxpayers across generations. Politicians routinely lie to their constituents on this matter however, telling voters what they want to hear, instead of the truth about the economics of taxes.

For example, Republicans continue to make the blanket statement that cutting taxes creates more revenues. It sounds too good to be common-sensically true. That's because it is. In the 2002 and 2004 elections Republicans could routinely be heard touting the lie that cutting taxes would increase government revenues. The Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve, the former Comptroller of of the U.S., David Walker, economists now have the numbers. Tax cuts, while stimulating expansion of businesses and jobs where consumer demand is healthy, do create an increase in revenues from the new business expansion and growth. However, this increase in revenue to the federal government does not equal the total of revenues lost by the tax cuts. Only a percentage of the lost revenue from the tax cuts is recovered through new revenues from business expansion.

Conversely, Democrats will tell voters that increasing spending which puts more Americans to work through retraining, education spending, and extension of unemployment benefits, will stimulate the economy by increasing wage earning consumers and the amount of money they spend, and thereby increase tax revenues down the road. Like the Republican lie however, the cost of deficit spending to increase employment, does not necessarily equal the new tax revenue growth created by those newly employed. The national debt increases, and the amount spent on the interest payments on that debt grows as well; more than the tax revenue increase from expanding the work force. The work force will expand and contract, the interest on debt gets paid, regardless.

Debt limits one's options. There simply is no truer statement than this often heard from Libertarians. There is a loss of freedom of choice when one is carrying debt. Each month, a debtor has to pay a certain percentage of their income to pay back a portion of the principal on their debt, and in addition, interest payments associated with that borrowing. The percentage of one's income spent on debt, is money one cannot spend on other needs and wants going forward. This is the definition of opportunity cost by example. One's opportunities to choose what to buy and for how much in the future are reduced by the previous choice to borrow and repay a debt.

The tax payers in America have chosen to re-elect politicians who have nearly doubled our national debt in just 8 years. The politicians they re-elected doubled the national debt in order to spend money on current voters and national 'needs', borrowed from future wage earner's page checks, in order to get the votes of voters in current elections. Pay very close to attention to that last sentence, because it is crucially and fundamentally true. Deficit spending and debt results in future wage earner's higher taxes taken from their paychecks.

The American economy and the value of its IOU's, called U.S. dollars, rests on a concept known as the full faith and credit of the American government to pay its debts. If the American government were to ever default on making its interest and principal payments on its debts, the government would be subject to remedies petitioned by its foreign creditors. Needless to say, such an event would result in the collapse of our economy, inflation and unemployment would skyrocket, and rapidly growing percentages of Americans would be thrown out of their homes and jobs. To put it simply, the government cannot afford to NOT raise taxes on future workers. If the government doesn't raise taxes on future workers, it will not be able to pay its debts and everything economic comes crashing down.

The big problem is, no one knows how much we can tax future workers before we compromise the full faith and credit of the United States. Because no one knows where that limit is, (which would require seeing into the future of events and challenges facing future tax payers), prudence and caution are mandatory to insure we do not cross that line into the bankrupting of America in our near, or even distant, future.

The government cannot afford to continue increasing its national debt, or it will have to raise taxes so high on future workers that those workers will revolt. They will revolt against working for less and less net pay to the point that workers are forced into choosing to buy food instead of paying their tax debts. Many of these workers will seek employment in the underground economy (drugs, prostitution, crime, and tax evasion) where income is not reported, and therefore not taxed. (This underground economy already exists).

Others owning businesses will find themselves unable, due to increasing taxes, to pay as many employees and begin to lay off workers to reduce their costs, which in turn will reduce the number of customers they can serve. Still other future workers will protest their government's taxes and demand the government lower taxes, which would cause the government to default on its debts and the entire economy crashes as a result.

One often hears the argument that our government has survived very high debt in the past as at the end of World War II and the Great Depression, and we prospered afterward. That was true, then. It will not be true now or in the foreseeable future. The difference is that after WWII, America had an enormous amount of economic growth ahead of it in a rapidly growing work force and consumer base (baby boom), and vast untapped export markets to develop. Our economy then could tap into bringing women permanently into the new work force in the 1950's, 60's, 70's and beyond. Most of the nation's in the world then, were not as innovative nor as productive as ours, making a bright future of American exports possible. That is not the case today.

Today, many of America's natural resources, used in the past to manufacture goods and export them, are no longer abundant or cheap. And an untapped work force of new and educated and innovative consumers, is in ever shorter supply, unlike the period after World War II. Many thought we could deal with the worker shortage by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. But, illegal immigration has proven to cost more to our economy and government spending than it brings in the form of taxes paid to the federal government.

Our growing dependence upon foreign imports of oil, food, and manufactured goods at the rate of 3/4 of a trillion dollars per year more than we export, literally means a loss of 3/4 trillion dollars per year to foreign economies. (This trade deficit has been growing for 30 years straight.) The opportunity to use that money going overseas, to create jobs here, to make and sell American products for American consumers, is lost. It is an opportunity cost that is costing American's jobs, wage increases, and increasingly, causing more and more Americans to file bankruptcy and forfeit their homes, and middle class status.

The opportunities to choose options in our future, 2, 5, 10, and 30 years from now, which are in our best interest instead of the interest of our foreign creditors, are growing ever more limited. And as our future choices become more limited, their cost those chioices continue to rise. Voters and their reelected politicians have chosen to add 2 trillion more dollars to our national debt in the hopes of stemming an economic meltdown today.

While no one wants an economic meltdown today, the addition of 2 more trillion dollars to our national debt in addition to the 4.5 trillion already added since 2001, is seriously compromising our choices going forward. Voters can no longer afford to tolerate politicians who insist on voting for legislation and spending and tax cuts without prioritizing current benefit and future cost. We have arrived at the time when we must stop acting like the wealthiest nation in the world, and start acting like the most indebted nation in the world, which in reality, we have become.

When the consumers are strong and buying and business is having trouble keeping up with demand and borrowing money to expand production is difficult, targeted (as opposed to blanket) tax cuts toward business and investors in businesses, can make sense. Such tax cuts will stimulate further economic development and jobs. But, there is a future price to be paid for such tax cuts when the government is carrying debt.

On the other hand, when the economy is slowing like now, due to consumers struggling to find the money to keep purchasing, businesses cut jobs due to lack of demand, not lack of money to expand their business. In such times as these, targeted tax cuts (as opposed to universal tax cuts) aimed at consumers can make sense when the economy is threatened by falling consumption. But, again, such tax cuts are not without a cost down the road when national debt is high and growing.

Debt in previous generations was considered more a last resort than a first choice. Our government over these past many years, has increasingly abandoned this traditional view of debt, Republicans and Democrats alike. Our debt now threatens our ability to respond to future crises, our ability to elect less expensive options, our ability to choose at all in some cases. Reducing spending by the federal government means redefining what our goals are, and how we will act in the future. Reducing spending will reduce our deficits.

But, reducing spending to the point of eliminating our deficits and lowering our national debt, will make poverty in our society grow dramatically, and sow the seeds of voter and citizen discontent. The solution to our debt problem must be a combination of redefining who we can afford to be, cutting spending and raising some taxes in a fashion that yields the greatest benefit for the most Americans present and future. That is no easy task. But, that task, if undertaken, can only be undertaken by the voters. Our current lot of politicians have no stomach for it.

If one loves this nation, one will insist that she be managed with the goal of insuring her future, not increasing her future risk. If one loves one's children, and seeks a future for them equal or better than the quality of life the parent has enjoyed, reelecting politicians responsible for this selling out of America's future for next year's reelection, must be halted. If one wishes to meet their end with the knowledge that they lived responsibly and with the best of intentions for those to follow them, one has an obligation to exercise the power of their vote for its intended purpose, to remove politicians who would sacrifice our future for their political career.

Voting out incumbents, voting for challengers, in a time of national crisis caused in no small part by politicians, is the only responsible vote. When enough American voters choose to vote responsibly in this manner, most of the challengers they elect will observe the lesson of the politicians they replace, and seek to govern for the nation's future, as well as their own, as the appropriate way to earn their reelection. The opportunity cost of reelecting today's Congress, has simply become too high.

The one certain truth about debt is this. Pay now, avoid debt, and one gets the best price. There is nothing one can buy through debt, that won't end up costing very much more on credit, if and when it is payed off. And the only reason debts are not payed off, is bankruptcy. Weighing the cost of debt against human suffering and privation, and making careful targeted decisions to optimize our future, should be the single greatest priority of every politician in office. Since, it isn't, it is up to the voters to make their removal from office their top priority. We simply will not achieve responsible government by reelecting irresponsible politicians.

Obama - McCain Debate 3

2008-10-16T03:14:37Z

Each candidate held their own. A few more contrasts and details were made available. The format was a bit more interesting, and the questions were superior to previous debates. Below are the responses I recorded as the debate was taking place.

Economy
McCain - put a floor under falling homeowner values. Use 300 billion to buy mortgages of homeowners whose homes are, or will be foreclosed upon.

Obama - Rescue Bill was first step. A rescue package needed for the Middle Class too, focused on jobs, tax cut for those making under $200,000 per year. Renegotiate mortgages for foreclosing homeowners without bailing out the banks. Fix energy, health, and education as long term steps to strengthen our economy.

]]> Taxes

McCain - Obama's taxes will move some people into a higher taxes. I will not stand for small business tax increases. Obama will raise taxes on small business. Obama will spread the wealth around by taxing the wealthy and creating more spending on others. Why increase anyone's taxes at this time? We need to cut business taxes.

Obama - McCain will cut taxes on the wealthiest. I will cut taxes on the 95% of Americans under that wealthiest group. Small businesses, vast majority would receive tax break. I will increase taxes on Warren Buffet to give Joe the Plumber a tax break.

Deficits

Obama - I will insure the financial system rescue bill will result in that money being returned to the tax payers. Eliminate subsidies to insurance companies. Provide health coverage lowering Medicare costs. When economic slump is over, insure balancing of expenditures and revenues. Across the board spending cuts not appropriate, we need to cut programs that don't work and fund those that strengthen economy. McCain voted for 4 out 5 of Bush's budgets. I didn't vote for tax increases on those making more than $42,000 per year. Fox news disputes that claim of McCain's.

McCain - Energy independence will reduce deficits, creating millions of jobs. Across the board spending freeze, then selectively reduce spending programs. Reduce defense spending, subsidies for ethanol, eliminate tariff on ethanol from Brazil. I will fight for line item veto. Cut out all pork. Obama voted for budgets that taxed Americans making $42,000 per year. Obama voted for pork filled energy bill.

Leadership in Campaign

Obama - The American people by 2/3 say in polls that McCain's ads are negative to 1/3 saying the same about Obama's ads. I don't mind being attacked for the next 3 weeks, but, we cannot afford another 4 years of leadership like the last 8 years. Let's talk about the issues.

Lewis' remarks have no connection with my campaign. American people want politicians to focus on the serious issues that affect them, not the tit for tat political rhetoric. Lifting wages and creating jobs requires we disagree without being disagreeable. We can't characterize each other as bad people.

Ayers has been focus of McCain's campaign for 3 weeks. I have roundly condemned Ayers Weatherman acts. We sat on a board at the same time with many known respectable Republicans. ACORN has no connection with the Obama campaign. I represented ACORN on a case for motor voter law many years ago.

McCain - Been a tough campaign, and negative campaign is Obama's fault for not engaging in 10 town hall debates. Lewis' statement regarding McCain and Palin, and Obama did not repudiate Lewis' remarks. McCain says he has repudiated false claims against Obama everytime.

Campaign financing, Obama lied. Obama has highest spending ever. Obama is spending unprecedented money on negative ads against him. We need to know the full extent of Obama's relationship with Ayers and ACORN. My campaign is about this tough economy.

Cabinet

Obama VP Choice. Biden is finest public servant. Best foreign policy credentials. Biden never forgets the little guy and working families. Shares Obama's core values and need to invest in Middle Class and working families, Energy Independence and Education. It is up to the American people whether Palin is up to the job. Across the board spending freeze will harm programs supporting special needs children.

McCain - Palin is a reformer. Cut the size of government, fought the oil companies and returned tax dollars to the people. Palin is a breath of fresh air amidst cronyism in D.C. She is a champion of special needs children, and united people all over America. Biden opposed 1st Gulf War. Biden had idea of partitioning Iraq.

Energy and Climate Change and First term progress

McCain - We can eliminate energy dependence with new nuclear power plants. Reprocess nuclear fuel. With all other technologies developed as well we can easily within 7,8 or 10 years, eliminate our dependence on hostile exporting nations.

I am a free trader. Must have worker re-training. Exports to Columbia cost us a billion dollars. But, their exports come into our country free. Columbia will be a market for our products. Obama opposed to Columbia free trade. Obama wants to restrict trade and increase taxes like Herbert Hoover.

Obama - In 10 years we will no longer import oil from Middle East. Must stop borrowing from China to pay Middle Eastern nations for oil. To the oil companies on oil leases; use them or lose them. Can't drill our way out of the problem. Alternative energies, American made hybrid vehicles have to be part of the plan.

Believes in free trade but any trade agreement is NOT a good trade agreement. Trade agreements must have conditions that insure equal playing field. Free trade must advantage American workers and consumers, not just American corporations. Trade agreements must contain human rights provisions insuring. Loan guarantees to auto makers but only on condition they make vehicles that help America become less oil import dependent and clean up our environment.

Health care

Obama. Must expand health care coverage and reduce health care costs. Bankruptcy should not be the cost of receiving medical care. Cut average families' premiums by $2500 per year with private insurance companies, or provide the same health insurance Congress persons receive. Manage chronic illnesses and prevention in a big way for the long term health of the budget, health care system and people. Small businesses are exempt from penalty I propose for large business. Uninsured raise costs for everyone and tax payers. Insure everyone, eliminate ER visits for minor health care and insure minor health issues don't become major illnesses. Employers will abandon providing health care under McCain's plan.

McCain. Costs must come down. Put health care records online, more local clinics, physical fitness in school, reward employees for health club membership. Obama's plan will fine small businesses who don't provide health insurance to employees. Obama's proposal is a single payer system. 95% of Americans will receive more money under my plan. Average cost of health insurance is $5800 and I will give them a $5000 tax break.

Roe V. Wade

McCain will not impose litmus test on Supreme Court nominees. Roe v Wade is state issue not federal. I will consider Court nominees on their qualifications and strict adherence to Constitution. Obama votes present on difficult abortion issues. Government must help women facing the abortion choice.

Obama. No litmus test. Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance and I believe Roe V. Wade was rightly decided. It is a private choice, not a government choice. Constitution has privacy rights implicit in it, and should be observed. When people are unfairly treated, statute of limitations can be unfair. We can find common ground in seeking to minimize the number of abortions by supporting alternatives.

Education as threat to national security

Obama - Economic importance of education is huge. More money or reform? We need both. Early childhood education pays back in improved performance and lower drop out rights and delinquency. Higher standards and accountability for grades a must as well as lower college costs. Tuition credit for public service necessary.

Parents are essential and must shoulder more responsibility for promoting their children's education. Federal government needs to provide assistance to school districts that operate at inadequate funding levels. For Charter schools and competition with public schools. Vouchers won't solve the problems. McCain said he won't give money to college student special interest groups. College students are our future not special interest group.

McCain. Failed public schools offer no choice to parents and students. Charter schools provide choice. Find poor teachers another line of work. Competition in schools is important. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Reward teachers, and teachers without certification will help.

Adjust student loan eligibility to inflation. No Child Left Behind was great beginning to solve education problem and it must be reauthorized. Head Start is great program. But, it doesn't work. Let's reform it and then fund it. We will spend the money to care for special education through private sector. Reform however is needed and money won't help without reform.

Closing remarks

McCain - New direction. I have record of reform. Affordable health care, education, spending cuts, and all our promises will be based on whether you trust us in office. I spent my entire life serving this nation and putting this nation first.

Obama - Government unwilling to tackle tough problems. Failed politics of the past will not better our future. Brighter days are still ahead if we invest in the American people, lift wages, and broaden the middle class. Bi-partisan effort is necessary and I will work for that and to improve our future.

Debate may be viewed at Debates.Org

Tone: My impression was that McCain was far more aggressive and energetic. Obama was steady, calm, and avoided some clear open opportunities to engage in aggressive debate. Obama won on tenor and tone and the confidence level. McCain won on the aggressive debate points and counterpoints. Republicans will likely regard this as McCain's best debate. Democrats will likely regard Obama's performance as holding his polling leads. Independent's will likely side with Obama as the better performer based on his tone and tenor, unless they clearly side with the policy issues McCain put forth.

Parenting Politics

2008-10-15T18:40:40Z

Would you teach your children to make up their own minds about political party and candidates? Or, would you insure their politics were the same as yours? Parenting politics should be a fascinating topic, but, it is under researched. Scholastic Magazine sponsored an election conducted by school age kids, grades 1 - 12, on the presidential races. Obama 54% to McCain's 39% if I recall their interview on TV this morning, correctly. What is interesting is how those percentages mirror the adult population polls.

]]> So, is America raising children to think independently of their parent's choices to lead and shape their own future and their America? Or, are children being raised to repeat the mistakes of their parent's generation? It is a profound philosophical question. Reams of rhetoric allude to the next generation advancing. Yet, we are living through a period of our history at this very moment that mimics the mistakes and errors of the generation of the 1920's and 1930's.

One research paper by Meggie Shurcliff establishes parents influence over their children's political choices, with father's having a bit more influence than mothers.

Robert Coles, noted psychiatrist and author of The Political Life of Children, concludes the same thing, but also, that children may not mirror parental views as much as be influenced by them. Common sense would indicate that a child of a parent whom the child dislikes, may adopt political views contrary to the parents.

Still, other research establishes a great deal of generational passage of political party choice from parent to child. All this research raises fundamental philosophical questions regarding our 'free will' and independence when it comes to making political choices, especially as younger adults. Are we free to choose? Or are we shaped to choose as we do?

If we are free to choose, then our political choices would change rather readily with changing conditions. If free will is dominant in our society, it would be predictable that November's election would seek leadership charting a very different course than that which brought us the unpopular Iraq War, a frozen financial system and recession, and a doubling of the national debt in 8 years. But, that is now what the polls are demonstrating. Obama is leading in the polls, but, if free will were at play, one would expect a landslide lead for Obama. That is not yet the case.

Much is being made of Obama's skin color and middle name as having a dampening influence upon a reactionary vote against Republicans. Certainly, racism and prejudice are learned from generation to generation as well, and while overt racist acts have diminished dramatically in the last few decades, the question remains whether Obama's skin color is influencing the polls, and offering more evidence that perhaps we are not a nation of free will voters, but voters who mirror the attitudes and political choices of our parents.

On the other hand, it would have been inconceivable that an African American could win a presidential bid in 1992, or even 2000. Yet, B.H. Obama is pulling ahead in the polls and appears, at this time, poised to win the electoral college vote.

This would lend support to the concept of independent choice when it comes to political choice, at least over generational time; each successive generation becoming more independent of their grand parent's political choices, if not so much their parent's. In other words, incrementally changing political views in response to current and historical events with each successive generation. That however, is a very disturbing notion for democracy, which posits the people with the responsibility of choosing their leadership in the context of current time and circumstance, rather than historical or parental.

The concept of democracy can be just plain difficult, demanding that voters reject the choices of their parent's and come to choices of their own based on their own time, circumstance, and future interest. In a society that changes little across generations, democracy asks little of voters since, what worked in the past can be relied upon to work in the present. But, in America, this is not the case.

We live in a society in which the legal, political, social, cultural, educational, and economic landscapes are constantly changing across generations and even within single generations. Democracy demands very much more of voters in a society such as ours. It demands that voters be alert and attentive to the changing conditions, and that they refashion their political choices to accommodate those changes for their future best interest. It demands a deliberative response of voters, as opposed to a generational learned response.

Are Americans up to the challenge their democracy demands of them in changing and troubled times? Are we habituated or free to choose. Are we short cutting around educating ourselves to the challenges, issues and candidates? Are we relying upon family tradition to make our choices for us, or are we capable of rising to the difficult and effort full challenge of making our political choices independently and in accordance with an enlightened survey of our current times?

Do the campaigns of Obama and McCain reflect these differing approaches to political choice? Are they catering to those whose family's choice is good enough, or to those who acknowledge changed times require different choices?

Does America Have a Future?

2008-10-10T22:19:42Z

America has a future. American's have a future. In many ways, it will not look like our past. What is happening right now is a revolution, a political, economic, and cultural revolution. There is no choice about it. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, certain concepts and ideas were put to the test, and in 2007 and 2008, those concepts and ideas brought our economy crashing down, driving 10's of millions of voters to leave the two major political parties, and opening the door to dramatic cultural change going forward.

]]> There is an order to the way societies collapse, partially or wholly, from within. Which means there are degrees of predictability to both the collapse, and the reconstruction. This period is no different. But, first things first.

The causes!

There are many, and they date back decades. The most clearly identifiable precursor to this current crisis was the oil embargo of the 1970's which demanded that America shift from fossil fuel dependency, especially foreign oil imports. Americans then had an opportunity to demand a future independent of polluting fossil fuels, but, passed it by. In the 1980's cultural issues became the focus, not economic issues.

This was followed by

unprecedented growth in consumer debt,
a protracted period of deregulation as mantra to be recited for amassing enormous wealth,
and the consolidation and in breeding of financial institution's lines of business, brought on by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which in turn permitted the creation of financial institutions so large as to threaten the entire nation's economy, should they fail.

There were many other contributing factors, and many hindsight books will be written in coming years to fix the blame and detail the time line of this perfect economic storm. It is nonetheless safe to say at this point, that everyone who shouldn't have turned a blind eye to the long term future of America, did. And they did so for reasons of greed, power, and immediate gratification, leaving little to no room for saving our economic future.

Our Future Landscape.
Government.

The government landscape is changing dramatically. We have seen it coming for more than a decade as the numbers of registered voters in the Democratic and Republican Party's declined, and the number of Independent registered voters climbed, almost in proportion to our national debt. Ironically however, the rise of the independent voters seemed intent on less government, less taxes, and less oversight and regulation, all of which will now grow dramatically, and with the public's majority approval.

There are very tough economic times ahead for the next 2 years, at least. And those retirees, 401K and pension plan participants who have just lost 4 out of every $10 of their life savings invested in the stock markets, will now insist on more government regulation, more government oversight, and more government spending to help make them whole again after such devastating losses. Part of this government spending growth will come in the form of a national health care system. A system which the public will soon support by a majority, and one premised on health care as a right of citizenship.

The incredible contradiction of rapid growth in health care costs and numbers of persons requiring access to it, during a protracted period of diminished savings and personal wealth underway, requires a solution which the private sector cannot provide. The profits of the private sector raise the total cost of health care. The nation, in order to answer the growing call for health care as a right, must dramatically reduce the cost of health care.

That reduction of health care costs will come in several ways but, the primary one will have to be the promotion of non-profit health care that lowers the costs by removing middle person shareholders and executives skimming profits off the flow of cash from tax payer and private insurance policy holder to health care deliverers like doctors, nurses, and and facility managers.

As we are already seeing, government will be getting into the Return On Investment business on behalf of tax payers. The recently passed Economic Stabilzation Act of 2008, (the financial sector rescue Bill), establishes the precedent that taxpayers are entitled to a return on investment for taking over the toxic debt of financial corporations.

In a few years, when the government is selling those 'toxic debt' properties for a tidy return to the U.S. treasury, and when stock shares owned by the U.S. Treasury in exchange for tax payer infusion of cash into these financial corporations turn a nice profit several years from now, tax payers will witness the pressure on increasing their taxes, diminish by those returns on investment.

Gone are the days when corporations could use the tax payers as a fail safe against default and bankruptcy, for free. Going forward, governments around the world will be taking shareholder positions in these corporations, in exchange for tax payer back stop services and insurance. This is going to prove to be the most significant revolution of social systems in the 21st century and beyond.

The concept of separation of government and private sector is dead, where tax payers are on the line, underwriting private sector failure. The ramifications of this simple fact, opens the door to new arrangements, as yet not even thought of. However, some are predictable and potentially very positive. Research and Development tax dollars given to private firms have never provided a direct return to the taxpayers, when extremely profitable patents are developed for new products and technologies. Going forward, all citizens will get a future tax cut when such innovations prove profitable, based on government funding of private sector research and development. The reason is the tax payers will be shareholders in those companies with the patents and marketing them.

This inevitability of greater government involvement in our nation's economic future will require greater voter information and oversight at the polls on election day. This election on Nov. 4 is very foretelling in this regard. This election will be the most expensive, most viewed, the most discussed, the most researched, and the most tumultuous transition of power since Reconstruction in the late 19th century. Voters are going to demand better education, more empirical information, and vastly more logical and rational explanations from their politicians than ever before.

Politics.

The majority of American voters know their politicians have duped them, betrayed them, and sold them out. Until the 2006 and this election, voters blamed other district's politicians for bad government, but not their own. While certainly the RNC and DNC are conducting polls on their incumbent's chances, they are not revealing them. There is evidence of the growing anti-incumbent sentiment, however.

As in 2006, the evidence of anti-incumbent sentiment appears biased toward Republicans. This is evidenced by the Evans Novak Political Report of yesterday. But, here's the thing. This economically dire situation, while blamed on Republicans with good reason, will be inherited by the Democrats in January. A Democratic president and Congress, while not being held responsible for the mess, will be held responsible for cleaning it up. And the clean up, if it occurs successfully, is going to be painful, and troubling for many voters. Many will whine and complain, longing for the 'good old days' that caused the meltdown.

Democrats will have to convince a majority of voters, as a doctor must a patient, that the pain of the procedure will eventually make them healthy again. Even If Democrats fail, voters can not logically, and likely will not, return to Republicans, if they have a choice. Anti-politician and anti-major political party sentiment will leave only two choices; a third party or, a general anti-incumbent vote against both parties. Third Parties are divisive along more extreme ideological lines, so it is unlikely moderate and pragmatic independent voters will turn en masse toward a third party.

The Economy

The good news for Democrats is that hitting bottom leaves no direction but up. And in 2009, with projections now being set at negative GDP growth, it is very likely that will be the bottom for voters. By the 2010 mid term elections, Americans may well see palpable improvement in jobs, productivity, lending and credit, and even the tenor in Congress may improve as Republicans take on their traditional role as bi-partisan minority party check and balancers, as opposed to their obstructionist role of the last few years.

The good news for Americans is that this Recession will not likely become a depression throwing 30% or more workers out of jobs, as long as the Chinese, and other growing low wage economies, continue to elevate 10's of millions of their people into the Middle Class. As their middle class grows and wages increase, their demand for imported technologies and conveniences exported from the Western economies will grow.

Never in the history of civilization has such a global concerted effort been undertaken by all major economies to amend a shared economic downturn, as we have seen this last week. This is likely to have a profound effect in hastening the recovery of the global economic slow down, while companies and corporations clean their books of false assets and phoney worth.

The good news for America is that this global economy of nations recognize that if one major player goes down, we all go down. That means unprecedented cooperation on a global level to restore sound economic foundations and policies going forward. We very likely have dodged the nuclear economic meltdown, this time. America still has a future. Americans still have a future for their children to maintain a decent standard of living in America. But that future is still dependent upon many other factors.

Along with dodging the short term bullet, sustaining our economic future will require political and cultural reforms as well. Nothing less than an all out war on ignorance can keep hope for a better future alive and developing. It was after all, gross ignorance, negligence, and greed that brought America to this brink. Folks making $50,000 a year buying $210,000 homes demonstrated the height of ignorance; as did the financial institution's undertaking the trade of mortgage backed securities, sight unseen, while adhering to the blatantly ignorant view that property valuations could continue rising at a breakneck rate of speed. The root of ignorance is the act of ignoring the relevant.

Education

Education, rational, empirical, numbers oriented and critical reasoning kind of education will be needed in our future if that future is to prosper. Oversight and accountability from the voter over their politician, to the politicians over the private sector, are absolutely mandatory and dependent upon such a dramatic improvement in education in America. Education is the key to weaning individuals off of self-destructive behaviors in the investment world and in the voting world. Education is the key to improving citizen's capacity to provide more for themselves and depend less on others in the future who may or may not be inclined or able to catch them if they fall.

Educational improvement is absolutely mandated by America's future economy if we are to have anything to export of value, since an incredible premium is being placed on improved education in nearly all other major economies in the world including China and India, our chief economic competitors of the future. If America is to be competitive and get her share of the global economic pie, America shall have to make sound education job number 1, going forward. And that will have to mean returning religious education back to Sunday School. Failure to take this step, will condemn America's children to uncompetitive disadvantage with children in other nations whose educations will be superior.

Culture.

There is no escaping the fact that a nation's culture changes when education quality level improves or degrades. If, as it must, America makes education one of its first and foremost priorities, our culture will change. A great minority will fight these changes tooth and nail. But, in vain. The human race is transitioning through another major evolution and revolution in its social constructs. It is comparable to the transition from the Medieval Period of feudalism to the Renaissance Period. Or from the industrial period to the technological age.

That transition is being marked by global interdependence and the awakening to it. It is marked by the magnitude of the cost of failure of such a globally interdependent economic and national circumstance. The educated in the world have been marched, in the last few weeks, right up to the brink of the abyss and forced to gaze into the black depths that lie one step further. That abyss is now real, experienced, and terrible to contemplate ignoring. Ignoring is the root of ignorance. Our species can no longer ignore global climate change, diminishing stores of fossil fuels, or corruption becoming a standard for billions of people in the world.

The marvelous thing about faith is its permission to ignore reality. Faith can empower a Buddhist monk to set his body aflame without experiencing the agony, but instead, revel in the peace of the act. Faith can drive people to call for war and death in the name of good and justice. Faith can also move mountains, and all unrealized objectives begin as an act of faith.

There is a necessity for faith mandated by the very makeup of the human species and its relationship with its universe. But, going forward, faith cannot be allowed to continue to grow as a socially destructive, ignorant, and divisive force. In a globally interdependent world of peoples, that would constitute global suicide by degrees over decades of increasing ignorance, suffering, and privation.

Faith must be relegated to the private world, and private individual choices of faith must be accepted and protected by our social institutions. Those institutions must protect the individual's right to faith, but also, protect the society from those individuals and groups who would believe that society is evil, thus justifying divisive actions in order to increase their power, and derailing national interests for personal and minority group agendas.

America has a future. Americans have a future. The international communities of humanity have a future. If they will but seize upon it, and invest in it, as if they had faith in it.

Obama - McCain Debate 2 - A Winner Emerges.

2008-10-08T07:06:35Z

Obama didn't so much win this debate, as McCain failed in it. There was very little new to be heard from Sen. Obama, though he made a couple positions clearer to the audience. But, Sen. McCain's falling poll numbers required him to turn the table in this debate, and he did not. If anything, he raised new doubts about his candidacy as he unleashed a new spending program in tonight's debate.

]]> Near the end of the debate, Sen. McCain announced he would, as president, seek to buy up overvalued mortgages using tax payer dollars, in addition to the more than $800 billion dollar rescue package he has already voted for, earmarks and all. This announcement of new spending by taxpayers was not however, matched with any new plans to raise taxes and government revenues. Which means, without any question, that Sen. McCain would increase our national debt by the amount of this new spending plan to buy failing mortgage properties.

That issue aside, there were a few technical points worth noting. A question was posed as to how the candidates would prioritize their approach on 3 separate issues facing the next president. Sen. Obama did prioritize them 1, 2, and 3. Sen. McCain said he would address them all simultaneously. Most Americans trying to manage their budgets and income, know all too well, that prioritizing is essential to progress.

Sen. McCain revealed indirectly that he has never had to address spending priorities in his marriage to millionairess, Cindy or, as the son of an Admiral in the Navy making an executive level salary of the 1960's. Hence, prioritizing spending issues, or tax issues for that matter, does not even occur to Sen. McCain as a necessity. Sen. McCain insists that he can reduce the deficit, increase spending, and lower taxes for everyone. That view, as anyone who manages a checkbook knows, reflects Sen. McCain's fundamental lack of understanding of finances and economics.

It is not possible to say yet, whether these points resonated with the general population tuning in tonight. I suspect however, that some of them will resonate with many independent voters. The job for McCain tonight was to reverse the polling drop of the last 10 days. He clearly failed to do that. The night was Obama's, not by any stellar performance, but by default. Sen. Obama committed no poll changing errors.

When all is said and done, the media, the people and the polls, are going to continue to move toward the candidate who has from the beginning, maintained that the central issue of this campaign is the Middle Class of America and their issues.

But it has to be said, the real loser of tonight's debate was the American voters. Neither candidate forthrightly dealt with the details and nuts and bolts of how they will address an aggressive economically empowered Russia, or the repercussions of a strike within the Pakistani border to take out bin Laden, al-Queda, and the Taliban there. And most remorseful, was both candidates refusal to level with the people about how dire our economic situation is going forward and realistically, how they plan on dealing with rising federal costs and diminishing federal revenues which truly threatens America's future.

Culture & Politics

2008-10-06T19:08:00Z

We get our politicians from our culture. That is to say, over time, the character and quality of our politicians will reflect the character and quality of our people.

There are people like this person claiming to be Russian by thename of Akif G. Agayev now linking Obama to Communist spies in Hawaii. There are no doubt Americans who will believe these absurdities.

]]> There is the GOPUSA now proffering emails from idiots like this one who offers:

Frank Marshall Davis, known in the media as a mentor for Barack Obama. A new book, The Dream Begins, claims that Davis was "demonized" as a Communist but that he helped "shape" Obama's views. I will leave it to you to decide what influence he had over Obama. But I do have the shocking truth about Davis. He was not only a documented member of the Communist Party USA, but a sex pervert, homosexual and pornographer.

Then we have Palin and McCain insisting Obama has announced intentions to raise American's taxes. And at least 33% of Americans believe these lies, because the truth is just so much more difficult for their conscious minds to handle in making a choice in the ballot box.

Fortunately for our nation, the vast majority of Americans are not quite so easily duped and deceived. But, this is a two way street. Moveon.org, and others engage in these deceptions and lies as well.

And they all, contribute to destroying democracy of, by, and for an informed electorate. They all
seek to build a power base constructed of lies and deceipt. They all seek to make you and I pawns of their intentions on election day. They all have vested interests in destroying democracy for their personal benefit and agendas.

Therein lies the true shame of what America is becoming. A people ignorant of the truth and sound information because information is free to distort and malign and twist, and our educational system increasingly fails to turn out citizens capable of telling the difference between what is plausible and what is implausible. Thus we are growing an ever larger electorate incapable of casting the kind of intelligent, self-interested, and informed vote the founding fathers intended of those who would elect Representatives to Congress.

America is suffering increasingly for its crisis in confidence. The people do not know who to trust anymore, on Wall Street, on K Street, On Capitol Hill, in the Media, and on the mainstreet of the Internet.

For decades this meant increasing voter apathy. It means now spending money instead of turning it over to someone else to invest it. It translates into herd mentality and identification by symbols of who can be trusted and who cannot like wearing a flag on their clothing or vehicle or not, and speaking code words of anti-government or pro-government to decipher if one is a true Republican or Democrat or a mole trying to infiltrate our minds with disinformation.

Folks, none of this is new. All of this happened in Germany prior to WWII, and George Orwell covered these topics brilliantly in his books Animal Farm and 1984. We are simply repeating history because we refuse to study it.

Most people now discard reading any comments which make mention of Adolph Hitler or the Nazis and try to draw parallels. That is history we should NEVER ignore, but, here we are living out the Orwellian tale in which truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes truth, and history is derided as the ramblings of feeble minds, while the political spin masters reap ever grander incomes as the propaganda ministers of the modern era.

Same propaganda, same objectives: we give them new names like 'pundits' and 'spin masters' so as to hide from our consciousness their true role no different than Hitler's or Stalin's propaganda ministers and minions. For to acknowledge their true role, would require and demand that we fight these ministers of lies and deceptions with all the resources we have. No, far easier to acknowledge their new respectable titles and go on about our business as if we were not repeating the darkest periods of our history.

Why are Americans not aware that the fastest and easiest road to authoritarian power is economic failure and instability? Why are Americans not asking if the demise of our economy, created and caused by the the wealthiest and those with the greatest power in our society, is not a political strategy to increase and insure ever more authoritarian power over us?

The answer is simple. We are no longer educated to ask such questions. Such questions are inherently dangerous, and subversive. Such questions could lead to the uncovering of truth and holding those with great wealth and power accountable to the people in the streets.

It is no accident that books like Animal Farm, 1984, and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, won't be found on required reading lists in high school civics classes. Hell, it is no accident that so many high school curricula no longer have civics classes.

Instead we make movies like V for Vendetta far enough removed from our current time to become entertainment and yet close enough to truth to be heralded as great movies by the diminishing minority who can still recognize the relevance of the movie and its nightmarish warnings and reflections of our current state of affairs. For the rest, it is a love story, a story of the family of man, and feel good movie, with lots good and evil and explosions and dramatic sound track.

And all the while, the very survival of our species as noble, and responsible for its actions, is ignored and lost on the vast majority of those whose votes control the future with increasing impotence.

Palin - Biden Wash

2008-10-03T03:41:15Z

The Vice Presidential candidate debate was a wash in this writer's opinion. Sen. Biden had a command of the details and historical facts, too many of them in the first half of the debate, but, if his objective was to reflect the Bush years into a McCain presidency, he was successful. Gov. Palin alleviated fears and anxieties over her appearing to be an air head with a solid rehearsed bag of tricks, like avoiding the questions, reverting to taxes, and attack, attack, attack. She stood toe to toe with Joe, and her base will praise her for it till the cows come home and long after.

]]> On substance, the only news headline coming out of the debate was Gov. Palin's agreement with Dick Cheney's interpretation that the Vice President has executive power both in the Executive Branch and the Senate beyond simply providing a tie breaker vote in the Senate. Whether Gov. Palin thought she knew what she was talking about Constitutionally or whether she was simply backing V.P. Dick Cheney's extra-Constitutional interpretation because she reveres him, was not evident. But, it was the headline news that will circulate tomorrow and throughout the campaign.

On energy and colloquialisms and down home talk, in other words, style, Gov. Palin commanded the stage as well as any professional actress could have. On foreign policy substance, history, facts, current events, and threats, Sen. Biden clearly won the contest. And Sen. Biden won technical points on answering the questions posed, where Gov. Palin dodged them changing the topic, and saying she would do that up front.

For voters looking for substance on policy, strategy, and experience, Sen. Biden was there for them. For voters looking for style, energy, and the ability to relate at a high school level, Gov. Palin was the plain talking winner. It was a wash in this regard. Each candidate lived up to or exceeded their base's expectations. How they fared with undecided and independent voters remains to be seen, and will come forward in the polling and research groups analysis in coming days.

Underneath the debate was ever present question, should the VP have to step into the President's office, is this candidate ready and prepared? The answer on Sen. Biden, and polls will show this, is a clear yes. The answer on Gov. Palin will improve as a result of this debate, but, it is probably a safe bet that half or more voters will not believe she is ready or prepared for that role. And that is really the only question of true import when it comes down to deciding on a ticket only on the VP candidate.

Economy and Rescue Bill for Dummies

2008-10-02T11:36:05Z

The title of this article (above) is the name of the Bill which passed the Senate last night. It is voluminous and the time between its issuance from the Banking Committee to its vote on the floor likely precluded most Senators from having time to read it themselves. But rest assured their staffers did. Visit and support the Sunlight Foundation for the full text of the Bill. Or, read this article, for an overview of what is happening, the rest of us can understand.

]]> First, it should be understood that the House Bill to be voted on as early as Friday, will have differences. But those differences will be minor or irrelevant to an understanding of what is really taking place here, between those in the know who want to kill this Rescue plan, and those in the know who want to pass it.

Notice the absence in the Title of the Bill of any reference to the words bailout or rescue. The skeptics of this bill tried to unsell it to the public almost immediately as a Bail Out of Wall Street. Its original 2.5 page White House proposal could easily be viewed as just what the skeptics called it. However, it has transformed from a bailout written by Henry Paulson, former Goldman-Sach's executive worth 10's of millions of dollars, to a bill designed more to rescue our economy from entering an even deeper, but near certain, economic recession.

An economic recession is marked by job layoffs, rising unemployment, a slowing or negative growth in our nation's economic activity overall, and harder, more anxious financial times for non-wealthy American workers and their families, over a period of 6 months or more. This Bill may not avert recession, but it is hoped by its champions that it will prevent a recession from affecting even more workers and their families, as well as businesses.

The Stabilization Act attempts first and foremost, to address the problem of financial institutions hoarding their money and refusing to lend it to other financial institutions and you and I, Mr. & Mrs. Consumer. The reason for this sharp decrease in money being loaned and borrowed is really rather simple, and I will use a homeowner worker as an example.

Mr. Jack's old car just died. The cost to repair it: $3000.00. The car is only worth $200 for salvage if he junks it. If he repairs it, he will have a car worth $700, but which he paid $3000 to repair. Mr. Jack views this situation as throwing good money after bad, and decides to get a loan to buy a much newer used car for $10,000 which will last 4 or 5 years before needing major repairs. Mr. Jack bought his home 2 years ago for $210,000, and he still owes $208,500 on the mortgage.

Mr. Jack goes to his local bank and asks for a loan to buy another car. The Bank asks Mr. Jack, how much his net income is each month. He replies, $1400 per month. They then ask how much he owes on his home, and he replies $208,500. They ask what amount he paid for his home, he replies, $210,000. The banker then checks his index sheets and sees that home valuations in Mr. Jack's area have fallen 20%, on average, in just the last year.

Now Mr. Jack, if he were to try to sell his home today, would not be able to sell it for what he paid for it. But, how much less than what he paid for it, might he get for the house? There lies the problem with our financial institutions at this point. No one knows how much he could get for the house, or even if he could sell it at all at a "reasonable" price.

The 20% estimate of home prices having devalued in the last 24 months, is just that, a rough estimate. Mr. Jack's home may not sell until he lowered the price to $105,000, half its original cost. No one knows. Normally, property assessors have vast amounts of data on recently purchased homes to compare a particular house to, in estimating what its current market value should be. But, these aren't normal times. Housing values are falling and no one knows where they will bottom out and stabilize.

Therefore, Mr. Jack's bank asks Mr. Jack if he has any other collateral to put up for the loan? He says yes, he has his gold wedding band which has risen 500 % in value since he bought it. But, since he bought it for only $110, it is now worth only $550 and Mr. Jack's bank turns Mr. Jack down for the car loan, because the car will depreciate faster than he would be able to pay off the loan, his ring doesn't cover the difference, and he owes more than his house is worth. Additionally the bank knows a recession is possible ahead, in which case Mr. Jack may become unemployed, making the bank's potential for collecting their loaned money plus interest from Mr. Jack, doubtful at best.

In many ways, Mr. Jack's situation is identical to our current large financial institutions and indeed, financial institutions around the world. They have loaned money out to others and accepted mortgages as collateral on those loans. A sizable portion of those mortgage loans were for the full, or near full market value of the home as appraised 1 to 5 years ago. But the value of those properties have dropped considerably, and are still dropping.

These are now referred to as 'Toxic Debt' or 'Toxic Mortgage Backed Securities', in which the amount of the mortgage paper, or promissory note to repay, is greater than what the property is actually now worth. How much more, is very difficult to determine due to property values still dropping, and in many cases the amount of the mortgage IOU could be as much as 50% more than the actual value of the property itself, if the property could be sold today.

Now, the majority of the mortgages these financial institutions (lenders) have on their books as assets (IOU's from home and other property owners), are less than what the properties are actually worth. In other words, these are non-toxic mortgage backed IOU's which, if the borrower defaulted on payments, the financial institution could foreclose, (repossess) and sell the property to recover the amount of their loan and make a bit of profit in the bargain. But in order for these 'banks' to make new loans, they have to borrow money, (IOU's aren't money in hand), and in order to borrow money, they have to open their books of IOU's to show their lender that their previous loans are good for what the IOU's say they are good for.

Too many of these financial institutions, when they open their books to a potential lender, expose the fact that they are holding a lot of 'toxic debt' and therefore, other banks are refusing to lend them money. If banks and other financial institutions don't lend each other money, they can't lend you, or I, or Mr. Jack any more money, either. This is called a credit crunch, or, in our case, crisis. The money between top tier lenders to lesser lenders, gets hard to acquire and more expensive as interest rates for borrowing going up. Interest rates go up when the risk of lending goes up.

Corporate lending interest rates have been climbing steeply, recently by as much as 250 to 300% or, 2% to as high as 6 and 7%. The cost of lending money is rapidly growing. And that is going to reduce how many people are able to borrow and buy things. As more people cannot afford to borrow money and buy things, stores and manufacturers sell less, lose profits, and start laying off workers. As more workers are laid off, there are even less people able to buy things, causing business profits to drop further or not make a profit at all, which in turn leads to even more layoffs, or worse, bankruptcy for the company or corporation. That is a recession.

These are precisely the effects which this Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, is designed to minimize and lessen. There are many folks in the population and in professional trade magazines writing that this "Rescue Bill" should not go forward; that this is a financial bubble which should be allowed to burst, taking nation's into recession, which occur quickly, and eventually bottom out; stabilize, and thereafter grow again on a much sounder financial footing. This projection of what would happen is accurate and true.

Critics of such a proposal to let the markets self-correct, argue such a remedy will destroy the financial lives of millions and millions of newly unemployed workers and their families. That is also accurate and true. They argue that most people would rather keep their job and home, even if they can't buy as much for the next few years, than to lose their jobs and homes, and have to spend their savings trying to keep the family afloat for a year or two awaiting the economy's recovery to the point that they can find a job again.

So, the debate really boils down to 1) those arguing for a deep but short recession, and economic recovery a year or three later, and 2) those arguing for a prolonged, slow growth, belt tightening period, in which millions of people see themselves get poorer in consumer terms, but, keep their jobs and homes in this slow economic growth period which could last for several to many years before wages increase and begin catching up with inflation again.

MoneyWeek for example, whose target audience is investors, champions the self-correcting option because the sooner the economy tanks and recovers, the sooner investors can get back to making significant gains on their equity investments again and not have to do other work for a living.

On the other hand, government representatives know that reelection is not likely if headlines for a year or two are full of stories of rising unemployment and growing throngs of homeless persons due to dramatically rising home foreclosures, which would result from allowing the markets to self-correct without government intervention. Therefore, on behalf of their constituents, politicians are trying to chart a course that minimizes these effects on their voters and families.

And that pretty well covers the overview of what is taking place in Congress and our economy, and why it is, there are two camps of thought on how we should handle this crisis. The details of financial markets are extremely complex. But, understanding the overview of what is happening and who is on which side of the solution fence, is really very easy and simple to grasp.

So, which camp do you feel more comfortable in? The fast and furious self-correction investing camp, or the less severe pain and longer recovery camp?

Those in the middle of the Middle Class are likely to find themselves straddling both camps, as they have significant long term retirement investments they would like to see grow again as soon as possible, but, they are also employed workers with jobs and homes and dependents at stake, and don't want to risk their jobs and savings to date, in a market-self correcting option.