The Evil Oil Companies

Wealth redistribution is almost a certainty when Obama becomes president. Today his campaign said this lovely quote: “Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now,” the campaign says. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html Simply asks that they pay their reasonable share? What reasonable share do they owe anyone? What is profits they receive? Don't they EARN their profits...I don't think anyone is allocating money to them. In America, this is a country where you can have nothing and make a boatload. You make a product, you sell it, you make money. If people want it, they buy it...if they don't want it, they won't buy it and you go broke. Where in the constitution does it say that you also have to give a portion of your profits to families? Where does it say you don't earn your money?

Obama and CNN love attacking the Oil Companies and portraying them as Evil. First, the oil companies do not force anyone to buy their products. It's our own fault, and our government's fault, that we have become so addicted to foreign oil. If you don't like what the oil companies are doing...move closer to your job, bike places, walk places, buy a more fuel efficient car. Second, while the oil companies profits are a lot...so are their expenses, which is why their profit margins are not obscene. If you want to tax a company for obscene profits...you need to go after Microsoft. But, you don't see Democrats going after them.

Obama's idea of windfall taxes on oil companies are horrible for two main reasons: 1. it's wealth redistribution, which is not what America stands for and is a step towards socialism or communism and 2. they aren't making windfall profits. Unfortunately most Americans are too lazy and don't understand the difference between a profit and profit margin and they don't want to take the time to go back to school to make more money. Instead they want to steal it from the "rich". How would middle class Americans like it if the rich came to their home, said you have been allocated to much money or "received" too much money, and we are going to take more for us rich folk? It would suck, huh? Well, eventually this idea will be stealing from the upper middle class, and then the middle class and then the poor when companies start laying off more people because of their high taxes. Then companies will just move. So...those rich folk will take the money they allocate, or pay in wages, and give it to people who do not live in a country with a government that loves to TAX TAX TAX. Then what? Who are we going to tax? Cows?

I understand that wealthier people should want to provide more, since they have more to give. But, everyone must be taxed at a point to where there are no diminishing returns. If you start raising taxes, jobs will leave and companies will leave. I do not know if Obama is saying this just to get elected or truly believes that people do not own their own money, but the government does. And, if the government doesn't like how you spend it, it will take it from you. WHY DOESN'T THIS SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF PEOPLE?

I was a huge Obama fan earlier in the year, until the real Obama showed up and has shown us his extremely liberal side. I want politicians who are moderates, that do not make policy based on the extremes of either party. Socialism will not work in America and it is not the American way. The more Obama talks, the more Americans are brain washed and the more I regret supporting him in the Democratic primary.

What is Wrong with Americans?

First, I would like to ask...what is wrong/scary about this picture? 1. That it looks like one of those crazy church services 2. The crowd's dazed-arm stretched out- look is very similar to another country's population in the 1930s 3. That this is a Barack Obama rally not a rock concert.

George W. Bush has done such a bad job at being president that Americans will turn to almost anything and anyone that is not George W. Bush. In fact, I heard that if Sanjaya from American Idol was over 35, he may be a lock for the next President. I will admit that a few months ago, I got caught up in this craze. I was an American that loved to hear the word "CHANGE". I didn't care what the change was, things just needed to CHANGE. I feel that most American, besides the 22% that still find something great about Bush, want a very different leader in the White House. But, there are many types of DIFFERENT and not all mean a better change. I finally decided to read about the candidates and now firmly believe one stands above the other because of his experience and stance on very important issues.

I will give Obama the Wow factor. He has been able to get people to fall in love with him. At very least, it has pumped some new blood into American politics not scene in a long time. But, there is a lot of bad coming with this Obama Wave. First, most people have no idea what he really stands for, except it's different from Bush. Well, as bad as Bush has been as a national leader, not all of his policies were bad.

Although the Media, who has fallen under the spell, loves to paint McCain as a war lover...and the comments at the end of many online news stories have jaded Americans calling him McWar...McCain is not pro war. McCain, unlike most Americans, fought in a war...McCain was tortured in war...McCain actually KNOWS how the military works, and knows what its like to lose friends and to be in some of the most horrible conditions. I would think McCain would think twice before sending his son to war. Obama does not have this experience.

My point, though is that many Americans look past this fact and many important others. Many do because they do not understand that you cannot just walk away from something and leave it worse off. Okay, we broke Iraq with the war, but I was taught if you break something you fix it. You don't just walk away. There are ways to fix it without losing a lot of life, either. The current surge has proven this. Of course, our government has been teaching us for years that Americans do not need individual responsibility. I have nothing against people that support Obama because they think and believe that leaving Iraq in a worse position is better, that having higher taxes is better, that the government needs to be our mom and dad, that the government needs to be involved in every aspect of our life. I disagree 100%, but if you really believe this then you should vote for Obama. He is YOUR man.

Many people forget or don't know that McCain is a uniter as well. Sure, he doesn't have the great speaking ability, he isn't as hip...but for decades he has been bucking his own party and making compromises for the good of the country. Look at Obama's voting record, that evidence is not there. McCain has some tough language for people that don't like to take personal responsibility...he thinks people need to be more accountable, along with businesses, but he isn't about leaving people out to dry either.

People need to understand about how the economy works, understand that higher taxes mean less money in your pockets to buy gas, less jobs for you to work, and not always more money in the government coffers. People need to understand the difference between record profits and profit margins. People need to understand you can cut plenty of government spending before you need to raise taxes to balance the budget. People need to understand that getting off oil isn't a one step solution, but takes many things happening at the same time to keep prices stable NOW and break away from oil altogether in the future. People need to understand that because the surge worked in Iraq now more troops can start coming home...but that setting an arbitrary date is stupid for so many reasons. People need to understand that the President has almost no say in what happens to the economy and has little power to affect the economy, but has enormous power over the military and upholding our laws...do you want a novice or an expert?

I really hope that people vote for the next President not based on the media, but go to their websites and read their stances. Americans need to first understand how our government works, then understand simple economics and then need to read about the candidates. After that, place your vote based on the person you agree with the most and you think can best lead this country. If you take those steps, I don't care who you vote for, because at least you are voting based on what you truly believe and not on misinformation or hysteria. Even if I disagree with your belief.

Money Talks Still In Politics

Yesterday Barack Obama said that he was no longer going to seek public money for the campaign. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/obama.public.financing/index.html Awesome, right? He won't take the public's money. Or, is it a good thing? Didn't he make a promise to do so a few months ago? Now, he has given this a great spin by saying the money he is seeking is from private individuals who give $5, $10, $25 dollars and he needs to raise as much as he can from them to beat the evil Republicans. Public money just is not enough to beat back the Republican machine, he needs as much as possible to CHANGE America. Now, if 1,000,000 people gave $25, how much would that be? Right $3,000 er...I mean $25,000,000. Obama though has raised 272 million dollars since January. NEWS FLASH: All of this money isn't coming from people giving $25!!!

I am going to throw Obama a bone here and agree that sometimes you have to work within "the system" to change the system. In fact, I think it's mandatory. That is one reason I think it is silly when politicians say they aren't going to work with the evil lobbyist, and then have to fire their entire campaign staff the next day. It's just stupid, but I will save the lobbying debate for another day. Obama is right that sometimes you have to perform the same old tricks to win in order to make the changes desired. However, where he went wrong is he made a PROMISE to only use public money by working with his Republican counterpart to form an agreement, so neither candidate would be at a disadvantage. If McCain said no, Obama was within his promise to NOT accept public money and get it from supporters, instead. This would ensure that private interests did not affect the candidates if both candidates accepted the agreement. Very noble of Obama. Instead, though, Obama did not seek an agreement with McCain (who probably wouldn't mind public fundraising right now, since the Republicans are having trouble raising money) and went right past GO to collect as much money as he could from private individuals and companies (yes folks, let's not be naive, companies too).

Obama's entire message is about CHANGE. Many don't really know what this change is, but they know they want it. I probably can describe it most simply as people are tired of how politics works in this country. Where politicians care more about gamesmanship and building up power within a political party, than actually making some tough decisions that will piss off your supporters and your enemies in order to fix the country. Obama has showed he does not represent this change. I can hardly blame him, since almost no politician actually represents this type of change. It's nearly impossible, especially since you have to work within the system first to then change it later (and piss off many, ruining chances for reelection). But, Obama goes around preaching that he is better than all the other politicians, that he really is this savior, that he runs a clean campaign.

Unfortunately, all I have noticed in this campaign by both parties is politics as usual. The same tricks, the same distorting of the truth, the same backpedaling when a promise made six months ago no longer seems attractive...or while it's the right thing to do....it may cost you the election. This is the point when every politician starts to see the gold at the end of the rainbow. They imagine themselves in the White House, moving in the new furniture, calling the shots. They imagine all the good and change they will do. Then they say, no matter what the cost, do whatever it takes to win. Who can blame them? I just don't like when a politician comes out and won't admit what he or she is really doing...or worse, try to claim they are DIFFERENT, grabs the hearts of so many in the country, and then uses the same bag of political tricks.

If Obama is going to say he is about CHANGE and makes promises to do something...I expect him to keep them. If he turns the other way because it's EASIER or it gives him a better chance to WIN...then he is like the rest of them...and his message is one big LIE. Surprise!

(Editor's note: I will attack McCain one of these days...but Obama is just giving me too much material)

401k.gov

So, Obama now wants the Federal Government to start giving money to low income and middle class worker's 401ks http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/16/news/economy/retirement_savings/index.htm?cnn=yes. Sounds wonderful, right? The Government should help out the people who cannot afford this easily on their own. GOOOO OBAMA! But wait...where does Congress get all this fun play money to put into 401ks? From YOU! This plan of giving 500 hundred dollars to people making under 75k would cost the government nearly 20 billion dollars a year. I don't know about you, but Obama is finding a lot of ways to spend more federal dollars, more of your tax dollars...when we already had a HUGE deficit and he says he will balance the budget. How can this happen? HUGE HUGE HUGE tax increase!!

In case you are keeping score, Obama wants to have a excessive profits tax on Oil Companies. Of course, their profit margins are not huge at all, they just have a lot of revenue and a lot of costs, but Obama and his tax police will tax them more anyways. Then, Obama wants to federalize health care. We all know how smoothly things go once federalized (see TSA). Now, Obama wants to take more money out of your paycheck and redistribute it to the less wealthy. Some of you may be in the category that would get this 500 FREE dollars...but it comes at a price. Taxes will go up, meaning it's not truly 500 dollars you are getting for FREE. You are being forced to pay for it. Wouldn't you rather the federal government, who has a long history of mismanaging money, no matter what party controls Congress or the White House, give back more of those dollars to state and local government....oh and to you? Do you really need Uncle Sam stealing money from other people (including you) to redistribute the wealth. It sounds great until you are the person Sammy boy is beating over the head to take your money.

While Obama has good intentions, he is showing how truly liberal he is, now. What a disappointment. I really liked him in the beginning, but maybe Hillary was right (I can't believe I just said that). And, maybe Hillary should have been the democratic candidate (I just threw up a little in my mouth). Billary at least did not drastically increase taxes and last time those two were in the White House, they ran a very moderate administration. Obama will have us all paying through the ears in taxes and then let the mismanaged Feds redistribute the wealth when they get around to it.

Americans do have a problem saving. They learn from Big Brother himself when it comes to spending money and saving. We need to figure out ways to get people to save more, or else there will be a huge crisis when retirement comes, if it ever comes for Generation X, Y, Z or whatever they are all called now. One idea is to have automatic enrollment into the company's 401k plan, forcing people to save. If you think that is too Big Brother, don't worry...most of these ideas come with an opt out escape pod, so no one is actually forced to do anything. But, when the money is taken out at the same time as taxes, and you don't get used to having it...more people save it.

While Americans may need some help saving, they surely do not need Obama and his government tax police stealing money from Americans to give it to people he deems as more deserving. I spent a lot of money going to college to make what I do today. I don't appreciate Obama saying I don't deserve every penny I earn, or that Tom, who dropped out of high school and has never held a real job, is more deserving of my money. Whether we are blue collar or white collar, we all work hard every day. We deserve to keep the money we earn. Imagine if a president were elected that said, I am going to tax the middle class heavily, so I can cut taxes for the rich and give them more of the middle class worker's money. People would revolt and overthrow the government. Well, why should we be able to do the same to "wealthy" people? Didn't they earn the money the same as those in the middle class? Isn't it still their money? Every day I become more disappointed with Obama. I just hope people really research what he is saying and what it will do to this country.

Obama = Socialism?

So, whenever I hear Obama talk, I want to stand up and cheer and say bring back the 1960s and Camelot. I BELIEVE he is going to change things. How is he going to change them...I don't know, but it sounds good. I guess less fighting? I think to myself, finally a President who sounds intelligent when he talks. Then I slap myself and listen to what he is actually saying. I quickly realize that he is brainwashing me and so many other Americans into accepting something that is wrong, untrue, or simply will not work in America. I look around and see everyone buying into it. I instantly feel like I'm in some Stanley Kubrick movie and cannot get out.

Today, Obama told a crowd in North Carolina that when he is elected, he would tax the oil company's for their windfall profits. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00963020080609?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true The crowd cheered. Yeah, that sounds good in theory, right? They make so much, and gas is so expensive, we should blame the oil companies for stealing money from our pockets. Maybe the oil companies should have invested more on oil research over the years. Or, maybe oil was so cheap the past fifteen or twenty years, that they didn't have the profits to invest...until now. Unfortunately, investing takes time. While it hurts being addicted to oil like crack, taxing windfall profits will not cure the addiction, like taxing heroin will not suddenly cure drug addicts. Instead you will only hand money over to the government, to waste in some pork barrel earmark for a bridge to nowhere.

The only way things will get better with oil in the LONG TERM, is by developing alternatives. This can ONLY happen when oil is expensive, forcing people to change habits and creating potential profits for other businesses to develop anything cheaper than oil to run a car. It will hurt for a while, possibly a long while, but eventually things will change. To help relieve the pain, Americans should buy smaller more fuel efficient cars, move closer to where they work, take fewer trips, and walk/ride bikes more (also solving the obesity problem). TAXING people who are legally making money does nothing but give politicians in Washington more money to waste. It will not create lower gas prices, but instead raise them. HOW, you might ask? Because then the oil companies have LESS profits to reinvest. LESS profits to find more oil. LESS profits to develop alternative fuels. Instead they will KEEP their profits up to the "windfall" tax and tell the American Government to go f-off and good luck finding the solutions to high gas prices. The oil TAX will not go to developing alternative fuels just like social security taxes don't go to social security.

It always sounds great when someone running for office says...I am going to give you more money for free, increase services for free, free lap dances for single men, free cars, free education, free free free. NOTHING is free. It comes at someones expense. While its easy to say, TAX THE RICH and demonize the rich...ever sit back and ask is that fair? What have rich people ever done to you, except give you a job and your paychecks? If you go out and work hard to make a living, is it fair for someone else to come and say "I make less than you doing my job, so you need to give me some of your money that you worked hard for"? Most people that are RICH worked very hard to get to that point. The men and women who work for oil companies, that work in the oil industry work very hard, whether they are blue collar or white collar. The men and women who invest in these companies, who risk their own hard earned money, many of it in retirement 401ks, so we can have gas to fill up or tanks...they deserve a return on their investment...a return on their risk. They deserve to retire. They DO NOT deserve Obama coming in, stealing their money and giving it to BIG Government.

Obama's slogans always involve change. There is no real change in his ideas, though. He just wants to change the presidency from a so called "conservative" President to a "liberal" President. Well, I believe in hard work and getting paid for doing the hard work...not government hand outs and not government stealing from my own pockets. It appears that Obama's talk of change are lies at worst, misleading at best. His "changes" will just make Congress and politics more partisan. Let's hope he finds his way to the center fast! Otherwise, this election will be easy.

Things are Heating Up

No, I am not talking about Global Warming, folks. Unless you somehow have been away from a television set for the past 24 hours, Obama the Savior clinched the Democratic nomination.* (*Hillary of course disputes this). Several months ago I said that I wanted it to be an Obama vs. McCain showdown for November. Obviously the voters listened to me. I should be happy, right? Jumping off couches like Tom Cruise, maybe? Well, if Obama thought it was tough fighting Hillary in the Democratic Primary, things are about to get a lot hotter. Enter the Republican Machine and the swift boats!!

What I realized last night, though, is that I don't know a lot of the substance of these two candidates, especially Obama. I especially liked Obama's "change" message and McCain's "maverick" approach. But, have I just been caught up in the political spin cycle and believe those terms apply? To get a good look at how they differ, it will take time http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/04/news/economy/mccain_obama_econplans/index.htm?postversion=2008060412, but I have found some basics. McCain is pro military, pro staying in Iraq, pro limited government and pro low taxes. Obama is pro getting out of Iraq, pro government entitlements, pro government controlling everything and pro raising taxes. Weren't people getting sick and tired of the Republicans telling us how to live our lives and spending all our money? Well, now we may get Democrats who are going to do the same thing, but instead take more of our money to do it.

I haven't decided who I am voting for yet. Youth vs. Old timer, Change vs. Same, Experience vs. No Clue, Big Government vs. Limited Government. There are pros and cons for both. But, in the end I want us done with the middle east, no longer dependent on foreign oil, less federal spending, block grants given to the state for necessary projects, no more earmarks, less government entitlements, better health care (not run by Uncle Same), better retirement possibilities, more individual responsibility and less government intrusion in my life. Who will give me this? Seriously, who? I think we may need a third candidate. The Political Pig, perhaps?

Does She Care About The Party?

Many have asked why I haven't written much in the last month...or at all. The simple answer is that I am lazy. But, how could I pass on writing more about this historical election and why one person seems determined to ruin the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton is in a lose lose situation. She either loses her battle to become the Democratic nominee for President, or she convinces the "Super Delegates" that she is the better candidate, even though Obama has won more states, votes and delegates. Hillary did not make the nominating rules, but whoever the Democrats were that came up with the idea of having over 800 Super delegates were idiots. I guess they never expected to have two popular candidates within the party running...I mean having ONE is a BIG DEAL.

While Hillary didn't make the rules, she should know a bad one when she sees it. A person who wants to be President, who wants to be a leader, should be able to spot a rule that is unfair and wrong. She claims to have experience and to fix Washington, but can't even accept that Democratic Party rules are horrible. Simply, if the voters of the party do not want Hillary, then Hillary should not use a bad rule to circumvent those voters to become the nominee. If she somehow accomplishes this (I doubt she will), the Democrats will certainly lose the Presidential election and probably seats in Congress. Why should voters elect someone representing a party that ignores the wishes of the voters?

It is pretty much impossible for Hillary to win without the super delegates, now. Sometimes, though, being a leader means you sacrifice yourself for the greater cause. If the voters have chosen another candidate, you must accept that and move on, no matter how much you want the position. I blame this problem on Al Gore. I know many believe he was the rightful winner. Maybe he was. But, he should have learned from previous politicians and accepted the loss and move on. Instead he fought it. I know that 500+ vote difference is grounds to challenge, especially for President, but now everyone contests every election, even when it's not as close as the 2000 election. If this comes down to the super delegates and Hillary loses, she will probably sue, because she is not a leader. She only wants to be President to make history and to be the most powerful person in America. If she were a real leader right now, she would accept her defeat for the good of her party and the voters and move aside. But, Hillary wants to have power, not be a leader. This is why she is the worst candidate for President. Why don't Democrats see that? Well, they did pick Kerry for President in 2004, so I guess we can't expect much common sense from them.

SUPER TUESDAY

It has been a while since my last post, I have been on the campaign trail, talking to candidates, hearing their speeches, drinking their booze, making advances on their spouses (some making advances on me...Bill). But today is the day. Do or Die. Live Free or Die Hard. Today is the day that it is likely we will have two candidates...or have four candidates, or three candidates...I never was good at math. But, I do know, who ever gets the most votes...will probably win.

Political Pig Endorsements

Republican Party: John McCain. John is hands down the right man for the job. He has the experience regarding the military and foreign issues (honestly the two biggest issues for a President, since that is really what the President has control over). Yet, McCain is not one to go the party line, just for the sake of power. He is bipartisan. He works with all parties and he is often pitted against both parties. He looks out for what is best in America. Does it suck that he says we may be in Iraq for 100 years. Yes. But, is it the truth? We have been in Korea for over 50 years. It's not like Iraq right now, but I think that's what John McCain sees...not 100 years of bombings and deaths. Still, it isn't something pleasant to think about. W got us in a real pickle, now we have to find the best way to solve the problem. While just leaving is the easiest, is it the right choice? Who knows.

Democratic Party: Barack Obama. Yes, I picked McCain for experience, and now I pick Obama, when Hillary has 182.3 years of political experience. Huh? Clinton (Hillary) has been around politics a long time, but has only held elected office for 6 years. Obama has been in a state legislature and in the Senate. So, for actual hands on experience, they are about equal. I pick Obama though for his message. America needs a uniter, not a divider. Clinton is the biggest divider since W. This is easy.

Political Pig's Prediction: Clinton and McCain will win tonight. Obama will stay in the race, Huckabee and Romney will drop out. I say this because I have spoken to 100 million likely voters and counted their votes. They promised me, they wouldn't change their minds either.

How Can Bush Save the Economy?

I love when I read articles about what Bush is going to do with the economy. Let me sum it up for you...very little. Now, I am not saying this because I think Bush is evil and wants people to starve and die and have the second great depression. It's just that he is the President, and has very little power over the nation's economy. He cannot write legislation, he does not directly control the Federal Reserve, which controls interest rates.

The big reason the economy has tanked this time, is because of the housing and lending meltdown, coupled with the fact that Americans do not save a dime. Lenders were giving out money to anyone who asked, with terms that were ridiculous. Many borrowers were uneducated on how these loans worked and figured if the bank was giving them the money, it must be an okay deal. Now the Banks won't give anymore money, and Americans have nothing saved up. That means, people will have to really cut spending...leading us into a recession.

No one can predict what is going to happen. Most likely, the economy will continue to slide until the housing and lending markets have corrected. The interest rate cuts and tax cuts will help the average consumer, but things still are going to be tight. Inflation will creep in and then the extra money people have will be used up in the higher prices of goods. What is sad about this all, is it could have been avoided if people actually read what they were borrowing and Banks actually had limits in place. Now, we have to hope that Congress can actually agree on anything to stimulate the economy and the tax cuts by the Federal Reserve help and don't hinder the economy in the long run.

Your Candidates Are....Are They?

Well, according to CNN last night the Democratic Candidate for President is Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. I about threw up. If these two end up being our candidates, than I have lost faith in the American voter. One, I could maybe handle, but these two are just two political saps that say and do whatever it takes to win. I mean, Hillary moved to NY because it was her best shot to get into the Senate. Mitt changes his mind daily...would love to have him in control of the nukes.

However, the most troubling about all of this isn't the actual election, but the election coverage, especially on CNN. I really wish another cable news network would come along that had competent reporters and was not so blatantly biased. Fox News is a joke and really, so is CNN. I watched CNN last night and they were talking about how this win was huge for Mitt and really caused problems for everyone else, including McCain, because he is out of money. Did I miss something? CNN said it was huge, when Huckabee won, then McCain, and now Romney...and none of these wins were that big of a surprise, least of all the one last night. Romney had been leading many of the polls up to the election, and his family is very big in that state. Yet, the CNN drama queens were all in a lather about this "comeback". Come on, report the news, give some analysis, but make it sane.

Also, they are calling South Carolina must wins for Obama and McCain. Another joke. While, if they win, they will prove they are sticking around for a while and gives them an even better shot to win it all, I mean, that is the point...to win, but the true test will be Super Tuesday. This year is not like other years, for so many reasons, none of which CNN can accurately get out. But, basically you have a lot of candidates on both sides, no true front runner on either side (you could argue Hillary) before the primaries started, and there is a war and a crappy economy. This just spells out insane election. Plus, look at college football this year and how crazy that was...we should have known this was coming (I am practicing for my CNN audition). So this means wins alone will not get you the nomination, but it may be the delegate count.

Michigan did not even count for the Democrats, because like Florida, they moved their elections up to a date that Dr. Death errr I mean Dean did not like. So Hillary's win is meaningless, there are no delegates being awarded. That means Obama won 1 (Hillary came in third) and Hillary won 1 (Obama second). As for the Republicans: Huckabee, McCain and Romney have each won a primary or caucus. This is a dead heat and nobody knows who will win the next round (CNN has gotten about every prediction wrong). I really wish there was news coverage that wasn't so biased or so ridiculous. If you want a real analysis, just keep reading what I say (even though I have absolutely no reporters or inside information). At least, I will make some stuff up that is somewhat believable.

Transportation Mess

In the 1950s, a trend developed that set the course for a transportation disaster...suburbs. Today a study came out that outlined how to save America's transportation infrastructure. The answer, was of course, raise taxes, specifically gas taxes. The funny thing, the answer probably would work. Raise gas taxes 40 cents over 5 years. Many economist and public policy experts believe that if you raise gas taxes (many want to raise it even higher), you would cut the demand for gas, because people would use other forms of transportation. There is only one problem: There are no other forms of transportation in America.

Sure, some of the major (and I mean major) cities have a decent mass transit system, such as New York or Chicago. Also, in major cities you can walk to work. What about the rest of the country? How are average workers going to get the twenty or thirty miles from their suburban house to a smaller downtown, such as Orlando, FL? There are no subways or commuter trains. No real extensive bus system. This leads to the question, what comes first...the chicken or the egg? Or should I say, raise taxes first or build the infrastructure?

Some politicians (you can probably guess which party) say that it should be left to the private industry to build roads. Okay, I am all for the private markets, but what will be their next suggestion? Exxon , Wal-mart and Kroger should arm their own troops, too? There are certain things that a government must provide for in a society, certain functions the private market place cannot account for, such as police and fire protection, the armed forces...and yes, transportation. If you left transportation to a private company, how would companies allocate that? There is the option of impact fees, which some local governments assess to raise money to go towards new roads around new developments. This may help force corporations to pay their private share (but those same politicians would say this is government taxing the private marketplace, hurting business). So, that would leave you to hope that Best Buy would build a road to your house so you could shop there. Does this make any sense? Not to me either.

The only way the transportation mess (the crumbling bridges, traffic jams, etc) are going to be fixed, is if the government invests in the infrastructure. Additionally, the government cannot tax the hell out of Americans, without an alternative. Of course, the government already spends more than it makes, so what's the solution? Well, its actually simple. The federal government should stop taxing us for the many items that are really only state issues, such as education and stop taxing us on the vast entitlements that people abuse every day. It amazes me, after going to Europe, that America has no real extensive rail network. If we had more railways, we would have options other than driving cars. So, rather than building more roads and bigger highways, maybe we should be investing in railways, which take up a lot less land and has a better effect on the environment.

Something to Smile About

So, McCain and Hillary won the New Hampshire primary and the news media is running around in circles not knowing what to make of it. All of the reporters and commentators had written off Hillary just hours before. So, what happened with the democrats? Well a few things, actually. One, polling is a tricky thing to do and we are finding out election after election that sometimes it isn't always very accurate, mainly because we don't know if those polled will actually vote and because some haven't made up their minds. While polls can give you an indication, you can never totally count on them for the election result.

Another thing that must be accounted for is the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are very different beasts. Comparing those results and how a candidate won is apples to oranges. With the caucus, there is vote trading, if one candidate isn't going to reach a viable number, voters switch to another. In some ways this could predict more of who the party wants as a whole, between a lesser amount of candidates. If Bill Richardson had not run in New Hampshire, Obama may have won by 3% points. It is hard to tell.

That leads me into the final thing that happened...there are still too many candidates running in both parties. This splits up the votes and takes votes from the stronger candidates. Until it is trimmed down to two or three people, we are going to have these weird results that may differ from state to state. That will leave us with the media creating these crazy elaborate stories trying to explain why this happened..."The voters felt touched by Hillary crying and shooting that man in the back" "Barack wore green today, and voters don't like green in January" "Mitt has nice eyes and that got him into college, which lead him to go fishing, which is why he lost". So, until Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, insert names of people that barely get 1 % get a clue...and possibly some bigger names like Rudy Guiliani and John Edwards get out of the race, prepare yourself for an annoying media coverage and uncertain candidates for a little while longer.

As for last night, we must keep things in perspective. It was still a win for McCain and Hillary, strengthening their campaigns. Additionally, it had to weaken Romney and Edwards some. But, it was a close battle between Obama and Hillary, so I see very little weakening there...and we need to wait and see if Guiliani can make a comeback of his own in the Super Tuesday states, and whether Huckabee can spread his message to a national audience.

Not Enough Ballots?

Today is the first primary in the Nation...New Hampshire. I know all one of my readers have been waiting eagerly all day for my account on this primary. But, I want to talk about something other than the candidates. I read that voting locations are running out of ballots, because of the unusually warm weather and the appeal of the "change" candidates. Too Many Voters!!!! What?!? Run out of ballots??? Isn't this America, not Pakistan or Venezuela?

Nothing is more ridiculous during an election than not having enough ballots. Some may say, this is why we need electronic voting (maybe) or the death of a democracy...INTERNET VOTING (I will save my hate for the idea of Internet voting for another post). But, regardless of what type of balloting is used, there should always be enough. If there are 40,000 registered voters in a political district, then there needs to be 40,000 ballots printed. I don't care if only 6% of the people showed up for the last special commissioner race. It is possible that something could happen to force 15% or 30% or 80% the next time. No one can predict this. What is the reason for not printing up the large amount of ballots.? Well, saving the trees is not the first response given I bet, but rather saving money. So, government saving money trumps a person's state right to vote (there is no federal constitutional right to vote)? When did government care about how much something cost? There should never be one ballot less than the number of registered voters, period.

As for the primary, if Obama wins...it would take something huge to get Hillary back up as the front runner. Remember, Howard Dean was the Hillary of 2004 until the scream. It doesn't take much to destroy the leading candidate. On the Republican side, it will be a shoot out, but I think McCain will pull it off, if all the independents don't vote for Obama. If Romney wins, I have pity for the next few states up that have to deal with more political hate ads.

The Queen has been Shot

Queen Hillary (a.k.a. the Hildabeast) has been wounded. As many know, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses last night. In some ways it was a surprise, but in many it wasn't. Huckabee had been leading for a couple weeks now, and does anyone that isn't a part of Romney's campaign actually love the guy? However, no one really knows what this win means for him. Will he jump in national polls and in the other crucial states?

Personally, I think the more interesting race is on the Democratic side. Why? Well for one, I think all of their candidates drink alcohol at their victory celebrations. More importantly, I think its interesting because the Queen has been the "front runner" since 2006 and just placed THIRD. Not a close second, but a close THIRD to John Edwards. I don't care how strong the Clintons are, that has got to sting a lot. The Queen is injured, but will she bleed out? Second, I find the Democrats with a little more passion. Republicans by nature are a little boring...since many want America to be the black and white 1950s version. But, I like Republicans on some very boring issues, mainly the economy and smaller government (unfortunately they haven't been pro-small government in quite a few years).

I watched the all the speeches last night, but Romney's losing speech. I know there was the Orange Bowl, but come on, Kansas and Va Tech? Va Tech chokes almost every big game, and I am surprised they even won the ACC championship to play in the Orange Bowl. I had no interest in seeing the Big 12 losers vs. the ACC champion (who are losers*). There was a much closer game in Iowa. Back to the speeches. If you haven't seen them, go watch Huckabee's and Obama's and I think you can see why they won and what America wants this year (or at least in that state) from their next President. I wish McCain had run there, but he was too busy spending all his campaign money on blow the first part of the year (only kidding, I think...remember he is my Republican pick).

The message is clear, Americans want the next President to unite the country, place party politics behind them and find ways to work with everyone to make a better America. I still think McCain is the best on the Republican side and Obama is the best on the Democratic team. If you want to see a good speech, go check out Obama's on youtube. It was powerful. The Political Pig is really hoping the parties do the right thing and pick two awesome candidates with McCain and Obama. We can mourn for the Queen another day.

*Losers in football

Iowa Time

So today officially starts off the 2008 Presidential Campaign. This has been an interesting presidential campaign already, since it feels like election season never stopped from 2006. But, for the first time in decades, we have both parties with no heir apparent. So, with such a wide open race, the Political Pig has decided to endorse a candidate from each party. Now, this is big. This endorsement will probably get the biggest press coverage of any endorsement yet, and will probably choose the next presidential candidates. So with that, here goes.

Democratic Party. Barack Obama.

I have chosen Barack, because he will work with both political parties to get things done. Senator Obama has consistently said the two parties need to work together, and he has shown this in the Senate. I will recognize that Senator Clinton is very similar here, often working with Republicans. The biggest difference is most Republicans hate Senator Clinton and President Clinton. Senator Clinton, if elected, would become just as polarizing as President Bush, and we would endure another 4 years of nuclear winter. I disagree with many of Senator Obama's policy points, however, which is a major negative. But, I think once he wins the Democratic primary, he will move more towards the middle on domestic policy issues, and bring balance to foreign issues, leaving behind the neoconservative movement. I am against Senator Edwards because he is too anti-business. I agree that taxes should be lower for the middle-class...heck I think every class, because we have too much spending right now, but business is what keeps this country going. Attacking businesses for making money and rich people for being smart with their money is just plain stupid. His campaign is reckless and is too one issue oriented. The other candidates are a joke and need to get out of the race.

Republican Party. John McCain.

I am not going to lie, I wanted John McCain eight years ago against Bush. He would have been great. It was disappointing to see Senator McCain stumble so badly earlier in 2007, especially since he was the front runner. That opened the door for Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and eventually Mike Huckabee. I am against Giuliani, while he is my second favorite Republican Party candidate, because he has so many personal problems. While I share the most political views with him, I think it is pretty bad when children hate their father. Governor Romney is a joke and I am not sure why people care for him. In 2004 everyone called Senator Kerry the flip flopper. Well, Romeny is the definition of flip flopper and in the worst way. Why people like him, well I guess people have liked all sorts of jokes and idiot throughout history. Mike Huckabee seems like a nice guy, and has a positive message like Obama. But, the major negative for Huckabee is he brings religion into politics. I am sorry, but religion belongs in church and community groups. Politics deals with foreign affairs, spending, taxes and the overall economy. If you need more church, go to church more often. That leaves Senator McCain, who has extensive Senate experience, has fought in combat, was a hero and does what he feels is right for America. Senator McCain often teams of with the Democratic Party, but is a true Republican...the kind that existed before the radical right took hold. Senator McCain often has the right approach to fixing problems, even if it won't go over well with his party or with voters. He is by far the best Republican for the job.