The bridge to nowhere...

Two Three Reasons Sarah Palin Should Not Be Vice President
By Brad DeLong

No reasons so far why Sarah Palin would be qualified to be president--aside from a claim that she shares a hairdresser with Amy Winehouse. And a bunch of big negatives are flooding in. The biggest surround the fact that John McCain stands at least one chance in five of dying over the next four years and that she would then become president. Here are three:

Sarah Palin's Abuse-of-Power Scandal ("Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome State Trooper?" Department)

One of them is her firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monega for no reason anybody can explain--except for the likelihood that Monega had not obeyed her staff's demand to fire State Trouper Mike Wooten, Palin's ex-brother-in-law.

Now Palin's story is that she had absolutely nothing to do with her aide Frank Bailey's demands that Monega fire Wooten.

That story didn't fly when Henry II Plantagenet tried it after the murder of Archbishop Thomas:

Palin's the One: So now we've learned that Sarah Palin is McCain's choice for nominee. I have to say. It's a daring pick but I think a very weak pick. I'm perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she's accused of getting the state police to fire him. Recently she was forced to admit that one of her aides had done this, though she insists she didn't know.... John McCain... a cancer survivor who turns 72 years old today, is picking a vice presidential nominee who has been governor of a small state for less than two years and prior to that was mayor of a town with roughly one-twenty-seventh of the citizens that Barack Obama represented when he was a state senator in Illinois...

Sarah Palin Lies in Her First Speech:

The second is the fact that she could not get through her first speech without telling a lie:

Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow":

As for the infamous 'bridges to nowhere,' MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. 'I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for,' Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow...
MSNBC, 8/29/08 Palin: "I Told Congress 'Thanks But No Thanks' On That Bridge To Nowhere":

During her speech in Dayton, Ohio, after being introduced as McCain's running mate, Palin said, "I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

good blog post...

From Brian Leiter on the Democratic convention...

I guess this is a case study in the decadence of empires in decline. For the first time, I'm living somewhere that has basic cable TV, so have been watching, for amusement, bits and pieces of the Prudent Wing of the Republocrat Party's annual convention in Denver on C-SPAN. It really is an amazingly substance-free zone, in which people are packaged by advertising pros like new automobiles, and talentless speaker follows talentless speaker. Last night featured former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who has the dubious distinction of sounding even more like a total fake than Senator Clinton. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton was celebrated as a great feminist trailblazer without any mention of the most relevant fact about why she's a Senator, let alone a national candidate, namely, her husband. (There are some actual feminist trailblazers in the Prudent Wing of the Republocrat Party, one can only imagine what they were thinking watching this spin job.) I am told that the speech of the Iowa Republican Jim Leach, who is pro-Obama, is already being marketed by sleep disorder specialists for those suffering chronic insomnia. The one bright spot was the funny, and unpolished, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who delivered a few good populist punches that were otherwise sorely missing. But overall, the whole thing was so bland and dreary that one almost wishes they'd retain George Galloway to deliver a thirty-minute address to say something substantive about the war criminals in Washington, D.C., and their annointed successor, Senator McCain.

go read the whole thing... very nice, very nice.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Krugman on new census numbers...

About that Bush Boom …

The 2007 income, poverty and health insurance numbers are out. As far as I can tell on a first read, there’s nothing deeply surprising. Still, they represent a landmark — and not in a good way.

The key point is that 2007 was the end of an economic expansion — whether or not the NBER declares a recession, the employment situation, which is what matters to most people, has deteriorated sharply this year. So 2007 was as good as it got in this cycle. Yet median household income was lower than in 2000, while both the poverty rate and the percentage of Americans without health insurance were higher.

In short, the economic policies we’ve been following just aren’t working.
Is the bad economic news all Bush’s fault? No, of course not — but remember, the key argument of the right has always been that tax cuts and deregulation would produce good news, a rising tide that raised all boats. Boy, has that not happened.
But remember, we’re just a nation of whiners.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response on taxes and economy...

Anonymous said...
Jim

You say look at what made our economy the greatest in the world. If you don't believe in the FairTax fine. Now look at what is ruining our economy in relation to the tax laws of other nations. We are becoming more and more uncompetitive.

Exactly! This is the consequence of our move away from Keynesian economics towards the back of a napkin supply side economics. The Laffer curve is laughable! But the impacts of cutting taxes at the expense of our infrastructure and making the middle class.. and future generations pay for it has hurt us dramatically.

I'll quote myself...

The impacts of the Bush tax cuts have been huge. And it has hurt our business competitiveness around the globe. That is reason--as the book, "the politics of Bad Ideas" points out--that the World Economic Forum the deterioration of the US public finances has begun to damage US competitiveness. This is a business research institute in Switzerland. The US experienced the most dramatic drop in rankings of ALL nations.

Also there is a myth that American businesses are being strangled by taxation at the expense of competitiveness. I'll outsource to Economist Mark Thoma at U. Oregon "The Greek Menace" who brings together some stuff around the web... I'll quote the larger point--aside from conservatives once again manipulating with hyperbole rather than data...

Economist Dean Baker:

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

But more broadly this decline comes from the conservative revolution. The Regan myth--keep in mind he raised taxes twice to try to correct the harm done from his tax cut at the beginning of his term--of taxes cuts creating economic growth was considered flawed by many economist in theory... and now we have the data to back it up. But the propaganda has remained useful. Our society has become less equitable with the reductions in the top economic bracket. Disparities of wealth over the long term have a huge impact in undermining the market system. We haven't seen such disparities of wealth since the 20's. And we have Regan and the pathology of tax cuts.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

more henry dems blog posting... I have to go to homework now!!!

Green jobs, health care, government

I want to respond the Henry Libertarian starting with the purpose of government since this is a fundamental difference between the conservative every man for themselves mentality and a more realistic economics and social governing of Democrats who want to protect citizens and empower our economy.

Henry Libertarian commented:

The Government is NOT here to take care of us.

The government is here to protect and empower. Come on now you are a Libertarian. Look back to your intellectual forefathers such as the Liberal John Locke.

Civil Government is a social contract to protect individuals and their basic liberties from the group. The group. The government is their to protect and empower them as individuals. Its also their to protect and empower the economy. Free-market advocates since Adam Smith have noted that markets require basic structures infrastructure--legal, regulatory, military. Individuals need some entity to protect them from market failures and violence. So your government isn't thier to take care of us is opposed by your own Libertarian ancestory... as well as any accurate conception of how markets work.

Barack Obama promises to "create five million new green jobs." The entire civilian workforce in the US is a little over 145 million people. So if Barack Obama’s adds five million new green jobs then one in every 33 jobs in the United States would be a new "green" job.

The basic response is... I'm not sure where the issue is. I'll outsource this to economist Dean Baker (from email)...

this includes all the derivative jobs that are associated with "green jobs." So if we have 500,000 construction workers employed retrofitting buildings, we might have another 500,000 employed transporting materials, producing the inputs in factories, or even producing raw materials. The same would be the case with fuel efficient cars or hybrids.

The 5 million figure is probably high even by this standard, but it is not ridiculous on its face, especially by political standards.

So Obama may be playing up the numbers... I dunno. Economist fight amoungst themselves on the derivative impacts of policies--since an economy is a collective effort with broad repurcussion outside the direct impacts of the targeted goal.

Henry Libertarian:

Why do "earmarks" always come up? They take up the money that could be spent on things like education and Healthcare.

I'm just going to quote myself on this one...

The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling

This can’t possibly be top priority is it? If it is... we’ll jsut disagree. I put getting Bin Ladin, protecting our national security, protecting our troops, stegthening our economy, ending the health care crise, ending the transportation crisis, ending the education crisis–the Regan revolution sure has created a lot of crisises!

Yes schools are overcrowded. Why? We cannot build schools before the kids are there. Schools get built in responce to the need for them. What good does it do to create 10 new schools if the area does not have enough children to support that? The Federal Government DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with how the Counties run the school system.

Yeah... part of the problem... Local government is more easily manipulated by feel good economic policies...

Schools are underfunded? Which school systems do not have books?

Couldn’t name them but from what I hear my nephew has had classes where he couldn’t take the book home for homework since there weren’t enough of them. I heard many of the same stories across the board. One of my goals as chairman is to get more substantial data on that one so it’s a fair challenge and I’m certain I can answer it with more than hear-say data–though I trust what these people are telling me, you can’t necessarily take it at face value...

Which school systems cannot provide learning materials for the children?

Teachers pay for large amounts of supplies out of their own pockets... is that really at question here?

Could we possibly give them more money? Sure, but maybe we should look at how the money that the County is being given is being spent first.

The chairmans race here in Henry was focused on economic challenges like bringing in new businesses, fixing the trasnportation issue, development and smart growth... I don’t think penny pinching is a serious solution... but feel free to peruse the henry county budget I’d be intrigued to what you find...

I can tell you this, my child has books at his school and an appropriate amount of educational resources and he attends public school. Teacher pay too low, as compared to what?

Ask his teacher how much out of pocket she has provided... also ask about grants from private sector–families, businesses

Current teacher pay levels do attract talented people to the profession. NEA estimated that the average classroom teacher salary for 2004-05 was $47,674.

Average... If Bill Gates walks into a bar the average jumps sky high... doesn't mean every school gets comparable pay rates... the inner city... and at risk enivronments have trouble with teacher retention. At large teacher retention is a problem because people get fed up with the problems and go back to private sector.


Once again I will repeat myself. Healthcare rises due to lawyers and insurance costs. Also, stop trying to cover illegal aliens. They do not have "rights" to our social benefit systems. In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance.

We have an immigration problem... but the idea that this is the reason health care is so expensive is absurd. You got to look at the macro environment as a whole...

Here are the major contributing factors.... NCHC:

Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?

Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2006.4
Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.4
Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 143 percent between 2000 and 2006.8
Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage - not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance - the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.9
Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.10

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens.

Immigration reform--how ever it would end up looking like would help this issue... plus why else do they sneak over the boarder... the third world has an impact on our country... increase prosperity in Mexico and you won't see as many people coming here to pay for their own families health care, food, and well-being. Why do you think McCain (he was for it before he was against it) and Bush supported immigration reform. Its a huge problem that needs to be solved in a way that doesn't hurt our economy. Kick them all out mentality of conservatives would cost us economically...

Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation's 47 million uninsured people.

Sorry.. that would be 47 million Americans. Your numbers are just wrong...

DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2007. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Even Hillary Clinton's story about the woman who died because she didn't have health insurance turned out to be fake.

I don't know and don't care about that story... it was a narrative... campaigns are full of naratives. But thats why social scientific data is where the debate should be... the my brother know a guy who knows a guy who saw x is not a way to get an accurate representation of the world.

You consistently see Republicans use such tactics... escpecially locally. Moderate Repub's do have something substantial to say on policy data... even when I disagree with their priorities I at least applaud their policy efforts--conservatives on the other hand like magic, voodoo (GHW Bush), and other mythical beasts that fight the evil hobgoblins of the world.

There is no Constitutional Right to health care coverage.

Okay... it'd be absurd to think everything needs to be a constitutional right... that'd just be ineffiecient. As a proponent of markets... I don't want to create more needless gridlock in government... I like and want efficiency. But lets not forget "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness." The markets failures infringe on all 3.

NCHC Facts about Health Care:

Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. This mortality figure is more than the number of deaths from diabetes (17,500) within the same age group.10

10Institute of Medicine. Insuring America’s Health - Principles and Recommendations. The National Academies Press, 2004.

back to Henry Libertarian...

Private industry works just fine when you leave it alone and stop all of the Liberal regulating.

How is that working out for us so far? I think turning towards mild regulation and market competion from a non-profit making institution that wants effieciencies since they don't have a profit motive to pay ceo's while denying coverage and making doctors increase their staff--and your doctors bills to pay for that staff--to get people the coverage they need. This can't possibly be a real argument on your part.

Plus John McCain doesn't want to remove protectionisms on Doctors and patents... these would lower the cost of people gonig to the doctor and lower the cost of medication. So thats an empty argument all the way around since he doesn't want to end protectionisms and regulation. Obama vs. McCain we are just debating policy priorities of who we want to protect... people... or share-holder values and CEO pay (at the cost of human lives, American bankruptcies, and harm to small businessnesses

Barack Obama is looking to rely mostly on the heavy hand of the government for regulating healthcare.

Modest smart regulations often make markets work better... not always mind you... but in things like health care its obvious. All you need to do is compare us with other nations--we rank 37th in the world according to the World Health Organization... and pay 2-3 times as much as other industrialized nations to get worse quality of care. You don't have much of a case for that one.

What did Bill Clinton do for healthcare reform? Hillary Care was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) qualified his agreement against the plan saying "there is no health care crisis" ... "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it." In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D) introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002.

Yes and the reasons health care reform didn't work was--everybody together now--Republicans blocking the efforts.

You can't--well you can, but no one should take you seriously--complain about the impacts of Repubican obstruction. The other issue is the amount of lobbying on behalf of the health care industry... its quite a profitable business if you didn't know. Did I mention we pay 2-3 times as much as other countries... for WORSE care--oh yeah I think I did.

In Great Britain after many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

I'm for market competition... the government, with its massive purchasing power, and its lack of a need to pay huge salaries to ceo's (not to mention spending money to keep from getting people care) would be a check on profit motive at the expense of care. I'm not for less market competition I'm for real market competition. No go on that one too...

In Canada, Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.

Stawman... we're not trying to prohibit private medical insurance. Once again... conservative tactics 101... make up stuff that just isn't true...

The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them).

If costs keep going up here unchecked by government participation you'll start seeing Americans start going abroad for care... plus once again strawman... you aren't accurately representing the Obama plan. Its market competion with private insurance to bring down the profit motive to a more effieicent and equitable level.

Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts.

Sure if you are willing to pay for better care... I don't have a problem with that!!!! But citizens... HUMANS deserve a basic level of care. To think otherwise leads you to moral quandaries that would make me appalled. But thats a personal decision for everyone to decide.

The impacts of Republican everyman for themselves... vs. creating an economy that protects and empowers citizens is the distinguishing factor in this debate. plus killing people and unnecessarily creating market inefficiencies in the richest nation in the world is a bit absurd and a very sad statement to the impacts of the conservative revolution on American citizens.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Brad Delong: Draft: To Spend Is to Tax

We economists have a scenario that we call "current policy plus Bush tax cuts." It is made up of (i) the laws currently in force in the United States of America, plus (ii) the assumption that the defense, veterans, and other spending currently appropriated year-by-year by the congress remains the same as a share of GDP, plus (iii) the assumption that the tax breaks like the R&D credit and the regular pruning-back of the Alternative Minimum Tax that are voted for year by year by overwhelming congressional majorities continue to be enacted year-by-year, plus (iv) the assumption that the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed in 2001 and 2003 but made time-limited and set to expire early next decade are renewed. This "current policy plus Bush tax cuts" scenario has the federal government taxing about 20% of GDP over the next seventy-five years. It has the federal government forecast to spend 28% of GDP on average over the next seventy-five years. This is the fiscal gap.

A number of policies could be enacted to eliminate this fiscal gap. Simply doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts expire as current law requires them to do would reduce the fiscal gap from 8 percent to 6 percent of GDP. Raising Social Security taxes or cutting back future Social Security benefits by the about 1/7 needed to get the Social Security system back into projected 75-year balance would further reduce the fiscal gap from 6 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP. Returning military spending to its late-1990s share of GDP--not fighting wars in Iraq, et cetera--would reduce the fiscal gap from 5% to 3.5% of GDP. And eliminating "excess" cost growth in the government health care programs Medicare and Medicaid--allowing Medicare and Medicaid spending per eligible beneficiary to grow only as fast as the rate of growth of income in the economy as a whole--would bring the federal government into projected balance.

I believe that when we Americans look deep into ourselves and ask us what we want our government--because it is our government: it is our agent to do what we want with our money just as the guy in Florida we hire to keep grandma's one bedroom condo in repair is our agent--to do, we conclude the following:

We want to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
We want to close the 75-year Social Security gap, half by raising the limit on earnings taxed by Social Security so that the upper middle class and the rich pay more for Social Security and half by reducing the rate of growth of benefits at retirement.
We want to stop sending our soldiers--the best-trained and best-equipped high tech armed forces in the world--abroad to be military police in countries riven by sectarian conflict where they do not speak the language--and so return defense spending to its late-1990s share of GDP.
We want to reduce but not eliminate the "excess" cost growth in Medicare and Medicaid: we believe our doctors, nurses, and druggists will learn how to do wonderful things over the next two generations, and we do not want those wonderful things in the way of medicine applied only to the rich but to the poor and old as well.
Whether or not we decide to do (1) through (4) above, we want to raise taxes to cover whatever of the long-run fiscal gap remains, and so bring the federal budget back into balance over the long run.
Note that (5) is not optional. As the late Milton Friedman liked to put it: to spend is to tax. If the government buys things, it must get the money to buy them from somewhere. It can get the money from three places. It can tax. It can borrow--but then the borrowing has to be repaid with interest, and the more is borrowed the higher the interest and the worse the value the taxpayers ultimately get for their money when they are taxed to repay the borrowing. Or it can print the money and so inflate the currency--but that too is a tax, and an especially unfair, painful, and destructive one, as lots and lots of people victimized by inflation find their wealth doesn't buy what it used to and what they expected.

We can argue over whether (1) through (4) is what we want to do--that is what politics is about. But whatever we decide to do with (1) through (4), (5) is not optional--not, that is, if we want to continue to have a rich country in the long run. And the politicians who have told you that (5) is optional from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush to Robert Dole to George W. Bush and now John McCain are not your friends, or America's friends.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

McCain...

"John McCain and his wife spend more money--$270,000--on servants in a year than the average American's house is worth. There may be 4,000 households in America today richer than John and Cindy McCain. There may not.

To say "'John McCain' means a lot of different things, but rich isn't one of them" shows an extraordinary degree of ignorance about America, and about John McCain." --Economist Brad Delong *

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

blog post from the Henry Dems site...

I must be crazy... trying to run two blogs... that have political slants.. durning an election year. While you are chairman of one county, campaign manager in a state senate race, are in school, and work part-time...

Here is my most recent post on the Henry Dem's website. Please go sign up on the site to have new blog posts emailed directly to you.

from the comments page...

TO catch people up there has been a health debate going on in the comments page. I want to pull it to the front and hopefully entice others to comment as well. The more people dig into the numbers, and talk about their own opinions and feelings on these important issues... the more people will feel inspired to once again participate in the process.

Think about that for a second. By taking some time out of your day to think about and participate in dialogue you are helping empower someone else to want to join to political process. For too long people have been turned away from politics by attack ads and corruption. Well the only way to fight back and stop those things is through MORE participation not less.

Here was the thread so far... and then I’ll responded at bottom. Remember I represent Jim Nichols ideas... you should participate so that you can advocate for your ideas and views...

Henry Libertarian commented:
What we need is REAL change not tax and over spend Liberals. You only want to redistribute waelth not create any new income or jobs. Obama isn't the answer to ANYTHING except "Who is the worse choice for President in '08?"

On 08/21/08 04:37 PM

On 08/21/08 04:51 PM

On 08/22/08 08:26 AM

Henry Libertarian commented:
Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefited from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. Obama's plans will cost $200 billon a year. Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. Cutting individual taxes increases spending wich creates more tax money. Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down. I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc. The Federal Government should not have ANYTHIG to do with local school systems. You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

Jim Nichols commented:
Also what do you mean by overspend? Our classroom sizes are far too big and lack basic things like supplies and books. Our health care crisis--we rank 37th in the world, and pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations--is harming our global competitiveness and litterally killing americans... or at least making them file bankruptcy. Our transportation infrastructure is massively underfunded. Our mental health systems... underfunded. I'm not for too much government... but we aren't investing in our long-term economic sustainability.. and it shows. People pay the price of the Regan economic revolution of cut taxes worry not about the consequences...

Jim Nichols commented:

Well actually the Republican record on the economy and economic growth speak for themselves. George Bush is about to end his 8 years in office having created fewer jobs than Clinton averaged each year of his term. Ever since Regan we've run deficits except during the Clinton years... data speaks louder than words!

My response:

"Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefitted from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. "

My claim wasn’t to imply Clinton "created" those jobs as if by magic. That not how an economy works. But my claim was intended to point out that every time they open their mouths Bush/McCain/and Company like to say that their economic policies will create jobs... or that they are pro-growth. The question should at least be asked of them... why do you think so?



The paternalistic: "Father says so" [or Bush... or McCain...] is not an economic argument.

And just a question because it seems to be begged...So the Republicans think you have to wait for a dot-com, or real-estate bubble... to create economic growth? Keynes would smile at that one.

Obama's plans will cost $200 billion a year.

true... for those of you who don’t know $200 billion is–if memory serves me–how much Obama’s health care plan costs. For context 200 billion is $645.58 per-capita. 645.58 in my tax dollars going to get millions of people who lack health insurance–such as myself–the ability to get needed medical care and not harm our economy since early treatment rather than last minute care is by far cheaper–more efficient to use an economists term.

And just to give you an idea of how much conservatives end up sounding like they are on mars when talking policy. I spend between 800-1400 dollars a month on health care treatment since I lack health insurance. Its condescending to hardworking Americans who get up each day and try to pay the rules to be told "tough cookies"

Its time for democrats to tell Republicans to cut the crap when it comes to pubic policy.


He then moves onto ear marks...

Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute

First a question why do "earmarks" always come up when talking to a conservative? The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling.

$25 million for the San Fran waterfront.

For those that don’t know... for fiscal year 2008 that would be 8 cents of my tax dollars. 8 cents? 8 cents? Do we really need to deal with 8 cents? Millions without health care, Bin Ladin still on the loose, terrorist recrutiments UP after the Iraq war... and conservatives want to talk about 8 cents????

Since you brought it up I’ll answer it. San Francisco is a major tourist hub. It brings in tourists from all over the world–myself included. Ask an economist... Adam Smith... Joseph Stiglitz... anyone outside of the Heritage institute really and they will point out the importance of investment in vital infrastructure. Tourism brings a lot of money to the state of California and the United States as a whole. Next time I go to San Fran and enjoy a stroll through one of the tourist district I will feel pleased to know my 8 cents helped me have an enjoyable visit.

Cutting individual taxes increases spending which creates more tax money. ...

Yeah point blank not true... was never thought to be true in theory by a large chunk of economist... and since the Regan revolution has still not proven true in the real world.

You often hear this argument... "the tax cuts pay for themselves." Its either someone misinformed or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them do it. For more on this read "The Politics of Bad Ideas–the Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America" by Bryan D. Jones and Walter Williams both of whom are at the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at University of Washington.

Then we move back to health care...

Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down.

We rank 37th in the world for quality of health care. We rank 37th!!!

WE SPEND 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations who already have universal coverage. We are creating huge profits for a small group of people, causing hard working Americans to go bankrupt from illnesses they have no control over, and we are killing people every day because they lack needed treatment. Our businesses put at a competitive disadvantage because they are paying the price....

The idea that tort reform and health care provider costs is going to fix the market failure we are currently dealing with is a bit of a stretch. Private insurance companies and the bureaucracy they bring into the health care system IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Insurance companies pay people a lot of money to go through peoples files to try to keep people from getting insurance or certain treatments.

I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc

Our schools are underfunded.... class sizes too large... teacher pay too low.

As someone who dropped out of high school... I can tell you how passionate I am on making sure that our kids stay competitive in a global economy.

If we don’t invest in our kids... and create and educated work force we will continue to fall far behind Japan, Europe and the other industrialized nations in the world As someone who wants to know my economy is going to be strong and stronger... over the long run I can tell you how passionate I am at making sure the needed investment in our infrastructure is spent NOW.

Instead of seeing a hand-out... see it as a hand-up which helps empower other people to rise up and helps protect your own economic security at the same time

You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

When did I say that??? I don’t know how to respond to that one since I never said I want them to control everything and provide it for you. Republicans always try this trick. If it isn't a trick then its a manipulation. I never said any such thing so I can't respond to the attack.

Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts

That about as condescending as it gets... and you see it from conservatives all the time.

You don’t know me... but it doesn’t matter... you shouldn’t need to. The presumption should always be that people are trying to play by the rules and work hard. Plus I'm demanding better schools, better health care system, better foriegn policy. What do those things have to do with not being responsible for myself... what about that is look for a handout. I'm demanding Government actually do its job. It is there to protect and empower people. Plus personally I believe that which we do to the least of these is very telling about ourselves.

Every time someone tells me to stop whining and work hard I think of my grandfather who got up everyday before the sun to go work on his farm, would then go work at the factory for 8 to 10 hours, to come home and raise a family. He died with less than $200 to his name and never lived very far above the poverty line. You can call me every name in the book... but you I won’t let you call my grandfather lazy.

Imagine if Democrats finally told Republicans.. .cut the crap. The attacks, the personal a fronts, the swift boat ads... and urban legends speak to how little Republicans how when it comes to policy. But they win if Democrats don’t fight back. Knock on doors, make phone calls.... help bring our country back to the entrepreneurial machine it once was. Government is in the business of empowering its citizens. Its time to say no to another Republican who won’t do the job.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

What am I missing here?

Boortz...
THE U.S.EXAMPLE

Barack Obama finally came around on Russia, scolding the nation for invading a sovereign nation (Georgia). However, now he has thrown a new caveat into the mix: the United States should set a better example on that front, too. He says, "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies ... They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

So finally, Barack Obama comes out and directly compares Russia's military invasion of Georgia to our own efforts in Iraq. Way to go Big O.

Does anyone remember Georgia being a threat to Russia? Did Georgia have a weapons program? Was Georgia in violation of multiple UN Resolutions ... violations that authorized any UN member to go in and remove their leader? Just wondering.

What am I missing?

Does anyone remember Iraq being a threat to the their neighbors let alone the United States? Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?--and weren't the U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as many allies, and anti-war activists here at home pointing to the holes in that idea? Wasn't the US in violation of UN Resolutions when it preemptively attacked with no authorization from the Security Council?--the answer is yes if you weren't aware.

The lack of awareness about the facts during the war... and the rewriting of history afterwards has been an amazing and shockingly successful feat by conservatives.

And if you were wondering how laughable the idea that Iraq was a threat... think back to Iraq I. Where Arab countries were calling for us to beat back the preemptive attack by Iraq which lacked authorization from the security council. Thats why we fought with a HUGE coalition, and the war was paid for--mostly by Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me.

Agree or disagree with how it went down... we--Republican and Democrat alike--knew how to win wars, effectively, and at as little cost to our soldiers and our citizens wallets. Republicans were taken over by the conservative wing and all of a sudden the ability to win a war becomes this great quandary. As if military strategy was back to the rock, bigger rock, spear, club... of our ancestors days in the caves.

sigh... what a waste of lives, money, and our national security...

Obama 2008. The lesser of two evils...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

This is how conservatives win elections for the Republican party...

Obamamania...
Written
by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave s hips. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves; he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum , I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

A vote for McCain empowers people like this. Vote Obama 2008. Any questions?

Lesser of two evils yes... but far less than the views of people like this...


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Go out and organize... register voters... vote... our Republic is at stake: Obama 2008

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy

by Sheldon S. Wolin

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

John McCain... more of the same...

WSJ forgets to mention that fact...

Summary: The Wall Street Journal reported that the RNC "made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the CQ 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, the Journal failed to note that according to a 2008 CQ study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year.


In an August 13 Wall Street Journal article, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) "criticized" Sen. Barack Obama "for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments." The article continued: "They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the Congressional Quarterly 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, Holmes and Chozick failed to note that according to a 2008 Congressional Quarterly study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year. Indeed, in a January 13 article (accessed via Nexis), CQ reported that "McCain's 95 percent support [for Bush] score for last year was the highest in the chamber." Moreover, CQ also found that McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time over the seven-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency.

In addition, discussing the establishment of "Republicans for Obama," Holmes and Chozick wrote: "Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved." But in citing immigration as an example of McCain's "bipartisan activity," Holmes and Chozick did not note that, under pressure from the Republican base, McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, now saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. McCain further stated during the January 30 Republican presidential debate that he would not vote for the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.

From the August 13 Journal article:

Sen. McCain echoed the same sentiment in his opening statements. "I know Americans are tired of the partisanship," he said before opening the floor up to questions. "I have a record of reaching across the aisle, reaching across the aisle and working with my friends, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ted Kennedy."

The Arizona senator's comments were supported by the Republican National Committee, which criticized the Illinois senator for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments. They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved.

Mr. [Lincoln] Chafee said that he supported Sen. McCain on a number of issues while he was in the Senate but said he's seen a sharp change. "It's a different John McCain," Mr. Chafee said, pointing to the candidate's reversal from previous stances to support offshore drilling and Bush tax cuts. "Seeing the two different John McCains is a fracture in his credibility."

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Why would John McCain change his policy position on offshore drilling?

Report: Hess Execs Ponied Up Huge Money Before McCain's Drilling Flip

By Greg Sargent - August 5, 2008, 10:05AM

The Los Angeles Times digs up some more detail on the Hess Corporation-McCain story, reporting that the big fundraiser where all the Hess execs chipped in huge sums took place just before McCain reversed his previous opposition to offshore drilling:

On June 10, John B. Hess, a top executive at the oil company with his family name, summoned friends to the 21 Club, a former speakeasy in Manhattan, and delivered $285,000 to John McCain and the Republican National Committee.
A week later, McCain traveled to Texas and announced his support for offshore oil drilling...

Hess was one of half a dozen hosts who tapped friends for the maximum $28,500 donation to the GOP. Others included investor Henry Kravis and hedge fund mogul Paul E. Singer.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said there was no link between the money and McCain's stand. "Mr. Hess was fundraising before Sen. McCain made the announcement," he said.


Hard to know what to make of this. There's no source given for the info on the fundraiser itself, and the contributions were bundled and delivered to the RNC-McCain committee on June 24th. And as best as I can determine from other reporters, Hess has clammed up and is refusing to explain what happened.

But if the report is true, does this change the story? Not much. It raises at least the possibility that McCain had privately signaled a coming switch, though that's impossible to prove and it very well may not have happened. But even if the Hess donations weren't directly tied to the drilling flip, it doesn't change the fact that many oil company executives did reward McCain with huge contributions after his change in position

What's more, whatever the timing of the Hess donations with regard to the drilling flip, the larger point is that the oil companies like Hess have plenty of other reasons to shower wealth on McCain's candidacy. McCain's tax cut proposals would slash the corporate tax rate for, and confer other benefits on, the nation's largest oil companies, according to a report from the Center for American Progress, though it's unclear how precisely McCain's policies would affect Hess.

go figure...



--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

after 8 years of a Republican President America is a different place...

This is why i'm voting for the lesser of two evils

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Actually I'm not much of blue blood Democrat

As many of my readers know I am active within the Democratic party. I've come home to roost could you say?

I see it as the lesser of two evils and have no concerns about saying that. I realized a little after the war started that it was my obligation to work within the political struture to get improvements. Until we have instant run-off voting the Democrats are the only game in town. I'd love to see active third parties but as things stand they have no clout or impact--I shall yawn if you feel the need to rehash the 2000 election, you have no empirical case to make but I'll certainly argue with you for posterities sake...

The Demcrats are far better on the economy and truly work within the fundamental principle that we are all in this together--hence they have a better economic approach since markets function best when we harness everyone and focus on prosperity and fourishing as opposed to individual success in making money as the core goal. Things like the SCHIP bill which Republican's opposed in droves--chuck hegel and a few others withstanding (does anyone have which Repub. supported that one? Also items like the Iraq war and terrorism--Chuck Hegel withstanding--are still very much distinctions between the two parties. I don't see third parties as legitimate or impactful this year--but that is for everyone to decide as individuals; I can't decide for others, though I am willing to go the extra mile to make my case if desired.

Davidfl, regarding the fair tax I was hoping to have mroe time to discuss but breifly. Consumption taxation at its core seems to be a very worthy goal. It may be a wash for low income people, though I'm still not 100%. But I still remain unconvinced and hence opposed that 1) it would work in reality the way it does on paper--as things a want to do; and 2) the inclusive and exclusive usage seems manipulative but I can't put my finger on it--hence why at the very least it seems questionable as a political/economic tactic. I'm a pretty smart guy but if I can't see why you feel it is to be important others won't either.

So I'll work on toning down the rehtoric, still work to learn more on it; yet I remain unconvinced.

That in a nutshell is my concession. Keep at me on this one... I'll keep working on it.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

much wisdom that Gramm chap...

Phil Gramm


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

John McCain's health care plan

Is McCain's Health Care Market Oriented or Insurance Industry Oriented?

The NYT tells us that Senator McCain's health care plan is market-oriented, but it is hard to see how this is the case. The plan breaks up existing employer insurance pools and would have each individual buy their own insurance.

There are large disparities in health care costs with the sickest 10 percent of patients accounting for almost 90 percent of costs. Insurers make money by not providing insurance to these sick people. When workers are put together in large pools, then insurers have no choice to provide insurance to sick people, however when they contract with each person individually then they have the opportunity to exclude people with health problems.

It is difficult to see how shifting from a system of employer-provided insurance to individual insurance is a market-oriented reform (there is a market now for employer-provided insurance). It is very difficult to see how this change will lead to more efficiency, as claimed by the expert cited in the article, since it will almost certainly lead to more resources being wasted in screening individuals for prior health care conditions and efforts to conceal these conditions by individuals.

My response to Westmoreland comment...

Saw a defense of Lynn Westmoreland and his voting record and gas prices... here was my response

How would increasing domestic production capacity bring down global oil spikes over long term. The short run aggregate supply curve shifts from the change in the commodity price but to counter that effect it would seem the data suggests increasing technologies that will help decrease our dependence on oil (like McCain wants). Such will also help our private sector... by helping stimulate buisness in a sector of the economy that will have huge long term growth potential for American businessness.

I'd be interested in seeing the economic data that backs your suggestion AND helps our long term economic growth. For now i'm unconvinced. Oil was yesterdays profit maker... we have to be on the cutting edge or we will fall far behind economies of China, India, and (gasp) Europe...

Westmoreland's policies continue to undermine our security, our economy, and our citizens here in the 3rd District.

regards,
Fellow 3rd District Voter
Jim Nichols
Chairman Henry County Democrats
www.henrydems.org
www.JimNichols4.com

Here in the South one has to wonder...

What ever happened to the "Business Republicans"

On Gay Marriage in California:

"You know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married."

Source: Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenenegger

relativism...

okay bad camera work... and you know... you know...