Senator Obama: looks great, less filling on economy and foreign policy

Senator Obama is quite a man. I mean that seriously. It takes quite a man to step up to the plate for a position that most my age or above never expected to happen. He is facing down the most difficult hurdle an African American has ever come against in this nation’s politics and looks to be competitive.

Though with that said I have to say that I wouldn’t vote for him. Historical importance and all, he is not ready for the position – but he is damn close.

My problems with Senator Obama are purely on his political experience and policies. In terms of his presentation, the fact that he is breaking barriers and making history are all things I deeply respect about the man. I find him charismatic, and a capable public speaker. His ability at polispeak is unmatched by neither Senator McCain, nor any of the past Democratic primary candidates he beat.

But that is not enough to be President.

I’ll give you an example. Senator Obama visited Iraq for less than 2 days, after 2 ½ years since his last visit of less than 48 hours. That is not fact finding, nor is it being open minded to changes that he opposed. That is building voter interest on the backs of the soldiers in Iraq. The same can be said of his time in Afghanistan.

Senator Obama has not changed his position. He never was going to. Thus the trip, with enough media coverage to rival the President, was just a new take on the shake-hands-kiss-babies politicing. He got into the race saying he would remove all the troops in Iraq in his first term, then shifted to a 16-month policy that will still leave some unknown number of troops in Iraq, and after his trip he still maintains that policy.

But as I have said to many people and in this blog, how do you expect to win a fight if you tell your opponent that you will stop before it’s over? If this were boxing, Queensbury rules all the way, but this is war. When America left Saigon did anyone view that as a win? Besides the North Vietnamese. Can anyone give me a reason to believe that Al Quida and any other insurgents won’t just bide their time for 16 months to end, if Obama is elected President, and then rally to make Iraq a bigger mess than it is?

If people want to praise Senator Obama for his unyielding position on Iraq, which essentially calls for retreat and means that every orphan and anyone who lost a loved one in Iraq will be gunning for Americans within 5 years of our departure, even if it is not popular then how can they not praise Senator McCain for his unyielding and at times unpopular stance to win the war? Mark my words, not winning in Iraq means that more American lives will be lost, and in our nation not overseas.

But there is also the issue of domestic economic instability. The housing markets are tanking, as are many financials that facilitated this drop. Senator Obama is looking to speak with advisors (though not 300 as he uses for foreign policy which is impractical) that include Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Obama said in his meeting with advisers he expects to ``get their read on where the economy is going,'' and fashion some ``additional steps'' to address the short-term economic and financial and housing issues.

Robert Rubin helped to advise Senator Hillary Clinton. While many have chosen to forget, I recall that her campaign ended in debt of some $20 million. That’s after she loaned herself in excess of $6 million for her campaign. Somehow I think Rubin’s advice was ignored and/or faulty, you can pick which.

Warren Buffett is the greatest investor ever. He has made billions via investing. Yet he does not give one extra dime to the government than he has to. He has never donated any money to the I.R.S., but he has been very vocal to say that taxes should be raised. He is so sure that the government should have more of his own money that he is donating the bulk of his billions to a charity, run by Bill Gates – another man that made billions via business and investing. This tells me that he does not believe that the government can efficiently use his vast fortune to the benefit of Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.

Paul Volcker, the predecessor to Alan Greenspan – the man who tried to get the Clinton Administration to do something about the internet bubble, is best known for ending stagflation and creating a recession that killed farming. To recap for those younger than myself Volcker reduced the inflation rates at the end of President Jimmy Carter’s term (13% in 1979) to reasonable levels during the President Regan Administration (3% in 1983). He also helped increase unemployment levels to those near equal to the Great Depression, bankrupted farmers, and generated the most protests that any Federal Reserve Chairman has ever received.

Senator Obama’s choices make a few things clear. It seems that his intention is to raise taxes (not just on the rich as he has already voted to raise your taxes this year), spend your money on policies that will feed the hungry as opposed to help them be able to feed themselves, and drive up prices for energy and oil.

The last 2 come from the fact that Senator has voted the most extreme liberal of the entire Democratic Party. He is not bi-partisan according to his record. Thus the Democratic Party opposes any domestic drilling for oil, preferring to use corn ethanol. That means that we will continue to drive up the price of oil – funding some of the enemies of America with more money than ever before – slowing the economy as businesses contract to offset the higher energy cost, and the cost of food will go higher since the price of corn is increasing. That’s inflation as I understand it. That’s hurting the average American. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and higher food costs – that is what I understand he is being advised to do.

There are other questions about Senator Obama that I have, but these are some of the more prominent right now. This is what the news media wants America to focus on. And just these reasons are enough for me, even though I have several others.

But is that what you want? Is this what you expect from a President after the polispeak is gone and action is required?

Taxes: the real Presidential candidate issue

With all the attention being place on oil and energy in the past few days I thought I’d take another look at taxes. One of the least popular issues that every Presidential race focuses on. And consistently the public has the same request, lower taxes.

For 2008, the ‘election of change’ [a dumb concept considering that is a fact], we have 2 very explicit views. I say explicit, but if you don’t listen carefully or check any other details you may be distracted of confused by the polispeak that each candidate employs. So I want to take a moment, before the rhetoric switches back after the energy issue stops catching headlines, to look at their stances clearly (as found at The Tax Foundation).

Deferring to experience I will start with Senator McCain.

Originally opposed to the President Bush tax cuts, Senator McCain now is in support of this tax plan. He also favors cutting corporate taxes by 10%. For those that suffer from estate taxes he plans to implement a move to only 15% tax on estates over $10 million. He wants to remove the alternative minimum tax, which affects many middle-class families which it was not intended to tax, and he is strongly against any increase in taxes related to Social Security.

Now for Senator Obama.

While he has already voted to increase taxes for anyone making $31,850 he has publicly stated that he will only repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of the nation. How such a law could be enacted is unknown, and considering that proposals and campaign promises of a similar nature have never occurred his repeals may include more people. He has also promised to eliminate taxes for all seniors that make less than $50,000. When it comes to corporations Senator Obama has stated he will “close loopholes”, which means whatever you wish it to. He has no expressed plan for estate taxes or the Minimum Alternative Tax, presumably leaving them both in place. But he does have a defined plan for the Social Security tax, which he plans to increase – directly coming from wages. There may be an exemption for those above $102,000 but it isn’t clear.

Senator Obama also has several other plans related to taxes that Senator McCain has no comparable for. Senator Obama will create several ‘credits’ for various Americans. One credit will apply to those that work and make over $8,100 – the credit will be for $500 or $1,000 for families. He would also create a 10% credit for all homeowners with a mortgage. This mortgage owner credit would amount to about $500. There would also be an earned income credit for those making minimum wage and working full-time for $555, if children are being supported “responsibly” [how and who determines that?] then another $1,110 is available. For those in college up to $4,000 can be forgiven. Lastly Senator Obama wants the IRS to issue tax forms that are partially pre-filled to reduce the time in filling out the forms.

Now I’m sure both plans have their appeal points, and many with children like the comments by Senator Obama. But let’s look at this in total.

Senator Obama has already voted to increase taxes of most Americans 3%, which he publicly stated he would not do. Because of that I feel every other statement about taxes he has made is in question. In addition every attempt to isolate any singular group of Americans to pay higher taxes has failed. Inevitably Americans not expected to be paying higher taxes do so.

I agree with the concept of excluding taxes for senior citizens that are making enough money to survive on their own. I do not agree on the fixed price or the cap. While $50,000 may sound comfortable today, not long ago $30,000 sounded the same. Any provision that does not take into account the increase of cost of living, nor the cost of medications (which older Americans have higher budgets on disproportionately) fails those it is meant to help.

While spouting polispeak about corporations and their earnings is a winning strategy with unions and newspaper headlines, it is not an effective tax plan. There are some loopholes in the corporate tax code that should be removed, but the real boost to the economy is decreasing tax rates. This allows businesses to increase the number of people employed, or raise their pay, or fund research, or expand to increase scales of economy. Whichever is done the economy for the nation receives more revenues in multiple areas that were stagnant prior. Raising corporate taxes has the opposite effect.

Estate taxes are a special situation that most Americans don’t fall under. Even so, for those that do have to deal with these taxes, they are huge. While most like to point out the multi-million dollar estates, those with far less pay the same tax now. Again this limits gaining revenues on these funds from other sources that could stimulate the economy. But I don’t have a strong opinion on this point.

Social Security is commonly called the “third rail of politics” and it is aptly named. Older voters are sensitive to anything that might affect their money. Considering that most voters are older, and this number is about to swell as baby-boomers age, this is an issue that none want to be on the wrong side of. Then again, younger voters have little interest in funding a program that they in all likelihood will never receive a dime from. SSI is a flawed program that has never worked exactly as planned. Increasing money by raising taxes on those that can’t afford it does little to help anyone beyond actually pushing its problems onto either another administration or generation. Senator Obama’s plan sounds exactly like that.

Senator Obama’s plan for college students sounds eerily like the short-lived plan proposed from then-potential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. This plan forgives money instead of providing it though. A major question is this though, who will pay the $28.8 billion that this plan would absolve each year. [That assumes that only 7.2 million Americans go to college - and would this include those who take college courses online?] The money from this would have to come from somewhere, which means higher taxes.

I like a 10% credit for mortgages, as I will soon own a home. But in reality I don’t need it. My home purchase is based on the fact that I can well afford the mortgage, and that it is a fixed rate. Those that prepare properly for a home purchase have no need of a credit. Those that do not will not be saved by what would amount to maybe 2 months payment on their obligation. If this plan were less polispeak, it would be designed to help stimulate the economy – especially since 96% of all mortgage holders are paying on-time.

I can’t think of anything more to ask about a credit for those that have children [specifically it seems targeted to fathers paying child support] than who and what criteria equate to responsible. How would this be enforced. Under it’s current wording this implies that the Government would be involved actively in raising every child in America, under arbitrary and politically motivated rules. And what happens if the Government claims you are not being responsible? Do they take the children from the parents, or incarcerate them, publicly ostracize them or penalize them in some other way? Considering that the Government can’t balance a checkbook or check out foods for potentially deadly diseases I don’t trust their opinion on what is “responsible” in child rearing.

And lastly the IRS tax forms. It’s a nice polispeak rabble rouser. It gets headlines. It sounds great, until you think about it. How long do you think it will take to mail out tens of millions of printed tax forms? How will those who have never filed a tax form prior file? How much will this cost to be made? Especially since each and every form will be individual so scale of economies will never take place (never mind the fact that it would likely cost more each and every year – like stamps).

And perhaps most importantly, how will the Government ensure that every document is sent out to the proper person. Because if even one were to be mishandled, or one employee were paid off, identity theft would be rampant. Some would counter that the government send out documents now though no numbers exist on how many are improperly delivered. But the counter would accurately be that the Government is inefficient in every department, what would cause the IRS to suddenly become so?

So in honestly reviewing the tax positions of Senator Obama and Senator McCain, on balance I see McCain with better plans and more effective for the nation. You may not agree, and if so I’d love to hear where I got it wrong. And if I got it right let me know. [please remember I’m not an economist so don’t get too technical on me.]

Scam email alert: IRS Stimulus check scam

I was made aware of something today that I wanted to share with you my readers. Now I have no doubt that none of my regular readers are affected but for those that find this post as an introduction to my site I hope it helps.

Everyone is aware of the Economic Stimulus Plan authorized by President Bush and the Government. $600 is being sent out to those who filed their taxes as single, married families get about $1200 depending on how many kids they have. None of that is new news. But there are scam emails circulating the net that are using this information to phish and scam based on this check. [The following is from a scam email recieved by a friend of mine]

Sent out randomly as an email and supposedly from an IRS email account, like Internal Revenue Service (IRS) esr@irs.gov, it has a title of 2008 US Economic Stimulus Refund ! or something similar. This is a fake address, and it has nothing to do with the Government.

The body of the text may state:

Over 130 million Americans will receive refunds as part of President Bush program to jumpstart economy. Our records indicate that you are qualified to receive the 2008 Economic Stimulus Refund.

The fastest and easiest way to receive your refund is by direct deposit to your checking/savings account.

Please follow the link and fill out the form and submit before June 20, 2008 to ensure that your refund will be processed as soon as possible.

Submitting your form on June 20,2008 or later means that your refund will be delayed due to the volume of requests we anticipate for the Economic Stimulus Refund.

To access Economic Stimulus Refund, please click here.

Note: If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the large amount of e-mails we are sending out or because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP.

This is a fake and a scam.

The IRS will not contact you via your email account. They don’t even know if you have an email address. Any document from the IRS will state that it is from the Department of Treasury of which the IRS is a part. Also any official documents will be sent via the postal service and bear the U.S. seal. Not to mention that any document will be in proper American English - ie. the first sentence fails to have proper tense structure.

Any Stimulus check will be sent out to the address you have placed on your IRS tax form(s) you filed with the government. If you filed via electronic filing then you will receive your Stimulus check via direct deposit to the bank account you filed. There is no other means to get a check.

Checks are being sent out via social security number. You cannot speed up the process no matter what government department you contact. Plus any contact must be via writing and not email.

Any information from the U.S. government that could come via email will not trigger your spam filters. Nor is the Government limited on the number of emails it is able to send out or receive.

If you receive an email like this, DO NOT follow any of the links. Notify your email provider and delete the email.

Again this is a scam with the intention of either getting your bank account information, or to gather enough information to steal your identity.

I hope this helps someone out there.

Is a new Dollar a waste of time and money?

If you are anything like the average person in America when you think of the Treasury you might think of the IRS first. Some may think of the Federal Reserve. Even a few may think of the Secret Service. But how many would think of a dollar bill?

Obviously we all know that the Treasury is responsible for making the money we all use every day. And of the trillions of dollars made in the past 40 years or more, little has changed besides the signatures on the various denominations. In fact the Dollar has remains the same for so long that the term greenback, or greenmail, and so on are easily recognized to represent or involve the U.S. currency.

It’s also obvious to anyone who has lived overseas or collects currency from overseas (or as close as either neighboring nation) that we are a rarity in the world. We are currently one of the few nations that can claim a uniform size and color to its currency. But that was until today.

Why? Because there exists another thought that some Americans think of when they think of the Treasury or the currency. It’s along the lines of “pain in the a**”. And their reasons for saying so have merit. Because they are Americans that have problems with their vision or are blind.

So I can understand their issue. Every bill looks the same as another. It can be quite difficult to work out. But this is hardly a new issue as I mentioned before.

In fact, when the Government was sued because of how the Dollar looks and feels they went into court and said just that. The blind and vision impaired have long ago adapted to the currency question, and that to make changes would cause extreme financial difficulty. But the Court of Appeals wouldn’t buy it. So there may be changes in the works shortly.

Now I am not a fan of changing the Dollar. I agree that the cost is not justified, near term or long term. More aesthetically I always dislike the way European currency was of differing sizes and colors. It reminds me of Monopoly money more than a currency. I just never could take it too seriously. And with some of the exchange rates I’ve seen in my life, some of those currencies were worth just about that.

But perhaps more than that I disagree with the Courts reasoning. They seem to be creating laws from the bench. They are creating arguments that prosecutors are supposed to make. And they are doing so with a sarcasm that is, in my opinion, unbefitting judges of their level.

“The court said using the government's logic, people could argue there's no need to build wheelchair ramps because people without use of their legs can crawl or ask for help from strangers.”

That logic, if it has been summarized correctly, is insulting. The comparison doesn’t work unless you want to adopt an ultra-liberal interpetation. Such an interpetation is fine – if you are not a judge making a landmark decision. If for no other reason this makes them wrong.

Of course there are many overseas that have their own snarky, bitter and twisted, bollox comments about America finally following their lead. But since I don’t make fun of those currencies, even though some of their bills look more like poor hankercheifs – and are valuable enough to be used as one – I’m not going to pay attention to that.

What do you think? Do you want an orange Dollar bill the size of maybe a Candyland set money, and a blue 5 Dollar bill the sice of a small envelope? Do you think that the inevitable lobbying for a pink currency bill, or a yellow bill, or a black one is worth your taxes? Is this the issue we really want the Treasury to increase their budget (and inevitably our taxes that fund their budget) on? Or would you prefer to keep the dollar the same and get a better tax code, or maybe a better Fed Chair that can stay on top of the economy? 3 Judges have made their decision for you, but at least you still get an opinion here.

The real effect of the mortgage crisis on a real person

Looking over the housing markets, and considering the negative sentiment out, I decided that this was a good time to purchase a new home. Rates are 5.875% fixed and many home prices are depressed currently. And I’m not alone in my decision to pick up some property. So I wanted to share my experience so far, and at the end of this post I have 2 questions for you my reader.

Many who have good to excellent credit ratings, and available cash are out looking for a new home or a first time buy. But don’t believe this is exactly a buyers market. Even in a dying economy that is the Binghamton New York experience, home prices have held firm if not risen up. In fact I would say that prices over the last 6 months have risen about $3,000 on median. Because many like myself are entering this troubled market.

Still there are bargains to be found. I am looking into a couple as this is being written, and is part of the reason why I have not been writing as much as normal for both of my blogs. [Of course having built and set up over 100 blogs in the past 2 months, the deal with TV One, and working out a deal with an upcoming magazine are factors as well.]

Part of the process in getting a home is the mortgage pre-approval process. For those that are unfamiliar this is the initial amount that you may be able to get a mortgage for, the loan rate, and all other terms you might run into. It is affected by your credit rating - heavily, cash on hand, and income as per taxes filed.

Now without giving away too much of my finances (some points I will deliberately extrapolate on – so the figures on income and pricing are inaccurate but the situation and rates are accurate) I will make you aware of what the world is like for me. You can decide if my skin tone and last name are factors or not.

My first stop in the process was my local bank, NBT, which I have had accounts with for several years. I believe I had 1 check bounce in the entire time I was with the bank, and that was because of a bank error in depositing funds into the proper account. I also know and speak with a couple of managers on a regular basis. Thus you can say my relationship with the bank is favorable to friendly.

I initially was given an indication that my pre-qual rate would easily be what I had asked for. My credit rating is 750 (after rebuilding my credit after a career change in 2001) with at least one agency ranking me at 766. That is considered good to excellent. It would normally grant a lower credit rating as I am a low risk. I also have no long-term debt. Thus the initial loan rate mentioned was 6.11%. I have a witness to this.

I was rather pleased.

But after looking at several homes, and having requests from the bank for additional tax records for my corporation and myself – which I provided promptly – I received my pre-approval line. 7.11% and a reduction in the dollar loan amount of 27% [ie. if I asked for $100,000 they approved $73,000]. But I was assured that this is not accurate and I could be approved for more if I found a home in the range I was initially looking. Though no mention was made of what interest rate would go with this higher loan dollar amount.

Now I am insulted. I went from a very good interest rate and a decent yet highly affordable mortgage (fixed rate 30 years) to a bad rate – 1% higher than initially suggested and documented and 1.235% higher than the national rate – and a dollar bracket that provided access to homes far inferior to what I had wanted.

I will add that I have an income that surpasses the local area average, in excess of 2x’s, and never had a bankruptcy. There was a surplus of cash in my bank account - as there has been for over a year - that easily surpassed the 3% required for the loan by the bank. I have been operating my business for 2 years, and have been in the field of work for over 7 as an independent consultant. I have never been sued and was a successful stockbroker for roughly a decade.

I believe the increase in rate and decrease in dollar loan amount is insulting. I was given a reasoning that my credit report had bad notations (which I have reviewed for well over a year and cannot find), I have inadequate cash reserves (which I noted above), I do not make enough money for what I was requesting (which I and the initial loan officer determined I had far in excess for the amount requested beyond the local area average), and I failed to have enough funds to meet the 3% closing requirement (which I had in excess of 7% sitting in the bank).

Now what factor could be the reason for the change? What could motivate such an extreme reaction?

The loan officer that questioned me, and needed additional documents, never met me. He did speak to me (getting my last name wrong a couple of times). So what changed? Could it be that my actual last name (which is Spanish and yes Vass is a registered alias I use for business to avoid racial prejudices since I was a stockbroker) was too ethnic? Was it that my income too far exceeded the income of most of the 3% African American population in this area – as well as exceeding the White population income average.

Obviously I went on to seek out a separate mortgage loan via a broker that is Hispanic, and the brother of a friend. My preference was not his background but that I knew his brother whom I speak with regularly.

It has been over a week since placing my documentation with him. He is quite successful in getting mortgage loans, and owns his own brokerage. He too had high expectations for my loan. His opinion was that my dollar loan amount was very reasonable and in my affordability range. He could not understand why a bank I had been doing business with for years could not provide me a better rate, which he believes will be in the 6.4 – 6.6% range. Based on my cash on hand he believe that he might be able to get that percentage down to 6.25% (obviously the difference [from 5.875%] is for his own operating profit, which I do not begrudge him. This is business after all and we aren’t doing this to not make a profit).

Why am I facing a delay? Because the bank has suspicions that I am hiding money. Because I own my own business the bank that the broker has gone to believes I may be laundering money. Now the United States Government, via the IRS, has had no problems with my finances. My income has been steady with a respectable increase to my top line revenue for years. Every dollar that comes in is documented, and every write-off is noted and within legal allocations. I do not make excessive amounts of money (Bill Gates, or even several stockbrokers I know, make significantly more), I am just a regular small business owner.

So what could be the reasons? My last name is the reason some friends have mentioned to me. I’m ethnic and not generic like Smith or Hannity, or O’Reilly. I am immediately identified as at least Hispanic, and noted on some government documents as Black and Puerto Rican. And I live in an area that is 95% White, and comparatively a small town. Not to mention that a high percentage of those in the mortgage crisis are African American and minorities – though why they were selected and focused into these one-time highly profitable (for the lender) loans is unknown (sort of).

What do you think? Can you imagine a reason why banks would have a problem loaning money to a low-risk, no debt, middle-class income, single, business owner, who normally pays taxes (no refunds for me) is in his affordability range and has never had a bankruptcy or problem with the IRS?

Do you think if I was White, with exactly the same conditions I would be treated the same?

Before you answer here is another fact. Less than 3 weeks before interest rates were lowered, and prior to my first loan query, I had a friend that was pre-approved for a mortgage up to 75% greater than what I asked for. They had a 750 credit report. They are a single parent. They make 50% of my own income. They had a gift provided to cover closing costs and down-payment (which I do not begrudge).They are almost 20 years my junior. And the final loan amount was for a home in the range I am seeking, with an interest rate of ~6.75% (closing after rates dropped).

The big difference between us? Besides the income, that I am a business owner and not an employee, my age, and that she is a parent is that she is a White woman.

And for those wondering what the big deal about an extra 1.235% is that over 30 years (which I can affordably pay off in 5-6 years) there is an extra $20 - $50,000 dollars in interest to be paid.

So now I ask, why do you think I have been treated as such so far? Is this something others are experiencing across the nation?

The question is who to vote for in 2008

I was speaking with a young former military man today, and the subject of the 2008 election came up. This man is 22, a former Navy Seal, and interested in what will happen to America in the near term. He also has no idea who to vote for.

Sometimes I forget that many people, of all ages, have not been following the Presidential race since 2006 like I and other bloggers have. That’s not because of a lack of interest, or intelligence. It’s because there is so little information out, and so little to get behind. There are plenty of YouTube video clips, charts on the net to chart where each candidate stands, and 30 second soundbites galore. But there is little substance and platforms for the average American to sink their teeth into.

To an extent I hope that my lists of Pros and Cons of Republican and Democratic candidates are helpful. I hope that my letters to several of the candidates (of both political parties) helps to give further insight to what each offers the nation. But even if all that I have written over the past year and almost a half on this has been read by every undecided voter in America I don’t think it is enough. That is because all the candidates are failing America.

They are failing us because they are playing partisan games, one-upmanship and preening like celebrities (with issues) more than attempting to be political leaders. And that benefits none of us.

One example of this failure is in the question given to me by this young man. The question was

“This war has gone too far. Especially since it was started over oil. I’m concerned about that.” – paraphrased but the essential elements of the question.

My answer is simple, and not one politician has ever said this that I am aware of.

Let’s say that the war was done only for oil, which is easily debated and proven incorrect. Why is that bad? Right now, estimates state that there may only be another 40 years or so of oil left in the Middle East. At this time there is not another alternative energy source that works. Not one. Lot’s of theoreticals but they are all only effective on paper.

Given that fact, and there is no debate it is fact, then oil is the only reliable energy source in the near future. America has reserves and access to several major oilfields that have never been tapped. The reason is that we are using all the oil in the Middle East while developing alternatives for the future. If OPEC were to run out of oil, most every nation would be unable to continue to provide for the safety and quality of life of their people virtually overnight. Except for America and a few other nations. That’s because of our use of foreign oil.

Taking a long term view, it is strategically important that we use oil from everyone else as much as possible, to guarantee that when the reserves start to dry up we will still be able to defend our nation, and continue to seek and create improved energy sources.
So, having an ally in the Middle East that provides America cheap oil in large quantities is vital to our long-term survival. It makes sense for us to want to have control over a major oil producer.

In addition, there is the question of money. Many want to point at President Bush and say it’s about him making money. The theory is that only oil companies will make money from Iraq. Those claiming this fail to recall that those same oil companies help fuel the American economy. They are part of the stock market, where tens of millions have invested their retirement funds, based on the thought they will bring in a profit. These companies employ thousands of people. They are paid to find, refine, and transport this fuel. This oil is used by hundreds of businesses that create cars, plastic, tires, perfumes and other products.

Oil companies making more money, means that America makes more money. And for those that might want to “take the profits away from the oil companies and give it to the people,” they are both liars and ill-advised. If the profits are taken from the oil companies, you will not receive a check for your share of that money. In addition, your mutual funds, and the stock market will drop. Jobs will be lost, in dozens of industries. America will be hurt.

It’s true, and all you need to do to see it is to look at the big picture and the long term view.

But politicians won’t say that.

How about tax reform that so many want to have. Several presidential candidates claim they will “remove the IRS” and completely convert the tax code. I feel they are misguided in the worst manner.

Not that I think the IRS is a good thing, or that the tax code is working. But if it were to be removed it would impede the entire nation. Of the roughly 40% of the nation that is employed by the Government let’s say that the IRS, or any department, makes up 5% of all the people employed. Without the IRS they are all out of work.

In addition you lose all the people that do oversight on the IRS, all those that do research on the effects of the tax codes, those investigating the loopholes of taxes, and those that prepare taxes for the average American.

Say good bye to H&R Block and other similar corporations. And with their loss goes the benefit and impact they provide to the stock market. Unemployment skyrockets, and the stocks, mutual funds and retirements of millions plummet.

The big picture, long-term view really takes all the wind out of the sails of a cute popular soundbite. But it’s far more honest. Because the fact is that any department of the Government is incapable of being removed or revised substantially. There are just too many lives, and economic implications tied to it to happen.

What does that mean when evaluating Presidential candidates? That when you look at all the information and comments made you have to take a moment to review what they are really saying. You have to look at the long term effects. And you have to throw out all the feel good fluff soundbites they all make. Because there isn’t a human being alive, ever, that can discuss all the implications of say nuclear weapons in Iran or illegal aliens in 30 seconds.