I apologize in advance for the rambling nature of this post, but I’ve been taking in tonight’s events from a variety of sources. CNN, BBC, Fox News, CNBC, even Al Jazeera.
There is a common theme in all of the coverage I’ve seen. Reactions in Europe, the Middle East, Black America, White America, and Latin America all focus on one theme. Hope. There is something magical about believing in an idea. The belief that you are truly witnessing the dawn of a new day.
Barack Obama captured the moment very well in his victory speech. Even John McCain recognized the moment and delivered one of the warmest speeches of his campaign. There were celebrations as far away as Kenya. I saw blacks, whites, latinos, men, women, young and old all eagerly showing hope that today was a new day in this country.
Tomorrow morning, nothing will change. The same issues that existed yesterday will exist tomorrow. However, the first step to fixing it is believing that you can fix it. Today, I saw a country believe in itself once again.
President Obama has a lot of work ahead of him if he is going to back up that belief and turn it into action.
Good luck and congratulations Mr. President-Elect. May your hand remain steady on the helm, and may you be the leader we can all be proud of.
Schieffer: But even if it was someone — even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?
McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Schieffer: All right.
No, it’s not all right. In one sentence, McCain says that someone who supports Roe v Wade is not qualified to be a judge on the Supreme Court. In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, he says “I certainly would not impose any litmus test”.
Litmus Test: A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would choose to proceed with the appointment or nomination. (The expression is a metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry.) Those who must approve a nominee, such as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary.
If you’re going to bullshit, at least put in a couple of sentences of fluff about how you are fighting for a person’s right to life. (even though you support the death penalty)
Then, of course, there is Joe the Plumber…
I have a few questions for Mr. “The Plumber”.
1) Since when do plumbers make more than 250,000 per year? (No, really… I might consider a career change)
2) According to the data provided by CNN and mentioned in an earlier column here, the tax burden for people making between 250,000 and 650,000 dollars will increase, on average, by 12 dollars per year. If such an additional burden means that you are now unable to afford to buy your own business, then isn’t your capital stretched just a little thin already?
3) How, exactly, did you manage to appear on Fox News almost immediately after your “spontaneous” encounter with Senator Obama?
Wait just a minute…
In the first few seconds of this clip, you mention that your business makes between 270,000 and 280,000 dollars per year.
You’re seriously telling us that paying an additional 12 dollars per year in taxes (on average), one dollar per month, is the difference between you being able to afford your own business and not being able to afford it?
Bullshit.
In fact, since I will admit that I’m using an “average” figure to come up with 12 dollars/year, let’s look at EXACTLY how much more “Joe the Plumber” will pay in taxes under Obama’s plan.
FACT: Obama will raise the marginal tax rate on income greater than 250,000 dollars per year from 35% to 39%.
FACT: Marginal tax rate affects only the income within a particular bracket.
CONCLUSION: Given Joe’s statement that he makes between 270 and 280 thousand dollars, here are the numbers.
270,000-250,000 = 20,000 dollars taxed at the highest marginal tax rate.
280,000-250,000 = 30,000 dollars taxed at the highest marginal tax rate.
Under the current tax code, Joe pays between 7,000 and 10,500 dollars per year at the highest marginal tax rate. (35%)
Under Obama’s tax plan, Joe would pay between 7,800 and 11,700 dollars per year in taxes at the highest marginal tax rate. (39%)
Net difference: 800 dollars per year.
So 800 dollars per year, not counting the elimination of Capital Gains taxes for small businesses is the difference between “Joe the Plumber” being able to afford his own business and not being able to afford it? Sure, that’s a bit more than the 12 dollars/month cited elsewhere, but we haven’t yet discussed the savings from Obama’s “Making Work Pay” program that would put an additional 500 dollars per year in Joe’s pocket (whoops, final number just dropped to 300 dollars per year) nor have we mentioned reductions in lower marginal tax rates that would bring the overall tax burden down significantly.
800 dollars per year translates to about 16 bucks per week. (300 ~ 6 dollars/week)
Perhaps if Joe cut out a couple of six packs per month, he’d be able to afford that business of his after all. The fact is, if the success or failure of his business depends on less than 20 dollars per week, maybe Joe is riding a little too close to the edge, financially, to be successful as a business owner at this time. Maybe another year or two might help Joe stabilize his financial position to the point where a cup of coffee each day won’t be the difference between success and failure.
While watching the debate last night, I thought that McCain clearly outperformed Obama in the first 30 minutes or so. The “Joe the Plumber” references were really hitting home and illustrating the difference between McCain’s plan and Obama’s plan. The problem is that folks like you and me can go back and check the facts, run the numbers, and watch previous speeches and debates to see where candidates have fudged facts or outright lied to us.
In fact, Jon Stewart and friends have made a rather successful TV show based on this concept. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
My fellow denizens of “Teh Intartubez”, I am going to give you an extremely valuable piece of information today. One which will help you in any election, for any office, in any country that allows voting. Like Ron Popeil’s dream-come-true, this information will slice, dice, circumsize, sanitize, sterilize, homogenize all of the bullshit out there and is guaranteed never to rust, bust, combust, or collect dust or your money back.
I can’t take credit for this information, the inspiration came from a debate with Ronald Reagan many years ago.
If you’ll remember, this debate effectively gut-punched Carter’s campaign. Jimmy “Nobel Prize” Carter, who many consider to be the best EX-President in American history, is a good man who advocated many positions that are central to today’s campaign. Health Care, Energy Independence, Education were all key points in Carter’s campaign message, yet Reagan beat him in the general election like a pinata filled with cupcakes at Rush Limbaugh’s birthday party.
Why?
“Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”
It’s JUST THAT EASY! (now do you see why I use the Popeil reference?)
Ask any sane human being and you’ll hear the conventional wisdom that promises made by politicians aren’t worth the airwaves that they travel on. We all know that politicians lie. We all know that they’d sell their mothers for another 4 year fix. We know this, yet the public insists on getting swept up in campaign speeches and debates where nobody remembers the salient points, but everyone parrots a clever soundbite.
When was the last time you checked a voting record in detail? If Senator Whatshisname “voted against the troops”, did he do it because there was too much pork included in the bill? Or was it because another version of the same funding bill was circulating in a House committee and he preferred that version instead? Nuance may not sell with Joe Sixpack, but it is a fact of political life. Sometimes politicians have to hold their noses and vote for things that will get them in deep shit with their constituents. That’s how the game is played. If reporters, who are paid to do this sort of work, can’t keep up with all of the nuance, how can the American voter be expected to do the job well?
Some folks take a shortcut and listen to their friendly neighborhood radio talk show host. Others hang out on their favorite political blog among like-minded individuals where their preconceptions are reinforced by a sympathetic audience.
Same sheep, different color wool.
The great thing about most elections is that they are not held in a vacuum. There is always an incumbent and there is always a challenger. If you like the way things are going, you vote for the incumbent. If you don’t, then you vote for the other guy. Simple? Yes. Your job is to form an intelligent opinion on the state of the world and make your decision. It’s not that hard.
Why have Republicans had a stranglehold on the Presidency since 1980? (well, except for the Clinton years, which I’ll get to in a moment) The economy was booming, we were top-dog in the global kennel, and the vast majority of us were thanking whatever divine providence was in vocal range that we were fortunate enough to live in the U-S-of-by-god-A. Back when uttering the phrase “I’m an American” in a foreign country earned you a certain amount of deference, or even a free drink, depending on where you travelled in the world.
Try walking into a bar in Europe these days and loudly proclaiming “I’m an American!”. At best, you’ll just be sniggered at.
How did Clinton break up the Republican streak? “It’s the economy, stupid!” The economic recession in the early 90′s got everyone refocused on the question of “Are you better off today…” and it cost Bush the election. 4 years later, when things had improved largely on their own, the same question kept Clinton in office for another 4 years despite galvanized opposition from the talk-radio crowd.
But Grim, you ask…
“What about 2004?”
We were still reeling from the 9/11 attacks in 2004. We had just gone into Iraq the previous year and stomped the holy hell out of Saddam’s army. We were fresh off of “Mission Accomplished” when election season came in. The economy appeared to be rebounding, and Americans were disinclined to change direction at that time. A very good argument could be made that 9/11 guaranteed Bush an 8 year term since the American public rarely votes for a challenger in time of war (or at least a war that we appear to be winning). Were we “better off” in 2004 than in 2000? No, but being unable to see the forest for the trees, the American public had the perception that better days were on the way really soon.
Even if Barack Obama spends his entire presidency trying to push through his campaign promises, it is a virtual certainty that he will fail to get everything he wants. Even if John McCain is such a Maverick that he fights every bit of pork-laden legislation that crosses his desk, it is a virtual certainty that he will trend in the same political direction as his predecessor. The only thing you can count on is that Obama will be a change of direction, and McCain will “stay the course” politically speaking.
So I put it to you again…
“Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?”
Has a net worth that is not much higher than my own, and I work for a living
Worked as a Community Organizer and college professor before going into politics
I’ll grant you that working as a professor (“Lecturer” to be completely accurate) and as a “Community Organizer” is only classified as work under the loosest possible definition, but it’s more than Senator McCain has done in all of his 72 years.
While I’m sure I could write several thousand words about Sarah Palin, if you aren’t hip to this scam by now, nothing I say here will make any difference. This chuzzlewit is one 72-year-old-with-a-cancer-history heartbeat away from having access to the “Big Red Button”. She makes Dan Quayle look presidential, for Christ’s sake. If I wanted a sit-com (in the ‘stereotypical’ sense… not implying that she actually has the talent to act on television) mom in (or next to) the Oval Office, then why couldn’t it be Claire Huxtable? At least she was intelligent.
In a last ditch attempt to convince the fence-sitters out there of the danger that Palin poses to the entire Western World, let me leave you with this…
She made Katie Couric look like a hard-nosed journalist.
