Palin, Palin, Palin. No matter where you might turn, eyes are on Sarah Palin and her trek. The Vice Presidential candidate ponders the future, her fun, and the follies of elections. The Governor does not wince, when she contemplates the win that escaped her and her fellow nonconformist, the man at the head of the ticket John McCain. Sarah sees no personal failures. Nor does the Alaskan resident recede when asked of possibilities. Might she pursue the Presidency, G-d willing. Sarah ponders it all. Live, from The Last Frontier, the maverick shares memories and muses of what might be.
Travel hither and yon, on every television screen, nationwide, there she is, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. While she may not have made it to the White House, this time, Sarah is prepared for “twelve.” The once Mayor of Wasilla likes to refer to the next Presidential Election in 2012 as a familiar number, one she thinks might be her objective. However, she trusts only G-d can genuinely know what the future will bring. Sarah Palin has faith. Doors will open; the Lord will show her the way. So she said as Americans officially observed Veterans Day, millions more, interest was elsewhere.
Countless, authentically tuned in to see interviews with Sarah. On November 10, 2008, six days after she and her fellow Grand Old Party nominee, John McCain conceded in this 2008 election former Vice Presidential candidate Palin appeared on her favorite network news station, Fox. Greta Van Susteren, goes, or went On the Record with the Governor of Alaska.
The day after, Sarah Palin spoke with Matt Lauer on The Today Show. Fans of the former Vice Presidential aspirant flocked to their sets. Countless did not wish to miss a word from the woman they hope will be President some day, Sarah Palin. As citizens sat on the edge of their seats, they embraced the ambition of the lovely lady they followed since the Republican National Convention. Many continue to express commitment to the cause; Sarah, Sarah, Sarah! Certainly, Greta Van Susteren is not only on record with Governor Palin, she is in her home, with her family, and perhaps hopeful that one day this woman will represent America in the Oval Office.
Exclusive Web Video
Governor Palin Part I
Governor Palin Part II
Governor Palin Part III
Governor Palin Part IV
The next day there was more. Sarah Palin spoke of what preceded her rise to the national stage. The Governor “gossiped” with a national audience as she came to grips with how her rise to national prominence occurred. Sarah Palin spoke of the saga Behind the Nomination. Sarah Palin shared stories of her first encounter with the man she considers a beloved champion, Republican Presidential nominee, and fellow risk-taker, John McCain.
Thankfully, for those who treasure the maverick spirit exemplified in the earnest Sarah Palin, there is much more. There will be other conversations. On November 12, 2008, only a day later, Wolf Blitzer will air his substantive interview with the Grand Old Party Governor, Sarah Palin. The broadcaster will ask Sarah of her goals, her dreams, her hopes, and perhaps those of her base, the real Americans. Until then, citizens can commune with her cohort, John McCain who sat with Jay Leno, also on Veterans Day.
It may be apt; veterans, the Vietnam Vet who did or did not vet his first running mate, and Sarah Palin saturate the airwaves on a day reserved for reverence for soldiers who saw a fight. Please enjoy what for some is entertainment, or election excitement.
America, need not wait long. The Governor will grab the stage in Miami. Sarah Palin will keynote at a convention held for Republican Chief Executives. She will appear with Wolf, Wayne, Jane, and Jack, anyone who will listen. Sarah Palin is intent. She will show America she did not lose, and she will not fade quietly into the background.
Sarah Palin, once chosen to stand on the national and international stage will not be left behind. Fear not fans and followers; Governor, perchance, Senator, and then President, Sarah Palin is here to stay!
Conservatives clamored; if Americans elected Barack Obama as President, unthinkable change would transform the planet as we know it. Republicans warned, there would be war in the streets throughout the land, people would respond violently. An international incident would certainly occur. World leaders would test the “inexperienced” Commander. Certainly, the Illinois Senator would be stunned, awash in angst. If Obama were in the Oval Office, it would become more obvious. He was not prepared to command a country as great as the United States of America. The people, from every nation would take advantage of the inexperienced leader.
During the campaign, Sarah Palin saw what her constituents feared and capitalized on their concerns. She addressed the ample alarm from the podium. When her message was questioned, she retorted, she had proof. Barack Obama was not equipped to govern. Governor Palin thanked the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee for the confirmation of her thoughts. Alaskan Executive Palin pointed to the words of the then Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Biden. In a Seattle fundraiser, the Foreign Relations expert cautioned, “We’re gonna find ourselves in real trouble when we get elected.”
John McCain, the Presidential aspirant, advanced the clamor when he too recounted the prophecy. “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
The Confederate Yankee rejoiced when the Delaware Senator stated, “Mark my words; . . . the world is looking.”
Persons on the Right could not resist the temptation to omit the full statement, “‘They’re going to find this guy’s got steel in his spine.” Grand Old Party participants knew better. The Right relentlessly explained, a President Obama would be a risk to the nation. Indeed, if Barack Obama were Commander-In-Chief, the country would suffer. The world would not bow at his feet as the American press and people had.`
Republicans ranted; if Barack Obama were placed in the Oval Office, in every part of this planet, adversaries would know, American shores were vulnerable. The world’s superpower was no longer safe or secure. Foreign foes would certainly attack. Traditionalists warned; if Obama were this nation’s Chief Executive, allies would have abundant reason for fear. McCain and Palin were unwilling to ponder possibilities, such as Six More Foreign-Leader Calls for Obama.
The two, and those who advocated for them, could not imagine a time when Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, President Lech Kaczynski of Poland and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan would request a conversation with Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama. Nor would they wish to.
‘That One,’ Conservatives would remind the public, the Socialist, would not assist American businessmen and women. Hence, he could not be relied upon to offer relief to other nations. Traditionalists attested to what they thought fact, an Obama Administration would not advance democracy. Barack Obama, the Republicans reminded, does not know how to defend a country. He has never held such a high office.
The “Right” rejected the notion that John McCain also had not served his country in the White House. They preferred to posit Palin as the most qualified manager among the four possible Presidential [and vice Presidential] candidates. After all, Sarah Palin had served as an Administrator. She managed a city and a state. She is a beloved leader of substance. The Governor of Alaska and her supporters, former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani among them, avowed, she could handle the job.
Another Republican, who earlier deferred to the wisdom of John McCain, Fred Thompson, assured America, Thompson said Palin has the experience needed in Washington. The American politician called her “a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit.”
Well, perhaps for those who think politics is but sport and the District of Columbia beltway is but a party for the charismatic who were able to close a deal, the recent competitive row is complete. The results are in. The scorecard is now full. Barack Obama is the successor, and just as the Grand Old Party predicted, the world reacted. The sentiment can be expressed in but a single word, “Elation.”
Emotional events in the streets were realized. They were just not the raucous riots John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Republicans expected All were peaceful. People did parade en masse. No one marched; many danced.
“The New World,” the Times of London declared on its front page, beneath a huge smiling portrait of Obama.
“One Giant Leap for Mankind,” echoed the Sun. . . .
“A lot of people told me they had tears in their eyes last night. I was one of them,” Randa Habib, a Jordanian writer and political analyst, said Wednesday. . . .
[L]egions of jubilant supporters set off firecrackers in El Salvador, danced in Liberia, and drank shots in Japan. Good wishes went streaming Obama-ward from homemakers in Indonesia . . . and from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who also beat long odds to lead his country.
“Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place,” said one letter addressed simply to “Senator Barack Obama, Chicago.”
Its author: Nelson Mandela, the first black president of South Africa, writing to the first black president-to-be of the United States. . . .
Those inspired by Obama’s origins and accomplishments include French political activist Patrick Lozes, the son of an immigrant from the African nation of Benin.
“This election is going to improve the image the U.S.A. has in our neighborhoods,” Lozes said of France’s heavily Muslim working-class enclaves. “The American dream comes back to life.”
Tens of thousands of Europeans turned out to catch a glimpse of Obama during his tour of the continent over the summer. Many are counting on him to restore a more harmonious relationship between the U.S. and Europe, after recent years of tension over the war in Iraq and matters such as climate change.
A similar hope lives in Mexico, where former Foreign Secretary Jorge Castañeda wrote in Wednesday’s Reforma newspaper: “Obama won, the map of the United States was transformed and for Mexico an extraordinary opportunity has opened . . . because it will be infinitely simpler to be a neighbor, partner and friend of the United States with Obama.”
Republicans are “Right” again. The world is not as it once was. People, in every corner of the planet were moved to respond. Common folk could not be contained. Presidents, Prime Ministers, powerbrokers, and the populace as a whole were unbound. The restraints imposed by Grand Old Party rule were broken. People felt liberated. Freedom from oppression, rather than fear rang out. Flags flailed. Yet, not as forecasted by Conservatives, none were burned when the world realized Barack Obama is America’s President.
References for Republican Rally . . .
‘Thanks Joe.’ Palin Mocks Biden’s Generated ‘Crisis’ Remarks. By Carl Campanile. The New York Post. October 21, 2008
Good News! Biden Promises an International Incident to Test Obama if He’s Elected, and Also Promises Obama Will Screw It Up. Confederate Yankee
In the tradition of the Grand Old Party, this election year Republicans had hoped they had nominated a fiscal Conservative. In March 2008, Columnist Bonnie Erbe mused; John McCain might return the messianic rule Republicans think “Right.” The Journalist scribed.
Ah, finally, one of the presidential candidates actually offers a common-sense approach to resolving the mortgage crisis. Sen. John McCain yesterday “derided government intervention to save and reward banks or small borrowers who behave irresponsibly . . .”
The Senator from Arizona and Presidential aspirant has often spoken of the need to be economically accountable. Financial folly is conduct John McCain does not favor. John McCain rejects earmarks. He wants no Senator to spend dollars on local projects. He is proud of his rigid record; he has not supplied his home State with money for roads or bridges to nowhere. As President of the United States, the “maverick” Republican, will not reward capriciousness. Yet, perhaps he has and will when in the White House.
Irresponsibility is a term not easily defined. American history illustrates, the interpretation varies dependent on how the arrears accrue and for whom.
John the Caterer, Pam the Antique Shop owner, Tito the Truck Driver, or possibly, Jane the Dressmaker believe a responsible person takes care of them self first. Money in my pocket matters more than dollars for those on government programs. Uncaring or less than conscious of consequences; you dear reader decide.
These small business entrepreneurs work hard for the cash they earn. In these tough times, John, Pam, Tito, and Jane cannot afford to contribute to the goodwill of others in their communities. They are strapped. In McCain Palin commercial after commercial, proprietors proclaim as the candidate they support does, it would be fiscally irresponsible to spread the wealth or to have tax dollars pay for plans that might buy more body armor, build more roads, better hospitals and schools, or stimulate a green economy.
Each of these mini-tycoons, along with the now third person on the Republican ticket, Joe the Plumber, tells the American people of personal concerns; the trials and tribulations of taxes. These citizens crave policies that typify the Republican tradition of economic restraint. McCain Palin supporters, common folks such as Carole the Cook and Charles the Contractor muse; it is reckless to grow debt. American workers, businessmen, and women think it is prudent to hold on to every hard earned dollar. They too have no love for an economic adventurous policymaker.
That has been the mantra for many American’s for decades. “We want a fiscal Conservative in the White House!” However, frequently, the fine people of this country elect other than a President who is cautious with American dollars. United States citizens intend to cast ballots for those who practice economic restraint. Yet, annals reveal, too often they do not. Responsible, reckless; you dear reader decide. (Please review the chart)
Recent Republican Administrations exemplify the dichotomy between monetary judiciousness and those who adopt the title, fiscal Conservative. Past Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and the current Chief Executive, George W. Bush brought this country to its economic knees. While the latter may be a bit bruised, it seems his supporters are happy to follow in a Republican tradition. They will vote for the John McCain, the candidate who now represents the Republican Party. Fortunately, for the Arizona Senator, past Grand Old Party fiscal follies does not tarnish the reputation of the “Right.” Republicans and Independents, who think taxes are irresponsible, endorse the Bush protégé, John McCain in the current 2008 Presidential campaign.
Although Republican Administrations accrued billions in national debt, these former Commanders-In-Chief personally prospered. They, did as John the Caterer, Pam the Antique Shop owner, Tito the Truck Driver, and of course, the now famous Joe the Plumber hope to do, held their dollars closely and benefit at the expense of others.
The third person on the Republican Presidential stump, Joe the Plumber has already accomplished as his political leaders did. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher’s debt resulted in liens. However, he also garnered greater monetary wealth. Irresponsible, accountable; only you the American taxpayer can decide for yourself.
It appears there is a perceptible pattern. People who prosper from the hardship of others leave enormous sums unpaid. Former Presidents and the few big or small business owners thrive, while the average American, lives on meager wages, or salaries that do not allow much money to be saved. Responsible behavior, or the ruinous result of regressive taxes; individual readers will choose what they wish to trust as truth.
However, no one will negate, common people find themselves in a financial crisis, that for him or her, perhaps feels more dire than the national or global catastrophe. Circumstances, may force the poor and Middle Class to be more fiscally Conservative. As the economy tightens, remunerations are reduced. Expenses expand. People who work hard may have little to show for the blood, sweat, and tears of toil.
The Center for American Progress reports, in recent years, as another a Republican ruled the White House, America’s Middle Class has fallen deeper into a financial abyss. Income growth slows, and costs climb for the average person in the United States. For the common folks, financial solvency is on a downward descent; fiscal liability ascends.
A typical middle income family earning around $45,000 a year saw its debt burden grow by 33.1% between 2001 and 2004, even after adjusting for inflation. Debt relative to income rose even more, to 33.9%, during this period for middle-income families. Personal bankruptcies among these households are rising steeply.
The reasons for greater economic distress among middle class households are not hard to pinpoint. Slow income growth between 2001 and 2004, the last year for which complete data is available, has not kept pace with the rising cost of big ticket items such as housing and education loans, medical expenses and transportation. Family budgets have been squeezed.
A common but misplaced assumption is that the growth in debt among middle-income families – those with incomes roughly between $25,000 to $70,000 a year – is the result of over-consumption through increased credit card debt. Rather, growth in debt is primarily due to heavier borrowing for investments in homes or education, both of which saw dramatic price increases in recent years. The cost of a college education, for example, grew by 24.6% between 2001 and 2004, after adjusting for inflation.
These rising debt levels are also beginning to affect groups of middle income families that historically have not struggled with debt.
As the ordinary American grapples with the newer reality of reduced revenue, under the auspices of a Grand Old Party Administration, the affluent enjoy greater gains than ever before. The Middle Class who lack funds are forced to be money-wise, not pound-foolish.
Wealthier Republicans, such as John McCain, who wail of personal responsibility, take no note of what occurs to others less fortunate or financially not fluid.
Indeed, when President, John McCain intends to make the tax cuts established in the current Administration permanent. The Presidential aspirant disregards the damage done. Perchance, a desire to discount the cause and effect of an economic crisis could be considered fiscally imprudent
Republican President George W. Bush does not worry of what his irrational policies produced He offers with emotional detachment, “The fact is that income inequality is real — it’s been rising for more than 25 years,” For Mister Bush and Senator McCain that truth is just the way it is, and perchance, they think the disproportionate distribution is the way it should be. This is known as a redistribution of wealth . . . upwards.
The moneyed move millions, billions into preferred pocketbooks. The super-rich, and those who represent them in the Oval Office, do this through duties that divide the population. The regressive tax system subtlety imposed upon the nation by recent Republican Administrations helped supplement substantial income and capital gains. Might this tax practice be rash or rational?
Today [in 2003 and since], with state taxes becoming more regressive – and the two Bush tax cuts providing large tax savings for the rich – the tax system is moving in the direction of a flat tax, but doing so out of the spotlight. For example, despite sharp debate about the administration’s tax cuts on the campaign trail, talk about whether taxes are regressive or progressive is hardly material for the stump speeches of presidential candidates . . .
[A]t the top, the tax system has already become regressive. The super-rich pay proportionately less in federal income tax than the merely rich. In 2000, the nation’s 400 richest taxpayers, making an average $173 million, paid an effective tax rate more than 5 percentage points lower than those making $1.5 million to $5 million, notes economist Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes magazine.
That gap has probably shrunk a bit since then. In 2000, the peak year for stock market prices, the super-rich probably saved some taxes on their huge capital gains. (Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.) Since then, stock-market capital gains have diminished. But Congress also cut the capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent – a provision especially beneficial to the rich.
“At the rate we are going, in which more and more investment income is simply untaxed, we will end up with a federal income tax that is not only regressive at the top, but regressive overall,” warns Richard Kogan, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. “The middle class will be the tax-bearing class.”
Then, in 2003, and now, a levy structure put in place by the Grand Old Party benefits the moneyed, and punishes those with less dollars. Under the auspices of Republican rule, the average American has and will realize greater debt. So too will the country.
Self-invested proprietors, a collective of self-interested persons, or Republican Administrations that do not require people of means to contribute to the greater good soon realize they have created an economic calamity. These persons who prefer a Conservative in the White House, have opted for deregulation of banks and brokers. Depositories built on free and open markets, without restraints, have done as individuals, Presidents, and property owners have. They sought to endow self and sacrifice service to the community. Are they prudent, practical, fiscally Conservative, or just careless . . .?
America, under the direction of the last three Republican Presidents, fiscal Conservatives who were not prudent with cash, encouraged the electorate to charge it. Now, Joe the Plumber, John the Caterer, and Betty the Baker who [kneads] needs more dough before she can purchase a storefront understands why everyday people borrow from banks.
The regressive Republican tax structure has made it hard for these individuals to manage on the money they have set aside. Those who advocate for less taxes and look out for their personal gains, as the mammoth monetary monuments crumbled do well when the consumer wants more. However, as history shows us, amongst Grand Old Party Presidents and the more prosperous, too much is never enough for people with plenty.
When faced with a monetary meltdown after years of irrational, irresponsible, exuberance, self-proclaimed fiscal conservations like John McCain morphed. The love of money does that to people, even if they wish to think themselves traditionalist.
The Bush Administration proposed a government bailout of big businesses who behaved irresponsibly. The newer Grand Old Party, leader, and Presidential aspirant, understood that he was expected to be standard-bearer for self-sufficiency. However, if he stood that ground, those he helped to thrive through deregulation would go down. Thus, as a faithful Republican soldier, John invoked the plea that would point out that he is perchance, not a fiscal Conservative. In September 2008, Senator McCain offered an early election year surprise. The once traditional Republican requested, Please, “Let the government bailout business.” As a fiscal Conservative, John McCain said, “Let my corporate cohorts eat cake.” Americans may ask as Journalist Bonnie Erbe did months earlier; Is McCain the Return of the Fiscal Conservative?
References for Republican Resources . . .
Drowning in Debt: America’s Middle Class Falls Deeper in Debt as Income Growth Slows and Costs Climb, By Christian E. Weller. Center for American Progress. May 2006
With less than a week until Election Day, it’s starting to look more and more likely that the GOP will be cast “Back to the Wilderness” (Archive No. 0837) by voters. But beware: The last time Republicans were banished, they came back strong, first with their “Contract With America,” then with a scary brand of neoconservatism implanted on the born-again blank slate of George W. Bush. Lord only knows what they might come up with this time.
The chap was well-dressed as was his wife. She expressed her distain with her husband’s choice. He would cast his ballot for John McCain in this election year. Taxes were his only concern. This lovely lady declared herself an active Democrat. She had been a Clinton supporter, Hillary that is. Now, she was decisively behind Barack Obama, and proud of it. I might not have known this or much else about the couple of strangers; however, in the year 2008, everyone seems anxious to share political concerns.
Times, as the adage states, are “tough.” Yet, life goes on. Families still celebrate birth dates, nuptials, and anniversaries. People continue to purchase gifts, although most do not feel they can afford to shop. Persons do not purchase until they drop. Instead, individuals in stores stop and chat of the financial crisis. They speak of fears and folly. Countless recount tales of pink slips received. Others anxiously await what they cannot predict. Will they soon be among the 6.1 percent unemployed Americans?
Those in malls understand the woes and are apprehensive they might be next. With more citizens out of work, millions find they cannot pay the mortgage. Ruthless subprime rates raked many United States residents over the proverbial coals. Home loan representatives, who indulged in illicit although not illegal, practices, have helped cause an abundance of foreclosures. Many Americans are out on the streets.
Rage, resentments, and calls for a revolution, are rampant. However, on the issue of tax policies those who benefited under the Bush plan want no change. Dollars held tightly in the palm of an individuals’ hand make sense to those such as this stylish gentleman I met more than a month ago.
For me, the discussion of government assessments began long before America became acquainted with “Joe the Plumber.” It commenced when, I met a couple, whose names I do not know. Perchance, as I tell this tale, I will call them John and Jane Doe. The man, woman, and I did not exchange names, although we had an extensive conversation. The three of us were in a second-hand store. Still, we all wondered whether we could afford to buy even one item.
Today prices are high. The cost of living soars. Incomes are depressed; dollars are too. Small businesses suffer. Workers employed in large and little companies fear they will not be able to survive. In September 2008, 159,000 jobs were lost. This monthly calculation is the worst seen in five years. Americans are not surprised. This computation confirms what most have felt. The economic downturn is severe. Hence, the trepidation for higher taxes.
Talk of tariffs adds to the daily stress people experience in hard economic times. John Doe expressed, for him, the only issue of import is levees. His spouse Jane sighed. Restless, she pleaded to her husband, “There is more to consider.” However, her husband remained resolute. This genteel gent was concerned with his own fortune, not with societal failures. The proposal presented before the public by Barack Obama, says persons such as “Joe the Plumber” and the fine fellow who stood before me, are reminiscent of Socialism. Republicans and Independents who see themselves as rugged individualist react strongly to the idea of wealth redistribution. Democrats attempt to remind all Americans of history.
A prominent Republican, Abraham Lincoln, first introduced the strategy that would rearrange the division of riches. During the Civil War, as costs to run a nation and sustain a war effort could no longer cover expenses, President Lincoln imposed an income tax, a progressive rate of return applied to revenue. Responsibly in 1862, the then President of the United States, choose to seek and preserve fiscal common sense. Unlike the current Commander-In-Chief, the former Chief Executive believed budgets must be balanced. Thus, citizens were charged a fee on income in order to pay for the conflict between the States.
The Civil War Commander also grasped an awful truth; if war is profitable, people will prefer the fight, President Lincoln hoped to ensure economic gain would not be an incentive for bloody battles. While his plan worked, the prosperous protested, just as they did during the Persian Gulf conflict.
Commander-In-Chief Lincoln struggled in his efforts to find a way to pay for the Civil War. Initially, President Lincoln turned to bankers to pay for the battles. After all, the citizens called barons of capitalism, in a derogatory fashion, had the money and the means. Yet, then, just as now, financiers would not fund what they thought an uncertain future.
In the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries, lenders groused; loans are liens. Repayment is required. The individuals of yesteryear who wished to secure and retain personal profits were more than reluctant to part with cash. Indeed, they refused. The stranger who stood before me and “Joe he Plumber’ might relate. They too do not want to contribute a penny more of their cash to assist the country. Miserly might best describe the early proprietors of principal. The term may also apply to the gracious gentleman in my presence, the person I refer to as John, or to “Joe,” the man who fits pipes for his wages.
President Lincoln, may too have been as these fellows are, early in his career. However, wartime realities transformed him. As Chief Executive of a country divided, Abraham Lincoln realized the toll discordance takes. Lincoln learned to consider Thomas Paine a prophet. He acknowledged, as the astute author penned in Common Sense, as the population increases, individuals and small clusters of people can no longer care for themselves, friends, and family. Nor can a modest collective control the chaos that comes when people are overwhelmed by a desire to be the one and only.
John may wish to ponder the wisdom his wife expressed. Plumber Joe may want to join him. What the two thoughtful men might define as Socialism is, what Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln would classify as a society where government is of, by, and for the people.
Perchance, the truth of what became self-evident after the Republican experiment of 1862 had a profound effect on what occurred decades later. The excise became permanent with the adoption of the Constitution’s 16th amendment in 1913. Earlier the Supreme Court had rejected the duty; however, Congress, members of the Grand Old Party and Democrats together, overturned the decision.
Income tax has allowed America to civically function and build communities that flourish for near a century and one half. For the last one hundred years, citizens of this country have endured, enabled by a tax system that secures education for all. The current tax structure redistributes wealth so that we all might travel on paved roads, feel safe on secure bridges, and enjoy the creature comforts of cheap electricity, and access to ample water. John McCain, Sarah Palin, “Joe the Plumber,” persons of their ilk, and perhaps John Doe may prefer to be without the luxuries Americans take for granted. Fear of what they characterize as Communism or Socialism, could cause our society to crumble further.
That is exactly what the person I refer to as Jane, John’s life-long partner had endeavored to communicate as the three of us exchanged philosophies on the floor of A Consignment Shoppe. Jane attempted to assert the Bush Administration engaged in redistribution. George W. Bush gave to the super-rich and took from the poor and Middle Class. The trickle-down theory was in truth a splash up. The abundantly affluent were doused in dollars. Common citizens crumbled under the weight of the wealthiest gains.
Jane hoped she could explain, as did I. Our efforts proved futile. Neither of us had, close at hand, the evaluation of experts. Perhaps, had John been able to see the charts and graphs, had he read the terms of an agreement with Barack Obama or with John McCain, he would have recognized as Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and we did.
New Tax Cuts
Refundable “Making Work Pay Credit” of 6.2 percent of earnings up to a maximum earnings of $8,100 per worker
Refundable “Universal Mortgage Credit” of 10 percent of mortgage interest for nonitemizers up to $800
Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 per year
Make Research and Development and renewable energy production tax credit (wind, solar) permanent
Extend childless Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) phase-in range and increase phase-out threshold; increase EITC phase-in rate to 45 percent for families with three or more children; increase add-on to EITC phase-out threshold for married filers to $5,000
Make Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable and equal to 50 percent of child care expenses less than $6,000
Make saver’s credit refundable and change to a 50 percent match of the first $1,000 of contributions
Rename the Hope Credit the “American Opportunity Tax Credit” and expand it to a refundable credit of 100% of the first $4,000 of college expenses
Mandate automatic 401(k)s and automatic IRAs
Allow first-year deduction of 3 and 5-year equipment, deny interest deduction (expires after 2013)
Reduce maximum corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (phased in by 2015)
Increase the dependent exemption by two-thirds (phased in by 2016)
Convert Research and Development credit to 10 percent of wages incurred for Research and Development, make permanent
Increase maximum capital gains rate to 20 percent for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples)
Require information reporting of basis for gains
Make permanent current rates on capital gains and dividends, (0 and 15 percent)
2001/2003 Tax Cuts
Permanently extend child credit expansions, 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent rates, and changes to tax implications of marriage
Restore 36 and 39.6 percent statutory income tax rates in 2009
Restore phase-out of personal exemptions and itemized deductions (PEP and Pease) for households making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples), increase the PEP and Pease threshold
Make permanent all provisions other than the estate tax repeal
Alternative Minimum Tax
Extend and index 2007 AMT patch
Extend and index 2007 AMT patch, further increase exemption by additional 5 percent per year after 2013 (temporarily)
Make permanent estate tax with $3.5 million exemption and 45 percent rate
Make permanent estate tax with $5 million exemption and 15 percent rate
Provide taxpayers with simple returns the option of pre -filled tax forms to verify, sign, return to IRS
Create optional alternative tax with two rates and larger standard deduction and personal exemption
Revenue Raisers and Tax Havens
Eliminate oil and gas loopholes
Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay
Tax carried interest as ordinary income
Reallocate multinational tax deductions
Impose a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies
Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay corporate income tax
Codify economic substance doctrine (requires transactions that qualify for tax benefits have economic justification beyond those benefits)
Create an international tax haven watch list of countries who do not share information with the U.S. and require greater financial disclosure to decrease tax shelters
Repeal domestic production activities deduction
Eliminate oil and gas loopholes
Unspecified corporate base broadeners
Income-related federal tax subsidies for health insurance purchased through new health insurance exchange
Require employers to provide insurance or pay a percentage of payroll to support the national plan
Small business healthcare tax credit of 50 percent of employer paid premiums
Replace exclusion from income for employer sponsored health insurance with refundable credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families who purchase qualifying health insurance
As economic experts evaluate the numbers, calculate the computations, and consider how the Presidential challengers will pay for public works and raise revenues, the conclusion the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center professionals reach is a resolute reminder from the past. If John McCain is elected, American wealth will be redistributed as it was under George W. Bush. The smallest percentage of the population, the select few who qualify as super-rich will prosper. Should voters place Barack Obama in the Oval Office, we the poorer Middle Class will survive, perchance, even thrive.
The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution . . .
The infrastructure [the supply of power and water, public transportation, telecommunications, roads and schools,] the luxuries that make life in America lovely will not exist without taxes. The discreet dude, John Doe, who spoke of his stocks, bonds, and levees imposed on income could have come to the conclusion that if we hold on tightly to what we, as individuals have, our hands are not open and free to build a greater communal wealth. The Oracle who resides in Nebraska understands this.
The “Sage of Omaha” thinks the strategy Barack Obama wishes to exercise is wise. The multi-billionaire investor states Barack Obama “is going to bring outstanding ideas” to the White House. Warren Buffett worries that America, under John McCain might stay the course that has not served us well. As the nation’s economy free falls into a downward spiral, Warren Buffett reasons.
“I think that the US has followed and is following policies which will cause the US dollar to weaken over a long period,” he said.
After voicing support for Obama, Buffett nonetheless noted the US economy had managed to do “awfully well” despite a depression, two world wars, and many financial crises.
“They say in the stock market … buy stock in a business that’s so good that an idiot can run it because sooner or later one will,” he added.
“Well, the United States is a little like that. We can take a little mis-management from time to time,” Buffett said.
The Presidential candidate, McCain understands that Mister Buffett may muse of more than his personal pocketbook. However, John McCain grieves not for one vote lost. Senator McCain and his handlers trust in human nature. Common people disregard the good sense of one who is unaffected by the financial crisis.
The Arizona Senator has faith; if he devotes his attention to everyday Americans, he can still win the presidency. The people’s choice is a reflection of how the public feels about the economy. If John McCain can convince John Doe, the man who might be an Investor, and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the self-described soon-to-be owner of a profitable small plumbing business, that Barack Obama, like Abraham Lincoln before him, is a Socialist, Senator McCain will be successful in his bid for the White House.
Granted, if McCain become President, John Doe may not be provided for. Jane, his spouse, and I are sure Senator McCain will not care for our needs, but then Commander-In-Chief aspirant and Arizona affluent, McCain does not want the vote of those who recognize the rich reaped greater treasures from the Bush redistribution of wealth plan. Senator John McCain does not desire the vote of Obama supporters, such as billionaire Warren Buffett, who he cannot sway with slams of Socialism.
John McCain’s only wish is to seize a commitment from constituents who have not learned from history. The abundantly affluent Arizona Senator desires to hold on to those voters who are apprehensive. He seeks support from citizens who declare, as the Republican candidate does, the proposed tax plan of Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, is as Abraham Lincoln’s redistribution of wealth strategy was, “Socialism”
Some may wonder why a man as experienced as John McCain might have chosen a Vice Presidential candidate with so many skeletons in the closet. Many muse; what might have possess this chap to do as he did. Males among us know what women have wondered about. Chaps will confess; “There is something about Sarah.”
After the Vice Presidential debate a few fine fellows admitted, when sweet Sarah Palin winked, they sat up a little straighter. New Republic Columnist, Rich Lowry wrote, “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”
Gents will attest to the power of a flirtatious female. Some will confess; they swooned when sexy Sarah showed how sensational she could be. John McCain might only state, he saw himself in the lovely lady.
The Arizona Senator, upon meeting Sarah Palin one time, knew, he did not need to vet her. There was no need to scrutinize her record. Any man can see what Sarah has to offer, particularly in the light of day, while under a sycamore tree.
The Republican Presidential aspirant saw all he needed too when he first met Sarah Palin in February, at the governors’ convention in Washington. When they saw each other again, the afternoon before he selected her as his running mate, the man with twenty-six years in politics was more certain. The second encounter was at his ranch in Sedona Arizona, on August 28, just four days before the Grand Old Party convention. John, the suave soldier saw she has great gams. This beauty queen’s skin and teeth glow brightly. Her eyes . . John was mesmerized.
McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, “Voilà.”
One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten. By no means am I suggesting anything untoward between McCain and his running mate. Palin is a governor, after all. She does have an executive résumé, if a thin one. And she’s a natural politician who connects with people.
But there can be no denying that McCain’s selection of her over others far more qualified — and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter — suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by . . . what?
Science provides clues. A study in Canada, published by a British journal in 2003, found that pretty women foil men’s ability to assess the future. “Discounting the future,” as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future.
In the immediate, John was gratified. A gorgeous woman wooed him and the throngs that John McCain needed to secure enthusiasm for his campaign. Sarah sang Senator McCain’s praises. She electrified crowds and coyly charmed the man who provided her a cherished place on the political stage. There was chemistry between the two.
McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin’s maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.
Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister’s.
John McCain might have mistaken the image that sat before him to be his beloved benefactor, the one and only who might praise him while she provided the long sought after women’s vote. However, had the Arizona aspirant read the research he might have realized, women would not likely be swayed by feminine wiles.
Daughters of Eve are not so easily enchanted by the presence of an attractive female. For the fairer sex, emotional intoxication did not cause them to forget rewards that might be better reaped by delayed gratification, and more research, at least not when in the company of someone as sizzling as Sarah.
Famed feminist Gloria Steinem states, “This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.” Kathleen Parker, a Conservative Columnist, also heralds the haste with which John McCain selected a woman. Perhaps, more importantly, this female whose mystique has been as a life-long Republican, speaks of the waste. Parker, who pens for the National Review, a forum for the “Right,” posits “The Palin Problem.”
The staunchly traditional Journalist states, Sarah Palin is “out of her league.” Ms Parker muses, “If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream – away from Sarah Palin.” The proud Conservative continues to share her angst as she discusses the Palin paradigm.
To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president – and possibly president – is to risk being labeled anti-woman.
Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman. Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick – what a difference a financial crisis makes – and a more complicated picture has emerged.
As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)
Kathleen Parker observes, as is substantiated in studies. Men, such as John McCain are swayed by beauty. They overlook the obvious; without abundant wisdom, knowledge of fiscal affairs and issues that affect those abroad, a President, or his partner, man or woman will not work well in the White House.
The sisterhood from either political Party understands, females want more than a figurehead. One lass, in a prized position, does not appease all womankind. The daughters of Eve envision a world where life for all women is more fair. Ladies from the Left and Right do not wish to mingle or maneuver within the good old boy network. Women want no closed set of connections. The gentler gender accepts that if persons are to be truly equal, guile cannot be the ticket in. Craftiness and sexual characteristics cannot count more than brains or the acumen built from competence and clarity.
Indeed, fellow females think Sarah Palin does not have the mettle to be Vice President, let alone perchance, Vice President. When the ladies discuss the “looker” the perception is far from favorable. Her physical credentials do not charm the females within the population. Women may recognize Sarah is “hot.” However, for forward thinkers less influenced by chemistry, women explain, experience, education, and ethics are essential qualities that many believe Sarah lacks.
Perchance a veteran in women’s ways would have vetted the gorgeous Governor Palin.
They trust in the rights afforded by the United States Constitution. Yet, Conservatives, committed Republicans, will vote for change. Countless on the Right have openly endorsed Barack Obama, a Democrat for President. Numerous established and esteemed dynasties remain steadfast and staunchly devoted to what are commonly thought to be traditional mores. Yet, persons within these same lineages say aloud and in print the Democratic Obama Biden ticket will best represent them, their long held values, and the country they love.
CC Goldwater, granddaughter of the renowned Republican, Arizona Senator and a Presidential aspirant Barry Goldwater illustrates this veracity.
Ms Goldwater professes a profound connection to her past. She treasures her heritage and has faith in the principles Paka, her granddad, the father of traditional, time-honored values the Republican Party holds dear. CC, who speaks for her relatives and herself, cherishes the creed Paka avowed. “We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics.”
However, the woman who penned her grandfather’s biography said, “I am still struck by certain ‘dyed in the wool’ Republicans who are on the fence this election, as it seems like a no-brainer to me. Myself, along with my siblings and a few cousins, will not be supporting the Republican presidential candidates this year.” Faithful in the doctrine she learned at Paka Goldwater’s knee CC and her blood will cast a ballot for Democrat, Barack Obama.
Chris Buckley, the son of the famed William F. Buckley also reveres Republican ethics. He respects his roots. This is the reason he cannot commend Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. Christopher Buckley did place his confidence in the former prisoner-of-war McCain during the primary election season. Yet, over time his fervor for the man he once called “friend” waned.
Late in October, the man who has upheld a Republican family ritual will do as he has not done. In The Daily Beast, Chris Buckley did not boast, nor did he bemoan, In a treatise titled, “Sorry, Dad, I’m voting for Obama” the author wrote, “So, I wish him [Barack Obama] all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.”
For this statement, a tempest arose. The National Review columnist, Chris Taylor Buckley, felt forced to offer his resignationfrom his position at the magazine his father founded. The reason; the rants the periodical received, after he inscribed his choice to endorse Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama,. Many readers refused to further fund the publication. More mused of the mutiny, the betrayal to the “standard-bearer for the fledgling conservative movement.” Chris Buckley, whose Dad was a Republican when the young Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat, dared to declare as he has. For some on the Right, this was and is unforgivable.
Most who were forever fond of the son, just as they had been of the father William F. Buckley, may not have read or were too red-faced with anger to comprehend, Chris Buckley is still the Conservative they loved. He too states as many McCain Palin supporters might, “I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.” For the more than few fervent followers of the McCain Palin ticket, these sentiments matter not. Blood and the Republican brood must be more loyal. They cannot think for themselves or commit to change.
Christopher Taylor Buckley believes even his darling Dad, might not sanction a sentiment that avers blind faith to a Party or a person. The younger Buckley presents a narrative, “Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”
Perchance, other renowned Republicans feel as Goldwater and Buckley do; Republican is not synonymous with “right.” Reference, David Brooks in a New York Times editorial, Thinking about Obama, or even earlier in a January interview on Meet the Press. Remember Colin Powell and his powerfully profound soliloquy on Sunday, October 19, 2008. Again, on Meet the Press, a Republican offers a tale that tells of more than a moment where he or she has evaluated the man, Barack Obama, and his message.
Peruse and ponder thoughts George Will presents or the offering Hail Mary vs. Cool Barry, by Conservative Columnist Charles Krauthammer. Might there be a hesitancy to support the Arizona Senator McCain? Other Grand Old Party Obamacans acknowledge there is. Prominent Republicans Line Up Behind Obama. Governors William Weld and Arne Carlson, Ken Adelman, a prominent Conservative, expert on foreign policy matters are among the many who may have broken with family tradition, or as CC Goldwater observes; “We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket . . . I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most, and not the intolerance, and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years.”
Indeed, Ms Goldwater, shares family history that offers insight into what her grandfather, and grandmother intended to be interpreted as Conservative constructs. “My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman’s right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930’s, a cause my grandfather supported. I’m not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms we hold so dear.”
Perhaps Ms Goldwater understands as Chris Buckley and other Republicans do. Family values and a deference for Constitutional rights are the found in Democratic platform. Barack Obama and Joseph Biden embody the traditional mores more than the McCain Palin ticket might.
Today, citizens of this country are confronted with a record realized under the Bush Administration. Karl Rove, “The Architect” of the Bush campaign claims no responsibility for the cause or effect of his chief candidate’s actions. Nor does he acknowledge that his Grand Old Party might be answerable for accounts receivable. However, others, those common folks less connected to the current Administration might disagree. In an ominous moment, on a San Francisco stage Americans were given the opportunity to look into the future and remember earlier days and dictums.
In an address to the Mortgage Brokers Association citizens had an opportunity to hear Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain all at once, although only one of these fine fellows sat on the platform and professed his truth, all were present in the philosophies expressed. The theme was one each has adopted. “So the regulators in 2005 were the Republicans, and the deregulators, the anti-regulators, the let-them-do-anything-they-want crowd, were all Democrats, with all due respect,”
“The Architect” spoke and the moneyed audience, mesmerized by the magnificence of this individual who was able to change the dynamics, through deregulation, in a consumer-driven a nation, listened, except for the few who feared the past would indeed be prologue.
A few women attempted to perform a citizens’ arrest. The well-dressed Janine Boneparth mounted the stage where Karl Rove sat, and strove to handcuff the political guru. She told the boisterous and bold “Bush Brain” he had committed treason. She intended to take him into custody.
Janine, an average American could not forget the loans, credit, payments, and profits all unregulated that adversely affected millions of lives. On more than one occasion, she heard, as she did on this day; Karl Rove admits, a lack of oversight is, responsible for the economic crisis that evolved under the auspices of George W. Bush. Yet, she marveled, the man, who some say, was the mind behind the Bush White House façade, accepts no quilt. Karl Rove said, Democrats done this country in.
This person who many believe is the master of manipulation, does not place the onus for the fiscal demise on a majority Republican Congress, which governed for most of the last two-terms. Nor does the personal chum of the President, George W. Bush receive any wrath. Certainly, Rove concurs, as Senator John McCain says on the campaign stump, as George W. once did, the Grand Old Party President is not responsible for laws loosened for the financial industry.
Lest “the Architect” and Americans forget, when it comes to deregulation, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain were and indeed are best friends. In February 2008, Karl Rove announced that he had contributed $2300 to the then presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.
When asked of the donation, potential President McCain said he has “always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics,” The perhaps, soon-to-be Commander-In-chief McCain refused to condemn campaign tactics Mister Rove used to diminish and destroy candidate McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race. Months ago, and likely now, Arizona Senator McCain proclaimed, “Nobody denies he’s [Karl Rove is] one of the smartest political minds in America. I’d be glad to get his advice. Perhaps, John McCain did seek the former Presidential Advisor Rove’s counsel
Americans are led to believe that apparently, all those years in the Oval Office did not soil the hands of the Bush Brain, the Texas oilman, or their accomplice in the Senate, John McCain. While each endorsed deregulation for decades, in the present day, the three claim to have played no role in the process of oversight reduction.
Countless among the common folk see through the veil that protects the current President, the potential Commander-In-Chief, and Karl Rove. Citizens who chose to be more conscious and conscientious have acted on what they believe is truth for quite some time. Karl Rove, away from the safety and sanctuary of the White House, which protected him as Deputy Chief of Staff, met many a countryman or women who thought he must be placed behind bars for transgressions against the State and its people.
Since August 2007, “The Architect” has not been a public servant, or an Advisor to the President; yet, the American people do not forget the adversarial influence the “Bush Brain” had on official policy. Many, trust even as a political pundit, an analyst for Fox News, and writer for the Wall Street Journal, this man has clout. Amongst the constituency, there is a belief that Karl Rove can and does unconstructively change the culture, the climate, and the country. His rhetoric may reap lucrative rewards; nonetheless, numerous have faith the man is a crook. Hence, common folks try to take “Turd Blossom” into custody. These civilians must not yet have heard the message; the Democrats did the deeds that cause such grave calamities.
On March 9, Rove gave a speech — the fee was a reported $40,000 — at the University of Iowa. What was described as a hostile crowd greeted his remarks, often interrupting with shouted questions. Replied Rove:
You got a chance to ask your questions later and make your stupid statements. Let me make mine.
Two people tried to make a citizens’ arrest of Rove for his crimes as a member of the Bush administration. At one point, according to CNN, someone in the audience yelled, “Can we have our $40,000 back?” To which the man sometimes known as “Bush’s Brain,” replied, “No you can’t.”
No one can recover funds from the man or men who some say stole our nation’s sanity, although many have tried. Nor can they apprehend “The Architect” of America’s demise. Secret Service surrounds George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain. For now, there is no chance these men will be brought down.
Any who try to arrest the more accessible White House advisor will likely be greeted with a Rovian reprisal. A denial, a declaration such as ‘the Democrats done us in,’ or a dig to the abdomen might accompany an attempt to detain the infamous “Bush Brain.”
Janine Boneparth learned this lesson on October 21, 2008, at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s annual convention. Karl Rove elbowed Boneparth away. She was then escorted off the stage. Karl Rove acted as though nothing occurred. He continued to deliver his message and debate former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.
The true demons, Karl Rove declared are the Democrats. While the Progressives worked to reinstate some sense of regulation, often their efforts were obstructed. The Conservatives intent on a free market, a for profit society, thwarted attempts to reform a system so flawed as to cause century’s old financial institutions to crumble. Americans, or Karl Rove, need only look at the record of the current leader of the Republican Party to affirm the veracity of what was and is. An assessment may help Misters Rove, Bush, and McCain to remember; the Republicans opted for deregulation
“I Don’t Think Anyone Who Wants To Increase The Burden Of Government Regulation And Higher Taxes Has Any Real Understanding Of Economics.” During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, “When we come out of this recession and we will because I believe that the fundamentals of our economy are good … Sen. Clinton [a Democrat] wants the government to make the decisions for you on your health care, I want the families to make the decisions on their health care. I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.” [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, ]
The implication or allegation is the Democrats will do America wrong again, just as they have done in the world according to Karl. Mister Rove, Senator McCain, persons who support Grand Old Party, and surely the President proclaim Progressives posit restraint on a free enterprise system. Contrary to the recent claims of Karl Rove that Democrats deregulate, John McCain states, Liberals will lead this country down the path of bigger government. At least that was what Senator McCain swore to then before the bailout.
During this town hall meeting, Senator McCain expressed his empathy. He recognized Americans were hurting. He spoke of how hard it is for the average Joe or Jane to survive in times such as these. Damn those Democrats.
As the Presidential aspirant assessed the economic crisis, he surmised that he had a solution, much as George W. Bush did, and the current President’s Brain, Karl Rove did and does.
Senator McCain stated his deep conviction, as he had months earlier, before he voted for a mega-billion dollar government bailout for big-businesses. Back in the day, before it was unpopular to be a Republican or deregulator John McCain avowed.
“Let’s Reduce Regulation.” While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, “I’m asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don’t know the answer to that because it’s kind of a technical term . . .I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you’ve got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people’s tax burden. Let’s reduce it. Let’s reduce regulation.” . . .
“We Need To Return To The Reagan Years . . . We Need Less Regulation.” As shown on PBS’s “Washington Week,” John McCain said, “We need to return to the Reagan years. We need to have fiscal conservatism. We need less government. We need less regulation. We need to end of spending spree which has eroded our base of Republican support.”
The words reverberated. The sentiments were consistent with those oft affirmed by Republicans, Chief executive Bush, and the guru, Karl Rove. Were is the operative word. When Americans were led to believe freer markets would benefit them, the Rove and McCain message was Democrats were wrong to impose regulations. Now that the population has realized a harsh reality, profits do not trickle down the tables have turned. Rove, his friend George W., and fellow Republicans such as Senator McCain revel in regulation. Witness the recent vote for a $700 Billion dollar rescue plan. President Bush, Republican appointees such as Treasury Secretary Paulson, and of course, John McCain endorse more government and greater restrictions.
Blame the Democrats for what you have done also works for the Grand Old Party when wizardry is necessary. Perchance this theory explains the recent vote for a “bailout.” In an interview with Mike Wallace, John McCain elucidates. The senior Senator from Arizona helps Americans to understand, the constructs of deregulation, and Socialism. The Presidential aspirant envisions no dichotomy, or does he?
Wallace: But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism?
McCain: That is reacting to a crisis that’s due to greed and excess in Washington.
And what this administration is doing wrong, and what Paulson is doing wrong, is not going out and buying up home loan mortgages, home mortgages, and giving people new mortgages at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home.
They’re bailing out the banks. They’re bailing out these institutions.
Wallace: But you voted for that.
McCain: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank. . . .
But the point is that, of course, when a – when a – that’s the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can’t help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what’s necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people.
Well-done Senator McCain. The prose of the now “populace” political pundit and the potential President reveal a rabid reason for citizens unrest, or desire to arrest the former Bush “advisor.”
As, “The Architect” perchance crafts another campaign. Another Presidential aspirant is directed to “deregulate” as Rove reveals Republicans do or do not. After a careful assessment of the facts, folly, and flippant reality Karl Rove and John McCain present, Americans might muse as Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell did. Perhaps we are as Dorothy in the Land of Oz. The man behind the curtain, and the gent who stood in front of it for oh so many years, join John McCain as he now leads in the pledge.
“Less Government, Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Safer America Is What I Can Give America . . . I can make a case that a less government, lower taxes, less regulation, safer America is what I can give America. But I don’t underestimate the size of the challenge” . . . or the vastness of the veils needed to disguise the decree of deregulation.
Mister Rove was “Right.” Democrats [sic] such as John McCain [?] have foisted a lack of directives and direction onto Americans. Some may say “G-d bless America.” As the Presidential Election nears, citizens might consider, if attempts to arrest Karl Rove or restrain John McCain fail, then “Lord help America. The Grand Old Party will have its way with us once again.
References for Republican Regulations and Democrats Deregulation . . .
Sarah Palin speaks and America listens. This evening, on October 21, 2008, the Vice Presidential aspirant shared what she believes are her strengths in an interview with Cable News Network Drew Griffin.
“It’s going to be government reform because that, that is what I’ve been able to do as a mayor and as a governor, you, you take on the special interests and the self-dealings. Yep, you ruffle feathers and you have the scars to prove it,” Palin said Tuesday in an interview with CNN’s Drew Griffin.
“You have to take that on to give the American people that faith back in their own government. This is their government and we’ve got to put it back on their side,” she said.
The American people are the allies Palin seeks in her pursuit of the Vice Presidency. However, she realized, belatedly, earlier in this month she offended a few. Sarah Palin expressed her sincere sorrow.
The Chief Executive from Alaska, Palin proclaimed, surely, her words were misconstrued. She never meant to imply that the patriotic values of some are evident in “the real America,” the “pro-America areas of this great nation.”
Perchance her words were not interpreted accurately. The potential Vice President proposed that Democrats and the press demonize her. The lovely lady Governor Palin prodded the Journalist who sat before her.
Drew, you need to ask your colleagues and I guess your bosses or whoever is — whoever is in charge of all of this, why does Joe Biden get a pass on such a thing?
Can you imagine if I would have said such a thing? No, I think that we would be hounded and held accountable for, what in the world did you mean by that, V.P., presidential candidate?
The former Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin denied that was her intention to divide the citizenry. She did not wish to incite a culture clash. “I don’t want that misunderstood,” Governor Palin said. “If that’s the way it came across, I apologize.”
In a desire to advance a more authentic sense of what Sarah Palin meant to state, she explained. “I do not want that misunderstood.
When I go to these rallies, and we see the patriotism just shining through these people’s faces and the Vietnam veterans wearing their hats so proudly, and they have tears in their eyes as we sing our national anthem, and it is so inspiring. And I say that this is true America. You get it. You understand how important it is that, in the next four years, we have a leader who will fight for you.
I certainly don’t want that interpreted as one area being more patriotic or more American than another.” Yet, the words might still worry some that do not feel they fit the definition Governor Palin provides. Some may wonder what of those who are not veterans, do not attend a McCain Palin jamboree. If an individual does not sing the sacred American song and cry in Palin’s presence do they not love this country.
Please view the video; ponder the interview. Then decide for yourself, did the press give Sarah Palin a pass or did the Governor garner praise for what was less than laudable.
It was a cool Fall evening in South Florida. The breeze was gentle; the sunset glorious. As I approached the intersection where, each weekend I stand in support of peace and tranquility, I did as I do when at this crossroad. I placed my arm out the window. My digits were extended and formed the symbol associated with serenity. When I am in a vehicle, at the locale commonly considered the Peace Corner I work to preserve the intent of my Saturday mission. I strive to advance awareness for the notion, this nation remains at war. Soldiers are slaughtered far from the shores of home sweet home. Civilians, in their native country continue to lose their lives for a want of war. I crave global harmony and will work to restore some sense of civility worldwide. However, as I sat silently in contemplation cries of “Country First” startled me.
The divisiveness that has become pervasive during this political season smacked me in the face. Shaken, I turned to see where the words of contempt might have come from. There they stood, two young boys, perhaps eleven years of age stood on the sidewalk with homemade signs in hand. “McCain Palin” was painted on a poster. Smaller type, difficult to read from even a short distance, said more. I might pretend to portend what the words were meant to communicate. However, I rather not assume. I can only describe what was said and done as the seconds on the street turned into minutes.
As others had done when they passed me with my peaceful placard for oh so many years, I expressed my belief in a manner that might be visible to these youthful demonstrators. I reached for my Obama sign, which is neatly tucked between my windshield and the dashboard. I held the glossy rectangular navy blue sticker up, my arm stretched beyond the side of the automobile. The near Middle School age gents immediately saw my marker and exclaimed. “He is a Muslim!”
I calmly cried, “No, he is not. Barack Obama is a Christian.” “However,” I continued, even if he were as you seem to believe, why would that matter?” ” Do you really wish to be intolerant of other religions?” “What of our rights as afforded by the United States Constitution?” Perhaps as one who taught Junior High School students for so long, an invitation to discuss seemed ideal to me. These young people, not familiar with me, and my love of open and reverent conversations were intent on repeating the rhetoric they likely heard in their homes.
I could not help but wonder would the words Communist, Socialist, or terrorist, pass through the lips of these lads. Might one boy or the other tell me as drivers had days ago when I stood on the corner in vigil for peace, “Barack Obama is Black”? My mind raced as I reflected upon the two chaps. I realized the issues important to them were those the elders they loved had discussed at length. Human as the young men were they knew what they knew. The adolescents were taught to think as the adults important in their lives did. We all do, at least initially.
I remembered a tale I frequently told pupils in the past. In my own life, I later understood, when I was young I was unaware of the infinite options and opportunities to think, say, do, and feel, in ways that were uncommon in my family. I could not imagine what was novel to me. If questioned I would defend my beliefs; however, unlike these preteens I did not dismiss a request for thoughtfulness. A want for greater wisdom was instilled in me from the first. I learned to desire discussions. Fury in my family seemed a futile emotion. It brought more wrath and offered little promise for peace.
However, my relatives did not raise these miniature men. Perhaps that explains why the pair of youthful McCain/Palin supporters began to rant and rage. They chided me for the size of my sign. The littler than full-grown lads laughed as they pointed to a banner firmly planted, permanently into the ground. Behind them was a monstrous sign, perhaps eight-feet wide and six feet high. The words McCain Palin stood strident for all passer-bys to see. On a background, so dark as to appear near black, the white letters screamed support for the Republican ticket.
The boys shrieked; “I cannot even see your sign.” “It is so small,” the two shouted. I did not react. The language the boys used morphed into a lexicon I will not utter, even when distressed. After moments when I avoided actual engagement; although I did not put my Obama sign down, I decided to speak again. “Love and peace,” I proclaimed. I was quickly told there would be none of that. A slew of statements not to be repeated spewed from the mouths of babes. I was stunned, not by the venom but by the similarities and contrast.
While I waited for the light to turn green, I found myself lost in reveries.
As a child, also at the age of eleven or possibly twelve, I first began on my path as an activist, an advocate for people, regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. My civic maturity was intellectually realized through acceptance. I was taught not merely to tolerate others; I learned to embrace all. Amongst my lessons, diversity is as significantly wondrous as similarities. These were our family values. More importantly, the skill that was honed in my parents’ home was listening.
My Mom and Dad helped me to understand that if I chose to hear what another believed, I could grow wiser. Together, communities are greater when the commonweal is the central concern. Fundamentally, my family believed, all individuals believe in love and goodness. “All men [and women, children too] are created equal.
Perhaps that is why, while in Middle School my family participated in a civil rights march. I was invited to join them. Years earlier, at the age of five, I became interested in politics. As my parents engaged in the most animated discussion I had ever witnessed, I learned of elections.
I grew aware of the emotional impact an economic issues and the impact these could have on a vote. Education, the environment, war, and peace all played a part in ballot decisions. At the kitchen table, as I sat and listened to the lively talk on topics that related to every aspect of life, I realized the power of everyday people. All Americans who vote shape our society. I also understood that those to little to cast a ballot had influence.
Mothers and fathers often jest, “My children learn what I never did.” Proud papas revel in the knowledge a son or daughter shares. Modest Mamas marvel when their offspring offer informed opinions. In my youth, I may not have realized the words I uttered as a student enrolled in school were of interest to my Mom and Dad. What I saw and felt taught them. As I talked aloud, my parents learned. We chatted. The child was a mentor. Caregivers were counselors. Each gained and received a greater education from the other.
The difference between my experience and what I witnessed at the intersection was in my family, peace was promoted. A reciprocal reverence was advanced. A word such as “Muslim,” a person’s religion, was not considered a source for a slight.
I was not encouraged to slam or damn another being, not one who stood before me, or one who wished to serve the public. Indeed, behavior than might demean or dismiss another being was sincerely discouraged.
As a child, I was taught to believe competitive temperaments are counter productive. Characteristics that could be classified as cutthroat were considered childish, aggressive, and contrary to the traits that might create peace. Calmness was considered the pinnacle path. In my family, communication was thought to be the greatest travel, that is, next to thinking.
Even in election season, I learned at the knees of Mommy and Daddy; empathy is the best educator. I wondered. What had these young men experienced in their homes?
Would their mothers and fathers be pleased as they heard their brood proclaim prejudice statements from the pavement, “Barack Obama is a Muslim.” Might the Moms or Dads of these chaps be indignant at the discordant idea of “Country First?” Would they rather the children cry in concord, “We, the people, are the change we can believe in.” Likely not. Progeny are the products of parents.
If we teach the children to chastise, they will. Offspring trained to offend others do. Those tutored to act defensively often deliver dubious dictums. Fear fills the spirits of those who were not treated with abundant respect. Apprehension is frequently expressed as anger.
Concerned communication gives birth to calm and care. If we edify praise, as well as unity and peace, our offspring will practice kindheartedness. When mothers and fathers teach attentiveness and acceptance, the children will acquire comparable customs. Elders who choose to listen and learn from and with their progeny teach little ones to do the same.
Perchance what divides our country is not political parties, religious practices, color, or creed. What fractures America is the manner in which we parent our children.