As I was dressing this morning (which would’ve been afternoon for you east coasters), I was listening to an interview / call-in show featuring Congressman Mike Doyle (D - PA).

He was speaking at length on the necessity of saving the US automobile industry by granting their request (to be made formally this afternoon by the CEO of Ford, I believe) for a large taxpayer loan. As I listened, I kept hearing him say that the auto industry must be saved really for two reasons, which were repeated consistently no matter what the initial question.

The first, which I don’t dispute the fundamental truth of, is that the automotive industry is a major employer of middle class workers in the US. This is all well and good, but discussing this bailout (and, loan or not, it is a bailout) as if the industry will disappear completely overnight is extremely misleading. Yes, certainly the industry is in trouble. Companies have been slashing their workforces for years, continually hemorrhage vast amounts of money, and seem incapable of genuinely gaining ground against their foreign competitors. Further contractions of the industry will hurt, yes, but we’re not actually talking about 3 million additional unemployed skilled laborers tomorrow morning if we don’t drop tens of billions of dollars on the Big 5 (or is it 3 now?) today.

The second major presumption of Doyle’s “Save the Automakers” position was that the loss of this industry (again, all of it, immediately, by implication) would represent the catastrophic loss of all the Research and Development work that the industry does and which America needs in order to remain competitive in the global economy.

This point I dispute on a couple of levels. First, and I hope you’ll forgive the snark, if the United States automotive industry’s R&D was really all that, they wouldn’t be requiring tens of billions of dollars of assistance. They are just years, decades maybe, out of touch with the state of the art being developed in Japan and Germany. They’ve moved only reluctantly towards retooling to support hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles and even then had to be dragged, kicking and screaming about their bottom lines and the needs and wants of the American consumer, to that table. Claiming that we need to salvage their vaunted R&D programs at taxpayer expense represents either a clear misunderstanding or a deliberate oversight of the meager reality.

Of course big companies do R&D, and many do it very well, but the foundation of the argument for saving the carmakers because of their R&D wings presupposes that there are no alternatives, and further relies on the belief that market forces represent the most efficient way to allocate resources for this kind of work. The market is a wonderful thing, but if there is one area that arguably is least benefited by reliance upon market economics, it’s basic scientific research.

Let’s face it, the market is a lagging indicator in most cases. It responds only as rapidly as consumers recognize and understand the conditions that affect the market. In a perfect case, the consumers are all well informed about current circumstances as well as the predicted future conditions that will affect the market, and in that case only, the market may (but is not guaranteed to) respond rapidly and ahead of immediate circumstances. In reality, most consumers are not that well informed, either because they aren’t paying attention, don’t exercise reason in tracking through difficult issues, or, commonly, aren’t provided enough genuine facts about what to expect in the future.

This argument underpins most of my response to knee-jerk free-marketeerism — even allowing that a perfect market will best allocate resources, we don’t have perfect markets, and we must be sure to recognize those cases where the imperfect ones that exist in reality actually do provide the superior solution.

To presuppose that the kind of basic scientific and engineering research that will support the future generation of energy efficient cars (not to mention all other devices that will benefit) ought to be performed by the historically deficient auto industry is just absurd. In fact, it’s clear that the market is largely to blame for the very situation we face. The American public demanded big trucks, SUV’s and other inefficient but fun vehicles, and the industry not only made their billions by filling that desire, but actively lobbied in favor of policies (energy and otherwise) that would keep them in the high margin business of selling these types of vehicles, even after the writing was on the wall with respect to our eventual need to reduce consumption drastically.

So here’s my alternative proposal… let’s not loan billions of dollars to a set of organizations whose credibility in performing basic scientific research is nil, and whose management has been self destructive or brain dead for 25 years. Rather, make that money available to organizations who can and will make good use of it. Direct those funds to the National Science Foundation and other funding mechanisms for academia, whose ability to perform basic science is part and parcel of their mandate. Set aside 200-300 million dollars towards establishing a series of X-Prizes for advances in the materials science and engineering disciplines necessary to advance the state of the art in this country. Provide incentive for American entrepreneurs and researchers to do this kind of work for the auto makers, whose market incentives were never before, and will never be, sufficient to make them forward looking and responsible stewards of the huge power they hold over the economic, environmental and energy policies of this country. Perhaps even found a national laboratory with a mandate for performing work on modern energy and automotive technology, much as the Sandia, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge labs did for Nuclear research and as the NIH does for much basic public health research.

By all means, salvage what can be salvaged of the auto makers in the interests of job retention and maintaining an industrial and manufacturing base in the US. But please don’t foist this ridiculous notion of automaker funded R&D on the public. It’s wrong, and while it may be politically sensible to speak well of companies that employ your constituents, in this case doing so is to spread misunderstanding and inaccuracy. Basic science will almost never be performed best — and by best I mean best for the world at large… by this metric, even the drug companies largely fail — by organizations responding to market forces, because by it’s very nature, basic research may or may not be economically rewarding and will always have to be initiated well in advance of the day the resulting technologies are needed. At best, todays markets provide incentive just as new ideas need to be available, and at worst, lag until they’ve been needed for some time already. It’s time to wake up to this reality and stop throwing good money, money that could be made to serve this nation in countless ways, at companies that provably, unequivocally, do not deserve to be trusted with it.

I have always battled with binary thinking…meaning thinking of things as black or white or thinking of a problem as having one solution or the other. Maybe it is a function of our language, our culture, or maybe it is a function on how the human brain functions. Whatever it is, I have noticed that I have always thought this way. As I have gotten older and been educated in various disciplines, I have begun to win this battle, and it is something that I regularly check my thinking on. Sometimes, however, it slips by without my realization.

I think this battle is common…

In my continuation with the theme that a true democracy is a battle of ideas, I hope that we can begin to win this battle with binary thinking as a society. It will be important that in these troubled times that we do not think about problems as Democrats v. Republicans, left v. right, or free market v. socialism. We are going to have to look for more than just two options. We are going to have to hope that there are more than two options.

It is the responsibility of the President to lead the people, to persuade the people, to eduacate the people, and to inspire the people through tough times. I hope that the new President will take this responsibility seriously, not falling into the trap of this is what I decided to do…end of story.

I hope when making decisions, the President will win the battle against binary thinking and consider and weigh all options…not just through the lens of political positions that parties or he himself have built up through the years in different situations that may not apply here.

I hope that when the decisions are made and explained to us that we will listen and be critical of these decisions while seeing the gray areas that exist in real life.

I mention this because as liberals we think we are more open minded than conservatives. This may or may not be the case (was that binary?), but there are too many examples of liberals not being open minded to make me comfortable enough to stop challenging ourselves. One example that came out in the news recently, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the lone true Republican on ABC’s “The View”, is said to receive far more death threats than any one else on the show. Seriously, death threats. I find her frustrating too, but death threats?

The challenge of a democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. This is difficult. It is also an opportunity. When someone says something that we do not agree with, let us win the battle of binary thinking by truly listening, being critical, being willing to adapt and improve our positions, and use the opportunity to truly understand where this person is coming from, their values, and incorporate these values into our own arguments to stregthen the overall battle of ideas.

Do you agree? Yes or No…Only two options I guess!

In the last decade, journalism has changed in many ways. From Fox News on the right to Air America on the left, media groups have been formed to push one party’s views. Especially in the context of President Nixon’s claim of the existence of the liberal media elite growing stronger over the last few decades, many have wondered on how journalists will cover a Democratic president.

If the last few days are any clue, the media will still fail to do their job. Although one can point out that the media has not been completely uncritical of President Elect Obama’s first few selections of his staff where they pointed out that many are coming from President Clinton’s staff, the press is failing to do any real in depth reporting. Instead, I have heard entirely too much about the selection of the puppy for the White House.

Side note, if you want change, let us demand the first monkey for the White House. How cute would that be?

I know that much of the manpower and funding required to do investigative journalism has been cut back as media sources are now viewed simply as profit centers for stock holders instead of holding a more improtant role, but can I suggest some real reporting on a few subjects at least that seem kind of obvious:

- In depth coverage on who Obama has already selected and a detailed reporting of what these people have done policy wise in the past.
- In depth coverage on positions that are open, who qualifies, and a comparison of their past policies and how this fits in with what Obama said on the stump.
- What the economic stimulus plan that Obama wants passed entails, how many votes he could get for it now, and why those who would vote for it would and why those who would not would not to see if people are playing partison politics until January.
- If the stimulus package includes a rebuilding of infrastructure, what would these jobs pay, what benefits would they provide, and who would take these jobs.
- If we are going to consider bailing out the Big 3 Auto Makers, a summary of how many jobs these companies still provide to this country, how much in taxes these comapnies pay, should we require these companies to build cars that are more fuel efficient instead of them fighting these standards for three decades, and should we force these “American” companies to stop shipping jobs overseas if they want a bailout.
- Beginning demand for Obama to return civil rights that the Patriot Act took away on the first day of his term.
- Beginning demand for Obama to demand that Guantanamo Bay prisoners are given a trial that is considered fair with full habeus corpus and representation within 6 months…or they be released…citing that if the United States does not have a case against these people after 7 years then there probably is not one…

These are just a few things off the top of my head that seem a little bit more important than puppygate…

Second side note, I realize that on this blog I have written that we should stop adding the term “gate” to everything, but I could not resist.

As a native Kentuckian, I feel the need to point this out…

Hey, Californians…yeah you…I guess you all are not as liberal as you all say you are…

I am so disappointed with the results…Just goes to show that hate, ignorance, and homophobia is in every state…

Throughout the campaign, there have been questions on how is the federal government going to afford current programs and proposed new progams…

There is a tax base that is not being discussed. Churches… The IRS gave them a tax exemption, but part of the deal was that they would not engage in political campaigning. Many churches have knowingly violated this agreement and should lose their tax-exempt status…at least for a time period to prove that they can behave…

Can I get an Amen?

No matter how much ranting I do about how we need more progress and how I want it now, I honestly believe a step was taken in the right direction last night…

There is no better measure of my feelings on the election than how I slept last night…I slept well…I slept deep…

I even had a dream…

I may have slept to well…

Senator McCain has repeatedly called Senator Obama “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.” Why has this been the campaign mantra as of late? Republicans have found that calling someone too liberal is a successful strategy into scaring the voting public, painting their opponent as crazy, and alluding to labeling their opponent as a socialist. Best of all for Republicans, this never needs to backed up by any rational, serious, or legitimate source.

But is it true? In short, no. First, many organizations, think tanks, and magazines come out with these liberal/conservative rankings each year. Each of these rankings have their own criteria, judgement, and bias. This cannot be argued. What else cannot be argued is that Obama is consistently not the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. In fact, Senator Biden often ranks more liberal in these polls. Does anyone ever claim the Senator Biden is too liberal? Nope.

So, why is the public so eager to acccept this as fact? Is it his skin color? Is it his name?

The reality is that Senator Obama is fairly conservative and risk adverse. He runs on change, but picks Senator Biden, who is a long time Senator, older, white, gray hair, who has a son who is a Washington lobbyist. He comes out against the War in Iraq, and many of the voting public think of Obama as anti-war or a pacifist. He does not want to end the war on terrorism. He just wants to move troops to Afghanistan. He is for universal health care. But his version of universal health care does not create a single payer health care system that dismantles the insurance companies. In fact, like Senator McCain, Senator Obama ran on a “reach across the aisle” platform in 2004. He has always been willing to compromise.

I am not stating here that these policies are wrong. That is for another post. I am simply pointing to a decision making process that implies a govern to the center style of Democrat that President Clinton made famous.

The reality is this. President Bush’s approval ratings are at an all-time low. The economy is in shambles. There are two long wars going on. The Republican candidate is not well liked even by his own party. The Republican candidate has consistently made gaffes on the very subject that is supposed to be his strong point, the war.

With all of these things going on, the Democrats should win in a landslide. Likely, Senator Obama will win, and he will win by a number far beyond the required 270 electoral votes. These election results, however, taken out of the context of the last 2 incredibly close elections and placed into the larger context of presidential races will demonstrate that this “landslide” is not so large. There are still segments of the country that do not understand the Democratic platform, its policies, and how these policies will benefit their daily lives. Unless this changes, the Democrats are doomed to only be able to run Democrats who will be fairly conservative in their governing style if they have any hopes of winning. This limits opportunities for real change.

The real power of the presidency is the daily opportunity to lead the people, to persuade the people, and to motivate the people. The Democrats have failed to do this in the past, and until they succeed, there will be no candidate that represents true change in governing.

When was the last time we said a Republican candidate was too conservative? It never happens. It would not have any traction. Conservative is a bad word. We need to make liberal a good word once again. A word that politicians are not afraid to label themselves as.

Maybe I will start…I am T, and I am a liberal, and I am asking for your vote for the T/Kucinich ticket in 2016!

- The line was about 20 minutes
- No identification needed
- Paper ballot with optical scanner
- Only 2 contested races: President & U.S. Senator
- 4 ballot questions
- Modern day voting early and often: Exit polling of every third voter with results starting to be sent in at 10:30 AM

Recently, Vice-President Dick Cheney endorsed Senator John McCain for president. In his speech, Vice-President Cheney stated that Senator McCain is “a man who has looked into the face of evil and not flinched.”

Whether Senator Obama, Senator McCain, or Nader wins, I hope that the victory will bring in a new era to American politics. An era that represents an end to thinking that I had thought went out with the Middle Ages. An era where our leaders do not talk about things in tems of good vs. evil, where our leaders personify evil to exist and even have a face, or where our leaders describe evil as having an axis.

Again in my continued theme of “I thought it was the year 2008″, it is time that our leaders talk with intellect about world issues, agree to disagree with someone without turning to war immediately, and not flame the flames of discontent worldwide by describing anyone who disagrees with us as being evil.

It is time that public takes the government back as we are a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. How do we do this? First, not get scared everytime someone says there is evil trying to get us. Second, not give up our liberties everytime someone says there is evil trying to get us. Third, demand that our leaders respect us enough to not speak in terms of good vs. evil as if we are all children. Finally, vote out these leaders if they continue to do so.

If not, I fear that the next time I go to the doctor, the doctor will try to treat every ailment that I have with leeches.

I have a tendency to retreat into the privacy of my own private den when things are not going perfectly in my life. This is not a good trait. It is not fair to me or my friends. I am sorry, and I am going to work on this trait, so please bear with me. Pun intended. With that said, I am slowly coming out of hibernation, so I will be trying to get back in touch with the rest of society very soon and will be blogging more regularly. As I wake from my hibernation, the bear is apparently pissed.

The fact though is that I have been in hibernation, so I may not have my facts straight. I thought I was waking up in the year 2008, not sometime in the 1940s and 1950s where McCarthy and other fear mongers thought that we can simply dismiss and, in some cases, destroy lives by screaming socialism. I thought that I was taught that a true and strong democracy was based on a battle of ideas. Again, my mind may be a little cloudy due to the hibernation, but surely we have not returned to these tactics of screaming socialism in the year 2008. I almost wish that I was wrong.

The fact is that we are in the year 2008. The fact is that Republicans are now screaming socialism on the campaign trail. This pisses me off. Whatever happened to expecting professionalism and maturity out of adults? I expected professionalism from my secretary, so why can I not expect and demand the same from my politician? Why would the scream of socialism not be professional and not be mature? Simply, it is wrong…the Republicans know that…the Republicans have made the choice to appeal to the worst in humanity by scaring the voting public with emotionally charged words. In full disclosure, I am not voting for Obama…or McCain for that matter, but I do hate it when I am put in a position to completely defend someone attacked unfairly.

This is why it is wrong…

All of this is coming from McCain’s continued use of Joe the Plumber’s question regarding Obama’s tax plan. McCain keeps describing Obama’s tax plan as a redistribution of wealth akin to socialism.

First, read Karl Marx before you call anyone a socialist. Tax plans do not make someone a socialist.

Second, we have a progressive tax system in this country. This is a fact. What does this mean? This means that the more money that you make, the more taxes as a percent of your overall income you will pay. To illustrate this, the tax brackets for a single (unmarried) person in 2008 are the following:

- 10%: from $0 to $8,025
- 15%: from $8,026 to $32,550
- 25%: from $32,551 to $78,850
- 28%: from $78,851 to $164,550
- 33%: from $164,551 to $357,700
- 35%: $357,701 and above

Why do we do this? Because it is fair. Why is it fair? Here is an illustration. Take Person X that is trying to live on $10,000 a year. Person X is poor. Person X is dirt poor. Person X has to worry about basic necessities of food and water, shelter, and clothing at this income level. Person X is in the 15% tax bracket. Now, take Person Y making $200,000 a year. Person Y’s worries are very different. Person Y is not worrying about survival. Person Y has all necessities covered by their large income. Person Y is in the 33% tax bracket. Yes, the percentages of taxes are different, and yes it is fair. But shouldn’t Person X and Person Y pay the same percentage in taxes for it to be fair? Well, we do not have a flat tax in this country. If we were to expect Person X and Person Y to both pay 25%, just to pick a percentage in the middle, more and more people like Person X will not be able to afford the basic necessities of life, eventually becoming dependent on the state for shear survival. In order to avoid this, we ask those of us that can afford to pay more to pay more. The fact is that those of us who have been given an opportunity to make more have the infrastructure, society, and culture that the government helped to create and maintain to thank for it…to some degree.

Obama did not invent the progressive tax system. It is a fact of our society. In the last 100 years, we have never had a flat tax system. The only thing that changes is the steepness of progression. In fact, during WWII, the highest tax bracket was 94%. 94 fucking percent… Surely, this was just because we were in war. Obviously, WWII was the main driving factor to taxes being that high in the highest tax bracket, but the reality is that we have a strong history of high taxation of the rich. To illustrate this, when I was born in 1978, the highest tax rate was 70%.

If McCain is going to complain about a progressive tax plan, you would expect his plan to be a flat tax…right? Nope…Not at all. He is taking his plan completely out of context in order to scare us all. The Tax Policy center compared Obama and McCain’s tax plans. It can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

McCain can claim that he will be reducing taxes, but this does not mean that he himself is not guilty of a redistribution of wealth. You see, just because you lower taxes on the wealthy, does not mean that you have created a flat tax where everyone is paying the same percentage of income in taxes. He still is proposing a progressive tax system. He knows this, and he is a hypocrite that is trying to scare voters by screaming socialism.

Another example of him being a hypocrite…McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts “because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans.” I guess he was in favor redistribution of wealth at that time. Check out the transcript on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

Third, a nuanced fear that McCain is pushing is that Obama’s plan will result in refundable tax credits that would result in the government cutting a check to citizens that actually have no income tax liability resulting in Obama giving welfare to Americans…i.e. – OBAMA IS A BIG SOCIALIST…He is giving money to people that do not pay income taxes…Here is the problem. Our tax system already pays out refundable tax credits to people that have no income tax liability…How can this be? McCain is not pointing out an important factor…People who do not have income tax liability due to low income still pay taxes. How? They still pay payroll taxes…What are payroll taxes? Payroll taxes go to Social Security and Medicare.

McCain’s own tax plan has a refundable tax credit for health care expenses, so he knows that these exist and is even proposing some himself…

More color on this issue can be found at this link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/813/

Finally, still on the tax issue, but less on the socialism issue, McCain wants us to worry that Obama’s tax plans will hurt corporations in this country because the statutory tax rate is not the lowest corporate tax rate amongst industrialized nations. Surely McCain cannot be wrong that corporations would be attracted to countries with lower taxes. He is actually quite right. The problem is that McCain is playing the fear card again because he knows that the American public does not understand the nuances of the tax code. Yep, he is purposely misleading the American voter, and scaring them into voting for him…Country First…I think not.

The nuance is in the concept of the effective tax rate. An effective tax rate refers to the actual rate of taxes paid, not the tax rate written in the statutes. Why would a corporation pay a different tax rate than the ones written in the tax codes? First, corporations have tax offsets that lower taxable income. Second, corporations…are you sitting down?…keep two separate tax books…and this is legal. One tax book is kept to report earnings for the stock market…i.e. – higher earning means that the stock will go up. The other tax book is used to determine how much in taxes the corporations have to pay. How are these tax books different? One way is that the two books use different ways of valuing inventory which drives up earnings or liabilities depending on the method you use. What is the end result? The Government Accountability Office found that 2/3 of all corporations did not pay any taxes between 1998 and 2005…Good times…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So where does this leave us? No candidate is perfect. No platform is perfect. However, there is no room for screaming socialism in the year 2008. A democracy is a battle of ideas, so show up and bring some ideas to the table. We need some fucking ideas. What we do not need is diversions of stating that I am putting the Country First while at the same time purposefully and knowingly appealing to the worst in all of us.

Here is the reality…

- A recession is coming.
- We have 2 fucking wars going on.
- We have a disappearing middle class as more and more middle class jobs leave the country leaving us with working class service jobs.
- 3 weeks ago I had friends wondering if they should pull money out of their checking accounts…Seriously, a potential run on the bank. 3 weeks ago I was reliving “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
- Whether you want to ignore all science and say the global warming may not be caused by humans (this is an issue for another time), the world is changing.
- People are losing their homes.

And you want me to tolerate a Red Scare now?

Both plans are progressive tax plans. The fact is that the rich will still be rich, will still be able to live a rich lifestyle, and just because you may pay more taxes if you get rich this does not in any way destroy the incentive system for people wanting to be rich…

McCain is a liar, and he is putting McCain and McCain alone First.

I mean, really.

Pay your respects here…

Again, Sadly, No! is smarter than everyone else.

It’s time for the Democrats to call the GOP’s bluff. They have to hammer the SOBs and tell them that they had a deal all set before John McCain and his big fucking ego decided to ride in on his white horse and fuck everything up. They cannot allow themselves to be used as pawns to get John McCain elected.

Democrats, give them the finger and walk away until they meet your demands. And then go on television every day and loudly blame for the coming stock market crash. Crush them and don’t stop crushing them until you’ve won.

I swear to god, I will lose all faith in this country if we get railroaded on this bailout, and let me not even speak of anyone who still thinks Sarah Palin should get within 1000 yards of executive office.

For fucks sake.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

–John Kenneth Galbraith

I am now calling for an end for all future political rhetoric in any way alluding to the United States being a beacon of democracy… Do not confuse this call as a description of the United States as a dictatorship or as an oppressive regime. I am not asserting this. I am merely stating the actions of both parties do not represent the democratic values that I was taught that our country was supposed to represent…or at the very least to strive for…

First, on Tuesday, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 fell short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass, even after clearing a House committee unanimously. The vote was 239-178 in favor, with all but two Democrats supporting it and all but 16 Republicans opposed. This bill would have provided money to states from the federal government to help provide better voting infrastructure. Eight years ago, there was a botched federal election (this characterization is and should be considered non-partisan). How can the Republicans justify voting against the bill that would improve the most fundamental action in any democracy/republic while at the same time supporting wars so we can export democracy around the world? Side note…insert the obligatory “How come we can send a man to the moon, but we cannot figure out how to vote?”

Second, the Democratic Party is showing that they do not truly believe in a democracy either. In the midst of the primary campaign, many prominent members of the Democratic Party are calling for Sen. Clinton to withdrawal from the primary race before all the states have a chance to vote for their candidate. Why? These members point to the fact that Sen. Clinton cannot mathematically achieve the required number of delegates without the Democratic Party’s super delegates votes at the convention. These members also play the fear card that by remaining in the race, Sen. Clinton will weaken Sen. Obama’s chance to beat Sen. McCain in the general election. What is the problem with this? First, Sen. Obama also cannot mathematically achieve the required number of delegates without the help of the super delegates at the convention. This fact is typically completely ignored by the media and these members of the Democratic Party. Second, should any of us support a system that “elects” a party representative by trying to prevent states that hold their primary system later in the primary calendar to essentially not have any say?