The Vice Presidential Debate

Here is my bottom line with respect to last night’s debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin:  it was irrelevant.   I was impressed with both Biden and Palin.   Many in the media were predicting and hoping the debate would be a disaster for Palin.  It was not.   I thought she handled herself well, but I doubt if the debate will make any difference in who gets elected as our next President. 

Does it make me nervous that Sarah Palin could be a heartbeat away from being President of the United States?   Yes, it does.    But it makes me even more nervous that Barak Obama could be President of the United States and that Nancy Pelosi is currently and will probably continue to be two heartbeats away from being President of the United States.    

As I have previously said on this blog, I don’t think either Obama or Palin is qualified to be President of the United States.   If you agree with me, this is the question:  Would you rather have an unqualified President or an unqualified Vice President?   To me, the answer to that question is a no-brainer.    

Now some of you will disagree with the way I have framed the question because you think Obama is qualified to be President.    If you favor Obama because you think he is qualified, then your analysis of Obama’s background and experience is totally different from mine, and I will probably never understand the way you think.   On the other hand, if you favor Obama because he is attractive, articulate, charismatic, and the most liberal member of the United States Senate, there is nothing I can say to change your mind because I agree he is all of those things.  If those are the things that are important to you, then you should vote for Obama.   For me, I place more importance on the candidates’ experience, political philosophies and voting records.   For more information on my views, see my post dated September 10, 2008 entitled “Experience and Achievements” and my post dated September 14, 2008 entitled “The Importance of Personalities and Charisma”. 

The reason I think last night’s debate was irrelevant is because I think most people, including me, will be voting for the candidate they think is most qualified to be President.  It’s a package deal.   We don’t have the opportunity to split the ticket and vote for the most qualified candidate for President and the most qualified candidate for Vice President.   Accordingly, most people, including me, will base their decision on the top of the ticket rather than the bottom of the ticket.  

Even though I view last night’s debate as irrelevant, I enjoyed it, and I thought it was more interesting than the first debate between McCain and Obama.   Biden was the typical old-time Washington politician.    By contrast, Palin was like a breath of fresh air.   She comes across as being genuine and folksy and as someone I would like to have as my next-door neighbor.   Palin connects well with people because she is like the people you and I know and interact with on a daily basis.   Of the four candidates, McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden, Palin is the only one who comes across to me as being a normal person.    This is her appeal.   But I don’t think she will be able to swing enough voters to McCain to make a difference.    If McCain is going to win this race, he will have to do it on his own.    At the present time, his prospects are not very good. 

Fiscal Irresponsibility

Even before the recent meltdown in the financial markets, one of the most serious threats faced by the country was the fiscal irresponsibility of our federal government.   Both parties are to blame.   When the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they were as irresponsible as the Democrats.   President Bush has been ineffective as a leader in controlling government spending.   According to The Wall Street Journal, federal spending has increased by almost $1.2 trillion, or 57%, in this decade alone. 

The spending splurge is continuing even in the midst of a financial crisis.   The New York Times reported last Friday as follows:  “As Congress tried to cobble together a plan to spend huge sums on a financial bailout, lawmakers also moved Thursday toward final approval of an omnibus spending bill with more than 2,300 pet projects, including a $2 million study of animal hibernation…  Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, calculates that earmarks account for $6.6 billion of the omnibus bill’s cost, which totals more than $630 billion.”    Just yesterday, in order to attract votes for the $700 billion bailout package currently under consideration, the Senate added $150 billion of “sweeteners” consisting of tax breaks for special interests.  

The federal government’s spending splurge is being financed by borrowed money that will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren.  This is reckless and immoral, just as it would be reckless and immoral for me to borrow money to finance an extravagant lifestyle with knowledge that my children and grandchildren would have to repay my debts following my death.   

Despite the obvious need to reduce federal spending, both McCain and Obama, in an effort to get elected, have promised new government programs that will cost billions of dollars.   According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Obama during his speech at the Democratic Convention proposed $547 billion in annual spending increases and tax cuts, and McCain during his speech at the Republican Convention proposed between $524 billion and $563 billion in annual spending increases and tax cuts.  Both candidates are promising to pay for their new programs by cutting government spending in other areas and closing tax loopholes.  Both candidates, however, have been vague about how they would do this.    Based on my observations, it is very rare for politicians to eliminate a government program, even if the program is ineffective and has outlived its usefulness. 

In my opinion, both McCain and Obama are failing to be honest with the American people regarding our ability to pay for new government programs on top of existing entitlement programs that are growing at an unsustainable rate.   The national debt will soon exceed $11 trillion.   On top of that, the Heritage Foundation recently issued a report stating that the federal government’s liability for unfunded retiree benefits is $40.9 trillion, including $34.1 for unfunded Medicare benefits and $6.8 trillion for unfunded Social Security benefits.   In recent weeks, according to The Heritage Foundation, the government has obligated the taxpayers to incur $840 billion in liabilities for financial bailouts, assuming Congress this week approves the $700 billion bailout package currently being debated.     

Under these circumstances, how do you choose between McCain and Obama, both whom are trying to buy your vote by promising new government programs and both of whom are trying to convince you they will be fiscally responsible and will cut government spending?   The only way I know is to examine the records of the two candidates in an effort to determine which one has demonstrated the most fiscal responsibility in the past.  In my experience, the best way to determine how someone will behave in the future is to examine his or her past behavior.  Most people don’t change. 

Despite his unrealistic campaign promises, McCain has a strong track record as a fiscal conservative.     He is one of the few members of the U.S. Senate who does not request earmarks, and he has promised to veto any bill containing an earmark.   Unlike McCain, Obama is not bashful about requesting earmarks.   According to media reports, Obama has requested earmarks valued at either $860 million or $938 million during his first three years in the Senate, a rate of approximately $1 million per day in earmark requests.   Many politicians justify earmarks by saying they represent a small percentage of total government spending, which is true.   Using this rationale, you can justify almost any new project at any cost.  Earmarks are a symbol of the larger problem with irresponsible government spending.  Politicians use earmarks to buy votes with other people’s money.    The other people are the taxpayers, including you and me and our children and grandchildren.    

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (“CCAGW”) examines the voting records of members of Congress to separate taxpayer advocates in Congress from those who favor wasteful programs and pork-barrel spending.  CCAGW has given McCain a score of 100% for 2007 and a lifetime score of 88%.   By comparison, Obama received a score of 10% for 2007 and a lifetime score of 18%.    There may not be much difference in the campaign promises being made by McCain and Obama, but there is a significant difference in their voting records on matters involving the expenditure of taxpayer money.    

Now let’s consider what happens if Obama gets elected and if the Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress, which is highly likely.   CCAGW gave the Democrats in both the Senate and the House a score of 5% based on their votes in 2007 compared with a score of 67% for Republicans in the Senate and 60% for Republicans in the House.    The scores for the Republicans are less than impressive, but the scores for the Democrats are downright frightening.  

If Obama is elected, and if the Democrats continue to control both houses of Congress, then it is a virtual certainty that government spending will continue to increase at an accelerated rate.   If McCain is elected, I think he will at least make an effort to apply the brakes to government spending.     I am not optimistic either way, but I know one thing for sure:  if our elected officials do not control government spending, then the future for our children and grandchildren will be bleak.  If you think we can tax our way out of this mess, please contact me.  I have a bridge I would like to sell you.    

Who Opposed More Regulation?

Prior to yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives on the financial rescue package, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, said, “For too long this government, eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation.”   Rep. Pelosi is either intentionally misleading the public or she is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.   The facts are that it was the Democrats—not the Republicans—who opposed increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   If you don’t believe me, then listen to what some Democrats and Republicans were saying in their own words.    Below are two links to videos on YouTube.   I recommend that you take the time to watch them.  I do not approve of all the language that has been inserted between the video clips on the second link, but you need to listen to what the Democrats were saying when the Republicans warned that a major financial crisis was looming.   Here are the links. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs 

Don’t get me wrong.   I am not trying to place all the blame on the Democrats.  There is plenty of blame to go around.   I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats who are trying to convince you they are without blame and that the Republicans are responsible for the current financial crisis.

 

A Little Bit of Perspective

During the last week, Ann and I have been relaxing at the beach while the financial markets have been melting down.    For the first time in a couple of years, we have been enjoying St. Simons Island, which is located on the southeast Georgia coast and still retains the small-town atmosphere we first observed approximately 35 years ago.   Regrettably, our week of relaxation is over, and we are on our way back to Atlanta today.

Many of you will be surprised to hear I was splurging on a beach vacation at a time of great financial uncertainty.   There is one simple explanation:  I paid for the vacation in advance before I understood the extent of the financial crisis facing the country and without knowing how much my retirement assets would plunge in value before and during my vacation.    

As it turned out, St. Simons was a great place to be during a time of financial turmoil.   For me, there is no better way to feel close to God and to find peace than to take a walk on the beach or a hike in the mountains.   I have never understood people who think the beautiful world we enjoy just happened by accident.   God speaks to me at various times, sometimes when I least expect it, but always when I am walking on the beach. 

A walk on the beach also helps me put today’s problems in perspective.   It reminds me that waves have been splashing against the shoreline for thousands of years.    They were rolling in long before I was born, and they will be rolling in long after my death.   The waves at St. Simons were rolling in for centuries before the United States of America even existed.    They were splashing against the shore throughout the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War.   The waves were coming in on September 11, 2001 while terrorists were killing thousands of innocent people during a series of brutal attacks on U.S. soil.   The ocean and its waves remind me that our country and the world at large have endured much worse crises than those we are facing today.  I have no doubts we will endure once again.