Repost from Cogito Ergo Blog.

The holiday week has been quiet.  The Big Three CEOs went home (presumably flying in Coach-class), president-elect Obama has a least slowed his moving out furniture and walking W to the door.  For now, the electorate has been left to lick their wounds from the bailout/election/bailout cycle.  And the “newsies” are focused on the terrorist attacks in India.

But the respite will not linger.  December 2nd is the date that the Big Three need to present an “acceptable” plan to Congress in order to earn another bailout and the next ill-fated stimulus package is being negotiated (defining how the newly-elected will pay back their support groups with tax payer handouts).  As expected, the line for more handouts is starting to form, as city transit agencies are due to come, cup in hand to the Hill this week.  Beyond economics, the world is watching the terrorist attacks in India, the fact remains that pirates now hold at least a dozen ships, shoppers are trampling to death fellow human-beings to save $50 on the newest gadgets, and the constant rumblings from Iran continue.  As Peggy Noonan says, there are many disturbances still ahead.

So before the holes start springing in the economic dike, this is a good time to re-group and see what we have created.  In a post last week, a discussion ensued about how the government is perpetuating a moral hazard of undefined scale and scope.  Moral hazard is an economic concept founded in the insurance business.  The premise is that people will take greater risks, or engage in more risky behavior than otherwise, because they believe they will not bear the full consequence of their actions.  And while much has been made of the Wall Street / Detroit bailouts ($4.3 Trillion, so far), the next group of over-spenders is getting ready to put out their hands – and taxpayer will soon be asked to stem the impending failure of state governments to meet required balanced budgets.

Some 41 states are facing budget shortfalls.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the current total gap is expected to be $24.3 billion, and will continue to grow as economic growth slows.  The shortfall is expected to double for fiscal year 2009, to close to $48 billion. And unlike the federal government, most states cannot run a deficit (by the force of constitutionally bound balanced budget requirements) or borrow to cover expenditures.

One reason for the budget woes; state revenues have been negatively impacted by reduced state sales tax revenue, reduced property tax revenues, and as the employment situation deteriorates income tax revenues will weaken.  Further pressure will be felt as local governments will seek relief from the state government to offset reductions in local education budgets.

As a result, cuts will occur at the state level for public health programs, for elementary and secondary education, and to impose workforce reductions.  Some states will tap “rainy-day funds” to make up shortfalls, but even these measures may fall short. At the end of FY06 reserves averaged 11.5% of state spending.  This number has declined to 7.5% as the economy enters the FY09 recession.

How have states managed their income statements?  Of course it varies by state, but using California as an example – during FY08, the state spent $13 billion more than it has received in revenue, spending $108 billion, while bringing in $95 billion as of March 29, 2008.  Is this a new phenomenon?  Hardly - there has been a 32 percent increase in California’s spending from 2003 to 2008, with revenues falling far behind.

California is spending $10.5 billion annually to fund benefits for illegal immigration, according to the Federation of American Immigration Reform.  On an aggregate basis, the total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.

And while California has budget shortfalls of large scale proportion, 41 other states have the same issues on a smaller scale.  The politician’s response so far – hope.  That is, they hope to find “efficiencies” in consolidation of some departments, or hope to out-source certain functions, and last the always popular “across-the-board” cuts.

There is no doubt that states have been spendthrifts over the past four to six years.  And the inertia from this spending will need to be slowed now that the inevitable economic downturn drags down revenues.  And unlike the current cycle of governmental actions (guarantees, capital infusions, et. al.), the state budget problems will be felt on a very local level.  Education funding will be cut, affecting school programs and administration.  Infrastructure maintenance will be reduced.  And to make matters worse, individual cities are also facing huge deficits, causing cities to find ways to increase revenues (see NYC tax on plastic bags).

Over the next six months Americans will see the results of years of out-of-control spending at the state and local levels.  And we will face the consequence of the failures of our elected officials to act as fiduciary stewards of our state and cities.  The split between Republican and Democratic governors is about even - 22 (R) to 28(D) – and each state has their own reasons for success or failure (immigration funding, managed health care debacles, etc.), but in the end, the governors and legislatures have spent our taxes like a sub-prime borrower.  The bill will soon come due.  And has become the practice of the day – the failed managers (CEOs, Mayors, Governors, and just about every other failed enterprise), will make their way to DC for a taxpayer bailout of their economic malfeasance.  As for the rest of us - in the words of an Obama-mentor (at least before his fall from grace) – “the chickens have come home to roost”.

Barack Obama has broken barriers with his history-making electoral victory and for that he deserves a congratulatory note.  But now that the seemingly endless campaign has wrapped, the adoration he was afforded by American media outlets hasn’t subsided.

Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are too busy basking in the glories of Obama’s sweeping success to maintain even a base level of scrutiny. Of course, this inability to be objective did not suddenly emerge following Obama’s victory; the media have been enamored by Obama since early 2007, as they have created and sustained what appears to be a lasting love affair.

While I can easily delve into a long-winded diatribe about the media’s insane infatuation with Obama, I’m not sure that it would be necessary to do so.  After all, most polls show that the American people are more than aware of the media’s leftist inclinations.

From August until November, the mainstream media lambasted Gov. Sarah Palin.  From the failure to quickly correct the erroneous (not to mention hateful) stories about Trig Palin’s birth mother to the continued sexism that was prevalent in the majority of news stories, the media gleefully chiseled away at Palin’s image.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama escaped without a scratch, as media outlets actually went out of their way to baselessly portray him as a reformer who is sure to bring “hope” and “change” to Washington.

Following suit with their pre-election adoration, the media have literally ignored the ironic picks Obama has made for his incoming admin posts.  The man who promised us “change” has thus far called upon Washington insiders (i.e. former Clintonians) to fill cabinet posts.  While this may be looked upon as a smart move in terms of nominating individuals who have a record of what some on the left call success, it exemplifies the “more of the same” attitude Obama has railed against so enthusiastically in his rhetoric.

Aside from the media’s failure to critique this blatant fact, there is one pick, in particular, that has barely been vetted by the media.  On November 17^th, the Politico reported that Obama will select Gregory B. Craig for the White House counsel post.  For those readers who are not familiar with the role of the White House counsel, the Politico explains:

“The White House counsel, among the most powerful members of the West Wing inner circle, serves as the president’s lawyer, giving him legal advice and handling pardons and conflict-of-interest issues. “

While this might seem arbitrary to many Americans who are less than familiar with Craig, a cursory look at his past clientele is stunning.  According to the Williams and Connolly LLP web site (Craig is a partner at the firm),  “In 2000, Mr. Craig successfully represented Elian Gonzalez’s father, Mr. Juan Miguel Gonzalez, in administrative and court proceedings involving Mr. Gonzalez’s effort to regain custody of his son, Elian.“  Yes, this is the same Elian Gonzalez who was sent back to communist Cuba after his mother died trying to bring him to the United States.

Additionally, Craig represented Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, “…to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein’s pockets while providing cash for Annan’s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.”

Despite the fact that Craig served on Obama’s campaign, he also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial (he deflected from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the primaries).

And it gets worse.  There are two clients who make the others shrink to mere obscurity.  The first — Pedro Miguel González  – is a fugitive who is under federal indictment for his alleged 1992 murder of Zak Hernández, a U.S. Army sergeant.  While The Dallas Morning News called upon Barack Obama to ask Craig to choose between the Obama campaign and representation of González, HotAir reports that there is no easy-to-find documentation on whether Craig did, indeed, drop the case.

The last client is indefinitely the most concerning.  Craig represented John Hickley, Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.  Thanks to Craig, Hinckley was granted an insanity defense.

I must agree with HotAir’s Ed Morrissey: This pick is disgraceful.  Can you imagine what would have happened if McCain (pending he won the election) chose someone with a similar past?  Mainstream media outlets would rampantly run headlines like “McCain Plans to Nominate Wannabe Presidential Assassin,” “Many Call McCain Pick a Disgrace” or “McCain Pick Raises Eyebrows.”  But, in this case, the presses are relatively silent.  Surprise!

While Gregory Craig has surely had a successful career and his talents in the legal realm should not be downplayed, the moral fabrics associated with the clientele he has willingly chosen fall short of the “hope” and “change” Obama has pledged to bring to Washington.  This pick is indefensible at best and the media ought to report on it more fervently.

Read more from journalist/blogger Billy Hallowell at www.williamhallowell.com.

Okay, seriously.  Obama’s campaign team did a phenomenal job of positioning his administration as the “agents of change”.  They almost had me believing it for a second.  I don’t know, maybe it’s me but does this really look like change to you?

• Tom Daschle – Health Secretary
• Hillary Clinton – Secretary of State
• Eric Holder – Attorney General
• Rahm Emanuel - Obama’s chief of staff
• Nancy Pelosi - Secretary of Defense (i made this one up!) : )

Tags: obama’s cabinet, tom daschle, hillary clinton, eric holder, rahm emanuel, secretary of state, attorney general, chief of staff

Here is an example of one ballot that Mr. Franken is challenging.  Now, I can see if there was a mark on both, but c’mon … let’s get real here.  In all fairness, Norm Coleman has challenged more ballots but not as absurd as this one.

Get over it Al.  Air America is waiting for you to come back!

Tags: al franken challenging votes, plymouth, senate, Norm Coleman

My problem with Palin is a cultural one, and the GOP would be wise to take heed.

Barack Obama did not win the presidency because he’s an extraordinary candidate, but because he ran against an extraordinarily weak opponent who had an even weaker running mate in Sarah Palin. John McCain’s selfish, reckless decision to put Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency marked the beginning of the end of his presidential ambitions, and proved once and for all that John McCain did not put country first. Though he was a war hero, John McCain is not the man he used to be.

Explain as the pundits might, the McCain camp was not attempting to rally the social conservatives with the Palin stunt. Had the intent been to rally the base, the selection of the more experienced Mark Sanford or Rick Perry from the south and their ilk would have been more likely. The McCain camp chose Palin for two reasons: 1) They were so arrogant to think they could secure the women voters Hillary Clinton left behind by replacing one woman with another-this was evident with Palin’s call to women to “shatter the glass ceiling once and for all” in her first speech. 2) They wanted to win over Independents by touting Palin’s “reformer” and “maverick” image. McCain wasn’t aiming to rally the base of social conservatives, but simply to not alienate them. The pick of Palin was a huge miscalculation because women and Independents were largely repulsed by her, while her rallying of social conservatives was largely inadvertent.

As a registered Independent and a woman, I fall squarely into both demographics of voters McCain was aiming for. So, pundits, step aside. Republicans, if you’d like to win back the White House in 2012, take heed.

My problem with Palin is not an intellectual one. I don’t believe she lacks capacity; rather, she lacks knowledge and experience. She’s simply very inexperienced and not ready for the national stage. Twenty months of “executive experience” as governor, while significant, is not enough for presidential office. I, along with others I know, have had years of “executive experience” running companies; it doesn’t render us qualified to run the country. George W. Bush had years of executive experience as governor prior to taking office. His “execution” of the Iraq war strategy, the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and a host of domestic initiatives were disastrous by all performance metrics. To be qualified for presidential office, one must possess a unique blend of depth and breadth of knowledge, along with vision, experience, intelligence, and problem-solving propensities and facilities. In time, however, Palin may prove capable.

While consumed with demographics, the McCain camp ignored the equally important quality of psychographics. My problem with Palin is a cultural one. For one, her playing to the “Joe six-packs” was disturbing. No, I do not desire my president to be another “Joe six-pack”. I do not care to see my president pounding beers or moose hunting. I do not want my president to be “just like me”, like a next-door neighbor. The office of the presidency should be aspirational, not relatable.

I found troubling Palin’s political ambitions, given that she had four children plus an infant Down syndrome fifth. No, the media was not unfair to ask how she might balance family and career at the same time. In every society, without exception, the mother is the primary care provider of children, so this was a perfectly fair question to ask. I also know, from personal experience with a close friend, that a Down syndrome child demands a great amount of care. My friend was valedictorian of her engineering class in college, yet she quit her engineering career after giving birth due to the demands of attending to her Down syndrome child (she has only one child). True, many women successfully balance the demands of family and career, but few modern women have five children, let alone a special-needs child, and certainly no woman has had to balance that with a career as VP or President of the United States. While it’s not impossible to balance both, it’s not conceivable to be great at both.

Call me old-fashioned, but I was ill at ease with Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Yes, people make mistakes and yes, sometimes people should not be harshly judged, but pregnancy before marriage is not a conservative value by any stretch. There’s a dignity, decency, and exemplary quality that comes with the Oval Office, and to put Palin’s family in the limelight is to send a permissive message to young girls of this and future generations that it’s okay if they encountered the same fate as Bristol Palin. After all, if it’s acceptable for the VP’s daughter, why isn’t it acceptable for all girls? While I sympathize with Bristol Palin’s predicament, our country would be better served to idolize an exemplary family who got it right. Parents have it hard enough trying to discipline children swimming in a cultural cesspool of filth; the portrait of permissiveness the Palin-family predicament would paint would only augment this burden.

I was also very disturbed by the “Mr. Mom” image Todd Palin represented. As if the modern man isn’t confused enough about his role these days, we must shove down the public’s throat a “Mr. Mom” playing domestics in the White House? I’m all for female empowerment, but an approach that embraces the contributions and strengths of men, not one that diminishes. Without alienating their strengths, a man should embrace masculinity as a woman should embrace femininity. Todd Palin, by the campaign’s admission, was a full-time stay-at-home dad. Nothing would be odd about this if there were a bit of balance between Sarah and Todd’s roles and credentials. Say, Todd is more educated while Sarah is more powerful as a public official. Or maybe Todd is more prominent and respected in his career while Sarah makes more money. But when your wife is more educated, more powerful, more prominent, AND brings home the bacon, it doesn’t boast well for you as a man. Call me crazy, but there’s something very backwards and regressive about a man who’s been so emasculated.

The constant whining by Sarah Palin about the “sexist media” was dishonest and annoying. As a woman, she must admit that her gender has helped her at least as much as it’s hurt. Being attractive makes this even more probable. Any woman who does not acknowledge this is not intellectually honest. Case in point: If she weren’t a woman, she would not have received the VP nomination. To whine about the media is simply weak and unbecoming of a leader. We’ve come a long way from the days of sexual discrimination: We women have the ability to vote, to be educated, to have equal rights, and, as I’ve learned first-hand, have just as great of opportunities in the workforce when we’re as committed, talented, intelligent, and hardworking as our male counterparts. Sometimes, we even have a few additional perks, such as having our doors opened or meals paid for on dates. It’s time to stop pushing a feminist agenda; we’ve reached equilibrium. It’s time for women to be able to achieve based on our merits, not by falling back on excuses like Sarah Palin, or riding our husbands’ coattails like Hillary Clinton and Jeri Thompson, or calling largely upon our family’s wealth like Cindy McCain. Perhaps the media isn’t that sexist after all. Perhaps merit matters.

Let me be clear: I don’t discount any of the above women’s accomplishments, but the office or respect they seek should be commensurate with their qualifications and merit.

As an aside, it’s interesting that no one discussed the sexist treatment Mitt Romney encountered during the primaries, what with talks about his looks, his hair, his plasticity, and his Ken-doll attributes. For that matter, hardly anyone cared to discuss his being a victim of religious bigotry. Whining is not in a true leader’s DNA, and as such, Mitt Romney soldiered on. By whining, Sarah Palin displayed an opportunistic pettiness ill suited for a leader.

Some pundits and Republican partisans tried to explain the McCain loss by arguing he should have unleashed Palin and let her engage with the press more often. “Let Palin be Palin”, they said. Obviously, if Palin hadn’t botched the initial Katie Couric and Charles Gibson interviews, the McCain camp would have used her more often. Understandably, they kept her restricted because she performed embarrassingly. Stubborn GOP strategists insisted that Palin’s selection didn’t hurt the ticket, but the economy did, and they cited the jump in poll numbers prior to 9/15 as evidence. This theory is flawed. The public was excited about Palin initially because she gave a great speech crafted by a talented writer, and it was curiosity about an unknown that kept voters tuned in. Once the curiosity factor subsided and voters learned the facts about Palin, she crashed and burned, and would have encountered the same fate regardless of the status of the economy.

The downward economy was every bit an opportunity for candidates to showcase their prowess as it was a crutch. John McCain proved incapable and erratic as the focus of the election turned to the economy, and subsequently, voters had a hard time pulling the lever for an incompetent 72 year-old who might just expire shortly into his first term, leaving an unqualified, culturally undesirable, and overextended woman at the helm.

While I hope the GOP learned a lesson after this election cycle, I won’t hold my breath.

So much for tolerance. And these folks don’t understand why they aren’t taken seriously. If you act like children you are treated like children. A demonstration like this will do nothing for their cause. It will only make them look like the spoiled little brats they are!

A radical gay rights organization – Bash Back — is claiming the responsibility for a protest last Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan.  Protesters infiltrated the church and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as “It’s OK to be gay,” and “Jesus was a homo,” among other things.

It frustrates me that Christians are always labeled as “intolerant” on these issues. Gay couples have not been denied ANY civil rights whatsoever; they simply cannot call legal unions “marriage.” Marriage is a sacred institution to not only Christians but by many other religions in the world.  Labeling different types of relationships with different terms is not intolerant.

This meltdown by Bash Back was unconstitutional – a violation of the 1st amendment to use an act of aggression to disrupt the free assembly of others. What these protestors did was similar to how the Klu Klux Klan terrorized the black churches decades ago.

Of course, this outrage stems from the recent propositions in California (Proposition 8, 52% voted for Yes); Florida (Proposition 2, The Marriage Protection Amendment, 62% voted Yes); and Arizona (Proposition 2 - Marriage Protection Amendment, 56% voted Yes). I understand their disappointment but they really should grow up!

The insanity doesn’t stop there.  The Mormon Church is now being targeted for their support of Prop 8, including arson.  And, a California Art Director from The California Music Theater in Sacramento, Scott Eckern, was pressured by gay groups to resign because of his personal beliefs about marriage. Seems to me that he is now a victim of intolerance and persecution. I am just waiting for the day when my employer asks me if I voted yes or no for Prop 8.  Where is the ACLU when you need them?

I wonder if Bash Back plans on protesting outside of a Mosque, since homosexuality is forbidden by Muslims. That would be interesting. Ahh, who knows … maybe they’re just mad at the Christians.

Tags: california, proposition 8, prop 8, Florida, Proposition 2, prop 2, The Marriage Protection Amendment, Arizona, proposition 2, gay marriage, christians, Bash Back, church

It’s been a week since Obama won the election and I have been silent. I have been listening, wondering, contemplating, analyzing and thinking. I have been completely silent from any and all election news, both on television and online. The guy I voted for lost and I can live with that.  But I am ready to speak my mind and get back in the mix.

Most everyone knows that I did not vote for Obama. In fact, for the last year and a half, I have been on the offensive in this blog and Obama was in my cross hairs. I was so vocal that Obama’s internet team even infiltrated the comments and tried to refute everything I or my team wrote about.

What I am going to say next will not go down well for some conservatives; and I have thought long and hard about this. But I have decided to support Obama as the President. That doesn’t mean that I am going to worship the ground he walks on or even register as a democrat. What it does mean is that I will respect him as the Commander in Chief and I will be as objective as I can when he makes Presidential decisions. I will no longer judge Obama for his past relationships or any other accusations, even though most of them were never really addressed in my opinion. And no, I am not moving to Canada. I am not going to call Obama names or let this blog turn into a hate mongering site. I am not going to blame him for everything that doesn’t go my way.

But I will be watching every move he makes and I will be critical and vocal with my opinions, when I need to be; and as we move into 2009, I will be most concerned about the following:

• Redistribution of wealth, including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs where people who don’t pay taxes are getting tax refunds
• Silencing people like me through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech
• Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.
• Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens
• Weakening of our military through rapid deployment out from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament
• Extreme liberalism including the radical pro-abortion agenda and the attack on traditional marriage
• Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.
• Post-American globalism that diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty

Don’t get me wrong, please. I am a conservative. I hold strong to traditional family values and that will never change. I believe in capitalism and know that anyone in the country who works hard can achieve success. I am a Marine and I love this country and all of our civil rights that so many have died to protect.

Urban out.

By the time most of you read this, Barack Obama will be elected as the next President of the United States. It’s not because I want him to win the election or that I am even voting for him because I am not.  It’s because I am a realist and quite frankly, his campaign was managed and executed flawlessly.

McCain, on the other hand, was and is an embarrassment to Republican politics.  It was his honor, courage and commitment that cost him the election.  I am surprised that he lasted in Washington this long. That, coupled with Obama’s charm, personality, optimism, charisma and connection with the American people is the reason why “the Prophet” is now occupying the White House and will undoubtedly save the world.

So since McCain didn’t want to get off his high horse and play “dirty politics” like the rest of them, I will take this opportunity to highlight Obama and chronicle his shady past, voting record and present relationships.  Not that it even matters any more, but what else am I going to write about for the next four years.

The Obama Chronicles

• Barrack Obama on Abortion, Capital Punishment, Healthcare and Gun Control
• Obama Praised by Hamas, Castro and Other Crackpots
• Newly-Uncovered Video Shows Obama’s Vow to Bankrupt Coal Plant Builders
• Obama Vows Electricity Rates Would ‘Necessarily Skyrocket’ Under His Plan
• Obama Opposes Gay Marriage yet Opposes California Proposition 8 for Same Sex Marriage
• The Obama and Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist) connection
• The Obama and Acorn Connection
• Obama wants to spread the wealth around
• The Obama Tax Plan and it’s affect on the economy
• Obama and the honorable Reverend Wright
• Other Facts about Obama (supporting Infanticide, abortion, gun control)
• 10 Concerns about Barack Obama
• 10 Reasons NOT To Vote For Obama
• Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer

And, how about his voting record. I looked it up and was surprised to see that he doesn’t really have one. Over 300 bills have crossed his desk since 2005 and he only voted in about 50 percent of them. However, here are some key votes that he did vote on:

• Voted against extending the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends
• Voted against permanently repealing the Death Tax. (Called the cuts a “Paris Hilton” tax break for “billionaire heirs and heiresses”)
• Voted against CAFTA
• Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
• Opposed the lifting of $0.54 per gallon tariff on cheaper Brazillian ethanol. Said, “ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices.”
• Voted against the bankruptcy abuse bill.
• Opposes privatizing Social Security
• Voted against drilling in ANWR.
• Voted against confirmation of Sam Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
• Voted against extending the Partiot Act’s wiretap provision.
• Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions.

Tags: who won the general election, who won the presidential election, 2008, who won mccain or obama

Last week in an interview with The Weekend Australian, Rupert Murdoch warned that a win by Obama in next week’s US election could worsen the world economy.

Here are some excerpts from his interview

• If the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be “a real setback for globalisation”
• An increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.
• For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don’t change their currency.  If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously

He also criticized Obama’s proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers:

Forty percent (of the US population) don’t pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut? But you can give them a welfare check which he has promised — a grant of 500 dollars — which will disappear very fast. It’s not going to turn the economy around at all.

Ted Murphy, CEO of Social Media Marketing firm Izea also has some serious issues with Obama’s tax plan. You can view his analysis here. Murphy’s frustration with Obama’s lack of information and clarity is evident after he entered $200,000 to $250,000 as an income level:

What happened? Instead of seeing what this person or married couple would lose under Obama (or gain under McCain) I get a message saying “You will probably not get a tax cut under Obama-Biden”. I don’t know the actual number (that is what I was hoping to understand) but I feel this is shady at best. To say that someone filing with these numbers probably won’t get a cut is just wrong. The reality is these people will get taxed more.. I know that. I may be cool with that, I just want to understand how much. I want to be able to make an informed decision, but stuff like this really bothers me. I dug and dug and all I could find was this before I gave up and decided to leave.

Another correlation that I find interesting were the ups and down in the stock market over the last couple of weeks and the presidential polls.  The more that Obama was separating himself from McCain, the more the stock market plunged.  And last week as the polls tightened the market began to rise.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence; or maybe … just maybe some investors and financial institutions are really afraid of the Obama presidency. 

Tags: Rupert Murdoch, Ted Murphy, Izea, Obama Tax Plan, economy, financial crisis