It’s something I’ve made mention of on more than a few occations here.  The economy sucks.  In a big way.

And it’s not getting better, it’s getting worse.  Increases in cost of imported good, Decreases in the value of the dollar, Continued massive spending in Iraq, our country’s debt grows at an astronomical rate. 

Unemployment continues to grow as jobs are outsourced to other countries and businesses cut employees (or just their number of hours spent working) to save money (not seeming to decrease the bonuses their CEOs recieve at the end of the day… but that’s another rant for another time).

So which of the two Candidates proposes a better way for us to get out of it?

Here’s the tax plan each Candidate is proposing (note that just because they’re proposing these plans doesn’t mean they’ll happen, every plan would have to be voted upon by Congress)

The tax plans                                                   Obama                           McCain
$227,000 - a year - plus                                $23,000 more               $15,000 less
$112,000 - $227,000 (15% of population)  $2,300 less                    $3,200 less
$66,000 - $112,000 (20% of population)   $1,290 less                     $1,009 less
$38,000 - $66,000 (20% of population)     $1,042 less                     $319 less
$19,000 - $38,000 (20% of population)     $892 less                        $113 less
$0 - $19,000 (20% of population)               $567 less                         $19 less
Impact of tax changes on federal budget:   Returns $700 billion     Costs $600 billion
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Numbers are estimates and averages.

So there you have it, McCain gives big breaks to the top 1%, and smaller breaks to the middle class and below- basically keeping the Bush tax cuts intact, Obama aims to give the middle class and below a bigger break- but make up the difference by taking it out of the top 1%.

Under McCain’s plan the deficit will continue to grow.  Of course, neither of these plans take into account the spending that could be occuring in our various overseas endeavors (ie: continued occupations in Middle East countries and picking fights with others) so it’s quite likely that neither candidate’s plan will rectify the cash bleed as it stands.

Anyone scared yet?  Well don’t even think of trying to run for the border, while we’re fighting to keep the illegals out of the country, there’s a new provision that was added to the Heroes Act of 2008 which was primarily touted as the bill that increased benefits for veterans- if you want to leave the country, you will be taxed on all of your assets as though you were selling them.  Think of it as a moving tax.  Everything you own will cost you.

So with the deficit rocketing towards a record $400 billion for the year, $9 trillion total, we’re all tied in to this wonderfully sinking ship.  One thing is clear, it’s not going to matter what Candidate takes the wheel- it’s not going to be a matter of steering to change the course, it’s going to be a matter of fixing the hole in the bottom.  Something that’s going to require an overhaul in how we as a nation do business.

I’m not a smart enough man to have the answers, but I think it’s time we stop looking for soundbites and flag pins, and start looking for the folks who might actually have the knowledge to apply to fixing the problems we face.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Leave it to Uncle Sam to need 5 years and a 700 page study to figure out what any of the troops on the ground could have told them from the outset.

A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that “in the euphoria of early 2003,” U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.

President George W. Bush’s statement on May 1, 2003, that major combat operations were over reinforced that view, the study said.

It was written by Donald P. Wright and Col. Timothy R. Reese of the Contemporary Operations Study Team at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who said that planners who requested more troops were ignored and that commanders in Baghdad were replaced without enough of a transition and lacked enough staff.

Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, said in a foreword that it’s no surprise that a report with these conclusions was written.

“One of the great and least understood qualities of the United States Army is its culture of introspection and self-examination,” he wrote.

The report said that the civilian and military planning for a post-Saddam Iraq was inadequate, and that the Army should have pushed the Joint Chiefs of Staff for better planning and preparation.

This news really comes as no shock- given the numerous military figures and civilian analysts who have all come to that same conclusion long before this report was written. 

Also according to the report, former Sec. of State Colin Powell warned former coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks that he was underestimating the situation in Iraq and the number of troops that would be needed.  He wasn’t the only one.

Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.

The “post-war situation in Iraq was severely out of line with the suppositions made at nearly every level before the war,” the report said.

There’s a good reason no one was getting any answers…

During an April 16, 2003, visit to Baghdad, coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks told his subordinate leaders to prepare to move most of their forces out of Iraq by September of that year, the report noted.

“In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq,” the report said.

So experienced voices were overlooked in favor of blind optimisim resulting in a poorly planned, poorly executed occupation and rebuilding process.  Since 2003- 4,113 members of the U.S. armed forces have died in the Iraq conflict and occupation. 

Popularity: 3% [?]

It’s been quite some time since we just went ahead and talked about some of the evil going on in the world.  The “Evil Wrap Up” if you will.

So with that in mind- here’s today in evil.  EEEEVIIILLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oil has hit $140 a barrel, and $170 is said to be in the future- the future being THIS SUMMER!.  What does this mean?  Get used to $4+ a gallon for gas in your car.  Sucks to be us.

North Korea is kind’ve our buddy now.  Kinda sorta.  I dunno.  They told us about the nukes they’ve been playing with, and we said “oh.” because we pretty much already knew that, and they’re still bad guys, they still abuse the citizens of North Korea, but they’re not terrorists anymore.  Or are they?  I give up.

And something that’s been out of the news lately- 2 bombings in Iraq against pro-American targets saw the deaths of 30 or so people, 3 US Marines among them.  The suspected antagonists?  Al Qaeda in Iraq.  The Sunni extremists.  As opposed to the Shi’ite forces we had been fighting during the brief pause in the cease-fire around Sadr City.  So, basically, there’s still bad guys on all sides.  Good to know.

So there you have it, there’s evil all over.  EEEEEEVIIIILLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Popularity: 3% [?]

Barack Obama, a candidate widely recognized for his bi-racial background, beat out white men and a white woman to earn the Dem nomination.  A large step in racial equality some would think (no comment on what it may say about gender equality- I’ll leave that commentary for Nancy Pelosi) but how does the average white American feel about voting for a non-white candidate?

Over half of white Americans still think he is a risky choice. A Washington Post and ABC News survey has reportedly termed Republican John McCain as a safe pick.

Over 40 per cent of white Americans believe Obama has the experience to make a good president but they raise concerns over him over-representing the interests of African-Americans.

However, the good news for him is that nine out of ten people are open to the idea of electing an African-American president.

But the criticisms don’t stop with worries that he’ll be too focused on issues that face African-Americans.  Actually, now there are criticisms being put forth that worry he’s not focusing enough on those issues in a bid to play it safe in order to appeal to white America.  And they’re coming from an unlikely source…

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” (Presidential Candidate Ralph) Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.  Of course, I could make a comment about Nader’s history of “taking votes away from Democrats” but really by this point… there is no point.  I am disgusted with the 2 party system, but we’ve really yet to have any reasonable 3rd party candidates, so… what can you do?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Rep- the star of Predator (among other flicks) went on to become Governor of California.

Jesse “The Body” Ventura: Reform Party when he started, then an Independent- also starred in Predator before going on to become first a Mayor, then Governor of Minnesota.

And now Sonny Landham former Republican and current member of the Libertarian Party is running for Senate, against current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Landham is known best for his role as Billy, the tracker for the elite military group in the flick who stood off against the Predator (bad move) armed with only a knife.

Will Landham make it 3 for 3 in the “from Predator to Politician” switch?

Given his past appearances in x-rated films before getting his break into mainstream fare, his outspoken bluntness-

Landham refers to McConnell, a four-term Republican, as “Boss Hogg” after the corrupt politician from “The Dukes of Hazzard” TV show. He bluntly called Democratic candidate and millionaire businessman Bruce Lunsford an “elitist.”
Even President Bush is a target: “He took us into a war on lies,” Landham said, claiming the actual intent was “to put ‘Big Oil’ back into Iraq.”

-his past jail sentence, or the fact that he’s a member of a 3rd party…

It’s a long shot that Landham will pick up the nomination, but time will tell.

Me personally, I’m waiting for a Carl Weathers run for office.  Remember, he was also Apollo Creed, and that’s as American as you can get.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Everywhere you look there’s signs of it, the TV is more filled than ever with commercials offering debt management programs, friends and family lose jobs and houses, and the cost of everything is in a constant state of increase…

So what does it mean for the average American, and what do they have to say about it?

The New York-based research group Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 50.4 from a revised 58.1 in May. The reading was the lowest since February 1992, when it was 47.3.

Among the components in the overall report, the Expectations Index - a measure of consumers’ economic outlook for the future - hit an all-time low, declining to 41 from 47.3 in May.

The Present Situation Index, which measures how the average consumer feels about the economy right now, decreased to 64.5 from 74.2 in May.

The number of respondents reporting that business conditions as bad increased to 32.5% from 29.7% in May, while those claiming business conditions as good declined to 11.5% from 13% last month.

Consumers’ take on the job market was also more pessimistic this month. Those who said jobs are hard to get increased to 30.5% from 28.3% in May, while those saying jobs are plentiful declined to 14.1% from 16.1% the month before.

The labor market for the months ahead was also cause for concern. The percent of consumers expecting fewer jobs in the near future increased to 35.5% from 32.3%, while those who think there will be more jobs declined to 8% from 9%.

The six-month outlook for future business conditions got worse in June. Those who expect business conditions to worsen until December rose to 33.9% from 32.9%, while those who expect business to get better decreased to 8.8% from 10.6% in May.

The index - based on a survey of 5,000 U.S. households conducted for The Conference Board by TNS - has declined for six months in a row. The index uses 1985 as the benchmark year when the index stood at 100.

Gas prices are rising again after a 3 day decline, and the prices of homes are decreasing- leaving many home owners with morgages that are worth more than their houses. 

Some claim that things aren’t that bad, with consumer spending still holding steady, though many point to tax returns and stimulus checks as the sources for the spending, and as soon as that resource has been tapped, the decline in spending will be immediately felt.

So what do we do from here?

I’m afraid there’s no clear answer…

Popularity: 2% [?]

Or if not them, the folks they surround themselves with. 

Hillary Clinton (who’s resignation I missed due to being away for a 3 week military engagement, but I still delighted in the knowledge once I received it) is obviously no longer in the race- but staying in as long as she did, she destroyed herself financially to the tune of nearly $10 million in debt.  So now she’s asking all her supporters that gave up their money for her failed campaign bid to pony up some more dough, because she’s now drowning in her own over-spending.  Well Hill, on behalf of the American public, welcome to how the rest of us are feeling in the current financial state of the union: debt as a way of life.

Barack Obama has made his own minor political gaffe in the past few days by using a mock-up of the Presidential Seal as an emblem on his lecternduring a meeting between himself and Dem. state Governors which drew some criticisms over the weekend.  The Obama campaign has said it was a one time only appearance for the emblem, with some members saying Obama himself felt a little embarrassed by the whole thing.  The emblem was comprised of the same eagle holding arrows and olive branch that denote war and piece as seen on the Presidential Seal, and also carried the words “Vero possumus” or loosely translated from latin: “Yes, we can”.  Presumptuous?  Perhaps, but really a very minor snafu in the great context of things. 

The Republicans are not off the hook in terms of embarrassment, as one of John McCain’s aides made a statement that McCain has found himself apologizing for, and that his opponent Obama’s campaign has already jumped on.  The statement in question being made by Charlie Black, a top advisor to McCain, said that the McCain campaign would benefit greatly from another terror attack taking place on American soil.  McCain went into damage control, telling reporters “I cannot imagine why he would say it. It’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear.”  However, one has to look at the validity of the statement, with McCain’s major platform being his aggressive stance against “global terror”, he’d probably do well to have some of that terror brought back to the front of people’s minds, leading to the same style of voting that saw George W. Bush re-elected (or just plain elected depending on who you ask) in ‘04, thinking only a “War President” could carry us through the strife of a continued war against “threats to our way of life”. 

But that’s just me riffing…

Popularity: 4% [?]

George Carlin was one of the brightest observational comedy stars in the world, riffing on concepts of censorship, religion, politics, safety in a post 9-11 world, followed by more immediate relatable issues such as “shit vs stuff”, and the differences between baseball and football.

I don’t know how best to honor Carlin, there are others out there who will do a far better job with their words, so for my part I’ll just leave you with Carlin himself musing on death.

Popularity: 2% [?]

When the GI Bill was initiated 64 years ago on this day- June 22nd, 1944 it was used as a means to help soldiers returning from WW2 regain a foothold in their civilian lives after being away while the world around them kept spinning.  Women had taken to the work force, the economy had shifted to building the tools of war, and after the last war the U.S. had fallen into a depression- and that was expected to be the case here as well.  But FDR, Congress, and the American Legion had enough forethought to prevent the predicted hard times.  By installing the GI Bill, returning troops were able to seek out education and find a foothold in a business world that would be developing anew.

Peter Gaytan is director of veteran’s affairs for the American Legion. He says the bill’s humble origins on a sheet of hotel stationery belie its radical premise:

“We didn’t wanna just create legislation that would write a monthly check to a veteran who returned from combat. We recognized that they needed a transition into a life, not a payment for service. What the GI Bill originally did was allow them to go to school, to purchase their home, to become part of the work force when they took the uniform off.”

Up to that time, America had a lousy track record when it came to taking care of its veterans. Even after the Revolutionary War, vets had to storm Independence Hall in Philadelphia to demand payment they’d been promised.

In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, World War I vets marched on the Capitol demanding compensation owed to them. Government troops were called in to disperse them by force.

It was a bleak chapter in American history - and the GI Bill was intended to make sure it would not be repeated.

But today the GI Bill has been having difficulty keeping up with the ever increasing costs of education, especially in an environment where a 4 year degree now holds roughly the same place that a high school education did decades ago, and even more education is required to gain ground in a competitive business world.  So what does a country do to continue showing it’s gratitude and support to the men and women who fight in it’s service?  The obvious answer would be to bring the bill up to speed and modernize it to match the changing educational environment.  But how to go about this change is tricky at best, especially in a politically charged, heavily bipartisan election year.  The Dems and Reps have cut each other down on anything they can, regardless of the obvious benefits to the country and it’s citizens, and the GI Bill has not been spared this crossfire.

A revision to the bill proposed by veteran and Democratic senator James Webb met heavy resistance from Rep Presidential Candidate John McCain and current President George W. Bush.  Their criticisms were primarily focused on the argument that in today’s military- offering increased benefits for opportunities apart from the military, would cause a drop in retention, something today’s military is already struggling with given the numerous deployments faced in this unpopular period of war.  However as members of Congress from both sides began to come out in support of the bill which would increase the benefits afforded to National Guard soldiers who have been carrying an increased burden in current conflicts, increase the time available to use the financial support from 10 to 15 years, and as an added benefit not in the original proposition of the bill, troops will now be able to transfer their tuition to their spouses or children to attend college- a benefit looked very favorably upon given the heavy load military families have been facing as their loved ones ship out on multiple deployments, Bush and McCain have changed their tune to one of support, while still maintaining some criticisms, and in some views even trying to take credit for parts of the bill. 

Regardless of how the bill has come to fruition, the important thing to do is remember that it’s not about something for nothing as I’ve heard some argue.  It’s not even about joining the military just so you can go to college, as many recruiters would use it.  Having gone into military life and come back to the civilian world (and back and forth again a few times) I can now speak to what these benefits are really about- trying to help our fighting men and women make the long, difficult transition back into the American workforce, and society as a whole.  After all they’ve done for us, they deserve all the help we can give them in return.

Popularity: 2% [?]

The easiest answer would be- seek out the backing of one who has been there in your stead.  And that may well be what Dem Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is doing at present moment.  In this time of consistent military action in the Middle East, and with the ever looming threat of escalation always casting a shadow on the future, Obama has a mighty disadvantage against a far more experienced war vet such as Rep Presidential Candidate John McCain.

North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad told The Associated Press said the team asked him about potential candidates from three broad categories — current top elected officials, former top elected officials, and former top military leaders.

Conrad would not disclose which names they discussed, and the Obama campaign has been keeping the process a closely guarded secret.

‘‘We talked about many names,’’ Conrad said, including ‘‘some that are out of the box but I think would be very well received by the American people, including former top military leaders.’’

Many former military leaders have been involved in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign. Some of Obama’s most prominent campaign advisers have been Gen. Tony McPeak, who was Air Force chief of staff during Operation Desert Storm; Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, who flew repeated combat missions and has worked with Obama on a range of military issues since before he began his presidential campaign; and Richard Danzig, who was secretary of the Navy under President Clinton.

He might also look at some of former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton’s top military advisers in a gesture of unity, retired generals who include Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; or Wesley Clark, who led the war in Kosovo and ran in the presidential primary four years ago. Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who served as Navy secretary under President Reagan, has also been frequently mentioned as a possible running mate.

In an area where Obama has been seen lacking, picking up a veteran could bring a great hand to the table.

Popularity: 3% [?]