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.