Health Care

Our country has one of the best health care systems in the world, but quality heath care has become increasingly expensive and unavailable to far too many people.   Almost everyone agrees that changes are needed in our health care system, including changes  to make it easier for those who are currently uninsured to obtain affordable health insurance.  There are major disagreements, however, over the role of government in regulating our health care system and in providing health insurance to its citizens.   As in so many other areas, Barak Obama and John McCain are proposing dramatically different solutions to the health care problem.    In a nutshell, Obama wants to expand the government’s existing health care programs, and McCain wants to place the responsibility on individuals, with the help of tax credits from the government, to obtain and maintain their own health insurance. 

It is difficult to analyze the solutions proposed by the two candidates without first examining the cause of many of the problems in today’s health care system.  In my opinion, many of our current problems are the result of extensive government regulation and interference.   For example, one reason health insurance is so expensive is because the states mandate the services and providers that must be covered in each policy.   The result is that many people are required to pay for coverage they don’t need or want.  Congress recently imposed another mandate on the health insurance industry when it adopted legislation requiring all insurers to provide equal coverage for physical and mental illnesses.    As a result of this new mandate, the cost of health insurance will go up for all employers who provide health insurance to their employees and for all individuals who purchase their own health insurance.   Everyone will now have to pay more for this expanded coverage whether or not they want it. 

Another reason for the high cost of health insurance is that people are not allowed to buy health insurance across state lines, which limits competition.   Still another reason is that the tax code arbitrarily provides substantial tax breaks to some people who have health insurance but not to others.   An employee of a company that provides health insurance to its employees is not required to include the cost of the health insurance in his or her taxable income.   But a large number of people are required to purchase their own health insurance with after-tax dollars, including employees of companies that do not provide health insurance, part-time employees, and people who are unemployed or retired.  In short, our current tax policies subsidize the cost of health insurance for some, but not all, citizens.   The people who are hurt the worst are non-skilled and lower income citizens who are unemployed and who do not have health insurance through their employers.  This system is grossly unfair and is a major contributor to the large number of uninsured people.   

Amazingly, having created this grossly unfair system, our politicians are scratching their heads and trying to figure out why so many people do not have health insurance.   Rather than addressing the inequities in the current system, Obama wants to maintain these inequities and at the same time to expand the government’s involvement in health insurance.  His approach relies heavily on more government mandates, regulations and subsidies.   He would require employers to provide insurance for their employees or to pay a penalty equal to some percentage of their payroll for not doing so.   The funds generated by the penalty would go into a national fund to provide insurance to those uncovered workers.   The Cato Institute studied Obama’s plan and concluded that employers will “seek ways to offset the added cost by raising prices (the most unlikely solution in a competitive market), lowering wages, reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits (such as pensions), reducing hiring, laying off current workers, or outsourcing.    It said “the most likely outcome will be greater unemployment for workers whose lack of skills does not justify the increased cost.”   

Obama also would substantially increase regulation of the insurance industry.   In my view, more government regulations will only drive up the cost of health care for everyone.  Government regulations are responsible for many of the problems we are experiencing today, so why would we want more government regulation?   

Unlike Obama, McCain would rely on the free market to solve the problems in our current health care system.   McCain would change the tax code to level the playing field and treat everyone alike.  He would move away from our current employment-based system to a system where every individual would purchase and own his or her own insurance and would get a $5,000 credit (for families) or a $2,500 credit (for individuals) to be applied against taxes owed.   In exchange for the tax credits, employees who receive health insurance through their employers would be taxed on the value of their health insurance benefit.   Most people with employer-provided insurance would come out ahead under McCain’s plan.   Here is the way it was explained in the November 2008 issue of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance: 

“McCain would change the rules to give everyone a tax break.  If your employer plan now costs $13,000 (about the average for family coverage), counting that amount as taxable income would cost you $3,250 in additional federal taxes.  But families would get a refundable $5,000 tax credit ($2,500 for individuals) to help purchase insurance, either through an employer or an individual plan.  The change could encourage more people to buy individual policies, which they could take with them even if they left their job.  And as long as you keep an individual policy, your insurer generally cannot raise your rates because of your health.” 

The McCain plan would provide individuals with more choices and with more job mobility because workers who purchased their own insurance would not need to stay in a job to keep their health insurance.   The McCain plan would also allow people to purchase insurance across state lines.    Rather than adding new regulations, McCain would deregulate the insurance industry in an effort to increase competition.  

The Executive Summary of the Cato Institute’s study of the health care plans proposed by McCain and Obama contained the following conclusion: 

“Senator McCain’s proposal is far from perfect, but from a free-market perspective, it appears superior to Senator Obama’s plan.   Obama’s plan, with its heavy reliance on government, leads to the same problems that bedevil universal health care systems all over the world:  limited patient choices and rationed care.  McCain’s proposal is much more consumer centered and taps into the best aspects of the free market.” 

Health care experts Robert Moffit and Nina Owcharenko reached similar conclusions after analyzing the Obama and McCain plans for the Heritage Foundation.  They said Obama’s plan would concentrate health care decision-making in Washington and “would likely precipitate a rapid evolution toward a federal monopoly over the health care sector.”    Moffit and Owcharenko said Obama’s top-down plan would result in a "standardized federal health benefits structure, a massive expansion of federal regulatory authority over health insurance, and an enlargement of federal regulatory power over health care delivery."   In contrast, they said McCain’s plan “is underscored by a principled commitment to personal freedom” because it “would advance greater personal choice and control in the health care system.”

As I see it, the Obama plan would be best for those of you who are willing to turn more responsibility for your health care over to the government.  I think the McCain plan would be best for those of you who want to retain maximum personal responsibility for your own health care and who want more choices and greater portability for your health insurance coverage.   For me, I strongly prefer the McCain approach. 

Dueling Tax Philosophies

There is a stark contrast between the tax plans being proposed by John McCain and Barak Obama.    There is no need for me to go into the details of each candidate’s tax plans.   If you are interested in the details, go to the campaign website for each candidate.  Links to the campaign websites are available on the right side of this page.    

McCain says he does not want to raise anyone’s taxes.   Obama says he will raise taxes only on the richest Americans and that 95% of “working families” will actually receive tax cuts under his plan.  Obama believes the richest Americans are not currently paying their fair share of taxes and should pay more. 

I would like to address four questions relating to taxes.   First, what should be the purpose and philosophy behind the federal government’s tax policies?    Second, what is the likely effect of implementing the different tax policies proposed by the two candidates.   Third, are the richest Americans currently paying less than their fair share of the total tax burden?    Fourth, will 95% of “working families” receive tax cuts under Obama’s plan as he claims?  

What should be the purpose and philosophy behind the federal government’s tax policies? 

The purpose of taxation in my opinion should be to provide the government with the income it needs to perform essential government services in a manner that is fair to all citizens and in a manner that promotes rather than stifles economic growth.  I do not have a problem with progressive tax rates, which we have today, under which higher levels of income are taxed at higher rates.   I do not agree, however, that fairness requires the use of taxes to redistribute income from those who have earned it to those who have not.   I strongly disagree with Obama’s philosophy, as articulated to the now famous Joe the Plumber, that tax policies should be designed to “spread the wealth around”. 

What is the likely effect of implementing the different tax policies proposed by McCain and Obama? 

The government’s tax policies can have the effect of stimulating the economy and encouraging growth, which benefits everyone, or of discouraging the savings and investment that is necessary for businesses to grow and for new jobs to be created.

In my opinion, Obama’s proposed tax increases on the richest Americans would substantially weaken an already weak economy.   If Obama becomes President and imposes an even heavier burden on the “rich,” I believe the “rich” will find ways to ease the burden, and the result will be less overall government revenue.   Moreover, there is an abundance of historical evidence to the effect that increased taxes result in less money available for investment and job creation whereas reduced taxes stimulate the economy and lead to increased government revenue.  Do you think you can reduce the incentives for people to work hard, invest, and create jobs without affecting hard work, investment, and job creation?    I don’t.    For me, I would rather let the “rich” keep their money and invest it than require them to send even more of their money to the government.  If you want more of something, like investment and job creation, you tax it less.  If you want less of something, you tax it more.  It’s as simple as that. 

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (the “CDA”) conducted an economic analysis of the tax policies proposed by McCain and Obama.  The Heritage experts made the following conclusions after comparing the plans proposed by McCain and Obama: 

(1)    More jobs will be created under the McCain plan than under the Obama plan.  The CDA concluded that job growth over a ten-year period would be more than twice as high under McCain's plan than under Obama's.  It estimated that total annual employment would grow an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2,126,000 under McCain. 

(2)    Overall economic activity will be more vigorous under McCain's plan.  The CDA concluded that McCain's plan would yield consistently higher forecasts of economic output than Obama's.  Increases in gross domestic product would be nearly three times higher, on average, under McCain’s plan than under Obama’s. 

(3)    There would be more after-tax spending potential under McCain’s plan than under Obama’s.   Using the same model to evaluate both plans, the CDA analysis showed that a family of four would have an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain's plan, and $3,631 more under Obama's. 

If you think the primary objective of tax policies should be fairness and redistribution of wealth, then the Heritage Foundation’s conclusions will not be important to you.   If you think the primary objective of tax policies should be economic progress, then the Heritage Foundation’s conclusions are probably consistent with your common sense. 

Are the richest Americans currently paying less than their fair share of the total tax burden?  

Obama and his fellow Democrats want you to believe that the Bush tax cuts in the early part of this decade favored the rich and that the rich are not currently paying their fair share of the total tax burden.    Let’s take a look at the facts and then you can draw your own conclusions.   The facts are that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006 (the highest share in the last 40 years), the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes, and the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes.   The rich, of course, paid more taxes because they earned more income.  The top 1%, for example, earned 22% of the income but paid 40% of the taxes.   The bottom 50% earned 12% of the income but paid only 3% of the taxes.  

According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2008, the average combined rate of federal income, payroll, and estate taxes will be 1.1% for the lowest 20% of the income distribution, 15.1% for the middle 20% of income distribution, and 26.2% for the highest 20%.   The Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2008 the top 20% of income earners will pay 87.5% of all income taxes and 39.9% of all payroll taxes.   These figures, of course, do not reflect the tax increases being proposed by Obama.  

If you examine the facts, it is clear that we already have a steeply progressive tax code without the new taxes that Obama wants to impose on the rich.   Do you think the top 1% of taxpayers should pay more than 40% of all income taxes or that the top 20% should pay more that 87.5% of all income taxes?  What is your definition of fairness?    Where would you draw the line? 

In discussing taxes, it is important to recognize the difference between income taxes and payroll taxes.    Income taxes are designed to provide the government with the revenue that it needs to operate.    Payroll taxes represent a mandatory retirement savings plan—the Social Security system—administered by the government.    The philosophy behind payroll taxes is that you pay money into the system while you are working and receive Social Security benefits when you retire.  The amount of your Social Security benefits upon retirement is based upon the amount that you paid into the system while you were working.   Obama has proposed an additional payroll tax on individuals with annual income above $250,000 to help fund the government’s Social Security obligations.  He has not said, however, whether additional benefits would be paid to these individuals upon their retirement.  As discussed below, Obama also has proposed to send checks in the form of “refundable tax credits” to people who pay payroll taxes but have no income tax liability.   These individuals presumably would not receive reduced Social Security benefits upon retirement.   In short, Obama’s plan would fundamentally change the philosophy that has governed the Social Security system since it was created in 1935.   

Will 95% of “working families” receive tax cuts under Obama’s plan as he claims?  

The short answer is no.   Obama’s claim that 95% of  “working families” will receive a tax cut under his plan is misleading and dishonest.     For starters, approximately 40% of the citizens who file income tax returns are not paying any federal income taxes under the current system.   How do you give a tax cut to someone who does not pay income taxes?   Obama would give “refundable tax credits” to people who pay no income taxes.   He refers to these “refundable tax credits” as tax cuts.  A “refundable tax credit” is a transfer of money from someone who is paying taxes to someone who is not.   

In an editorial dated October 13, 2008, The Wall Street Journal described a “refundable tax credit” as “Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability.  In other words, they are an income transfer—a federal check—from taxpayers to nontaxpayers.  Once upon a time we called this ‘welfare’…  Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.” 

I have two problems with Obama’s plan to send government checks to people who do not pay income taxes.   The first is that Obama is being deceptive by promising “tax cuts” to people who don’t pay income taxes.   In reality, the tax cuts described by Obama are not tax cuts but are part of his plan to use the tax code to “spread the wealth around.”   I would be more sympathic to Obama’s plan if he would be honest about it rather than trying to fool the American people.   My second problem is that I do not believe Obama’s plan will work for the reasons outlined in a column written by Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore and published in The Wall Street Journal dated September 15, 2008.   After summarizing their study of Census Bureau data on income and poverty, Mr. Laffer and Mr. Moore reached the following conclusion:  

“Taking from the rich through much higher taxes in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice.   Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group……  We suspect that Mr. Obama will discover that when you put ‘tax fairness’ ahead of economic progress, you produce neither.” 

The Bottom Line 

Here is what worries me the most about Obama’s tax plans.  We already have a system under which approximately 40% of the citizens who file income tax returns are not paying any income taxes.   Under Obama’s tax plans, this percentage will increase and, in addition, many of those who do not pay income taxes will receive a check from the government.  You can call this check whatever you want—a rebate, a refundable tax credit, a subsidy, welfare or any other label you prefer.   Regardless of the label, we are rapidly approaching the point where the majority of the voters in this country will not pay income taxes, and many of them will receive a check from the government instead of sending a check to the government.  

As George Bernard Shaw once said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”   We will soon have more “Pauls” than “Peters.”    How long do you think a system like this can survive?    It may survive for my lifetime, but I don’t see how it can survive for the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren.   Maybe you don’t care, but I do.  I love this country, despite all its faults, and I hope and pray that it will continue to prosper as a beacon of freedom in the world.   Votes have consequences.   Your vote in this election could well determine the future of the United States of America.    

Another Gift From Joe

For the second time in less than a week, John McCain’s floundering campaign received a gift yesterday from a guy named Joe.   This time the gift came from Joe Biden, Barak Obama’s running mate, instead of from Joe the Plumber, who asked the question to Obama that produced last week’s gift. 

Here is what Joe Biden had to say at a fund-raising function Sunday night: 

"Mark my words.  It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.  The world is looking.  We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator President of the United States of America.   Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said.  Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.   I promise you it will occur.  As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going happen.   I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate."

After realizing what he had said, Biden, who has a reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, added, "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here."  Notice he didn’t say the statement was wrong—only that he shouldn’t have made the statement in the presence of the news media.

As you may recall, Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate because he is a foreign policy expert and has extensive knowledge and experience in international affairs.   So here we have Obama’s running mate and foreign policy expert guaranteeing the American public that we will have a major international crisis if Obama is elected President because the bad guys will want to test Obama’s mettle.   If Biden is the foreign policy expert that Obama and his supporters claim that he is, then we need to take his prediction seriously.   With the guarantee of an international crisis, are we supposed to vote for Obama with the hope that he will rise to the occasion?    Does it occur to you that it might be best to avoid the need for a guaranteed international crisis by electing a President who would not need to be tested because the bad guys would know how he would react?    Think about it before you cast your vote.

If a Republican had made Biden’s comment, he or she would have been crucified by the news media and by the members of the Obama campaign.    Because the comment was made by Biden, the media will probably pay little attention to it.

McCain and Biden have both talked on numerous occasions about their long-term friendship and respect for each other.    It appears to me that the Vice Presidential candidate who is helping McCain the most is Joe Biden.    Perhaps their friendship is genuine after all.   

The Current Federal Tax Code

Our current federal tax laws are a national disgrace.    The federal tax code and the accompanying regulations consist of some 67,500 pages.   Billions of dollars are spent each year by businesses and individuals who are required to employ lawyers, accountants and other tax experts to help them comply with the ever-changing tax laws.    Politicians for years have run for office on the promise they would simplify the tax code, but each year the tax laws get longer and more complicated.  

Our federal tax laws are so complicated that even tax experts cannot comply with them.   Numerous studies have shown that different tax experts come up with different answers to common tax questions.   The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, an independent oversight arm of the Internal Revenue Service, recently conducted a study and found that nearly two out of three commercial tax preparers who are not registered with the IRS—the majority of all tax preparers—failed to fill out accurate federal returns for their clients. 

Our tax laws are overly complicated for a simple reason.  Politicians use the tax laws as a tool to reward their favorite constituents by giving them special tax breaks.   The favorite constituents are usually those who make the largest contributions to the politicians.   It is legalized bribery.  A lobbyist for a special interest group gives money to a politician who in turn sponsors legislation to give tax breaks to the interest group. 

Although we live in a society that frowns on almost any type of discrimination, we have been willing for years to tolerate tax laws that are full of provisions specifically designed to discriminate in favor of one group of taxpayers and against another group of taxpayers.   A taxpayer who owns his own home, for example, gets to deduct the interest paid on his or her mortgage whereas a taxpayer who cannot afford to own a home, or who does not wish to own a home, does not get a corresponding tax break for the rent he or she pays to lease a home.    Another example relates to health insurance.    A taxpayer who receives health insurance as a benefit of employment generally does not have to pay taxes on the value of the health insurance benefit.    On the other hand, taxpayers who are unemployed or retired or do not have employer-provided health insurance are required to pay for their own health insurance with after-tax dollars. 

The tax laws are frequently used to benefit a very narrow class of taxpayers.   The class may be so narrow that it includes only one taxpayer.   A splendid example occurred when Congress recently approved the highly publicized $700 billion bailout—excuse me rescue—package in an effort to alleviate the financial crisis facing the country.    In order to get the votes necessary to approve the bailout package, a number of special provisions were inserted at the request of various lawmakers.    One such provision granted an exemption from a federal excise tax on children’s wooden arrows manufactured by a company in Myrtle Point, Oregon called Rose City Archery.     

In my opinion, the existing tax laws need to be abolished in their entirety, and we need to start all over with a new simplified and much fairer tax system.   Many alternative tax systems have been proposed, including the fair tax, a flat tax, a consumption tax, and a national sales tax.   I have not studied these alternative systems enough to have an intelligent opinion regarding which one would be best.    All I know for sure is that an entirely new system is desperately needed.   I also know that politicians would lose a lot of power—and a lot of campaign contributions—if they gave up their ability to grant special tax breaks to favored individuals or groups. 

Unfortunately, neither John McCain nor Barak Obama has promised to overhaul the current tax system if elected President.    McCain has promised a simpler and fairer tax system without being very specific about what he means.   Obama has also promised a fairer tax system by which he means more of the same with new and different tax breaks for the groups that he favors.   I would prefer a candidate who would agree to abolish the current system in its entirety and implement a new system that would eliminate the ability of politicians to use the tax laws to reward some citizens and punish others. 

When I filed my last federal tax returns this past spring, I wrote separate but identical letters to the two U.S. Senators from Georgia and to the Congressman who represents the district where I live.   Here is what my letter said: 

Dear _________________:   

Happy Tax Day.    As I write this letter, I am wondering if you are working hard to complete your tax returns in order to meet today’s deadline.   My guess is that you are not.   I suspect there are few, if any, members of Congress who prepare their own tax returns.   I further suspect that few members of Congress are even capable of doing so. 

I have read that our tax code now consists of 67,500 pages, and it is continuing to grow.  This is outrageous.   This is absurd.   This is ridiculous.    

After spending many hours working on my own tax returns, I finally reached the point where it was time for me to calculate my tax liability.   I am enclosing a copy of the tax liability worksheet.    After completing this worksheet, I then had to start all over and do another calculation in order to comply with the rules for the alternative minimum tax.    I am enclosing a copy of Form 6251, which is required for this purpose.  My guess is that most members of Congress have never even read the tax liability worksheet or Form 6251.  This is why I am sending copies of these forms to you.  Please study these forms and give me your opinion regarding how many members of Congress could complete them without assistance. 

Our tax system is a disgrace.   Because you are [one of my representatives in the United States Senate] [my representative], I am requesting that you do something to simplify our tax system.     Here is my proposal.   Start by introducing legislation (i) requiring all members of Congress to prepare their own tax returns and to certify under penalty of perjury that they have done so, and (ii) imposing penalties, including imprisonment, upon any member of Congress who makes a mistake in preparing his or her returns.        

Sincerely, Walter M. Grant                                                          

 

Joe the Plumber

Are you as disturbed as I am about the relentless attacks on Joe the Plumber by supporters of Barak Obama and his cheerleaders in the news media? 

Joe the Plumber is a regular guy named Joe Wurzelbacher from Toledo, Ohio.   Joe recently met Obama during an Obama campaign trip to Toledo and asked him an innocent and perfectly legitimate question about his tax proposals.   Obama responded to Joe by committing one of the few mistakes during his carefully orchestrated campaign.   Obama defended his tax proposals by saying they would “spread the wealth around.”     By his answer, Obama revealed himself to be the socialist that he is—someone who wants to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not.   You may or may not agree with Obama’s philosophy, but at least it is now out in the open. 

In order to deflect attention from Obama’s gaffe, his supporters and the news media have gone on the attack.   They have attacked poor Joe for being an unlicensed plumber, even though Joe believes he is not required to have a license because his employer is licensed.   They have attacked Joe for having an unpaid tax lien, even though the same people didn’t have a problem when Congressman Charles Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was recently revealed to owe a substantial amount in back taxes.    Joe is being attacked as a fool for failing to be smart enough to support Obama’s tax plan, which would benefit him now but penalize him if he is later successful.  There are even reports that members of the news media are reviewing the court records relating to Joe’s divorce in an effort to find some more dirt on Joe.    

Obama himself went on the attack by suggesting that a mere plumber like Joe could not make enough money to be penalized under Obama’s tax plan.   It apparently never occurred to Obama that a mere plumber might oppose his plan on the basis of principle or on the basis of the hope or expectation that he would someday achieve financial success. 

In addition to the attacks on Joe, the McCain campaign has been criticized for failing to investigate Joe.   Spokesmen for the McCain campaign say they never heard of Joe before he asked his question.    All McCain did was highlight Obama’s answer, which in Obama’s mind was McCain’s cardinal sin.    In other words, McCain is guilty for failing to investigate the person who asked the question that Obama answered and by doing so revealed his underlying philosophy, which he has done his best to conceal. 

I don’t know about you, but I feel sorry for Joe.   The poor guy asked a simple but legitimate question, and all of a sudden he has news media satellite trucks parked outside his house.   I was journalism major in college, and I am a former journalist and a former liberal.   In my lifetime, I have never seen anything like the bias currently being demonstrated by the news media.   I hope and pray that my bias was never so obvious when I was a journalist.   My bias may be obvious now, but I am not currently holding myself out as a journalist, and I disclosed my bias during my second post on this blog. 

If McCain wins the Presidency, which is still highly unlikely, all the credit should go to Joe for his question and to Obama’s supporters and the news media for the way they have treated Joe in order to deflect attention from Obama’s answer to Joe’s question.  I believe the average American will be as offended as I am by the attacks on Joe.   If Obama is as smart as I think he is, he will call his supporters and his friends in the news media and tell them to call off the dogs before his chances of being President of the United States go down the tube.  

The Last Presidential Debate

The third and last debate between John McCain and Barak Obama was more interesting that the first two but still left me disappointed.    In my view, the last debate will not change the dynamics in the current race for President of the United States.   Based on the most recent polls, Obama seemed to have an almost insurmountable lead going into the debate, and I do not believe McCain gave voters who were supporting Obama or were leaning toward Obama a strong reason to shift their allegiance.  

I thought McCain was feisty and came on fairly strong during the first half of the debate, but he seemed to lose steam during the last half.    As in the first and second debates, McCain failed to challenge effectively many things that Obama said.    Obama remained calm and cool and unflappable.   As the leader in the race, Obama’s primary goal was to avoid making a major blunder.  I believe he was successful in achieving this goal. 

There is a stark contrast between the policies advocated by McCain and Obama.  Unfortunately, this race is not about the best policies for the future, as it should be.   Instead, the focus of the race is on the current economy and on the personalities of the candidates.   McCain is unfairly getting the blame for the current state of the economy because he is the Republican candidate for President and the current President is a Republican.  It does not matter that the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for the government policies that led to the current economic crisis.  As for personalities, McCain is no match for the oratory skills and charisma of Obama.   Obama is young, clean-cut, smooth, articulate and very cautious.    He made some mistakes during the debates for the Democratic nomination for President, but he learned from those mistakes, and he did not repeat them or make other mistakes during his three debates with McCain. 

Although I do not agree with all of McCain’s policies, I strongly prefer them to those advocated by Obama.   I have been and will continue to use this blog to discuss the dramatic differences between the achievements, voting records, and positions of the two candidates.  If personalities and emotion could be eliminated from the decision-making process, I believe most Americans would support a candidate with McCain’s achievements, voting record and positions over a candidate with Obama’s achievements, voting record and positions.    But this is not the way the political game is played.   The successful candidate is usually the one who looks and talks the best, promises the most, and appeals to your emotions with meaningless slogans.   We live in a “feel good” society, and most Americans will vote for the candidate who makes them feel good even though they may have little knowledge or understanding of the candidate’s achievements or voting record or of the consequences of adopting the positions advocated by the candidate.    In this race, the debates have done little to change this unfortunate dynamic. 

The economic issues facing the country are extremely complex.    Both candidates have made proposals to change existing government policies regarding taxes, health care, education, energy, the environment, spending, and a host of other matters.   The format for the Presidential debates is simply inadequate to allow the candidates to explain their positions and to distinguish their positions from those of their opponent.   These complex matters cannot be discussed in two minutes followed by a minute or so to respond to what the other candidate said.    Generally, the candidates take the brief time allotted to them to mischaracterize their opponent’s positions rather than explain the rationale behind their own.    The net effect is that the viewers who watch the debates—who also happen to be the voters who will determine the outcome of the election—are as uninformed after the debates as they were before.   

Selecting the next President of the United States should not be the same as selecting the winner of a high school or college debate tournament.    We should not select our next President based on looks or personality.    We should view each candidate’s campaign promises with a high degree of suspicion.    As I have said repeatedly, I believe an informed voter should suppress his or her emotions and base his or her decision on each candidate’s experience, voting record, achievements and policies.    

I am not a Howard Stern fan, but he recently conducted random interviews on the street with people who were supporting Obama for President.   The person conducting the interviews described McCain’s positions and attributed them to Obama.   It should not surprise you that the Obama supporters agreed with McCain’s positions after being told they were Obama’s positions.   If you would like to be amused and disillusioned at the same time, click on the link below and then click on the button at the top next to “Press to Play”.    I need to warn you in advance that Howard Stern is known for his profanity, and he uses a four-letter word at the beginning of this audio clip.    I would have deleted the profanity if I had known how to do so. 

http://boomp3.com/listen/c1hbq1ljl_8/stern-2008-10-01cf

The War in Iraq

In my view, the jury is still out on whether the war in Iraq will be judged a success or a failure for the United States. Historians and politicians will be debating the war for many years—perhaps decades. The outcome of the debate will depend on whether Iraq becomes a peaceful democratic society and an ally of the United States or whether it is taken over by terrorists or by another brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein.

There is no doubt the war has been unpopular. It has taken longer than anyone expected, and the cost has been enormous both in terms of dollars and lives lost. Barak Obama has brilliantly used his opposition to the war along with his outstanding oratory skills to propel himself, in a very short period of time, from being a state senator in Illinois to being the Democratic nominee for President of the United States and the likely next President of the United States. Obama’s initial opposition to the war was a major factor in his ability to win the Democratic nomination for President. During the nomination process, he constantly reminded voters that he opposed the war from the outset and that his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, initially supported the war before turning against it, as if this is all the proof we need that Obama is qualified to be our Commander-in-Chief.

There are two things that disturb me about the way most Democrats have conducted themselves during a time of war. First, unlike Obama, most leaders of the Democratic Party initially supported the war, but they have been trying to rewrite history ever since and have used the war as a weapon to gain political support and to undermine the President of the United States. Second, most people (including Obama) who believe the war was a mistake conclude that because it was a mistake we should withdraw our troops and end the war at the earliest possible time. In my view, it is imperative that we win the war even if, in hindsight, it was a mistake.

The comments made by leading Democrats prior to the war have been well documented. In order to save space, I will not repeat those comments here. If you would like to refresh your memory, however, please click on the following link to hear some of the pre-war comments made by leading Democrats in their own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESm6y9F2oII

In my opinion, the conduct of Democrats who initially supported the war but later turned against it has been disgraceful. During a time of war, it is more important than ever for the country to be united. Wars are ugly, and they do not always go well. We now know that the pre-war intelligence was wrong, but most Democrats saw the same intelligence as President Bush and drew the same conclusions. They now accuse the President of the United States of being a liar. It is also clear that there was a lack of planning prior to the war and that many mistakes were made in the conduct of the war. Nevertheless, the Democrats, in my view, have made a bad situation worse by using the problems we have experienced in Iraq to divide the country and discredit our Commander-in-Chief.

Many Democrats now view the war in Iraq as a distraction in the overall global war on terror, even though Osama bin Laden himself referred to Iraq as the “central front” in his efforts to bring down Western Civilization. By their constant criticism of the war, the Democrats not only have damaged the morale of our troops, but they also have made it much more difficult for us to win the war.

The terrorists in Iraq, like terrorists elsewhere, blend in with the general population. They do not identify themselves. They do not wear uniforms. They hide behind innocent women and children. We need the assistance of the Iraqi citizens to help us identify the terrorists and find the weapons they are using to kill innocent people. Can you blame the Iraqi citizens for being afraid to provide assistance to us when the leaders of a major political party in the United States are saying the “war is lost” (Harry Reid), President Bush “betrayed this country” (Al Gore), and we should withdraw our troops and end the war (almost all Democrats including Obama)? With comments like these, it is easy to understand why our country has been so divided and why our troops in Iraq have had so much difficulty gaining the support of the Iraqi people. It is also easy to understand why terrorists would conclude they could control Iraq simply by hanging on for a little longer and waiting for the United States to withdraw its troops.

I am not suggesting that Democrats who had legitimate objections to the way the war was being conducted should have remained silent. In my view, they should have made their objections known in a way that did not divide the country, damage the morale of our troops, and give aide and comfort to the enemy. Instead of constantly being in front of a camera, they should have gone to the Pentagon or the White House or both as many times as necessary for their views to be heard. They chose instead to undermine President Bush in order to gain political advantage. In doing so, they have caused great damage to the country and probably prolonged the war.

If the war was a mistake, does that mean we should admit defeat, withdraw our troops in disgrace, and leave behind a country in chaos? I don’t think so, but this is the strategy that Obama and most of his fellow Democrats have supported. They have wanted to cut off funding for our troops and to demand that our troops be withdrawn by an artificial deadline regardless of the conditions on the ground. With their intense opposition to the war, many Democrats have given me the impression they were rooting for the United States to lose the war in order to prove that President Bush was wrong in starting the war. Democrats argued for a change in strategy, but when Bush proposed the troop surge they opposed it. The only strategy advocated by most Democrats was to bring the troops home. Thankfully, President Bush had the backbone to pursue a new strategy—the troop surge—and the new strategy has clearly been successful. It has substantially reduced the level of violence in Iraq and led the way to political progress among the various factions in Iraq. Conditions in Iraq are still very fragile, but they are better now than at any time since the beginning of the war.

Amazingly, the recent success in Iraq has not changed Obama’s determination to withdraw our troops in accordance with an artificial time schedule. Obama has only reluctantly and indirectly admitted that the surge has been successful and that political progress has been made in Iraq. This past summer, Obama finally visited Iraq for the first time on a “fact finding” mission. In an incredible display of arrogance, however, he announced his policy for Iraq before leaving on his “fact finding” mission and before assessing the current situation there and hearing the recommendations of General Petraeus and other commanders in the field. Because of the success of the surge, Obama is now de-emphasizing Iraq in his speeches. When things were not going well in Iraq, however, Obama talked about Iraq all the time, but he never talked about winning the war. He only talked about ending it. He never talked about the consequences of losing the war. He only talked about ending it.

There are still major differences between McCain and Obama with regard to Iraq. McCain believes that a favorable outcome in Iraq is vital for American strategy in the Middle East and its overall efforts against terrorists. He would give General Petraeus and our other military leaders considerable latitude in determining when to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, advocates an arbitrary 16-month schedule for withdrawing American troops. Obama thinks his deadline would force the Iraqis to overcome their political differences and enable the United States to stabilize Iraq at far lower troop levels. McCain thinks Obama’s deadline would tie the hands of our commanders and undermine the political progress.

In a recent column about Iraq published in The Wall Street Journal, Robert McFarlane, a former National Security Adviser for President Reagan, said, “In short, Sen. Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis—something without lasting consequence.” McFarlane goes on to talk about the consequences of losing a war, including its effect on the “behavior of allies who begin to wonder whether the United States can still muster the means and will to uphold its obligations,” its effect “on the thinking within our military concerning how it was led, restricted, or abused in wartime,” its effect on “our body politic” and political stability, and its effect of discouraging our allies and encouraging our adversaries. McFarlane concluded his column by saying, “Losing is not an option, and no sensible leader should entertain the thought that it is.”

Because of the success of the surge, we now have the opportunity to win the war, to defeat the terrorists who have sought control of Iraq, to fulfill our commitments to the Iraqi people, and to leave behind a democratic, stable and secure government in the Middle East. I believe we will realize this opportunity if McCain is elected President. We may be able to realize this opportunity even if Obama becomes President but only because of the success of the surge that he opposed.