Hillary: The Incredible Shrinking Woman

While a lot of Americans love to "see" the underdog win, our ingrained human psyche drives us to be "on" the winning team when it comes down to making a choice. Barack Obama started as the underdog against Hillary Clinton, and the idea that history could be made with the first Black man as our President caught fire with a lot of Americans; or, at the very least, a majority of Democrats. The National Press Corps became giddy with the idea. For whatever reasons, there was more intrigue in having a "first" of American of politics be a "Black" man rather than a "woman" as President of the United States. As the Obama-train gained steam, that magical force called "momentum" shifted to his favor. Today, it really looks like the human psyche has taken over and most Democrats believe Obama is the candidate of choice. You get the feeling that Hillary has moved from the "winner status" to the "also-ran" status and won't even get the desirable status of the "underdog". And, like Lily Tomlin's role in a 1981 movie/comedy, she has literally become the "Incredible Shrinking Woman". That movie ends leaving you "thinking" that Lily Tomlin will return to normal size; but, you never really see it happen.

I think this movie, too, will end "thinking" that Hillary will come back; but, like that 1981 Tomlin role, we will never really see it happen. And, maybe, just maybe, we are seeing history's game, set, match...President Obama!

Obama: All Talk and No Walk

I was listening to the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Susan Eisenhower, in an interview this morning. While a supposed life-long Republican, she says that she is now voting for Barack Obama. Her primary rationale in doing so is that he is a candidate that will reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. She even claims that Barack asked for her opinion. And, of course, this really proves his sincerity.

Give me a break! This woman has a broken pair of rose-colored glasses. I've listened to Barack, too. He said a lot of things about working with the "other side of the aisle". That is part of his phony "change" mantra. However, the truth is something entirely different. If he is listening to, and getting advice from Republicans, he certainly isn't voting that way; not even by the tiniest amount. In 2007, he was considered, by his voting record, the most liberal Senator in the United States Senate with a 95 percent liberal voting record. And, that takes some doing! In order to achieve that "most liberal" rating, he had to push aside some of the farthest lefties in the history of politics like Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, and Richard Durbin; just to name a few. In fact, his voting record is even more extreme than Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) who is an avowed socialist. Hillary was ranked 16th in her liberal voting record, which clearly makes her more of a moderate than Obama.

One problem that I have always had with Obama is that his talk has never really matched his walk. He hasn't reached across the aisle on anything. And, many of his statements are conflicted with logic like saying he would talk to our enemies such as Iran's Ahmadinejad while stating he would be at odds with an ally like Musharraf in Pakistan. You've got to wonder if an Obama Adminstration is one that would cozy up to every left-wing despot and dictator in the world while ignoring those people who are allies and who represent some order and reason (while admittedly imperfect) in the world. I personally don't think we can afford an "alienated" nuclear power like Pakistan that is sitting in one of the hottest trouble spots of the world while we "make nice" to the President of Iran. But, Obama thinks we should cross Pakistan's borders (without Musharraf's permission) and hunt down Osama Bin Laden; even though we don't exactly know where he is. He also has publicly stated that Musharraf should step down without any idea of what kind of leader would take his place. And, the chances are very high, based the political atmosphere in Pakistan today, that we could see a very radical replacement for Musharraf! Just maybe, given his propensity for snuggling up to radicals, that is what Barack really wants! In that same vein, he is ready and willing to hand a victory to Al Qaeda by leaving Iraq as soon as possible; despite the current success.

I think that people should be taking a closer look at Barack Obama's policies and past actions before getting superficially excited by his words. Maybe, then, he would look a little different.

A Red Tricycle With Blue Trim for Christmas

Well, McCain has all but won the nomination as the Presidential Candidate for the Republicans. If you listen to the far right of the party, you would have thought they were in the process of "having" to swallow a big spoon of castor oil. They wanted that gleaming red tricycle for Christmas. Instead, they got one with some blue on it. And, they "just" can't take their eyes off of the blue. Even though the tricycle is predominately red, all they see is blue!

And, so, the temper tantrum under the Christmas tree is being unleashed with tears, kicking, and screaming! Boo-hoo! Wah! They cry out that McCain will bring an end to the conservative movement. The sky is "definitely falling! They wanted a red-blooded Reagan conservative, and they got one that has a touch of blue blood.

Please! This is just unbelievable! McCain was elevated to the nomination by Republican voters. Not by Rush Limbaugh... Not by Ann Coulter... And, not by the rest of the far right radio personalities and pundits. Instead of looking at McCain as the "most electable" candidate that the Republicans could possibly put up against a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama (based on the current polling), the far right sees him as the "gate" to hell.

These people seem to forget that the Republican party (and the conservative movement) may have reached its peak and might be on its way down. The conservative movement seems to be on its wane "because of" this current President and "because of" the former conservative control of Congress. They blew it! The Republicans decisively lost both Houses of Congress in a "sweep" the last time out. And, without McCain, they are well on their way to losing control of the White House. There will be no "house" they can claim as their own. They will be "homeless" in the world of government. McCain is the only chance they have to cling to some control. Without him, and his appeal to a broad range of the national electorate, the Democrats will have a near-complete and veto-proof control of government. The 60 vote threshold in the Senate, that Republicans "now" enjoy as the "minority" party, will vanish. The Democrats would have the near-unfettered ability to pass tax increases; repeal the Bush tax cuts; get out of Iraq; implement the first steps to socialized medicine; slash military spending (again, and at a time of war); hamper our intelligence community's ability to eavesdrop; install liberal judges throughout the Federal system, and probably vote in, at least one, liberal, Supreme Court justice in the next four years. The balance of power will decidedly tip to the Democrats, and their "doing over" during the next four years (and possibly longer) will take a decade or more to undo.

Just listen to the polls. In poll after poll, the concept of "change" keeps ringing out. And, in poll after poll, the President and Congress' approval ratings just keep falling to new lows. The concept of "change" is hard to "specifically" put your hands around because it means different things to different voters; the better and bottom-line concept of "change" seems merely to be the getting away from business-as-usual "partisan" politics. I believe that the electorate is tired of partisan politics that always puts the needs of the political party in front of the needs of this country. McCain offers that change. He is "the" more middle-of-the-road candidate that is now left standing; on either the right or the left. And, while Obama and Hillary talk that game, neither has ever really demonstrated that fact. Their actions as politicians have clearly proven their partisan behavior. That is why Hillary has such a far left voting record. And, Obama is even farther left in his record. McCain has crossed over to the other side of the aisle.. That is why he is well known as the "Maverick". And, that is why this massive "hissy fit" on the far right proves that McCain is the "right" candidate to lead this country, at this time in history; and, not just the "right" candidate - politically.

Tuesday's Winners and Losers

After the dust has now settled following Super Tuesday, I think the "biggest" winners of the day were Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee. The losers for the day were Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

Certainly, with a literal tie in delegates, Barak Obama has now put Hillary Clinton on notice that she is losing ground. Hillary's only bright spot is that she won Massachusetts. That was a sweet victory because it proved that not even a "truckload" of Massachusetts Kennedy's could sway the state to vote for Obama. Based on the fact, one might even venture to think that the Kennedy's might have even impaired Obama from winning even more votes that night.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney fell short; proving that money can't buy you love. He spent millions (especially in California) and he came up short. In fact, Huckabee, on a shoestring budget, has managed 142 delegates to Romney's 222. I don't know exactly how much Romney spent on getting those 222 delegates but I'll bet it is more than anyone in the history of politics. My guess it is he spent close to a half-million dollars per delegate. I think Romney's biggest problems were his past waffling on issues and his attack-dog tactics against McCain, Dole, and Huckabee. His ads over the last week went after Hillary Clinton as if he already had the nomination. He seemed to forget he had to overcome McCain and Huckabee before that fact ever was a reality. And, his religion, Mormon, may have had some minor influence on his loss, also. Certainly, his biggest percentage win, Utah, was only because of his religion.

I would be remiss in not mentioning another big loser for the night. That loser is the "right-wingers" of talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, and Laura Ingram and the right-wing madwoman, Ann Coulter. Their late-in-the-game efforts to promote Romney and defeat John McCain just didn't work. In fact, they may have shot themselves in the foot because the voting public may have reacted negatively to their tactics. I liken their stupidity to the tactics of Moveon.org to try and defeat Joe Lieberman in the last Senatorial election in Connecticut. Of course, Lieberman easily won as an Independent over that far-left machine that thought it could trample him. The far right and far left have to understand that the world doesn't believe in "their" extreme views. Sorry, Rush! Sorry, Ann!

The Tax Cut for the Rich Mantra

On the Democratic side, you will consistently hear echoes after echoes that the Bush Tax Cut was for the "rich". But was it?

The tax cut bill of 2001 actually benefited the lower 2/3's of tax payers "more" than the upper 3rd. The lowest tax bracket saw a one-third reduction from a 15% tax rate to a 10% tax rate. The next bracket up (lower middle class) was reduced from 28% to 15%; a 53% reduction in rates. The middle class tax break was from 31% to 25%; a 33% reduction. The upper two tax brackets went from 36% and 39.6% to 33% and 35%; respectively. So, the rich "only" saw tax reductions of about 9% for the former 36% and 39.6% tax brackets.

Additionally, tax payers with children saw the child tax credit double from $500 to $1000. Since, typically, wealth generally comes late in life (after the children have left the nest) and because, for whatever reason, the poor and middle class have more children than the wealthy, this tax adjustment clearly benefits the bottom two-thirds of the tax payers.

Those that argue that the tax cuts were for the rich like to point to the reductions in Estate taxes which do not benefit the poor and middle class. But reduction of those taxes do stop the wholesale slaughter of family owned businesses that have, over the years, resulted in the bisecting of farm land to pay estate taxes; and, the sell-off of business and their inventories to payoff the tax burden. Take, for example, a farmer who owns land and equipment that is now worth one million dollars, but took a lifetime of work to pay off the loans needed to achieve that supposed wealth. Under the old estate tax system, everything over $750,000 was subject to a minimum of 38% in taxes. That meant that at the death of the primary holder of that property, the surviving spouse was saddled with a tax bill of nearly $100,000. In a good year, that farm may have made a taxable profit of $100,000. In a bad year, it could have lost that much. So, having an estate tax bill of $100,000 puts that farmer's family in the position of having to sell off much of their land to pay the tax. That then reduces their income potential, and, typically, they have no other choice but to sell the entire, life-long, business to pay the tax. In the case of farmers, the land is usually sold off to massive Corporate farmers. The net-net of that is that the jobs are also lost because the big corporate farmer is more efficient.

Additionally, those who "chant" the mantra of the "tax cuts for the rich" like point to the 2003 law which cut capital gains rates from 20% to 15%. Also, the top dividend rate for Stock and Bond holders was reduced from 20% to15%. It is true that this does benefit the rich directly. However, more than 50% of this country's population is, at the very least, indirectly benefited by these cuts. For example, the various employee unions benefit because their pension funds are invested in securities such as stocks and bonds. And, those union operations that avoided taxable investments can, now, look at other stocks and bonds that pay dividends because the rates are lower.

Always overlooked is the fact the the Bush tax cuts reduced the number of workers who were actually eligible to pay taxes. In fact, about 10 million workers and retirees no longer have to pay taxes because the minimum eligibility for paying income tax was raised above their income levels. Those people just fell off the tax rolls and no longer pay "any" taxes under the Bush tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts reversed a recession that he inherited from President Clinton, That recession was exacerbated by the events of 9/11 which just knocked the economic stuffings out of this country. Those tax cuts have been able to consistently reduce the budget deficit since they were implemented; and, this is despite the fact that our Congress has spent nearly 45 percent more in the last 7 years than when Bush took office. A fact that probably resulted in the loss of both Houses of Congress for the Republicans.

Tax cuts work. That is why both the Democrats and the Republicans are trying to give every tax payer in this country a rebate of about $1200. And, what is a tax rebate? Just another "tax cut" done after the fact!

The Real Story Of Health Care Costs in the U.S.

Truly affordable, and possibly mandated government-sponsored or government-controlled health care insurance in this country is at the forefront of all the political campaigns this year. Both sides of the aisle believe they have the answers. However, none (and, I mean "none") of them addresses the real reason that health care is so unaffordable for so many in this country.

The answer is fairly simple. It is malpractice lawsuits.

In their defense, the attorneys who are involved in malpractice litigation will point to the fact the dollars being awarded as a result of their lawsuits pales in comparison to the aggregate annual cost increases being charged by the health insurance companies and the medical profession. And, that is true.

However, to see the "true" impact of lawsuits on the medical system in this country, you need only look at "9/11" and the loss of the World Trade Center buildings as a parallel. The replacement cost of those buildings, two planes, and the remaining lifetime salary potential of those killed in that tragedy, are a mere fraction of the trillions of dollars that Federal, State, and local governments and corporations are now (and probably will be forever) spending for increased "security measures" to prevent that event from ever happening again.

The same is true in health care. Today, doctors have a fear of lawsuits. They don't want to be sued because their individual rates will increase. As a result, patients are subjected to more tests than ever to make sure that their reason for seeing a doctor isn't something "more" than just a cold, a sore throat, body ache, etc. In the same way that we, as a country, are trying to prevent another "9/11" with extensive and very costly security measures, doctors are taking extraordinary steps to insure they don't misdiagnose and, ultimately, get sued. That's why many doctors are increasingly using "specialists" as a form of second opinion to insure that they, alone, don't make an erroneous decision on what ails you. This is "CYA" to "nth" degree! All these tests and referrals to specialists are driving costs through the roof. And, while insurance companies and Medicare can control the costs of the "individual tests" and office visits; they are unable to step in to control the frequency and breadth of either. That's why costs are going up so fast.

In addition, we know more than we did years ago. For example, we know that high cholesterol can lead to a stroke or heart disease. Millions of Americans who can't control their cholesterol are put on "statins" to control it through medication. Once you are put on one of these "statin" drugs, you have now committed yourself to an expensive blood test every 90 days to insure that your liver function is not impaired. And, it's the insurance companies (and, ultimately us) who pay for all those tests. Even though the incidence of liver failure as a result of taking a "statin" drug is relatively low, the doctors are "not" going to take the risk that you have an impaired liver function and wind up suing them. So, as a result, 2 or 3 thousand dollars a year will be expended in medical costs and the cost of the medications, themselves, to insure you, primarily, don't have a stroke or heart attack (which could also result in a lawsuit against a doctor), and, secondarily, don't have liver disease which could result in future litigation.

And, here's another example. One of the reasons that we have so few influenza vaccine manufactures in this country is because 90% of them were driven out of that business by lawsuits. Every drug manufacturer builds a certain amount of cost into every drug they develop and market to cover the risk potential of lawsuits. And, that's why so many drugs can cost more than the cost of dinner each day. Those manufacturers know that "no" drug is 100% safe. There are always side effects and potential long term consequences. However, the legal profession sues on the basis that there be no risk at all!

If we, as country, want to get serious about making health insurance broadly available to everyone, we have to start with tort reform in the medical care arena. In many countries, that have socialized medicine, the ability to sue is severely limited because, to do so, would be to sue the government. Doctors are just employees of the State. There's no juries awarding millions and, subsequently, a third of that award being given to an attorney as a big fat paycheck. Nor are there any awards for pain and suffering or any premium imposed as "punishment". Generally, a governmental panel will decide if you are entitled to any compensation; and, if so, it is usually in the simple terms of wages being lost. In some countries, the panel can refer a case to the courts. But, it's their call and "not" some attorney's. The punishment of failing doctors is left up to a governmental review system and "not" done in the court system.

Hillary's Subprime Bailout; A Carter-esk Solution!

Probably one of the most ridiculous proposals by any one candidate for President is Hillary Clinton's proposed fix for the sub-prime mortgage lending crisis. She has two primary elements which she believes will "fix" the problem. The first is to suspend any foreclosures over the next 90 days. And, the second, is to freeze interest rates for "five" years.

I don't know who is advising Hillary on this one, but this is the most absurd proposal I've every heard. And, it is a play that is straight out of Jimmy Carter's dumbest plays in government history.

During Carter's absolutely failed administration, he froze oil prices in order to try to combat the oil embargo by OPEC. However, this action didn't address the primary issue of oil shortages but exacerbated it. The artificially induced low prices did not create the financial incentives that would ultimately be needed to stimulate more oil drilling and overcome the oil shortages that we were faced with. As a result, people stood in lines nearly a mile long for hours on end to get gasoline for their cars. Once the Carter Price Controls were lifted, the price doubled (another shock to the consumer). However, those higher oil prices created the incentive to explore and drill for more oil and the net result was that OPEC was forced to breakdown their embargo because they couldn't control the market any longer.

Hillary's plan is similar. By ignoring market forces and artificially freezing interest rates for mortgages for "five" years on existing loans, she will force rates on other types of loans to rise abnormally to compensate for it. Small business loans will be set at abnormally high rates and will result in a disastrously slowed economy for the lack of new businesses and jobs to meet our growing population. After all, small businesses account for the nearly 80% of the jobs in our economy. Also, these frozen interest rates will force lenders to be extremely cautious and limit their risk. New home loans (and auto loans) will be only given under the best of conditions. I would expect minimums of 20% or 25% down on a new home. Also, borrowers will have to have extremely high credit ratings; which, as a result, will mean that the housing market (except for the wealth) will just dry up. Thousands in the homebuilding industry will be out of work. Talk about making a recession worse.

Artificial controls are a horrible idea and just typical of someone who doesn't understand the first thing about business and economics. Carter may have been a great and prosperous peanut farmer but he failed miserably in the world of domestic and world economics. And, Hillary is no different!

We have to come to the realization that a lot of people received home loans that they should never have had. Trying to rescue those people is just delaying the inevitable (like the doubling of oil prices when controls were lifted). Our focus should be on those who are marginally at risk and that may need short term help for a year or two to get out of the bind they are in. Some kind of loan assistance may be in order.

Finally, we should "not" bailout those people who leveraged their existing homes in order to try and play the "boom" in the house market, thinking that they could "flip" houses for a quick profit. They took a financial risk and they should accept the consequences!

The fact is, the majority of foreclosures are already in progress; and, not reversible. The people are already out of their homes. The politicians have to move quickly, now, and not when a new President takes office next year if they are to forestall any further deterioration of the housing market. The actions by the Federal Reserve to quickly lower interest rates with help. That will keep any adjustable rate mortgages from rising any further. However, there are a lot of people in trouble because the salaries aren't increasing at the same rate as their mortgages; their taxes; their food prices; and, their energy costs.