History has been made

On the home front, I'm happy to say that Dano is home, and while he's going to take a while to recuperate, I anticipate it will be easier for him in his own room than in a hospital bed. On behalf of his family, I thank you for all the prayers and good wishes, and I ask you to continue to keep them in your thoughts.
I don't have to tell you that history was made tonight, as the first African-American nominee of a major party for President of the United States accepted the nomination. I paid close attention to the entire convention, and will do the same next week as Republicans gather in the Twin Cities. And I am convinced that this election may be the most important in a generation. So I urge all of you to search your hearts, determine what's important, and above all else, vote.
I am a believer in the notion that God does not care who we elect as President, but does care that we, as a nation and as individuals, act toward other nations and each other in just the manner that we would have them act toward us. This requires us to be patient and understanding, but unrelenting in those ideals that are inspired by our founders and our faith. Between now and November 4, let us demand of our leaders and our candidates that they take the high road, avoid personal attacks and tell us the truth. If they will do that, we will make the right decision.
I know it's asking a lot. But America and the world deserve no less.
God bless America.

The New Topic Is Dano

This week, folks, we'll be postponing our coin flip while Dano recovers from a shot in the head. My partner is currently at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, and I think I speak for all of us when I say our thoughts and prayers are with him, his wife and daughters.
In the meantime, I'm wondering what you all think about the issue of offshore drilling - I think that will be our next coin toss debate, so if you'd like to log in, we'll be happy to hear what you have to say. We won't comment on your posts until both Dano and I have logged in with our arguments, based on the coin toss - remember, it doesn't matter what we believe personally.
In fact (no pun intended), the only thing that matters is the truth. Your truth and mine may be different, but my truth is this - I am confident that Dano is one of the funniest, most decent and most intelligent people I've ever known, and his presence in my life and God's world is a positive thing. So I'll be praying for him.
Thank you for doing the same.
Agape',
Reed

Reed: Flat Tax? A Wonderful, Unworkable Concept

If I were to say to you, "It doesn't matter how much money or how little money you make, or how much or how little you spend, we're all going to pay the same tax rate," your first reaction would be, "Well, makes sense to me."

That was certainly my reaction when Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax system during his Presidential campaign in 1996. While I gave the publishing magnate a less than 17 percent chance of actually winning the Republican nomination, I paid close attention to his point, well-received on both sides of the aisle, that our tax system was inherently unfair, unwieldy and complicated, and reform was necessary.

But my research then, and my belief now, is that the "flat tax" proposal Steve Forbes proposed, and most if not all such proposals prior and subsequent to Forbes', are incapable of meeting the revenue needs of the government of the United States while still preserving our institutions and protecting our citizens.

Forbes was certainly not the first to point out the flaws of America's system of collecting the funds necessary to run our government. From the founding of America to today, leaders and citizens have debated the pros and cons of taxation as a means to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity".

But no one denies that these principles, espoused in the preamble to our Constitution, are necessary to uphold, with our labor, our honor and our dollars.

So as our society has evolved over 232 years, so has our system of taxation, and no longer is it possible to say, "Okay, you earned $5000.00 this year, give Uncle Sam $500.00 and he'll protect you." What we earn, what we save, what we spend is all relative to factors that make a flat-tax system unworkable.

A simple but telling example of the fallacy of flat taxation rests in pure geography. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the state with the lowest household income is Mississippi, at $34,500.00. (see: www.census.gov/hhes). I'm confident this does not come as a surprise. What is surprising is that the state with the largest household income, based on the same census data, is New Jersey (can you say "Tony Soprano?"), at $60,000.00. But the most telling statistic rests in the corresponding Consumer Price Index for each state. In Mississippi, the CPI is 169.7, while in New Jersey, it is slightly higher at 181.8. One would assume that living in New Jersey would be much more expensive than living in Mississippi. But Mississippi families pay .5% more of their income just to survive than do residents of New Jersey.

This would seem to indicate that our current tax system is "regressive", that is, skewed toward the wealthier citizens. Many in the upper middle class and beyond would argue the opposite. But most data indicate that almost any system of taxation is "regressive", based on definition and practical application.

The value-added tax, or VAT, has been offered up by some economists as a "flat tax" which could replace the income tax as the government's main source of revenue. The VAT is a sales tax which is applied to a product at all levels of its "life-span", from production to consumption (www.investorglossary.com/value-added-tax.html). The website indicated gives an example of a tree, which is taxed at the point it is cut down, taxed again at the mill, again at the manufacturer who turns it into a table, again at the trucking company who transports the table to the retailer, and again at point of sale. Obviously, the bulk of the tax is then paid by the ultimate consumer, because all the entities, from lumberjack to truck driver, will pass their costs on to the buyer.

The VAT is a regressive tax because the wealthy, with their income now non-taxable, can continue discretionary spending for such things as a new table, and still afford to invest and spend at will. The middle class family is left to determine if a heavily-taxed item is a necessity, or a luxury.

Another potential problem with the VAT also applies to the flat sales tax proposal put forth by organizations such as FairTax.org. A 30% sales tax as proposed would cause many products to be manufactured and sold on the "black market", through cross-border or Internet transactions. Tax evasion would become the norm for major purchases, especially in households where income was below the median. But the wealthy would certainly not miss an opportunity to take advantage of these shady offerings, and the U.S. Treasury would be unable to maintain the revenue stream necessary to meet the government's Constitutional obligations as a result.

The Hall-Rabushka flat tax proposal of the early 1980's, proposed by two fellows of the Hoover Institution, was a variation of the VAT that would apply to businesses and individuals. It made adjustments for the inherent "regressive" nature of the tax by taking into consideration a company's or individual's income, material costs, pension contributions, etc. In other words, it weighed itself down in much the same way as has our current, convoluted tax system.

William G. Gale, a Brookings Institution fellow and proponent of the flat tax, pointed out that "many of the gains (attained through the flat tax) are also available through judicious reform of the income tax, in particular by making the taxation of capital more uniform." Reform, then, according to Gale, could solve many of the problems of the current tax code.

One of the most recent proponents of the flat tax has been Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute. In Cato's July/August 2007 Policy Report, Mitchell argued the merits of the flat tax by pointing to the various countries and protectorates that have adopted such a method of financing their government programs. Estonia, Latvia, Serbia, Slovakia, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia and Montenegro are among the 19 economic "powerhouses" that have found merit in such a system. Would we trade our system for theirs?

Alas, it takes great political will to achieve even small, incremental change in such a vast wasteland as is represented by America's tax system. And until Congress can muster such will, or until we elect a President willing to take on the special interests that most benefit from the convoluted nature of our current code, then modest reform is all we can hope for.

Dano: The Flat Tax is Fair, Necessary

This week, Reed and I are discussing the flat tax concept for tax reform. I am arguing in favor of a flat tax. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you that I cannot locate an "objective" web site that argues either for or against a flat tax. This is because, in modern politics, flat tax proposals are almost always championed by Republicans, and criticized as either unfair, unworkable, or irresponsible by Democrats. Even sources that are typically fairly neutral on most policy issues seem to show their conservative/liberal biases on this topic. To locate the reasons that a flat tax is good, therefore, it was necessary to consult fairly conservative sources - I chose The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/tax71.html#1). There were many more, but they almost all agree on the features of a flat tax system, so I chose these two for their fairly well-laid-out approach. Most of what follows, therefore, comes from these sources. I suspect that Reed will have had to do the opposite to argue against the flat tax.

Many people don't know what a flat tax is, so I'll give just a brief description. The truest form of flat tax is one that taxes everyone and every business at the same, fixed rate; usually, there are no deductions or exemptions in such systems. A single mother of four making $18,000 a year would pay the same percentage of her income as would someone making $500,000 a year with no children to support. This is patently a bad idea, because it burdens the poor disproportionately. Why? Because each dollar of a poor person's income is worth more to them than each dollar of a wealthy person's income. This is why our current tax system is graduated such that as a person's income increases, the rate at which each additional dollar (within given brackets) is taxed increases.

Assume a flat tax rate of 17%. The $3060 tax burden on the single mother is a more critical insult to the single mother's (and her children's) welfare than the $85,000 tax bill is for the half-million dollar earner with no kids. Because of this inequity, no serious flat tax proposals are true flat taxes - instead, they incorporate an income threshold below which there is one flat tax rate, 0%, and above which there is another flat rate, usually something under 20%. They also provide personal exemptions and exemptions for number of dependents. In such a system, with a taxable income threshold of $30,000 and the dependent exemptions, the aforementioned single mother would pay no income tax, while the wealthier worker with no children would pay the 20% flat rate. In this way, such a flat tax is progressive, or graduated, though it could be argued that there is still only one tax rate, and that those below the income threshold (or who have enough exemptions) simply aren't subject to the tax system. In any case, no serious proposals eschew the minimum taxable income "loophole."

The benefits of a flat tax are many. The most obvious benefit is simplicity. Our current tax code is some nine million words in length, and there are between eight and nine hundred forms necessary to deal with all of the exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions and other complexities. More than 80% of the tax code deals with these issues. Under a flat tax, there would be two forms - one for individuals, and one for businesses. Both these forms would be so simple they could be placed on a post card (see, e.g., http://www.cse.org/flattax/index.php).

A related benefit, one that represents an almost immediate increase in personal and business wealth, is the money that would be saved by this simplification of the code. It has been calculated that Americans spend around $600 billion per year on income tax compliance; they feel compelled to hire tax accountants and lawyers and financial analysts to help navigate through the IRS rules. This expenditure would be unnecessary under a flat tax.

But there are more goodies. Without going into exhaustive detail, the following are several of the other beneficial features of a flat tax system:

• No double taxation or asset taxation. The flat tax system taxes only income, and only when it is first earned. Unlike the current system, it does not tax savings, capital gains, interest income, or dividends. There is no death tax, either. Because of this feature, a flat tax would instantly increase the value of assets held by Americans.

• Less IRS intrusion. Under a flat tax, the IRS has no need to know what your assets and liabilities are - just income. Because of the lack of deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and related audits, the IRS can be simplified and downsized, further saving Americans' tax dollars.

• Increased global competitiveness. The current tax structure makes the U.S. one of the world's most expensive nations in which to do business. It is therefore attractive to migrate jobs and capital to countries with lower tax rates. A flat tax system, with a much lower tax rate, would eliminate this incentive to leave our shores, and would actually make the U.S. a more attractive operating arena for foreign owned companies as well. This is because the flat tax is based on "territorial taxation," meaning that only income earned within our borders is taxed. Eliminating "worldwide taxation" should make the U.S. much more competitive on the world economic playing field.
  

• No marriage penalty. The flat tax would apply to all earners, so both a husband and wife would get taxed at the same flat rate. It would no longer be possible for one spouse's income to push the couple into a higher tax bracket. Moreover, because a married couple's family-based allowance is twice as high as a single person's, there would be no penalty for being married and filing jointly.

• Reduction in political corruption. Much of what lobbyists and special interest groups do in the halls of Congress has to do with currying favor with regard to tax breaks and other loopholes. Under a flat tax, because of the lack of exemptions and exclusions, politicians would no longer be able to engage in the corrupt practice of trading favors with big business. This would greatly reduce corruption, but would also save corporations the immense cost of lobbyists and, thus, aid in business growth.

Fundamentally, the current Revenue Code is so complex and so flawed that some kind of tax reform is both desirable and necessary - particularly in light of the fact that world governments are jumping on the flat tax bandwagon in droves. The former communist nations in Eastern Europe have almost all adopted a flat tax system, and have achieved remarkable economic gains.

Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) has the most promising flat tax proposal here at home, and it has garnered the most support in Washington (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba136.html). While it is unlikely to pass under a Democratically-controlled Congress, Democrats would be wise to give more attention to the concept of the flat tax. Because it taxes all earners at one flat rate, but gives valuable and necessary income threshold exemptions to the poorest taxpayers, it is ultimately fair. Moreover, in the increasingly competitive global marketplace, America cannot continue to maintain a tax system that provides disincentives for businesses, jobs, and capital to remain within our borders.

Musings from the Co-Host

There's a lot going on in our busy, complicated world, so it's heartwarming that our offering has generated some interest and feedback. Thanks, on behalf of Dano and myself, for your comments, criticisms and suggestions. We do appreciate it.

Our goal was to create a format for intelligent conversation, and so far we've succeeded. So it's sad to consider that, while we here in this little corner conduct debate in a way that can only be described as honorable, there are people on the national and international scale whose only agenda is to denigrate and destroy, through whatever means possible, those who would seek to lead our nation.

Jerome Corsi, who started the "Swift Boat" movement in 2004 which doomed the candidacy of John Kerry, is at it again. His book, listed as a New York Times Bestseller (not hard, by the way - 10,000 copies will do it. Print a 90-page anything and publish it from your computer, have your mom buy 10,000 copies, and you're a best selling author) is called "Obama Nation". Put the words together and you get his drift. This book, of which I have read inserts, is a collection of rumor, exaggeration and bold-faced lies regarding the Illinois Senator who would be President. It incorporates the worst of the worst the media, the Internet and the radical right has to offer to demonstrate that Obama's success would be the downfall of America.

Two things make me really sad in regard to this publication. First, Corsi doesn't deny anything I just said. He really doesn't care that his book portrays Obama in a false light. He freely admits that the only reason he wrote it is to help assure that Obama is not elected. For that reason alone, I would implore you to simply ignore anything you hear about it, or fight to get the media and the Republicans to vocally and vociferously repudiate it. America should hear no more from this malcontent.

Secondly, Mary Matalin, a conservative voice that I once respected, has lent her name to this fallacious diatribe, thus costing her whatever credibility she once had. Her husband, liberal commentator and political advisor James Carville, must be grinning over his corn flakes at his wife's major screw up. I would love to be a fly on the wall at their house as the "I told you so's" are mingling with his signature chuckle.

My hope is that the media will treat Corsi in 2008 as they treated Ralph Nader in 2004 - a non-entity on the political scene not worthy of conversation. If that happens, perhaps we will see a return to civility and respect on the campaign trail. Does this suggest there won't be attack ads and personal digs against the opposition? I'm not that foolish.

But maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when we make our decisions based on how well our candidates articulate their positions on the issues that are really important. In other words, how well they do what we're trying to do right here. God, what a wonderful world it would be.

Reed: We Cannot Afford to Wait for Russia to Leave Georgia

The coin has been tossed - but more importantly, the gauntlet has been thrown down, and America must respond.

Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically-elected leader of Russia in its long and storied history, had a close relationship with President Bill Clinton, and the two leaders worked together to strengthen ties and overcome the mistrust and fear that resulted from the Cold War. Unfortunately, for Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the free world, Yeltsin handpicked Vladimir Putin as his successor.

Putin, a high-ranking KGB officer under Soviet Premiers Andropov and Gorbachev, served as director of the Russian Federal Security Service. It has been suggested, both in Russia and the West, that Yeltsin chose Putin to follow him as President simply because his support, among the people of Russia and within his own Cabinet, had totally disintegrated, and Putin remained loyal.

Alas, it has become apparent that Putin's loyalty was self-serving. In spite of President Bush's assertion that he "was able to get a glimpse of (Putin's) soul", he obviously was unable to foresee that Putin's motives were to reestablish Russia's dominance of the Balkans, Caucuses and the rest of eastern Europe in Soviet fashion.

The invasion of the Republic of Georgia is the latest example of Putin's expansionist policies, even though he is no longer the president of Russia. His successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is little more than a front man, and the world knows that, in his new role as Prime Minister, Putin calls the shots. And while many might argue that oil is the overriding factor in Russia's decision to invade, and the most important "talking point" among nations such as France, who would seek to mediate the dispute, it is clear to me that Russia's motives are much more sinister and have to be addressed forcefully, and now.

Senator John McCain, Republican presidential nominee and staunch ally of the Georgian people, is not now, due to political expediency, calling for an American military response. But in 2005, McCain, responding to Russia's stated desire to enter Georgia to "protect" loyalists in the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, said,"Sooner or later [Putin] has got to realize that the the path he is on will eventually bring down his government."

McCain, in an interview with CNN's Jill Dougherty, pointed out a variety of issues that indicated Putin's lack of desire to work with western allies (see: www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/24/summit.russia.dougherty). These included arresting the head of Russia's only privately-held oil company and nationalizing the oil fields, and controlling the mass media in Soviet fashion.

Politics notwithstanding, our national interest and our loyalty to democratic allies demands that we step up forcefully and, if need be, militarily. Diplomacy, conducted by French President Sarkozy, has obviously failed, since the "cease-fire" agreement Russia signed on August 12 was followed by Russian tanks entering the Georgian city of Gori early on August 13. And even while foreign correspondents reported conversations with Russian soldiers in the convoy (Associated Press - see: Christopher Torchia and Misha Dzindzhikhashvili), Russia denied its troops were even in the area.

This is not a call for ground troops, nor is it a task the U.S. should take on unilaterally. Indeed, based on NATO's previous acceptance of Georgia as an ally, and Georgia's desire to join the treaty organization, NATO should be the force that presents itself as a deterrent to further Russian expansionist policies. NATO's own website refers to Georgia's strong cooperation in maintaining Euro-Atlantic security (see: nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/index.html), and Georgia ranks behind only the United States and Great Britain in the number of ground troops sent to fight the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Yes, NATO should take the lead, but the U.S. military is a vital part of the NATO alliance, and just as President Clinton utilized the airspace above Iraq to protect the Kurds in the southern part of that nation, so can President Bush protect our democratic allies in Georgia. Russian tanks are no match for American air power, and just as Russia has demonstrated her ability to dominate a weaker Georgia, an ally of America and western Europe, so must NATO and America demonstrate their ability to respond to aggression from what is now a weaker Russia.

If we wait, Russia will continue to consolidate her military might to Cold War levels, and our ability to protect our allies and, indeed, ourselves, will be greatly compromised.

Dano: No Military Involvement in Georgia-Russia Conflict

After the coin flip, I argue this week against U.S. military involvement in the Georgia-Russia clashes.

President Bush and other world leaders have demanded that Russia cease military operations within the sovereign borders of Georgia, which declared its independence from the Soviet bloc in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Georgia is now a democratic state, and is a strong U.S. ally. Despite strong condemnations by the Bush Administration, the presidential candidates, European nations, and others, however, the U.S. cannot and should not consider direct military assistance to Georgia. The reasons are many.

First, from a strictly "moral high-ground" point of view, the fact is that Georgian President Saakashvili sparked the conflict himself by initiating attacks in Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia. The Georgian Government has long tried to bring South Ossetia and the other breakaway region, Abkhazia, back into Georgia, while the Russians have been seeking to annex South Ossetia and to support the independence of Abkhazia. Toward these goals, Russia has maintained a military presence in South Ossetia, and has granted its citizens Russian passports. Most analysts agree that Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia was ill-advised (see http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Georgia had nowhere near the odds of victory that David had against Goliath. Moreover, Georgia did not consult with its allies in advance of the incursion, nor did it seek backing from other countries to supplement its military effectiveness. It would not have garnered such support in any case. Despite this, President Bush stopped short of scolding Saakashvili. Bush also declined to defend the Georgian action, choosing instead to condemn Russia's response as "disproportionate." The president's characterization of the response as disproportionate tacitly implies that some more limited Russian military response would have been appropriate. At the risk of making us sound arrogant (and hypocritical), status as a U.S. ally carries with it a responsibility to conduct internal and external affairs in such a way as to garner our approval. Put quite simply, "We've got your back, but only if you're right." The hypocrisy here, obviously, is that we've dug our moral high-ground down to a nearly bottomless crevasse with our actions in Iraq (invading and occupying a sovereign nation under false pretenses); torture of war prisoners and terror suspects in violation of the Geneva Convention and our own laws; brazen political corruption; and even the Administration's deliberate constrictions on Constitutional freedoms for our own citizens. But two wrongs don't make a right, so the adage, "do as I say, and not as I do," seems particularly apropos.


Second, engaging Russia with force is a no-win prospect--not just for the U.S., but for the European Union as well. Russia supplies much of Europe with oil and other resources. For instance, Germany gets 42% of its natural gas from Russia (see , http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Any military action against the superpower would most assuredly be met with very damaging economic sanctions against our allies, and, by extension if not directly, against us. You think energy prices are high, now? Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in NOT poking the bear.


Finally, the U.S. simply doesn't have the military assets to engage Russia, or any other superpower. According to the Department of Defense, out of just over a million active duty military personnel, only about 122,000 are not currently deployed--either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at other posts from which we cannot afford to redeploy them (e.g., Germany, Korea, Bosnia, and NATO attachments). For more on this, see http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/index.html. Moreover, out of the 122,000, only 36,000 are ground forces (the other 86,000 are Naval personnel). Even if we had all our military might available, we would be fighting against the second most powerful military on Earth, and, arguably, a formidable foe whose technology and training are not far behind our own. In a ground war, Russia has nearly twice as many armored vehicles, and almost six times as much artillery assets as the U.S. (see http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp). Obviously, with all assets free, we could not manage a unilateral military engagement, so these numbers do not represent the balance--inclusive of allied coalition support--of military power that would be in theater if we got involved. But we and our allies would very likely suffer catastrophic losses, even in a conventional war with Russia. We cannot afford to put more of our soldiers' lives on the line for this cause.


Diplomatic measures are required in this conflict. Between the U.S. and European nations, much can be done to pressure Russia into scaling back their military operations. Russia has been seeking admission to the World Trade Organization, and is a sitting member of the G8, an informal group of leaders from eight of the world's most powerful industrialized nations that meets annually to discuss issues of global import. Russia's actions are violations of international law, and Russia risks expulsion from the G8 and exclusion from WTO membership if it does not ratchet down it's operations. This is where the power of the U.S. and our allies rests.

Corporate Tax Breaks?

The Associated Press reports today that more than two-thirds of corporations doing business in the U.S. (including foreign corporations) paid no federal corporate income tax between 1998 and 2005 (see AP story here). This, on combined sales (not necessarily profits) of more than $2.5 trillion. About 25% of the non-paying corporations are considered large, C corporations--with at least $250 million in assets and/or $50 million in receipts. If we're reading this correctly, these U.S. businesses alone, which are subject to a tax rate of 35% on income of more than $18.33 million (and potentially another 15% for excess or undistributed profits), have avoided billions in tax liability over the period.

In a recent Butt and ReButt comment, J.T. Twilley educated us about corporations "not really paying taxes," because they pass on those costs to consumers through higher prices. But according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), roughly half of U.S. companies are set up as pass-throughs (e.g., subchapter S corporations, or partnerships), and thus taxes are paid by the owners or shareholders through personal tax returns. These companies are not the problem. Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan (ND) and Carl Levin (MI) claim too many large corporations used loopholes and other questionable (illegal?) methods to avoid paying any taxes at all.

I will be shocked if our pro-big-business readers don't have some explanation for how this is either acceptable or just "not a real problem." A subject for future debate, here?

Obama: Advance Notice on VP Available

The Obama campaign is offering registered visitors the opportunity to get Obama's VP pick emailed and/or text-messaged to them in advance of their national press release or news conference. Of course, all the media will have signed up for this info as well. I doubt very much that there won't be a leak even before any of us gets the message. What do you think?

Toilet Paper Debate: Not Worthy

Sorry, everybody. But in our research, it appears that the great toilet paper debate is not that contentious. As it seems, the "over the top" (toward you) crowd seems to be the winner in all the Internet blogs and opinion polls, and, as such, we figure there is no real argument. If you like for it to roll from the back side, you're evidently just wierd. Apparently. We voice no opinion whatsoever.We prefer the bidet approach. We think.

Reed: America Can't Afford Four More Years

Welcome back to the blog, folks. As a follow up to last week's topic, "Is Barack Obama qualified to be President?", it was only logical to present his opponent in the same format. And the coin toss dictates that I will argue that Senator John McCain is not the most qualified candidate for the presidency.

Let me begin by saying that I honor, as do the vast majority of Americans, Sen. McCain's military service and agree that he is a bona fide hero. And his service to America through his many years in the Senate is commendable. But experience in and of itself is not a qualification. America needs someone, now more than ever, who can inspire us to achieve positive results. John McCain has not demonstrated, in this campaign, that he has that capability.

McCain has spent the majority of the last few months not touting his own record, but ridiculing his opponent. In spite of a pledge to conduct a positive, issue-oriented campaign, his statements have been pointedly critical of Sen. Obama while not explaining why he is the more credible choice.

A prime example is the recent flap over Obama's suggestion that Americans should check their tire pressure to insure they are getting the maximum fuel economy in their automobiles. The McCain campaign handed out tire pressure gauges engraved with the message, "Obama Energy Plan." McCain said in a speech that Obama "doesn't want to drill, he doesn't want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires."

Apparently, and to his credit, Sen. McCain has since done a little research, and has learned that indeed, even the American Automobile Association advocates making sure tires are properly inflated for maximum fuel economy. During an appearance in Ohio on August 5, McCain pointed out Triple A's corroboration of Sen. Obama's suggestion and said, "I don't disagree with that."

Oh, Lord - another "flip-flop".

That phrase, "flip-flop", is getting very old. I admire anyone who, after reasonably discussing an issue and being willing to learn, can say, "maybe I was wrong." Many in Congress have done so when it comes to their votes supporting the war in Iraq. But Sen. McCain, while criticizing how the war was conducted, has stubbornly resisted admitting that the decision to go to war was a mistake, in spite of the fact that, in a recent AP-Ipsos poll, 56 percent of Americans said that invading Iraq was a mistake, 62 percent disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war, and 66 percent oppose the war in general. (see www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). So, Americans' stated desires notwithstanding, Sen. McCain is willing to stand with President Bush and support this unpopular war, with no timetable for withdrawal, thus continuing the policies of the current administration.

And here is my greatest fear, and the most compelling reason that I believe Sen. McCain should be denied the White House. Eight years of failed policies, both foreign and domestic, can not and should not be continued. And in spite of his disputes with the administration, the "maverick" John McCain has voted with Bush far more than he has voted against him. In fact, Sen. Obama recently pointed out that McCain "decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time." And, according to the Congressional Quarterly, his statement is accurate (see www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html).

America simply cannot afford four more years of the same failed policies. There is too much at stake, for our economy, our environment, our security and our future. We must chart a new course, and we need new leadership in order to be successful. John McCain is not the man to lead America now. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

Dano: The Case for McCain

After the flip this week, I advocate for John McCain as president.

Let's face it, folks. There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain has a very long history of public service. He is a bona fide war hero (okay...those of you that claim he was a traitor---prove it). You don't spend five plus years as a tortured prisoner of war during Viet Nam, and even turn down an offer of release because fellow U.S. POWs were not also offered release, unless you are a true patriot (McCain was offfered the release after his father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Viet Nam theater--this was a propaganda move by the Viet Namese authorities, and McCain refused his release). While in the Navy, he even served as commander of a Naval air squadron of 1,000 men following his time in Viet Nam. McCain has been in the U.S. Senate for twenty-two years, and served two terms in the House of Representatives prior to that. He is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and serves on the Readiness, Personnel, and Seapower Subcommittees. He has been a vocal opponent of pork barrel spending and of filibustering on judicial nominations. For more on his Congressional history, see http://mccain.senate.gov/public/. For his military service history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain. He clearly has tremendous experience to bring to the presidency.

The only argument of any weight against McCain, as near as I can tell, is that he represents "more of the same" conservative, pro-war, Bush-type governing. But that's not altogether fair. He believed the Administration's reports about what the issues were in Iraq--didn't we all at first? Afterwards, while John McCain supported the troop surge of 2007, he would not have had to do so if the war had been run properly. He said from the beginning that he thought the war would be won quickly, and it really was. I don't believe he ever said that we would know how to keep the peace quickly, or that we would come home shortly after a military victory (if anyone has evidence of the contrary, please feel free to correct me on this). He expected more of the Bush Administration than he (or any of us) got. Put simply, you can win a military victory against what is essentially a third-world power quite easily, but if you don't have the proper exit strategy, you get bogged down in a never-ending defensive battle against all those who seek anarchy and disruption in your nation-building efforts. Bush never properly developed a strategy for helping the Iraq Government take over their own security, or for keeping whatever peace he thought our involvement might have afforded.

McCain has certainly agreed with President Bush on most issues, and his record reflects this. However, he has been less than complimentary on Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq. It is his very lengthy and honorable military experience, and, thus, his views on how the war should be conducted, that makes him look different from Bush. And nobody can argue that we need a different strategy than that of the great "decider." John McCain is uniquely qualified to bring about the strategic changes necessary to finally and honestly exclaim mission accomplished! To read Reed's point of view, click here.

Timeline for Troop Withdrawal is Negotiated

Wow. The AP writes today that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government are in negotiations to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by October 2010. Interesting reversal of position, if true. Certainly, now that McCain and Obama have both suggested that 16 months was a "reasonable time frame" subject to conditions on the ground, the Bush Administration might just be getting the message that the American people want us out as soon as possible. The AP article can be seen here.

About Our Weekly Topics...

In answer to some questions we have received: No...this is not a politics only blog. Any socially relevant subject is fodder for our debates. Please feel free to suggest a topic. Keep in mind, though, if either of us doesn't know a darned thing about the subject, in ain't gonna make it into the random-subjects hat.

Dano: The Case Against Obama

Hello all. The coin has been tossed for this week's topic: Obama as president? According to the flip, I advocate this week against Barack Obama.

In thinking about this assignment, I considered the tremendous volume of negative material, in the media and on the Internet, aimed at Barack Obama. And so, it would seem my task--highlighting the reasons he shouldn't occupy the oval office--is a relatively easy one. But first impressions are just that, and it is clear that much of the negative stuff on Obama is, unfortunately, based on misinformation, whether by mistake or deliberate propaganda. It would be inappropriate and unfair for me to rely on this rhetoric for my position (but who the heck would ever have thought they'd even be considering a presidential candidate often passionately described as an unpatriotic, elitist, radical, African-American Muslim, who, if elected, plans to "destroy America from the inside out?" Yeah...and he probably illegally tears those annoying tags off of mattresses and pillows, the fiend.). In fact, I thought I might have to first address and dispel many of the most egregious of these negative attacks in order to get at the real negatives, but then I thought, "maybe this is exactly what Reed is doing." I trust him to do a good job in this regard. My task is to tell you why Obama should not be president, and to offer support for my position.

So, then, Dano...why shouldn't he be president of the United States?

Let's take an objective look at Obama's experience. He has only been in the United States Senate since January, 2005 (37 months). He has no other Federal Government experience, though he served in the Illinois State Senate for the seven previous years. Obama has never been a mayor or a governor; he has no "chief executive" experience whatsoever. He has never served in the military, nor attended any military school. He has never been appointed to any ambassadorship, nor to any judgeship or Cabinet post. Some would argue that private-sector public service work represents qualifying experience, but I disagree. I consider it irrelevant (see discussion of previous presidents' qualifications, below).

For more information on his Government service, see http://www.barackobama.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama (neither of these sites are biased against Obama, so they are assumed to be reasonably trustworthy for biographical info).

This means we are left to determine how qualified and effective Obama can be as a Government leader based only upon his legislative record. In the case of his Illinois legislative experience, a brief review of his stated accomplishments reflects a great deal of legislation to his credit; with one issue as an exception (more on this below), I would be happy to concede that he did well enough in the Illinois legislature to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But does being qualified to be a U.S. senator also qualify one to be POTUS? Not quite. Every single president in the last 100 years (that's as far back as I care to consider) was one or more of the following (and most of them filled numerous of these positions) prior to ascending to the presidency:

1. a governor or lt. governor
2. a vice president
3. a high-ranking military commander
4. a Cabinet or department secretary
5. a U.S. congressman (for at least a full term, usually longer)

(see http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html).

Now back to the exception regarding his doing well in the Illinois legislature. Senator Obama frequently voted "present" on very important issues during his tenure in Springfield. We're not talking about minor issues, but really major ones, and ones that might even cost him votes by his party base. Below is a portion of an article written by Nathan Gonzales, the political editor for the Rothenberg Political Report:

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

(see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html)

What's the upshot of this? Sure, he got a few good things done. But when it matters where Democrats are concerned, he frequently chose not to vote, rather than to have his views known to the voters. This represents a record that can be cherry-picked for good sound bites, but that truly reflects a lack of spine on partisan issues about which he should be proud to show his record. In the end, if he can't even support his own party platform in a convincing way, he can't expect to get bipartisan support for contentious issues while president. Obama is not nearly as conscientious or experienced as other presidents have been. He simply isn't qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

There is one last thing that might deserve consideration. This country has roughly as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Then there are independents. It is highly unlikely that Obama will get a majority of the popular vote. Republicans know this. No matter whether Obama is qualified to be president, if he gets elected, can he gain the trust of congressional Republicans? Something more than a majority of voters might well support efforts to thwart his agenda. Without more experience in the U.S. Congress, does he have the length and strength of relationships to draw bipartisan congressional support for his agenda, despite pressure from unhappy Republican constituents to crush it? Potential post-election difficulties should not be included in the qualification calculus, but they are relevant to the ultimate question this week: Should Obama be president? Definitely not. To read Reed's point of view, click here.

Reed: Obama for President - YES

The coin has fallen, and I take the role of Obama advocate. It's not too difficult, either, because when one considers the foibles and fallacies of the previous eight years (can you say "I'm the decider"?), it's easy to assume that anyone who has said he/she won't follow current policy is the obvious choice.

Barack Obama's critics will first and foremost stress his inexperience, especially when it comes to foreign policy. John McCain lambasted Obama for offering his opinions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of the fact that "he's only been to Iraq once, and has never been to Afghanistan." Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! And what happened? I think McCain has learned the truth in the old adage, be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

Obama went to Iraq and Afghanistan, talked to the troops and commanders, and conferred with leaders of those and other countries whose interests are affected. He then moved on to Europe, where he spoke to more than 200,000 people in Germany, many of whom were waving American flags as a tribute to one who they perceived to be a viable ally and leader.

Tell me please, when was the last time our allies in Europe felt compelled to wave our flag instead of burn it?

Be that as it may, the "inexperience" argument may fly with some, until we consider some history. Another politician from Illinois made it to the White House in 1861. Prior to his ascension to the Presidency, Abraham Lincoln served eight years in the Illionois General Assembly and two years in the U.S. House of Representatives - a total of ten years in political office.
Compare that to Senator Obama - seven years in the Illinois Senate, three years in the U.S. Senate, ten years in political office. Whoa - coincidence? Experience is only as important as the skills and wisdom we gain from it. Many experienced politicians, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon among them, failed the nation and her citizens through poor leadership and unwise decisions in spite of years of experience.

Leaders are indeed born, and from his early years, Barack Obama has proven himself a leader. Coming from a modest background, he graduated from Columbia University and went on to Harvard Law School where, in 1990, he became the first African-American President of the prestigious Harvard Law Review (see http://www.notablebiographies.com). After graduation from Harvard he turned down high-paying jobs with Manhattan law firms to move to Chicago and focus on civil rights law.

This is the kind of decision-making skill that gets one's head carved into a granite monument on a mountainside - foregoing the pleasures that money and power can bring to work for the greater good. And it is decision-making skills, as opposed to experience, that make the difference between a politician and a statesman.

Perhaps the most compelling reason I have for believing that Senator Obama is indeed qualified to lead our nation rests in a story that began in October of 2002. Support was growing for the Bush Administration's push for military action in Iraq. No facts supported such a strategy, so the administration used lies, innuendo and faulty intelligence to prod Congress into approving a war resolution. Sixty-one percent of Democrats in the House and Senate approved the President's request for authorization of military force against Saddam's regime.

(For more information, see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution).

And it is interesting to note that many, including 2004 Presidential nominee John Kerry and Obama's primary rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, both subsequently expressed regret for their support of the resolution. The 2006 Congressional elections were a clear sign that the American public was tired of a trumped-up war that Americans now felt should never have been waged.

But in a speech in Chicago on the eve of Congress' approval of the resolution, Obama, then a state Senator from Illinois, spoke passionately of the need to avoid the war in Iraq. In his speech he called on America to avoid what he referred to as "a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics" (see citation link, next paragraph). And while he agreed with President Bush that Saddam Hussein was a dictator whose removal would be applauded, he noted, correctly, as the facts have demonstrated, that Saddam's government and military were bankrupt and impotent and posed no grave danger to the world.

Senator Obama then spoke words which still ring with prescience. "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." (The text of the speech can be found at many sources, including http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343).

When a young, vibrant, passionate man stands and presents himself to the nation and the world in such a powerful and prophetic manner, the reasonable person can only listen, and observe, and agree - this man, Barack Obama, has the mind, the heart, and the soul of a leader. I say, let's let him lead. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

Comments Enabled, Comment Link Added

Everything should work as designed, now. We never realized that you could click on the title of a post to get a full view of comments, but you can. Rather than read the post (as you are now doing) on the main page, simply click its title and the post will reappear on a new page, complete with all available comments. Thanks for your patience while we learn what the heck we're doing!

This week's topic: Obama as President?

Alright. This is going to be fascinating. This week's topic, "Obama as President?" is full of possibilities. Let's go over the ground rules.

Please understand the following:

The two of us have flipped a coin to decide who will go "pro" and who will go "con" on the weekly issue. Our posts do NOT reflect our personal politics, and those who know us personally are asked not to attack either of us for being "traitors" to a point of view (see SITE RULES in sidebar). The idea behind what we are doing is to teach everyone (and ourselves) how to better discuss and debate issues without resorting to diatribe, passion, emotion, or any other "less than rational" dialog. Any comment that includes vulgarity, name-calling, or any statements that are not supported by empirical data or honest emotion (without disrespect) will not be tolerated on this blog, and are not welcome here. If you feel strongly about an issue, feel free to say why, but please back your position up with a citation to the reference material from which you learned your point of view.

We intend to support our "pro and con" positions with neutral fact websites or other neutral resources such that every post we make is beyond reproach from a journalistic standpoint. In the case that we get information from a less than neutral website (and we will endeavor to figure this out in advance), we will indicate that in our posts. To the extent that we succeed at this, this site should flourish. We've called it an experiment; this is partly because we don't know if we can do it by the rules, but we will try. We ask only that commenters try as well. Please see the section on site rules in the sidebar. Note that it is our hope that all participants, including your hosts, but also school teachers and college professors will utilize this site to help people learn how argument and persuasion can and should be done. This means there is no room for vulgarity, name calling, or angry and unsupported rhetoric. If you don't follow comment rules, your comment will be removed. Young people may be reading here! Please act accordingly!

For posting rules, which reiterate these points and others, please see the sidebar entitled: Site Rules.

What will follow are individual postings by Dano and Reed on the topic for this week. Please feel free to comment on them, and expect us to comment on each others' posts as well. This is a learning process for us all.

One administrative note: we are attempting to have comments show up immediately under the relevant posts, but this has proven to be a glitch on our hosting site. If you want to see your comment, for now, you must click on the small "comments" link below the post. This will bring up a screen that shows all comments for each post, and you can bring up the original post there as well. We're trying to fix this problem.