Oscarcan Political Blog

Insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions

2009-12-19T09:50:00.000-08:00

Can you buy new fire insurance to cover house that has already burned down?
Can you buy new life insurance to cover somebody after they already died?
Can you buy new auto insurance to cover a car that has already been in an accident?

Of course not! If you could buy insurance after an event happened then nobody would elect to pay monthly premiums before an event happened. Insurance is designed to protect you from something that hasn't happened but might happen.

It doesn't make sense to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions because if people know they would be covered for pre-existing medical conditions then there is no reason to buy insurance before they get a medical condition.

Of course if you forced everybody to buy health insurance then you could cover pre-existing medical conditions. However, forcing somebody to buy something just to be a citizen is unprecedented and unconstitutional. The likely way to legally force people to pay for health insurance would be for the government to tax people and then use the tax revenue to buy insurance.

In this tax and spend scenario the government would essentially control the money paid to insurance companies and this would give the government tremendous power over insurance companies. This power over insurance companies would give the government tremendous influence on the monies paid out for healthcare services. This would give the government a lot of power and control over healthcare providers.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to help people with pre-existing medical conditions and there are plenty of ways to do this. However, trying to help these people by the government forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions will naturally lead to government run healthcare.

This One Sentence Can Create Millions of Green Jobs Overnight Without Spending Any Taxpayer Dollars

2009-08-28T20:36:00.000-07:00

You are about to read one sentence that has the ability to create millions of green jobs overnight without the government spending any money. After you read the sentence I will explain why this sentence would be so effective.

The government should implement a gradually increasing revenue neutral tax on all crude oil consumed in the US such that within ten years it is guaranteed to cost a consumer more to consume oil than to consume green alternatives.

For example let's suppose it costs $5 to produce a gallon of biofuel made from algae. If people know that gasoline would slowly ramp up in cost to be $7 in ten years then jobs would sprout up in the algae biofuel industry overnight. Similarly, if electric car manufacturers know they would be extremely competitive against $7 gasoline then jobs would sprout up in the electric car industry overnight as well. Anything that can compete with $7 gasoline would flourish and jobs would be created. You would be crazy not to invest in a company that will be profitable filling the void created by $7 per gallon gasoline.

Don't be fooled by the word "tax" but instead focus on the "revenue neutral" part of it. With the revenue neutral tax all the additional tax revenue collected from oil consumption will go directly back to people in the form of credits. If you consume less oil than average you come out ahead. If you consume more oil than average then you just have to pay a bit more for your consumption habits.

The revenue neutral tax would be ramped up over time. This ramping up of taxes could be delayed a couple years to give certain industries some time to plan how to address the imminent changes. This delay wouldn't really hinder the investments in alternatives as these projects will take years before anything significant comes to market anyway. The key is a long term trajectory that clearly guarantees that alternatives to oil will win and dependence on oil will lose.

In reality the price of oil will naturally go up over time because it is a finite resource that keeps getting more and more costly to extract from the ground. In ten years gasoline will probably be more expensive than alternatives regardless of this revenue neutral tax idea. However, it sure would be tremendously beneficial to our country if it were extremely clear to everybody that this will happen soon. It is better to come up with a methodical plan to deal with this inevitability now than to be in a mad scramble when oil rockets up to $200+ per barrel.

I am calling "cash for clunkers" a failure!

2009-08-24T18:17:00.001-07:00

I have heard many people claim the cash for clunkers was a huge success, but it troubles me when I hear this because cash for clunkers was flawed in many ways. In fact I think cash for clunkers was a huge failure and I will tell you why.

A big giveaway to the programs intrinsic flaw is it involves a physical destruction of value. In theory there is incentive for a car valued at $4,499 to be destroyed. This is even worse than digging ditches and filling them to create jobs.

Another giveaway to the intrinsic flaws is that government is stepping in and picking winners and losers. It is worth pointing out that since the net result is a destruction of value, there will actually be more losers than winners.

One obvious loser is the taxpayer. The program was $3 billion so each taxpayer had to pay $20 on average for this program. The person getting $4,500 for scraping their car is essentially receiving this privilege because the government is basically making 225 people each give this person a twenty dollar bill.

Those 225 people would have surely spent their $20 on something better for the economic welfare of our society than what amounts to providing someone incentive to scrap something of value.

Very poor people were actually hurt by the cash for clunkers program. Think of a mother who needs a car to get to the grocery store, Wal-Mart, and the clinic. A $4,000 car that got 10 miles per gallon car would be very effective at taking her a mile down the road and back. Unfortunately, taxpayers had to pay $4,500 to scrap a car like that.

There will be winners and losers with every government decision. Whenever the government picks winners and losers I get worried because the government tends to be extremely inefficient and illogical. Please don't be fooled into thinking it is a success when taxpayer dollars are used to benefit certain groups by paying them to destroy something of value.

For those who are interested I had a plan that would be far more effective and efficient at increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in America. You can read about it here.

Barack Obama's Approval Index Reaches New Historic Level

2009-06-21T15:40:00.000-07:00

For the first time in history, Barack Obama's presidential approval index fell into negative territory. The Rasmussen Obama Approval Index for June 21, 2009 has 32% strongly approve and 34% strongly disapprove which equates to an approval index of negative 2.

Obama's negative presidential approval index is still quite impressive when compared to the dismal final days of the Bush Administration. However, the amazing thing about Obama's new presidential approval index is that less than five months ago on January 22, a whopping 44% strongly approved of Obama and only14% strongly disapproved of Obama giving him an approval index of plus 30. Wow! The strongly approve to strongly disapprove ratio went from more than three to less than one in under five months!

Of course Rasmussen numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because they are generally not as favorable to Obama as many of the other polls out there like Gallup or CBS News/NY Times. Regardless, the majority of polls agree there is a strong trend of less people approving and more people disapproving.

Rasmussen still has Obama with a positive overall presidential approval rating with 53% approve and 46% disapprove, but I have a hunch this number won't last because extrapolating the data suggest the downward slide to continue. The question isn't really IF the approval rating goes negative but rather WHEN. My best guess is for Obama to have negative approval some time during the third quarter of 2009.

Please share your comments here on Reddit, or here on PoliticalWatercooler.com or twitter me @oscarcan.

Interpretations of the April 29th FOMC Statement

2009-04-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

There are a number of ways to interpret the April 29, 2009 FOMC Statement. Below is the first paragraph of the FOMC Statement followed by two different translations. The literal translation is perhaps the most accurate.

First Paragraph of the April 29th FOMC Statement:

"Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in March indicates that the economy has continued to contract, though the pace of contraction appears to be somewhat slower. Household spending has shown signs of stabilizing but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Weak sales prospects and difficulties in obtaining credit have led businesses to cut back on inventories, fixed investment, and staffing. Although the economic outlook has improved modestly since the March meeting, partly reflecting some easing of financial market conditions, economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time. Nonetheless, the Committee continues to anticipate that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth in a context of price stability."

A rosy interpretation of the FOMC Statement:
The contraction of the economy has slowed. Household spending is stabilizing. The economic outlook has improved since March because of easing of financial market conditions. The committee anticipates a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth.

A literal interpretation of the FOMC Statement:
The economy has continued to contract. Household spending remains constrained by ongoing job losses, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Weak sales prospects and difficulties in obtaining credit have led businesses to cut back on inventories, fixed investment, and staffing. Economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time.

When criticizing the FairTax plan, be sure to avoid these nonsensical arguments

2009-04-28T14:23:00.000-07:00

I have heard a lot of arguments against the FairTax plan. Some of the most common arguments are so nonsensical they can make you come across as being either uninformed or unintelligent. Below are some arguments you want to avoid when criticizing the FairTax.

Don't criticize the FairTax for being tax revenue neutral. The FairTax system doesn't necessarily have to be tax revenue neutral. Criticizing the FairTax for being revenue neutral is as nonsensical as criticizing a new thermostat because it can be set to the current room temperature.

Don't complain that the FairTax is not progressive. The prebate makes it so the FairTax plan is highly progressive. The prebate makes it so people spending less than the poverty level will pay zero federal taxes. It is also interesting to point out that one of the taxes the FairTax is designed to replace is the highly regressive payroll tax.

Think before you complain about how the FairTax hurts certain groups. Keep in mind that the FairTax would be introduced as revenue neutral so for every hurt you complain about there is an equal benefit given somewhere else. Also, groups that currently get special treatment in the current tax code are most likely to be among those who make out slightly worse. Do you really want to defend the special interest groups politicians have catered to in the current 60,000 page tax code?

Don't complain about how people will cheat the FairTax system. There will be people who cheat the FairTax system just as there are people who cheat the current system. The real question is which system will result in less overall cheating and easier monitoring. Strong arguments can be made that the FairTax system will be superior in this regard because the number of tax collection points to guard against cheating would be reduced from all people and all businesses down to just businesses selling retail.

Don't debate whether the consumption tax rate is 23% or 30% unless you side with the FairTax position. The FairTax logic is correct on this issue. Find the smartest and most honest mathematical mind you know and give them the task of fairly comparing a federal tax on income to a federal tax on consumption and they will confirm this for you.

Example: With income tax, if someone has $100 of their income taxed at 23% they give $23 to the government and have $77 remaining to buy something. Similarly, with the FairTax, if someone has none of their income taxed and then pays $100 for the same $77 something mentioned above and the government gets $23 then these two scenarios amount to the exact same amount of taxation. If income tax in this example can be referred to as 23% then so should the FairTax.

Don't criticize the FairTax by saying it will never pass. The merits of the FairTax do not depend on whether or not politicians pass it. Instead of thinking about whether or not it will pass, I believe it is better to think about why some politicians might not want to pass it. Why might politicians cling to all 60,000 pages of our current tax code? It probably has a lot to do getting votes, contributions, and appeasing lobbyists.

Logical Reasons Against The FairTax

OK, so what then is a logical and intelligent argument against the FairTax?

I do have one pretty major problem with the FairTax proposal. I believe people who currently have a lot of money will be hurt by the implementation of the FairTax plan. These people paid income taxes when they earned all that money and then under the FairTax plan they would also have to pay consumption taxes when they spend that same money. I have read arguments by FairTax proponents as they try to tap dance around this issue, but I would prefer if they would just admit that existing wealth will take a slight hit with the FairTax plan. It will probably help their cause to admit this especially since nobody seems to care if the rich are financially hurt. I don't feel sorry for rich people, but it is worth acknowledging that what rich people can consume with their wealth will be taxed more heavily with the FairTax plan.

I also have another problem with the FairTax plan and it has to do with exports. One key component in the FairTax plan is to make businesses pay no federal taxes so that exports are free from embedded taxes that otherwise would hinder the competitiveness of American exports. The FairTax cheerleading theory is that the FairTax plan will make American exports competitive which would create jobs and encourage both foreign and domestic investments in America production. I don't mind jobs and increased investment in productivity, but I have a problem with how zero taxation on exports isn't representative of the costs that went into producing the products being exported. For example, the products being exported benefit from various federal expenditures such as roads, electric grids, education, security, regulation, etc. Selling these exports to foreign countries without factoring in any of our nation's federal expenses seems to me like America taxpayers giving to the world through exports. However, since America has had a massive trade deficit for decades, my concerns about zero federal export taxation is a mute point because it looks like will benefit more from collecting taxes on imports.

Conclusion

This blog entry is motivated out of a genuine belief that I don't want people to cling to nonsensical arguments especially with regard to a proposed system with the potential of the FairTax plan. This blog entry does not specifically focus on the positives of the FairTax plan, but you can read many positives about the plan at FairTax.org. In my opinion, that site does cheerlead a bit much, but it is forgivable because many of cheers in favor the FairTax plan are justifiable.

Just How Bad is Our Government's Spending Problem

2009-04-21T05:36:00.000-07:00

At the time of writing this our national debt is $11.2 trillion (and counting). Another way of looking at this is to realize that the share of debt for each man, woman, and child in our country is over $36,500 each. For a typical family of four this amounts to $146,000 of debt. A sizable portion of your tax dollars go to paying interest on this debt.

Roughly half of our national debt was accumulated under the Bush Administration. Some notable expenses were the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush inherited a budget surplus and left office with the largest federal deficit ever.

One key number I am fascinated by is the federal deficit as a percentage of the GDP. I think it is a good number to compare deficit spending for different years. To get this percentage I take the federal deficit divided by the GDP using this data from usgovernmentspending.com.

Over the course of the Bush presidency the worst year for this number was in 2004 when the federal deficit was 3.5% the GDP. In 2008 the federal deficit was 3.2% the GDP which is not as bad but close to it. How does Obama compare?

Under the Obama administration the 2009 federal deficit is planned to be a whopping 12.3% of the GDP. This insane deficit spending of 12.3% GDP is more than double the worst value from any year from 1947 through 2008. The closest comparable year for excessive spending was 1983 where the federal deficit was 5.9% of the GDP. Another way of putting this is to say deficit spending is twice as bad now as it was in the worst year over the past six decades.

At the rate of spending planned by the Obama Administration our national debt is becoming a good bet to double during Obama's watch. Perhaps even more alarming, our national debt is on pace to exceed our GDP in a few years. The last time America's national debt exceeded its GDP was during World War II. Fortunately back then we were able to overcome this debt burden because our economy was in a position to significantly outgrow our debt. Our debt still grew back then but our economy grew faster, a lot faster.

Unfortunately for us now, however, our economy is not well positioned to outgrow our debt. We have an aging population with baby boomers already starting to collect social security. Our GDP growth rate in 2009 is looking to be lower than any year over the past six decades. Our economy is addicted to foreign oil which will likely hinder our economic growth because oil prices will surely rise and create a downward pressure as the economy starts to shows signs of any significant growth. Unfortunately, spending money at levels not seen since WWII does not guarantee we will get the economic growth we saw after WWII.

Instead of comparing our current situation to ourselves back in the 1940s, I believe it would be more appropriate to compare ourselves with another highly developed economy that has many similarities to us. The recent economic history of Japan offers us a crystal clear window into what our future might look like if we continue to try and spend our way out of the current economic situation.

Japan's Nikkei average peaked in 1989 and the peak was followed by a major correction. Similarly, the Dow peaked in 2007 and that peak was also followed by a major correction. Japan tried to spend their way out of their economic crisis just as we are trying to do now. How did all this spending work for Japan? Well, in 2009, two decades after the Nikkei peaked, Japan's Nikkei hit a new 26 year low. Also, in 2010 Japan's debt as a percentage of GDP is estimated to be 200%, a massive burden on their economic future.

Japan is a crystal ball that shows where excessive government spending will lead us. Our economic situation now is similar to Japan's situation back in the early 1990s. Unfortunately, our government response to spend, spend, and spend is hauntingly similar as well.

AIG Bailout - The Great Misdirection of Outrage

2009-03-16T18:22:00.000-07:00

The AIG bailout is estimated to cost over $170 billion and yet the media is in a frenzy over the $165 million paid in bonuses to AIG executives. This is more than a 1,000 to one ratio.

A perfect analogy for this situation is to imagine you had a wallet filled with ten hundred dollar bills (i.e. $1,000) and one single dollar (i.e. $1). Next imagine the entire $1,001 was stolen from your wallet with one person stealing $1,000 from you and the other person stealing $1 from you.

The way I see it, the government who bailed out AIG is analogous to the person who took $1,000 and the executive bonuses is analogous to the person who took $1. What is happening now is the government (i.e. the $1,000 taker) is directing all attention toward the executive bonuses (i.e. the $1 taker).

It is absurd but people seem to actually believe the government (i.e. the $1,000 taker) when the government says something like the following: "Just look at that greedy person who stole $1 of your hard earned money right from your wallet and is now thumbing their finger at you. You need me, the government, to protect you from greedy people". It is unbelievable that people are actually buying into such a misdirection of outrage.

It is also interesting to point out that $170 billion AIG bailout is literally costing US taxpayers an average of over $1,000 per taxpayer because a $170 billion bailout divided by 150 million taxpayers comes out to $1,133 dollars per taxpayer.

Did Obama Really Inherit This Economy?

2009-03-07T19:07:00.000-08:00

Did Obama merely inherit the economy or were his policies and the likelihood of them being enacted an integral part of what shaped our current economy. Below are some key Obama dates and the corresponding Dow Jones Industrial Average numbers.

On January 3, 2008, the DOW closed at 13,056.72. The favorites to be the next president were Hillary Clinton for the Democrats or Mitt Romney for the Republicans. However, everybody knew the Democrats were the heavily favored to win.

On January 4, 2008, Barack Obama, an extremely liberal senator, won the Iowa caucus. The next day the DOW was down 256.54 to close at 12,800.18.

On Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008 Barack Obama won 13 states to Hillary Clinton's 9. The next day the Dow closed at 12,200.10.

On April 29, 2008, the controversy over Obama's Pastor got to a point where Obama felt it necessary to denounce his preacher. The story was hurting Obama politically. On that day the Dow closed at 12,831.94.

On August 23, 2008 Obama selected Biden, another extremely liberal senator, and the next trading day the DOW was down 241.81 to close at 11,386.25.

On September 26, 2008, the first presidential debate took place between McCain and Obama. All the news stations except Fox basically proclaimed Obama the winner. Fox took the view that there was no clear cut winner, but Fox News was quite clear that McCain did not deliver the knock out blow McCain desperately needed. A win or a tie was considered a victory for Obama. The next trading day the DOW was down 777.68 to close at 10,365.45.

On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. The next trading day the DOW was down 486.01 to close at 9,139.27.

Barack Obama was one of the most active president elects in history. On the night Obama was elected the DOW was at 9625.28. On the day Obama was sworn in the DOW closed at 7,949.09.

Barack Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress have been extremely active and effective with passing their legislation since taking power. In less than 7 weeks of Obama being behind the wheel the DOW is currently at 6,626.94.

If you believe the markets are forward looking, then it is difficult to believe that Obama merely inherited the economy. It appears the probability of Obama's policies being enacted has played a role in shaping our economy.

Digging Ditches and Filling Them Does Not Create Jobs

2009-02-20T08:33:00.001-08:00

I am always skeptical when I hear somebody talk about spending taxpayer dollars to create jobs. There are good kinds of spending to create jobs and bad kinds.

The good kind of spending to create jobs involves spending money that creates jobs for people where the results of their labor makes our country more productive and efficient and also helps to stimulate even more jobs. For example, spending money to make our nation's electrical grid more efficient, reliable, safer, etc. is something that will create jobs and also make our nation more productive thereby generating even more jobs. As one would expect, there are some things like this in our new stimulus bill.

The bad kind of spending to create jobs is doing things like paying people to dig a ditch and then paying them to fill it back up again. Sure it will employ a lot of ditch diggers, but the result of the labor does nothing to help the economy. It is essentially just politicians putting taxpayer dollars in the hands of certain people selected by politicians.

I know it sounds difficult to believe but here is how a politician might try and convince us to spend billions to dig ditches and fill them up.

The ditch diggers have been badly hurt by the economy and their jobs are being lost at record rate (insert sad story about an honest, hard working ditch digger who is suffering). This bill provides needed employment for people like one you just heard about. This bill will help keep America's ditch digging industry strong so we won't become dependent of foreign ditch diggers. This bill will have a positive ripple effect and create jobs for all the supporting industries like shovel, work boot, and uniform manufacturers.

Anyway, when you try and debate the politician they will tell you their plan will create jobs and help honest, hardworking ditch diggers. However, under their breath they may be whispering "the stock I own in the shovel company will go through the roof if this thing passes" or "I'll be able to count on the ditch digger vote if this thing passes". Granted, some politicians may not be motivated by votes or profit when they push for things, but it is still depressing if our politicians honestly believe that digging ditches and filling them will help our economy.

Problems with the $75 Billion Foreclosure Plan

2009-02-19T10:42:00.001-08:00

The plan aims to reduce the number of foreclosures by spending taxpayer dollars and essentially giving money to selected people and banks at risk of foreclosures. The cost of this $75 billion plan is equivalent to $500 per US taxpayer (i.e. $75 billion divided by 150 million taxpayers).

Nobody likes people being forced out of their homes. However, it is also not good to reward people and banks that are overextended especially if it involves taking money away from people, taxpayers, who exercised more prudence.

Imagine a community of twenty or so hard working taxpayers where only one of the people is at risk of foreclosure. Imagine if the government forced each of the hard working taxpayers to walk over to their neighbor's house and each give $500 to the one person who is at risk of foreclosure. This is not the recipe for building a prosperous country. This is a recipe for more resentment, entitlement, and failure.

The root problem with a foreclosure is that somebody can't afford to live in the home they owe money on. Giving taxpayer dollars to people so they barely make payments is only going to drag the core problem on into the future.

Abortion and Obama's first few days of office

2009-01-24T15:40:00.001-08:00

Today I read an article about a change Barack Obama made regarding U.S. policy on abortion funding. I thought the article has a strong left lean towards it so intend to give it a corresponding lean towards the right. Below are the left version and the right version.

Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding Complete Reuters article found here	Obama allows taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries by Oscar
President Barack Obama on Friday lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, a spokesman said.	President Barack Obama on Friday turned back the clock so U.S. taxpayer dollars can now be used to fund groups that perform abortions abroad.
The Democratic president's decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.	The Democratic president's decision was a blow, literally a skull crushing blow, to the unborn and to people worldwide who support rights for the unborn.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.	Before Obama changed U.S. policy the U.S. government did not fund groups and clinics that were in the business of aborting human fetuses.
Obama signed an executive order lifting the restrictions on Friday, a White House spokesman said.	Obama signed an executive allowing U.S. money to fund abortions on Friday, a White House spokesman said.
It has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centerpiece social policies of the conservative administration of former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.	Former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, was not in favor of using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and unveiled policy, called the Mexico City Policy, to protect the unborn. In his first few days in office Obama changed this policy that protected the unborn.
Critics call it the "gag rule" because it also cuts funds to groups that advocate or lobby for the lifting of abortion restrictions, so they say it infringes on free speech. They also say it has reduced healthcare for some of the world's poorest women.	Critics call it the "gag rule" because they couldn't think of a better name for a policy that strives to limit the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to perform and promote abortions.
Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, rescinded the rule when he took office in January 1993 and his successor, Republican George W. Bush, reinstated it in January 2001.	In a change back to more of the same, Obama adopted the same policy familiar to those in his administration, the same policy as the last Democrat in office.
Planned Parenthood, a health care provider and advocacy group for abortion rights, welcomed the move. "With the stroke of a pen, President Obama has..."	Planned Parenthood, a billion dollar 501(c)3 company that pays no taxes and receives millions of dollars of government grants and millions of dollars performing abortions was supportive of Obama's decision to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions abroad.

Reasons Why Obama Will Not Be Reelected in 2012

2008-11-29T04:11:00.000-08:00

Predictive markets currently give Barack Obama (the Democratic ticket) around a 68% to be reelected in 2012, but I think this number should be more like a meager 20% chance of Obama being reelected. My reasoning has to do with his 2008 campaign message, the situation he is inheriting, and the nature of the American people. I want to be clear that my prediction isn't that Obama will do a bad job, but rather that the dynamics are already in place so that he will not get reelected in 2012 regardless of what he does.

One major aspect of Barack Obama's campaign message was purposefully unspecific slogans like hope, change, yes-we-can, and believe. Vague slogans like these allow people to believe their vision of the future is the same as Obama's even though in reality things are likely very different. After four years of Obama being in office, these vague slogans will be replaced with specific thoughts like "I believe Obama did something but it wasn't the change I was hoping for".

Another major aspect of Obama's campaign was that things are bad in America, it is Bush's fault, and McCain would be four more years of the same. In 2012 Obama will not be able to focus on how bad things are, Obama will not be able to blame Bush any more, and Obama will be the "more of the same" candidate. He will no longer have the luxury of being evaluated on the vision he creates, but instead he will be evaluated on what he was able to achieve.

A good campaign can deal with the issues mentioned above, however, because of the magnitude of what the Obama presidency is inheriting there is no way Obama will come out after four years looking good. You have the global recession, dependence on foreign oil, the housing crisis, the credit crisis, the ongoing challenge of keeping America safe, and the list goes on and on. The global recession, housing crisis, and credit crisis are already set in motion to get worse before they get better. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is going to involve a tremendous short term expense before we can reap the long term rewards. Progress can't really be measured in four years.

Any logical thinker would realize that Obama isn't responsible for all the issues facing America, but after four years in office the demanding nature of the American people will be such that they expect our leader to successfully address these issues our country faces. If Obama does nothing and things haven't miraculously gotten better then Obama's inaction will be blamed. If Obama does something and things haven't gotten better then Obama's actions will be blamed. I simply can't envision a scenario where Obama wins in 2012. It makes you wonder why he is currently a 2:1 favorite.

In Politics, How Much Psychological Manipulation is Acceptable?

2008-11-08T08:47:00.000-08:00

We all know and accept that a certain amount of psychological manipulation occurs in politics. For example, a McCain advertisement might have ended with McCain's face appearing right next to an American flag to suggest that McCain is patriotic and good for our country. As another example, an Obama advertisement might have shown images of McCain and Bush repeatedly together to suggest that McCain is four more years of Bush. This type of thing happens all the time in politics and it is generally considered acceptable.

However, when does this sort of manipulation go over the line? What if you played a McCain commercial backwards and it said over and over that "You will vote for McCain because it will make you feel good". Most people, including myself, would consider that unacceptable psychological manipulation. What if there was some white noise in a McCain commercial and it could be shown that, embedded in the white noise, was a clear message that said "You must vote for McCain because our country needs McCain". Again this would generally be considered to be unacceptable psychological manipulation.

Let's examine something else. What if McCain were to give a speech to the American people and at the start of his speech he mentioned that his campaign hired some neuro-linguistic programming and hypnosis experts to write and help coach McCain in his speech delivery. What if McCain told the American public that he would like to try the techniques out on them?

McCain could say "Reagan" and then point to himself. McCain could say "security" and put his hand over his heart. McCain could say "Obama" and scratch his armpit while making the "loser" symbol with his hand. Next McCain could bring out a watch on a chain and ask the audience to look into the watch as it rocked back and fourth as he tried to hypnotize them. He might ask them to relax and listen to his voice while instructing them to breathe in and out. He might ask them to count backwards or something. He might gain their trust by asking them to focus on undeniable facts like "you are here right now" and "you can hear my voice". Then after people are hypnotized he might implant a few hypnotic commands in a firm and confident voice saying something like "because you care about America, you must vote for John McCain as President of the United States".

Would this sort of neuro-linguistic programming and hypnosis be acceptable? McCain would be attempting to get votes based on his ability to successfully use psychological techniques that manipulate people's thoughts. I might actually be OK with this made up scenario because, in the made up scenario, at least McCain was honest with the audience about his plans to use these psychological techniques on them.

However, what if McCain didn't tell the audience his carefully planned and orchestrated scheme to use neuro-linguistic programming and hypnosis to manipulate their thoughts? How creepy would that be? What kind of a leader would try and brainwash people to get elected? What kind of opinion could a politician like that have of the American people? What if a politician did this sort of thing repeatedly in the various speeches throughout the campaign knowing full well the impact it could have on people, especially young people? What if these techniques worked and helped the politician get elected? Calling it is creepy is an understatement!

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has an interesting article about this very subject titled "Oratory - or hypnotic induction?" That article identifies numerous textbook examples of Obama's speeches that contain covert neuro-linguistic programming and hypnosis. Was this intentional? Was this a coincidence? At the end of the "Oratory - or hypnotic induction" article, there is a link to a 67 page pdf file that goes into detail about the psychological manipulation that occurred in Obama's speeches. The 67 page document references exact locations in speeches so you can watch and listen to Obama and form your own opinions on the numerous examples cited. It is a sobering experience to read that document.

Also, although this isn't really a laughing matter, I made a funny self-help guide for people who have been Obamatized: Top 10 Signs Barack Obama Hypnotized You.

Where will the Dow be on November 4, 2008?

2008-10-17T13:05:00.000-07:00

I believe the stock market will play a major role in determining the next president of the United States. In particular, people tend to use the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a measure of how well our economy is doing. I decided to look into the closing value of the Dow on some key dates.

On January 14, 2000 the Dow closed at 11,722.98 which can serve to mark a high point of the Dow during the dot com bubble.

Around a year later, on January 19, 2001, the day before George W. Bush was inaugurated President, the Dow closed at 10,587.59.

On September 10, 2001 the Dow closed at 9,605.51.

A little more than a year after the attacks on September 11th, on October 9, 2002 the Dow closed at 7,286.27.

Five years later, on October 9, 2007 the Dow closed at 14,164.53. The Dow was thousands of points higher than the dot com bubble high.

Fast forward about a year, to less than a month before the election and on October 10, 2008, the Dow closed at 8,451.19.

Where will the Dow close on November 4, 2008? If the Dow closes below 10,000 then I predict Obama wins. If the Dow closes above 11,000 then I predict McCain wins.

Update: On November 4, 2008 the Dow closed at 9,625.28 and Obama won.

Does the show "Face The Nation" have a political bias?

2008-10-05T16:35:00.000-07:00

I recently heard somebody mention that the interview show "Face The Nation" was "without a political bias". As you can imagine I was excited to see if a politically unbiased show was possible.
When I arrived at the "Face The Nation" website I saw a picture of Obama all over the front page so I started to be a bit skeptical, but this was understandable since there was a recent Obama interview conducted on September 28, 2008. I watched the interview and was amazed at how pleasant and friendly the conversation was. Obama was asked some questions and given plenty of time to talk. Perhaps Schieffer likes to pitch softballs and likes to give his guests plenty of time to get their talking points out. No political bias so far.

I was intrigued enough to hunt around for the most recent McCain interview, and I found one conducted September 7, 2008. Similar to Obama's interview, the McCain Interview was very pleasant and cordial. However, I could sense something fishy going on so I decided to get to the bottom of it.

The transcripts of the two Interviews are very telling (Obama Interview .pdf Transcript - McCain Interview .pdf Transcript). They provide an excellent side by side comparison of the two interviews. Some people may find it difficult to pick out the political bias but once you see how the spot biased questions they hit you like a Mac truck. It is no accident either as the people writing these interviews are some of the best in the business. In the two interviews analyzed, I found the questions asked of Obama set Obama up with a perfect opportunity to frame the issues and to attack or reduce his opponents. It was pure softballs. On the other hand, with McCain the interview questions put McCain in a compromising political situation.

First I highlight the crux of the questions Schieffer asked Obama. As you will see, the questions either let Obama frame the issues for the benefit or Obama's campaign or they give Obama an opportunity to attack his opponents.

SCHEIFFER TO OBAMA:
…
(referring to the bailout) Senator, it's still very complicated. We should stress this, it still hasn't even been put down on paper, all of it. But I know you were talking with the negotiators through the night last night. What can you tell us about it, and can you support it?
…
How crucial is it that this pass? How bad is this situation right now?
…
should Senator McCain be getting the credit here for forcing these people back to the negotiating table?
…
This is your first time to talk about the debate since then. How do you think it went?
…
Some Democrats said that they thought he (McCain) was being condescending to you. Did you take it in that way?
…
Would you, and under what conditions would you talk to, say, somebody like President Ahmadinejad of Iran?
…
While we're still on foreign policy, Senator McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, claimed in an interview that Alaska's proximity to Russia somehow enhances her foreign policy experience and credentials. Do you agree with that?
…
Well, do you believe she's qualified?
…
But don't you think what she says is important?
…
I mean, she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
…
McCain said one thing he would do would freeze spending… Freeze all government programs with the exception of entitlements, national defense and veterans' care. Do you think that's feasible?

As you just saw, the questions asked gave Obama flexibility to frame the issues and allowed Obama to attack his opponents. If "Face The Nation" is unbiased, then we should expect the same kind of the treatment in an interview with McCain that took place a few weeks earlier. Let's see…

SCHEIFFER TO MCCAIN:
…
(Schieffer brought up issues mentioned at the Republican convention)You're saying it was your party that was part of the problem and that you can be the agent of change. How do you convince people of that?
…
Are you going to try to form some sort of unity government? Are you going to try to have Democrats within your administration as well as Republicans?
…
So you're going to have Democrats in the White House?
…
Will you have Democrats in your Cabinet?
…
(Schieffer brought up Palin) But there's also a number of people, some of your supporters who are a little bit worried about it … Charles Krauthammer, the very conservative columnist....said the other day that the only constitutional job of the vice president is to be ready to become president at a moment's notice, and he said flatly, "She is not ready." How do you answer him?
…
He says, "Barack Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in living memory." But he says when you picked Palin...the case against Obama, that case evaporates.
…
When will you let her out to campaign on her own? When will she start having news conferences? When will she start doing interviews?
…
(schiefer brought up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) There's no way you can say this is not going to cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. Do you think this is a good idea, Senator McCain?
…
You're talking about--they're going to have some more regulation. Is that what you're saying? More control?
…
Senator McCain, I want to ask you about the use of the term "community organizer." We heard Rudy Giuliani talk about Barack Obama being a community organizer, and he sort of did it in a sort of denigrating way. And the audience sort of giggled when he said that. And then we heard Governor Palin talk about being a mayor, and she said, "That's being a community organizer with responsibilities." You know, I know a lot of people who think being a community organizer's a pretty good thing to do. I know in your speech, at the end, one of the parts that I liked most was when you called on Americans, "If you want to make things better, enlist in the military, teach, help somebody that's hungry." Why would they use that term in that way?
…
So you do not think that it's a negative that Barack Obama was a community organizer?
…
Is that why you said that you're the one who can change, and that he's just sort of not up to it?
…
I want to ask you about the composition of the--of the convention. There were 36 African-American delegates out of 2300-plus delegates there. How can you survive as a party if you become just the party of white people?
…
So what are you going to do about that?
…
Let me ask you about this. You and I both know that the all-volunteer army is about the best army in the world. I don't think there's any question about that. But we have one half of one percent of the American people who are making all of the sacrifice in this war. If the rest of us didn't watch televising or looked at the newspaper, we might not know there's a war going on. Our taxes didn't go up, there's no rationing. If you didn't look for it, you wouldn't know the war was going on. Shouldn't there be some way, in a democracy, that we share this burden?
…
You and Barack Obama will appear together at ground zero...on 9/11…Tell me about that.

Wow, what a difference between the two interviews. Granted, there is not one smoking gun question that screams out biased interview, but the side by side comparison of the two "Face The Nation" interviews shows them to be incredibly biased. Obama was given a chance to frame the issues as Obama wanted, and gave Obama lots of oppertunities to attack his opponents. It was very different for McCain. McCain was put in a position to attack his own party. McCain was put in a position to talk about how the opposing party should be in his cabinet and administration. McCain was put in a position to defend Palin from attacks by his own party. McCain was put in a position to defend something that was prefaced as "going to cost the taxpayers billions of dollars". McCain was put in a position to have to defend his oponent's role as a community organizer. McCain was put in a position to talk about how more black people should be part of politics. McCain was asked to discuss a controversial aspect of America's volunteer army. Lastly, McCain was asked to talk about spending a non-partisan day with his fellow American, Barack Obama on September 11th, just to make sure McCain wouldn't take the closing moments of the Interview to go after any of Obama's policies or statements.

I conclude that "Face The Nation" does indeed have huge political bias, at least with regard to this election and the two candidates running for president.

Revenue Neutral Tax Will Break America's Addiction to Gasoline

2008-09-30T17:02:00.000-07:00

I have a very simple solution to America's gasoline problems. My proposed system will have an immediate impact to help with America's with high gasoline costs, minimize CO2 emissions, help America become energy independent, help boost our economy, and help build a bridge to a transportation system that isn't dependent on gasoline.

The theory is to create a revenue neutral tax on gasoline that will make it so alternatives to gasoline are more attractive while at the same time making conservation of gasoline more attractive.

Year One:

Take the total number of gallons of gasoline used in 2008 by Americans and multiply by $1. Divide this number by the number of taxpaying citizens in the US. This should be around $900 per person.

Send each taxpaying citizen a check for the amount above which should be around $900 each.

Add a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline. This is a revenue neutral tax where the tax collected on gasoline goes directly back to the people by way of the checks sent out above.

Year Two:

The same as year one except "2008" become "2009", "$1" becomes "$2", and "around $900" becomes "around $1,800".

Year Three:

The same as year one except "2008" become "2010", "$1" becomes "$3", and "around $900" becomes "around $2,700".

Year Four, Five, Six, etc.

Keep the same system used in year three. It may be desirable to continue with the upward trend.

How This Solution Works

If our country implements this solution there will be a lower demand for gasoline than if the system was not in place. Right away consumers will naturally conserve more so they can use their gas rebate check for more things than just helping them pay for the gas tax. Consumers will naturally want more efficient cars and automakers will naturally fill this demand. The free market will immediately begin investing in non gasoline powered transportation. The system would be simple to implement because it would only adjusting the current tax that exists on gasoline and also sending out more checks like the rebate checks sent out in 2007.

Bailout Alternative: The Lender Stimulus and Debt Relief Package

2008-09-04T13:12:00.000-07:00

You've probably heard all the hype about how we need to pass this bailout package (AKA rescue package) right away so American businesses have money to lend again before it is too late and our nation enters a severe recession and people lose their jobs, savings, financial security, etc.

Nobody seems to like the government proposal because it buys bad debt off of companies using taxpayer money. It other words, it is corporate welfare. However, people on TV are aggressively trying to sell this plan to us using the false logic that we have to do it because doing nothing is not an option.

There are other options to solve the credit crunch so that lenders have money to lend again. Below is just one option I came up with:

The Lender Stimulus and Debt Relief Package

This plan gets money back in the hands of the lenders who have a history of making good loans to the American people. Like the government plan, this plan uses government/taxpayer money, but it does so in a way that benefits taxpayers, providing a solution to the credit crunch while at the same time providing much needed debt relieve and economic stimulus. This plan holds businesses accountable for the loans they made and also holds people accountable for money they borrowed.

The details of the plan are as follows. The government will give each taxpayer a fixed amount of money with the condition that if the taxpayer has debts then they are forced to use the money to pay off their debts. Since our nation's credit crunch is a massive problem, the amount of money needs to be large to have an impact. Perhaps a good ball park number is for each taxpayer to get around $5,000 each which is roughly $700 billion number divided by the number of taxpayers. This money can be used to pay debts like a person's mortgage payment, student loan payments, auto loan payments, credit card payments, etc. The government would send each taxpayer a report listing their debts and the taxpayer could choose which debt or debts to pay down. If a person only owes $2,000 on their car and has no other debts then the government would pay off their car and send them a check for the remaining $3,000. If a taxpayer had no debts then they get the full $5,000. Taxpayers each benefit the same amount and they are all held accountable for their debts in a relative manner.

Since the majority of Americans have debts, the majority of the $700 billion would transfer directly into the hands of lenders who have a history of making good loans that get paid back. This would amount to a huge influx of capital that these good lenders would have at their disposal to lend again thus rescuing America from our credit crunch. Good lenders would have lots of money to lend again. Also, this would have a secondary benefit of providing an economic stimulus because people with less than $5,000 in debt would have money to spend and invest. Also, even people who did have their debts paid down or paid off would be in a better position to spend because it is easier to spend money after you remove other debts like a car payment.

Of course this isn't a solution to fix all that is wrong with our economy. It is essentially taxpayers borrowing from their future to pay off current debts in a way that resolves the credit and lending crunch. However, even though this solution is just a Band-Aid for the current crisis, it is a much better Band-Aid for the taxpayers than the plan the government has proposed.

Please let me know what you think about The Lender Stimulus and Debt Relief Package.