By now we should all know the urgent economic stimulus package is not an urgent economic stimulus package. Yes, it does contain immediate job stimulation to the tune of about 35% of the package (I am being generous - the Wall Street Journal thinks it is less) . Even the 35% job stimulation portion can be considered questionable depending on how it is administered.  Why will this economic stimulus package not work?  There is a better way!  To find out read on.

If you haven’t taken time to read about the package or to look at it yourself, you should. Just as in the great depression where similar spending and jobs programs actually served to extend the depression beyond what a normal recovery would have been, this package is even more toxic to the overall economy of this nation. The overall concept that government can either borrow money, print money, or raise tax revenue to stimulate an economy is seriously flawed. An economy is not a government’s economy. Rather, it is the natural cycle of commerce, trade, production, and consumption brought about by the people. Starting in the twentieth century, this natural cycle was supercharged by the money supply expansion brought about by credit.

The sudden stoppage of available credit brought the natural cycle of commerce, trade, production, and consumption – the economy – to a screeching halt. Why did credit suddenly disappear? The desire for more and bigger returns in financial markets and the rise in securitization of credit instruments brought about plentiful and easy credit. Banks and other lending institutions now had a market to place their securitized mortgage and automobile credit portfolios. This was asset backed lending at its best and worst.   The focus of this piece is on mortgage backed securitization.  The residential property as collateral was the asset.  The key is “asset” in asset backed lending - this was the equity in the deal that made the lending possible. 

The lack of credit quality brought about by the easy credit had artificially inflated the value of the collateral securing or anchoring the basis for lending. What was the “pin” that burst the balloon? It was the sudden and prolonged increase of the price of gas at the pump. This sudden dramatic increase of economic pressure on household budgets pushed the weakest of the borrowers into default. This started the foreclosure cycle. As foreclosures grew faster than the market could absorb the foreclosure sales, the supply of homes increased and the demand dropped creating a downward spiral of residential home collateral values triggering big equity lending losses for the banks other lending institutions, and insurance companies who had guaranteed the mortgage backed securities. A Securities and Exchange rule called “mark to market” forced the banks to immediately devalue the remaining mortgages held in their portfolios causing a rapid loss in capitalization. This severe loss in capitalization put the brakes on lending. The Federal Reserve requires national banks to maintain a minimum capitalization and state banking regulators require the same of state chartered banks. As the downward spiral of home values continued it created a downward spiral of bank capitalization due to “mark to market”. With the loss in capital on a downward spiral, the Treasury under Bush and Paulson with the help of Geitner swung into action and asked for TARP money from the Congress. It was intended to buy up these devalued assets so that banks would be stabilized and start lending again.

It failed! One would think that Paulson and Geitner would have known that the regulators’ regulations requiring a certain level of capitalization at the banks would force the banks to shore up capital with the money and that banks would not lend. If I knew this why didn’t they?

Now Geitner, the tax scofflaw, wants to create a bad bank to buy up these assets from the banks to stimulate lending. Why will buying toxic assets at toxic asset prices improve bank capitalization sufficiently to re-establish lending? If I have an asset on my books that was worth $100 and is now worth under “mark to market” $2, I have lost capitalization and cannot lend. If I sell that asset for $2 then I have not improved my capitalization and still cannot lend.

The Congress and apparently president Obama are apparently overly concerned with those in foreclosure, many who probably should have not been given easy credit. No one seems at all concerned with the real problem in this country – the many millions with decent credit who bought homes in the last few years who are incredibly buried in their homes financially. The home values do not allow refinancing to a lower rate and literally trap these people into their homes – they cannot sell. They cannot sell to seek a better job in another area. If they lose their job, they cannot move to take a job in a new location. These folks are in debtor prison, yet as long as they pay their mortgage as they are supposed to, they can get no help. President Obama says he is worried about the middle class. These folks are the quintessential middle class and no one is helping them.

Instead we have a stimulus package of nearly a trillion dollars that we cannot afford that is nothing more than multiple earmarks on steroids – it is history’s largest pig – it is just filled with pork – purchased with borrowed money.  Didn’t president Obama promise that this package would only contain true economic stimulation programs and would contain no pork?  Didn’t he say that he would root out the pork?  This package is not intended to stimulate the economy for all of us. It is intended to foster Democratic social engineering. It is intended to create a “nanny state” with the populace always dependent on the central government for support. This is exactly what happened for eight years during the depression – it was interrupted by World War II.

If our Congress and President really wanted to get this economy moving, they should work on the root cause of the problem. The continuing devaluation of residential properties, brought about by the flood of foreclosures which creates more foreclosures is the root cause.

• Take this Trillion dollars and create a tax credit for the purchase of foreclosures – a credit that is twenty percent of the purchase price – the property must be held for seven years or the tax credit must be paid back  over ten years through tax filings.

• Take this Trillion dollars and give all homeowners who owe more than their property is worth a tax credit in the amount of the shortfall. This will foster refinancing at lower rates and more suitable fixed payment mortgages. This will provide immediate relief to those millions of Americans who are trapped in their homes and who pay their bills. A detailed appraisal must be obtained for the tax filing. The tax credit must be transferred (paid as a principal payment) to the financial institution holding the first mortgage. In the future, these homeowners must declare any gain based on the now adjusted tax basis for the home, as income. Alternatively, for two years allow these homes to be treated as an investment and allow the sellers to take a capital loss on the sale and carry it forward as needed on their tax return.

• Take this Trillion dollars and temporarily modify MACRS (Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System). Add to the acceleration for two years to stimulate business infrastructure purchases, if the purchased content is 51% U.S. originated. Examples are new equipment with a 51% U.S. production content, building renovations, equipment overhaul and refurbishing, etc. - purchases that will stimulate our economy by buying American and employing Americans.  These purchases will also prepare our business to compete in a world market in the future.

• Take this Trillion dollars and lower the business tax rate to 15% for two years and then each year over five years increase it by 1% per year to 20%. This will stimulate the economy and create jobs probably more than any one other stimulus.

Mr. President and Members of Congress, you can continue to turn this country into France, where no one can be fired or laid-off, where the economy does not grow, and the population is dependent on the government, or you can unleash this great economic machine. Surely some of you have at one time studied economics or heard the host of economists who say that you are building a bad, inflation prone, negative economic stimulus package.

The stimulus ideas found above will stabilize residential properties and stop the downward spiral of home values by creating demand – repairing the root cause of our economic crisis. It will use the “mark to market” to re-establish bank capitalization by 1) increasing home prices, providing increased equity value to the mortgage backed securities; 2) reducing exposure by fostering principal payments, paid through the giant tax credit; 3) and by reducing the number of foreclosures on the market with remaining foreclosures selling at substantially higher resale prices than today. The reinstituted lending, now that banks are adequately capitalized again, will allow businesses to borrow and spend utilizing the accelerated MACRS, creating lots and lots of jobs in the process. Only sound lending with no easy credit, please. These stimulus ideas will utilize the new lower business income tax rate and MACRS to bring production back to these shores, thus heavily stimulating economic growth and jobs for a long lasting healthy economy.

Today, Senator Obama spoke on the Reverend Wright controversy and made clear what he believes. Three points came out of his speech and I am sure he only intended one point. The biggest issue resolved was that he explained why he continued to befriend Reverend Wright and why he continued to be a part of his congregation. His explanation was both eloquent and clear. He personally understands the reasons why Reverend Wright thinks the way he does and he understands why it is different from the way he (Senator Obama) thinks. Barack Obama defined the differences so well that it had the ring of truth and clarity. This writer is convinced that Senator Obama has not exercised poor judgment when sitting through Reverend Wright’s sermons; that he successfully compartmentalized what Reverend Wright was saying compared to what he believes.

He did not address or explain the previous statements that he had never experienced these sermons personally yet now in this speech stated that he had heard the questionable sermons all along. Do we chalk this deception up to political gamesmanship? The straight talk was absent here. Two other issues surfaced during his speech, that shine a clearer light on what and how Senator Obama thinks.

His statement, that he will find a way out of the war in Iraq, did not ring as clearly as his previous definitive proclamations regarding the speed of removal of our troops if elected and taking office. Does this mean that he now understands that unraveling Iraq will be like cutting a fine diamond and that it cannot be done haphazardly or hastily? To improperly unravel or to just leave Iraq may create more world problems for us in the future than remaining and continuing to stabilize the country, which is currently happening.He needs to be pressed on this by the unbiased media – if we can find them.

His statement that we need to stop corporations from sending jobs out of the country just for the sake of profit demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of how capitalism works and creeps up upon a socialist agenda. Under capitalism with some controls, the better the environment for profit, the better the environment for growth and prosperity.This means jobs – good jobs! The jobs are leaving because the corporations need to make profit to survive and will seek out the most advantageous environment to make that profit, even if it means to create and manufacture elsewhere. It is the responsibility of a government in a capitalistic economy to foster an environment to entice corporations both foreign and domestic to produce here thus creating good jobs and plenty of them.You cannot regulate jobs unless you are in a failing communist or socialist economy where the standard of living misery is balanced and widespread.

He should be seeking to change the health care system by relieving corporations of this burden and ameliorate the corporate tax rates to foster a profitable environment for corporations producing in this country and trading with the world.This should be the fix he seeks. This will place corporations doing business in this country in a position to grow and sustain good paying jobs. Remember, corporations do not pay taxes they collect them for the government from you in the form of higher prices, but in the world trade environment they cannot pass these taxes on so they become uncompetitive. When they are uncompetitive they move to an environment where they can be competitive and move the jobs elsewhere. He should not be condemning profit, which is the engine of prosperity and standard of living as long as it is heavily laced with successful world trade.

Earmarks

The Senate just doesn’t get it.  Friday, March 14^th, the Senate had an opportunity to end earmarks, at least on their side of the Capitol, but chose not to do so.  We have to ask why?  Earmarks are essentially spending without representation.  These appropriations are not voted per se, they often are inserted into a bill after the vote or are inserted into an unrelated bill that needs to be passed.  Earmarks are used as leverage for re-election (look what I have done for my state) and they are used to curry the favor of other Senators on a bill.  Senators simply do not wish to give up this effective re-election perk. After this recent vote we now know that the majority of Senators find nothing wrong with this practice of spending without representation. Remember 33 of these Senators are up for re-election in November. Perhaps checking to see how your Senator voted before casting your Senatorial vote in November would be a good thing to do.

Choosing the Right Person

If you like Senator McCain or dislike him, it is probably based on his recorded history. You can look at his accomplishments and failures and get a pretty decent picture of how he thinks. You can do this to a lesser degree with Senator Clinton. We could not do this with Senator Obama because we have no history - all we have are his words. Remember, words from any politician are just words designed to obtain our favor and vote. Now Senator Obama has some of his history revealed - yes he has condemned the statements of Reverend Wright, yes, he is now further distancing himself from Rev. Wright.What do we really know about Senator Obama? He wants us to believe that he had never heard these rants from Rev. Wright. Yet he was disinclined to have him speak at his Presidential announcement because the Reverend often uses rough words, according to Senator Obama - that was some time ago. I am sorry Senator Obama, what you say only rings true to those who desperately want a Democrat in the White House without regard to a good vetting of the candidate. Twenty years is a long time and you have made Reverend Wright a close part of your family for years. You have NEVER heard about his rants? Why then did you choose to not have him speak at your announcement? Comments from your spouse may now be better understood when held up against the ideology of Reverend Wright.

Our Choices

It is our plight to have to pick from second tier candidates again as we have had to do in the past elections of recent memory.Looking back, have we had any really good candidates for the Presidency on the ballot?Of recent years we had a choice between George Bush and John Kerry, George Bush and Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and George Bush 41 and Ross Perot (he had sufficient vote to be listed), George Bush 41 and Michael Dukakis. Are there candidates out there with the capability, experience, and judgment to be President, who do not have to dance around, obscure, and mislead us on their history to be elected?Is it us, the voters, is it the press, or is it the flood of people who make politics a career and not a calling that allows us to be presented with and to accept second tier candidates time and again?

Democrat Super Delegates

What are the reasons for the existence of super delegates?Well, the reason may be the same reason as the requirement for the Electoral College.First, can there be any other reason than to insure that party regulars can steer the party away from the choice of the primary voters and caucus attendees, if they feel that these rank and file non-party regulars may be picking an unelectable candidate or a candidate who is not in step with the Party?Is there any other reason – I can’t think of one – please comment if you have come up with other valid reasons.

The Founding fathers felt that the populace, with a very high illiteracy rate at that time and no national press, would have difficulty making a choice for the President because they would not know enough about the candidates.Also at that time this was truly a states rights nation with the federal government to be subordinate to the states in all matters except foreign affairs, international trade and defense.So why shouldn’t the states choose the President.It was not until 1872 that a popular vote was used at all, and that was to decide on who the Electoral College members would be for each state.Prior to 1872 the state legislators determined the members of the Electoral College.We were founded as a Republic and to this date we operate as a Republic in Presidential elections, with a hint of Democracy – popular vote only counts toward the Electoral vote for each state.

It does seem surprising that the Democratic Party would choose to use super delegates, representing 20% of the overall delegates, appointed by the party based primarily upon positions now or previously held in the Congress and State Legislators.It also is surprising that the Democratic Party would use proportional delegate counts, if not to provide more impact to the super delegates.No one candidate can really win a state so the delegate count would remain in a region where no candidate can get a commanding lead unless the other candidates fall or drop out along the way, thus the super delegates’ votes become prominent.This smacks of the Electoral College, in that the Democratic Party might not believe that their membership is incapable of choosing a candidate.At least the Founding Fathers had a compelling reason to make this country a Republic and not a pure democracy.What is the Democratic Party’s reason for operating like a republic and not a pure democracy?Perhaps someone will enlighten me with a comment – be nice.

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com

Senator Obama says it is all about judgment and not about experience.He minimizes experience as a requirement to be President and points to his judgment demonstrated by his voiced opposition to the war in Iraq.He offers that judgment is preferable over experience.Let us assume that he is right and judgment is the key to being a good President.Does a voiced opposition against a war, which at the time had some compelling reasons – now debunked, represent that Senator Obama will bring King Solomon like judgment to the office of the President.

For the past twenty years Barack Obama has chosen to be a part of a religious congregation in Chicago – in fact he did not just fall into this congregation, but selected it as it suited his needs.He and his wife chose to have Reverend Jeremiah Wright marry them and they chose to have their two children baptized by Reverend Wright.During this twenty year association he has chosen to call Reverend Wright his friend and has remained a faithful member of Reverend Wright’s congregation.

I had thought about providing a link to the most recent inflammatory video of Reverend Wright, there are plenty of them on the internet – just search Google or go to Fox News or ABC News.It is not necessary to post the video, but it is necessary to comment on the commentators at this point.The commentators seem to talk in terms of an apology from Senator Obama, or a rejection of the rhetoric of Reverend Wright by Senator Obama.

This is not a matter of apologizing or of distancing oneself from Reverend Wright.It is a matter that Barack Obama been a friend to, been affiliated with, participated in the congregation, been married by, and had his children baptized by Reverend Wright for a twenty year period.What does Barack Obama truly believe – clearly we know little about his thinking as he has not had time in public life to demonstrate that thinking.

More importantly, what is his judgment capability?If he believes the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, should he be President?If he does not believe the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, why has he been a prominent member of the congregation and a friend of Reverend Wright for twenty years?What kind of judgment does Senator Obama possess? Does he buy into Reverend Wright’s rhetoric – if so, than I cannot vote for him – this may be the Real Change that Senator Obama talks about?Does he reject the rhetoric of Reverend Wright – if he does, then what kind of judgment does it take to associate with the Reverend for twenty years and subject your family to rhetoric you do not believe in?

One last point – now you can connect the dots to what Mrs. Obama said – paraphrased (first time being proud to be an American).Do she and Senator Obama really buy into Reverend Wright’s thinking – when connecting the dots, it is starting to look like it.America, look out!You had better peel back the onion on Senator Obama – because the media will not.What kind of Real Change are you seeking?

For those of you who have not given this thought, I ask “what is change?”Is change the same thing to you as to the person standing next to you?Are you sure that the change you are seeking is the change that is being offered from the candidates?Change can mean many things.According to Webster’s dictionary “change” is a noun and a verb.It can mean make something radically different or to simply shift position.It can mean to become different or to completely transform.It can also simply mean to pass possession from one owner to that of another.

Have you thought about the change being offered by your candidate?Are you quite sure that your definition of change means the same to your candidate.What if your candidate wants to radically change something you thing works well?What if your candidate wants to NOT change what you want changed?Senator Obama appears to be setting a record listing something like 140 issues in need of change.Have you studied each of these items on the change hit list to be sure you agree with them all or most all?

We have three potential new U.S. Presidents running for office today.Each candidate talks about change, one has driven a whole lot of change already while in Congress – some like the change, some do not.One candidate claims to be an agent for change, but has not demonstrated that he or she is a proven agent of change. Another candidate wants to make a host of radical changes and again without any evidence that that candidate is capable of steering radical change.To support all these changes, you need to do two things, especially when the word radical is in the mix.First, you need to understand what your candidate really wants to change and whether that candidate is fully capable of delivering the change; second, you need to understand whether the change your candidate wants to deliver will be more harmful than no change at all.

Another element of change is determining whether the candidate can do it alone or does the candidate need help.None of the candidates running will be able to effect change without help.Currently there are 468 assistant change agents up for reelection in November (435 Representatives and 33 Senators).Many of these folks do not want change because they have it “pretty good”.Some have been sitting in their power perches observing the scurrying about them by new folks who earnestly desire to make things better, yet these birds of prey like it just the way it is, despite what they tell their constituents.Let me be clear!Anti-change is so intense in Congress that changing one person, the President, will change very little other than window dressing.

An example of the wrong change by the wrong person and the impact of that change recently came to light.Senators Obama and Clinton, pandering to win Ohio, each derided NAFTA as being the cause of the misery in Ohio.Each candidate knows better, but instead of pointing out that NAFTA is not the reason for the misery in Ohio, that it is our country’s failure to remain competitive in world trade, they heavily derided NAFTA.They pandered for votes and delegates and in doing so, made our loyal trade partner, Canada, a major supplier of oil to us, very nervous.Canada started to talk about reviewing the amount of oil they send us.The push for NAFTA change, misplaced as it was, caused both campaigns to let Canada know quietly that they were just campaign posturing – you know, blowing smoke up the electorate’s collective butts!Remember be careful what kind of change you seek and who you choose to deliver it.

(See http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/nafta-means-lost-jobs-%e2%80%93-probably-not/ for more insight on NAFTA.)

To recap, if you want change, determine just what change you want, what will its affect be, and if the person you want to deliver that change has the know-how for change, veracity, and a history of driving bipartisan change.You will also need to give that person change assistants, which means changing the 87% of Congress up for election to remove the perched power brokers using seniority to block change.

 

 

 

Senator McCain, you must find a way to remain in the forefront of the public consciousness, while Senators Obama and Clinton are busy trying to earn their party’s nomination and the press is fawning all over the Democratic Party race.

Why not hold a series of public, invitation only, forums on a number of the issues facing us today?  You should hold meetings with bipartisan experts from their respective fields on:

• Oil/Energy - what is the fastest and most effective way for this country to shed its oil addiction?
• Jobs/Trade - what is the fastest and most effective way to turn this country into a world trading juggernaut and bring manufacturing jobs back to America?
• Social Security - what is the most effective way for us to secure, preserve, and enhance social security to ensure that is meets the needs of current recipients, near recipients, and the young people paying into it today.
• Immigration - what do we do with the current population of illegal immigrants after the border is controlled?
• Education - do we really need the Department of Education at $60 Billion annually?  Don’t the states have qualified people to manage education, is there a redundancy?
• Health Care - can it be fixed so as to cover most everyone in an affordable and effective manner?
• Housing - what is the most effective way to stave off deflation of housing values?  Keep the housing values high and you will have a chance of getting out of this mortgage mess.

Broadcast these meetings on the internet.

Senator, no definitive results will come out of these meetings, yet

• you will have given yourself a template for action, if elected
• you will have demonstrated a clear desire to solve these problems, creating hope
• you will have kept your activities in the media, while polishing a domestic agenda image

How would your attempt to address these issues in a presidential manner, while your opponent is mired in a fight for the nomination be viewed?I hope someone in your campaign with a little forethought sees this message and conveys it to you.

Barack Obama is an outstanding orator. He can lift our spirits and get us motivated. Millions of Americans, who are frustrated with our government, who have been told by the media over and over again that they are hurting in their lives, have been looking for someone to lead them to a higher standard of living and a conflict free foreign interaction. Is he the one? Does he have what it takes to cleanly free us from foreign conflict with no residual effects, to balance our national budget, to give us many more entitlements (entitlements now take up over 60% of our national budget), take away hunger from the poor, and permanently house the homeless?

This is a frightening task. It will take someone with skill, experience, and the ability to get political leaders from both parties to follow him and trust in him. Does Barack Obama have that experience, skill, and the ability to get the other party to trust him?

2/27/08 - NOTE: when this blog was posted on my Wordpress blog, the University of Chicago had the CV posted, now they have taken down the Obama CV they had posted. The following, while it can no longer be fact checked, was taken from their web site when this blog was written.

The Curriculum Vitae (resume) as taken from The University of Chicago The Law School web site (on 02/13/08), in its entirety and unedited (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html).   The School has now made the CV unavailable for viewing on their web site.

Curriculum Vitae

---

Barack Obama
Senior Lecturer in Law (on leave of absence)
1111 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
phone: 773-834-0935
email: bobama@aol.com

EDUCATION
Harvard Law School, J.D. 1991, Magna xxx Laude. (The Townhall Blog software will not allow the full term term, because it says it is inappropriate language - sorry all you great students - the three letter word used in Academic settings with Magna and Laude starts with a C)
President, Harvard Law Review
Executive Board, Black Law Students' Association
Columbia University, Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1983

EXPERIENCE

United States Senator, Illinois, 2004-present

Illinois State Senator - 13th Legislative District, Chicago, 1996 - 2004
Minority Spokesperson for the Public Health & Welfare Committee, Member of the Judiciary and Revenue Committees, Co-Chair of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
Areas of legislative interest include welfare reform; public school funding and accountability; tax accountability and tax fairness; campaign finance and ethics reform; job training and workforce preparation; economic development and technology access; and juvenile justice issues.

University of Chicago Law School
Senior Lecturer, 1993 - present (now 02/27/08 on The Law School web site an update: "This faculty member is no longer active at the University of Chicago Law School")

Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
Of Counsel, 1996 - present
Specializing in civil rights and voting rights litigation, employment law, and the representation of not-for-profit and community development corporations in urban redevelopment activities.
Associate, 1993 - 1996
Litigated voting rights and employment cases, wrote appellate briefs and argued appeals in the United States Court of Appeals, helped to structure and finance efforts to construct mixed-income housing to replace public housing in and around Cabrini Green, served as general counsel to community health clinics, social service agencies, and charter schools throughout Chicago.

Illinois Project Vote
Director, April 1992 - November 1992
Organized and directed a voter registration and education campaign targeted at minority and low-income voters in Cook County. Recruited and managed 10 paid staff and 700 volunteers; helped raise $200,000 for the project; coordinated a companion multi-media campaign; established office and reporting systems. Resulted in approximately 150,000 newly registered voters in the 1992 Presidential election.

Developing Communities Project
Director, June 1985 - June 1988
Organized and directed a not-for-profit community development program in low-income areas of Chicago's Far South Side. With a membership of over twenty churches and civic groups, the organization trained local leaders to formulate and execute a range of community development projects, including job training programs for area unemployed, college prep programs for low-income students, parent initiatives to reform public schools, and campaigns to clean up hazardous waste sites.

Business International Corporation
Writer/Financial Analyst, January 1984 - January 1985
Researched, wrote and edited articles, reports, and how-to manuals on international business and finance for multinational corporations.

It appears that the skill and experience to take on the leadership of this nation is lacking. Perhaps he can engender the trust of political leaders from the other party to help make the earthmoving changes he would like to see. The following is taken from the Washington Post web site (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301788.html) as they report on Barack's interaction with another Illinois State Senator. It helps us with the trust piece of the puzzle.

"...Even on the campaign trail, Obama tries to squeeze in some hoops. His personal aide, Reggie Love, played for Duke's 2001 national championship team. "There is nothing worse than losing to Barack Obama," Love, 25, told the Chicago Tribune. "You never hear the end of it." Obama, 46, has rarely suffered from a lack of confidence -- whether on the court or in the pursuit of public office. In 1996, he sought the Illinois state Senate seat of Alice Palmer, who was running for Congress and who endorsed him. But when her congressional bid sagged, she decided she wanted to keep her seat and asked Obama to move aside. Not only did he decline, but he challenged the legality of her nominating petitions and those of other candidates, ultimately knocking them all off the Democratic primary ballot..."

Well, so much for trust! Does he have what it takes to lead a multi-trillion dollar government and be the leader of the free world? Does he have either executive experience managing a government or international savvy dealing with rogue or hostile foreign nations? He has great desires for the nation, but is he the one to be put in charge to deliver on those hopes and dreams?

If you are interested in how Barack Obama reaches across party lines to bring change and to work together - how he is new and fresh - click on the blog URL below

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/obama-acting-in-the-same-old-style-of-the-congress-hum/

MSNBC’s debate the other evening focused on three themes. The health insurance debate, of which there is little difference between the plans of Senators Clinton and Obama, non-issue oriented questions of both moderators, and how NAFTA is ruining Ohio.  First, the loss of jobs in Ohio is tied to the extensive use of technology in manufacturing, and the worldwide competitiveness of a multitude of manufacturing nations and our governments failure to prepare us to compete in a fierce worldwide trade market.  It has little to do with Canada, whose manufacturing industry is on the decline, and Mexico which is responsible for only 11% of our imports – these two nations are NAFTA.  Do you think one moderator or candidate might have pointed out the trade problem distinction - if the candidates did not know then find new candidates, because neither is ready to be President?

Beyond this apparent gaff, I can tell you I have had about enough of debate questions designed to incite.  I would hope that moderators would refrain from asking – How do you feel about your opponent’s attacks on you?  The moderators clearly either don’t want to do fact checked follow-up questions or are just not knowledgeable enough to do these necessary questions.  I need to be fair and point out that the overall news media in general, not just MSNBC, has not served this nation well with the choice of moderators for most of the debates. They seem more inclined to talk feelings, attack ads, and gotcha quotes.  Often the political leaning of the moderator falls out all over their desk like a spilled can of red paint.It is noticed.  Does anyone with a brain really care what these media types think and how they lean politically?

Why can’t we have a debate where tough questions are asked that test the knowledge, readiness to lead, the judgment of the candidate, and the enterprise to work through the political mine field to achieve a goal?  Why does it appear that questions are tailored for the candidate, either to make them look poorly or to make them look presidential – okay, we might know the answer to that question?Of course, the positions of the candidates need to be learned; however, these positions are usually on their web site or in their campaign handouts or can be found in their opponent’s attack ads.

One moderator, last night, did make an attempt at asking the same hypothetical question to each candidate, but the question had a predictable answer before it was asked.It had something to do with - if Iraq asked us to leave, would we leave.Duh!  What candidate, in their right mind, after the U.S. has recognized Iraq as a sovereign nation, would say - no we will stay anyway.  Of course they would say – yes we will leave.This is the best this highly trained moderator could come up with?

Perhaps each candidate should be asked different questions, perhaps placed in envelopes chosen at random by each candidate.  The moderator points out that these are tough question with no easy answers.

1. The moderator opens the envelope and then says asks the hypothetical but realistic question: Senator, as President, you have pulled out of Iraq, Iran has filled the void in Iraq and has now taken control of the Strait of Hormuz.It now controls 60% of the world’s oil exports.Iran is refusing oil shipments to the United States.  How do you respond to this threat?
2. The moderator opens the next envelope, selected by the next candidate, and asks: Three years from now, Iran hits Israel with a low yield nuclear tipped missile, 10,000 are dead, and Israel is mobilizing to go to nuclear war with Iran.  How do you respond to this crisis?

These questions are realistic, the solutions are cloudy, but the depth of a candidate response to the question will tell us a whole lot about the candidate. When will we start to ask tough questions of these candidates?  The media today is not providing any help in picking candidates. The media is more fixated on what Bill Cunningham said, who released the goofy picture of Senator Obama, or printing a story on page one that there is rumor and suspicion that Senator McCain may have possibly had an affair with a lobbyist and possibly or perhaps could have done favors on behalf of that lobbyist, like send a letter to the FCC asking a government agency only to make a decision - not how to make the decision. What are they teaching in journalism school – Tabloid 101?

For more commentary like this go to http://www.brokengovernment.wordpress.com

Sounds confusing, doesn’t it. The cry around this country to “get those dastardly corporations – they are the cause of all our troubles” is so misplaced that it is almost like saying don’t put prisoners in prisons, because prisons are unsafe because there are too many dangerous people in prison.

Have I now cleared all this up? Okay it is simple, even if Senators Obama and Clinton appear to not get it. Corporations factor in the income tax rate into their cost of sales and thus the price they set on what you buy at the point of sale. So, go ahead and tax the living day lights out of these corporations, they just collect their income tax for the government from you. There is one hiccup with this plan. These corporations are unable to incorporate their income tax into the price on sales overseas or in Canada and Mexico.

Senators Obama and Clinton, please pay attention here as this is important and you act like you have never heard this before. When you tax a corporation and it cannot pass on that tax it either cannot survive internationally or it adapts by closing plants in the United States and opening these plants in another country. Are you still listening? When they do this, they create jobs in other nations and terminate jobs in the United States. This is called free enterprise. We could try to regulate corporations and force them to keep the jobs in the United States, but then they will not make any money and the investment capital will move to a company in another country and not here. It is like squeezing a balloon. Squeeze one end and it gets bigger on the other end – squeeze too hard and it breaks.

Our tax code and the fact that we tax our corporations at the second highest rate internationally may have something to do with out trade deficits and the loss of good paying jobs in this country. So yes, when we tax a corporation they bill us for the tax through domestic sales or sell us merchandise made in another country where the bulk of the profit is taxed at the other country’s favorable rate and the taxes go to the other country.

Senator Obama has a socialist solution for this conundrum. Instead of lowering taxes on domestic corporations so they can manufacture in the United States and create good paying jobs. These are jobs that make you more financially viable, jobs that make our economy healthier, and jobs that help us export to other nations. Senator Obama’s solution is to support the Patriot Employer Act. This act is right out of the socialist play book – we all know that the socialist economic system is failing all over the world. It is the second worst economic system, on how people benefit, only when compared to communism.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Peter Merrill whom they refer to as “…an international tax expert at PriceWaterhouseCoopers…” as saying “…Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. Companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.” http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120407121574294919-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI0ODAyNzgxWj.html

Honestly, they must have taught international economics at either Columbia or Harvard when Senator Obama attended. If he knows better and is sending us down the wrong path just to get elected, then he does not deserve to be President. If he does not know better, then he does not deserve to be President. The same should apply to Senator Clinton. The solution, Senators Obama and Clinton, is to help these corporations become as competitive as we possibly and then turn them loose on the world. This will create the right kind of jobs for this nation – we will not have to settle for jobs where you must learn the phrase – Do you want fries with that?

Senator Obama, drop your support of the misnamed Patriot Employment Act which is a form of reverse protectionism – it protects the world from us – and lower or eliminate corporate taxes. Yes, we all will personally pay more income tax which will be offset by lower prices for goods, since the tax will no longer be included in the price. This will stimulate domestic production of all kinds of goods and improve our standard of living by allowing us to hold better jobs. Aren’t you and Senator Clinton about jobs?

For more commentary like this go to http://www.brokengovernment.wordpress.com