Another year, another campaign

As summer begins, the reality of another presidential election year campaign is setting in on me. I'm seeing more and more ads from both Romney and President Obama harping on the other's record. Each tingles my skeptic nerve, though I do appreciate that the latter's ads includes graphs to help show there is some data and numerical processing behind their claims. That's not to say the claims themselves aren't distortions or partial truths, of course. In contrast, the Romney ads have generally only spoken numbers and didn't put them in greater context.

I'll be relying a great deal on PolitiFact.com and similar sources to help sift through the sound bites to the true data. Please do the same, or at least take what you hear with a grain of salt. If any particularly glaring examples come to my attention, I'll write up the results of my research here.

Stay tuned - this blog isn't abandoned, just hibernating through the long primary season winter.

Update at 3:45 PM: Here's and example of a misleading graphic from the Obama camp. Outsourcing jobs. Romney himself didn't outsource jobs, companies owned by the venture capital firm he headed did so, perhaps at his firm's directive. Did the outsourcing occur while he we still working there? We don't know from the graphic.

Disingenuity

I believe most politicians get where they're going by obfuscating the truth. This could include selective truths, omitting facts that run counter to the desired argument. It might be through use of deceptive statistics (e.g. choosing to use percentage versus numerical volume or vice versa - if you say only 1% of Americans it doesn't have the same impact as saying "3 million people", for example). Perhaps they intentionally misquote or take out of context the words of their opponents.[1][2] They might even simply lie.[3]

Yet, politicians continue to bend the truth to try to make their case stronger. The media often buys into it, repeating their assertions and using them as counterweight to opposing viewpoints. Some of this is in the interest of appearing to be non-partisan, but it simply detracts from the level of debate.

It's wonderful that in this day and age we can use sites like Snopes, PolitiFact, and FactCheck, among others, to help sort fact from fiction. However, that requires time and effort. Why go to the trouble of validate all the numbers we hear from politicians, reporters, and the various spin doctors when we can just take their word for it? That's not to mention all the data we receive from coworkers, friends, family, and everyone else we happen to know who got their information from who knows where. We could spend all our time checking facts and never get anything useful done.

The intensity of the arguments I've read about whether or not there actually existed a surplus in the late nineties is remarkable, for example, particularly because the main ones both got their data from the Congressional Budget Office. When two people look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, who do you believe? Do you trust the person with the right degree? The person who says what you want to hear? How do you choose?

If only there were a way to know whether the person actually believed what they're saying instead of simply listening to them. Certainly, two people might believe completely incongruent facts, or even one person might have a set of beliefs that are not consistent, but at least that way we would know that they're not trying to deceive us.

Then again, is it just as bad to be unintentionally led astray as if it were planned?

Who do you trust?

[1] Lipstick on a Pig had nothing to do with Palin
[2] Governor Perry's calling President Obama a "dark cloud" hanging over the economy is racist?
[3] Jon Kyl claims Planned Parenthood services are well over 90%

In Debt We Trust

How do we avoid default at this stage as a nation? Can the two parties arrive at a reasonable solution that not only gets us past this crisis but also leaves us with a better balance sheet than before?

I just read an interview over at Global Post[1] that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it does sound like a two phase solution would be most fruitful at this stage since tempers are so high after weeks of negotiating. The current proposals by Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner are farther from the compromise solutions than is resolvable in the time we have before default. The markets are already reacting and are likely to continue suffering so long as no clear path emerges.

One proposal I've read about is a clean bill including nothing but a debt limit increase. At this point, there would still likely be bipartisan support for such a bill and it would buy time to continue negotiating the finer points of deficit reduction without the stress of a looming deadline. Is this workable? Perhaps, though as the ratings agencies stated it might still result in a rate reduction and thus higher cost for future borrowing.

[1]Debt Crisis interview

Ready to debtonate

Have you heard of the debt ceiling debates? Yes? Okay - skip to paragraph two. So there's this limit called the "debt ceiling" that defines how much money the treasury can borrow via bond and similar instruments to pay for the programs and spending authorized by congress and signed into law by the president. We keep having to raise this limit because we're spending money faster than we're taking it in. On or around August 2nd we will reach the current limit and then be able to pay for about half of the stuff that we're currently doing without any new borrowing.

The debate has faltered numerous times over the last few months. There are several sticking points, or lines in the sand. Most revolve around a strong desire to reform our country's financial situation as a stipulation for raising this debt ceiling. Here are the two main issues I see at the moment:

1. Tea Party Republicans insist the limit be raised only with spending cuts attached, not with any increased tax revenue from current levels
2. President Obama, Senator Reid, and now Representative Pelosi, among others, want the limit raised enough that we won't have to debate this again before the 2012 election

The first has been a major problem for negotiations. Both the President's commission on the deficit and the recent "Gang of Six" proposal formed by three senators from each of the major parties includes additional tax revenue. When you have a cash flow problem, there are two options - reduce outflows and increase inflows. You can do one, the other, or both.

The second issue means that the volume of the money being discussed is very large, potentially up to $4 trillion over the next ten years. The driving force behind this requirement could be political - not wanting to have this issue come up again closer to the election. It could also be an efficiency argument - why have the same debate multiple times? Perhaps it's also tending on the perfectionist side - let's get the right answer rather than the quick one. In any case, I do believe that it is in the country's best interests to have a broader solution than a hack job, but the partial step is better than nothing at this stage.

In the case of a balance sheet as large as our nations, it's very difficult to choose only one of revenue or spending cuts without significantly changing the playing field. Rather, making smaller changes to both outflows and inflows helps keep the system more predictable and allows us time to see the impact of the changes. Several polls have shown that the majority of U.S. citizens favor a compromise that includes some of both. It really depends on the wording of the question, of course.[1] Still, the polls I've checked have shown that Democrats and independents are largely agree that tax increases should be part of the package. Republiicans are generally more in favor of cut only, but not by a large margin.[2]

How will this play out? In one scenario we could get a debt limit increase with only minimal cuts and some ongoing debate on the overall debt. In another, the negotiations that have been underway somehow reach a compromise in time for a vote before the deadline. It's also possible that the limit isn't raised in time and some payments stop going out. The investment world is getting more and more worried about this third option if quotes from economists and fund managers are any indication. Legislators are scrambling over the weekend to come up with something solid to avoid a massive negative market on Monday.

Can they do it? We've seen eleventh hour deals already this year and might be able to get one again. Still, you won't find me playing Russian roullette any time soon.[3]

[1]Poll divide

[2]CNN/ORC July 18-21 poll

[3] "The Tea Party is effectively playing Russian roulette with the bond market and they will, with certainty, lose," said Christian Cooper, head of U.S. dollar derivatives trading in New York at Jefferies & Co. Jefferies is one of 20 primary dealers that trade with the U.S. Federal Reserve.

A perspective on death

I'm guessing you've heard that Osama bin Laden is dead. What does this mean? What comes next? How do we react?

As we just celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover, a quotation comes to mind. After Pharoah's army was drowned in the Red Sea, the angels began to rejoice. The Almighty chided them, saying, "My creatures are dying and you're singing songs!"

Note, though, that this reprimand is not directed at the Jews who are also celebrating on the far side of the banks. I see this as a distinction in what is being celebrated. On the one hand, the angels have the perspective to see the event from an uninvolved position. It is their responsibility to take the good of all into account. The Jews, on the other hand, are celebrating their freedom and the inability of their former masters to take it away from them.

So - are we the angels or the Jews in this story? Or are we some of both?

As for how the world will respond, I predict this will make the odds of a Republican presidential candidate beating President Obama nearly insurmountable, barring an event of the magnitude of Katrina or a double-dip Great Recession. I also predict a small contingent of conspiracy theorists who will be reported on, of course, since they make the event seem controversial in a way that makes modern media salivate.

Pakistan will face many questions, some insightful and some downright silly, over how bin Laden could have be hiding so close to a training base. My coworker rightly points out that, perhaps, there are a great many fortified mansions in Pakistan given the tribal war lords common in politics of the region. Perhaps the Pakistani intelligence even provided critical assistance in the gathering of knowledge and planning that led to the raid. We as civilians will likely never know the truth.

In the meantime, let us not rejoice in death but rather in a respite from the slavery of hatred. Perhaps it will be short lived though I hope it will lead to an end to hostilities on all sides.

In peace,
Adam

Obama's first 100 days

Here is what I would like to see Obama and the new congress focus on during the first 100 days after they're sworn in next year:

1. Get his tax policy onto the floor of congress and passed so we can start working our way back toward a surplus a.s.a.p.
2. Work with Congress, the governors, and state legislatures to redefine marriage as a strictly religious institution. The government will instead issue Civil Unions to each pair of consenting adults with all the current benefits.
3. Begin troop draw down in Iraq, increase presence in Afghanistan. Ideally, capture bin Laden.
4. Meet with G[7/8], NAFTA, and appropriate U.N. councils to:
   1. Define worldwide emissions standards and get them onto the floor of congress to be passed a.s.a.p.
   2. Get Russia out of Georgia, replace their troops with U.N. peacekeepers.
   3. Expedite and improve aid to African Union troops in Darfur.
5. Revive the SCHIP coverage debate and get that back on the floor of congress so he can sign it into law.
6. Implement strict restrictions on line item vetoes to avoid their abuse by any future president.

First Debate wrap-up

The debate on Friday night was very interesting, and showed both that Senator Obama and Senator McCain agree on several issues, and have very different strategies on others. However, only Senator Obama seemed willing to admit that he agrees with Senator McCain on several points.

A few of the best debate wrap-up articles I've found are the following:

1. New York Times fact checking: Refuting some of the more outlandish claims and misquotes by each candidate.


2. New York Times live debate blogging: Summarizing the highlights.


3. Politico's roundup: Another good summary of the highlights.

The most powerful lines that stuck in my memory were both by Senator Obama:

“You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong,” Obama said about the Iraq war. “You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. If the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.”[1]

and:

"I've got a bracelet, too."[1]

In addition, as quoted in Senator McCain campaign's YouTube video that came out just after the debate last night, Senator Obama several times indicated that he agreed with Senator McCain. Why would Senator McCain see this as a negative trait? It shows bipartisanship, a spirit of cooperation, and rational thought.

The quote from Senator McCain that stayed with me was his repetition of "Obama doesn't understand." Unfortunately for Senator McCain, Senator Obama's performance in the debate proved otherwise. They both understand the situation, they just disagree on the best resolution.

I agree with the snap polls- this debate was a win for Senator Obama.

[1] McCain on offense; Obama plays it cool

Legislative accomplishments

In my earlier post "Candidates Respond on Bailout", I included a quote from Senator Obama on his intention to reduce government spending on private contractors by 10%. I found an analysis of the bills and amendments sponsored by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama over the past four years that help depict how Senator Obama may do just that.

Several times over his tenure as a US Senator, Obama has sponsored amendments to bills that would proscribe large contracts from being issued using "procedures other than competitive procedures."[1] These types of contract awarding procedures will make sure that the federal government hires contractors at a competitive rate, instead of the no-bid contracts that, frankly, do not make sense.

If you were going to have the roof of your home replaced or perform a major remodel totaling several thousand dollars, you would of course get multiple estimates from different contractors, likely after asking folks you trust for references. Why would the government spend 1000 times that amount or more on a contract that they hadn't done similar comparisons on? If the answer is just "expedience," that's not good enough. Our government needs to do the most with the money it collects from us, and that entails getting the best deal for the buck.

The Washington Monthly link below lists off numerous other legislative accomplishments of both senators and is well worth reading.

[1] Political Animal: Compare and Contrast

Candidates respond to the bailout

Though certainly not the only problem facing our nation today, the federal bailout plan for the financial crisis is certainly making headlines. Both major party candidates have issued statements on the proposal, and there are some striking similarities. As MSNBC reports:

Both called for greater oversight; for ensuring that taxpayers benefit if repackaged loans are sold at a profit or the bailed-out companies recover; and for limiting the pay of executives at firms covered by the bailout.[1]

Beyond that, though, there are some differences. In particular, the two have different tax cut plans.

"Obama said his proposed middle-class tax cuts remain 'absolutely necessary.'...McCain says he still plans to extend Bush's tax cuts for high-income Americans..."[1]

Other parts to their proposals follow similar lines. Senator Obama called for "boosts to subsidies for health care, education, retirement savings, renewable energy and other priorities," [1] the first three of which would directly benefit individuals, while the fourth would help bring the cost of energy down in the long term. Senator McCain "favors increased federal spending for nuclear power and control of greenhouse gases" [1]. While more investment in nuclear power might help bring down the cost of energy in the long term, measures to control greenhouse gases will likely raise it in the short term. In addition, such federal spending would only indirectly benefit consumers while directly benefiting power companies.

As such, it seems from the MSNBC article that Senator Obama's plan is more focussed on assisting the individual citizens while Senator McCain is calling for assistance to the wealthy and to corporations. Senator McCain's top financial advisor Doug Holtz-Eakins said McCain is working on "policies to create jobs in America and get the economy going,"[1] a strategy that, combined with the above, smacks of trickle-down economics.

From an article on Fox News, we learn that Senator McCain seems to have given more ammunition to his detractors, since "McCain, who only a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, now says the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis."[2] However, he also "called for a bipartisan oversight board for the proposed bailout, to be headed by Warren Buffet or another broadly respected business leader."[2]

Senator Obama "vowed to slash federal spending on private contractors by 10 percent in an effort to cut costs to help the failing economy, singling out Haliburtion."[2] As such, it seems that he intends to fund his initiatives outlined above by ensuring "Washington starts taking responsibility for every dime that it spends."[2] Senator Obama also calls for bipartisan oversight of the bailout.[3]

In summary, Senator McCain and Senator Obama agree that the current bailout plan needs more oversight. Senator Obama has endorsed middle class tax cuts, more spending on programs that directly aid citizens, and reducing government costs by increasing accountability. Senator McCain favors extending the President Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, more government spending on nuclear power and greenhouse gas control, and a committee including business leaders to oversee the distribution of federal funds to other business leaders.

It's just not reasonable to portray these two plans in an equal light - one of them is likely to actually assist individuals while the other is likely to assist corporations and businesses.

[1] Obama, McCain wary about financial bailout
[2] Obama, McCain Question Wall Street Bailout
[3] Show Your Support for a Responsible Economic Recovery Plan

New ad from the Obama campaign

According to the Associated Press, there's a new ad from the Obama campaign.

One of the sentences quoted states that Senator McCain "admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class."

Of those statements, only the last two on tax cuts reflect on policy. Not understanding the economy could also be a relevant issue, though is not as direct as the policy notes. As for not knowing how to use a computer or send e-mail, that doesn't necessarily imply a lack of ability to lead or serve as president.

I would prefer to see the ad lead the sentence with the policy critique as that's more relevant to the differences we'll see between an Obama and McCain presidency.

That being said, I'm glad to see in the last paragraph of the article that mainstream media in Virginia is focussing more on Senator Obama's planned policies than the lipstick hoopla. Also, it's refreshing to see that he plans continue to highlighting issues in his message and that the ad contains no outright lies or distortions unlike Senator McCain's have.[1][2][3]

[1] Fact Check on Senator McCain's speech
[2] Fact Check on Sex Ed
[3] Fact Check on Senator McCain's misuse of Fact Check

On Lipstick: An Open Letter to Senator John McCain

Senator McCain,

Shame on you. When Senator Obama said

"John McCain says he's about change, too - except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig."[1]

your first response should not have been to air a web ad claiming:

CHYRON: Barack Obama On: Sarah Palin
BARACK OBAMA: Well, you know, you can, you know you can...put...uh...lipstick on a pig...it's still a pig.[2]

From Barack Obama's remarks, it's clear he's referring to John McCain's policies.

Instead, your response should have been something along the lines of: "Senator Obama claims that our policies are no different from those of President Bush. He's wrong- here's what's different, here's what's the same, and why."

Misquoting, slandering, and phony outrage over a comment that John McCain himself has used[3] are horrible and shameful politics. Your attacks show me that your estimation of the average American's intelligence is approximately that of a pig wearing lipstick, or possibly a pit bull.

Please get back to the issues.

Sincerely,
Grey Politics

[1]The Caucus Blog
[2]John McCain's official campaign site
[3]YouTube video of McCain