The Utter Meaninglessness of 2016

Hillary vs Bernie

AKA "The Self-Important Pantsuit vs The Blind Socialist Grandpa"

Barring some bombshell legal conviction, Hillary Clinton is going to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Bernie Sanders has no path to victory that makes any sense at this point. The Clinton faithful, the Party establishment, radical feminists, and the vast majority of black Democrats have allied themselves with Ms. Clinton's campaign. And while criminal charges aren't entirely impossible, the chance that such charges would arise prior to the general election is highly unlikely. While I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Sanders, I will most likely vote for him in Kentucky's primary election in May. My gut tells me that the nomination will be decided long before that.

Chance of Clinton Victory: 94%

Trump vs The GOP

AKA "WTF vs OMG"

Donald Trump, idiotic statements aside, has been the only interesting part of this entire primary season. The remaining candidates (Cruz, Rubio, Carson, and Kasich) have been unable to convince the GOP establishment of their ability. That said, the Republican Party establishment has a real impetus now (days before Super Tuesday) to either "select" a suitable alternative to Trump or push more candidates (*cough Carson *cough) to drop out of the race. Unless they do this, Trump has a really good shot at winning. If this was the Democratic Party, I would give a candidate like Trump nearly no chance of a nomination. The GOP has far less control over its primary "process" and Trump is exploiting the hell out of it and must simply outlast his competitors. To make matters worse for the GOP standard bearers, Trump also has the personal wealth to fund a long slog all the way to the convention, setting up a potentially contentious situation.

Chance of Trump Victory: 75%

Blow-Hard Republicans and Federal Budget Facts


It's quite a treat to watch Republicans (sorry, Tea Party-ers) this year. The first big win of course came last year when the Democrat-controlled Congress voted to extend all tax cuts from 2001, including approx. $700 billion for tax brackets above $250K.

Low and behold, here come the deficit numbers for 2011, and estimated $1.4 trillion! How did this happen? Had Democrats stood there ground and only extended the tax cuts for middle and lower incomes, one could presume the deficit would only be about $700 billion. Better yet, let all the tax cuts expire (with the exception of a few credits) and voila virtually no deficit.

Blame it on health care reform and Social Security...


Because people have an attention span of about 43 seconds, Republicans are able to convince a large number of people that the health care reform passed last year is an overbearing burden on the federal budget. In fact, as reported by every news outlet, over 10 years the health care reform legislation actually lowers the deficit. I don't really care for how it does it, but it does (barring any changes that will most likely come).

And what is with all the Social Security defecit crap. Social Security is a completely separate budget item. It currently runs a modest surplus and is not counted in general deficit numbers. As such, Social Security reform would not change the deficit projections for this year or any year. Is reform necessary? Sure, but using the current budget deficit as a catalyst is deceptive.

Now for the truth...


Medicare and Defense spending...

Together, Medicare and Defense eat up approximately 42% of the budget. Medicare more or less pays for itself although it does run deficits. Defense spending while necessary, should not be this large. Veterans affairs is a separate budget item in case you were curious.

Defense contracts for Cold War technology is probably the dumbest thing we could spend money on. Our current military conflicts are close contact, ground operations that need specialized field equipment, not long-range bombers. Spend money on homegrown forces and not Xe (AKA Blackwater) mercenaries.

Tax Increases...

Nobody wants to say it, but working people in this country don't pay enough taxes. For industrial western democracies, citizens of the United States has an inordinately low tax burden. Partly because of tradition, but mostly because of political flaccidity. Federal expenses (not all good mind you) have consistently gone up from year to year, but actual tax rates have decreased. Not that we haven't had a few tax hikes in the last 30 years, but not enough to offset. Real tax reform should minimally include more/higher tax brackets, elimination of corporate taxes, increase in dividend taxes, and removal of the Social Security cap. It's a painful pill to swallow, but it's been coming for years.

Drug War...

It's not a huge budget item, but the cost of the "War on Drugs" is more than just outlays for DEA agents. There is a human cost that we cannot possibly put a price on, not to mention the burden on state and local governments.

Summary...

The Federal Budget is out of control... actually it's out of balance. We need to sort out our priorities and raise revenues to meet our needs. The Tea Party notion of lower taxation and more minimal government is a noble one, but really impractical when taken line by line. We need common sense and reasonable discord, two things we won't see from the current Congress.

Election Results: What have we learned?


Not only did Rand Paul win in the U.S. Senate race here, but Republicans nearly swept the ballot locally (with the exception of city precincts, thank god). State Sen. David Boswell lost reelection in what should have been a easy win. Meanwhile, every U.S. Representative incumbent won reelection including two Dems.


I don't know about you, but I didn't learn shit!


I suppose there is a general anxiety or fear out there, but no real reason for the mixed results. Why did John Yarmuth (D-KY3) win? Why not Jack Conway (okay, Rand Paul was a rock star). David Boswell was easily the most popular person on the ballot in Daviess County (67% job approval as of Oct. 1). What the frick?


Obama can finally be President.


Barack "Pussyfoot" Obama can finally give up on this bipartisan bull and actually push some meaningful legislation. Maybe he can submit a budget that cuts spending more than Republican alternatives. That would be hilarious. Let's see how serious these "teabaggers" are about fiscal sanity when presented with a $200 billion military budget cut. How about a truly comprehensive immigration policy that goes after the source of the problem: Illegal hiring?


Let's face it, nothing meaningful is going to get done until the summer of 2012 when people are absorbed in the Presidential contest. Then we'll start seeing some pandering to voters. Maybe Obama's challenger will be a Senator or Representative. Force him/her to vote against something really popular like Bush did to Kerry in '04.


Here's to hoping.

TOP 5 Policy Changes Yet To Be

Still Up!

1. Proportional Public Campaign Finance

Either ban or significantly limit private funding for elections. Give political parties/candidates, funding based on previous election results. This would require elections with automatic runoffs.

2. Tax Free Investment

Of course you should pay taxes on money you earn (including deductibles). But you should be able to deduct 100% of cash investment that is not "cashed out." If you touch it (AKA sell), it's income and you pay taxes on it. Of course there should still be a Roth IRA option for a limited amount of your investing in mutual funds. Just think, tax-free Roth! Eliminate capital gains and losses.

3. Progressive Taxation With Unlimited Deductions

We really need to raise taxes. Really. Personalized tax brackets. Taxable income is $20,000; You pay 10% flat. Taxable income is $21,000; You pay 10.1% flat. Something like that. Plus, every expense that is necessary or required by law would be fully tax deductible regardless of income. Increase personal exemption and eliminate tax credits. People with high income and low expenses would see a tax increase.

4. Nuclear Power

Of course, I'm nearly guaranteeing a nuclear disaster of epic proportion, but compared to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, nuclear meltdown almost seems preferable. At least we have a plan for that. Even environmentalists are starting to get on board with this one.

5. Medicare Buy-In

The thing that Lieberman supported before opposing it. At least start by letting citizens 55 and older to buy Medicare at a predetermined, income sensitive premium. Just because we're getting rid of preexisting conditions doesn't mean health care will be affordable for these people.

Okay, I'm going to bed. This is getting ridiculous. Fun though.

Another Late Night (Early Morning) Rant

Ya know, it seems I can't have a coherent string of thoughts in the middle of the day. But for some reason, if I stay up all night: Verbal diarrhea!

It's been a while, so let's see what I can cover.

Health Care Reform

We went from "Universal Health Care" to "Affordable Health Care" to "Health Care Reform". What a year! I would warn conservatives that while "ObamaCare" might seem like a catchy buzzword, linking your opposition to health care reform while simultaneously bashing it, will backfire once many of the provisions become active. You opposed "exchanges" and "banning pre-existing conditions" and "free physicals" and "end-of-life counseling?" Are you friggin' nuts? If I were Obama, I would start using "ObamaCare" as part of my reelection slogan now.

Drill Baby, Dr..., OOPS! Plug Baby, Plug!!

I feel for President Obama. Just as he was trying to build support among moderate Republicans (all 3.5 of them) for "Cap and Trade" legislation by dropping the ban on offshore oil drilling, BP has a huge offshore drilling disaster. Kinda like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. AARGH!

On the upside, Mr. Obama has taken the pragmatic pro-nuclear power approach. Hopefully, that works out a little better.

Tanning Bed + Arizona = Awkward Questions

I don't look illegal...Do I?

I actually feel bad for the police and sheriffs in Arizona. One law just turned a bunch of consummate professionals into career racists. Of course the real racists are having a field day.

Tea Partay!!!

The tea party movement, or--as it used to be called--the Republican Party, has so far successfully defeated two of its power players in major senate races. Charlie Crist is trying to pull a "Lieberman" in Florida and I don't know what the hell Bob Bennett is going to do. John McCain is officially on notice.

Of course, this could be good for Dems come November. If Republicans try to overplay their hand with extremely conservative candidates, moderate Democrats will capitalize. I'm interested to see what happens in the KY primaries next week. Rand Paul appears to be riding daddy's last name to a big win. Right now, I'm supporting Dr. Daniel Mongiardo for the Democratic side. He's actually been a vocal supporter of President Obama since early 2008. Jack Conway is a fairly unknown quantity to me, but seems like he could be a superstar in the party. (He's a pretty-boy* with a good head on his shoulders.) Either way, I like our chances in November.

So far, spring has been pretty good to us progressives. I'm going to research Elana Kagan a bit more before I have a full-fledged rant about her as Obama's SCOTUS Justice nominee. Maybe I'll have another late night before summer.

*Being a person of average appearance, I've always been distrustful of attractive people. They tend to "play" a bit more than the rest of us. My first real political support went to Paul Tsongas in 1992 (I was 16), then Howard Dean in 2004, followed by Bill Richardson in 2008. Clearly, I like 'em average. No offense Dr. Mongiardo!

Follow the White Rabbit

Just for fun, imagine a conservative Republican paradise.

1. An unregulated free market where the individual thrives, corporations (free from government oppression) can finally pay people what they are worth and provide all the medical care families need, and education is promoted by business interests that can be sensitive to the needs of the local population.

2. Taxes are no longer a problem. They have been eradicated and replaced by voluntary "contributions" to government officials. Given the opportunity to grow tax free, businesses are able to hire more and more people, creating a virtually full employment economy. Because of the amazing GDP growth and the lack of recession and depression concerns, the government enjoys a revenue surplus and is able to fully fund the military.

3. Since people are building wealth at an accelerated pace, tithing in churches reaches an all time high. This allows congregations to increase charitable giving and set up new parochial schools in areas without business-sponsored education opportunities.

4. Abortion is banned in all 50 states and all territories. Higher population growth gives corporations more investors and more opportunities to exploit labor pools that had previously made migrant workers necessary.

5. Owing to such increased profitability, people no longer participate in insider trading, "ledger fixing," and fake hedge funds.

6. Only people who are over age 18 with a high school education are allowed to get married and have children. Because there are no longer tax benefits to it, homosexuals abandon the right to be legally married.

7. The Supreme Court uses the Bible in some landmark decisions, primarily the Ten Commandments. Participating in extramarital sexual relationships is made illegal, execution is approved for blasphemy, and environmental concerns are assuaged because the world is going to end soon anyway. Creationism is allowed to be taught in all schools with no requirements for a purely "science-based" curriculum.

I could go on and on (probably will), but wouldn't that world be just perfect?

Amen.

American Health Care is Awesome...


...if you can afford it.

I am so tired of the American "exceptionalists" who can't seem to get their heads around several concepts:

1. This is not 1949!

Most families have to have two incomes. CEO's no longer make $250,000 a year. Doctors in most of America don't make house calls. Unions don't control "jack squat." The average person can not afford to pay "retail" for medical procedures.

2. This is not 1993!

Health insurance premiums are not longer payable and not usually paid fully by employers--even the big ones. Drug costs are expanding beyond the reach of even well-to-do seniors. America is even further behind in cost efficiency of health care and ridiculously behind most industrialized nations in infant mortality.

3. Health Care is not a right, but it is necessary!

Who would deny their child or other loved one a life-saving or life-improving medical procedure if given the opportunity? Sadly, many people have been denied just that by a profits driven health insurance system that survives principally by denying coverage, reducing coverage, or shorting the health care professionals of just compensation on the grounds that it cuts into the bottom line.

I heard Rush Limbaugh saying the other day that health insurance should be a catastrophic care only system like car insurance or home insurance. The problem with that is that hardly anyone can currently afford to pay for ANY health care out of pocket. And who decides what is "catastrophic" or "critical?" Shouldn't citizens of the best nation on the planet be allowed to choose when a medical situation becomes urgent enough to be taken care of. The reason health insurance doesn't work is not because people take advantage of the system. Imagine the nerve of someone wanting to have a PSA or a mammogram just so they can avoid the "inconvenience" of having cancer later in life! Sure, car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes or transmission repair, or additional windshield wiper blades that might help avoid vision problems leading to an accident. But car insurance is also seen by many as a "crock of shit" or a "boondoggle," because the repairs it covers minus the deductibles can be many times less than the premiums paid by the car owner. Oh, and if you have more than three accidents in a given time frame, they can drop you. Would Limbaugh's health care have similar caveats?

The truth of the matter is that we can't afford not to have effective, efficient health care within reach of all Americans. America becomes less "exceptional" every day we don't.

Iranian Unrest, Disappearing Governor, and Don't Ask-Don't Tell

This has been the most interesting two weeks of the year so far...


1. Mahmoud Ahmadenijad is re-elected as President of Iran?

Amid widespread fervor for a reform candidate by the name of Mousavi, the little man (I call him "brown Dubya"), overwhelmingly wins re-election by a 2-to-1 margin. Huh? Well, maybe. Although we don't know the exact circumstances of the election, something fishy is going on. The Supreme Leader of Iran is banning communication and ordering wholesale slaughter of anyone protesting the election results. Dissent is being squelched on a level that an American can hardly imagine. On the upside, fissures in the ruling class are being exposed, and the roots of a new revolution are being seen.
Not to be outdone by President Obama, many Republicans such as John McCain (and his adopted son Lindsay Graham) are calling for a Reagan-style "...tear down this wall" type speech as if it would be a good idea. Imagine, if you will, the "Great Satan" U.S. preaching to the ruling class of Iran and trying to position itself with Mousavi in a sponsoring role. The fissures now evident among the clerics would be erased, Mousavi would probably be imprisoned, and protesters would have to fight an even steeper uphill battle against the ruling class to be heard. I for one am really glad Mr. McCain did not win the Presidency.

2. Oh, Gov. Mark "I thought the Appalachian Mountains were in Argentina" Sanford

Granted, Mr. Sanford is not the first person in power to try and get away with an extramarital affair while in office, but this guy has some cajones to leave his office for five days without telling his staff or other government officials (like the Lt. Governor) where he was going or how to contact him. He essentially created a constitutional crisis in South Carolina because he had an imperative from the Mrs. to get the hell out of the house. Then, instead of going hiking on the Appalachian Trail--as was believed by his staff, he went to Argentina to supposedly meet with or "break it off" with his mistress. What the ....

3. Finally, Obama is dragging his feet on Military policy on openly-gay servicemen and women.

Is this the 21st Century? Gays in the military is not as controversial a subject as it once was. It turns out, even though a change of law IS required to overturn "Don't ask, don't tell," the President has the unique ability as Commander-in-Chief to direct military policy. In other words, he can suspend any active policy of the US military including the enforcement of discharge policies regarding sexual orientation. It's the right thing to do and Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and get it done.

Health Care Addendum:

Let me speak to my idea (although I can't claim credit) of a "triple-payer" health care system.

First of all, the term "triple-payer" is a direct restructuring of the term "single-payer." Neither single nor triple-payer systems are adequately described by those terms.

Here's the basics...See what you think.

1. The federal government would not provide health insurance coverage, simply create the nations largest health care group with very specific coverage. Many states and localities already do this to keep down costs.

2. Private and "public" health insurance providers would send blind bids (along with "capacity statements"*) to a central Health Care office for review.

3. The third lowest "per capita" bid (could be neither the highest or lowest bid) from across the nation would be chosen. An offer to buy coverage up to the capacity limit set forth by the individual health insurance providers would be sent by the federal government. Companies would then accept or reject participation in the program. Providers, whether or not they participate, could still sell insurance as a supplement privately.

4. Individuals would then "buy" insurance from the provider of their choice (certain regions would have limited options). Premiums would be based on income, payable to the federal government, and there would be a maximum contribution. Coverage would be mandatory (for those of you keeping track, I've changed my position here).

5. Ideally, the plan would be free from deductibles although a co-insurance of 10-20% would be reasonable for all procedures. Every person would receive one free physical and three urgent care visits per year. Insurance would be individual and portable. No pre-existing conditions.

Pros: Obviously, a health care plan based on income makes this truly Universal and affordable. There would not be an inordinate amount of increased taxation. Employers could still cover workers by paying the "premium tax" on behalf of the employee as part of a salary package. Private insurance companies would not be shut down or made illegal, thereby salvaging a major portion of the economy from collapse. A co-insurance policy allows doctors and hospitals some leeway in the amount of charges. No more Medicare.#

Cons: It's not a "free" system based on a progressive tax model like other countries offer. It is possible that insurers could learn to work together and "game" the system during bidding, driving up overall costs to the government. Regions lacking in accepted bids would likely be "farmed out" to providers in other regions (technology makes this less of an issue, however). Oh yeah, no more Medicare.#

Overall, I think it's a good plan. It takes what is best about the American health care system and tries to incorporate a level of price control and cooperative buying to save the taxpayer trillions of dollars. Like all health care plans, it has faults, but I hope members of Congress and the President seriously consider something like it.

* A "capacity statement" simply estimates the number of people a provider can reasonably cover. It should also include business statistics like workforce and years in service.
# Medicare is a beautiful idea but a horribly inefficient bureaucracy. This new plan takes over the job with few real changes to the individual. No income = No premium.

WHOA!! Universal Health Care?

Here's the thing...

President Obama is taking on every possible issue in his first year in office. The problem is that he and many Democrats in the Senate seem to think they are still out of power. Why did the stimulus package have tax cuts? Oh yeah, capitulation to the Republicans. That was an extra 250+ billion that could have been used to confront some other issues. Now we are going to have an extended presence in Iraq for the next year. We're getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Pakistan, virtually eradicating any savings we might expect from a "draw down" in Iraq. Now, my party, the party of "Inclusion" is walking on egg shells when it comes to Health Care.

The first problem I have with the preliminary impressions of Obama's health plan is coverage. Voluntary coverage, though it appeals to the American sense of independence, is not good enough. Again, details are hard to come by. Perhaps health coverage of some sort will end up being required by the federal government. Who knows?

Another problem is perception. Regardless of whether this plan passes, and regardless of how good and inexpensive the coverage is, it may be difficult to get a significant part of the population to buy into it. Think about public transportation. In areas where affluent or middle class people use public transportation, it thrives and is able to grow in service quality and coverage. If the only people using public transportation are poor, the local government ends up throwing "good money after bad" in an effort to keep it available. The same could happen to a voluntary public health care plan.

Democrats will have to step up and ask for single payer health care or some similar idea (like my triple-payer plan), or they will be at the forefront of a potential failure that only lends credibility to the Republican arguments about government intervention and efficiency. It could be several election cycles before we recover from that.

Think hard Dems! We need leadership on this issue. In addition to health care, we need to confront immigration, tax policy, education, and environmental issues. Don't waste your time on a health care plan that will fail to win over the American people. It will cost you political capital on everything else you try to do.

Sonia Sotomayor

It's official. President Obama is a pragmatist. Thank god!

First, Ms. Sotomayor is female and Hispanic. The Court is not well represented in these areas. Even a jury has to be made up of ones peers. Call it Affirmative Action or call it pandering, Obama knows what he's doing.

Second, Judge Sotomayor is a moderate. I think many hard line liberals expected Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court to be more of an activist in the areas of abortion and gay rights. Let me say it is unclear how Ms. Sotomayor would rule in these areas, but her other rulings have tended to the strict adherence to judicial precedent. In other words, privacy rights are safe and gay rights are still in question.

Third, Obama's pick will make Republicans eat crow (just like David Souter did for Dems). Based on the Judge's overarching judicial philosophy, she will probably come down on the side of moderates and conservatives just as often if not more so than the liberals. In other words, Obama's pick will move the Court to the "Right."

Lastly, Ms. Sotomayor is helping to bring out the far right's fear of women and Hispanics. Watching Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan squirm at the thought of a bilingual Justice on the Supreme Court made my week.

Why I'm A Socialist

A. Socialism is the rule NOT the exception
B. Government taking care of problems is better than government ignoring problems.
C. It just sounds fun.
D. I'm not a fascist.

Why I'm A Libertarian

A. People left to their own devices will evolve.
B. I trust my judgment over anyone in public life.
C. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
D. I'm fond of speaking my mind.

Why I'm A Democrat

A. It's the only party left.
B. They've always accepted me as I am.
C. Better picnics than Republicans.
D. Probably some genetic defect.

Why I'm A Pragmatist

A. What a stupid, useless question.

Why I'm A Male Chauvinist

A. If you have to ask, you must be a woman.
B. I'm married.
C. I have two daughters.
D. I'm male.

Why I'm A Secular Progressive

A. Religion is divisive and frankly hurtful.
B. I believe in Freedom.
C. The only way to ensure free religion is to remove it from the public arena.
D. I just like pissing off Bill O'Reilly.

Why...

A. 52

DL out.

Republican/Democrat Primary Rundown

I think that it's time to evaluate what's happening in this big cluster@#%* called a Presidential Primary.

First off, this kind of open field is nearly unprecedented. The only thing that would make it more confusing is if we had a three party system (which we should).

Secondly, the Democrats are far too positive about their choices than they should be, while Republicans have the opposite problem.

Thirdly, the top three candidates on either side are not the most qualified or the least divisive of the parties' offerings. This still confounds me.

Fourth(ly?), Hillary Clinton is a disaster waiting to happen. Democrats would be wise to dump her before she becomes a liability.

In the Fifth place, Rudy Giuliani should likewise be dumped before he splits the Republican party in two. Everything they have built for the last 30 years would be destroyed in one election cycle.

Sixthish, the writer's union strike is seriously effecting my mood. All my favorite television shows are having truncated seasons. Unless something gets resolved soon, we're going to be forced to watch all 24 hours of the 24 hour cable news outlets' programming.

Lastly, Bill Richardson for President!

The Worst Person in the World*

3rd Worst: Bill Clinton

After spending 5 years defending the Bush administration's WMD screw-up in Iraq, the former President is now (and apparently has always been) in ardent opposition to the war. I remember being so mad at him for calling in to Larry King in early 2003 and basically regurgitating the same bull as the Bush people. Plus, he's stumping for his wife, arguably the most pro-war Democrat running. Talk about bad.

2nd Worst: Mitt Romney

Apparently (according to an exchange about torture with John McCain last night), we can't discuss what is "acceptable" as a culture. When asked if "water boarding" was a legitimate tool in interrogating terrorists, Governor Romney said that "as a candidate for President" he couldn't discuss that. But when it comes to abortion, that "right" should be banned. It's apparently okay to discuss unacceptable behavior when it comes to the behavior of average people, but not President Mitt Romney.

THE Worst: Osama bin Laden

For still breathing.

*"The Worst Person in the World" is inspired by, but is not in affiliation with Countdown on MSNBC

Post Debate Run-Down

Senator Clinton...Senator Edwards...Senator Obama...back to you Senator Clinton...

The most frustrating thing about these debates is the ineptitude of the "moderators."
I can't stand Tim Russert anyway, but Brian Williams was just following the Russert playbook with regard to questions asked. The question to Kucinich about UFO's was utterly ridiculous. Russert was able to "get" Hillary with a question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. It was the first time I've ever seen her flustered when trying to express herself. Thankfully, the other candidates are no longer letting her get away with dodging questions and speaking out both sides of her mouth.

Here's the run-down of worst to best:

7. Dennis Kucinich: While I appreciate your candor and honesty, you sound more and more like a socialist everytime you speak. While I'm sure a great many of your supporters like that sort of thing, most Democrats won't buy it. Try to hold your composure when talking about ET's.

6. Barack Obama: Call it coming short of expectations. "Coming out hard against Hillary" means getting a little more energetic in your responses. You have the best speaking voice in the field. Let it get fired up!

5. Bill Richardson: I'm starting to get a little fed up with your performances. I really think you are the most qualified candidate on either side and you have the right ideas. Just start ignoring the questions that are asked like everybody else. Get some shit started. Oh, and don't defend Hillary!

4. Hillary Clinton: For the first time, I can honestly say you lost a debate. This one was all about you. Howard Dean had a similar moment in 2003. And guess who took him down...

3. John Edwards: By far the best anti-Hillary of the night. You didn't handle the trial lawyer contributions rebuttal by Sen. Dodd very well. You always seem a little too privileged to be the champion of the lower and middle classes. Maybe that's unfair, but it's a common perception.

2. Chris Dodd: I think you had the fewest minutes of the night, but they were all quality minutes. You were the first person to give the "right" answer on DL's for IA's without sounding like you were hedging your bets. Maybe Connecticut's illegal population is insignificant enough for you to feel no fear. Either way, you took Sen. Clinton down a peg or two.

1. Joe Biden: I thought you had the best debate performance, even though I think John Edwards technically won. It all came down to the minutes you were given. I have the feeling that the next debate will give you more time to deliver those gems for which you are famous. "Gaffe machine" or not, kudos to you. "Rudy Giuliani...a noun, a verb, and 9/11..." Priceless!

Kill a Child, Save a Nation

I'm really tired of being told I can't have or do something because of some other dumbass that has or does something dangerous. The latest culprit is over-the-counter pediatric medicine. ApPARENTly, a few dozen kids a year have died as a result of either overdosing by PARENTS or intolerances to medications that are congenital or genetic in nature (inherited from PARENTS). Yet the hundreds of thousands of young children and infants who benefit from these medications with no serious complications are at risk of losing helpful products because of a few dumbass PARENTS (who, by the way, tend to have dumbass kids) and some unfortunate children with rare disorders that will likely incapacitate or kill them later in life anyway.

I'm sorry if I sound a little ticked off, but this isn't the first time this kind of crap has been presented as reasonable thinking by so-called "child advocacy" groups. Many states have made mandatory child restraint laws, products with extremely low potential for harm are constantly being recalled, and PARENTS' hands are tied quite effectively when it comes to forms of discipline. Enough is enough people!

No matter how many protections you put in place, people die. I know it's sad, and we should do what is reasonable to protect everyone we can, but you can't save everybody. Accidents happen. Mistakes in judgement take place. You can't legislate or regulate common sense and caution. It never works.

I'm not opposed to labelling for product dangers. I'm not opposed to safety standards and purity standards (we should have to worry about how much lead our water supply has or whether our child restraint will fall apart at 40 miles-an-hour). But there is a big difference between providing good products and good information as opposed to trying to stop people from doing stupid things. I've never known anyone whose child had died as a result of correct dosage of an over-the-counter drug. Only children with particularly rare disorders (i.e., the inability to process dextromethorphane) are at any real risk otherwise.

Non-prescription drugs have saved me alot of urgent care and emergency room visits over the years with my children. It's amazing how fast a "little sniffle" can turn into a full-blown chest cold without prevention. Tying PARENTS' and doctors' hands from doing what's right for your child's health is no job of the federal government. Just make sure the medicine is free from lead, mercury, or other poisons that aren't listed on the label. Hell, let 'em put out a pure lead supplement, I don't care. If people are dumb enough to give it to their kids, they're probably doing us a favor anyway.

Progressive, Fair Taxation

Here are some thoughts on tax reform...

I've been reading alot about the so-called "Fair Tax" that is being thrown around by conservatives and even some of my fellows in the Radical Center. First of all, the tax is at best simple. At worst it is nearly regressive (I say "nearly" because I have run tax models with lower tax burdens for lower income people. Without considerable spending by wealthy people, however, the tax can become practically regressive. Therefore, I submit that a progressive income tax should remain. I would insist on some pretty major changes (an overhaul if you will), but the spirit of our current tax system should remain.

There should be built into the tax code deductions for necessary expenses, investment, and state-mandated fees. The personal exemption should be increased to about $10,000 per person ($15,000 for military). I would rid the tax code of complicated tax credits. There would no longer be limits or exceptions with regard to deductions. And if a negative tax liability is realized, a portion (probably 10%) should be credited to the household up to 100% of payroll taxes paid.

In essence, a family of four would not pay any taxes, and would probably see a credit for income less than $40,000 (+$5,000 for every active military individual). Tax rates would have to be raised across the board, but wouldn't likely affect individuals negatively until reaching the upper 5% of incomes. An effective "maximum wage" would be enacted as well. Taxable income over $5 million would be taxed at 100%. Of course, this is more an incentive to invest in stocks, funds, or ones own business than a condemnation of wealth.

Here's a partial list of changes I would suggest:

1. Increase personal exemption to $10,000 per individual in household.
2. Eliminate all caps and income exceptions for currently available deductions.
3. Make state sales tax deductible regardless of other considerations.
4. Make Payroll taxes deductible and eliminate payroll tax income caps,
5. Make all involuntary fees and taxes deductible. (i.e., auto liability insurance).
6. Eliminate all tax credits.
7. Raise the percentage of, and increase the number of tax rates.
8. Make all investments in real business* tax deductible.

Hopefully, that is as clear as mud. Tell me what you think, and feel free to ask questions.

*real business--A business that deals in goods or services. Guaranteed investment such as a interest bearing checking account or savings account would not be deductible. Bank-related stocks would be deductible.

One Month in a Coma

I like to take a month or two off every two or three months to have a nice, reasonably long coma. Seeing as how not much has happened in the world of religion and politics since I feel asleep, I should be able to sum it all up in a few quips...

...Ann Coulter likes Bush, hates Johns...
...Muslim doctors want to destroy Great Britain...
...Al Qaeda is gaining strength, but we're winning the "war on terror?"...
...Michael Moore wants to live in Cuba...
...Border agents can't shoot drug smugglers...
...Bill Richardson is kickin' ass in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nobody cares...
...Bush commutes "Scooter's" sentence...
...John McCain is losing ground, but again, nobody cares...

and in local news, Ernie Fletcher and Steve Beshear will go head-to-head in two debates in October. I'm sure it will be riveting television.

That about covers it. Maybe something interesting will happen before September.

DemoLiberal is 4-Years-Old Today

I started my little Deaniac blog on this day in 2003.

Reading some of my old posts reminds me how far we've come, but yet how far we have to go.

Richardson is Finally Stepping Up

As you may know from this blog, I was once a supporter of Howard Dean for President. And while they are very different, I sensed some of the same qualities in Bill Richardson. Enough so to make me support his campaign.

Around May of 2003, Howard Dean changed. Up to that point, he had been a reserved, yet consistent critic of the Bush administration and his "enablers" in the Democratic Party. At a rally during the spring of '03, Dean became visibly aggressive. The "angry liberal" the press loved and conservatives despised, emerged that day. His campaign skyrocketed. It was a critical moment in U.S. political history. Today, Bill Richardson had what could be his moment.

At the "Take Back America" conference, Bill Richardson "laid in" to his Democratic opponents for their political calculation and pandering. He made a zero residual troops pledge for Iraq, something he's been saying for months, but which noone seemed to hear. The only other "serious" candidate saying similar things has been John Edwards (he's my second choice). Gov. Richardson even called Edwards to the carpet over his support of the "legislation" congress passed last month.

I had hairs standing up on the back of my neck after hearing the Governor's empassioned statements. For the first time in four years, I felt like I had picked the right guy. Only time will tell if I'm right.