Moses Kagan's Aurora Borealis

David Brooks is shocked (shocked!) that "..the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide... All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward."

Listening to conservatives, it's as if the past eight years never happened. They begin their argument from the position that the current balance of tax burdens is somehow right or fair, then call Obama a socialist for trying to re-adjust the balance.

But we've just had eight years where the rich disproportionately benefited from changes to the tax code. Inequality is up to levels last witnessed in the 1920's, in large part as a result of the richest Americans paying a far lower share of their income in taxes than has been the case for most of the preceding 50-100 years.

Here's an interesting anecdote from Warren Buffett: His marginal tax rate is lower than his secretary's, because his income comes from dividends and capital gains, and her income is from salary. That's just not fair.

For a while now, we've lived under an increasingly regressive tax code imposed by a Republican president and congress. Obama is just restoring the balance.

Labels: Obama, politics, tax

Sorry for the long posting break.

A few random thoughts:

1. If Obama wins, which it looks like he will, we should pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that ordinary, white Americans from all walks of life will have voted for a black man for president. They will deserve a lot of credit for their decency, their generosity, and for how far they / we have come.

2. McCain is going to be rightly praised for not allowing his campaign to get into the Jeremiah Wright crap. But he's going to be blamed for the Ayers / Hussein / etc. stuff. It's going to take some serious work in the Senate (maybe on immigration?) for McCain to atone.

3. The coming civil war within the GOP is going to be savage and protracted. If the Republican Party wants to be the party of intolerance, it's going to spend a lot of time in the wilderness of opposition. Eventually, some young leader will emerge who will reconstitute the party on the basis of strong defense, low taxes, and inclusiveness on immigration, etc. That person will be the next GOP president.

Labels: election, GOP, McCain, Obama

Several friends have asked what I think of John McCain's choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate. Here goes...

1. She's objectively a bad choice to be a potential president. Being a good leader is about having a set of skills / attribues, including (but not limited to) communication, negotiation, information gathering, priority-setting, management, and having a vision. Some people are born with some talent in one or more of these categories, but most politicians spend a lot of time learning them.

Compare Palin to Obama (she certainly has): Obama isn't so experienced, as far as politicians go, but he's proven to be a remarkably quick study.

Being a state legislator and then a senator were his secondary school and university of politics, respectively. Competing against the Clintons (formidable foes) in the primary was his graduate school. The nomination is his diploma.

I don't think that Palin has had that kind of education yet. My guess is that she is smart and tenacious but raw and under-informed about key issues. Given the likelihood that she could be president if McCain wins (historically, the chances are approximately 1 in 3 or 1 in 4), I'm not happy with her selection.

McCain must know all of the above, so I think we are forced to conclude that McCain picked her because he thinks she can help him win, not because he thinks she would be a good president.

2. So let's evaluate the selection on the basis that McCain did: Will Palin help or hurt his chances?

I think the answer is that her chances need to be considered over time.

Right now, she is in the most dangerous part of the race. She's undefined for most voters. One or two more stories about her upbringing / family could define her as some kind of lunatic. One or two gaffes could make her into John Kerry. Biden could eviserate her in a debate ("I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."), and thereby define her as Dan Quayle. Obama could decide to turn the advertising guns on her and try to define her in any number of unflattering ways (I think this last one is unlikely).

If she manages to make it through these next few weeks without getting nailed as a lunatic, gaffe-prone, a lightweight, or something else, then I think she has a reasonable chance to help him. She's attractive, she gives a good speech, she's willing (obviously) to be very, very negative in a way that some VP nominees (John Edwards, for example) are not, and she does seem to fire up the crazies on the far right.

Overall, I give her a D+ as a potential VP and an incomplete as part of the Republican ticket.

Labels: McCain, Obama, palin

Great article, even better headline:

"Obama Overseas! In Presidential Mode! Back Home, It's McCain in a Golf Cart."

Labels: McCain, Obama

Mark my words:

Obama is going to give at least one speech in Europe that is much more pro-American than people are expecting. He is going to publicly give the Europeans, particularly the French, a hard time about not fulfilling their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

Why am I so sure? Two reasons: First, Obama has a history of telling groups what they don't want to hear. Want examples? He has repeatedly excoriated black males (as a group) in front of black audiences for not being sufficiently involved with their children. He also swatted down the Clinton / McCain Fuel Tax Holiday Idiocy.

Second, the media is waiting to pounce on anything that Obama does overseas that could be construed as talking down to Americans (like the infamous "bitter" talk in San Francisco). What better way to swing things the other way than to give the Euros a (deserved) tongue-lashing for not pulling their weight?

Labels: Europe, Obama, speech

Corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle. We ought to be importing Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol.

However, my man Obama is in bed with the ethanol lobby. He offers the same nonsensical arguments in favor of "energy independence" that every other politician uses to justify inane, market distorting policies.

For the millionth time on this blog: energy is essentially fungible. You can buy it on world markets. The key is to use less of it, not worry about where you're buying it from.

Of course, no politician is perfect. I just hope that Obama recognizes this nonsense for what it is, pandering to improve his election chances, rather than actually believing that corn ethanol is a good idea. In other words, I hope Obama's being craven instead of stupid.

Labels: ethanol, Obama, oil

If you're like me, it's easy for you to find reasons to avoid parting with money. I had been thinking about giving to Obama's campaign for a long time, but I never got my act together to do it. Anyway, I finally did.

I feel a little ashamed that I let a whole bunch of people with less money than me fund this amazing campaign during the early days when Obama was unlikely to be the nominee. Now he is the nominee and I finally gave and it feels great. You should, too: barackobama.com.

Labels: contribution, Obama

Further to my post about the Clinton campaign's dirty tricks: Here is the Kerrey apology, ensuring that "Obama is Muslim" stays in the news one more day.

Labels: Clinton, Hillary, Obama