Barack Obama is NOT Jackie Robinson

President-elect Barack Obama (D - Illinois) emerged victorious in the 2008 General Election campaign. Principal and Policy wishes the President-elect well, but promises to oppose most, if not all, of his hair-brained governmental schemes.

The blogger is already distressed by the predictable reaction of the P-E Obama's pals in the liberal media. The NBC Nightly News on Nov. 5th 2008 for example reported that P-E Obama won in spite of his race not because of it. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Men like Jackie Robinson, Ernie Davis, and Lee Elder were held back because of their race and in spite of their obvious talents for the games they played. When they emerged into the top-levels of their fields, it was a story a perseverance against a unjust system of racial prejudice.

Unlike these men, P-E Obama was never held back because of his race. Rather, he was in many ways advantaged by it. This is especially true in terms of his election to the highest office in the U.S. government. Consider the evidence from the exit polls. The exit poll results posted at abcnews.com provides support for this thesis. Generating a pie chart for voter's self-reported political philosophy by black racial status shows that 20% of African-American voters described themselves as conservative. This group voted for P-E Obama 89% to 9% for McCain.

Now the margin of Obama's victory in the 8 key swing states was only 838,000 out of nearly 30 million votes cast. Multiply 30 million by the proportion of black voters in the population (13%) and by the 20% conservative produces a number that is very close to this margin. Consider also that self-described Hispanic conservative voters (29% of all Hispanics) went for McCain 56 to 42% while conservative white voters went for McCain 87-11.

Principal and Policy is led to wonder why so many self-described black conservatives voted against the more conservative candidate and in favor of (arguable) the most liberal candidate to ever run (let alone win) the U.S. Presidency?

Let no one wonder, the election of Barack Obama is a key moment in American history. It will be more so if in future elections African-Americans are set free to vote their conscience based on their political beliefs. But make no mistake, grouping Barack Obama with true pioneers like Jackie Robinson belittles both Mr. Robinson and black history in the United States.

Barack H. Obama: The H stands for Handout

The Democratic Party's nominee for President and junior Senator from Illinois Barack H. Obama has suffered unmercifully on the web for his middle name.

Principal and Policy believes that the H stands for Handout. Consider the following:

- Subsidies to cover the $100 per vehicle cost to install flexible-fuel tanks that can run on biofuels
- Provide generous tax incentives to help automakers upgrade their existing plants in order to accommodate the demands of producing more fuel-efficient vehicles.
- Subsidies to auto manufacturers to partially defray legacy health care costs, but only if the manufacturers are willing to invest the savings right back into the production of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
- tax credits ($7000!!!) to consumers for the purchase of hybrid and ultra-efficient vehicles
- restore cuts to public housing operating subsidies
- income-related federal subsidies to individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but need assistance to buy into the new public health plan or purchase a private health care plan.
- provide $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers
- Everyone will be able buy into a new national health insurance plan -- If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered.
- we will reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions.
- Earned Income Tax Credit - will double the number of single workers who receive the EITC and triple the benefit for full-time workers making the minimum wage, from the $175 they get today to $555.
- expand the Child Tax Credit to an additional 600,000 more Americans, who would receive $1,000 per child.
- provide an income tax cut of up to $500 per person - or $1,000 for each working family - to offset the payroll tax that they're already paying.
- give retired folks the same kind of relief - no retiree making less than $50,000 each year will have to pay income tax. This will eliminate income taxes for about 7 million Americans, at a savings rate of roughly $1,400 each year. And 22 million seniors won't even have to file a return and hire an expensive tax preparer.
- universal homeowners' tax credit - I'll create a mortgage interest credit so that both itemizers and non-itemizers get a break. This will immediately benefit 10 million homeowners in America. The vast majority of these are folks who make under $50,000 per year, who will get a break of 10 percent of their mortgage interest rate. For most middle class families, this will add up to about $500 each year.
- I will launch a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund that will provide $10 billion a year for five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies off the ground.

It is tempting to believe that ol' Handout never met a subsidy he didn't like. But, I did find three he would cut:

- end to subsidies for oil and gas companies (is this a tax increase?)
- eliminate subsidies to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program
- eliminate subsidies to private lenders in all federal student loans

Well, that might be some savings.... but I am not sure it will offset that long list of subsidies above.

Principle and Policy cannot afford Barack Handout Obama.

Barack Obama: The Anti-Democrat?

Principal and Policy finds it mildly ironic that Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) would be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party given his enthusiastic support of Senate Bill 1926.

Obama has been promoting SB 1926 since the Ohio primaries, but even as recently as today at a GM Plant in Janesville Wisconsin he said:

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.”

SB 1926 is summarized as follows:

An independent agency of the Federal government administratively similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The "Bank" would have some strange banking powers: the ability to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, obtain information from any other federal agency simply by asking (other agencies are required to comply), accept for funding any infrastructure project with a Federal price tag of $75 million or more (the list of possibilities goes on for two pages), unilateral authority to determine the appropriate Federal share of spending for every project accepted, to act as a centralized entity to provide financing for qualified infrastructure projects; to issue general purpose infrastructure bonds, and to provide direct subsidies to qualified infrastructure projects from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds; to issue project-based infrastructure bonds for the financing of specific qualified infrastructure projects; to provide loan guarantees to State or local governments issuing debt to finance qualified infra
structure projects, under rules prescribed by the Board, in a manner similar to that described in chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code; to issue loans, at varying interest rates, including very low interest rates, to qualified project sponsors for qualified projects; to leverage resources and stimulate public and private investment in infrastructure; and to encourage States to create additional opportunities for the financing of infrastructure projects.

Here's what you didn't read:
- NO votes on these projects in Congress
- NO votes on these projects in the Senate
- NO opportunity for the President to concur or veto.
- NO opportunity for the Congress and Senate to sustain or override a veto.
- NO method for the "loans" to be paid back

This is simply the most ANTI-DEMOCRATIC proposed legislation that Principal and Policy is aware of.

Given that the Bank can issue debt in that name of the taxpayers, it is also likely unconstitutional given Article 1, Section 9 which states in part

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

So the question is: Does Obama believe in Democracy or Not?

Lexington: McCain's Waterloo?

This blogger has been frustrated throughout the primary season by Senator McCain's (R - Arizona) lack of specificity regarding his policy proposals. Recently the senior Senator from Arizona has become much more specific about his energy plans. The Senator's website contains the following quote:

"In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."

Since energy independence is such a critical issue, let's look at some of the specifics the Senator has put forward:
1) A $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car, For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.

2)A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.

3)American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.

4) John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise

5) eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol

6) John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards. John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.

7) John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies and commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology.

8) John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants.

9) A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R and D.

10) John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. To develop an even-handed system of tax credits .

11) John McCain will greening the Federal Government

12)Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.

13) reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market

14) John McCain Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax.

Of course the 15th point is Senator McCain's cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions.

Of course this plan reflects an inherent distrust of market mechanisms. It is largely a waste of money that will do little but create new special interest groups. The most offensive issue is the plank to give buyers a $5K discount on their new cars at taxpayer expense. What a crock. Why should people who like the car they have or cannot afford the cost of a new 0-emission car subsidize cars for those who do want one and can afford them. Another $2 billion to line the pockets of coal barons, a $300 million prize for some lucky battery maker, a 10% tax credit for firms that engage in R and D, cap-and-trade, etc, etc, etc. This is a list to make any Progressive Democrat salivate.

The only plank the Principle and Policy agrees with is Number 4. That's right, Principle and Policy joins John McCain in believing that alcohol-based fuels hold great promise. At least that didn't cost us any tax money.

Senator McCain - I liked it better when you weren't so specific.

Obama's Ridiculous Rhetoric on the Islamic Republic

Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Parties nominee for the Office of President of the United States, apparently is ill informed as to international affairs with respect to Islamic Republic of Iran and their nuclear ambitions. Here is the junior Senator from Illinois' issue proclamation from his campaign website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

But, this is exactly the approach followed by the E-3 (U.K., France, Germany), the E-3/EU (add the Eu foreign minister), and the permament members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1; the E-3 plus USA, China, and Russia). The story can rehashed with a simple search on any news service, I used CNN.

On March 11, 2005 CNN reported that the U.S. had dropped its objections to Iran applying for WTO membership read the story here
As CNN reported on August 5th 2005:

cooperation on nuclear matters would be enhanced between Iran and the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- allowing Iran access to the international nuclear technologies market. The EU-3 also would "fully support long-term co-operation in the civil nuclear field between Iran and Russia," the summary said.
In February, Russia signed a deal with Iran to transfer nuclear fuel to Iran's $800 million power plant reactor in the southern city of Bushehr and move the spent fuel back to Russia.

Despite this Iran resumed nuclear enrichment just three days later on August 8th, 2005. On January 6th, 2006 CNN reported that Iran had removed UN IAEA seals from its facilities and resumed nuclear research activities. Russia stepped into the fold. Russia offered to supply nuclear fuel for Iran's power generation facilities and in late February 2006 Iran rejected this offer. Despite reports in January that the U.S. and EU-3 had given up negotiating with Iran, in June of 2006 EU foreign minister Javier Solanna was dispatched to Tehran with an offer from the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany (Thus, this is the EU 3, USA, China and Russia). Iran refused to discuss the offer and pressed ahead with its enrichment program bringing on line at least 3000 centrifuges. Almost two years later, in July 2008, the P5+1 tried again. But, Iran refuses to halt its enrichment activities. According to news reports on CNN, Iran now has over 4,000 centrifuges and is planning to bring the total to 6,000 soon. Sanctions enacted by the UN Security Council have had no effect on the Iranians nuclear ambitions.

So the question for Senator Obama is: While will this work now when it hasn't worked for the last 4 years? It cannot be that adding a direct voice for the US at the table will change the dynamic. The Iranians apparently WANT the capability to enrich Uranium and are unwilling to negotiate that right away. Carrots and sticks have not worked for the Europeans, the Russians, or the UN Security Council. Why does Obama believe they will work now?

Because of his charming personality? Or maybe because of his rock star status in Europe?

If Senator Obama wants to be President, he will need to articulate a strategy for dealing with Iran that is something more than what has been tried and failed for the past four years. Principal and Policy bets he will not be up to the task.

Obama's Second Leadership Failure: Biden's Soft Racism

Senator Barack Obama's (D - Illinois) selection of Joseph Biden (D - Delaware) as his running mate for President and Vice President of the United States represents his second major leadership failure since winning the nomination. Read about his first leadership failure here.

As a blogger I am happy Senator Biden is back in the race. He is a walking gaffe machine which provides a lot of fodder for blogging. For example, read the Senator in his own words here and here.

But, for this blogger the primary evidence of the unsuitability of this individual as the Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate is the debate conducted on June 28th 2007. During this debate the following question was asked:

DeWayne Wickham’s question: Thank you, Tavis. This question is about the link between education and poverty. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006 the unemployment rate of black high school graduates -- black high school graduates -- was 33 percent higher than the unemployment rate for white high school dropouts. To what do you attribute this inequity, which keeps many black families locked in the grip of poverty?

The Senior Senator from Delaware was given the first chance to answer. He said:

We should remind everybody that the day before a black child, a minority child, steps into the classroom, half the achievement gap already exists. ... And that gap widens... because we do not start school earlier. We do not give single mothers in disadvantaged homes the opportunities that they need in order to know what to do to prepare their children. A mother who talks to her child on a regular basis from infancy to being a toddler, that child when it’s two years old will have a vocabulary 300 words more than a child not talked to.

So it’s simple. You’ve got to start off and focus on the nurturing and education of children when they’re very young, particularly children from disadvantaged families. You’ve got to invest in starting kids in preschool at age four.

This answer is objectionable on several fronts. First, it doesn't answer the question. Early childhood vocabulary doesn't explain why high school drop-outs have a lower unemployment rate than high school graduates. If anything, it explains why there is difference in high school graduation rates. Second, it is racist. What does race have to do with the ability to mother? Note that the Senator did not say that single mothers in disadvantaged homes do not have the time to talk to their children because they must work. He says "know what to do." Third, the proposed remedy doesn't fix the problem. If the problem is that mothers need to talk to their children during early childhood, putting the child in pre-school at age four isn't helpful. First, early childhood is over at age 4. Senator Obama apparently understood this when he said "Early childhood education. And John’s exactly right, it starts from birth." Second, taking the child from the mother will prevent her talking to the child, not help her talk to the child. This apparently was lost on both Senator Obama and Senator Biden.

Senator Obama should have chosen someone who can effectively articulate positions. Instead, he chose Joe Biden who he agrees with on nearly 100% of the issues (notably except Iraq and the War on Terror) and cannot articulate a logical answer to questions from the media.

Senator Obama could have and should have done better.

Obama Still Doesn't Understand the War on Terror!

In a widely discussed op-ed article published in the The New York Times (Published: July 14, 2008), the junior Senator from Illinois and Presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama outlined his plan for the Iraq war and the war on terror. Here are the relevant quotes:

...That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war. As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees. Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. ...Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.

On careful inspection, this is not a plan for Iraq. Nor is it a suitable strategy to win the war on terror.

The essence of Obama's "Plan for Iraq" is withdrawal followed by negotiation. If most people took the time to assess this plan, they would be mystified at how any credible candidate for national office could support it. The basic idea, which is captured in Obama's article is that Iraq's political situation and self-defense capability are not proceeding as quickly as he (Actually the entire leadership of the Democratic Party since Obama is just a Parrot on this issue) would like. The Solution? Point a gun at their head. Get moving or we are gone. Your protection from al-Qaeda gone, your protection from Iran gone, Protection of the various factions from each other gone. This isn't diplomacy, it's extortion with malice aforethought.

Obama's legitimizing rationale: 1) the war was a mistake to begin with and 2) the real terrorist war is chasing UBL around Waziristan. But this is not a legitimate view of the war on terror. As this Blog has long maintained, wars are fought between nations not between nations and mobs.

On the morning of September 11th, I awoke and fipped on the TV. Thanks to my satellite dish and Monday Night Football, I was tuned to the New York ABC affililate. They had just picked up coverage of a plane impacting one the Towers. At that early hour the reports suggested the plane was a light plane like a Cessna. It was clear from the smoke and damage that no Cessna did that. I sat with my wife, then 6 months pregnant, and watched the terrible events of that day. I clearly recall the thoughts expressed by friends, family, co-workers, and yes even the media that the World had fundamentally changed. The question today is how did it change?

In a post 9/11 World, the real change must be that state sponsorship of terror is no longer a tolerable or endurable element of state craft. The real war on terror involves ending state sponsorship of terror. Agree with the Iraq invasion or not, the current government of Iraq is not a state sponsor. The government of Afghanistan is also not a state sponsor. Sadly, the two remaining state sponsors, Iran and Syria, still operate their terror networks to the detriment of the civilized world.

As it happens we have sophisticated elements of the finest fighting force in the World on the Eastern and Western borders of Iran and on the Eastern border and Western seacoast of Syria. Add in our Naval presence to Iran's south in the Indian Ocean and we have a formidable deterrent to Iranian and Syrian mischief. A deterrent that would-be President Obama would throw away prior to entering negotiations with these notorious state sponsors. This is backwards thinking. Negotiate first, then withdraw.

The only way to end the war is through victory. Victory only occurs when Iran and Syria are no longer state sponsors of terror.

WALL-E: Is consumption bad for you?

After reading and hearing some of things said about the new Disney/Pixar Studios movie WALL-E, I almost refused to take my 6 year old daughter to the film. My spouse did refuse to go. Here are a couple of anecdotes that illustrate the conventional wisdom about this film:

The new Pixar feature "WALL-E" is an environmental cautionary tale, as well as a story of budding love between two robots. And for its first half-hour or so, it's possibly the most melancholy cartoon ever made: Even the color palette of that early section, a mosaic of brownish grays brushed with dusty sunlight, speaks of loneliness, and of desperate cheerfulness in the face of a blank future. In the second half, "WALL-E" becomes less lyrical and more satirical, although even then, its bite is surprisingly sharp. But by the end, "WALL-E" has turned into something else again, a picture that's so adamant about ending on a feel-good note (or at least a feel-OK note) that it betrays the sad, subtle beauty of those early scenes. It must be that director Andrew Stanton -- the man behind the enormously successful "Finding Nemo" -- didn't want to make too much of a downer: Can't be sending all those tots home with the blues, can we? But the picture feels weirdly, and disappointingly, disjointed, something that starts out as poetry and ends as product. by Stephanie Zacharek on Salon.com June 27, 2008 |

and

The critics love WALL*E. So much so that there’s now a backlash, much of it from conservative and right-libertarian corners. The cartoon is anti-progress, they say. It’s anti-business. It’s anti-consumer. Its environmentalism is hogwash. It will only further brainwash children into the Al Gore camp. All those charges may be true. from wconger.blogspot.com

I am glad that I watched WALL-E. I am glad that my daughter saw it as well.

Those who on the right who criticize this movie as being another piece of Hollywood liberal doctrinaire, as well as those on the left who celebrate their anti-consumption interpretation of the film are simpletons who did not understand this film. Principle and policy saw the film in starkly different terms.

While it is true that the movie depicts a future earth that has been literally trashed. It is not true that the film argues that consumption is to blame. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In this film, the humans of the future are trapped in a virtual world. They in live in floating chairs, they experience only through virtual reality, they only consume some sort of nutritional beverage, and they are numb to physical environment they inhabit. The people are confined to a space ship floating aimlessly around the galaxy. In short, they have stopped consuming and stopped living.

The robot, WALL-E, and his pet cockroach are the only apparent inhabitants of planet Earth. WALL-E though has learned to consume and to Live. He finds and collect treasures from the garbage he is programmed to incessantly compact. He turned his support vehicle into a home. He has a collection of Zippo lighters, lights, a VHS tape of Hello Dolly he watches. Through this consumption WALL-E learns what it is to dance, sing, and love. In short, WALL-E is essentially a child that is curious about his world and enamored with the simple joys of it. When the humans send another robot to check on the situation back on the home world, WALL-E finds a friend, a companion, and eventually a mate. He shares with EVE his curiosity and the joy of his treasures.

The simple, truthful message of WALL-E is this: don't get so busy surviving that you forget to live.

This is a message that people of all political stripes should wrap their arms around.

McCain's Impotence on Tax Policy

Somewhat Republican (meaning RINO) nominee for the Office of President of the United States Senator John McCain (R - Arizona) has a tax plan that needs help from a little blue pill. Read a summary of the Candidates' intentions on page 5 of this document.

Rather than try to reform the tax code to achieve specific policy objectives, the Senior Senator from Arizona has put forward a lukewarm tax proposal that reflects his years in the Senate. His policy is to doodle around the edge with incremental changes or, in his most questionable policy moves, no changes at all.

The centerpiece of Senator McCain's proposal is keeping the status quo. He would sign legislation to make permanent the 2001/2003 tax cuts approved by the Republican majority in Congress and signed by President Bush. One wonders why they were made temporary anyway... but that is fodder for another article. He would also make permanent changes to the death tax and changes to the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) exemption. Other than that, his proposals mostly involve corporate taxation including a reduction of the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%.

As a policy this lacks coherence, particularly in as much as Principle and Policy believed the 2001/2003 tax cuts lacked coherence. The great issue in the wake of the internet bubble burst and the despicable events of 9-11-01 was capital formation. That is, there was great concern that the capital markets would be underfunded in the wave of defaults and bankruptcies in the tech sector. Reducing taxes on capital therefore made sense. But what about the $1000 per child tax credit that is "refundable" (refundable being Beltway speak for welfare payments to those with no tax liability)? Was baby formation a large problem after 9-11? What possible rationale is there for continuing such a policy?

Principle and Policy strongly supports reduction to corporate tax rates because 1) the U.S. rates are now among the highest in the world and 2) corporations don't pay taxes, people do. But other than that, there doesn't seem to be a solid reason for McCain's proposals other than he doesn't want tax increases. Senator Obama on the other hand seems to have such a guiding philosophy. He would continue to build in special breaks for the blessed groups at the expense of the others. He would turn the tax code into the welfare state that existed under President Carter.

The best tax proposals are those that see the tax code as a coherent whole and reform the code to achieve specific objects. Certain flat tax proposals probably meet this criteria. Senator McCain would implement an optional flat tax system with no deductions. Principle and Policy wonders why not continue to protect IRA/401k/HSA contributions to encourage these important savings vehicles? The U.S. has the lowest savings rate of all developed economies and capital formation continues to be in the long term interest of the country. Principle and Policy also questions why we should implement an optional flat tax when the AMT is a flat tax and already exists?

In the short-run McCain's resistance to raise taxes is likely preferable to Obama's tinkering. But Principle and Policy longs for a visionary tax reform plan that would dramatically alter incentives to encourage capital formation, investment, and wider stock ownership by the population.

Not Non-Partisan Tax Policy Studies

This past Friday news services were reporting with glee a "preliminary" study comparing the tax plans of Presidential candidates Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinios) and Senator McCain (R - Illinois). One reason this report was so widely reported (or should I say celebrated) is the sponsoring think tank.

The report was issued by the Tax Policy Center. According to the tank's website

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

.

The report was widely acclaimed as being from a "non-partisan" think tank. See the report on CNN for as an example.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

It is true that these two think tanks label themselves as "non-partisan". But the only just description of these two think tanks is "left-leaning". The Brookings Institute has been a vociferous critic of the war in Iraq. The urban institute demonstates its bias with statements such as:

An even larger fallacy in the President's claim is that it rests on the assumption that the tax cuts are a costless gift from a beneficent government. In fact, deficit-financed tax cuts eventually have to be paid for.

Apparently the Tax Policy Center is taking after its joint venture parents. This report on the candidates tax policies tries to be even-handed but cannot contain its wholesale adoption of left-leaning dogma. For example, the report states:

It should be noted that both the Republican Study Committee and the presidential campaign of Senator Fred Thompson have proposed optional alternative taxes. We estimated that those plans would result in dramatically reduced revenues—by as much as $6–7 trillion over the next decade compared with current law (Burman, Leiserson, and Rohaly 2008). Those proposals would have disproportionately benefited those with very high incomes, making the tax system less progressive.

and

Given the large pending increases in public spending on senior citizens due to the forthcoming retirement of the baby boomers, it seems inappropriate to target special income tax breaks to this group.

Thus, the authors of the report fail to recognize that tax cuts stimulate growth and adopt wholesale that progressive tax codes (and class warfare) are preferred over other tax codes.

Most egregious is the author's total failure to comment on the Obama effective average tax rates for those earning $20K or less. They do manage to comment that:

But his plan would drastically alter the distribution of tax burdens and make the tax system significantly more progressive. Households in the bottom quintile of the cash income distribution (the 20 percent of the population with the lowest incomes) would receive an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) and those in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average cut equal to 2.4 percent of income ($1,042). In contrast, taxes would rise by an average of 2.0 percent of income ($4,092) for households in the top quintile. And the increases would be even more dramatic within the top quintile. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see their taxes rise by an average of 8.7 percent of income or about $116,000. The top 0.1 percent—the richest 1 in 1,000—would face an average tax increase of more than $700,000, or 11.5 percent of income.

and

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution would be hit hard by the increase in the top two tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent as well as the increase in the top tax rate on capital gains and qualified dividends to 25 percent.

But, the report fails to discuss that for individuals in the lowest quintile (those making less that $18,981) the average tax rate would by -.7%. It might seem trivial but for 2005 tax data (the latest available on the irs.gov website) this would represent a $50 billion net transfer of money from the rest of the U.S. to this low earning income group. The negative sign indicates that those in this group would receive welfare payments amounting to $7 billion the first year. You may have thought the welfare era was over here in the U.S., but not if Obama has his way.

Agree or disagree with the incorporation of welfare into the U.S. tax code, agree or disagree with Obama's various schemes to transfer funds to the lowest income quintile, it must be obvious that this is a topic that should be discussed in a truly non-partisan tax policy analysis.

This report has bias, it is left-leaning, and the intelligent observer should examine the candidates tax policy positions and this report, then reach their own conclusions. My analysis of Obama's tax plan can be read here.

Supreme's Battle Congress

The recent Supreme Court decision in Boumediene et al. V. George W. Bush represents another turn in an ongoing pissing contest between the Congress and the Supreme Court, or at least the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.

What the majority refer to as a conversation between the branches, is in reality a contest with respect to the separation of the branches. In this decision, the majority are dead set on declaring unconstitutional an act of Congress declaring that the judiciary may not entertain habeas corpus petitions from detainees at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The prime motivation is transparent: that Congress shall not tell the Judicial Branch what it can and cannot do.

This is the fourth major decision with respect to detainees. In all four cases, the prime motivation of the majority appears to be to reject Congressional intrusion into the prerogatives of the judicial branch. Previous cases were Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Rasul v. Bush.

The problem with this "conversation" is that the result is poor law and poor policy.

This outcome is not restricted to the actions of the Court either. Congress' actions are just as weak.

These are unique circumstances brought on by the unique times in which we live and the unique status of the Guantanamo Naval Station in Cuba. It is precisely in these circumstances that we need our various branches of Government to develop policy based on principle. But that principle ought not to be "stay out of our business" separation of powers arguments. Instead the principles that should be honored, and developed if needed, are those that most important. What policy furthers the cause of liberty and freedom? What policy furthers the ability of the Executive to transform warfare into lasting peace?

Principle and Policy doubts that entertaining habeas pleas from the detained in the U.S. court system is the optimal policy. The dissent of the Chief Justice is persuasive on this point. If results in the detained being released to take up arms against our forces or our citizens, then it clearly is suboptimal. The Principal now visible is this:

Peace isn't just the absence of conflict it is the presence of Justice, but arguments over the separation of powers bring neither Peace nor Justice.

Obama the Tardy Leader

This morning word broke that Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois), the Democratic nominee for President, finally met with Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) to try to achieve party unity.

Too bad this happened 5 days too late.

Interestingly, national radio correspondent Jamie Dupree recognized today in his appearance on the Neal Boortz show that Sen. Clinton has been driving Sen. Obama since the Texas primaries. Further testimony to the lack of leadership skills in the junior Senator from Illinois.

Obama's First Leadership Failure

Congratulations may be in order to Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois) for apparently securing the Democratic Party's nomination for the Office of President of the United States. Condolences are probably in order for the wider Democratic Party.

Amidst the hubhub of the final primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton's speech set off alarms across the punditry landscape. These know-it-alls claim that Hillary should have conceded; should have urged people to unite behind Obama.

But what of the junior senator from Illinois? This was his first leadership test... how to unite a divided party behind him on the most important, and final, day of the primary season. He failed miserably.

Rather than spend the past few days huddled with Hillary's people to work out a scenario that all could support going forward, Senator Obama apparently awaited regally for the court to curtsy to his glory. As a result, his campaign missed a significant opportunity.

This indecisive leadership, marked by a lack of foresight, does not bode well for the candidates chances in November. Ask former Senator Fred Thompson (R - Tennessee), whose apparent difficulty in pulling the trigger to get in the GOP race made him look indecisive and ruined any momentum he might have had. Actions often speak louder than words. The electorate does not elect weak leaders.

UPDATE: As of about 11:20pm EDT, CNN and other news networks started reporting that Senator Obama had begun to reach out to the Clinton campaign. Too little, too late... we'll see.

W's Big Mistake and the Republican Brand

As the primary season comes to end, there is much discussion about the state of the Republican brand and the apparent hopelessness of the GOP in the November general elections. For examples read the articles here, here, and here.

The basic premise behind the "stale brand" argument is that: 1) Through President George W. Bush's incompetence, Vice-President Dick Cheney's lust for power, and Karl Rove's tactical brilliance but strategic incompetence, the republican's are no longer trusted by the public and 2) that current republicans are married at the hip to a failed war policy and have no leader to unite the factions and no ideas to inspire the masses. In view of this argument, it is worthwhile to assess what President Bush's real mistake has been.

Briefly, it has been his failure to realize that modern warfare is always a two front war. One front in the field, the other in the media of back home. A little historical perspective:

The lead up to the 2004 general election set the stage for all that transpired politically since. The Democrats decided to rhetorically attack the war in Iraq as a mistake. To do so, they needed to separate the Iraq from the wider global war on terror. Senator John Kerry (D - Massachusetts), the Democrat's nominee was a major cog in the wheel. Consider the following from his acceptance speech at the 2994 convention:

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States. ...

My fellow Americans, the world tonight is very different from the world of four years ago. But I believe the American people are more than equal to the challenge. Remember the hours after September 11th when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up stairs and risked their lives so that others might live; when rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon; when the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol; when flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us. I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger.
There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming "Mission accomplished" certainly doesn't make it so.

As president, I will ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics.

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.
And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our Special Forces to conduct terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations, and we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists. To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say: Help is on the way.

As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might, our principles as well as our firepower. In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words.

It is interesting the Senator Kerry never uttered the word Afghanistan. But, his meaning was clear. We were all united in the war on terror until the incompetent President (mis)led us into this mistaken adventure in Iraq. Senator's Kerry value proposition: vote Kerry and I'll fix this mistake, I'll get us out of Iraq, add 40K troops, and kick serious terrorists forces using our newly doubled special forces units.

In fact, I deduced at the time, and still firmly believe, that the 2004 Democratic Party convention was a four day argument that Iraq was both not part of, and a distraction from, the wider war on terror. After the Junior Senator from Massachusetts was sent back to the Senate, the Democrats did not cease the argument. They ramped it up and kept hammering the public with the same ideas over and over. It is I suppose always easier to criticize than to cook.

President Bushes reelection campaign was never able to forcefully parry this rhetoric to the detriment of the GOP in the 2006 midterms and the current concern over the state of the GOP's brand. The GOP convention in 2004 was largely off-point. The only effective rebuttal of the Democratic Party theme was given by Rudy Giuliani (R = New York). Read the speech here
The President's re-election campaign made only the most feeble attempts to deal with the war issue. Rather, under the leadership of Karl Rove the re-election campaign focused on "the ground war" and raising questions about Senator Kerry's suitability to be serve as Commander-in-chief. That these were effective is not a defense of the inattention paid to the importance of influencing public opinion during a time of war.
Of course, the only popular wars are 1) the one just about to start or 2) the one just ending with the patriotic forces victorious. Lincoln, of course, faced the same situation during the Civil War. At the time, Lincoln deduced that the only course that would save his Presidency and policies was a victory over the Confederate forces. In Lincoln's time, battles were fought on a rather discrete basis over a period of a few days.

President Bush seems to have tried to follow Lincoln's precedent. Regrettably, the current war is asymmetric. There are no real battles, save for the large thrusts to clean out Ramadi and Fallujah, only skirmishes. Winning a skirmish doesn't exactly thrill the people at home. Instead, the public was treated to an incessant stream of daily obituaries for the troops who gave the last measure of devotion for their country. But, amidst this death there were few victories reported by the media, nor even a hint of it. In this type of warfare the executive cannot rely on battlefield exploits to influence public opinion. That must be done directly, constantly, and personally by the executive. Whenever President Bush spoke about the war he was effective, but his speeches were far too few.

In this vacuum, the public only heard the voice of the left. The war in Iraq began to be perceived as one in which are troops were serving only as targets.

So the Republican brand is left with the remains. A war that a large majority of the population were for, the Congress voted in favor of, that was successful in ending the regime of a principal sponsor of terror and eliminating the uncertainty surrounding that sponsor's WMD programs, has been cast as a failure.

But I expect that most Republicans who seek election will be too timid to face public opinion on this issue. Senator McCain seems willing to try. It is not too late for the President to engage public opinion on the war on terror and Iraq specifically. But, I doubt he has the intention to do so. Instead, we are all held hostage to President Bush's big mistake... and the only option is to pray for immediate and ultimate victory in Iraq.

McCain's Impotence on the Global War on Terror.

A good preface to this is to read my earlier posts on the global war on terror (see this, this, and this too!)

This past week's dust=up between Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), Senator John McCain (R - Arizona), and President George Bush has brought to the forefront the main issue in the 2008 campaign for the Office of the President of the United States: the global war on terror. In an earlier post, I argued that Senator Obama was not an appeaser, but that his policies would produce dire consequences for the United States, including a probable loss in the global was on terror. But what of Senator McCain's plans should he become President? Let's go straight to his website's verbiage:

John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq.... The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.... The international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq. ...

Call for international pressure on Syria and Iran

Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents. The answer is not unconditional dialogue with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.

Level with the American people

John McCain believes it is essential to be honest with the American people about the opportunities and risks that lie ahead. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress made in the last year, of the serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal.

Senator McCain's position is more helpful, but still short sighted. As principle and policy has argued previously, Iran and Syria must be treated like the petulant children they seem to be. When Iran misbehaves, it must be immediately and directly punished. A full engagement on every level, international organizations, diplomatic channels, covert action against the Iranian intelligence services, overt action against Iranian military assets, and a continual information campaign to inform, remind, and persuade the World to the dastardly acts of these two sponsors of terror.

But, the over-arching goal must be to end all state sponsorship of terror. And this is where the senior Senator from Arizona falls short. His main goal isn't to win the global war on terror by eliminating state sponsorship, it is to achieve a stable Iraq by holding Iran in check. If the Senator cannot lead us to the end of Iranian and Syrian support for Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Then the war on terror will have severely damaged Sunni-based Islamic terror, leaving Shia sponsored terror unchecked, undisciplined, and a very real threat.

Come on Senator McCain, give us the straight talk on this one...

Is Barack an Appeaser or Just a Loser?

Hint: Barack Obama is not an appeaser.

Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), the presumptive but not yet Democrat nominee for the Office of President has chose to get into an exchange with current President George Bush (R - Texas) and the GOP nominee for the Office of President, John McCain (R - Arizona). The stink is that Obama thinks he has been called an appeaser, although I didn't get that from the President's remarks. Both McCain and the President have responded with something on the order of "If the shoe fits, wear it"

Does the shoe fit? Well, according to Wikipedia:

Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principle.

So let's look at Obama's intentions per his campaign website:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

This is probably not appeasement, because Obama is not intentionally trading acceptance of imposed conditions for agreements to peace. But, that doesn't mean Obama has the correct policy. Obama's intention is to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq and then try to negotiate conditions for peace. This is a recipe for disaster. As principle and policy has long maintained (see this, this, and this too!) the presence of our armed forces in Iraq is our foremost strategic advantage, and thus, is our foremost negotiating chip. Removing it without gaining concessions gives the game away to the Iranians and the Syrians. This would be a large mistake.

What I found more interesting, is that the War on Terror isn't even an issue on the Senator's campaign website. Neither is Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran or Syria. The words "state sponsor of terror" do not appear there either. When it comes to terror the only issue Obama's campaign recognizes is homeland security. The Illinois' junior Senator apparently intends to hunker down and wait out the next terrorist attach. Read his plan here

I'll address McCain's stance on this issue in the next post. As for now, if someone asks if you think Obama is an appeaser reply "No, he's just going to lose the war on terror!"