A New Day Dawns

Eight years ago, the Democratic Party was in shambles.  A long, drawn out recount in Florida ended in bad news for Al Gore, and with 9/11 coming only 10 months later, the Republicans gained a stranglehold on the reins of power.  What would follow would leave the country worse than it has been in a generation.  There was illegal wiretapping, top bracket tax cuts, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the utter implosion of the economy, including record deficits for taxpayers and record profits for oil companies.

But a new day has dawned.  Senator Barack Obama has ascended to power, and our country will never be the same again.  It is amazing to think that when my parents were born, Barack Obama would not have been able to even drink from the same water fountain as me, and now he leads my country.  It is moments like this that restore my belief in the greatness of America and its ability to adapt to the challenges of the difficult and changing world.

At this point I should rewind and clarify that my ominously partisan interlude is misleading.  That is because the ethos of President Barack Obama centers on the vision of America as a nation of goals, not of parties.  Although Obama is a Democrat, he represents exactly what this nation needs at this moment in time - a man who understands that the only hope for this country is to find a balance between the opportunity of capitalism and the unity of socialism, the compassion of liberalism and the prudence of conservatism.  It's not about blindly following ideals to their dry, unsatisfying ends.  It's about understanding what's best 

for all of us and pursuing that with all of the zeal and passion of a true leader.

It's a good thing that Sen. Obama is goal-oriented, because some serious challenges lie ahead.  First, America needs to put the economy on solid ground.  In the vein of FDR's New Deal, Obama will have to confront a broken and confused economy with a heavy dose of Keynesian economics.  The taxes on the wealthy must rise and that added revenue will restore infrastructure  and financial solvency to a government that has been borrowing from foreign countries for far too long.  This country must begin creating its own wealth, and with the utterly uncertain credit market, the only way to accomplish that is with the calculated redistribution of wealth.  Reinvestment in the green economy, coming to the aid of suffocating state governments, and getting local banks and credit unions back on their feet are all imperative.

Second, America must reevaluate its priorities with regard to national defense.  The war in Iraq must end as soon as logistically possible, and the limited resources of the Pentagon must focus on capturing Osama Bin Laden and his confederates rather than pursuing a vague notion of universal freedom in the Middle East.  As many people reading this already know, billions of dollars that are currently dedicated to the Pentagon could be rededicated to things like education, health care and Social Security while still maintaining the best defense force in the world.  This will only help with the primary goal of fixing the ailing economy.

Finally, America must accomplish universal health care as soon as possible.  Many people still overlook this issue, despite its immediate and intimidating importance.  One of the biggest drags on economic efficiency and overall quality of life is the health care crisis, and only with immediate and severe governmental involvement will this problem be solved in any meaningful way.  Much like Social Security, the health care industry must be handed over to the government so that the liability of social health insurance must be spread across the country rather than being dropped on the individual.

I welcome the leadership of Barack Obama and the change that his administration will bring.  The moment is ours and the moment is now.   

**PLEASE CIRCULATE** Story About Obama

I just wanted to point anyone who reads this page to the story below from a Norwegian magazine about Obama from the 80's that reflects the sort of "character" and "values" that many voters (including  John McCain's obnoxious surrogates) claim has been lacking.  It reflects his incredible faith in the best assumptions about humanity - that we can rely on one another and mutually thrive from it.  That's the sort of leadership we should be gravitating towards in this period of such uncertainty and discontent.  Tell your friends!

Mary lacked money to fly home to Norway – he saved her love
ÅSGÅRDSTRAND (VG): Mary was a newlywed and ready to move to Norway, but was stopped at the airport because she didn’t have enough money for the trip. Then a stranger turned up and paid for her.

Mary Menth Andersen was 31 years old at the time and had just married Norwegian Dag Andersen. She was looking forward to starting a new life in Åsgårdstrand in Vestfold with him. But first she had to get all of her belongings across to Norway. The date was November 2nd, 1988.
At the airport in Miami things were hectic as usual, with long lines at the check-in counters. When it was finally Mary’s turn and she had placed her luggage on the baggage line, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness.
-You’ll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway, the man behind the counter said.
Mary had no money. Her new husband had travelled ahead of her to Norway, and she had no one else to call.
-I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions, says Mary.

Although she explained the situation to the man behind the counter, he showed no signs of mercy.
-I started to cry, tears were pouring down my face and I had no idea what to do. Then I heard a gentle and friendly voice behind me saying, That’s OK, I’ll pay for her.
Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before.
-He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was, Who is this man?
Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man.
-He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants, says Mary.
She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her.

The piece of paper said ‘Barack Obama’ and his address in Kansas, which is the state where his mother comes from. Mary carried the slip of paper around in her wallet for years, before it was thrown out.
-He was my knight in shining armor, says Mary, smiling.
She paid the 103 dollars back to Obama the day after she arrived in Norway. At that time he had just finished his job as a poorly paid community worker* in Chicago, and had started his law studies at prestigious Harvard university.
In the spring of 2006 Mary’s parents had heard that Obama was considering a run for president, but that he had still not decided. They chose to write a letter in which they told him that he would receive their votes. At the same time, they thanked Obama for helping their daughter 18 years earlier.
In a letter to Mary’s parents dated May 4th, 2006 and stamped ‘United States Senate, Washington DC’, Barack Obama writes**:
‘I want to thank you for the lovely things you wrote about me and for reminding me of what happened at Miami airport. I’m happy I could help back then, and I’m delighted to hear that your daughter is happy in Norway. Please send her my best wishes. Sincerely, Barack Obama, United States senator’.
The parents sent the letter on to Mary.

This week VG met her and her husband in the café that she runs with her friend Lisbeth Tollefsrud in Åsgårdstrand.
-It’s amazing to think that the man who helped me 20 years ago may now become the next US president, says Mary delightedly.
She has already voted for Obama. She recently donated 100 dollars to his campaign.
She often tells the story from Miami airport, both when race issues are raised and when the conversation turns to the presidential elections.

The Absurdity of Sarah Palin: A Review

By nominating Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain is trying to tell us something. 

He may think he is trying to show us that his ticket is one of independent-minded mavericks who are not afraid to take on the Washington establishment.  He may think he is embodying the change and open-mindedness that his 

own record might not show.  From an examination of what Sarah Palin represents, however, it is apparent to me that John McCain is inadvertently spoiling his own ticket with this move.  That is because Sarah Palin is, for lack of a more accurate term, a farce.  Indeed she is a political absurdity of a higher degree than any in recent memory, and I’d like to show why that is the case.

First, it’s important to note that McCain’s most prominent criticism of his opponent, Senator Barack Obama, stems from Obama’s lack of political experience.  This is not an insignificant criticism, for it is important for an incoming president to have enough political experience under his or her belt to allow him or her to understand how things work and what they can realistically accomplish.  To tha

t end, Obama served for seven years in the Illinois State Senate and has served for nearly four years (three years and ten months) in the U.S. Senate. 

With that being said, I’d like to make a case for why Obama’s political narrative seems to dwarf Palin’s.  Palin served as the mayor of the very small town of Wasilla, Alaska whose population was approximately 5,000 during her tenure.  She was mayor there for six years before being elected governor of Alaska in 2006, where she had been serving for a little over a year and a half before joining McCain’s campaign.  Some have argued that the nature of Palin’s experience is what counts.  In other words, because she was an executive and Obama was not, that means she is more qualified to serve in an executive role.  That argument has some merit, but in this case the quality of Obama’s political

 experience simply must outweigh Palin’s “nature” argument.  This is because the job of the President of the United States is very different from the job of a small town mayor or a small state governor.  The President must operate with a level of thought and analysis that is on a much higher order than that of a small town mayor or small state governor.  For example, when making a decision t

he President must consider the interests of African-Americans, Hispanics, homosexuals, and any number of demographic categories, but can Palin really claim that she ever had to make these difficult considerations?  Alaska has about 21,000 black people total (about 3%), and especially in Wasilla, where the population is 84% white, can one really say that her decision making was more presidential in nature than Obama’s?  In my mind, because Obama has been dealing with national security, the budget, health care, and many other national issues from a national lens, that is more important for a national office than the limited scope of Palin’s heavily local experience. 

Furthermore, Obama is just much more intelligent than Palin.  While Palin was bouncing around between four different undergraduate schools over the course of five years to get her bachelor’s degree (of which the most prestigious was the University of Idaho), Obama graduated in four years from Columbia, one of the best universities in the world.  While Palin was working as a sports reporter for a local news station, Obama was editing the Law Review at Harvard.  There is simply no comparison between these credentials.

Before I get too snobby, though, I want to move away from the abstract concerns of “nature” vs. “quality” and move instead to the nitty-gritty of why one must discount Palin’s politics themselves as inadequate.  The main reason that I think Governor Palin is a farce is that her politics are a bastard child oflibertarian pioneer ethos and puritanical social interventionism, and the end product is set of beliefs so rife with logical inconsistencies that it edges on being laughable. 

On the one hand, Palin believes that the government should justlet people be: low taxes, no gun control, and very little environmental regulation.  This of course is line with the libertarian philosophy that was so popular with pioneers who settled her home state.  On the other hand, however, Palin thinks the government should take a drastically active role in dictating how people should live their lives with respect to many other areas.  She believes that ALL abortion (even in cases of rape and incest) should be illegal, she believes that homosexuals should be constitutionally banned from marrying, and she believes that banning books is an acceptable practice, just to name a few.  For my money, the Governor cannot have it both ways.  If the government is presumed to know best whether a women should be able to keep her baby, then surely it should know best whether that same woman should be able to keep her assault rifle. 

Yet another area of inadequacy with respect to Palin’s politics has to do with the hypocrisy of her “maverick” image.  She would have you believe that she’s been spending her whole career fighting the system, but upon review of her record, that’s just not the case.  First, there’s the issue of oil and natural gas.  Palin’s record as a reformer came when she challenged other members of government for their financial conflicts of interest with respect to certain procurement contracts.  That’s all well and good, but how can she criticize others for a financial conflict of interest when she continues to have a conspicuous one of her own?  To best understand this conflict, a bit more background is needed.  In Alaska, they have no sales tax or individual income tax.  They do, however, have a pretty hefty tax on oil production.  I admire Palin’s move to increase this tax while she was Governor, but she also presided over a period of record oil tax revenues while Governor, thanks to the sharp increases in the price of oil.  Where does all that money go?  It goes into what is called the Permanent Fund, which makes cash payments to all citizens of Alaska every year, and last year that payment was $3,200 per person (or about $2.1 billion total).  Now, as a candidate for national office, she insists on making vast increases to drilling in Alaska that would even reach the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, which would mean a huge windfall for the government and people of Alaska but likely would cause permanent damage to a very fragile ecosystem.  Although she claims this is for reasons of “energy independence”, it is not difficult to see the glaring financial conflict of interest that motivates this proposed tradeoff.

Second, there’s the issue of pork barrel spending.  Palin has (recently) become an aggressive opponent of pork barrel spending, but while she was a mayor and governor she couldn’t peel herself away from the trough.  In her requests for this year’s budget alone, Palin requested $197 million in federal earmarks from the recently indicted Senator Ted Stevens.  That’s more per person than any other state, and it was during the same period that the Permanent Fund was booming and Alaska really had no need to go to Congress, hat in hand.  She also supported the $200+ million pet project, commonly known as “The Bridge to Nowhere”, and in fact her support for that project was a mainstay in her bid for governor.  That support somehow disappeared, however, when others took notice of how wasteful the project would be.  These stark and sudden changes in Palin’s position on pork barrel spending point to yet another level of hypocrisy in her “maverick” image.

To wrap up my case, I’d like to point out that Palin appears to be an all-around dullard.  To put it plainly, Governor Palin simply does not possess the minimum amount of general knowledge required of someone seeking to run for Vice-President.  Let us review … 

• She believes that her physical proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, which is like saying hanging around in a doctor’s waiting room gives you medical experience. 
• Her only nuggets of economic knowledge are her proposals that we “shore up the economy” and that this shoring up must be “under the umbrella of job creation” – pretty nuanced stuff. 
• She thinks that abortions should be illegal, but also doesn’t believe anyone should go to jail for having an abortion – maybe someone should explain to her how crimes are punished. 
• She opposes placing polar bears on the endangered species list, even though they’re dying off in record numbers due to sea ice melting. 
• On a similar note, she doesn’t believe that global warming is caused by man – this is in the face of the majority of the scientific community and a mountain of scientific findings to the contrary. 
• Tangentially, she doesn’t believe it’s even relevant what is causing global warming, only that we need to do something about it – pray tell how are we supposed to know how to stop it if we don’t know what’s causing it, dear? 
• She believes that it’s fine to teach creationism alongside evolution as competing scientific theories – ditto from the global warming point, except more so. 
• She couldn’t name any Supreme Court cases that she disagrees with except Roe v. Wade. 
• She (a journalism major) couldn’t name one news source that she reads. 

Worst of all, the woman chokes on her words easier than an infant chokes on Legos.  I mean, this woman makes George W. Bush look like Daniel Webster.  Need proof?  Check out her explanation of her position on global warming:

  There are man’s activities that can be contributed to these issues that we’re dealing with now with these impacts.  I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate

Thank god she can’t blame our activities on changes in climate.  For anyone that didn’t catch why this is an utterly pathetic statement, look up the word “contributed” and then do a quick review of the concept of “cause and effect”.  Better yet, watch the whole interview and decide for yourself. 

Well, that’s it.  That’s my case.  The evidence is overwhelming and, in my view, quite frightening.  McCain’s selection of Palin, on its face, should cast serious doubts on his ability to make decisions as President.  Can this master of the glibly glittering generality really be trusted with the reins of government?  You be the judge.

 

Beijing On My Mind

With so much going on, I really feel the need to talk about the event that has been front and center for the better part of two and a half weeks: The Olympic Games. It was a Games filled with jaw-dropping, record breaking performances like the crashing strike that Usain Bolt of Jamaica laid down in the 100m, 200m, and 4X100m races and Michael Phelps's record 8 gold medals (7 of which were world records). I closely followed my hometown girl Shawn Johnson as she went on to win 4 medals, including a gold medal on the balance beam, and I also enjoyed watching her buddy Nastia Liukin win 5 medals of her own. The USA Basketball team renewed hope in American dominance in the sport, both USA men's and women's volleyball had amazing runs (3 golds and a silver) and the Chinese dominated diving, men's gymnastics and weightlifting to win the most gold medals since the Soviets in '88.

It was also a games of absolutely intriguing geopolitical overtones. China is clearly a rising dragon in the East, and these games did an effective job of showcasing China's newfound prosperity and prestige. The U.S. still crushed the Chinese in most of the "big" sports like swimming, track and field, basketball, and baseball, and they still won the most medals overall, but it's hard not to respect China's journey to the peak of global prominence. I'm still not convinced that China's power is as real as they'd like it to be just yet, but these games were a clear sign that their nation has come long way ... economically, anyway. That is to say, the Chinese still have a long way to go with their civil and human rights issues. As reports came daily out of the Chinese capital, the feeling of sanitized yet joyous celebration spread widely, while graver concerns like the independence of Tibet and the questionable political control that the ruling party enjoys got swept under the rug. Although deep down I enjoy entertaining the premise of a politicized games - an open global stage for putting the big issues on the table - I also know that it is better for the games to rise above those things. The Games should be free from the inky veil of political squabbles, because after all they were always meant to be the purest of all athletic competitions, where nothing else but the sport matters.

If nothing else it was a wonder to behold from start to finish. I will admit that I was skeptical of the Chinese chances at a hit with these Games, but I was dead wrong. The hosts went all out from the facilities to the ceremonies, and NBC did an amazing job covering all the sports in unprecedented detail. I can only hope that the London Games of 2012 can match them.

Truthonomics Hiatus

Those handful of you who check Truthonomics regularly have noticed that I haven't posted in over a week, and that's because I've been in the process of moving to New York for my first year of law school. I just began orientation this morning, and class starts Wednesday, so I regret to inform everyone that I may only be able to post a few times over the next four months, but I will be back in mid- to late December on a much more regular basis.

There is also the possibility that sharing my thoughts will be restoring and therapeutic during this busy time, but be prepared for a lot of incoherent legalese banter if that's the case. Have a great Autumn and thanks for reading!

--Matt

The Sox Shoot Themselves In The Foot

Yesterday afternoon it was announced that the Boston Red Sox would be trading slugger Manny Ramirez to the Los Angeles Dodgers in three way deal with the Pittsburgh Pirates for Jason Bay. I can't believe the Red Sox actually did it. They actually traded away their best player, and they couldn't have picked a worse time to do it. Manny Ramirez may be a handful, and he may not think before he speaks, but so what? Is it so hard for the front office to just ignore his antics and let him play ball?

After all, Manny Ramirez has been one of the most consistently productive players in baseball for 13 seasons now. Over his last 13 seasons, Manny has hit at least 20 home runs in every season, at least 30 home runs in 11 of the 13, and over 40 home runs in five seasons. He's also an RBI machine, knocking in over 100 RBI in 11 of the 13 seasons, and over 120 RBI in six of those seasons. He's also batted over .300 in 10 of those 13 seasons, but those are just the traditional markers. His OPS (On-base percentage plus slugging percentage), a new but very effective measure of productivity, has been over 1.00 in seven of the 13 seasons, which is amazing. Those numbers, along with the two World Series titles he brought to Boston, will probably land him in Cooperstown some day, and the Red Sox just traded him away. Also, they traded him for Jason Bay. Now, Jason Bay is young and talented, but he is no Manny Ramirez. In his first five seasons in the majors, Bay has never had a season with OPS over 1.00, he's only cracked the .300 mark once, and he's only hit over 100 RBI twice (101 and 109). To put it plainly he's just not as good as Manny, and the Red Sox know this, but they continued to make the trade anyway.

The best explanation I've heard for this trade has been that it's just something the Sox had to do; they had to put their foot down some time. But why now?! For crying out loud, why would you make this decision when we've won only four games since the All-Star break, we're three games back in the division and only clinging to a 1/2 game lead in the Wild Card race. This is disastrous management of the team, and it could very well cost the Red Sox a playoff berth. I just hope that Ortiz can start producing, Bay can add something to the lineup, and our pitching can start playing up to their potential (I'm looking at you Beckett!) Otherwise, it's going to be a long, cold Autumn.

Obama To The Rescue

Hardly 24 hours after Exxon Mobil announced their record 2nd Quarter profits and only minutes after a Labor Department report that unemployment is at a four-year high, Senator Barack Obama already has a pragmatic, fair, and usable strategy to help fix the problem. His campaign announced today that, if elected President, he would institute an "emergency" economic stimulus package that would give every single worker $500 and every family $1,000 to help offset rising energy prices. That could offset fuel costs, natural gas/heating costs, or wherever middle America is feeling the pinch. The best part is that he plans to pay for it through a tax on Big Oil - a much needed tax on Big Oil, and that is going to translate to immediate relief for people.

This "windfall profit" tax would skim a few billion dollars off the top of oil industry profits so the equation becomes a little more balanced and people can actually afford to pay for gas. Don't worry, the oil companies will be just fine. They will have more than enough profit to reinvest into their sleazy little enterprise, and they'll still be able to pay their executives more in a year than the average American makes in his lifetime. Obama also announced a separate $50 billion stimulus package that would give a small cushion to state governments who are chronically strapped for cash, and it would help rebuild American infrastructure like roads, bridges and schools. Wait, can you hear that? I think it's the sound of pure oxygen hitting some lungs that have been choking to death for eight years.

Of course John McCain immediately came to the defense of his beloved oil companies, saying "I do not believe that raising taxes is the answer to our economic problems". And of course he didn't offer a real solution of his own to the problem, but based on his previous comments on this subject I can tell you with certainty that this is what he would do to try to solve the problem. He would, first, cut taxes on big business like oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. This, in his mind, would grow the economy, which would eventually create some jobs, which would hopefully eventually help people pay for gas. But what about the people who already have jobs? Well, they'll get a gas tax holiday! That's right, a gas tax holiday, which is a policy that almost every economist in the country thinks is a bad idea because it will spike demand and raise gas prices even more. So, to review, no relief for middle America, tax breaks for big corporations and failed economic policies - does that sound familiar to anyone? Maybe even deja vu?

McCain's economic policy will not work. How do I know? Because it has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for H.W. Bush, and it certainly didn't work for W. Bush. Supply-side economics is an economic farce, and I'm amazed that so many Americans are still falling for it. The money will never trickle down! It will stay in the pockets of big corporations that will now have even more of it with new tax cuts. McCain claims that raising taxes on business will result in them shipping jobs overseas, but guess what? They already are shipping jobs overseas! There is no tax rate that is going to keep them from doing that, because the money they make up in cheaper labor and operating costs will almost always offset any tax savings the government can offer. Taxes are a powerful economic tool that the government has to check the influence of large corporations, and the government must check their power because no one else can. Obama has it right, and it's time the American voter takes notice.

The Truth About Gas Prices: Part II

Some big news from the financial sector today seems to somewhat confirm my earlier hypothesis about the cause of oil prices. Today Exxon Mobil released their second quarter earnings, and as should be expected, they are astronomical. The largest publicly held oil company in the world made $11.68 billion in only three months. That’s about $1,500 per second! It's the biggest quarterly profit of any U.S. company ever. In fact, Exxon Mobil has set the last two records (from 2005 and 2007) for quarterly profits. To make matters worse, this is profit we’re talking about, not revenue. This is after costs (like buying the oil from the Saudis) is taken out of the equation. As an amateur economist, this screams of an inefficiency somewhere if the average American can’t afford to fill up his tank, but the company selling him that gas is making more than most sovereign nations.

Let’s be honest about what’s happening here. Because there is a perceived hyper-scarcity of crude oil, the oil companies and the nations that control the oil (i.e. OPEC) think that they can get away with gouging the public, and they have for a long time. What I don’t understand, from a naïve, apolitical perspective, is why they are allowed to do this? From basic economics, we know that there’s room for improvement in this market if any government or collection of governments can grow a pair and take these companies on. Do whatever you need to: impose price ceilings, force cost accounting, or heavily tax them beyond what they already are. Some combination would probably do the trick. The conservative “free market” solution has not worked with gas prices, so I think it’s time we give regulation a try. The problem with the free market solution is that it rarely works with big, multinational corporations because instead of an individual incentive schedule, they have a corporate incentive schedule, which skews the equilibrium of the market well away from anything resembling ideal for consumers. Corporations want profit, and that’s pretty much it. This isn’t a bad thing, in and of itself, either, because that’s what keeps financial markets and the economy as a whole going. It can, however, have awful consequences on the micro level, and gas prices are a great example of that. The corporate profit motive has sucked the average American consumer dry.

As a result, the U.S. Justice Department is long overdue to step in and shut this profit valve off for oil companies. That $11 billion could easily be shrunk significantly, with responsible, prudent regulation. I think if that can happen (which it probably won’t), the oil market can be taken out of the hands of speculators and into the hands of people who want anything other than just money. Oil companies like Exxon Mobil and the futures traders that work with them are robbing Americans blind, and they need to be reined in. Thankfully gas prices have begun falling again, which is good news, but not before they climbed 40% from the start of the year alone. Such a hike is unheard of in any other sector, and the only reason for recent fuel price declines are because demand has gone down so much. People just simply can’t afford to drive anymore, and for this country that is sad. No other country in the world has an affinity for the automobile like the United States, and although we’re working towards alternative fuel we shouldn’t have to pay through the nose for gas in the mean time.