John McCain for Secretary of Defense

Before I argue for McCain to be given an important spot in Obama’s administration, I’ll let others argue for me.

Many of the foremost activists in the women’s movement ardently believe that John McCain should be Barack Obama’s running mate — and wounds that are just beginning to heal may be torn back open should the President-Elect select someone else, as it seems very likely he will.
- DAVID PAUL KUHN 8/3/08

“It would be a bold move,” he said. “I don’t think people would expect it… It’s be a bold move: Barack Obama, leadership, take this country to a new place, first African American, John McCain…. History!… I’m telling you!… All across the country!”
- Mark Silva July 28, 2008

“MAHER: At this point I think they need John McCain.

KING: Really?

MAHER: Yes. Look, I may change my mind tomorrow. I’ve been thinking this way a long time, but I swear to God. Not just because it’s bold and they need to show bold, but you know what? I think they need the Republican ruthlessness onboard. I really do.”
8/19/08

“If John McCain is not the nominee, I know that he cares very much about making change, and he will absolutely support Senator Obama enthusiastically,” said Rendell. “But I believe with all my heart that he is the most experienced and most ready to be Secretary of Defense.”
- Governor Ed Rendell May 14, 2008

“Aside from the salutary impact on intra-party divisions, the unity ticket would benefit from John McCain’s specific political strengths. No, I’m not talking about her impressive primary performance among Catholics, non-college-educated voters, and the “white working class” generally, since we don’t really know how much of that success is transferable to a general election. But no one can rationally deny that John McCain has a strong, demonstrated, personal appeal to at least two major categories of voters who will be targeted by the Administration: Republicans and Independents.”
- Ed Kilgore Sept. 16, 2007

“So I can only offer my argument, based on some facts and subjective impressions, as to why I believe it would be in Sen. Obama’s personal and political interest to select John McCainas his Secretary of Defense. Not just to enhance his chances of Unity — but, more importantly, to help him be a more effective president.”
- Lanny Davis, Huffington Post. Posted August 19, 2008.

Don’t remember those quotes? Well, I’ll confess, I edited those quotes a bit, they were actually talking about Obama selecting Hillary to be his VP pick. I apologize if you think it was a low blow, but I wanted to gerrymander those quotes a bit to make a point.

After the primary everyone wanted Obama to heal the party because it’d been a tough fight. He didn’t. His polls dropped steadily after he picked Biden and he only took a commanding lead after the economy crashed. I’d like him to avoid that mistake the second time over.

Did the party have a tough fight? Yes. Was it tougher than the general election? Not even close.

Did Hillary have supporters? Way fewer than John McCain’s.

Did the party need to pull together? Not as bad as the country does.

Did his pick help party unity? No.

Would selecting McCain help national unity. Yes.

Is John McCain qualified? Absolutely.

Can McCain work for a president of the other party? He did well under Clinton.

McCain isn’t just the Republican candidate. He is one of the most moderate republicans in their caucus. He is one of the most willing to cross isles and get work done. He is a patriot and he is loyal to a fault. His loyalty to Bush was one of the reasons he lost. He’s a tough attack dog, he’s military man and he’s a bi-partisan legislator. John McCain can get this done.

Loyalty:
The major concern of putting his opponent in such a place of power would be one of loyalty, control, and unity of purpose. Basically, John McCain isn’t a Democrat. His political future isn’t dependant on Obama doing good. The fear isn’t that John McCain will be a bad person and intentionally screw Obama up, but that he’ll have a real and tough disagreement with Barack on something, Obama will overrule him, and he’ll go to the press and make Obama look bad. I mean, you give John McCain the job and you also give him the knife and position to stab Obama where it hurts. Worse, you already know the two don’t always agree on National Defense matters. That’s the problem.

But here’s what we know. John lost his primary nomination battle to George Bush, who won by attacking his family. If John McCain could work with Bush, we know he could work with Barack. When he was trying to win the nomination of his party in 2008, there was straw poll. John McCain actually campaigned for George Bush, as a sign that the Republicans and America was fully behind their president in a time of war. This is a guy that really was willing to throw away his campaign to fight for the President in a time of war, and who nearly did throw away his campaign to support a military action he thought would win the war. This guy has loyalty bred into his bones. They will have arguments, even Bush had problems with John McCain. If they have a bad disagreement, John McCain might quit, but he would never aim to torpedo the President’s Administration. But never doubt the man’s loyalty and commitment to the Office of the President. He would fight to push Obama’s initiatives in that office as hard as he’d fight for a Republicans.

Attack Dog:
From time to time, John McCain has been a Hawk and a Dove. The man really isn’t the War Monger people made him out to be. But he is as much a fighter as anyone could hope. If Barack Obama puts John McCain in as Secretary of Defense, he will get a man the military loves. He’s mean man when you get on his bad side, just look at that snarl. Put him as head of our Defense Department. We use to call it the War Department. The man is a tough guy, and he knows how to win wars. John McCain will be the best possible advisor in terms of war and conflict. He’ll put a face on our defense department that tells terrorists and rogue nations alike, “Sit down and quit bothering me, or I will put you down and you will quit it”

Stand Obama at a Podium with Biden to his right and McCain to his left. No one, here or abroad, will question America’s commitment to Defense. And that alone, that message of power and National Unity against our enemies, is important in and of itself. We’re America. That’s John McCain. Look at him snarl again. That can be our Defense Department. Don’t test us.

Unity:

Independents like both Obama and McCain, but they split mostly evenly. Most of them who picked McCain did so for national security reasons. Put McCain in, and the Obama Administration has broad appeal to two-thirds of the nation. Moderate Republicans will be excited that one of them is in charge of one of the most important parts of America, again, the reason they didn’t trust Obama.

John McCain had a very bumpy road leading up to his campaign. One such bump was his Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. He did that bill with Uber-Liberal Ted Kennedy. Rush Limbaugh roasted him alive for it.

How about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002? Him and Senator Feingold did that one, earned him all kinds of hate mail from the Right.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 put him against most of the Right and the President.

This is a guy who is more liberal than about a dozen democrats.

If Barack Obama can achieve his “post-partisan” promise with this guy, if he can not make this work, can Obama achieve national Unity with anyone? If Barack Obama is unable to bury the hatchet with John McCain, can he expect the GOP to bury the hatchet? How can he ask anyone to move forward if he isn’t willing to make some concessions to the other side.

Put John McCain in the seat of Secretary of Defense. Give America the best guy for the job, and give us National Unity.

Article about conversation between Bush and Obama.  

Bush annoyed about the leak in the first article.  

Several thoughts jump to mind. 

The first is, Bush is right. This was supposed to be a private conversation. More, it was a private conversation between world leaders. If Obama has a private conversation with the president of Iran will all the details get leaked? Will any world leader have a frank and honest conversation with Obama if the man can’t keep his people in line? 

It says a great deal bad about our new President-Elect that the information got out, but also that it got out in a way that hurt Bush. So sloppy job Obama, real sloppy. 

Second thought, I don’t like the idea that Bush might (key word is might) be holding off on doing a stimulus as leverage to get his CAFTA. But on the reverse, Obama’s holding off support for CAFTA to get his stimulus. 

I don’t think it’s that bad. I mean, that is what democracy and three-branches are supposed to do. I’ll work with you on what you want, you work with me on what I want, and we all work together to move this country forward. But it seems such deal making is best kept private. So I personally don’t find any of the information damning, more interesting than anything else. I actually like what Bush is doing, he promised to work with Obama and he’s following thru. 

Last thought, there can’t be too many people in that room. Obama oughta fire the guy. Or, now that he’s the most powerful person in the world, ship him off to antarctica to study the mating habits of ice cubes. Obama has to send a message to his own people and all the thousands of new ones he won’t accept that level of disloyalty from his own staff.

A Letter to President Elect Obama

Mr. President-Elect, it is my deepest honor to write to you. I am a nobody, a waiter from New Jersey, but I hope you read this anyway, though I expect no reply. I offer you, first and foremost, my deepest Congregations and Hopes. I’m not a Democrat, or a Republican. I’m an Independent, one of those people you spent 700 million trying to win over. 

In three years you’re going to have to start campaigning again, perhaps even sooner. You won this election with an impressive sixty-five million votes, eight million more votes than John McCain. That is impressive. It’s probably a mandate. But there were more two-hundred million eligible voters.

More than a hundred and forty million Americans didn’t vote for you. Most of them are moderates and independents with no faith in our Government. We have even less faith in our Major Parties. You have four years to win us Independents over. 

You were Elected two days ago, and already you’ve been attacked by the Minority Party Leader of the House. I expect the entire Republican Party is figuring out where to work with you, and where they can score points against you. I also expect the entire Democratic Party is debating how far left they can push this country. I trust you’ll get constant updates on both Party’s efforts. 

I’m writing to give you behalf of the Independents that you’ll be calling on in four years. Every election cycle we decide who wins. In four years you’ll win the Democratic vote. Your opponent will win the Republican vote. Whoever wins the Independent vote will win. I want you to know what we’re thinking about, what we want. 

America can win wars. You’ve just won a war yourself. Winning the peace is a lot harder. Please Mr. President-Elect, win the peace. 

Another famous leader came to us from Illinois during a time of historic political upheaval. He too fought to prevent this country splitting in half. He won a war of bullets, you, a war of ballots. He took steps to repair the country. You must follow in his footsteps, and heal this country. As this great man famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” 

So go to John McCain. Fifty-six million Americans trusted him and voted for him. Take him into your cabinet and show him the honor you would show fifty six million Americans. If he accepts a Cabinet position, you will have married yourself to both halves of America. Don’t end with just him. Offer important jobs to several Moderate Republican leaders, get them involved in your success. Because there isn’t a Democratic America and a Republican America, there is only the United States of America. Be the President of us all. Give us that unity.

You said you weren’t against Nuclear Energy. Ask your newfound ally and American patriot John McCain to take lead in building those 45 Nuclear power plants, and can we do it safely. Yes we can. It’s a compromise. Give us those Nuclear plants. Give us more drilling. Give us more wind farms and more solar. Give us Energy Independence. Give us that unity. 

Get Warren Buffet,  Phil Anschutz and T. Boone Pickens together in a room, and marry yourself to Corporate America. Give us those  five million new jobs. Make it easier for our Corporations to make money and pay high wages. Give us that Unity.  

We all agree too many babies are aborted every year. Too many children grow up without fathers. Too many families are torn apart by immorality. Too many are sick and poor. Ask the Religious Right for their help. Give them something more effective to do than just attacking your Administration.  Give us that Unity.

Go to the border States, ask all their Governors for help. Give them help. We Independents like immigrants. You like immigrants. The Right wants us to have a unity language, they want a wall, and they want secure borders. Mr. President-Elect, we all want secure borders. Give us that wall, give us that unity. And then help America accept as many immigrants as possible. That will be American Unity.

Mr. President-Elect, I wish you all the success possible. If you give us that unity, that American Unity, in four years we will give you our votes. 

Barack Obama, shortly you will be the 44th President of America. Our original motto, and greatest strength, has been E Pluribus Unum. We are already Many, now you must make us One. 

With the highest respects,

An Centrist from New Jersey

Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?

NOVAK: Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn’t a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. … So the people who say there’s not a mandate want the president, now that he’s won, to say, Oh, we’re going to accept the liberalism that the — that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday. [11/06/04]

Source.

Others:

As of now, Obama’s popular vote margin stands at 7,401,289 — more than twice Bush’s 2004 vote margin — and Obama has netted 63 more electoral votes than Bush in 2004. In his column, Novak dismissed the Democratic Senate gains this year, even though they have netted five seats for a total of 56, with three more seats potentially up for grabs. By contrast, the conservatives’ so-called 2004 “mandate” netted only four new seats for a total of 55.

If you say that Obama does not have a mandate, can you give a definition of a mandate that would still allow for the 2004 election being a mandate? And if 2004 wasn’t a mandate, would that lend credence to the theory that the Media isn’t biased to the Left, just incompetent in general.

And if you say Barrack does have a mandate, does that mean he should move us more Left than he suggested during the campaign, or is he beholden, (as I believe) to move us only as far as he promised during the election.

I argue that Barack does have a mandate. That mandate is far larger than the one George Bush had (if he had one) in 2004. I also argue that his mandate is strictly limited to moving the country only so far as he verbalized during his debates. He didn’t campaign as a crazy left-wing nut, if he moves in that direction he not only loses his mandate, he loses our trust in him.

One of Biden’s Speeches

This is something on Biden giving a speech. Oddest line:

And I tell you what. Girl-girl’s are tougher than girl-boys,” he said.

What’s his point? What’s he trying to say or argue or explain? What does this have to do with Obama and the country? Is it a joke? Is it humorous? Is it sexist? I read the whole thing, and I have no idea what the guy was trying to get at. I think it was an attempted compliment.

I just don’t like this guy. I keep hearing how experienced he is and how he has all these credentials, but all I keep seeing is this odd guy who keeps saying really odd things. Not sure if he’s worse than Palin, but I wouldn’t put him in an altogether different category.

That “they’ll test this guy” speech he gave. That “no coal plants in america” comment, the indian joke/non-joke, even his “clean african american” which is kinda ironic now that he’s the number 2.

Maybe it’s an intellectual bias, but I don’t trust a guy that can’t put two thoughts together to be president, we tried that before. Didn’t work so good. If he really is the second best Democrat in the country, we are headed for 4 very bad years.

I really don’t understand why Barrack picked him over Hillary other than purely emotional reasons. And if Barrack will pick his emotions over healing the party he needs, why do we think he’ll pick his country over his emotions when these elections are over?

I also don’t know why the Media give him such a pass. I mean sure, he’s not as amusing as ‘caribou barbie’ but he’s just as much trouble to the ticket.

Why America needs an economic strategy

The article above is a really interesting article giving a broad and objective view of America’s strengths and weaknesses in the economy. Sure, patriotism is good, but is pragmatic soul searching. I thought the article a little too broad and never really nailed down the problem (governments lack of a strategy) but I thought it was worth posting anyway.

The best two lines were:

“Republicans keep repeating simplistic free-market thinking, even though the absence of all regulation makes no sense….
[Democrats] seem to think social progress can be achieved only at the expense of business.”

Now, to the above article I would like to add emphasis to the problem and some suggested solutions.

Barrack, for all the browbeating over socialism, is presenting America an economic strategy that basically increases the top marginal tax rate 4.6% and adds an as-of-yet unrevealed percent increase for payroll while giving tax relief to the middle class.

With respect, that’s not a strategy. That’s a happy notion that gets people to vote for you. It’s a free goat. Now the ‘bubble up’ theory might work, might not, but it’s such a small change it won’t do enough one way or the other. The only part of his economic plan that might make a dent is his 15 billion on energy. But again, after throwing 700 billion at a problem last month, 15 is just chump change. And why over 10 years? Can we spend that 150 in 5 years? How about 2 years?

McCain’s is a little better. Dropping the corporate tax code (though he spends too time talking about the issue because Ayers soooo much more important) would actually help America compete on the global market. The lower the corporate tax, the cheaper our stuff is around the globe, the more money we bring in from those countries, and the more jobs we add. A little better though, isn’t enough.

But, as I said, McCain barely discusses this. Though McCain could have won this thing easy by arguing the policies, he chose to go the route of the grumpy old guy yelling at the kids in the street. “Oooh, the people you kids are hanging around with! Why back in my day…” *shakes head sadly*

We are facing at least 43 Trillion in Debt and we really gotta kick-start this economy into high gear. There have to be large-scale programs/policy changes to get people working and earning good wages so we can increase tax revenue.

- We need to fix the tax code first and foremost. We really need to consider a flat tax or the FairTax as the central part of a new economic strategy.
– We really need to start viewing illegal immigrants as a valuable asset. With so many older people retiring, we need as many people willing and able to work to pay into payroll taxes.
– We need to get really serious about education reform and we need to get serious yesterday. And throwing more money at education isn’t the solution, we already pay more than anyone else.
– We need to find a way to cut non-investment costs from our budget, every dollar wasted is a dollar we can’t invest in a high school graduate.
– We have the money, for now. How about we throw 150 billion at energy problems this year and create an american industry of nuclear, clean coal or CNG, wind and solar that will replace the imports from the middle east? We send 500 billion a year to other countries. If we spent 150 billion and was able to keep half of that 500 in the country, the investment would for itself less than a year after completion.

We spend 10 billion a month in Iraq. Whoever wins should spend at least that making big changes over here to move us into a strategically superior position.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445548,00.html

(For the sake of this post, I’ll accept that the report is factually accurate, though I don’t claim to know how the study was done or if it is a fair and accurate study)

In the article above Bill O’Reilly accuses other networks of being biased which leads me to an interesting question. How do you determine bias?

Sure, it’s easy to say “the guy that doesn’t like my candidate is biased”. The right wingers all say the media is controlled by the Left. The above article is entirely about trying to prove the point. To paraphrase O’Reilly’s argument:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism looked at the media for the percentage of negative articles aimed at each candidate.

All Media, 57% of McCain’s stories were negative, 29% for Obama.
Newspapers: 69% for McCain, 28% for Obama
NBC: 54% McCain, 21% Obama
MSNBC: 73%, McCain, 14% Obama
Fox: 40% McCain, 40% Obama

Thus, they’re all biased, we are fair and balanced.

——-
Here’s two quickie definitions before I continue.

Bias:
“a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

Prejudice:
“A judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.”

That set me thinking. The facts O’Reilly listed don’t really prove bias. They prove opinion and balance. Bias, as my definition shows, requires prejudice. Which requires someone to prejudge. At this point most people in America have judged the candidates for themselves, thus we are post-judgment. Thus the problem isn’t that the media is biased, it’s that it is Judgmental.

(As a quick aside, I don’t believe any American can honestly claim impartially in our own election either…)

A large portion of the Media (right or wrong) have judged the candidates and their actions and that comes through their reporting. Which then leads to two questions,

Should our Media express their own opinions, or just report objective facts?
And
Why have the Media judged McCain more harshly than Obama?

Now to the first question, I’ll point out that while complaining about Media making judgments, O’Reilly is making a judgment of his own, which is ironically hypocritical. He read the objective facts and made a subjective judgment that the other networks are “unfairly” biased. That’s judgment, but I don’t criticize him for it. Only fools take in data without making personal judgments. I would say it’s fair to say O’Reilly doesn’t mind opinion and judgment in the Media, he just cares about balanced opinion and judgment.

Which really was what his evidence proves, a lack of balance, not presence of bias. But should the news be balanced?

The Media have certainly given McCain more trouble. But again, that in itself isn’t evidence. Suppose hypothetically McCain was running against Hugo Chavez. Would we want the media to be balanced? Would it be fair to demand or expect balanced? What would we say if Fox News had 40% negative articles on Chavezand 40% negative on McCain. It’d be ridiculous and horrible in my view.

Clearly, we expect our Media to make a few judgments. We want them to fact check and tell us when they catch someone lying. We want them to do objective research into their policies and report the results. So, with the idea that perfect balance isn’t the goal, Why have the Media judged McCain more harshly than Obama?

That is the golden question, I don’t know the answer and I won’t pretend to. But I will list a few possibilities I’ve considered. Firstly, though, that it’s unfair to just trump it up to “Liberal Bias”. That’s an easy scapegoat but is in itself the embodiment of hypocrisy as that would be prejudicial bias.

1. Anti-Bush sentiment. Bush has a 26% approval rating. If the Media were perfectly balanced and 100% non-partisan, I would imagine that low level of approval of status quo would result in more negative reports on the incumbent party.

2. Herd Mentality. If the herd is going in one direction, it’s easier to follow. I have very little respect for many people in the Media and I personally think this is their biggest problem and the cause of most of their problems.

3. Economic Problems. The Media are actually people. They suffer the same fears we suffer through, in a bad economy one would expect that fear to lash out through their reporting.

4. Intellectual and similarity Reasons. Obama clearly strikes the more intellectual image. Whether he’s actually smarter or not I don’t know, but he carry’s himself more like an intellectual . Most people in the Media are college graduates. Moreover, it is a profession of investigation, analysis, writing and speaking. Obama’s nature is definitely more closely associated with Media types. Imagine neither candidate was a politician. Imagine them in different jobs. Can you imagine Obama host of say Meet the Press? I can see that easily. How about McCain? In another career I see him as coach of a foot ball team or an Admiral in the Navy. (Okay, this last point is very subjective, but since I’m discussing subjective bias, I think it’s fair. Plus, I would love to see McCain coaching my Ravens.)

5. Reasonable Judgments of Facts. If you have two candidates and one makes multiple factual lies and the other does not, one would expect that to have an impact.

6. Reasonable Judgment of Policy: If you have two candidates and one has better policy, one would expect that to have an impact.

7. Reasonable Judgment of Character: If you have two candidates and one has better character traits, one would expect that to have an impact.

8. Reasonable Judgment of History: If you have two candidates each one will have various mistakes and accomplishments in their past, one would expect that to have an impact.

9. Reasonable Judgment of Polls: Well, maybe this isn’t reasonable, I’d like to see polls disappear personally. But the obvious fact is, whatever the polls show, the Media will talk about endlessly, and will no doubt throw in all the perceived reasons why it’s one way or the other.

10. Better story telling. On this one, I will actually take a stand and say that Obama being elected President makes a better story. Media types are storytellers. I imagine that the simple idea of America electing the first African American would drive positive stories towards Obama. Fair or not, electing “another white guy that was in the military” isn’t as compelling a story as “half-black son of a goat herding immigrant, is elected president.”

11. Political Bias. Last, but not least. Liberal bias is real. How strong is that bias is part of the Golden Question from above, and again, I won’t wager an answer. Certainly the crowd at MSNBC (starting with Olbermann and Maddow) are Liberals and they definitely knew who they were backing before they knew who the nominees were. Likewise with Sean Hannity and O’Reilly. I will make only one point on this, I don’t think political bias here is too bad as long as the bias is upfront. I like Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Watch for just a minute and you know he’s a Liberal. Same with Rush Limbaugh. No apologies, no mercy. I like that. Just so long as that judgment isn’t hidden and both sides have equal access to the airwaves.

And thusly, I guess I’ll end this the way I started it, with O’Reilly’s report. I like him. I like his opinions, I like his show, and I like his reporting. I don’t think he proved bias, but I think he’s right to want balance. But what’s balance? What’s fair?

I don’t know.

I’ve had this here on my mind for a while now. I always hear all these problems about the $10 Trillion national debt, and I just wonder if maybe a rose by any name wouldn’t smell as sweet. So let me put forth my argument that the National Debt is good and should be grown as quick as possible. Hopefully my thinking isn’t completely worthless.

If you’ve ever seen a good job of slight of hand street magic, you’ll understand the concept. You point in one direction, and then do some fancy finger-work in the other direction. Whether intentionally or not, the American public is watching some impressive slight of hand in relation to our national debt. We are looking at the $10 Trillion and thinking wow! Eventually, we’re going to find ourselves staring at $43 Trillion in debt, and unlike a good street magician, we won’t feel the desire to clap.

To better explain the situation, I’ll provide a nice and simple analogy. Imagine the United States as the town bank. I’ll also provide a few numbers, as a few as possible, and I apologize in advance the reading is too arduous.

Now, let’s say you go to the bank. You stand at the counter, hand over a Twenty Dollar bill, and watch as the process starts working.

That twenty is slipped into a drawer, and an account number is assigned. The bank teller punches some buttons on her computer, and the bank records a credit to their liability for twenty dollars. Then they credit your account twenty dollars. In simplistic terms, the bank now owes you twenty dollars. You could even call it a debt. With this bank representing America, the analogy then says we just added twenty dollars to the National Debt.

It’s not quite that simple though. Though it is debt, the better word would is liability. You see, the bank doesn’t just leave that twenty dollar bill in the draw, it’s not a hindrance to the bank’s business. Far from it. It takes that twenty and loans it to somebody else. The bank pays you 5% to hold onto the money, and charges 10% for the loan. They’re earning a free 5% . Free money. American Capitalism at it’s best.

With this very simple analogy I’ll trust you understand then why banks are nice to customers who deposit their weekly pay checks. The more money they take in as liability/debt, the more profit they can in then earn.

The United States is a bank. We take in money from people all over the globe and pay between 2 and 5% interest. If we invest that money and earn a 6% return on investment, then we should actually turn a profit by running a deficit. Much as a bank seeks out as many depositors as possible, the American Government should seek out as many depositors as possible.

Thus, that $10 Trillion in debt, far from being a bad thing, is actually a good thing. It is capital invested in the US Government. Rather than letting that money sit someplace, that money is actively driving the US Economy.

Quick Example: Tens of thousands of students, if not more, take out student loans. Why? Because borrowed money invested in oneself nearly always results in higher annual earnings for the rest of their life. (Borrowing money to buy a TV= Bad, Borrowing money to invest in oneself = Good)

Broader Example:
If we accept a deposit from China at 3% interest, use that money to put some kids through college, and each of them increase their lifetime earnings by 10,000 a year, we can add about $16 to our economy for every dollar deposited. We pay off the debt with the increase in tax revenue, and have an extra 2 dollars left over as profit.

If that $10 Trillion is actually Invested Capital, we’re making a profit on every dollar of that debt. This is very good. I would argue, that all of the National Debt IS Invested Capital. Whether it is guns or butter, somewhere a US Congressman decided the investment was worth the interest. (Whether our Congressmen are competent is a different matter entirely.)

The key thing to remember, is that we NEED to invest that money at a profit earning percent. If we promise to pay 5% interest on a 30 year bond, and waste that money, there won’t be any increased tax revenue to cover the liability. We must, as a Nation, be very careful that when we spend money, we always spend money with the eye of an investor.

Which brings us to what’s going on with the other hand.

While everyone is looking at the $10 Trillion in economy-driving deposits, $42 Trillion in unfunded debts are rushing up on us. Social Security, Medicare A, B and D, however well intentioned, aren’t investments. If someone is retired, paying them cash or giving them free medicine doesn’t grow the economy.

I am not saying these programs are bad. Caring for the elderly and infirm is certainly the morally right thing to do. But the elderly and the infirmed won’t thank us for our good intentions if there isn’t money in the bank. At present, every single American, regardless of age owes about $138,000 to these programs. How we handle this debt is the Great Question of the day.

Rather than fearing the smaller $10 Trillion and ignoring the $42 Trillion, we need to embrace the first debt as the only way to drive our economy forward fast enough to meet the obligations of the far larger second one.

To Lou Dobbs,

Greetings and Salutations from one of your many fans. Though this is a negative comment, you should know I have been watching/reading you for a very long time and I love how you fight for the middle class. 

Two nights (October 27th) ago you had on Prof. Charles Calomiris. He said something I found pretty unsettling, but worse was that you let him get away with. He said, “But when 30 percent of the people pay zero taxes”

Either he misunderstands the difference between the word “tax” and “federal income tax” or he was just lying. Since he is a Professor of a College of Business, both are worrisome. I’ve worked in retail/restaurant my whole life. I know everyone pays taxes. We pay Payroll taxes, state income taxes, social security taxes, unemployment taxes, and a whole host of letter soup taxes I don’t understand. Atop that, we pay toll tax, sales tax, registration tax, gas tax, utility tax, and last, but not least, federal income tax. I’m sure I missed a good few dozen taxes levied against us, but you get my post.

Even if certain people pay zero income tax, no one pays zero taxes. And the difference between the two is huge. 

As you’ve argued for years now, the middle class is hurting. Most taxes are regressive, the more you make the lower the percentage you pay. People at the top look at their annual taxes, see that federal income tax is their heaviest burden, assume that’s the largest tax of everyone else, and then think they’re getting screwed. They don’t even realize how high a percentage of income we pay in taxes at the bottom. I’d really love to see you remind some of these people that folks making less than 50 thousand a year still pay a lot in taxes. 

The middle class will continue to struggle for a long time if we can’t even get them to realize there is a struggle to pay taxes even on us at the bottom. 

Well, this is my first blog post.  I don’t just mean for this blog, I mean ever. I was not a blogger. Now I am. 

What would I like to do with this  blog? Partly, I would like to organize my own thoughts. Partially, out of vanity I suppose, I’d like to present those ideas so others can  agree or disagree. If I manage to get even 1 person to read my blog on a somewhat regular basis I will probably (in the privacy of my bedroom) do a bit of a dance. 

I intend to cover a topic that seems to get far too little coverage- Politics. 

Specifically, I want to provide opinion-oriented politics from the bias of a Centrist. More specifically, a Centrist Extremist. What is a Centrist Extremist? That’s a good question. First of all, when Googled it, I get about 300 hits. I don’t know what any of them say. I came up with the word to describe my political outlook because I found left/right, red/blue, and Democrat/Republican too simplistic. I was talking politics with some guy I’d just met and he called me a left wing extremist because I don’t like the idea of the government spying on my phone calls. I said “No, wanting small government makes me a Conservative.” He asked, incredulously if I was thusly claiming to be a righter-winger. I said, “Dear God no! I am a Centrist. A Centrist Extremist.” I thought it sounded clever, I’ve used it ever since. 

So, what is a Centrist Extremist? I would hope I’m not the only one out there. I am certainly no tree-hugger, and I love eating all sorts of animal. But I’m also no bible thumper trying to turn a Republic into Theocracy-Lite©. I’m in the middle, but very much so. How is that an Extremist view? Because I’m not just confused or wishy-washy, I know what I think, I defend what I think, and what I think, is generally somewhere in the middle. When I agree with someone from either spectrum, I agree vehemently. I agree with Republicans when they defend the second amendment. I go further than most conservatives in thinking that a US citizen should be allowed ANY weapon, and that includes tanks. That’s a bit extreme, I know that. I am very left when it comes to health care, but my reasoning is pro-business as I think universal health care is good for business and our military. I’d love to cut all corporate and dividend taxes, but I also want a very progressive tax code. 

Well then, I suppose describing the title of this blog is as good a topic for my first post as any other. 

A Centrist is most certainly not an undecided voter sitting on the fence, though we can be confused with them because we never have a respectable candidate that doesn’t intend to pander to the crazy wings of their party.  

I’ve been told that this country was founded on Diversity. People have parades and parties and wear silly costumes all in the name of Diversity. There are entire months and rows of Hallmark cards dedicated to embracing Diversity. It’s all Hogwash. What does this have to do with the Centrist Extremist? 

A Centrist Extremist believes in the very first motto of this great nation, E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. There is no obstacle, great or small, that our joint unity can’t overcome. 

The bombs we dropped on Japan were designed by German immigrants. Our secrets were protected by Native American code talkers, the only code to never broken. FDR was a descendant of the Netherlands. When our forces broke Normandy, it was with the descendants of immigrants from every continent on Earth. When they bled, though soldiers of every color, only one color stained those beaches. When we were at war, it wasn’t the Presidents war, or one Party’s war, it was Our war, and we were unified behind it. American Unity, not Diversity, has been the driving force of our economic and military power for centuries, and should thusly serve as the driving political force as well. 

Centrist Extremists agrees with Benjamin Franklin when he said “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” When we disagree with each other, it should be with the knowledge we simply disagree about the best path to take towards the betterment of our nation, not the destination itself. Compromise is a positive step towards respecting democracy, it is not a flip flop. 

We can never be unified without mutual respect, patriotism, and compromise. Finding that center, finding that place where we can get the largest swath of people, far larger than any wing of any party, is the goal of the Centrist Extremist. 

A Centrist Extremists stands fiercely behind the rights granted by the Constitution, because if the Government can take ANY right not explicitly given them by law, they can take any right for any reason at any time. 

Through a love of country, the fears of a bureaucracy run amok, and the hopes of a benevolent government, a Centrist Extremist tries to set a path that allows the most people to benefit from the least government. 

The Centrist Extremist stands in the middle of the Nation trying to keep the Democrats and the Republicans from tearing us apart. 

Actually, I suspect it will take a very great many posts to really describe who a Centrist Extremist is, so in the coming days and weeks, I will do my best to more fully define the idea.