Response to the House Republican Plan for America's Job Creators

The full document can be read here: http://www.majorityleader.gov/Jobs/HRP_JOBS.pdf. I will abbreviate this initially as the "Republican Jobs Plan," and when I get tired of typing that out, "RJP." Overall, the plan was vague to the point of uselessness, misleading in a number of areas, and economically dubious.

For the past four years, Democrats in Washington have enacted policies that undermine these basic concepts which have historically placed America at the forefront of the global marketplace. As a result, most Americans know someone who has recently lost a job, and small businesses and entrepreneurs lack the confidence needed to invest in our economy.

Contrary to popular Republican belief, it is not entirely the fault of Democrats that we are in a recession. Contrary to popular Democratic belief, it is not entirely the Republicans' fault, either. For example, we can turn to the omniscient Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_late-2000s_recession. This article briefly discusses many causes which can be traced back to one party or the other, and in many cases both. There's a reason that the country is dissatisfied with virtually all elected officials, and not just one party. The implication in the Republican Jobs Plan that we should think "Democrats' fault!" when we think of anyone that's lost a job is insulting to the complexity of the various causes, and shows a lack of integrity. Own your mistakes! And yes, that applies to all politicians.

Businesses, small or otherwise, do not invest in our economy - they invest in themselves to make an increased profit. Businesses create products or services to sell. That means they have to see (or create) a market. A business will not form or expand if there is not a market - why go into the business of selling something if you have nowhere to sell it? The market is a collection of people or other businesses that have money and a need or desire for your product. A good business idea will cover the "need or desire for your product" side of the market. People only spend money when they have it, or spend credit when they can reasonably expect to have money soon. Americans are referred to by both parties as innovators, entrepreneurs, and creative people. There are plenty of ideas being generated even in today's economy. What we have is too many people with too little money, and thus a lack of markets - a lack of demand to the Econ 101 folks out there.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy also does not create jobs, by and large. The wealthy don't hire people because they have more money to throw away. When they hire people, they hire them because they need to in order to get something done and/or make more money. When do they need to hire someone in order to make more money? When there are untapped markets. In general, business is very efficient at exploiting markets, and markets are inefficient at arising spontaneously and seeking out businesses. It seems to me that government economic stimulus, when needed, should focus on market creation and sustainability over business investment.

Democrats argue that income inequality and accumulated wealth inequality is unfair. Some aspects of that argument are compelling, but that is a topic for another day. Republicans argue that the inequality arises out of merit and hard work, which is only sometimes true, but is also a topic for another day. I would argue that income and wealth inequality is more a question of sustainability. Essentially, some businesses and individuals have become so successful that they have begun to destroy their own markets. They have accumulated so much wealth that not enough is left over for the bottom 21-40% (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/public-programs-keep-millions-out-of-poverty-new-study-shows/) to get by on their own. This means they spend less, which lowers overall demand, which lowers the incentive for businesses to expand.

Government takeovers of the economy have failed while the size and the scope of the federal government has exploded.

Generally speaking, the government has not taken over sectors of the economy. Health care is still provided by private enterprises. There was a temporary, partial takeover of GM, which is ending successfully. There is increased regulation in many areas, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be argued that these new regulations expand the scope of the federal government, but the number of federal employees has been remarkably stable (http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp).

Background: The House has already acted on several regulations that hurt job creators both large and small including: The EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality proposal, and duplicative and burdensome pesticide regulations.

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, despite the EPA's claim to the contrary. I can only guess that the RJP (look at that, tired of typing already) mentions greenhouse gases in particular because of the public perception that global warming is dubious science. There are a number of sites devoted to debunking global warming skeptics, but it should be noted that there is strong agreement among climate scientists - those that are acknowledged to know the most about it: 97-98% of the most active climate scientists agree (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html).

Net neutrality is very important to the free exchange of ideas on the internet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality for an overview. It is by no means a clear-cut issue, and it is highly technical in nature. Neither side has gotten it exactly right (Democrats are closer, in general, on this one), but no regulation is definitely not the answer. At least, not until the broadband companies do not have monopolies or near-monopolies in many markets.

Duplicative regulations of any type should be eliminated. Pesticides fall into the category of things that most people think should be regulated, though. DDT comes to mind, along with the very simple fact that pesticides are used to kill living creatures, and I am a living creature. I think demonstrating that the product you want to spray on my food is not going to kill me is a great regulation to have. I think it should be just as burdensome as it needs to be in order to ensure that I don't die. I cannot emphasize enough how much I do not want to die.

Congress should eliminate the special interest tax breaks that litter the code and reduce the overall tax rate to no more than 25% for businesses and individuals including small business owners.
...
At a combined state and federal rate of just over 39%, the U.S. currently has the second-highest corporate tax rate among the developed nations of the world (those in the OECD).

First, the effective tax rate has been estimated to be much lower than the statutory rate cited in the RJP (see http://mediamatters.org/research/201004260006). Second, President Obama called for a similar overhaul of the corporate tax system in his 2011 State of the Union address: "So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years –- without adding to our deficit. It can be done." (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address.) The question, then, is why are you complaining about the problem instead of actively working to fix it? Also, lowering the tax rate of individuals should be a separate debate from the corporate tax rate.

Finally, the three bullet points in the "Republican Solution" to this section are all the same point - that corporate profits earned overseas shouldn't be taxed again here (much). Either admit to the fact that your solution is only one bullet point long, or think up solutions that require three bullet points.

For more than three years free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have sat idle, blocked by House Democrats’ political posturing.

The FTA with Colombia has stalled due to human rights abuses in Colombia. (See http://www.hrw.org/americas/colombia, specifically http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/07/uscolombia-rights-conditions-crucial-trade-deal.) Human rights issues are not political posturing. The agreement with Panama was only finally recommended by the Obama administration on April 18, according to Bloomberg. At the bottom of that article is also a report of progress on the Colombian trade agreement.

The issues with the South Korea trade agreement seem to be more general, in that it doesn't help in certain key areas, such as off-shoring of both Korean and U.S. jobs to China, as described in the AFL-CIO's statement opposing it. Furthermore, Dean Baker, for example, has argued that free trade agreements do not actually promote free trade, and the Economic Policy Institute notes how NAFTA has not produced the net export gains claimed, and that the South Korean FTA is very similar.

Sometimes things are opposed for real reasons, and not just political posturing. Sometimes they are opposed for political posturing when they should be opposed for real reasons. This paragraph in the RJP is itself political posturing and does not further the debate.

Possible solutions include keeping the most accomplished graduates in math, science and other critical fields here in America as well as making it easier for start-up entrepreneurs to obtain visas.

I agree completely that motivated and skilled people should be encouraged to stay in the U.S. I take it that Republicans voted for the DREAM Act, which provided a path to citizenship to children who were brought here illegally, but through no decision of their own other than to stay with their parents? And only those children that were motivated enough to attend college or serve in the U.S. military? And then not be allowed to petition for family members until years later? Ah, no, Republicans nearly universally voted against it.

Since President Obama has taken office, American energy production has been halted and the average national price of gasoline has doubled.

American energy production has not been halted. There was a brief moratorium on new deep water drilling, but shallow drilling, land-based drilling, and all other non-oil energy production has continued, for better or worse. Also, it is not credible to blame the rising gasoline prices on Obama policies, even if only by implication (See http://mediamatters.org/research/201103140030 and http://mediamatters.org/research/201103310023 and http://mediamatters.org/research/201103030007).

President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the U.S. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has increased by over 80%. They’ve maxed out our nation’s credit cards and are asking us to increase their credit limit so they can spend more.

I would guess that this figure includes the stimulus spending. Dean Baker is worth reading on this topic: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/politico-has-not-heard-about-the-collapse-of-the-housing-bubble-and-economic-crisis. In general, accurately assigning blame for the budget deficit is not going to benefit Republicans. There is a reason Democrats point to studies like this: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036, and Republicans only talk about total spending amounts. Again, it's time for politicians on both sides to own their mistakes, and this attempt to pin the blame on Obama and Democrats exclusively is not welcome.

Speaking of owning mistakes, Obama has done just that in regards to the debt ceiling (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/obama-debt-ceiling-vote_n_847627.html). The debt ceiling itself is really not a political issue. It is a necessity if you want to preserve our role in the world financial markets. Deficit spending is more of a political issue, but the debt ceiling should not be tied to it.


This is not meant to be an exhaustive enumeration of all my thoughts on all these issues. If you would like to respond to any statements I've made, I welcome the discussion so long as it remains civil. A full explanation of my political stances is on my eventual to-do list. Debating the issues is how I've arrived at the positions I currently hold, and I always welcome the opportunity to refine my positions further - or even throw them out in favor of better ideas. So please, do comment.

Political Forum Civility

I recently made the mistake of commenting on a post over at NewsBusters. I asked for someone to provide evidence for a statement they made and provided links to PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org articles indicating that their statement was false. It turned out that they were making a more general comment than I was refuting with my links, but the initial reaction of the individual was to call me a jerk and question my intelligence. Other responders accused PolitiFact and FactCheck of being liberally biased or accused me of being someone who I assume was kicked off the forums in the past.

I spent a good two hours researching my responses to everything, which probably doesn't surprise anyone who has read some of my past entries, especially this one. No one else did much in the way of research that I could see. They spent most of their time calling each other names, insulting various people's intelligences, and/or making vague statements and insisting that they are obviously true. It was quite maddening. However, this got me thinking about how to improve the system.

It seems to me that the entire situation, or at least my involvement in it, could have been avoided if the original statement in question had been backed up with evidence to begin with. And wouldn't it be nice if every forum post was thoroughly evidenced? When it takes half an hour to research a response, it is very unlikely that you'll make said response include a personal attack. Why is that? Because it wouldn't fit in with the tone of a research paper. The other forum members would have also spent half an hour researching each of their comments, so there would be a shared experience and the understanding and empathy that goes along with that. Finally, it's very difficult to sustain anger for thirty minutes of reading about policy. Thus, I think the discourse would start, and remain, civil.

Then, with all these informative links being included, perhaps something could get resolved. First, the validity of various links and/or the arguments therein could be established. One pattern that would emerge pretty quickly is that people bring up the same articles as evidence over and over again. Some would be agreed to be accurate, and others would be shown to be flawed. The forum could be tied to a database of links and their truthiness rating. The comments would then have the links color coded using some well-established and meaningful color code. The only problem remaining is how to decide on the truthfulness of the links. Which, of course, is a huge problem, as evidenced by people dismissing PolitiFact and FactCheck as biased. (I am not saying for certain that they aren't, but no one has yet shown me solid evidence that they are.)

So, anyone have any other ideas on how to keep online political (or other) discussion civil and informative? Perhaps more importantly, does anyone have any idea on how we can at least agree on the facts?

Dangerous Fox vs Invaluable Olbermann and Maddow: Part II

In my last entry, I went over the negative sides of the implication that the White House was incorrect in calling Fox News dangerous while praising Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as invaluable was false. I looked at a sample of NewsBusters articles on Rachel Maddow, and listed the arguments Media Matters made for Fox News being dangerous. The Fox News part stands on its own. Unfortunately, in order to make a decision on Rachel Maddow, you'll have to combine these two posts and weigh the NewsBusters articles against her videos below. For Keith Olbermann, I have only listed a few videos, which can't be weighed against any NewsBusters articles. As I mentioned on Monday, their search feature was removed. It has since reappeared, so perhaps I will write a Part III, but probably not. If you have good examples of Olbermann being less than invaluable, share them in the comments of Part I!

• Maddow exposes ridiculousness of Liz Cheney's ad about the "Al Qaeda Seven"
• Maddow on GOP blocking successful jobs program
• Maddow exposes James O'Keefe as a dishonest journalist, if you can call him that
• Maddow covers the BP oil spill
• Maddow explains Obama Nobel Peace Prize and Obama Derangement Syndrome
• Maddow highlights how politics can be interesting thanks to Anthony Weiner
• Maddow's segment on a homosexual cure's influence in Uganda [and her interview with Richard Cohen the next day]
• Olbermann discusses "Ground Zero Mosque"
• Olbermann on Shirley Sherrod and those responsible, including the White House
• Olbermann highlights teen charged $2700 for saving drowning person
• Olbermann apologizes for going over the top, featuring The Daily Show

I found at least a few of the above videos invaluable, personally. This is by no means an exhaustive list of good segments. It is much harder to browse video clips than blog posts, currently. It also doesn't include (many) segments that show them being vindictive, save that last one. Anyway, do you have other favorite clips from The Rachel Maddow Show or Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Share them below in the comments!

Dangerous Fox vs Invaluable Olbermann and Maddow: Part I

As I mentioned in my post on looking for conservative facts, I've been reading the NewsBusters blog. They've taken issue with Barack Obama calling Fox News dangerous while White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton called Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow invaluable. I decided to investigate a bit. First, let's look at what each side has to say about the other.

I'll start with NewsBusters' articles about Rachel Maddow, since I was already at the site. NewsBusters' search is done using a Google custom search, so this is effectively random stories. Because of this randomness, I wanted a good sample size, so this is approximately two pages worth:

• Maddow guest rationalizes Fort Hood shooter's actions
• Maddow repeats allegations from Olbermann interview as fact
• Maddow is vulgar for using "tea bagging" to describe Tea Party
• Maddow misleadingly claims to be a talk radio show host after leaving her program, but still being rebroadcast on the radio
• Maddow falsely claims Supreme Court struck down Arizona campaign finance equalizer and that she unfairly attacked Sharron Angle for opposing the fluoridation of drinking water
• Maddow gets paid a lot for rebroadcast rights to her show, and is apparently late on delivering for a book deal
• Maddow is incorrect in saying democrats aren't unified enough
• Maddow unfairly/hypocritically criticizes John Stossel for opining on Fox and advocating for conservative issues
• Beck claims Maddow lied when she said he claimed snow storms disprove global warming [I have to note here that Maddow responded with even more evidence]
• Maddow is more liberal than Ann Coulter
• Maddow is hypocritical in calling Fox News "not a news station" for promoting Tea Party protests while she and Olbermann promoted free clinics to pressure senators
• Maddow didn't fully understand what Dick Armey was referring to
• Maddow guest proposes that Biden be set free to say things Obama can't
• Maddow is liberal despite what Pelosi says, as evidenced by Maddow's softball interview of Pelosi
• Maddow is not helping the tone of politics
• Maddow distorts Jindal's comments on hurricane Katrina response
• Maddow complains that NewsBusters article was intimidating [actually, Maddow was saying that the PR firm Shirley & Banister was trying to intimidate - not NewsBusters directly, though they were a willing participant]
• Maddow plans to link McVeigh and current-day right-wing extremists
• Maddow isn't called liberal enough in Washington Post article

So, Rachel Maddow is liberal, possibly distorts a fact on her show every once in awhile, is liberal, makes lots of money, is liberal, possibly hypocritical, and is liberal. This is what NewsBusters has to say about Rachel Maddow at random times. I have to say that I wasn't too terribly impressed. NB's recent site redesign does not include a search box anymore, and this post is very long (for me) already. Consequently, I'll be skipping Keith Olbermann articles. It should be noted that Keith Olbermann is probably a more divisive figure, though.

Contrast that to what MediaMatters has to say about Fox News. MediaMatters has wonderful search functionality, and they regularly do issue-summary articles, so I didn't have to do a random sampling at all.

• MediaMatters agrees that Fox is Dangerous
• Fox News features race-baiting, birtherism, religious smears
• Fox News is anti-immigrant, using derogatory rhetoric, fear mongering, and falsehoods
• Fox's history of attacking Islam
• Fox is central to the "Ground Zero Mosque" manufactured story with biased coverage
• Fox's inaccurate economic coverage, including a war on the poor
• Fox is known to make up news, which links to this summary of Fox problems from 2009
• Fox is a GOP microphone, with more examples listed here, and
• Fox's parent company donated directly to GOP organizations
• Fox has a history of violent rhetoric, especially Glenn Beck, as further evidenced by
• Beck referencing Nazis 202 times, Hitler 147 times, fascism 193 times, Goebbels 24 times, socialism 802 times

Fox's dangerousness is pretty well documented by MediaMatters. It's a rare day when most every major program on Fox doesn't have an article or blog post on it. Most of those entries are related, showing a long history of coordinated efforts at presenting their agenda, often with disputed facts and other problems.

With the negative stuff out of the way, I'll explore the other half of the argument in my next entry: Does Maddow (and/or Olbermann) provide any sort of invaluable service? In the meantime, please comment below if you have more and/or better examples of Maddow (or Olbermann) being bad, or of Fox being dangerous. If you disagree with my characterization of any of these links, or the opinions therein, then please enlighten me!

Health Care Reform: Federal Funding of Abortions

I realize I'm a bit late to this party, but while researching for another blog post, I read this article accusing Maddow of lying about abortion funding over at NewsBusters.

Count me as a fan of the cite-the-page-numbers trick as well. I'm especially enamored of what's in the section of the Senate health bill immediately preceding the one cited by Maddow (follow this link for the bill; see page 2,071) The section is titled as follows, with capitalized letters in the original -- "ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED".

As in, public funding for abortions. Once again, a la Maddow -- public funding for abortions. A third time, in case she still misses it -- P-U-B-L-I-C F-U-N-D-I-N-G F-O-R A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N-S.

Gee, where would Congressman Stupak get that impression?

Who knows, maybe the section cited by Maddow trumps the one I'm referring to. The bill is written in such dense legalese that only high clergy of the courts would be able to decipher it and they wouldn't agree on the language either. [emphasis removed because copy/and paste doesn't keep boldness and I didn't want to add "[emphasis in original]" editor's notes]

I went ahead and visited the pdf link and went to page 2070-2071:

(A) IN GENERAL. — Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title) —
    (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and
    (ii) subject to subsection (a), the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.
(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
    (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—
The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
    (ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—
The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

I'm not a "high clergy of the court" but I think I deciphered it without much trouble. Paragraph (A)(i) states that abortion coverage is not required by any health plan. Paragraph (A)(ii) says that the plan issuer has the responsibility of determining what abortion coverage is included in the plan. This has consequences in the next section which describes how payment for such coverage must be separately accounted for such that no Federal funds are used for abortion coverage - unless specifically allowed. What does it mean for abortions to be allowed/prohibited from using Federal funds? That is described in the next two paragraphs. Rather, it is referenced in those paragraphs. This legislation does not alter the existing abortion funding laws. It just states that when determining how abortions are classified for funding purposes, the law as stated six months prior to the plan year shall be used. This gives time for lawyers to go over existing law, brochures to be printed and distributed, etc. It makes perfect sense to me.

So, Rachel Maddow was much more correct in her analysis than NewsBusters was. For those curious, current Federal abortion funding is based mostly on the Hyde Amendment. This allowed federal funding for abortions only in the case of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Others, more credible than I, have also verified that the health reform legislation did not increase federal funding of abortion.

Looking For Conservative Facts

I like reading most of the articles on Media Matters for America. They have a nice format where they will outline the claim(s) of some conservative, then detail some facts in rebuttal. In addition to factual errors, they'll discuss biased reporting, misleading on-screen graphics, or anything else they take issue with. There is apparently enough misinformation out there for them to write several research articles and several blog posts a day.

The blog posts, incidentally, are less fun to read. They often use name calling in their arguments and are lighter on the facts. It's where the quicker and smaller updates happen, though, so I still give them a read most of the time.

Media Matters is definitely a liberal website. For example, almost all of their articles are debunking claims made on Fox News. I don't think this is a complete picture of the world. I'd really like to hear conservatives countering liberal reporting with supporting facts.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find those facts. The closest thing I've been able to find is the Media Research Center. Mostly, their articles are just reporting that some reporting was done, and we are supposed to recognize the liberal bias - somehow. They rarely counter with facts, which is a bit disappointing. There's also NewsBusters.org (a project of the Media Research Center), but that has the same problem of being light on facts.

Maybe that's just the way things are, currently. Perhaps liberals have facts to back up their positions - or at least tear down the opposition, and conservatives just complain that reporting they don't like is liberal. But there have to be some facts somewhere, right?

Amazingly enough, the best source I've found for "liberal-media" bashing is The Daily Show. However, most of their media bashing is showing the ridiculousness of the reporting and not usually an issue with the facts or arguments. Except when they cover Fox News.

FactCheck.org is useful in fact checking politicians, but they rarely cover the media directly, so they are usually only active around election time. They do an excellent job of remaining impartial, though. FiveThirtyEight does an excellent job of discussing political bias in polls, among other things, but this only helps indirectly. I know that Rasmussen tends to favor conservatives, so Fox News uses it a lot, but there aren't always matching polls from other institutions readily available to compare to.

Which is another problem entirely - facts themselves are often biased. People choose the poll with the results they want to report. Conservative think tanks will make certain assumptions in their studies to yield facts that support the conservative point of view. I imagine there are probably some liberal think tanks that are similarly biased in their studies, but there doesn't appear to be anyone calling them out on it. So, I humbly ask for help. Where do you go when you want to be informed (with facts) on the conservative side of things, and how can you trust those facts?

President Elect Barack Obama

Holy fuck; he is inspiring.

Edit @11:16PM: I completely forgot about Biden during that speech, and was surprised to see him walking out on stage.

The Republican Caucus

On Saturday morning, I woke up early (before my alarm went off, even!). I went to Blue Valley Northwest High School at about 9:30 am for the Republican Presidential Caucuses. I learned in line that this was the first time Kansas has had caucuses in 20 years and that they were seen as a cheaper alternative to full primaries. Unfortunately, this resulted in 1/600 as many voting locations. They had to hold two sessions because there were so many people, and you have to wonder how many didn't stick around to hear that everyone in line would be allowed to vote. I got there late enough that I had to stand in line for about an hour, but I was able to vote in the second session.

Standing in line was actually more fun than participating in the caucus. There was good conversation in front of me and behind me, a crazy old man, and a conspiracy theorist right next to me. The crazy old man kept saying I was the future of the Republican party and that I have to write letters supporting the candidates for various offices. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I'm mostly Democrat. One of the guys in front of me was an old official in the Republican party, too, and had some interesting facts about what was really happening. And then there was this lady that brought her husband's voter registration card hoping for a second ballot because he just had surgery and couldn't make it. I really hope she wasn't given a second ballot, but if she was, I'm definitely going to be stealing a few voter registration cards next election!

All in all, it wasn't as great an experience as I'd hoped, but it was still an enjoyable Saturday morning. I got to show my support for Ron Paul while reminding myself of why I hate most politics. Has anyone been to a major Democratic event? Did they question the patriotism of Republicans? This was the part that annoyed me the most: We started the caucus part with the Pledge of Allegiance, after which the guy on stage quipped, "Do the Democrats even do that anymore?" Thankfully, he got a few upset howls among the applause. Ugh.

Voter registration

I recently updated my voter registration. I changed my address to my current residence, but I also changed my party affiliation from UNAFFILIATED to REPUBLICAN. This allows me to participate in the Republican primary caucuses. I'm very excited about this. It will be my first primary election activity.

The bad news? I won't be allowed to vote in the Democratic Party Presidential Caucus. Between the two, I'd rather vote in the Republican one. For one, I can usually live with any Democrat better than I can with many of the Republicans out there now - I can better ensure a workable candidate by choosing the opposition. In this particular case, I'm also more passionate about my support of Ron Paul than I am for any of the Democratic candidates. There's a picture I saw where a supporter was wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign that said "Dr. Paul cured my apathy." I agree with that.

So, at 9:00A.M. on Saturday, February 9, 2008, you should be able to find me at Blue Valley NW High School, 13260 Switzer. Are you registered Republican in Kansas? Find your caucus location!

Why can't Congress get anything done?

I had a conversation last night about the difficulty in fixing anything in politics. We often ask ourselves why Congress can't get anything done. I think part of the problem is this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/sports/baseball/05clemens.html?ref=baseball. What the fuck does Congress have to do with baseball?

Ron Paul Campaign Contribution

I've been highly tempted recently to donate to the Ron Paul campaign. I have many reasons to do so:

• He's the only candidate that I believe when they speak.
• He's seems to have an understanding of the issues - and more in depth than any of the other candidates, or at least more understanding than they are willing to show to the unsophisticated masses.
• He will work to eliminate the IRS - my contribution could even be viewed as an investment in this light.
• He's the only one trying to make the country freer. Less interference and monitoring sounds good to me.
  
• Most of his other issues found at RonPaul2008.com
  
• I have more money than I really need.

So, you may be asking, "Why haven't you gone ahead and contributed, Mark?" I'm opening it up for comment first; I want to be sure I'm making a good decision. So I ask you: Why shouldn't I contribute to Ron Paul's campaign? Is there a more deserving candidate?

Republican Debate

The past couple weeks have been extremely busy with the U.S. Open tennis tournament. That's over, sadly, but it means I have some more time on my hands now that I'm not constantly watching. And that means I might update a bit more often.

Like tonight, while I'm watching the New Hampshire Republican Debate I missed earlier. It's a bit sad at times, but I'm at least learning a few people's positions. I just wish Fox News was a quality news service/site. I can't watch the entire debate in one video. In fact, I can't watch the entire debate. They have it broken up into pieces which don't follow each other exactly. Portions are missing, one part 2 video was just a duplicate of the part 1 video, and many descriptions had spelling/grammar errors. That's not even mentioning the crappy moderators and questions.

I cringed every time I heard Giuliani speak, even though he did have a couple good points. Actually, everyone except Sam Brownback had at least one good point. So, on the Republican side, I'm now stuck between Ron Paul, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson hasn't been in the race long enough for me to know what his positions are, so he will remain in the undecided column. Mitt Romney has some nice things to say, but there's the recent controversy about his campaign staff and illegal activities - I will again reserve judgment for now. Mike Huckabee has my support for the Fair Tax plan, but I worry about some of his other issues, like abortion and gay marriage (among the reasons why I don't call myself a Republican).

John McCain did very well in the debates, but I didn't feel like he answered any tough questions, or answer with any real details. So, he did very well, but didn't provide any information. Until he does, there's nothing of substance to believe him on. Speaking of belief, Ron Paul remains the only candidate so far that makes me believe he's telling the truth. One of his major problems, I think, is that he has detailed stances on all his issues. It's like when I took tests in school and I'd answer each question very thoroughly, but run out of time and leave some blank. He doesn't have the option of leaving some blank, but isn't given enough time to fully answer questions, either. I would love to see him answer some detailed questions about a number of issues.

For instance, he's talked extensively about economic issues and foreign policy issues. I haven't heard him talk about all the plans for handling the effects of eliminating many of these governmental functions. He wants to eliminate the income tax and reduce spending (yay!), but wants to do so by eliminated the Department of Education (in addition to a few intelligence bureaucracies and the IRS, which I'm mostly in favor of). I'm wondering how he envisions education happening, and if left up to the states, how he plans on that being funded. I'd like to know exactly what he expects to happen in Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of forces. Most Democrats need to answer this question more thoroughly, too.

Among the Republicans, I like Paul's views on gay marriage and abortion the best so far: Gay marriage isn't the real issue after we start treating human beings as human beings, regardless of individual attributes, and leave abortion up to the states. In fact, Paul thinks most things should be left up to the states. Which is good in a lot of ways, but I want to hear his answer on what happens when people have motivation to move to a particular state that allows them to live the life they want. This would seem to lead to a segregated population (that portion of the population that can afford to move, anyway), makes buying a house a riskier proposition tied to political futures, and changes state governments' focus to passing laws that result in a larger population in order to get more tax revenue to spend. We'll switch from Red and Blue states to gay and straight states, pro life and pro choice states, war and peace states, druggie and straight-edge states, etc. Some of the unity of a strong central government is a good thing.

So, it's a good thing there's more time before I have to decide who to support, because I need it. Of course, who I support at this stage makes little difference since Kansas has no primary. Oh well.