Friday, October 31, 2008

Why A Vote Aganist Obama Is The Right Vote

Obama's federalized medical insurance system starts the transition away from private medical care and toward Obama's endlessly promised "universal health care." This has always been the sine qua non of planting a true, managed-market economy in the U.S.

Obama's refundable tax credits are direct cash transfers from the federal government. This would place some 48% of Americans, nearly half, out of the income tax system. More than a tax proposal, this is a deep philosophical shift, an American version of being "on the dole."

His stated intent to renegotiate free-trade agreements such as Nafta is a philosophical shift. It abandons the tradition of a hyper-competitive America dating back to the Industrial Revolution, toward a protected, domestic workforce, as in Western Europe. The Democratic proposal to eliminate private union votes -- "card check" -- ensures the spread of a static, Euro-style workforce.

Eliminating the ceiling on payroll taxes changes Social Security from an insurance to a welfare program. Obama's tax credits requires performing government-identified activities, the essence of a "directed economy."

All this would transform the animating American idea -- away from creation and toward protection.

From WSJ

Obama Boots Reports off His Plane Because Their Newspapers Endorsed McCain!

3 newspapers endorse McCain; coincidentally, their reporters are dumped from Obama's plane

The Barack Obama for president campaign has kicked off three newspaper reporters its campaign plane.

U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point

From WSJ

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

The political planets are aligned to make this achievable. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, prominent Democrats, European leaders in France and Germany and more U.S. newspaper articles than one can count have said that the crisis proves the need to permanently tame the American "free-market" model. P.O.W. Alan Greenspan is broadcasting confessions. The question is: Are the American people of a mind to throw in the towel on the system that got them here?

This would be a historic shift, one post-Vietnam Democrats have been trying to achieve since their failed fight with Ronald Reagan's "Cowboy Capitalism."

Of course Cowboy Capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. They blew out of New England and New York, rolled across the wildernesses of the Central States, pushed across a tough Western frontier and banged into San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaving in their path city after city of vast wealth.

The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple -- the pursuit of economic growth. Now China, India and Brazil, embracing high-growth Cowboy Capitalism, are doing what we did, only their cities are bigger.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama's Tax To Fund Health Care is a Tax on Employees

From Greg Mankiw:

Most economists agree on these two propositions about tax incidence (covered in Chapter 6 of my favorite textbook):
  1. It does not matter which side of a market you tax. A tax on buyers is the same as a tax on sellers. In particular, a tax on employers is equivalent to a tax on employees.
  2. Because labor demand tends to be more elastic than labor supply, a payroll tax falls largely on employees.

Now consider the Obama health plan. A major element of the plan is an extra payroll tax on firms that do not give their workers health insurance. By the basic theory of tax incidence, this is equivalent to a tax on workers without insurance.

In other words, the Obama plan is much the same as imposing a health insurance mandate, backed up by the penalty of a tax surcharge on your earnings if you fail to have coverage.

Why Health Ins Shoud NOT Be Tied To Employment - McCain Is Right

From WSJ

"The choice you'll have," Mr. Obama warned of the McCain plan during one of the debates, "is having your employer no longer provide you health care." Sounds terrible. But wait, let's consult another one of Mr. Obama's advisers. David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard, put it this way: "Health insurance is not something that is made better by tying it to employment. As a result, essentially all economists believe that universal coverage should be done outside of employment."

That passage comes from Mr. Cutler's 2004 book, "Your Money or Your Life," which outlined a strategy for universal health care. Not surprisingly, Professor Cutler's plan, like Mr. McCain's, also applied subsidies such as "tax credits -- people get a lower tax bill, or a refund from the government, to be used to purchase insurance." In this he was echoing many other liberal health experts such as MIT's Jonathan Gruber, another Democratic policy star.

These advisers know that Mr. Obama's claim that Mr. McCain will tax health benefits "for the first time in history" is particularly disingenuous. For people who stick with employer coverage under the McCain plan, the money employers take out of wages to pay for insurance would be taxed, but the new credit more than covers the bill. The people who decide to buy coverage on their own would see their wages rise. And everyone who joins the individual market -- many of them uninsured now -- would be equipped with new health dollars, instead of paying with after-tax income.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Obama's Government Based Intervention is a Recipe for Disaster

Greg Mankiw analyzes government intervention and the negative effects that prolonged the great depression.

Obama's neo-socialist policies can lead to similar consequences for the current economic malaise.

Unemployment, which had been 3 percent in 1929, rose to 25 percent in 1933. Even during the worst recession since then, in 1982, the United States economy did not experience half that level of unemployment.Policy makers in the 1930s responded vigorously as the situation deteriorated. But like a doctor facing a patient with a new disease and strange symptoms, they often acted in ways that, with the benefit of hindsight, appeared counterproductive.

Less successful were various market interventions. According to a study by the economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, President Roosevelt made things worse when he encouraged the formation of cartels through the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Similarly, they argue, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 strengthened organized labor but weakened the recovery by impeding market forces.

Numbers don't lie. But Obama likes to stretch the truch

Comparison of McCain's & Obama's Tax Policies

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama's Tax Policy & Negative Incentives

Nice straight forward analysis by Prof Greg Mankiw.

Let t1 be the combined income and payroll tax rate, t2 be the corporate tax rate, t3 be the dividend and capital gains tax rate, and t4 be the estate tax rate. And let r be the before-tax rate of return on corporate capital. Then one dollar I earn today will yield my kids:


If there were no taxes, so t1=t2=t3=t4=0, then $1 earned today would yield my kids $28. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

Under the McCain plan, t1=.35, t2=.25, t3=.15, and t4=.15. In this case, a dollar earned today yields my kids $4.81. That is, even under the low-tax McCain plan, my incentive to work is cut by 83 percent compared to the situation without taxes.

Under the Obama plan, t1=.43, t2=.35, t3=.2, and t4=.45. In this case, a dollar earned today yields my kids $1.85. That is, Obama's proposed tax hikes reduce my incentive to work by 62 percent compared to the McCain plan and by 93 percent compared to the no-tax scenario. In a sense, putting the various pieces of the tax system together, I would be facing a marginal tax rate of 93 percent.

The bottom line: If you are one of those people out there trying to induce me to do some work for you, there is a good chance I will turn you down. And the likelihood will go up after President Obama puts his tax plan in place. I expect to spend more time playing with my kids. They will be poorer when they grow up, but perhaps they will have a few more happy memories.

Monday, October 27, 2008

McCain's Health care plan will increase the number of insured by 15 million!

From WSJ

What is striking about this picture -- and contradicts Mr. Obama's public comments -- is that the McCain tax credit for the purchase of health insurance exceeds the value of the current exclusion for all income levels shown. Indeed, it generally provides more resources to purchase health insurance than the existing exclusion. The total subsidy for health care would rise from about $3.6 trillion over 10 years today to roughly $5 trillion under his proposal.

How large an effect does this proposal have on the number of uninsured? Based on estimates by career economists in the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis of similar proposals discussed in the Washington Beltway several years ago, the McCain health-care tax credit can be expected to increase the number of insured by 15 million and probably more. The Lewin Group, a respected private health-care research outfit, recently estimated that the McCain credit would increase the number of insured by as much as 21 million. It is true that many may no longer get their insurance through their employer, but they will be given the resources to purchase insurance on their own.

Will the insurance that is purchased be a generous plan with first dollar coverage or low deductibles? It is much more likely to be a plan with higher deductibles that is more focused on providing true insurance against catastrophic losses rather than a more generous plan that includes a lot of prepayment for routine and predictable medical expenses. But this is precisely one of the objectives of the policy: to reduce the current tax bias that encourages people to funnel routine health expenses through insurance policies.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Obama's Soul mate Barney Frank Wants to Dictate Wall Street Salaries

If Obama is going to act like Barney Frank, then frankly we are in a heap of trouble.

According to Bloomberg:

Chairman Barney Frank said there should be a freeze on Wall Street bonuses until companies find a way to keep the year-end payouts from encouraging excessive risk-taking.

``There should be a moratorium on bonuses,'' Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told reporters yesterday in Washington. ``They have a negative incentive effect because they are the ones that say if you take a risk and it pays off you get a big bonus,'' and if it causes losses ``you don't lose anything.''

This shows how politicians are ignorant of the facts and fail to understand the root causes of the current crisis. Did bonuses really cause the excessive risk taking?

If this is an example of the big government approch of an Obama admin then the US economy is in trouble

Friday, October 24, 2008

Dripping Toward Socialism - Obama Style

From Michael Boskin:

Capitalism has been history's greatest force for wealth creation, economic opportunity and improvement in the human condition. It doesn't come with guarantees against busts as well as booms, although better policy can limit the swings. For those who think the current financial crisis is primarily due to our limited government, consider that mixed economies with a bigger government presence, such as the U.K. and France, have their own burst housing bubbles and recessions. The Japanese government's micromanagement of its financial system didn't prevent a financial crisis at the end of its real-estate bubble.

We still have a tremendously productive labor force, great technology, and lots of tangible capital. The economy will return to health, to paraphrase the Founding Fathers, if we can keep our economic system largely intact. That's the vision, judgment and backbone we need in the next president as he navigates these difficult times.

A Litnay of Obama's Unbridled Spending

Here are some great reasons why Obama is bad for the economy.

For example, the Obama tax plan calls for large tax increases, including raising rates on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%. This will make it harder for financial firms to raise private capital, and force greater reliance on public capital. Worse, his refundable tax credits will raise the share of those making no contribution to the funding of general government to 48% from 38%, hastening, perhaps cementing, the unhealthy budgetary dynamic of a majority of voters receiving more in public payments than they pay in taxes.

While Mr. McCain proposes serious spending control, achieving it would not be easy. Mr. Obama says he'll go through the budget line by line, yet proposes large increases in social spending, paid for by an assumed Iraq peace dividend. President Clinton decreased military spending rapidly (38% as a percentage of GDP), leaving major holes in our military. It's still a dangerous world; we should not repeat that mistake. Mr. Obama's Social Security proposal is to turn to taxes first and rule out even a small increase in retirement age, no matter how much life expectancy increases.

Saying he is not a protectionist is not enough; nor is saying he is cutting taxes by counting spending increases as tax cuts. He could help financial markets and the economy by pledging to delay any tax hikes until the economy is healthy and to veto any additional ones from Congress.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A Perfect Economic Storm Will Sink an Obama Administration

From Michael Boskin:

The current situation was created by a perfect storm of mutually reinforcing trends and policy mistakes: loose monetary policy (years of negative real interest rates in a growing economy); socially engineered housing policy (the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, HUD's no-money-down mortgages); the rapid growth of leverage, opaque and technically deficient derivatives, and the shadow banking system; fragmented regulation, lax diligence, poor governance, fraud; and an oil price shock. The result: a housing bubble bursting into recession.

Unfortunately, the same political forces that socially engineered a disastrous mortgage market now have other industries in their sights: pharmaceuticals, health care, energy. Barack Obama enthusiastically endorses such policies; John McCain less so. The big risks are higher taxes, protectionism, regulatory micromanagement, vast new spending, subsidies and mandates. Recall that the stock market crash of 1929, and the ensuing recession, were turned into the Great Depression by tax increases and protectionism (and bad monetary policy).

Obama & Democrats Will Spend First and Ask Questions Later

From the WSJ

On Tuesday Senator Obama said this spending would create millions of new jobs by closing a federal "investment deficit." Over the past eight years the federal budget has exploded by more than $1.1 trillion, much of it for the very programs that Democrats want to spend more on. Let's start with infrastructure. Three years ago Congress passed a transportation bill of more than $286 billion. The transportation budget is up 22% after inflation in the past eight years. Roads and bridges can help economic growth if they increase productivity by more than the amount they cost in higher taxes or borrowing. But not if they are bridges to nowhere as so many of these projects are.

How about aid to local communities? That spending has soared by 91% after inflation in eight years. The education budget is up 57%. Welfare programs are up 30%. Only two years ago Democrats were calling the Tom DeLay Republicans spendthrift. Now they say there's an "Federal budget deficits are not something we obsess about, but eventually this new spending has to be paid for, and Barney Frank's comments only underscore that big tax increases are coming.

The prospect of these tax increases is now hanging over the economy like a pall, as investors and businesses wonder where and how heavily an Obama Administration and Congress would strike. The pall is likely to continue well into 2009, as millions of Americans delay their investment decisions until they know how much their after-tax returns are likely to fall.investment deficit."

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Most Liberal President + Legislative Super Majority = Big Government Spending

From WSJ:

Unlike FDR, Mr. Obama will not have to create the mechanisms government uses to interfere with the economy before imposing his policies. FDR had to get the Supreme Court to overturn a century's worth of precedents limiting the power of government before he could use the Constitution's commerce clause, among other things, to increase government control of the economy. Mr. Obama will have no such problem.

FDR also had to create agencies to implement regulations. Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board (both created in the 1930s) as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and others created later are in place. Increasing their power will be easier than creating them from scratch.

Even before the current crisis, there was a great demand for increased government regulation to limit global warming. That gives the next president a ready-made box in which to place more regulation, and a legion of supports eager for it.

But if the coming wave of new regulation from an Obama administration is harmful to the economy, Mr. Obama will take a page from FDR's playbook. He'll blame Republicans for having caused the market crash in the first place, and so escape blame for the consequences of his policies. It worked for FDR and, so far in this campaign, blaming Republicans and George W. Bush has worked for Mr. Obama.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

How Obama Would Stifle Drug Innovation

From Dr. Scott Dr. Gottlieb, a practicing physician and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Pfizer recently said it's exiting the development of drugs for common conditions like heart disease. This is part of a shift underway in the pharmaceutical industry to give up on routine medical problems in favor of discovering "specialty" drugs for rare diseases and unmet medical needs like cancer.

The shift is driven in part by the industry's critics in Washington, who have long maligned drug companies for targeting too many routine medical problems with drugs that were "merely" tweaks on existing medicines. Now these same detractors, led by House Democrats, are proposing controls on access to and eventually pricing of the specialty drugs as well. Under a Barack Obama presidency, this is one way they'll pay for the candidate's plan to create a Medicare-like program for the under-65 crowd. These new controls -- based on a view of medical care as a commodity to be purchased at the lowest price, with little allowance for innovation -- could push drug development over a tipping point.

Mr. Obama's policies on drug access and his party's plans to control pricing will distort the financial incentives that inspire innovations. This will shortchange the contributions innovations provide.

Liberal Super Majority - Oh God. God Bless America

From WSJ:

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

An Obama Presidency Would Tank The Economy

From Jeremy Grantham, Chief Investment Strategist, GMO:

In the fourth year of a presidential cycle, where you have a lame-duck president, the typical pattern of S&P 500 performance has been something like 10% below the normal long-term average (a 5.2% gain, inflation-adjusted), and worse if it is an overpriced market. A first year is never very pleasant: They average about 3% below normal. If they are overpriced, they do four points worse than that.

But if the party in power changes, first years tend to be eight points below normal. The following year is ugly, too. The average year two, since 1932, has been 10 points below normal and, if the market is overpriced, 15 points below normal. This is unpleasant. By a nice coincidence, those averages suggest the market will decline to 1100 in 2010, which is exactly the number we get to from a completely different technique—building it from the grass roots through fundamental value. We do that by taking average corporate-profit margins, actually a generous average, assigning a normal market price/earnings ratio, and that gives you 1100 in 2010. This year, next year and the year after will all be uncomfortable years. One of them might be up, but my guess is it won't be up by much.

If the us economy is going to be in a recession for 2-3 yrs why elect Obama?

There is a growing consensus that we are going to be in prolonged recession lasting at least 2 to 3 years.

There is a also a school of thought that government meddling in the natural cycle of the economy has precipitated this current economic malaise beginning with the dot com bubble.

So if less government is best and we are going to have a recession, of what incremental value would an Obama administration add?

Obama's current fiscal policies will only worsen the the recession.

Friday, October 17, 2008

The Financial Mess & How We Got There

Nice explanation from Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone:

It’s a perfect storm. It started with Congress encouraging lending to lower-income people. You went from subprime loans being 2% of total loans in 2002 to 30% of total loans in 2006. That kind of enormous increase swept into the net people who shouldn’t have been borrowing.

Those loans were packaged into CDOs rated AAA, which led the investment-banking firms [buying them] to do little to no due diligence, and the securities were distributed throughout the world, where they started defaulting.

When they started defaulting, out of bad luck or bad judgment, we implemented fair value accounting….You had wildly different marks for this kind of security, which led to massive write-offs by the commercial banking and investment-banking system.

In the face of those losses…you needed to raise new equity…which came from sovereign-wealth funds in part, which then caused political resistance to sovereign-wealth funds, who predictably have withdrawn from putting money into the system….It seemed pretty obvious that would happen. We now find ourselves with a liquidity crisis where fundamentally the cost of money for financial intermediaries [such as investment banks] is significantly in excess of their cost of lending it. So several institutions found themselves in a structurally impossible position. We had a series of bankruptcies, whether Bear Stearns or Lehman, or forced sales like Merrill. Goldman reverted to a banking charter for a lower cost of funds, which today is still not low enough for the business.

So that’s the story of how we got there.

Obama's Tax Plan is a Wealth Transfer Scheme

From the WSJ:

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is 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," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Obama Loves Ethanol Even If It Creates More CO2 Than Pumping Oil

Why would Obama spport subsidies of corn based ethanol?

Why else, the color of green money from agri business lobby!

Obama's 95% Tax Cut Illusion

The WSJ does a great job calling Obama's tax cut bluff.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

seven such credits for individuals:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

A Democratic Legislature, Obama As President - Hell May Freeze Over

From the WSJ:

Barring divine intervention, a President Obama would not have a Republican Congress to worry about. Instead, he would be working with a Democratic speaker of the House who loaded billions in pork onto a bill meant to fund our troops; with a Democratic Senate majority leader who promised to change the way Congress spent but fought earmark reform; and with committee leaders such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who did so much to bring us the financial implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In this kind of Washington, the American taxpayer could use a Gary Cooper: the "High Noon" lawman willing to stand up for us when everyone else is ducking for cover. Marshal McCain, anyone?

Why Obama's Public Option Healthcare Plan is Not a Good Idea

From WSJ:

The Obama plan is all about expanding government health care. Mr. Obama is proposing a "public option" that is similar to Medicare but open to everyone of any age. With this new taxpayer-funded entitlement, private insurers would be crowded out as the government gradually paid all of the country's health-care costs.

Yet according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid already takes up 4% of GDP today and will rise to an unsustainable 9% over the next two decades. Mr. Obama wants to add even more costs to this taxpayer balance sheet. The inevitable result as spending explodes would be price controls and rationing.

On choice, portability, quality and especially equity, the McCain health plan is far superior to Mr. Obama's. The Democrat is merely offering Canada on the installment plan.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Why McCain's $5,000 Tax Credit for Health Insurance Is Better

Good explanation from the WSJ:

He would offer a refundable tax credit of $5,000 for families, $2,500 for individuals, and the benefit isn't dependent on where people work or what they earn. Some would stick with their current job-based coverage. Given the option, others -- especially the uninsured, armed with new health dollars -- would decide to buy coverage on their own. That in turn would stimulate a market for more affordable insurance.

Mr. Obama doesn't want to let people make this choice. He even claims it would amount to "taxing your health-care benefits for the first time in history," which is a wild distortion. His point seems to be that because companies wouldn't have to pay for health care, they could raise wages and thus taxes would also increase for workers on those higher incomes. But doesn't Mr. Obama want higher wages?

All in all, workers would come out ahead with the McCain plan. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the average taxpayer would see his tax bill drop by $1,241 in 2009. On average, lower-wage workers have more limited coverage as part of their compensation, mostly from small- or medium-size businesses. But the more generous the employer health plan, the more the tax subsidies increase. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the current employer benefit is only worth between $600 and $3,000 for people making under $100,000. The upper-income brackets save between $4,000 and $5,000.

The most affluent -- i.e., the top quintile of earners -- would be slightly worse off after 2013 under the McCain plan, though they'd still have plenty of options. Even as he routinely promises to raise taxes on "the rich," Mr. Obama is leaping to their unlikely defense here only to frighten everyone else. The McCain plan is fairer than the status quo, which subsidizes the most expensive employer (and union) insurance plans.

But don't take our word for it. Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser agrees with the McCain critique of the current system, or at least he once did. "This massive program of tax breaks is ineffective and regressive, wasting money on those who have health insurance while doing little for those who can barely afford it and nothing at all for those without it," wrote Jason Furman in 2006 in the journal Democracy. Before he joined the Obama campaign, Mr. Furman championed a health reform that relied on many of the same tax tools as Mr. McCain's.

Obama's Government Sponsored Healthcare Programs will Decrease Medical Innovation

Greg Mankiw said 'Our health care system is not perfect, but it has been a major source of advances in our standard of living, and it will be a large share of the economy we bequeath to our children.'

The advances comes form the private market satisfying consumer needs by creating compelling value in the marketplace. Big government can't replicate this.

Obama's government run healtcare policies will decrease the motivation for private companies to innovate. This is a huge opportunity cost to the American taxpayer.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Myth: 47 Million Americans Do Not Have Health Insurance

Basic misconception about the number of Americans who are not insured.

From Greg Mankiw:

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

Most of The Uninsured Can Afford Health Insurance

Obama would mandate healtcare coverage using the stick approach. Unnecessarily covering people who don't want to be covered and increasing the cost to taxpayers by establishing another inefficient bureaucracy like Medicare and Medicade.

McCain would provide you with an carrot, a $5000 tax credit, IF you choose to buy insurance.

Here is the research behind the affordability of the uninsured.

The authors first look at what people can "afford," based on whether household income is above or below the federal poverty line (or some multiple of the poverty line), adjusting reported income for differences between insured and uninsured adults attributable to employer premium payments for health insurance. They find that the insurance-adjusted poverty rate for adults aged 25-64 in 2000 was 10.5 percent; on that basis, health insurance is unaffordable for 10.5 percent of adults aged 25-64. For the whole sample, using the poverty line as a benchmark, 71 percent of the currently uninsured population could afford health insurance coverage. Increasing the definition of affordability to family income exceeding three times the poverty threshold, the proportion of "uninsured afforders" declines to 28 percent.

Bundorf and Pauly also present a number of estimates defining affordability thresholds according to the proportion of individuals with similar characteristics who purchase insurance. Using a definition of health insurance as affordable if the majority of people in similar circumstances purchase coverage, the authors find that health coverage was affordable to between 59 and 66 percent of the insured, depending on the characteristics used to define individuals as similar. Using the threshold that 80 percent of similar households purchase insurance, they find that around 25 percent of the uninsured could afford coverage based on peer comparisons.

Thus, the researchers conclude that the affordability of health insurance, measured in various ways, is not a particularly accurate predictor of whether a person will obtain coverage. It is certainly not the only explanation of observed patterns of insurance coverage. The broad picture that emerges from the authors' tests is that between 25 percent and 75 percent of people who do not purchase coverage could afford to do so. This provides a clearer framework for policy decisions and for prioritizing where public assistance is required.

Why Consumer Driven Healthcare decision Is Better Than Government Based Ones

There is a fundamental difference between Obama's McCain's Healthcare plans. McCain uses proven economic fundamentals as his basis for his policies: The consumer or taxpayer is best able to determine what level of healthcare insurance they need. Not some government bureaucrat!

From The American:

One economically smart policy option that has been gaining traction in the last few years is “consumer-driven” healthcare, which channels health money into the hands of patients and then requires them to make correspondingly higher copayments. The economic principle is that a system of low copays, in which most of the cost is detached from how much care the patient uses, has encouraged patients to consume more care than they actually need. With higher fees, coming from their own pockets, patients will be less likely to over-consume care—and the system as a whole will function more efficiently.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Think Twice About Obama's Healthcare Plans

Obama does not explain how he plans to pay for the huge increases in the cost of his Healthcare plan.

From NRO:

The Obama plan would also create new subsidies to cover the uninsured and help people facing high health costs. That, and the fact that we can’t expect to see savings in the health sector that approach the promises made by the campaign, will unavoidably mean higher taxes. The Senator would increase the top two income tax brackets, raise the top capital gains tax rate, raise the top dividends tax rate, increase payroll taxes, and bring back the estate tax. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, those proposed tax increases would yield an additional $600 billion in revenue — but only over the next decade. That is not a great deal of new money for a major expansion of health programs (much less for one costing several hundred billion a year) and other initiatives supported by the candidate.

Sen. Obama’s plan will ensure that someone writes a check to cover the high cost of your health care. But that someone will probably be you.

Will Obama Keep His Promises - Of Course Silly!

From WSJ:

And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Do We Really Want To Elect The First Victim-In-Chief?

The Obama campaign has been labeling McCain a bigot and accusing McCain of playing the race card.

Is that the sign of an agent of change and hope? It seems like a desperation measure.

From Kevin Ferris:

Department. Never mind those indictments and jail terms.

But by calling McCain a bigot, what signals is the Obama campaign sending about an Obama administration? If you're against his tax policies, it's because you think he has a funny name? Is opposition to his Iraq plan purely intolerance? If you think he's wrong on immigration, is that simply code for racism?

Does he really want to suggest that's how he would govern?

Racism and prejudice exist. But while attacking them with a broad partisan brush might score political points, it also worsens the fears and divisions among us. Often the accusations encompass so much - from individual attitudes to complex and difficult issues such as housing, education and health care - that no real solution is even possible.

Russia Spends Heavily on Defese - Why Obama Won't Cut US Defense Spending

Clearly Obama's talk of cutting defense spending will not happen. Russia has been spending heavily on its defense and with China doing the same the US has to keep its military spending at current levels at best.

That means Obama will have a hard time reallocating the tax dollars for this spending programs.

From EurasiaNet:

An analysis of Russia’s state spending shows that Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin is taking the country in a dangerous direction, girding for a new Cold War while neglecting the domestic infrastructure. Military and security spending is so lopsided in Russia that the country’s cash cow - the energy sector - is being starved of funds.

According to figures recently released by the State Committee for Statistics, Russia’s revenue for the first half of 2008 amounted to almost 4.4 trillion rubles, or, at the current exchange rate, about $176.5 billion. Expenditures totaled almost 3 trillion rubles, or $120.9 billion. Overall, the Russian government is projected to spend almost 7 trillion rubles, or $278.6 billion, under the full-year 2008 budget.

Friday, October 10, 2008

If You Really Belive In Obama, Do You Think The Following Are True?

From Dave Weinbaum:
  • Barack asked the Iraqi foreign minister to delay US troop withdrawal until after the US elections?
  • Obama lied when he said McCain wanted to extend the war in Iraq for 60 to 100 years?
  • Barack's minions have hired and/or moved lawyers/investigators into Alaska to destroy Governor Palin and her family?
  • Obama claimed the surge hasn't worked right up until he appeared on the O'Reilly Factor just weeks ago?
  • Barack claims he's for individual ownership of firearms, yet backs those communities that ban guns?
  • Barack said, "I've been in 57 states-I think one left to go?"
  • Obama's church gave a lifetime achievement award to white hating anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan?
  • Obama claimed that his tire gauge/tune-up solution to our energy crisis, would gain us just as much oil as off-shore drilling?
  • Barack was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae contributions with three years in the US Senate, only beaten out by the chair of the US Senate banking committee, 30 year senate veteran, Chris Dodd?
  • Barack claimed he never heard his minister, Reverend Wright say those hateful things about the USA in his 20 years of sitting through his sermons?
  • Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden recently said Barack didn't have the experience to be president?
  • Obama misled America when he placed Spanish speaking ads in southwestern states taking Rush Limbaugh out of context?
  • Barack started his political career with a fundraiser in unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardette Dohrn's living room?
  • Barack waffled on the Iraqi war in 2004 by telling the Chicago Tribune that his and George Bush's positions were basically the same?
  • Barack said those in small towns, "...cling to guns and a way to explain their frustrations" to a crowd of elitist west coasters in San Francisco?
  • Obama is in favor of denying medical aid to botched aborted living babies?
  • Barack claimed Iran, as a tiny country, was no threat to the USA?
The answer is all of the statements are TRUE.

Go Ahead Vote for Obama's Stupid Economic Policies

From Minyanville:

In 4 weeks, the country will likely elect Barack Obama; Congress will be overwhelmingly in the hands of the Democratic Party. Mr. Obama has made it clear that he will increase taxes on corporation and those earning more than $250,000. His plans include health coverage for all Americans and major spending initiatives on education and infrastructure. With colossal deficits, a protectionist Congress, tax increases coming, and gigantic spending initiatives, the next 4 years will be exceptionally difficult for the US. economy.

Obama's HealthCare Plan Is NOT Funded

From Steve & Cokie Roberts:

Obama is selling his own fantasies. He told Harwood that he would not alter his plans for a middle-class tax cut, adding that "It's important to pay for it." How? Through closing "tax havens and loopholes." In other words, sticking it to the "bad guys" without any pain for the rest of us. Sorry, but that's just not a serious proposal.

When asked if he would cut back his $100 billion plan to extend healthcare coverage, Obama demurred by saying, "Keep in my mind, my healthcare plan is paid for."

Well, no, it's not. Paying for it would require abolishing the Bush tax cuts for "the wealthiest Americans." And unless a President Obama has a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Democratic senators — which he won't — repealing those tax cuts would be extremely difficult.

Another favorite Obama fantasy, especially popular with union members in swing industrial states like Ohio and Michigan: Renegotiate (or even negate) the NAFTA trade pact, and steel and auto jobs will return to the Rust Belt like swallows to Capistrano. No, they won't.

The next president will inherit a real mess: a slumping economy, soaring budget deficits and very few dollars to spend on new initiatives. So when the candidates tell you to believe in Tinkerbell, resist the temptation to clap.

Why Democrats like Obama-Biden Helped Create The Mortgage Crisis

Don't believe the hype about deregulation causing the current mortgage crisis.

From AEI:

Under these circumstances, the need to manage their political risk became paramount, and this required them to prove to their supporters in Congress that they still served a useful purpose. In 2003, as noted above, Frank had cited an arrangement in which the GSEs' congressional benefits were linked to their investments in affordable housing. In this context, substantially increasing their support for affordable housing--through the purchase of the subprime loans permitted by HUD--seems a logical and even necessary tactic.

Unfortunately, the sad saga of Fannie and Freddie is not over. Some of their supporters in Congress prefer to blame the Fannie and Freddie mess on deregulation or private market failure, perhaps hoping to use such false diagnoses to lay the groundwork for reviving the GSEs for extra constitutional expenditure and political benefit in the future. As the future of the GSEs is debated over the coming months and years, it will be important to remember how and why Fannie and Freddie failed. The primary policy objective should be to prevent a repeat of this disaster by preventing the restoration of the GSE model.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Obama-Biden Will Prolong The Current Mortgage Mess

It is clear that the current mortgage crisis is deeply rooted in the Democratic Party's ideals of affordable housing. Obama-Biden will just continue the same old policies that will prolong the current mortgage mess.

McCain-Palin will address the problem in more direct way and lessen the chance of a repeat mortgage melt down.

From the AEI

Even if the earlier affordable housing projects were not losers, however, they represented a new and extra-constitutional way for Congress to dispense funds that should otherwise have flowed through the appropriations process. In one sense, the expenditures were a new form of earmark, but this earmarking evaded the constitutional appropriations process entirely. An illustration is provided by a press release from the office of Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the most ardent supporters of the GSEs in Congress. The headline on the release, dated November 20, 2006--right in the middle of the GSEs' affordable housing spending spree--was "Schumer Announces up to $100 Million Freddie Mac Commitment to Address Fort Drum and Watertown Housing Crunch." The subheading continued: "Schumer Unveils New Freddie Mac Plan with HSBC That Includes Low-Interest Low-Downpayment Loans. In June, Schumer Urged Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Step Up to the Plate and Deliver Concrete Plans--Today Freddie Mac Is Following Through."[8] If this project had been economically profitable for Fannie or Freddie, Schumer would not have had to "urge" them to "step up." Instead, using his authority as a powerful member of the Senate Banking Committee--and a supporter of Fannie and Freddie--he appears to have induced Freddie Mac to make a financial commitment that was very much in his political interests but for which the taxpayers of the United States would ultimately be responsible.

Of course, Schumer was only one of many members of Congress who used his political leverage to further his own agenda at taxpayer expense and outside the appropriations process. The list of friends of Fannie and Freddie changed over time; while the GSEs enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the 1990s, over the past decade, they have become increasingly aligned with the Democrats. This shift in the political equilibrium was especially clear in the congressional reaction to the GSEs' accounting scandals of 2003 and 2004.

Will Obama's Policies Lead Us Into A Severe Recession?

From Greg Mankiw:

I am particularly concerned about bad policies because significantly higher taxes have been proposed by Barack Obama. His plan would raise the marginal tax rate on the most productive workers more than 10 percentage points -- an increase that would bring us near Western European levels. His plan would also raise capital income taxes, taxing capital gains and dividends at 20%, compared to a 15% rate under Sen. John McCain's plan.

A five percentage-point difference might strike you as small, but it is not. I have calculated that a five percentage-point difference in overall capital income taxation over the long haul is equal to a difference in the nation's capital stock of about 18%. This means a 6% difference in GDP and a 6% difference in the average wage rate. This means that real GDP and the average wage would fall, gradually but persistently declining about 6% after 25 years. That's not quite a Great Depression, but a significant step towards one.

Liberals For Free Speech - Only If It Is My Kinda Of Free Speech

From David Limbaugh:

Liberals seem to believe that because they hold enlightened positions, they possess an ideological holiness that prevents them from committing certain sins. How else do you explain the unmerited immunity liberals conferred on Joe Biden for his obviously racially demeaning remarks about Barack Obama's cleanliness and articulateness or his references to Indian workers at Dunkin' Donuts?

It's not just that they want Biden to win; it's that they believe that as a fellow liberal, he couldn't possibly make a prejudiced statement. But he did, and we all know it. For normal people, it's "live by the sword, die by the sword." For anointed liberals, it's "live by the sword; long live the sword wielder."

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Leave It To The Agent of Hope And Change to Instill Fear and Loathing

Only Obama, the Change We can Belive In, man to twist the current facts on the current economic crisis.

From Mona Charen:

The Democrats have nominated the most left-leaning presidential candidate in history. And they are now using this financial crisis as an opportunity to recast this election as Hoover against Roosevelt. Their narrative is simple and easy to understand (though false). Laissez-faire economics under Bush allowed capitalists to destroy the economy today just as they did during the Great Depression. The solution is to put Democrats in charge of all three branches. Republicans have responded that much of the blame for the current mess lies with Democrats who pushed for the Community Reinvestment Act, coddled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and resisted vigorous oversight (by, for example, accusing anyone who questioned the subprime mortgages of racism). And by the way, Roosevelt didn't get us out of the Great Depression. World War II did.

Only McCain Promises to Cut Spending & Cut Taxes

Cutting government spending and taxes gives individuals and businesses more resources to save and invest. You can only have a stable economy when businesses hire and invest. Government spending on healthcare will not grow our economy. Only stable jobs and right tax policies to help individuals get affordable healthcare will work in the long term.

From Juan Enriquez from an OpEd in the Boston Globe

A solution requires the country to begin to spend what it earns, reduce its mountainous debt, and address massive liabilities, restructure Social Security, pension deficits, military, and Medicare. No wonder politicians would rather spend more of your money now rather than address these problems. Because we have been spending 5 to 7 percent more each year than we earn, a forced restructuring, triggered by a currency collapse, would have the same effect on wages and purchasing power that the housing collapse had on housing prices. So let's learn from our Latin and Asian friends and act before it is too late.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Concensus Palin Did Great Considering That She is 'Inexperienced'

For all of his years of experience debating the best in the Senate and during the Primary elections, Joe Biden failed to land any major punches or any semblance of a knockout against Sarah Palin.

According to Nielsen 70 million viewers watched the debate and I am sure they did not tune in to watch Biden.

For an 'inexperienced' Governor, with more executive experience than either Biden or Obama, Palin proved that she can go toe to toe with an experienced politician.

Wonder why SNL did not do any Joe Biden sketches?

Obama Pays His Female Senate Staffers 78 cents to the Dollar! Yes We Can!


McCain is the candidate for Women!

While Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has produced a television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain’s position on equal pay for women and pointing out that women in America are paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers. ... McCain, an Arizona Republican, has paid women on his Senate staff a higher average salary than he pays men and Obama has paid men a higher average salary than he pays women.

“Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work," Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: "I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."

Small Businesses, The Engine of Our Economy, Will Suffer Under Obama's Tax Policy

From The Tax Foundation:

Sen. Biden also talked about small businesses:

...95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year. They would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses.

On the issue of small businesses, the "95 percent" figure is technically true, but those small businesses make up a much smaller fraction of the total small business income in America. It's not even close to 95 percent. In fact, approximately half of all small business income is earned by those tax returns that would face a tax hike under Sen. Obama's tax plan.

Why Would You Willingly Want To Be Taxed At A Higher Rate?

A vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes, less saving for you and your family.

From Greg Mankiw:

For example, look at the results for 2012. Under current law, the Bush tax cuts will expire, and the average marginal tax rate, calculated using my quadratic averaging, will be 28.7 percent. If the Bush tax cuts are extended, the average marginal tax rate will be 25.5 percent. The McCain plan would keep the average marginal tax rate at about this level (25.3 percent), while the Obama plan would raise the average marginal tax rate to 28.0 percent.

Monday, October 06, 2008

NYTimes Thows A Bone To 'Fair Reporting' By Highlighting Obama's Bill Ayers Connection

Clearly this piece has been edited and spun in the most pleasing way.

Only Businesses Can Pull Our Economy Out Of The Current Funk - Not Government

Only John McCain's policies will help business invest and hire and therefore pull the economy out of the current slow down.

Investments in equipment creates jobs, hiring workers creates jobs. The government can't create jobs.

In addition lower taxes will put more money in the hands of individuals and they can choose to spend or save. The government inherently makes poor decisions and individuals and markets make better decisions.

Obama Biden's tax policies will hurt the economy. From the Tax Foundation:

A little later in the debate, Joe Biden made this statement:

The middle class under John McCain's tax proposal, 100 million families, middle class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes. No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break.

Actually the "100 million" figure is not families. It is not households. It is tax returns. But that's a somewhat minor issue in the whole scheme of things. The figure is incorrect because Sen. McCain, even relative to a current policy with Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch baseline, does cut corporate income taxes and provides his refundable health care tax credit, which would reduce that "100 million won't get a tax break" figure. That figure is technically correct if you look only at the individual income tax and ignore Sen. McCain's health care tax plan, and if you do it relative to a current policy baseline with AMT patch. Furthermore, Sen. Biden makes the same error as Barack Obama in mixing baselines. The "95 percent" figure (when properly used) gives Obama credit for an AMT patch whereas he does not give McCain credit for an AMT patch tax cut when referring to the 100 million figure.

But the "95 percent" figure is just plain wrong as well. According to the Tax Policy Center, no income quintile (including those earning under $150,000) would even see 95 percent of its tax units receiving a tax break under Pres. Obama's tax plan in 2009. Even in 2012 under Obama's tax plan relative to current law, an average of the fraction of tax units that receive a tax cut in the bottom four quintiles is less than 90 percent. In other words, Biden's statement is factually incorrect. The "95 percent" figure is fairly accurate when Obama uses it to talk about the fraction of working families that would receive a tax cut under his plan, but not the entire population nor the entire population earning under $150,000.

Regarding Sen. Biden's claim that no American making less than $250,000 per year would see a tax hike, that is incorrect too. Some Americans making less than $250,000 would see a tax increase under Pres. Obama. For example, the Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2009, 14.8 percent of tax units earning between $111,645 and $160,972 would actually see a tax increase under Pres. Obama's proposed tax plan, relative to current law. Now it is true that 83.3 percent of the tax units in that group would see a tax cut, but to say that "no one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised" is factually incorrect.

Palins Made 1/2 as The Bidens But Gave 12 Times more To Charity

Some kinds rhetoric from Joe Biden!

From Mark Perry:

When it comes to giving money to charities, it's not even close: the Palins are almost 12 times as generous as the Bidens, when measured by charitable contributions as a percent of Adjusted Grosss Income (AGI) in 2006 and 2007: 2.79% average for the Palins in those two years, vs. 0.24% for the Bidens (see top chart above).

And even though the Palins ($294,000) earned only about half the income of the Bidens ($569,000) in 2006 and 2007 combined, the Palins gave almost 6 times as much to charity ($8,205) in those two years as the Bidens ($1,375), see bottom chart above.

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Presidents Don't Effect US Economy - Better to Leave it up to the Free Markets

From Greg Mankiw:

The reason I say "curious" is that there's very little evidence that presidents (or the government more generally) have much impact on the current state of the economy. They can influence long-term performance, but in the short term, the US economy, and others, go through periodic ups and downs that we call business cycles. That was true 200 years ago and remains true today. There's some debate about where business cycles come from, but the president's actions are rarely on the list. Nevertheless, it's become good strategy to claim credit for good news and blame the other guys for bad news -- even though neither is likely.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Can Gwen Ifill Be a Unbiased Moderator for the VP Debate

I thought she was a good journalist but now I am having second thoughts.

She is coming out with e Pro Obama book which in my mind is another example of bias in the media.

From WorldNet:

Columnist Michelle Malkin, in a post on her blog today, wonders how Ifill can objectively moderate the debate tomorrow night with the personal interest she has in the election's outcome.

"My dictionary defines 'moderator' as 'the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.' On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.

"But there is nothing 'moderate' about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She's so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out," Malkin writes.

"Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama/Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the 'Age of Obama.' Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the 'stunning' McCain campaign and its 'bold' path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day – and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation’s sole vice presidential debate?"

Malkin cited Ifill's previous reporting on Obama for "Essence" magazine, an article titled, "The Obamas: Portrait of an American Family." Ifill's "neutral analysis" about Michelle Obama, Malkin said with irony, was, "A lot of people have never seen anything that looks like a Michelle Obama before. She's educated, she's beautiful, she's tall, she tells you what she thinks and they hope that she can tell a story about Barack Obama and about herself. …"

Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren reported the McCain campaign didn't know about the book.

"It simply is not fair – in law, this would create a mistrial," she said.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

McCain Palin Will Allow Markets to Innovate Out Of this Mess

McCain Palin will not pursue the big government, interventionist policies to revive the US economy and the credit markets.

They are more likely to let the market innovate because history has shown that markets and people innovate not governments.

McCain Palin's opponents promise big interventionist policies that history has shown won't have its intended effect and worse, cost the US taxpayers even more.

From WSJ:

Mr. Obama's "deregulation" trope may be good politics, but it's bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it. The U.S. is going to need a stable, innovative financial system after this panic ends, and we won't get that if Mr. Obama and his media chorus think the answer is to return to Depression-era rules amid global financial competition. Perhaps the Senator should ask the former President for a briefing

McCain's Support of Free(er) Market Oriented Policies Is Right for The Current Credit Crisis

Markets work better than government. Government intervention on average does not help a financial crisis. It may provide short term relief but it is just delaying the inevitable.

From Minyanville:

"The view that the consumer is helpless and needs protection by a benevolent government is expressed [by the consumer advisory council]. The view, once widely accepted in this country that competition forces business to serve the public is not even given token nod...The Constitution of the United States was based in part on the belief that people needed protection, primarily from the government, and that free, competitive enterprise was the most efficient engine for promoting the public good.

“At one time, the intellectual climate of this country placed the burden of proof for the necessity of interference with the market process on those who would interfere. Interference was presumed to be an error unless an overwhelming case could be made for it. In the present intellectual climate, the reverse is probably true-actions by the government to regulate business are presumed to be beneficent and the burden of proof is on those who oppose."

James Lorie

McCain Supports Interstate Purchase of Health Insurance

Obama is against such a plan.

From WSJ:

Mr. McCain backs legislation sponsored by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg. Known as the Health Care Choice Act, it would allow individuals living in one state to purchase health insurance being sold to people living in other states. The policy would still have to meet the regulations of the state in which it is being sold, and would be subject to additional federal oversight.

In other words, the McCain-Shadegg reform would allow a person living in New Jersey or New York to buy health insurance that is being sold in and regulated by Pennsylvania or Connecticut. That's hardly the Wild West of health insurance.

About 18 million Americans today buy health insurance in the individual market because they don't have access to employer coverage or they aren't in a government-sponsored program (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).

Blame Pelosi's Pals for the defeat of TARP bill

From WSJ:

Congressional leaders wondering why they couldn't muster the votes for the $700 billion financial-rescue plan could look to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home state for answers.

Nearly half of California's congressional delegation -- 24 of 53 members -- voted against the bailout plan backed by congressional leaders and President George W. Bush. "No" votes came from an unlikely mix of left-leaning Democrats and conservative Republicans. The Democrats, in particular, wanted more relief in the bill for mortgage borrowers. Republicans wanted the banks to get less taxpayer money.