The last installment of our review of the candidates begins now!
Party: Republican Party
Candidate: John McCain
If you live in the U.S., you have certainly heard of the Republican Party. The official platform of the GOP for 2008 will be ratified at the convention this week; all ninety-two pages of the 2004 version can be found here. They are generally advocates of fiscal and social conservatism. They also support a strong national defense. This broad description does not account for the massive increase in the federal budget deficit where spending decreases have not been commensurate with tax breaks.
John McCain has been on the national stage for some time now. He has been in Congress since 1983 with most of that time being in the Senate. He gained national recognition as the son of an admiral who was captive in a Vietnam POW camp for five and a half years. McCain has gained a reputation as being a maverick who can work with Republicans and Democrats alike to pass legislation. He is probably best know recently for his support of the "Surge" strategy in Iraq. He has recently chose Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
Sen. McCain (R-AZ) deserves respect for the horrific episode he experienced in Vietnam. His family has a strong military history. This is so much at the core of his being that it concerns me deeply. I'm not going to poke fun at his comments on Iran or Iraq which may paint him as a warmonger. But, I do truly feel that his deep love and respect for the military (which is honorable) makes him too hawkish and scares me. I believe that he truly cares. I believe that he can work with the Democrats. That isn't enough for me. Working with Democrats will mean more spending and more government. His deep care for the safety and reputation of this country will mean more military endeavors. He will not get my vote.
Party: Democratic Party
Candidate: Barack Obama
The Democratic Party is, of course, the main rival of the Republican Party. In a generic sense, they are considered to be more liberal or left-wing on fiscal and social issues. In truth, the two major parties do not differ that much. Democrats are more willing to increase taxes - especially so-called progressive taxes which impact the rich. The tend to place more emphasis on social programs, but demonstrate equal willingness to promote democracy throughout the world. The idea of promoting democracy is often code for willing to use our military strength against people we don't like. Their 2004 platform can be found here.
Sen. Obama (D-IL) is in his first term in Washington and most recently was a member of the Illinois General Assembly. He is young, charismatic and a brilliant orator. He has shown that he can galvanize the support of millions and is the odds on favorite to win the Presidency due to his charisma and ability to call for a change from the ways of an unpopular Bush administration. His "Blueprint for Change" summarizes his views and plans for the country. Joe Biden (D-DE) is the party's candidate for Vice President.
The conservative pundits and talking heads in the mainstream media will point Obama as a Marxist. Deep in his heart, he very well may be. But, he's smart enough to know that as a candidate for the Democratic Party he has to walk the line. His proposed policies are not as socialist as McKinney, La Riva or Moore. He is for big government and has a plan to solidify a base with the masses by villianizing the rich and big business. And, he'll probably get away with it. When it comes down to it, I'd probably tip my cap to Obama over McCain as his stance on foreign policy will be much safer for all of us. I have no doubt he can lead. His so-called inexperience is not an issue as he has shown with his campaign that he can effectively manage a large organization with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. That's not enough for me to vote for him.
So, this leaves me to two semi-finalists: Baldwin and Barr. When it comes right down to it, my views align much more with Bob Barr. The Constitution Party stands for a lot of good things, but their moral authority toes a dangerous line in today's society of 300 million people. Further, Baldwin's protectionist approach to trade would likely force a regression in the economy. Barr is a politician. There is no doubt. In some ways, that makes me more comfortable with; in other ways, it makes me not want to trust him. But, when it's all said and done, there probably is no such thing as a perfect candidate. So, for what it is worth, I am officially throwing my full support behind Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party for President of the United States.
Join me in supporting Barr!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Review of Presidential Candidates - Part Three
We'll now feature the next two candidates...
Party: Constitution Party
Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
The Constitution Party boasts the title of the party with the largest volume of registered voters outside of the duopoly (Dems and GOP). They currently have ballot access in thirty states. (Note: Ralph Nader now has surpassed Baldwin with access in thirty-three states.) The party's platform is very conservative, perhaps paleoconservative with, as the name suggests, a strong adherence an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. They also adhere to a strong moral platform on Christian principles.
Mr. Baldwin is a Baptist pastor, author and radio talk show host. He received the party's nomination for Vice President in 2004. Baldwin has received public support, but not an endorsement, from Ron Paul (R-TX) for his strong defense of liberty and fiscally conservative views. Interestingly enough, prior to Baldwin's decision to seek the candidacy, he endorsed Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Baldwin has gone on record to indicate that he believes there may be government conspiracies behind 9/11, the New World Order and the North American Union. He has also proposed a ban on foreign ownership of just about anything in the U.S. His running mate is Darrel Castle.
Like many of the candidates we've reviewed so far, I respect many of Mr. Baldwin's positions. He believes in limited government, decentralization, and strict interpretation of the Constitution as designed by the Founding Fathers. However, the strong message of Christian values is divisive and leads to the restriction of other people's rights. Their platform walks this line carefully which is important. Their stance on gambling probably best embodies my trepidation. The old argument that State's Rights is "code" for granting the states the authority to impose morality and discrimination is one that I don't believe in. But, I'm a little nervous in the case of Baldwin and the Constitution Party. I do like more than I dislike. He's a semi-finalist.
Party: Libertarian Party
Candidate: Bob Barr
The Libertarian Party is often described as fiscally conservative socially liberal (or progressive). This is a reasonable description of the party, but the strong belief in personal choice and freedom without little (or no) government intervention is the spirit of their ethos. In some ways they look a lot like very conservative Republicans and in other ways the look a lot like hippy, liberal Democrats. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. in terms of the number of candidates and elected officials. They currently have ballot access for President in forty-one states.
Bob Barr is (like Cynthia McKinney) a former Congressman from the state of Georgia. He served from 1995-2003 and was (in)famous for leading the impeachment charge against President Clinton (before Lewinsky). Barr has changed his position on many issues since his time in Congress. He was against medical marijuana, authored the Defense of Marriage Act which limited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. He has changed or revised his position on all of these issues which caused consternation and limited his acceptance within the Libertarian Party. Nonetheless, he did receive the party's nomination and arguably gives them their best chance in the election since their inception in 1972. His pick for VP is Wayne Allyn Root.
I've struggled to bring myself around to definitively support Mr. Barr. His background shows strong conservative principles, but mixes in a bit too much authoritarianism on social issues and security than I care to have in a politician. But, he says that he's changed. Should I trust a politician? Barr continues to maintain his Leadership PAC and has distributed funds to staunch Republican conservatives even in battles where they oppose Libertarian candidates. (Story here and interesting blog post here.) So, where does that leave me...??? Barr is a semi-finalist.
Party: Constitution Party
Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
The Constitution Party boasts the title of the party with the largest volume of registered voters outside of the duopoly (Dems and GOP). They currently have ballot access in thirty states. (Note: Ralph Nader now has surpassed Baldwin with access in thirty-three states.) The party's platform is very conservative, perhaps paleoconservative with, as the name suggests, a strong adherence an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. They also adhere to a strong moral platform on Christian principles.
Mr. Baldwin is a Baptist pastor, author and radio talk show host. He received the party's nomination for Vice President in 2004. Baldwin has received public support, but not an endorsement, from Ron Paul (R-TX) for his strong defense of liberty and fiscally conservative views. Interestingly enough, prior to Baldwin's decision to seek the candidacy, he endorsed Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Baldwin has gone on record to indicate that he believes there may be government conspiracies behind 9/11, the New World Order and the North American Union. He has also proposed a ban on foreign ownership of just about anything in the U.S. His running mate is Darrel Castle.
Like many of the candidates we've reviewed so far, I respect many of Mr. Baldwin's positions. He believes in limited government, decentralization, and strict interpretation of the Constitution as designed by the Founding Fathers. However, the strong message of Christian values is divisive and leads to the restriction of other people's rights. Their platform walks this line carefully which is important. Their stance on gambling probably best embodies my trepidation. The old argument that State's Rights is "code" for granting the states the authority to impose morality and discrimination is one that I don't believe in. But, I'm a little nervous in the case of Baldwin and the Constitution Party. I do like more than I dislike. He's a semi-finalist.
Party: Libertarian Party
Candidate: Bob Barr
The Libertarian Party is often described as fiscally conservative socially liberal (or progressive). This is a reasonable description of the party, but the strong belief in personal choice and freedom without little (or no) government intervention is the spirit of their ethos. In some ways they look a lot like very conservative Republicans and in other ways the look a lot like hippy, liberal Democrats. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. in terms of the number of candidates and elected officials. They currently have ballot access for President in forty-one states.
Bob Barr is (like Cynthia McKinney) a former Congressman from the state of Georgia. He served from 1995-2003 and was (in)famous for leading the impeachment charge against President Clinton (before Lewinsky). Barr has changed his position on many issues since his time in Congress. He was against medical marijuana, authored the Defense of Marriage Act which limited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. He has changed or revised his position on all of these issues which caused consternation and limited his acceptance within the Libertarian Party. Nonetheless, he did receive the party's nomination and arguably gives them their best chance in the election since their inception in 1972. His pick for VP is Wayne Allyn Root.
I've struggled to bring myself around to definitively support Mr. Barr. His background shows strong conservative principles, but mixes in a bit too much authoritarianism on social issues and security than I care to have in a politician. But, he says that he's changed. Should I trust a politician? Barr continues to maintain his Leadership PAC and has distributed funds to staunch Republican conservatives even in battles where they oppose Libertarian candidates. (Story here and interesting blog post here.) So, where does that leave me...??? Barr is a semi-finalist.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Review of Presidential Candidates - Part Two
Today's review of Presidential candidates will look at two more candidates. Let's get right to it.
Party: Green Party of the United States
Candidate: Cynthia McKinney
The Green Party is on the verge of being a very legitimate party in the U.S. They currently stand with ballot access in twenty-six states and arguably has more potential (longer-term) than any other third party in the U.S. as there is broad international appeal and stories of success. Their platform is summarized in its Ten Key Values. As you would infer from the name of the party, there is the expected focus on environmental issues. But, the Green Party is more about social equality, non-violence and delivering the power to the people. You also may recall that Ralph Nader has previously received the nomination of the Green Party for President.
Cynthia McKinney is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia. She served from 1993-2003 and 2005-2007. She gained a reputation as an outspoken young leader of the Democratic Party. However, she said some unpopular things, and spent a bit too much political capital. Since losing her seat in Congress, she has continued being outspoken - now against the political elite in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. Now, she has settled in with the Green Party. Her platform shares a lot of similarity with that of her party; however, there is a lot more focus on social and racial justice. She is highly critical of our economic and political systems suggesting they further perpetuate racial inequity and call for reparations for Blacks. She has chosen Rosa Clemente as her running-mate.
I respect many of McKinney's positions and those of the Green Party. Their economic policies, especially those of McKinney, are a certain flavor of socialism; however, this is not the core plank of their platform. But, many of the social justice programs will only be manifest as massive government welfare at the expense of corporations and taxpayers. McKinney has a tendency to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure if I should write her off as crazy or trust that she understand the dirty inside business in Washington because she's been there. The message of "Power to the People" is a good one, but the McKinney platform doesn't seem to mention decentralization of the government and suggests a deeper system of nationalized welfare. I'm going to pass on her.
Party: Independent
Candidate: Ralph Nader
Mr. Nader is often made fun of for running for President in every election. He is also known by some for costing Al Gore the election in 2000 to George W. Bush. While he has run in every Presidential election since 1996, I strongly believe it is not fair to say he is responsible for putting Bush into office. Running as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, he moved to run as an independent candidate in both 2004 and now in 2008. He currently has ballot access in twenty-eight states.
Ralph Nader has long been in the public view as a political activist and consumer advocate. On the big political stage of the Presidency, he is most comfortable fighting corporatism and the duopoly of the major parties. Much of his platform is consistent with the Green Party platform. In fact, his platform hasn't changed much at all since 2004 as his website borrows the same text from his 2004 campaign on many of the issues. His VP candidate is Matt Gonzalez.
Nader has broad appeal and superb organization skills as he has established numerous non-profits to push his activist agenda. His campaign website is the best of those reviewed thus far (except for being too lazy to update his positions on many of the issues), and I have no doubt that he could be a strong leader on the domestic front. But, his deep disdain for Corporate America and multi-national companies is bothersome. I know where he is coming from... I do. And I'm sympathetic. But, massive taxation and government regulation will cause a regression in the economy. Nader would expand the "Nanny State" to unimaginable heights. But, I feel his presence on the national stage is important, and his message should be heard. He just won't get my vote.
Part Three is forthcoming and will feature Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.
Party: Green Party of the United States
Candidate: Cynthia McKinney
The Green Party is on the verge of being a very legitimate party in the U.S. They currently stand with ballot access in twenty-six states and arguably has more potential (longer-term) than any other third party in the U.S. as there is broad international appeal and stories of success. Their platform is summarized in its Ten Key Values. As you would infer from the name of the party, there is the expected focus on environmental issues. But, the Green Party is more about social equality, non-violence and delivering the power to the people. You also may recall that Ralph Nader has previously received the nomination of the Green Party for President.
Cynthia McKinney is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia. She served from 1993-2003 and 2005-2007. She gained a reputation as an outspoken young leader of the Democratic Party. However, she said some unpopular things, and spent a bit too much political capital. Since losing her seat in Congress, she has continued being outspoken - now against the political elite in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. Now, she has settled in with the Green Party. Her platform shares a lot of similarity with that of her party; however, there is a lot more focus on social and racial justice. She is highly critical of our economic and political systems suggesting they further perpetuate racial inequity and call for reparations for Blacks. She has chosen Rosa Clemente as her running-mate.
I respect many of McKinney's positions and those of the Green Party. Their economic policies, especially those of McKinney, are a certain flavor of socialism; however, this is not the core plank of their platform. But, many of the social justice programs will only be manifest as massive government welfare at the expense of corporations and taxpayers. McKinney has a tendency to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure if I should write her off as crazy or trust that she understand the dirty inside business in Washington because she's been there. The message of "Power to the People" is a good one, but the McKinney platform doesn't seem to mention decentralization of the government and suggests a deeper system of nationalized welfare. I'm going to pass on her.
Party: Independent
Candidate: Ralph Nader
Mr. Nader is often made fun of for running for President in every election. He is also known by some for costing Al Gore the election in 2000 to George W. Bush. While he has run in every Presidential election since 1996, I strongly believe it is not fair to say he is responsible for putting Bush into office. Running as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, he moved to run as an independent candidate in both 2004 and now in 2008. He currently has ballot access in twenty-eight states.
Ralph Nader has long been in the public view as a political activist and consumer advocate. On the big political stage of the Presidency, he is most comfortable fighting corporatism and the duopoly of the major parties. Much of his platform is consistent with the Green Party platform. In fact, his platform hasn't changed much at all since 2004 as his website borrows the same text from his 2004 campaign on many of the issues. His VP candidate is Matt Gonzalez.
Nader has broad appeal and superb organization skills as he has established numerous non-profits to push his activist agenda. His campaign website is the best of those reviewed thus far (except for being too lazy to update his positions on many of the issues), and I have no doubt that he could be a strong leader on the domestic front. But, his deep disdain for Corporate America and multi-national companies is bothersome. I know where he is coming from... I do. And I'm sympathetic. But, massive taxation and government regulation will cause a regression in the economy. Nader would expand the "Nanny State" to unimaginable heights. But, I feel his presence on the national stage is important, and his message should be heard. He just won't get my vote.
Part Three is forthcoming and will feature Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Review of Presidential Candidates - Part One
It's time to break down the race for Presidency in November. As mentioned before, I will review each candidate who has gained ballot access in at least ten states. This is by no means an exhaustive list - well over 200 people have filed the official papers with the Federal Election Commission to announce their candidacy. Some are crazy, some are serious, most do not have ballot access in even one state. Due to the restrictive laws in most states, ballot access is difficult if you haven't received the nomination of the "major" parties. I don't have the time or desire to review everyone... so, on to those with "significant" ballot access.
This will be part one in a series of posts on this topic.
(In ascending order of current number of states with access.)
Party: Socialist Party USA
Candidate: Brian Moore
After winning a recent lawsuit in Ohio, the Socialist Party has now gained ballot access in exactly ten states. Moore and the Socialist Party are strong advocates of Democratic Socialism and speak out against Communism. The Socialist platform focuses on a government by the people and an economy run by the people. The focus in on the provision of goods and services for the common good and not for profits. This concept is illustrated by Moore's proposal of a guaranteed wage of $35,000 per year and a maximum limit on wages at 10x the minimum - which is $350,000 by my math.
Moore is a former Democrat and has also run as a Republican in the past. He held elected, local government positions in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s and has had numerous unsuccessful bids for other elected offices across the spectrum of government. He has spent most of his professional career in the health care industry with much international experience (especially in Latin America). He currently holds a high-ranking position at an executive search firm for the industry. His running-mate is Stewart Alexander.
As you may have figured out, I don't believe in Socialism. I strongly believe that any form of tax or subsidy will distort market economics. This does not mean that I am an anarcho-capitalist; I'm pretty sure that I am not. But, placing a maximum income cap of $350,000 alone assures me that Moore will not receive my endorsement. This is way to guarantee the demise of our entire economy. I'll save a detailed report of my views against socialism for another article at another time.
Party: Party for Socialism and Liberation
Candidate: Gloria La Riva
With ballot access in twelve states, the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a self-declared Marxist-Revolutionary party. They hold many of the same principles as the Socialist Party USA; however, they place a lot more focus on issues of international affairs and equal rights. They also call for an increase in the minimum wage (to $15 per hour) and the eradication of capitalism. Their criticism places its focus more on the (so-called) corrupt nature of corporations and their close ties to the government elite. There is much (well-placed) focus against the warfare state. Unfortunately, they are all for the welfare state.
I can't find a lot of information regarding Ms. La Riva. She is definitely a political activist having been on Presidential tickets on numerous occasions. She is very active in anti-war organizations, advocates the release of political prisoners, and is a strong supporter of civil rights. I cannot find any information regarding her source of income; she did translate one of Fidel Castro's works into English. Here running mate is Eugene Puryear.
I can respect much of the platform of Ms. La Riva. The warmongering pseudo-imperialism of the U.S. government is too much, too often. The notion of putting power in the hands of the people is not a bad thing. But, corporations are not always a bad thing either. Business plays an important role in delivering goods and services to the people. Government sponsored and/or regulated monopolies are destructive and distort capitalism. But, a socialist platform cannot receive my endorsement. The bad will just outweigh the good.
Party: Socialist Workers
Candidate: Roger Calero
Mr. Calero is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., and despite having ballot access in thirteen states, he is ineligible for holding the office of President. As such, I will not bother reviewing his candidacy.
Stayed tuned for Part Two where I will review Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
This will be part one in a series of posts on this topic.
(In ascending order of current number of states with access.)
Party: Socialist Party USA
Candidate: Brian Moore
After winning a recent lawsuit in Ohio, the Socialist Party has now gained ballot access in exactly ten states. Moore and the Socialist Party are strong advocates of Democratic Socialism and speak out against Communism. The Socialist platform focuses on a government by the people and an economy run by the people. The focus in on the provision of goods and services for the common good and not for profits. This concept is illustrated by Moore's proposal of a guaranteed wage of $35,000 per year and a maximum limit on wages at 10x the minimum - which is $350,000 by my math.
Moore is a former Democrat and has also run as a Republican in the past. He held elected, local government positions in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s and has had numerous unsuccessful bids for other elected offices across the spectrum of government. He has spent most of his professional career in the health care industry with much international experience (especially in Latin America). He currently holds a high-ranking position at an executive search firm for the industry. His running-mate is Stewart Alexander.
As you may have figured out, I don't believe in Socialism. I strongly believe that any form of tax or subsidy will distort market economics. This does not mean that I am an anarcho-capitalist; I'm pretty sure that I am not. But, placing a maximum income cap of $350,000 alone assures me that Moore will not receive my endorsement. This is way to guarantee the demise of our entire economy. I'll save a detailed report of my views against socialism for another article at another time.
Party: Party for Socialism and Liberation
Candidate: Gloria La Riva
With ballot access in twelve states, the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a self-declared Marxist-Revolutionary party. They hold many of the same principles as the Socialist Party USA; however, they place a lot more focus on issues of international affairs and equal rights. They also call for an increase in the minimum wage (to $15 per hour) and the eradication of capitalism. Their criticism places its focus more on the (so-called) corrupt nature of corporations and their close ties to the government elite. There is much (well-placed) focus against the warfare state. Unfortunately, they are all for the welfare state.
I can't find a lot of information regarding Ms. La Riva. She is definitely a political activist having been on Presidential tickets on numerous occasions. She is very active in anti-war organizations, advocates the release of political prisoners, and is a strong supporter of civil rights. I cannot find any information regarding her source of income; she did translate one of Fidel Castro's works into English. Here running mate is Eugene Puryear.
I can respect much of the platform of Ms. La Riva. The warmongering pseudo-imperialism of the U.S. government is too much, too often. The notion of putting power in the hands of the people is not a bad thing. But, corporations are not always a bad thing either. Business plays an important role in delivering goods and services to the people. Government sponsored and/or regulated monopolies are destructive and distort capitalism. But, a socialist platform cannot receive my endorsement. The bad will just outweigh the good.
Party: Socialist Workers
Candidate: Roger Calero
Mr. Calero is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., and despite having ballot access in thirteen states, he is ineligible for holding the office of President. As such, I will not bother reviewing his candidacy.
Stayed tuned for Part Two where I will review Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. V
Ok. So, I hope this will be an anomaly this week. I didn't get any other posts out there as I was traveling for business and then family reasons. This left me with little time to write anything this week much less the previously promised presidential candidate breakdown. But, enough excuses... I'll get to that this week. On to Loose Ends...
The biggest story on the national news front is Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden (D-DE) as his running mate on the Democratic ticket. Biden has deep experience in the Senate and has twice attempted a run at President. Biden dropped out of the Democratic Primary on the night of the Iowa caucuses earlier this year as it was apparent that he had no chance. I think that Biden is a solid choice for Obama. He is outspoken, has deep foreign policy experience, and can be (at least somewhat) positioned as "different" from the rest of Washington's political class despite his 35 years in the Senate. I look forward to his speech Wednesday night at the convention. We'll see how the McCain campaign counters with their own VP choice (most likely) later this week. My money is on Mitt Romney. In other interesting election news this week, McCain took the lead over Obama in this Zogby poll. It's still early, but it is interesting.
In the financial world this week, the continuing saga of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scripted another chapter as their stocks tumbled roughly 40% (again!) on growing concerns over their need to raise capital and/or a government bailout of the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie have been labeled by many as "too big to fail" which should be concerning to everyone. This is a very complex issue, and a failure of either of them would send shockwaves through the economy. Unfortunately, I think that these problems are already manifest from years of malinvestment and misguided regulation (or perhaps the lack thereof). It's just a matter of when and how this will rear its ugly head. Perhaps a government bailout will ease the burden... but, perhaps not. Government intervention has a tendency to reward people in the right place and encourage other bad behavior. Don't you wish you were too big to fail? In the meantime, FED Chairman, Ben Bernanke, spoke at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Annual Economic Symposium this week. Big Ben had this insightful comment for his audience, "... the financial storm that reached gale force ... has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment. Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory." Did he just now figure this out?
That's it for tonight - I need to get to sleep. This week I promise there will be more content!
The biggest story on the national news front is Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden (D-DE) as his running mate on the Democratic ticket. Biden has deep experience in the Senate and has twice attempted a run at President. Biden dropped out of the Democratic Primary on the night of the Iowa caucuses earlier this year as it was apparent that he had no chance. I think that Biden is a solid choice for Obama. He is outspoken, has deep foreign policy experience, and can be (at least somewhat) positioned as "different" from the rest of Washington's political class despite his 35 years in the Senate. I look forward to his speech Wednesday night at the convention. We'll see how the McCain campaign counters with their own VP choice (most likely) later this week. My money is on Mitt Romney. In other interesting election news this week, McCain took the lead over Obama in this Zogby poll. It's still early, but it is interesting.
In the financial world this week, the continuing saga of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scripted another chapter as their stocks tumbled roughly 40% (again!) on growing concerns over their need to raise capital and/or a government bailout of the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie have been labeled by many as "too big to fail" which should be concerning to everyone. This is a very complex issue, and a failure of either of them would send shockwaves through the economy. Unfortunately, I think that these problems are already manifest from years of malinvestment and misguided regulation (or perhaps the lack thereof). It's just a matter of when and how this will rear its ugly head. Perhaps a government bailout will ease the burden... but, perhaps not. Government intervention has a tendency to reward people in the right place and encourage other bad behavior. Don't you wish you were too big to fail? In the meantime, FED Chairman, Ben Bernanke, spoke at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Annual Economic Symposium this week. Big Ben had this insightful comment for his audience, "... the financial storm that reached gale force ... has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment. Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory." Did he just now figure this out?
That's it for tonight - I need to get to sleep. This week I promise there will be more content!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. IV
Well, I had aspirations of getting in a few more posts this weekend, but birthday activities and home brewing kept me busy enough. Now it's Sunday and time to wrap up the week. I'm going to keep this one short like last week as I have to get up super early tomorrow to fly out for business (argh).
John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at the Saddleback Church for a Q&A session with pastor and best-selling author, Rick Warren. I thought the session was reasonable with Warren serving as a good moderator. There were no great sound bytes or screw-ups in my opinion. I haven't watched much of the "analysis" after the debate, so I haven't heard the spin yet. Meanwhile, Bob Barr filed an injunction in the District Court against Saddleback on the premise that they were in violation of FEC rules by not having predefined objective criteria for inclusion to the forum. Barr lost his case. Should Barr, who is running on a platform denouncing the power of big government, try to use the power of government to get his way? Or, is he using whatever means possible to get his voice heard so that he can have the opportunity to advance the platform? It's an interesting debate. Regardless, according to the latest Zogby poll, most Americans want to have the opportunity to hear what he has to say in a head-to-head(-to-head...) debate.
The anti-Russia rhetoric in the U.S. continues to heat up as the days progress. I tried to bring the objective facts of history (is there a such thing?) to this audience earlier in the week. In discussions through the weekend I've reiterated my point that the complexity of this situation warrants caution in taking sides. I strongly feel that there is plenty of blame to go around and varying perspectives. Yet, sadly, all I tend to hear from both the television and others is how badly Russia is misbehaving. "Once you are KGB, you are always KGB", "Russia has attacked a sovereign nation", "Georgia is a friend of the West", "We must protect democracy"... Look, Russia's actions are deplorable. But, it is a bit more complex. Do the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a right to secede? Where does the line end for Georgia to use military force on its own people within its own borders? By the way, doesn't it seem a bit odd that the U.S. is taking such a strong stance against a nation launching an unprovoked attack against another nation?
Locally, Greg Ballard's budget is getting some heat. One of the biggest sources of discontent is his plan to reduce the budget for the Parks Department. This story ran in the Indianapolis Star this weekend. I want to do some digging around at some point to see if there has been any solid, reliable economic analysis which objectively studies the impact of green space on crime and education in a neighborhood. It makes sense to a degree, but I've seen some of the parks in this city. Just because there is a park, it doesn't mean that it is either nice or visited by anyone. This also reminds me that I need to read the Indiana State Constitution at some point as well as it's equivalent for the city of Indianapolis. I'm sure that parks are probably designated as essential services, but opportunity for privatization may exist. Either way, having some element of objectivity to determine which parks are "working" and which ones are not should be a must. Government should be run like any other business. You need to have objective goals and measures to know if things are working. Investment and management should have some notion of ROI or a cost-benefit analysis.
This week I plan on breaking down the candidates for President. I'll review everyone who has ballot access in at least ten states (that's my own arbitrary and objective criteria). This will include my official endorsement. I also plan on discussing "windfall profits" and their place in Obama's plan for the country.
John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at the Saddleback Church for a Q&A session with pastor and best-selling author, Rick Warren. I thought the session was reasonable with Warren serving as a good moderator. There were no great sound bytes or screw-ups in my opinion. I haven't watched much of the "analysis" after the debate, so I haven't heard the spin yet. Meanwhile, Bob Barr filed an injunction in the District Court against Saddleback on the premise that they were in violation of FEC rules by not having predefined objective criteria for inclusion to the forum. Barr lost his case. Should Barr, who is running on a platform denouncing the power of big government, try to use the power of government to get his way? Or, is he using whatever means possible to get his voice heard so that he can have the opportunity to advance the platform? It's an interesting debate. Regardless, according to the latest Zogby poll, most Americans want to have the opportunity to hear what he has to say in a head-to-head(-to-head...) debate.
The anti-Russia rhetoric in the U.S. continues to heat up as the days progress. I tried to bring the objective facts of history (is there a such thing?) to this audience earlier in the week. In discussions through the weekend I've reiterated my point that the complexity of this situation warrants caution in taking sides. I strongly feel that there is plenty of blame to go around and varying perspectives. Yet, sadly, all I tend to hear from both the television and others is how badly Russia is misbehaving. "Once you are KGB, you are always KGB", "Russia has attacked a sovereign nation", "Georgia is a friend of the West", "We must protect democracy"... Look, Russia's actions are deplorable. But, it is a bit more complex. Do the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a right to secede? Where does the line end for Georgia to use military force on its own people within its own borders? By the way, doesn't it seem a bit odd that the U.S. is taking such a strong stance against a nation launching an unprovoked attack against another nation?
Locally, Greg Ballard's budget is getting some heat. One of the biggest sources of discontent is his plan to reduce the budget for the Parks Department. This story ran in the Indianapolis Star this weekend. I want to do some digging around at some point to see if there has been any solid, reliable economic analysis which objectively studies the impact of green space on crime and education in a neighborhood. It makes sense to a degree, but I've seen some of the parks in this city. Just because there is a park, it doesn't mean that it is either nice or visited by anyone. This also reminds me that I need to read the Indiana State Constitution at some point as well as it's equivalent for the city of Indianapolis. I'm sure that parks are probably designated as essential services, but opportunity for privatization may exist. Either way, having some element of objectivity to determine which parks are "working" and which ones are not should be a must. Government should be run like any other business. You need to have objective goals and measures to know if things are working. Investment and management should have some notion of ROI or a cost-benefit analysis.
This week I plan on breaking down the candidates for President. I'll review everyone who has ballot access in at least ten states (that's my own arbitrary and objective criteria). This will include my official endorsement. I also plan on discussing "windfall profits" and their place in Obama's plan for the country.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Not That Georgia!
This morning I woke up, and while getting ready for work tuned in to watch more of the Summer Olympics. To my surprise, I found quite the epic battle in beach volleyball underway. I'm not a huge fan of beach volleyball - I prefer the indoor variety. I'm probably a bit of a traditionalist, I suppose. The match was between Russia and Georgia. I thought... "hmm... that's pretty ironic"... as I prepared to go to work.
Truth is that I've been giving thought to a blog post here regarding the recent conflict between the nations. While I'm not as prepared to discuss the details as I'd typically prefer to be, it seemed like to good of an opportunity for an opening paragraph to pass up! I'm going to touch on a few key points, offer some opinions, ask some questions, and call it a night.
First off (and this really should be no surprise), this is a very complex issue. One would hope that anytime conflicts escalate to the point of military action that there is an underlying complexity that drives such action. Russia is no doubt a large and complex nation. Georgia is a tiny nation (about the size of South Carolina both in area and population) with a long history and people of varied ethnic backgrounds. Georgia was formerly a republic of the Soviet Union. Two districts of Georgia are at the center of this current issue. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia claim independence from Georgia, look for international recognition as independent states, but generally fail to receive that recognition. Russia is sympathetic to their cause for a variety of reasons. Georgia doesn't want to let go for a variety of reasons. Now we have a war.
Despite the complexity, the U.S. government and our presidential candidates have tried to make this a good vs. evil situation. John McCain even said in a recent campaign stop that, "today, we are all Georgians." (If you just want to hear the quote, advance to about 7:30 in the video.) I'm not sure I can put into words how ridiculous I think this statement is. President Bush's statement earlier today reiterates his (our?) unwavering support for Georgia.
On the international front, French president and acting European Union president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has taken the lead in negotiating a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia. Sarkozy worked out a six-point proposal with Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev. Their press conference can be seen here. Sarkozy was then to get support from Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
A few thoughts and open questions:
1. Sarkozy articulated his desire to bring the two sides together to stop the fighting before condemning one side's actions or the other. This press statement appears to be a subset of the transcript to the press conference linked above. I saw some of it in its original airing on C-SPAN was noticed Sarkozy commenting that his caution in judgment was not for a lack of courage. I couldn't help but think this was a statement directly aimed at Bush and the U.S.
2. And speaking of Bush and the U.S., why have we been so quick to judge and condemn Russia's actions? Here's a couple of things to consider: Georgia sent military support to Iraq to assist the U.S., they have a democratically elected government, a major oil pipeline owned by BP runs through Georgia, they aspire to join NATO where a military alliance with the U.S. would be solidified, and (as John McCain mentioned) they were one of the first states in history to establish Christianity as the official religion.
3. Does South Ossetia have a right to independence? When should a people be allowed to secede from their central authority? Does the U.S. pull for the underdog? Is Georgia the underdog or is South Ossetia?
4. Georgia has also announced that they will sue Russia for ethnic cleansing. Where? The International Criminal Court. Note that (today) the U.S. is not a member... Should we be subjected to another layer of unelected international government?
By the way, Georgia won the volleyball match.
Truth is that I've been giving thought to a blog post here regarding the recent conflict between the nations. While I'm not as prepared to discuss the details as I'd typically prefer to be, it seemed like to good of an opportunity for an opening paragraph to pass up! I'm going to touch on a few key points, offer some opinions, ask some questions, and call it a night.
First off (and this really should be no surprise), this is a very complex issue. One would hope that anytime conflicts escalate to the point of military action that there is an underlying complexity that drives such action. Russia is no doubt a large and complex nation. Georgia is a tiny nation (about the size of South Carolina both in area and population) with a long history and people of varied ethnic backgrounds. Georgia was formerly a republic of the Soviet Union. Two districts of Georgia are at the center of this current issue. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia claim independence from Georgia, look for international recognition as independent states, but generally fail to receive that recognition. Russia is sympathetic to their cause for a variety of reasons. Georgia doesn't want to let go for a variety of reasons. Now we have a war.
Despite the complexity, the U.S. government and our presidential candidates have tried to make this a good vs. evil situation. John McCain even said in a recent campaign stop that, "today, we are all Georgians." (If you just want to hear the quote, advance to about 7:30 in the video.) I'm not sure I can put into words how ridiculous I think this statement is. President Bush's statement earlier today reiterates his (our?) unwavering support for Georgia.
On the international front, French president and acting European Union president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has taken the lead in negotiating a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia. Sarkozy worked out a six-point proposal with Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev. Their press conference can be seen here. Sarkozy was then to get support from Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
A few thoughts and open questions:
1. Sarkozy articulated his desire to bring the two sides together to stop the fighting before condemning one side's actions or the other. This press statement appears to be a subset of the transcript to the press conference linked above. I saw some of it in its original airing on C-SPAN was noticed Sarkozy commenting that his caution in judgment was not for a lack of courage. I couldn't help but think this was a statement directly aimed at Bush and the U.S.
2. And speaking of Bush and the U.S., why have we been so quick to judge and condemn Russia's actions? Here's a couple of things to consider: Georgia sent military support to Iraq to assist the U.S., they have a democratically elected government, a major oil pipeline owned by BP runs through Georgia, they aspire to join NATO where a military alliance with the U.S. would be solidified, and (as John McCain mentioned) they were one of the first states in history to establish Christianity as the official religion.
3. Does South Ossetia have a right to independence? When should a people be allowed to secede from their central authority? Does the U.S. pull for the underdog? Is Georgia the underdog or is South Ossetia?
4. Georgia has also announced that they will sue Russia for ethnic cleansing. Where? The International Criminal Court. Note that (today) the U.S. is not a member... Should we be subjected to another layer of unelected international government?
By the way, Georgia won the volleyball match.
Budget Time
Indianapolis Mayor, Greg Ballard, released his proposed 2009 budget on Monday. He's managed to balance the budget this year in light of a significant decrease in property tax revenues. There are a few things to note. There are some increases to the budgets for Public Safety, Public Works and Metropolitan Development. There is a nearly $100 million decrease in the budget for the "Division of Family and Children" which I need to look into further. This decrease alone allows for the budget to balance all else being equal.
The real story may be what's next for 2010. As I mentioned in a previous post, Ballard has stated publicly (and it is reaffirmed in this budget document) that tax revenues will decrease even further in 2010 due to the property tax reform. It looks to be a hole of about $60 million. We'll keep an eye on this...
P.S. - Follow-up (8/13): The state government has taken on the burden of the $100 million of child welfare referenced above. It was part of the property tax reform legislation passed earlier this year. Read the press release here.
The real story may be what's next for 2010. As I mentioned in a previous post, Ballard has stated publicly (and it is reaffirmed in this budget document) that tax revenues will decrease even further in 2010 due to the property tax reform. It looks to be a hole of about $60 million. We'll keep an eye on this...
P.S. - Follow-up (8/13): The state government has taken on the burden of the $100 million of child welfare referenced above. It was part of the property tax reform legislation passed earlier this year. Read the press release here.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. III
I was on the road at the beginning of the week again this week, so I didn't get my full dose of current events. But, it was a pretty slow week on the national stage again leading up to the Olympics. The opening ceremony was very good, I thought, and W was there to represent. Former presidential candidate, John Edwards, admitted to an affair in the moments leading up to the media's distraction with the games in China. I'm going to skip talking about national issues in this post and focus on some local items of interest.
This week, I actually brought in the mail one day and was treated with a pamphlet from my state representative, David Frizzell. Admittedly, I don't know too much about him. I'm going to need to change that - especially before the election in November. The talking points in his pamphlet are pretty focused on small government. Here are a couple key phrases: "Government is not the answer to all problems"; "We should hold the line on government interference and spending". He also highlights the following five points in what appears to be his platform:
1. Give taxpayers a vote on projects that will increase their taxes.
2. Non-elected boards should not have the power to raise taxes.
3. Trim the fat in state government.
4. Focus on classrooms.
5. Hoosier benefits for Hoosiers.
It is this fifth point which he dedicates two pages (50% of the total content) towards in the pamphlet in expressing his "[frustration] with the federal government's longstanding unwillingness" to address illegal immigration. Seems like a bit of overkill to me, but this is an area where I need to do some further research before this November's elections.
In other local election news, on the way to work listening to Abdul in the Morning I caught about half of their interview with Nels Ackerson, Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 4th District. The bit that I caught was good. He scolded both sides of the aisle for the on-going political games and posturing pitting the #dontgo Republicans against Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). I plan on spending some more time on Ackerson's site and researching all of the Indiana races. Could this be a Democrat receiving my endorsement? He won't get my vote, because I live in the 5th District.
Finally, tonight, while watching primetime Olympic coverage, the local news commercial highlighted a story of a campaign to reform Indiana's blue laws. Currently, it is against state law to purchase packaged liquor on Sundays in this state. Check out the "Hoosiers for Beverage Choices" website. I tried to sign the online petition, but the site was having technical difficulties. I'll blame it on website issues instead of a prohibitionist conspiracy... for now.
This week, I actually brought in the mail one day and was treated with a pamphlet from my state representative, David Frizzell. Admittedly, I don't know too much about him. I'm going to need to change that - especially before the election in November. The talking points in his pamphlet are pretty focused on small government. Here are a couple key phrases: "Government is not the answer to all problems"; "We should hold the line on government interference and spending". He also highlights the following five points in what appears to be his platform:
1. Give taxpayers a vote on projects that will increase their taxes.
2. Non-elected boards should not have the power to raise taxes.
3. Trim the fat in state government.
4. Focus on classrooms.
5. Hoosier benefits for Hoosiers.
It is this fifth point which he dedicates two pages (50% of the total content) towards in the pamphlet in expressing his "[frustration] with the federal government's longstanding unwillingness" to address illegal immigration. Seems like a bit of overkill to me, but this is an area where I need to do some further research before this November's elections.
In other local election news, on the way to work listening to Abdul in the Morning I caught about half of their interview with Nels Ackerson, Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 4th District. The bit that I caught was good. He scolded both sides of the aisle for the on-going political games and posturing pitting the #dontgo Republicans against Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). I plan on spending some more time on Ackerson's site and researching all of the Indiana races. Could this be a Democrat receiving my endorsement? He won't get my vote, because I live in the 5th District.
Finally, tonight, while watching primetime Olympic coverage, the local news commercial highlighted a story of a campaign to reform Indiana's blue laws. Currently, it is against state law to purchase packaged liquor on Sundays in this state. Check out the "Hoosiers for Beverage Choices" website. I tried to sign the online petition, but the site was having technical difficulties. I'll blame it on website issues instead of a prohibitionist conspiracy... for now.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
T. Boone Pickpocket... or American Hero?
If you watch any TV at all, you've probably seen "oilman" T. Boone Pickens in his new commercials discussing his plan for America's energy future. It's quite impressive in my opinion to see a guy step up, develop a strategy, and execute a marketing plan to get the public excited about reducing our dependency on foreign oil. But, what are the real details of his plan? Why does he need to spend over $50 million raising public awareness and support? His plan calls for a massive investment in infrastructure for wind power - a bold entrepreneurial move. Can't he just do it without all the buzz, sit back and watch the money roll in?
A review of the plan on his own website is concise and well-marketed. We should reduce our foreign oil dependency by switching to natural gas powered vehicles. Natural gas, he argues, is cheaper, proven, and sourced domestically. The second key component is expanding wind power to generate electricity (partially replacing natural gas generated electricity). Again, wind power would be a domestic energy source and he argues that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." The plan calls for the development of massive and expansive wind farms across a corridor stretching from Texas to North Dakota. He created enough buzz that he was invited to testify before Congress.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on June 17, featuring Mr. Pickens. In his opening statement, he gives us more information which begins to explain his desire to generate massive support in the court of public opinion. Pickens outlines his concerns and calls on Congress to help address a few issues:
1. Siting Authority - The first point of concern is the ability for Pickens to secure the land rights required to build his wind farms and the necessary transmission of the energy. He calls for the power of eminent domain to be employed to secure this land.
2. Federal Lands - The Pickens Plan would require land which spans across Federal land. He notes there are provisions to secure these rights, but they are cumbersome. He asks that process be streamlined.
3. Federal Permitting - The construction of new transmission lines requires permits from the U.S. Government. Again, he asks that the existing process be streamlined and expedited.
4. Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery - Pickens is willing to put up the capital for building the infrastructure. But, once it is built, he wants to pass the costs back to those who use the energy. This is more complicated since the energy will be used by residents of many states including states where no investment is made. He calls on the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to modify regulations to meet his needs.
5. Equitable Allocation of Capacity - Existing regulation allows for energy producers to share transmission lines. Pickens argues that if he invests in the development of new transmission lines, that he should receive preferential treatment and priority in the use of those lines.
6. Financial Incentives: Pickens calls for a loan guarantee program and tax incentives to reduce risk in his investments and encourage others to do the same.
I'd say that most of his arguments are fair, or at least they make sense from his perspective. Energy markets, like just about everything else, are highly regulated creating barriers for entry. But, I do have one big problem with this plan which I cannot reconcile immediately. This is his call for the power of eminent domain.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution governs the use of eminent domain in the United States. The text states, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key phrase here is "public use" whereas Mr. Pickens is seeking private investment. Eminent domain powers have been used by allowing states to broadly interpret public use. The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. The City of New London upheld the actions of the city who seized land from Kelo and others for the purpose of economic development, namely a research facility for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This was (and still is) a controversial decision as it allows for very broad interpretation of public use. As such, Pickens is more than happy for the government to step in and ensure that he can have any land he wants for his project. (The Court's opinion can be read here.)
Pickens is not new to leveraging government to get what he wants. Should we really blame him if it will help him get what he wants? Not sure I can blame him for that. But, I don't believe that he is being straightforward in his desire to have the government take land from private citizens by force for his own benefit. I suppose that story wouldn't go over as well in his commercials.
Pickens and his wife have given a lot of money this election cycle including the maximum $2300 to Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
A review of the plan on his own website is concise and well-marketed. We should reduce our foreign oil dependency by switching to natural gas powered vehicles. Natural gas, he argues, is cheaper, proven, and sourced domestically. The second key component is expanding wind power to generate electricity (partially replacing natural gas generated electricity). Again, wind power would be a domestic energy source and he argues that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." The plan calls for the development of massive and expansive wind farms across a corridor stretching from Texas to North Dakota. He created enough buzz that he was invited to testify before Congress.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on June 17, featuring Mr. Pickens. In his opening statement, he gives us more information which begins to explain his desire to generate massive support in the court of public opinion. Pickens outlines his concerns and calls on Congress to help address a few issues:
1. Siting Authority - The first point of concern is the ability for Pickens to secure the land rights required to build his wind farms and the necessary transmission of the energy. He calls for the power of eminent domain to be employed to secure this land.
2. Federal Lands - The Pickens Plan would require land which spans across Federal land. He notes there are provisions to secure these rights, but they are cumbersome. He asks that process be streamlined.
3. Federal Permitting - The construction of new transmission lines requires permits from the U.S. Government. Again, he asks that the existing process be streamlined and expedited.
4. Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery - Pickens is willing to put up the capital for building the infrastructure. But, once it is built, he wants to pass the costs back to those who use the energy. This is more complicated since the energy will be used by residents of many states including states where no investment is made. He calls on the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to modify regulations to meet his needs.
5. Equitable Allocation of Capacity - Existing regulation allows for energy producers to share transmission lines. Pickens argues that if he invests in the development of new transmission lines, that he should receive preferential treatment and priority in the use of those lines.
6. Financial Incentives: Pickens calls for a loan guarantee program and tax incentives to reduce risk in his investments and encourage others to do the same.
I'd say that most of his arguments are fair, or at least they make sense from his perspective. Energy markets, like just about everything else, are highly regulated creating barriers for entry. But, I do have one big problem with this plan which I cannot reconcile immediately. This is his call for the power of eminent domain.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution governs the use of eminent domain in the United States. The text states, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key phrase here is "public use" whereas Mr. Pickens is seeking private investment. Eminent domain powers have been used by allowing states to broadly interpret public use. The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. The City of New London upheld the actions of the city who seized land from Kelo and others for the purpose of economic development, namely a research facility for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This was (and still is) a controversial decision as it allows for very broad interpretation of public use. As such, Pickens is more than happy for the government to step in and ensure that he can have any land he wants for his project. (The Court's opinion can be read here.)
Pickens is not new to leveraging government to get what he wants. Should we really blame him if it will help him get what he wants? Not sure I can blame him for that. But, I don't believe that he is being straightforward in his desire to have the government take land from private citizens by force for his own benefit. I suppose that story wouldn't go over as well in his commercials.
Pickens and his wife have given a lot of money this election cycle including the maximum $2300 to Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Gas Stats
Over the last few months, gas prices having been receiving a lot of attention. According to AAA, gas prices reached an all-time high on July 17 this year at a national average of $4.11 for regular unleaded. It's been talked about as one of the most important issues of the upcoming election. PollingReport.com has a lot of information on various polls conducted by various groups. This particular page gives detailed polling information regarding the priorities of the voters. As you peruse, you can see that "the economy" is generally number one. "Energy" and/or "gas prices" also show up quite a bit. I'd expect when not specifically called out, people think of gas prices and the economy as quite similar. This set of polls is directed specifically at energy issues and includes people's opinions on what is causing the rise in gas prices.
In discussing the relationship of the dollar and oil prices, Ron Paul (R-TX) had this statement before the House Financial Services Committee. In summary, Paul suggested a strong link between inflation and oil prices. I've been thinking about this for a while myself and was curious to see how much of a relationship there actually is between gas prices and some measure of inflation. I also seemed to recall new stories in the past that gas prices increase in the summer which makes since due to increased travel in the summer vacation season. This article from 2005 corroborates my recollections as well as basic supply and demand economics.
So, I decided to build a simple statistical model using regression. Basically, this model takes certain variables as inputs and tries to predict the value of another variable. I decided to build a model that would try to explain (or predict) gas prices based on "inflation" (more in a moment) and the month of the year (to pick up seasonal travel patterns). To capture the impact of inflation, I decided to look at the money supply adjusted for the strength of the U.S. Dollar. There is significant debate amongst economists in discussing the link between inflation and the money supply. There's plenty to read about the thoughts of the monetarists, Keynesians, and the Austrian School economists which I do not intend to get into here. For the money supply, I chose to use M2 (read the money supply article if you care to understand) and sourced the information straight from the FED. I wanted to use data from Shadow Stats, but didn't want to pay the subscription to get the data. The FED is nice enough to make the money supply data available for free. Additionally, I used the FED's own trade-weighted dollar index (I used the "major currencies" index) which tracks the value of the dollar relative to a basket other world currencies. Finally, my gas prices came from the Energy Information Administration - yet another division of the federal government (at least the data is free).
The following charts summarize my process and results:
1. This first chart shows the price of gas (regular grade, nationwide average) from January 1991 until July 21, 2008. As you can see, and already knew, gas prices have seen a sharp increase beginning sometime around early 2002. There is also a little bit of an increase right around 1999, but it reaches a plateau and dips again before the big climb.
What's the point of all this?! We should expect a decrease in gas prices. This is for two reasons: first, as we exit July and enter into August, gas prices do tend to decrease (roughly four cents until October where it is a more pronounced decline); second, we are in a period where gas prices are higher than expected based on the money supply. What's causing this? There are a lot of opinions out there: speculation, demand from growing economies, supply constraints, and geopolitics are the main reasons that people discuss. Certainly each of these play a role, some more than others, but simple inflation and seasonality explain much of the issue. Here are few other interesting articles for further reading.
In discussing the relationship of the dollar and oil prices, Ron Paul (R-TX) had this statement before the House Financial Services Committee. In summary, Paul suggested a strong link between inflation and oil prices. I've been thinking about this for a while myself and was curious to see how much of a relationship there actually is between gas prices and some measure of inflation. I also seemed to recall new stories in the past that gas prices increase in the summer which makes since due to increased travel in the summer vacation season. This article from 2005 corroborates my recollections as well as basic supply and demand economics.
So, I decided to build a simple statistical model using regression. Basically, this model takes certain variables as inputs and tries to predict the value of another variable. I decided to build a model that would try to explain (or predict) gas prices based on "inflation" (more in a moment) and the month of the year (to pick up seasonal travel patterns). To capture the impact of inflation, I decided to look at the money supply adjusted for the strength of the U.S. Dollar. There is significant debate amongst economists in discussing the link between inflation and the money supply. There's plenty to read about the thoughts of the monetarists, Keynesians, and the Austrian School economists which I do not intend to get into here. For the money supply, I chose to use M2 (read the money supply article if you care to understand) and sourced the information straight from the FED. I wanted to use data from Shadow Stats, but didn't want to pay the subscription to get the data. The FED is nice enough to make the money supply data available for free. Additionally, I used the FED's own trade-weighted dollar index (I used the "major currencies" index) which tracks the value of the dollar relative to a basket other world currencies. Finally, my gas prices came from the Energy Information Administration - yet another division of the federal government (at least the data is free).
The following charts summarize my process and results:
1. This first chart shows the price of gas (regular grade, nationwide average) from January 1991 until July 21, 2008. As you can see, and already knew, gas prices have seen a sharp increase beginning sometime around early 2002. There is also a little bit of an increase right around 1999, but it reaches a plateau and dips again before the big climb.
What's the point of all this?! We should expect a decrease in gas prices. This is for two reasons: first, as we exit July and enter into August, gas prices do tend to decrease (roughly four cents until October where it is a more pronounced decline); second, we are in a period where gas prices are higher than expected based on the money supply. What's causing this? There are a lot of opinions out there: speculation, demand from growing economies, supply constraints, and geopolitics are the main reasons that people discuss. Certainly each of these play a role, some more than others, but simple inflation and seasonality explain much of the issue. Here are few other interesting articles for further reading.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Oops
I'm far too tired tonight to write anything moderately insightful (nor have I had the time to do any "research") but I just happened to catch this story mentioned on Dan Abrams earlier tonight and couldn't help but share (copied from KTAR News in Phoenix)--
Oops. McCain volunteers wife for topless contest
John McCain may have some explaining to do to his wife after he told a crowd at a Sturgis, South Dakota motorcycle rally he wants Cindy to enter their beauty contest.
"I told her [that] with a little luck, she could be the only woman to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip," McCain told the crowd on Monday.
Sounds like a nice thing to say, right? Trouble is, that particular beauty pageant features mostly topless contestants.
McCain obviously didn't know how risque the contest can get, but the crowd he was speaking to sure did, as they met McCain's statement with hoots and whistles.
I highly suggest watching the clip of him making a fool of himself...it sure gave me a good laugh.
Oops. McCain volunteers wife for topless contest
John McCain may have some explaining to do to his wife after he told a crowd at a Sturgis, South Dakota motorcycle rally he wants Cindy to enter their beauty contest.
"I told her [that] with a little luck, she could be the only woman to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip," McCain told the crowd on Monday.
Sounds like a nice thing to say, right? Trouble is, that particular beauty pageant features mostly topless contestants.
McCain obviously didn't know how risque the contest can get, but the crowd he was speaking to sure did, as they met McCain's statement with hoots and whistles.
I highly suggest watching the clip of him making a fool of himself...it sure gave me a good laugh.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. II
This week, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the rest of the Democrats voted to adjourn and take five weeks of vacation from the House of Representatives; the McCain campaign "went negative"; Indianapolis mayor, Greg Ballard, announced that the city was going to have to borrow $154 million to cover revenue (tax) shortfalls; and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted solo two times.
Despite strong opposition from the GOP, the House went home. Roy Blunt (R-MO), minority whip, and several other Republicans continued their debate on energy policy with the "lights off" and "no cameras" only to emerge on C-SPAN to ensure everyone knew what they were doing. While this was clearly a bunch of silly politics, they have a bit of a point here. I'm not sure how much of the year the House is in session (and I'm too lazy to look that up now), but with all the rhetoric spewed from both sides of the aisle, doing some real work would be nice. Of course, we're probably better off with the House not voting on anything at all. It was a treat to see George Stephanopolous make Pelosi look like a fool this morning on "This Week".
The talk of the presidential race this week was McCain's negative ads, the debate of who played the "race card" first, and the continuing drama regarding the so-called Veepstakes. Frankly, it was a slow week. Sure, McCain's ads were a bit silly, but are we surprised? He likes to be a bit silly and negative ads are the staple of any campaign in a two candidate race.
In local (Indianapolis) politics, rookie mayor Greg Ballard realized that they don't have enough money. There has been a lot talk about property taxes, public safety, former mayor Bart Peterson, and other issues which have all culminated in this announcement. Ballard positioned himself as a bit of a white knight arriving to save the city. This adds to his pile of challenges. We'll stay tuned to see if he can balance the budget while fighting crime and cutting taxes.
Finally, Ron Paul reinforced his nickname of "Dr. No" this week by being the lone dissenting voice on two pieces of legislation. First, he voted against telling the Chinese government how they should behave. Second, he voted against increasing the size and scope of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ron is a lonely and frustrated man, I think. He did find a few friends to join him against popular legislation on these four other votes.
Despite strong opposition from the GOP, the House went home. Roy Blunt (R-MO), minority whip, and several other Republicans continued their debate on energy policy with the "lights off" and "no cameras" only to emerge on C-SPAN to ensure everyone knew what they were doing. While this was clearly a bunch of silly politics, they have a bit of a point here. I'm not sure how much of the year the House is in session (and I'm too lazy to look that up now), but with all the rhetoric spewed from both sides of the aisle, doing some real work would be nice. Of course, we're probably better off with the House not voting on anything at all. It was a treat to see George Stephanopolous make Pelosi look like a fool this morning on "This Week".
The talk of the presidential race this week was McCain's negative ads, the debate of who played the "race card" first, and the continuing drama regarding the so-called Veepstakes. Frankly, it was a slow week. Sure, McCain's ads were a bit silly, but are we surprised? He likes to be a bit silly and negative ads are the staple of any campaign in a two candidate race.
In local (Indianapolis) politics, rookie mayor Greg Ballard realized that they don't have enough money. There has been a lot talk about property taxes, public safety, former mayor Bart Peterson, and other issues which have all culminated in this announcement. Ballard positioned himself as a bit of a white knight arriving to save the city. This adds to his pile of challenges. We'll stay tuned to see if he can balance the budget while fighting crime and cutting taxes.
Finally, Ron Paul reinforced his nickname of "Dr. No" this week by being the lone dissenting voice on two pieces of legislation. First, he voted against telling the Chinese government how they should behave. Second, he voted against increasing the size and scope of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ron is a lonely and frustrated man, I think. He did find a few friends to join him against popular legislation on these four other votes.
American Idol Elections
Just two months ago, which seems to be an eternity at this point, as Barack Obama was wrapping up the Democratic Primary season, presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, challenged Obama to a series of ten town-hall debates this fall. Obama was initially receptive with some sort of "we'll look into this" rhetoric; however, yesterday Obama backed away from the challenge. The Obama camp sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates stating his intention to participate in the three debates put on by the commission.
Now, who is this Commission on Presidential Debates? According to their website, they are a non-profit, non-partisan commission established to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners" leading up to the elections in November. There is a slight difference in the opening description on the Wikipedia entry for the CPD referring to them as bi-partisan rather than non-partisan. This is a fair assessment. The co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul Kirk, Jr., who have served since its inception in 1987. These two just happened to also be the respective head of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee at the time. That's not exactly non-partisan - it's the precise embodiment of partisanship. Just as our elected leaders have fought tirelessly (together) to prevent third-party candidates from breaking the duopoly the Dems and GOP enjoy, the CPD has made it nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to have the voice heard in the "official" debates.
The criteria set forth by the CPD this year are as follows: the candidate must be constitutionally eligible, the candidate must have ballot access in enough states to represent an electoral college majority, and the candidate must have indicators of electoral support. What qualifies as an indicator of electoral support? The candidate must poll at a level of at least 15% across an average of five national presidential polls. This is a clear and obvious attempt to maintain the stranglehold of American politics by the established duopoly. These are the debates in which Obama has agreed to participate (technically, as any good politician would do, he hasn't ruled out other debates). Google/YouTube has planned a debate for September requiring "only" 10% polling levels in three national polls. It's not clear that Obama or McCain will be willing to participate in this event where Bob Barr and Ralph Nader each might have a snowball's chance of being invited.
The real problem that I see here is that the electorate does not even receive a reasonable chance of understanding the platform or issues that the third-party candidates represent. Even worse, we may be treated to only three head-to-head debates between the "major" party candidates in the run-up to the election. That's what brings me to American Idol. This past season ended with David Cook triumphant over David Archuleta. This was after the David's sparred for 14 weeks after the final 24 candidates were decided. The American Idol electorate had the benefit of choosing from many talented and qualified individuals and were treated to performances week after week as the field narrowed.
All too often, we hear both talking heads and everyday citizens offer that politics is becoming too much like American Idol. If not that, we hear that more people care about Idol than presidential politics. Let's check out a few comparisons... The 2004 presidential debates peaked with 62.5 million viewers for the first debate; the finale for Idol this year drew just over 31.5 million viewers. In terms of getting out the vote, the 2004 presidential election had just over 122 million voters; Idol's 2008 finale reportedly had over 97 million votes. Now, the good news is that there is a little more engagement for the presidential election than there is for Idol. But, it's not that far off (note: voting restrictions for Idol are not as stringent!) when you think about it. And frankly, I think the fact that the finalists have to stand up and perform for the public week after week might be a better model than we will be treated to this election season. Instead of actually hearing the candidates tell us what they think, we'll be subjected the constant spin from the mainstream media. Further, unless you really care, you'll probably only hear about the two finalists rather than being treated to the diverse and legitimate opinions of the many minor parties in American politics today.
Now, who is this Commission on Presidential Debates? According to their website, they are a non-profit, non-partisan commission established to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners" leading up to the elections in November. There is a slight difference in the opening description on the Wikipedia entry for the CPD referring to them as bi-partisan rather than non-partisan. This is a fair assessment. The co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul Kirk, Jr., who have served since its inception in 1987. These two just happened to also be the respective head of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee at the time. That's not exactly non-partisan - it's the precise embodiment of partisanship. Just as our elected leaders have fought tirelessly (together) to prevent third-party candidates from breaking the duopoly the Dems and GOP enjoy, the CPD has made it nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to have the voice heard in the "official" debates.
The criteria set forth by the CPD this year are as follows: the candidate must be constitutionally eligible, the candidate must have ballot access in enough states to represent an electoral college majority, and the candidate must have indicators of electoral support. What qualifies as an indicator of electoral support? The candidate must poll at a level of at least 15% across an average of five national presidential polls. This is a clear and obvious attempt to maintain the stranglehold of American politics by the established duopoly. These are the debates in which Obama has agreed to participate (technically, as any good politician would do, he hasn't ruled out other debates). Google/YouTube has planned a debate for September requiring "only" 10% polling levels in three national polls. It's not clear that Obama or McCain will be willing to participate in this event where Bob Barr and Ralph Nader each might have a snowball's chance of being invited.
The real problem that I see here is that the electorate does not even receive a reasonable chance of understanding the platform or issues that the third-party candidates represent. Even worse, we may be treated to only three head-to-head debates between the "major" party candidates in the run-up to the election. That's what brings me to American Idol. This past season ended with David Cook triumphant over David Archuleta. This was after the David's sparred for 14 weeks after the final 24 candidates were decided. The American Idol electorate had the benefit of choosing from many talented and qualified individuals and were treated to performances week after week as the field narrowed.
All too often, we hear both talking heads and everyday citizens offer that politics is becoming too much like American Idol. If not that, we hear that more people care about Idol than presidential politics. Let's check out a few comparisons... The 2004 presidential debates peaked with 62.5 million viewers for the first debate; the finale for Idol this year drew just over 31.5 million viewers. In terms of getting out the vote, the 2004 presidential election had just over 122 million voters; Idol's 2008 finale reportedly had over 97 million votes. Now, the good news is that there is a little more engagement for the presidential election than there is for Idol. But, it's not that far off (note: voting restrictions for Idol are not as stringent!) when you think about it. And frankly, I think the fact that the finalists have to stand up and perform for the public week after week might be a better model than we will be treated to this election season. Instead of actually hearing the candidates tell us what they think, we'll be subjected the constant spin from the mainstream media. Further, unless you really care, you'll probably only hear about the two finalists rather than being treated to the diverse and legitimate opinions of the many minor parties in American politics today.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Strategic Management in Government
I've spent most of this week on the road and away from my usual dose of C-SPAN and talk radio. Despite this lower level of attention, there hasn't been anything that's struck me to hop on the keyboard and write something up thus far this week. So, tonight, I want to write a little about my developing political theory. I'd like to use this blog, comments by readers, contributions by other authors, and research to fuel my thought process in this development. Perhaps a long manifesto of sorts will evolve someday.
At this point, I still find the U.S. Constitution to be a brilliant document. The system of government and laws therein have a delicate composition that exemplify the balance between the States and the federal government, the branches of the federal government with delegated powers and checks and balances, and the rights of liberty to free people. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there were arguably flaws in the original design such as counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, but the process to amend the document were prescribed and fair. Now, I'm a hardliner in terms of interpretation, but that's not the point of this little essay tonight. So, I'd like to skip ahead to what I believe may be a critical gap in the design.
There is a large body of work in literature and research in the field of strategic management. This is evidenced by the length (I haven't read the whole thing) of the Wikipedia entry on this subject. Why? It's about making money! Executives, capitalists, "big business"... they all like to make lots of money, right? So, that drives a lot of research and literature. No surprise. But, to me, it's more than making money. It's about doing the job right. I'm also a big believer in the free market. The more free and pure the market (read: no monopolies, worker's rights, lack of government interference, and unbridled capitalism... NO! these things don't contradict each other) the better! In a free market, the corporation and the individual are both out to make things better for themselves. Now, I'm not here to write about economic theory either tonight, so what's my point?
My point is this: shouldn't we expect the government to be run like we'd expect a business to be run? The answer is yes. I think of strategic management as the tools and processes used to effectively reach objectives. I think this is a critical gap in government today. In fact, the biggest problem is that the objectives are not consistent with the stewardship outlined in the Constitution. Our elected leaders today seem to have one simple objective: get re-elected; or in the case of an elected official not seeking re-election: make sure your legacy is protected and your fellow party members get elected. Now, with these objectives in mind, our politicians certainly employ tactics of strategic management. They hire campaign staff, political advisers, spin doctors, and all other sorts of handlers and supporters to ensure success in re-election. Scott McClellan spoke about the permanent campaign that exists in Washington today. Sadly, I don't blame them. We do not hold our politicians to be accountable for anything but re-election.
This is the topic that I want to explore more in future discussion. It begins with the role of government and defining the success criteria for the objectives of the government. This can be aligned to constitutional principles leading to a set of metrics by which we should hold our elected officials accountable. There's a lot of talk today about the economy, the war in Iraq, unemployment, health care coverage, and a multitude of other measurements... are these the right things to be looking at? Who should be responsible for what? They really only care about one thing today. Everything else is illusory and used to trick us into voting for them.
At this point, I still find the U.S. Constitution to be a brilliant document. The system of government and laws therein have a delicate composition that exemplify the balance between the States and the federal government, the branches of the federal government with delegated powers and checks and balances, and the rights of liberty to free people. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there were arguably flaws in the original design such as counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, but the process to amend the document were prescribed and fair. Now, I'm a hardliner in terms of interpretation, but that's not the point of this little essay tonight. So, I'd like to skip ahead to what I believe may be a critical gap in the design.
There is a large body of work in literature and research in the field of strategic management. This is evidenced by the length (I haven't read the whole thing) of the Wikipedia entry on this subject. Why? It's about making money! Executives, capitalists, "big business"... they all like to make lots of money, right? So, that drives a lot of research and literature. No surprise. But, to me, it's more than making money. It's about doing the job right. I'm also a big believer in the free market. The more free and pure the market (read: no monopolies, worker's rights, lack of government interference, and unbridled capitalism... NO! these things don't contradict each other) the better! In a free market, the corporation and the individual are both out to make things better for themselves. Now, I'm not here to write about economic theory either tonight, so what's my point?
My point is this: shouldn't we expect the government to be run like we'd expect a business to be run? The answer is yes. I think of strategic management as the tools and processes used to effectively reach objectives. I think this is a critical gap in government today. In fact, the biggest problem is that the objectives are not consistent with the stewardship outlined in the Constitution. Our elected leaders today seem to have one simple objective: get re-elected; or in the case of an elected official not seeking re-election: make sure your legacy is protected and your fellow party members get elected. Now, with these objectives in mind, our politicians certainly employ tactics of strategic management. They hire campaign staff, political advisers, spin doctors, and all other sorts of handlers and supporters to ensure success in re-election. Scott McClellan spoke about the permanent campaign that exists in Washington today. Sadly, I don't blame them. We do not hold our politicians to be accountable for anything but re-election.
This is the topic that I want to explore more in future discussion. It begins with the role of government and defining the success criteria for the objectives of the government. This can be aligned to constitutional principles leading to a set of metrics by which we should hold our elected officials accountable. There's a lot of talk today about the economy, the war in Iraq, unemployment, health care coverage, and a multitude of other measurements... are these the right things to be looking at? Who should be responsible for what? They really only care about one thing today. Everything else is illusory and used to trick us into voting for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)