The CBO Continues to Deep-Six Obama Proposals

From the failure of the current 'cap and trade' proposals to do much to either help the environment or limit cost over-runs, to the current health-reform proposals (with analysis sent by request to members of Congress here), to the long-term effects of various budget proposals, the CBO has continued to throw cold-water on Congressional and Administration claims that the stimulus, annual budget, and spending proposals will do much if anything to help the economy. Much of their analyses point to a further increase of both annual deficits as well as the national debt, and to an increase in costs. And yet, Congress and the Administration continue to hawk their proposals as benefiting the overall economy, decreasing the debt and deficit and improving the prospects of middle-America.

Now it seems that there is a serious debate within the Administration about the raising of taxes on the middle class. Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, both of whom were heavily involved in the current economic meltdown prior to entering the Administration, have floated the idea as a necessity to reduce the deficit. While President Obama certainly doesn't want to look like he's backing out on his version of the 'read my lips pledge,' there are only three options available to he and to the Congress: cut spending (not going to happen with all the continued spending proposals), allow the debt to balloon to the point where we create long-term stagflation (which will kill any possibility of a second term), or increase income in the form of taxes. Given the ambitions and preferences of both the Congressional leadership and the President, it's pretty clear that continued tax hikes for most income levels are in store. Some increases may be hidden (as in the cap and trade package), and some may be open (after all, taxes are our 'patriotic duty' according to VP Biden, who also has declared that the stimulus is a success), but they're going to happen. Another clue: 'Everyone must sacrifice' according to President Obama.

Debate # 3 - The Final Presidential Debate

Here we go!

Bob Scheifer is moderating at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY.

Nice summary by Mr. S. of the basic tax plans that both candidates have proposed, with a followup up to each of 'Why is your plan better than his?" A decent lead-off question.

Sen. McCain is FINALLY addressing Fannie and Freddie head-on. I really wanted him to do this on the very first debate, and it might be too late to drive this point home. Hmmm, $300 B of the $700 B bailout to renegotiate. A much clearer explanation this time of why he proposes this - declining home values across the board when foreclosures occur in a neighborhood.

Sen. Obama persists in calling most of his tax credits, tax cuts. Still not explaining how his expenditures are offset by a tax increase in 10% of the economy, although he sounds much crisper and clearer about his plan tonight.

Sen. McCain brings up the Joe the Plumber who would pay more taxes - spread the wealth! Sen. Obama dismisses Joe the Plumber as paying too much attention to McCain's ads, and then reiterates that he will cut 95% of taxes, despite the fact that half those people don't pay taxes. Also iterates that 98% of small businesses pay less than $200K - not true according to the tax codes, but even if true, I really buy McCain's call for no new taxes while we're in a deep recession.

I do like that both men are speaking to each other rather than at or across each other.

Obama pulls out the Adlai Stevenson line of no one likes taxes, but we have to.

The deficit! Thank you Mr. S! And the great point that both Senators proposals will add horribly to the debt, and a return to the question all the moderators have asked and no one has answered: what will you have to cut.
Sen. Obama's response: We will have to make adjustments - now that's vague. Net spending cut? What net spending cut? There's not net spending cut in this plan! What a crock. Line by line my patootie! Now he claims that a net spending cut exists by long-term savings through current expenditures. Fuzzy math!
Sen. McCain's response: Increasing home values is off the topic. Energy independence is ON the topic and is one of my favorite parts of the Republican plan. Across the board spending freeze may be a hatchet, but as a deficit-hawk, one I thoroughly appreciate. Please, please stop saying you 'know how.' Say what you will do. Tarrif on imported sugar-based ethanol is interesting. We need a long list of these kind of proposals. And people may be tired of earmarks, but I am happy to hear it over and over since I HATE corruption in politics, and that's what earmarks are.

Sen. Obama brings up the loss of the surplus and the accumulation of the deficit, but fails to explain what he would do about that. Sen. McCain reject the Pres. Bush comparison directly - finally! Sen. Obama comes back making the same claim and compares his own support of tort reform. No, it's not eight more years of the same thing, and no you haven't rejected your own party on KEY issues, Sen. Obama.

Leadership and nasty campaign:
Sen. McCain, I love you, but don't blame the campaign tone on lack of Townhall meetings. Now, rejecting accusations of racism is fair, and asking for a repudiation of Congressman Lewis' remarks is also fair. Hmm, Sen. Obama has spent more money on neg. ads - not sure that's relevant (# of ads vs. $ on ads - probably a wash). Glad he bought up the reneging on the public financing. He didn't exactly offer an apology, but did say he 'regretted some things.'
Sen. Obama: 2/3 think he running a neg. campaign, maybe, but 100% of McCain's ads are not negative. That's just ludicrous. I just watched 3 positive McCain ads today alone, only one of which was internet based. No apology or anything from the Obama side, just accusing McCain of being afraid of the issues. Good sharp comeback from McCain. Obama admits Lewis' comments were inappropriate, but basically said it was Palin's fault. I do agree Palin was over the line, but 'she said it first' is for four-year olds. Excellent last point by Sen. McCain that he does openly repudiate comments by supporters.

Wow. I didn't really think McCain was going to pull up Ayers and Acorn. Both made good points, but McCain did get a little of the track on his final comment.

Running mates: Interesting topic and question set.
Sen. Obama: Joe Biden has 'always been on the right side ... and will make an outstanding President.' Can't agree with it, but it's a normal and expected statement.
Sen. McCain: Also a pure vanilla response. Palin is a 'reformer through and through ... and ... a breath of fresh air.' Interesting side comment on the rise of autism. Wonder what he means by that?
Sen. Obama carefully side-steps the qualification question for Palin. Probably better off than attacking her. Ahh, he finds a way to work in hatchet vs. scalpel analogies regarding spending on autism. Had to work that one in.
Sen. McCain finds a graceful way to criticize Biden without being cruel, and comes back to the 'why do we always have to spend more and raise taxes' arguement.

Energy and climate change:
Sen. McCain: All options on the table, and get rid of Mid-East and Venezeulan oil. Nuc, clean coil, drilling, wind, tide, solar are all up.
Sen. Obama: 10 oils to reducing dependence. Acknowledging expansion of domestic expansion especially by offshore drilling. Back to disparity between use and reserves of oil - a legitimate point, but I disagree with the emphasis on electric cars only. Vehicles are not the primary users of oil in this country - energy production is. Cars are great, but that won't stop our dependence on foreign (or any oil).
This migrated into a discussion on trade, NAFTA, etc. I really like McCain's emphasis that we must retrain and retool workers in industries that are just never going to come back, and on the Columbia Free Trade and NAFTA agreements.
Not sure how Obama is going to both help the auto industry, and spank them for not moving fast enough. Either let them fail or help them, but you can't do both.
Sen. McCain brings up the Herbert Hoover comparison again. A good one, but I doubt 1 in 20 Americans even know who he was.

Health care:
Obama: Expand access AND control costs. He really believes you can have your cake and eat it to. We can't have both easily. Access will be at least to some degree limited if costs are limited and vs/vs. Fuzzy math again 2.0. Negotiate with the drug companies is going to have to be dictate to them if you really want to control drug costs. No 2 ways about it. Money on the front end doesn't work well with increasing costs in other areas and an deep recession and deficit. You're going to have to make choices Obama, and you're still not willing to say which ones.
McCain: Taking the preventive health road, and school programs. Hmm, some conservatives aren't going to like that, but I actually agree. If gov't. is going to foot some of the bill, they can say how that part is spent, and control costs. Fines if you don't obey (an accusation thrown at Obama), and join the single-payer system. Obama says, "it is not" and the fine is 0 (he says he exempts small businesses). McCain says yes it is. They go back and forth like that.

Abortion and Supreme Court nominations:
I didn't think this would come up.
McCain: I wouldn't propose a litmus test, but think Roe was a bad decision. Nominations should be based on qualifications, not ideology. I didn't know he voted for Ginsburg and Breyer.
Obama: Agrees on no strict litmus tests. He thinks that any judge should 'apply fairness and justice on the American people.' I don't like that phrasing. It sounds like legislating from the bench. He confirms that feeling by saying that a judge should stand up for someone when no one else will. This means that regardless of the what the law says, the judge should impose what they feel justice is. That's no the role of judges. It's the role of the legislature. The Congress should have and could have provided direct relief to Ledbetter since the court could not under current law, and then could have changed the law, rather than slamming the court.
Now Obama is lying. He did vote against the born-alive amendment, and was almost alone in that. I took the trouble the other week of looking up the amendment (the prior law he referenced did NOT prohibit babies born despite abortion from being left to die, which was the practice in IL) and the votes (he was almost alone in opposing it).

Education and America's trailing the rest of the developed world:
Obama: Yet another tax credit. I'm all for tuition credits in exchange for service BUT how on earth are we going to afford all of these things. Yes, parents need to take responsibility, but what are you going to do about it. Legislate against video games and t.v.?
McCain: School choice and competition as a proven key. I agree with these, but would like to see more state (not fed.) oversight over charter school performance and offerings. Rewards to teachers are a great idea, and of course, I like the 'Troops to Teachers' program (a number of my troops moved into this upon completion of their contracts).
Sheiffer: Should the fed. gov't. play a larger role?
Obama: Slams the unfunded mandates aspect of No Child Left Behind. I have to agree with that, but wonder what he thinks of the basic concept of it. What? They agree on something? Both like teacher rewards and charter schools. Obama doesn't like vouchers or McCain's programs on college-accessibility and affordability. Obama says "someone has to pay for it," and you have to provide more detail. Right back atcha Obama!
McCain: vouchers so the D.C. kids can have the same education you bought for your daughters, Obama. No Child Left Behind is a great first beginning, but flawed. I think everyone agrees. "Again, spending more money isn't always the right answer." He calls for reforming Head Start, and mentions that he proposed this in a bill that was shot down by Dems.

Closing remarks:
McCain: "I have a record of reform, and taking on my party and the other party." He then cited some careful examples, and gave the money lines: "I have been a careful steward of your tax dollars." "All the promises and commitments that Sen. Obama and I have made you tonight will be based on how you trust us ..." Indeed I do.
Obama: I think he pretty much gave the same close he gave last week. I'd have to check the video again (it's on the blog site under links if you missed it), but I think it's pretty much the same.

My final thoughts: I think McCain did his best yet, but didn't knock anything out of the park. I'm hoping the American people are going to actually wake up in the next three weeks, rather than just blindly voting for change.

Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs, O My!

Tonight's VP debate was spirited, serious and hard-hitting. I have to draw the same conclusion I did with last week's debate; stylistically, it was a tie. Both candidates hit their talking points well, and didn't disgrace themselves.

I think Gov. Palin clearly made the point, through her very person and mannerisms, that she doesn't just talk about the middle class, she is the middle class. Sen. Biden was dignified and didn't fall into some of his usual speaking problems.

One thing I wish that Gov. Palin had hammered home more concretely pertains to the tax cuts/tax increases debate. The Obama campaign says that it will cut taxes for 90% of the working public, raise taxes on the remaining 10%, and increase spending programs almost across the board. It also says that in addition to raising taxes on the 10% of the public, it will offset tax cuts and spending increases by withdrawing troops from Iraq. There are some basic problems with these policies. First, the President does not levy or cut taxes - Congress does. More importantly, the math is 'funny.' How 10% of the populace, no matter how wealthy they may individually be, will support the remainder of the country, I don't know. Warren Buffet has managed to bail out two companies. Do you really think he can take care of all of them? Additionally, about 50% of those 90% pay little to no taxes to begin with. That means that a tax 'refund' is simply put, a redistribution of wealth. I would certainly benefit from a tax cut, but I don't want tax monies going into a cash handout. I would rather build business, increase the job market and get more people moved into higher tax brackets. Finally, cutting funding in Iraq, while also trying to dramatically increase the size of the military (particularly the Army) and shift effort to Afghanistan will in no way free up funding. It will simply shift the funding into a new category. These facts combined with the Obama and Biden histories of voting for tax increases bely their claims to enact major tax reductions. While Gov. Palin touched on all of these, I have yet to hear the campaign attack this in a cogent, efficient fashion.

I also wish that the McCain campaign would stop pussy-footing around hitting the Dems on Fannie and Freddie. The well-circulated video of Barney Frank spewing over any attempts to cut or regulate Fannie and Freddie, combined with the multiple attempts on the part of Sen. McCain to get any kind of reasonable regulation of the mortgage industry would make a perfect ad spot (if you haven't seen it, it's in my blog from several days ago) - I don't know why they haven't used it effectively.

All-in-all, it was a good debate. We await the polls!

Finally (and off topic), if you link to this site (http://blip.tv/file/1310113) you can see the brainwashing of the youngest Obama-fans. It's right in line with his campaign's attempt to sue stations for broadcasting any advertisement deemed offensive or 'untruthful' to the campaign.

The VP Debate

Much has been made recently, by right-leaning writers, on the treatment of Gov. Palin by the media. I for one, didn't find it absolutely out of bounds that Charlie Gibson looked at her over the top of his glasses (I just thought he looked at little ridiculous). And the demands by the Atlantic that she submit amniotic fluid for testing to prove that Trig is her baby just helped the McCain campaign by being so obviously in the tank for Obama. But the National Review article linked here addresses a far more serious and subtle type of potential partisanship in media coverage of the campaign. When I was in ROTC and OBC, training to be a military officer, one of the principles of conduct hammered into my head was to 'avoid the semblance of misconduct.' We were taught that appearance does matter. It matters that an officer present him/herself in such a way that it would not be likely that an outside observer would assume that one's behavior is dishonorable. Ms. Ifill may very well be able to conduct herself as a neutral moderator, despite her personal preferences. But, her open promotion over the previous months of Sen. Obama and his campaign, present the appearance of partisanship. Is is any wonder that many observers assume that she will engage in misconduct?

Debate Comment 3: Mulling It All Over

How did the debate go? I have to agree with Brooks and Shields on PBS - the debate was stylistically a tie. Brooks just said, "Obama was best in those interpersonal issues, and McCain was best on security [knowledge] and experience." Frankly, I'd rather have someone whose better on the knowledge and experience rather than interpersonal issues. I have a degree in Interpersonal Communications, and a background in marketing and P.R., and certainly understand in detail what interpersonal relationships mean. But interpersonal relationships will take one only so far. They're certainly important. One can't negotiate without them, but one can't lead with them. Sen. Obama was also reduced to defending himself, his record and his words several times, which is never good. I have a feeling, though, that tonight will change few minds.

Debate Comment 2: Sitting and talking

Sen. McCain questioned Sen. Obama's statement in two debates during the primary season that he would sit and meet with Iran, Venezuela, etc. without pre-condition. Sen. Obama essentially said that was he meant was 'preparation,' and then went on to claim that Sec. Kissinger recommended the same policy. Sen. McCain corrected Sen. Obama, stating that Sec. Kissinger would never recommend Presidential talks without precondition, only Ambassadorial-level talks. Sen. Obama then said, "of course." Sen. McCain then made it clear how much more knowledgeable he is on security and international relations when they moved on to Russia. Sen. Obama said we should make sure that both Georgia and Russia didn't act extremely, and that he would tell Russia not to act that way. When he essentially gave the same response for dealing with Iran, Sen. McCain replied with a - "please!" McCain laid out geography of the Georgian pipeline and port that Russia was really after, and the stakes in Iran, repeatedly going after Obama's naivete. Sen. Obama ended up claiming he's the one who warned Pres. Bush that Russian 'peacekeepers' were on the ground in Georgia last Spring. As Sen. McCain said: please!