Wow, what's the spin going to be on Speaker Pelosi's statement prior to the vote on the "Bailout Bill" today? Now I know why the public’s approval rate of congress is even lower than that of the President.
I have tried to take a non-partisan approach to this blog and will continue in that effort. However, after reading the transcript of her statement, I can't believe the Democratic Leadership allowed her to undermine the collective efforts on both sides of the aisle.
When I first heard about this "Bailout" I was extremely disappointed, my first thought “just what we need: bigger government”. It's time for America to get back to the Values that allowed Value to mean something. When did we close our eyes to being responsible citizens, not just citizens? To steal the central theme from the song "Life in the Fast Lane", from the Eagles, life in the fast (excessive) lane, surely make you lose your mind (or money in this context). I’ve slowly warmed (from being frozen) to the idea of something needing to be done, more for “Main Street America”, than for “Wall Street”.
So a bipartisan effort of congress was able to move from the original 3-page plan presented by Secretary Paulson, with its complete lack of oversight, strings or structure, to irresponsibly expand executive branch power, to one that was voted on today that was an improvement from the original, but still pose significant risk to taxpayers.
The oversight protections in this legislation provided an opportunity for accountability, but with an enormous amount of executive discretion in this bill. Particularly as it relates to valuing the troubled assets the public will take over. Furthermore, provisions, such as the five-year recoupment plan, give the illusion that this package will not have massive budgetary implications. But the political reality is that a future Congress is unlikely to tax the financial services industry.
The risks are greater than we’ve ever seen.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that passing the bailout is not the end—it is just the beginning. The real work to make sure our economy recovers and taxpayers are protected has just begun. Congress created oversight mechanisms such as a Financial Stability Oversight Board and a Special Inspector General, but the effectiveness of these mechanisms will depend on their power to ensure that the taxpayers receive a fair market price for the assets they take on and that no one enriches themselves in the process.
It is also the beginning of uncovering the core weaknesses that brought us to this point. We need to make sure those responsible for this fiscal mess, in both the public and private sectors, are held accountable. And we must ensure our representatives and the Administration are held accountable for their decisions not just on the bailout, but on the less visible fiscal crises that are presenting the greatest challenge to our country in years. For example, we need to end the cycle of deficit spending, decrease the national debt, address escalating health care costs for Medicare and Medicaid, fix our crumbling infrastructure, and address our energy needs.
It’s going to take all of us to ensure this does not happen again. We’ll do our part by watching closely.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest I will say that we as country absolutely need to do something and quickly, as is evidenced by the market's response to the inability of congress to come together and pass this bill. A $700 Billion bailout, I'm not sure, but it was a bill that was poorly marketed to the American People. Calling it a "Wall Street Bailout", which is true but undermines middle America's perception of corporate handouts. Early on there was bipartisan consensus that any bailout needed to provide for greater regulation of the financial services industry, caps on CEO and investment banker compensation, equity stake in the banks and a transparent means of valuing both the toxic waste we were buying and the warrants we would be receiving. Above all else, however, the main demand of rank-and-file Democrats was relief for people in danger of losing their homes.
The Democratic leadership had tremendous leverage, and could have said "no deal" without the homeowner bailout and some sacrifices on the part of those benefiting from the bailout. The Democratic party would have been able to get most, if not all, of what the provisions they wanted in the bill. They surely didn't need the republican vote to get this done.
Barrack Obama is the leader of the party that controls both houses of Congress. His popularity and influence combined with what appears to be an insurmountable lead in polls for the presidential race, almost certainly point to his being elected the next president. This, my friends, is a very disturbing portent of life under an Obama administration.
Obama, himself has said that he spoke with Sec. Paulson, in either crafting the original bill or, more likely, formulating the Democratic response. Yet, is this bill is the very best he could do, or is it that he does not care about the same things as the rank-and-file of the Democratic party? Perhaps he does not share those same values? Where is the homeowner relief provision in this bill. This was the main issue the rank-and-file wanted in return for a bailout and they got nothing. This bill has zero protection for homeowners and you may be absolutely certain that none will be forthcoming in an Obama administration. And do you know why? Barrack Obama did not want them included in the bill. According to Dennis Kucinich, the bankruptcy relief provisions that were so important to rank-and-file Democrats were not in the bill because Barrack Obama didn't want them to be included.
That's right, HOLC and bankruptcy relief were not in the bill because Obama didn't want them. Not because the evil empire, the Republicans objected, but because the Democratic leader didn't want them. That said, this bill is as much Obama's bill as it is Bush's. These are the priorities and choices of the Democratic party's leadership.
I commend the Republican Party for rejecting the Bill today, given the strongly devisive comments from Speaker Pelosi. Simply stated she sabatoged the vote, by fingerpointing and excluding the bipartisan effort to submit a bill that most certainly would have passed today had she not effectively sucker-punched members of the republican party.
Furthermore, this bill does not meaningfully alter the system of excessive executive compensation that got us into this situation. It does not prevent the banks and hedge funds from creating more toxic waste. It requires no sacrifices of any kind on the part of bank executives, investment bankers. It provides no new regulations on Wall Street's use of derivatives.
The following is a transcript of Speaker Pelosi's statement from the floor prior to the vote today. This is an uncorrected transcript provided by C-SPAN and they are not be responsible for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.
“Thank you very much, madam speaker, for recognizing me and also to the distinguished chairman for his extraordinary leadership which
I'll address in a moment. Madam speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion? It's a staggering figure. And many questions have arisen from that request.
We have been hearing, I think, a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I'm proud of the debate. $700 billion. A staggering number but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness, when President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses four years in a row, budget surpluses. On a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned that around.
Now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline and if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the
taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over. In that respect.
Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the republicans, some in the Republican Party, not all, it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. It is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the fed came to see us just about a week and a half ago, seems like an eternity, doesn't it, so much has happened, the news was so bad.
They described a very, very dismal situation. A dismal situation describing the state of our economy, the fragility of our financial institutions and the instability of our markets, our equity markets, our credit markets, our bond market. And we are we were listening to people who knew of what they spoke. Secretary of the Treasury brings long credentials and knowledge of the markets.
More fearful, though, to me, more scary, was the statement -- were the statements of Chairman Bernanke, because Chairman Bernanke is probably one of the foremost authorities in America on the subject of the great depression. I don't know what was so great about the depression, but that's the name they give it. And we heard the secretary and the chairman tell us that this was a once in a hundred year phenomenon, fiscal crisis was so drastic. Certainly once in 50 years, probably once in a hundred years.
How did it sneak up on us? So silently, almost on little cat's feet. That they would come in on that day and they didn't actually ask for the money that much money that night. It took two days until we saw the legislation that they were proposing to help calm the markets. And it was on that day that we learned of a $700 billion request. It wasn't just the money that was alarming. It was the nature of the legislation. It gave the secretary of the treasury czar-like powers, unlimited power, latitude to do all kinds of things and specifically prohibited judicial review or review of any other federal administrative agency to review their actions. Another aspect of it that was alarming is it gave the secretary the power to use any money that came back from these infusions of cash to be used at the discretion of the secretary. Not to reduce the deficit, not to go into the general funds so we could afford other priorities, to be used at the discretion of the secretary. It was shocking.
Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to make major improvements on that proposal, even though its fundamental basis was almost arrogant and insulting. The American people responded almost immediately, overwhelmingly, they said they know that something needs to be done. 78% of the American people said congress must act, 68% or so said, but not to accept the Bush proposal. And so here we are today, a week later and a couple of days later, coming to the floor with a product not a bill that I have written, one that has major disappointments with me, beginning with the fact that it does not have bankruptcy in this bill and we will continue to persist and work to achieve that.
It's interesting to me they though that when they describe the magnitude of the challenge and the precipice we were on and how we had to act quickly and we had to act boldly and we had to act now that it never occurred to them that the consequences of this market were being felt well in advance by the American people.
Unemployment is up. Therefore we need unemployment insurance. The jobs are lacking. Therefore we need a stimulus package. So how can on the one hand could this be so urgent at the moment, and yet so unnecessary for us to address the effects of this poor economy in the households of America across our country? We'll come back to that in a moment. Working together, we put together some standards and I real -- I am really proud of what Barney Frank did in this regard. The first night that night, that Thursday night, when we got the very, very dismal news, he immediately said, if we're going to do this, and Spencer Bacchus was part of this, as well in terms of if we're going to do this, we must have equity for the American people. We're putting up $700 billion, we want the American people get some of the upside. So equity, fairness for the American people.
Secondly, if they were describing the root of the problem as the mortgage securities, Barney insisted that we would have forbearance on foreclosure, if we're now going to own that paper, we would have forbearance to help responsible homeowners stay in their home.
In addition to that, we have to have strong, strong oversight. We didn't even have to see the $700 billion or the full extent of their bill to know we needed equity and upside for the taxpayer, forbearance for the homeowner, oversight of the government on what they were
doing, and something that the American people understand full well, an end to the golden parachutes and the -- and a review and reform of the compensation for CEO's.
Let’s get this straight. We have a situation where on Wall Street people are -- people are flying high, they are making unconscionable amounts of money they privatize the gain, the minute things go tough, they nationalize the risk they get a golden parachute as they drive their firm into the ground and the American people have to pick up the tab. Something is very, very wrong with this picture. So just on first blush, that Thursday night, we made it clear, meeting much resistance on the part of the administration that those four things, equity, forbearance, oversight, and reform of compensation.
Overriding all of this is a protection of the taxpayer. We need to stabilize the markets, in doing so; we need to protect the taxpayers. And that's why I’m so glad that this bill contains a suggestion
made by Mr. Tanner that if at the end of the day, say in five years, when we can take a review of the success or whatever of this initiative, that if there is a shortfall and we don't get our whole $700 billion back that we have invested, that there will be an initiative to have the financial institutions that benefited from this program to make up that shortfall, but not one penny of this should be carried by the American people.
People asked and Mr. Spratt spoke with great knowledge and eloquence on the budget, $700 billion, what is the impact, what is the opportunity cost for our country of the investments that we would want to make? OK, now we have it in place where the taxpayer is going to be made whole and that was very important for us. But why on the drop of a hat can they ask us for $700 billion and we couldn't get any support from the administration on a stimulus package that would also help grow the economy?
People tell me all over the world that the biggest emerging market, economic market in the world is rebuilding the infrastructure of America. Roads, bridges, waterways, water systems in addition to
waterways. The grid, broadband, schools, housing. We are trillions of dollars in deficit there. We know what we need to do it in a fiscally sound way n. a fiscally sound way that creates good-paying jobs in America immediately, bringing money into the treasury by doing so, and again does all of this in an all American way. Good-paying jobs here in America. We can't get the time of day for $25 billion $35 billion for that, which -- billion for that, which we know guarantees jobs, but $700 billion.
Make no mistake when this congress adjourns today to observe Rosh Hashanah and have members go home for a bit, we are doing so at the call of the chair. Because this subject is not over. This discussion
about how we saved our economy, and we must insulate Main Street from Wall Street as Congresswoman Waters said, Martin Luther King drive, in my district Martin Luther King drive, and all of the manifestations of community and small businesses in our community. We must insulate them from that. So we have difficult choices. So many of the things that were said on both sides of this issue in terms of its criticisms of the bill we have, and the bill that we had at first, and the very size of this I share.
You want to go home so I’m not going to list all of my concerns that I have with it. But it just comes down to one simple thing. They have described a precipice. We are on the brink of doing something that might pull us back from that precipice. I think we have a responsibility. We have worked in a bipartisan way. I want to acknowledge Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, the work that we have done together. Trying to find as much common ground as possible on this. But we insisted the taxpayer be covered. We all insisted that we have a -- the party is over message to Wall Street. We insisted that taxpayers at risk must recover -- any risk must be recovered. I told you that already.
So, my colleagues, let's recognize that this congressional – this legislation is not the end of the line. Mr. Waxman will be having vigorous oversight this week, hearings this week on regulatory
reform and other aspects of it. I hope you will pursue fraud and mismanagement and the rest.
Mr. Frank and his committee will continue to pursue other avenues that we can stabilize the markets and protect the taxpayer. For too long this government, eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation. Again all of us are believers in free markets, but we have to do it right. Now, let me again acknowledge extraordinary leadership of Mr. Frank. He has been an exceptional leader in the congress, but never has his knowledge and his experience and his judgment been more needed than now. And I thank you, Mr. Frank, for your exceptional leadership, Mr. Chairman.
I also -- so many people worked on this, but I also want to acknowledge the distinguished chair of our caucus, Mr. Emanuel. His knowledge of the markets, the respect he commands on those subjects, and -- commands on those subjects, and his boundless energy on the subject served us well in these negotiations. But this is a bipartisan initiative that we are bringing to the floor. We have to have a bipartisan vote on this. That is the only message that will send a message of confidence to the markets. So I hope -- I know that we will be able to live up to our side of the bargain. I hope the republicans will, too.
But my colleagues, as you go home and see your families and observe the holiday and the rest, don't get settled in too far because as long as the American -- this challenge is there for the American people, the threat of losing their jobs, the credit, their credit, their jobs, their savings, their retirement, the opportunity for them to send their children to college. As long as in the households of America this crisis is being felt very immediately and being addressed at a different level, we must come back and we will come back as soon and as often as it is necessary to make the change that is necessary. Before long we will have a new congress, a new president of the United States and we will be able to take our country in a new direction. Thank you, madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time..
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Part 1: The Issues - Education: Options to fix a broken wheel.
I can not take credit for writing this very informative breakdown on the issue of EDUCATION. These options are presented at publicagenda.org, no author cited. However I will say that, we as a society need to arm ourselves with the knowledge so that we can make the best decision November 4, 2008. My personal feelings have been to support vouchers and charter schools. However, after talking with several teachers and administrators, I am not so sure it can be done fairly. Well here is the information, enjoy it. Also the above referenced link, "On Thin Ice", is a great read. Although it was studied and written in Late 1999, early 2000, it definitely still holds true today.
Raising Educational Standards
What should be done?
**Specific academic expectations should be defined for each grade level. If students do not meet those standards, they should not be allowed to move up.
**A national or statewide curriculum should be defined along the lines of President Bush's Goals 2000 initiative, or President Clinton's America 2000 specifying lesson content in basic subjects, with each year building on the last.
**Teacher training would be refocused on teaching the standards. After being certified in teaching the standardized curriculum, teachers would be held accountable for students' progress.
**Schools would expand courses in core academic subjects and make corresponding reductions in electives and non-academic programs.
Students should take regular exams that measure progress with letter grades.
**Schools should have tough, clearly defined standards for proper school behavior, including a zero-tolerance policy for violent students or those who come to school with drugs or weapons.
**Specific academic expectations should be defined for each grade level. If students do not meet those standards, they should not be allowed to move up.
**A national or statewide curriculum should be defined along the lines of President Bush's Goals 2000 initiative, or President Clinton's America 2000 specifying lesson content in basic subjects, with each year building on the last.
**Teacher training would be refocused on teaching the standards. After being certified in teaching the standardized curriculum, teachers would be held accountable for students' progress.
**Schools would expand courses in core academic subjects and make corresponding reductions in electives and non-academic programs.
Students should take regular exams that measure progress with letter grades.
**Schools should have tough, clearly defined standards for proper school behavior, including a zero-tolerance policy for violent students or those who come to school with drugs or weapons.
Arguments For This Approach
**Students and teachers alike need to know what's expected of them. If you expect more, you get more.
**Defining high and consistent education standards is the only assurance that disadvantaged children will acquire the knowledge they need to succeed.
**Almost every other industrial nation has an agreed-upon core curriculum that specifies what students are expected to learn at each grade level. That system has produced higher and more equitable academic achievement than our own.
**In today's economy, workers need hard skills in areas such as math and science that are higher than most high school graduates now attain.
**Traditional grades based on regular tests are needed to give parents a clear indication of what their kids are learning.
**Students and teachers alike need to know what's expected of them. If you expect more, you get more.
**Defining high and consistent education standards is the only assurance that disadvantaged children will acquire the knowledge they need to succeed.
**Almost every other industrial nation has an agreed-upon core curriculum that specifies what students are expected to learn at each grade level. That system has produced higher and more equitable academic achievement than our own.
**In today's economy, workers need hard skills in areas such as math and science that are higher than most high school graduates now attain.
**Traditional grades based on regular tests are needed to give parents a clear indication of what their kids are learning.
Arguments Against This Approach
**Learning is most likely to take place when students engage in meaningful problem-solving activities, where they're encouraged to think for themselves. Too often, a traditional approach leads to rote learning, and a curriculum crammed with meaningless facts that students will soon forget.
**A standardized curriculum often becomes an excuse for cultural imperialism, imposing a Eurocentric curriculum on an increasingly diverse student population.
**While it is important not to tolerate low academic expectations, excessively high expectations can also be a problem. Too much academic pressure turns kids off to learning.
**Some kids can't succeed in traditional academic subjects. In response to their needs, schools should scale down their expectations and find other way to help them succeed.
**National standards are likely to lead to even more standardized testing.
**Teachers won't be effective if they're bound by the straitjacket of a prefab curriculum. Too many standards will encourage them to teach the test rather than responding to students' individual needs and learning styles.
**Learning is most likely to take place when students engage in meaningful problem-solving activities, where they're encouraged to think for themselves. Too often, a traditional approach leads to rote learning, and a curriculum crammed with meaningless facts that students will soon forget.
**A standardized curriculum often becomes an excuse for cultural imperialism, imposing a Eurocentric curriculum on an increasingly diverse student population.
**While it is important not to tolerate low academic expectations, excessively high expectations can also be a problem. Too much academic pressure turns kids off to learning.
**Some kids can't succeed in traditional academic subjects. In response to their needs, schools should scale down their expectations and find other way to help them succeed.
**National standards are likely to lead to even more standardized testing.
**Teachers won't be effective if they're bound by the straitjacket of a prefab curriculum. Too many standards will encourage them to teach the test rather than responding to students' individual needs and learning styles.
What is a likely cost or tradeoff?
**There would be less flexibility in teaching, slower innovation in curricula, and more importance on tests.
If additional funding is provided for the schools, what should it be used?
**Additional funding should be used to encourage more creative teaching, retraining teachers so they can teach what kids need to succeed
How would this approach affect minority students?
**By tailoring the curriculum and teaching to the individual needs of students and their unique cultural heritage, schools help motivate students, and help them succeed.
What would this approach require parents to do?
**Parents need to understand that the schools won't necessarily teach what the parents learned when they were in school.
Creating Student-Centered Schools
What should be done?
**Teachers should use innovative methods to teach analytic skills and encourage creativity. **History, for example, is best taught by examining the different ways in which events can be viewed and interpreted. English is best taught by stressing creative writing and personal expression first, and then later teaching kids correct spelling and grammar.
**Students working at different levels should be grouped together to teach social skills and an appreciation for personal differences.
**Student progress should be assessed through teacher observations and portfolios of student work rather than simply by traditional tests, letter grades and report cards.
**Students are more likely to learn when lessons are taught thematically, rather than approaching learning through traditional subject areas.
**Teaching should be based primarily on discussion, not lectures, and on learning by discovery rather than rote memorization and repetition.
**Students working at different levels should be grouped together to teach social skills and an appreciation for personal differences.
**Student progress should be assessed through teacher observations and portfolios of student work rather than simply by traditional tests, letter grades and report cards.
**Students are more likely to learn when lessons are taught thematically, rather than approaching learning through traditional subject areas.
**Teaching should be based primarily on discussion, not lectures, and on learning by discovery rather than rote memorization and repetition.
Arguments For This Approach
**The most important skill adults need is the ability to access information and examine it critically. Students may forget specific facts, but they will rely daily on well-developed problem-solving skills.
**By giving students more latitude in what they learn and how they learn it, schools acknowledge differences in learning styles, as well as racial and ethnic differences.
**American students may not do so well on standardized tests, but these tests don't measure many of the things Americans excel in: problem-solving, innovation, and creativity.
**By giving students more latitude in what they learn and how they learn it, schools acknowledge differences in learning styles, as well as racial and ethnic differences.
**American students may not do so well on standardized tests, but these tests don't measure many of the things Americans excel in: problem-solving, innovation, and creativity.
Arguments Against This Approach
**Many students area pathetic and disengaged not because they're taught in an uninspired and traditional way, but because too little is demanded of them.They're not challenged to meet demanding standards.
**An unstructured, progressive approach to education has led to students choosing from a smorgasboard of nonacademic activities and electives. American students end up with superficial knowledge because they study too many subjects. Because basic academic areas don't get the attention they deserve, students don't acquire the knowledge skills needed in today's workplace.
**Over the past several decades, many public schools have adopted a progressive approach to teaching, but student achievement has not improved and in some respects has declined.
**The student-centered approach to education has led, in many cases, to automatic promotion of children from one grade to the next, regardless of what they learn.
**Schools that operate according to progressive theories of education do little to improve the economic chances of poor children, who need basic academic skills to get good jobs.
**This approach would not ensure that kids master the basic academic skills, which are needed for all further learning.
**An unstructured, progressive approach to education has led to students choosing from a smorgasboard of nonacademic activities and electives. American students end up with superficial knowledge because they study too many subjects. Because basic academic areas don't get the attention they deserve, students don't acquire the knowledge skills needed in today's workplace.
**Over the past several decades, many public schools have adopted a progressive approach to teaching, but student achievement has not improved and in some respects has declined.
**The student-centered approach to education has led, in many cases, to automatic promotion of children from one grade to the next, regardless of what they learn.
**Schools that operate according to progressive theories of education do little to improve the economic chances of poor children, who need basic academic skills to get good jobs.
**This approach would not ensure that kids master the basic academic skills, which are needed for all further learning.
What is a likely cost or tradeoff?
**Because schools do not necessarily teach the same material, there will be less uniformity in what students learn. Portfolio-based assessment makes it harder to compare what different students have learned.
If additional funding is provided for the schools, what should it be used?
**Additional funding should be used to encourage more creative teaching, retraining teachers so they can teach what kids need to succeed.
How would this approach affect minority students?
**By tailoring the curriculum and teaching to the individual needs of students and their unique cultural heritage, schools help motivate students, and help them succeed.
What would this approach require parents to do?
**Parents need to understand that the schools won't necessarily teach what the parents learned when they were in school.
Offering Educational Choices
What should be done?
**Low- and middle-income parents should receive a publicly funded voucher which they could use to send their kids to any accredited school,public, private, or religious.
**Make the voucher's value comparable to the cost of a public school education, and insist that participating schools accept it as full payment for tuition.
**Create more charter schools within the public school system that are licensed and financed with taxpayer dollars but operated independently from ordinary public schools. Because they would have more room to experiment, charter schools would help break the public school monopoly and provide effective alternatives.
**Promote competition by eliminating red tape, including barriers to the opening of for-profit schools and rules that prevent public schools from hiring companies or colleges to provide instructional services.
**Permit parents the widest possible choice among public schools
**Make the voucher's value comparable to the cost of a public school education, and insist that participating schools accept it as full payment for tuition.
**Create more charter schools within the public school system that are licensed and financed with taxpayer dollars but operated independently from ordinary public schools. Because they would have more room to experiment, charter schools would help break the public school monopoly and provide effective alternatives.
**Promote competition by eliminating red tape, including barriers to the opening of for-profit schools and rules that prevent public schools from hiring companies or colleges to provide instructional services.
**Permit parents the widest possible choice among public schools
Arguments For This Approach
**This would provide the radical change needed to reward good schools, and put pressure on bad ones to change. Increased competition among schools is the most promising way to improve them.
**Because parents would choose the school that is best suited to their children's needs, this is the best way of ensuring a good fit between kids and the schools they attend.
**A voucher system, or charter schools, would provide particular benefits to students in central city schools who currently have few options.
**School choice plans would give average Americans an option that wealthy families have long enjoyed.
**Because parents would choose the school that is best suited to their children's needs, this is the best way of ensuring a good fit between kids and the schools they attend.
**A voucher system, or charter schools, would provide particular benefits to students in central city schools who currently have few options.
**School choice plans would give average Americans an option that wealthy families have long enjoyed.
Arguments Against This Approach
**Schools, whether public or private, are only as good as their teachers. Improving education, then, means hiring better teachers and more of them -- not shifting students from one school to another.
**This approach offers no plan for improving schools, just a risky promise that schools will improve thanks to the magic of competition.
**Private and religious schools would skim off the best students, leaving demoralized public schools to deal with the hard cases. In effect, providing vouchers would siphon funds away from the public schools, making them even less able to meet the needs of the students they serve.
**Parents don't have the information they need to make a knowledgeable decision about what schools are best matched to the needs of their kids.
**Permitting parents to used publicly funded vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools would violate the principle of separating church and state.
**A major purpose of public education has always been to bring students from different backgrounds together, and provide them with a common education. Under a voucher system, kids from different religions, races, and nationalities are likely to go off to different schools and we would lose any sense of a common community
**This approach offers no plan for improving schools, just a risky promise that schools will improve thanks to the magic of competition.
**Private and religious schools would skim off the best students, leaving demoralized public schools to deal with the hard cases. In effect, providing vouchers would siphon funds away from the public schools, making them even less able to meet the needs of the students they serve.
**Parents don't have the information they need to make a knowledgeable decision about what schools are best matched to the needs of their kids.
**Permitting parents to used publicly funded vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools would violate the principle of separating church and state.
**A major purpose of public education has always been to bring students from different backgrounds together, and provide them with a common education. Under a voucher system, kids from different religions, races, and nationalities are likely to go off to different schools and we would lose any sense of a common community
What is a likely cost or tradeoff?
**This choice would no longer pursue the goal of providing a common school experience for children of all backgrounds.
If additional funding is provided for the schools, what should it be used?
**Additional funding should be used to provide vouchers for private or parochial schools, so parents have a choice about the schools their kids attend.
How would this approach affect minority students?
**By providing a good fit between students and the schools they attend, school choice helps minority kids succeed. Poor and minority students will no longer be trapped in substandard schools.
What would this approach require parents to do?
**Requires parents to take an active role in deciding which schools are best suited to the needs and learning styles of their kids.
Providing Adequate Funding
What should be done?
**Substantiallly increase state and federal funding to ensure that all public schools, especially those in poor communities, are funded at a level that permits them to deliver a quality education.
**Stop forcing school districts to depend so much on local property taxes, as this practice ensures that poor districts lack the resources to provide quality education.
**Equalize educational opportunities for children from families at all income levels by eliminating spending disparities between school districts.
**Promote programs widely believed to improve student achievement, including hiring more teachers and giving them more training and support.
**To attract the best teachers, raise salaries and improve working conditions.
**Stop deferring maintenance and modernization of school buildings. Provide school districts with adequate funds to make repairs, update laboratories, install computers, and connect schools to the Internet.
**Stop forcing school districts to depend so much on local property taxes, as this practice ensures that poor districts lack the resources to provide quality education.
**Equalize educational opportunities for children from families at all income levels by eliminating spending disparities between school districts.
**Promote programs widely believed to improve student achievement, including hiring more teachers and giving them more training and support.
**To attract the best teachers, raise salaries and improve working conditions.
**Stop deferring maintenance and modernization of school buildings. Provide school districts with adequate funds to make repairs, update laboratories, install computers, and connect schools to the Internet.
Arguments For This Approach
**No school reform can succeed until schools have sufficient resources to provide an adequate educational environment.
**Public schools need more money to do the job right. In many cases, classes are too large, school buildings are falling apart, and schools don't have the equipment they need including computers and well-equipped science labs to teach the skills students will need to succeed in the workplace.
**The indispensable requirement for good schools is good teachers. To recruit and retain first-rate teachers, public schools must be able to offer salaries competitive with other professions.
**We say we're committed as a nation to equal opportunity, yet schools in poor communities are often unable to provide students with the skills to succeed. In effect, education has become a wedge that is driving us further apart.
**Public schools need more money to do the job right. In many cases, classes are too large, school buildings are falling apart, and schools don't have the equipment they need including computers and well-equipped science labs to teach the skills students will need to succeed in the workplace.
**The indispensable requirement for good schools is good teachers. To recruit and retain first-rate teachers, public schools must be able to offer salaries competitive with other professions.
**We say we're committed as a nation to equal opportunity, yet schools in poor communities are often unable to provide students with the skills to succeed. In effect, education has become a wedge that is driving us further apart.
Arguments Against This Approach
**School funding in the United States has long been primarily a local responsibility. If some communities choose to spend more on public education than others, that is legitimate.
**Anyway, why should taxpayers in one community have to support other school districts that waste money?
**Increasing school budgets hasn't led to better results in the past. Per pupil expenditures have risen substantially over the last 30 years and class size decreased -- but scores on standardized tests fell.
**While educating our kids should be a top priority, the schools don't need more money. They need to use their budgets more efficiently. If budgets were increased, the additional funds would be eaten up by higher administrative costs, or classroom frills that don't really help students.
**The source of the student achievement problem isn't what the schools are doing, or failing to do, but what families do. If parents don't teach their kids to take school seriously, and do well, even the best schools can't make much of a difference.
**Anyway, why should taxpayers in one community have to support other school districts that waste money?
**Increasing school budgets hasn't led to better results in the past. Per pupil expenditures have risen substantially over the last 30 years and class size decreased -- but scores on standardized tests fell.
**While educating our kids should be a top priority, the schools don't need more money. They need to use their budgets more efficiently. If budgets were increased, the additional funds would be eaten up by higher administrative costs, or classroom frills that don't really help students.
**The source of the student achievement problem isn't what the schools are doing, or failing to do, but what families do. If parents don't teach their kids to take school seriously, and do well, even the best schools can't make much of a difference.
What is a likely cost or tradeoff?
**In many communities, taxes would be raised to provide more funds for public schools, and in particular to provide greater funding for schools in poor communities.
If additional funding is provided for the schools, what should it be used?
**Additional funding should be used to equalize spending among school districts, to ensure that all schools have adequate resources.
How would this approach affect minority students?
**Currently, many minority kids are poorly served by underfunded schools, where facilities are inadequate and classrooms are overcrowded. Funding all public schools at the same level would significantly improve the educational experience for racial minorities.
What would this approach require parents to do?
**In most cases, pay higher taxes. Middle-class communities would likely experience no increase in funding, and may have to pay more to help poor schools elsewhere
Friday, September 12, 2008
Politics and Change: Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin, you decide?
Politics and Change. Obama or Clinton; McCain or Rominey; Obama or McCain; Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin? America is about to choose their course for the next four to eight years. What are the issues for you? What do you want for yourself, your children, your children's children?
I beleive this election will be the key factor shaping the next 25 years of American History. Please don't be influenced by creative ads for either party, without doing your own research, and finding out the facts. Ask yourself probative questions, and then search credible, unbiased sources. I have decided to start this blog as a forum for my own personal political growth and understanding and hope that it creates that same spark for you. This has really take a life of its own from discussions I have had with friends, relatives and others who have decidedly taken a position on this election based on mainstream media half truths and political inuendo.
The one request I make is that you stop allowing the media to think for you, and hold you emotionally hostage. I know if you are reading this you are too smart and work too hard to just take my word or that of a very good slogan. We all have our own beliefs and expereinces which shape our core. I would like to keep this as non-partisan, but I'm sure I will expression my opinions that may point in one direction. So the question before you and I is: Which ticket is better for theses United States of America for not only the next four years but for the next 25 years. Which ticket will deliver the reform (change) that we all seek so desperately. Is the Obama/Biden ticket or the McCain/Palin ticket.
So what is one to do. Well for me I am still looking at each candidates platform (but leaning right) and acknowledge that each have positive and negative aspects to them. In fact I am providing you with a few links that hope you will take the time to educate yourself and then argue or educate me.
Comparing the Leading Candidates
OBAMA & MCCAIN ON THE ISSUES
ABORTION
BARACK OBAMA: Favors abortion rights.
JOHN MCCAIN: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
BARACK OBAMA: The presidential campaign's fundraising champion has brought in nearly $265 million. Has signaled he will raise private money for his general election, despite his proposal last year to accept public financing and its spending limits if the Republican nominee does, too. Obama refuses to accept money from federal lobbyists and has instructed the Democratic National Committee to do the same for its joint victory fund, an account that would benefit the nominee. Obama does accept money from state lobbyists and from family members of federal lobbyists.
JOHN MCCAIN: The co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, he plans to run his general campaign with public money and within its spending limits. He has urged Obama to do the same. He turned down federal matching funds for primaries so he could spend more than the limits. Federal Election Commission letter said he needs FEC approval before withdrawing from the primary public financing system, but FEC has not had quorum to act. McCain says he needs no such approval. McCain accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists.
CUBA
BARACK OBAMA: Ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families in Cuba. Open to meeting new Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions. Ease trade embargo if Havana "begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change."
JOHN MCCAIN: Ease restrictions on Cuba once U.S. is "confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made."
DEATH PENALTY
BARACK OBAMA: Supports death penalty for crimes for which the "community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." As Illinois lawmaker, wrote bill mandating videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and sought other changes in system
that had produced wrongful convictions.
JOHN MCCAIN: Has supported expansion of the federal death penalty and limits on appeals.
EDUCATION
BARACK OBAMA: Encourage but not require universal pre-kindergarten programs, expand teacher mentoring programs and reward teachers with higher pay not tied to standardized test scores, in $18 billion plan to be paid for in part by delaying elements of moon and Mars missions. Change No Child Left Behind law "so that we're not just teaching to a test and crowding out programs like art and music." Tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college expenses for students who perform 100 hours of community service a year.
JOHN MCCAIN: Favors parental choice of schools, including vouchers for private schools when approved by local officials, and right of parents to choose home schooling. More money for community college education.
GAY MARRIAGE
BARACK OBAMA: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions, says states should decide about marriage.
JOHN MCCAIN: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and similar benefits.
GLOBAL WARMING
BARACK OBAMA: Ten-year, $150 billion program to produce "climate friendly" energy supplies that he'd pay for with a carbon auction requiring businesses to bid competitively for the right to pollute. Joined McCain in sponsoring earlier legislation that would set mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Supports tougher fuel efficiency standards.
JOHN MCCAIN: Broke with President Bush on global warming. Led Senate effort to cap greenhouse gas emissions; favors tougher fuel efficiency. Favors plan that would see greenhouse gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050. Supports more nuclear power.
GUN CONTROL
BARACK OBAMA: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.
JOHN MCCAIN: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. "I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved -- which means no gun control."
HEALTH CARE
BARACK OBAMA: Mandatory coverage for children, no mandate for adults. Aim for universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to that in plan for federal employees. Says package would cost up to $65 billion a year after unspecified savings from making system more efficient. Raise taxes on wealthier families to pay the cost.
JOHN MCCAIN: $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, $5,000 for families, to make health insurance more affordable. No mandate for universal coverage. In gaining the tax credit, workers could not deduct the portion of their workplace health insurance paid by their employers.
HOUSING
BARACK OBAMA: Tax credit covering 10 percent of annual mortgage interest payments for "struggling homeowners," scoring system for consumers to compare mortgages, a fund for mortgage fraud victims, new penalties for mortgage fraud, aid to state and local governments stung by housing crisis, in $20 billion plan geared to "responsible homeowners."
JOHN MCCAIN: Open to helping homeowners facing foreclosure if they are "legitimate borrowers" and not speculators.
IMMIGRATION
BARACK OBAMA: Voted for 2006 bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency and payment of back taxes and fines. Voted for border fence.
JOHN MCCAIN: Sponsored 2006 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check. Now says he would secure the border first. Supports border fence.
IRAN
BARACK OBAMA: Favors direct direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, believing it would give U.S. more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions. Will offer incentives if Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.
JOHN MCCAIN: Favors tougher sanctions. Says unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness not the answer and says U.S. should bolster its regional military posture. Has stated military action is "not off the table."
IRAQ
BARACK OBAMA: Spoke against war at start, opposed troop increase. Will immediately begin bringing troops home if elected and plans phased withdrawal, with combat brigades out within 16 months. Will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
JOHN MCCAIN: Opposes scheduling a troop withdrawal, saying latest strategy is succeeding. Supported decision to go to war, but was early critic of the manner in which administration prosecuted it. Key backer of the troop increase. Willing to have permanent U.S. peacekeeping forces in Iraq.
SOCIAL SECURITY
BARACK OBAMA: Proposes raising cap with an unspecified "small adjustment" that would subject a portion of higher incomes to Social Security taxes.
JOHN MCCAIN: Would consider "almost anything" as part of a compromise to save Social Security, yet rules out higher payroll taxes for now.
STEM CELL RESEARCH
BARACK OBAMA: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.
JOHN MCCAIN: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.
TAXES
BARACK OBAMA: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.
JOHN MCCAIN: Has stated "No new taxes" if elected. Twice opposed Bush's tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. On February 15, 2008, promised balance budget in first term. On February 19, 2008, McCain's economic advisor told press McCain's overall goal is to balance the budget by the end of his second term. In April 2008 that cutting taxes and stimulating the economy are more important than balancing the budget.
TRADE
BARACK OBAMA: Seek to reopen North American Free Trade Agreement to strengthen enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In 2004 Senate campaign, called for "enforcing existing trade agreements," not amending them.
JOHN MCCAIN: Free trade advocate.
***Disclaimer*** I reserve the right to correct and inadvertant errors or omissions.
**** Links Added 09/13/2008 at 1155am****
http://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693 , please note that this data is from June 20, 2008. There is an update which was completed after the DNC and there will be another one next week. These updates have revisions and calculations based on what each candidate said during their speech.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1840
I beleive this election will be the key factor shaping the next 25 years of American History. Please don't be influenced by creative ads for either party, without doing your own research, and finding out the facts. Ask yourself probative questions, and then search credible, unbiased sources. I have decided to start this blog as a forum for my own personal political growth and understanding and hope that it creates that same spark for you. This has really take a life of its own from discussions I have had with friends, relatives and others who have decidedly taken a position on this election based on mainstream media half truths and political inuendo.
The one request I make is that you stop allowing the media to think for you, and hold you emotionally hostage. I know if you are reading this you are too smart and work too hard to just take my word or that of a very good slogan. We all have our own beliefs and expereinces which shape our core. I would like to keep this as non-partisan, but I'm sure I will expression my opinions that may point in one direction. So the question before you and I is: Which ticket is better for theses United States of America for not only the next four years but for the next 25 years. Which ticket will deliver the reform (change) that we all seek so desperately. Is the Obama/Biden ticket or the McCain/Palin ticket.
So what is one to do. Well for me I am still looking at each candidates platform (but leaning right) and acknowledge that each have positive and negative aspects to them. In fact I am providing you with a few links that hope you will take the time to educate yourself and then argue or educate me.
Comparing the Leading Candidates
OBAMA & MCCAIN ON THE ISSUES
ABORTION
BARACK OBAMA: Favors abortion rights.
JOHN MCCAIN: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
BARACK OBAMA: The presidential campaign's fundraising champion has brought in nearly $265 million. Has signaled he will raise private money for his general election, despite his proposal last year to accept public financing and its spending limits if the Republican nominee does, too. Obama refuses to accept money from federal lobbyists and has instructed the Democratic National Committee to do the same for its joint victory fund, an account that would benefit the nominee. Obama does accept money from state lobbyists and from family members of federal lobbyists.
JOHN MCCAIN: The co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, he plans to run his general campaign with public money and within its spending limits. He has urged Obama to do the same. He turned down federal matching funds for primaries so he could spend more than the limits. Federal Election Commission letter said he needs FEC approval before withdrawing from the primary public financing system, but FEC has not had quorum to act. McCain says he needs no such approval. McCain accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists.
CUBA
BARACK OBAMA: Ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families in Cuba. Open to meeting new Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions. Ease trade embargo if Havana "begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change."
JOHN MCCAIN: Ease restrictions on Cuba once U.S. is "confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made."
DEATH PENALTY
BARACK OBAMA: Supports death penalty for crimes for which the "community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." As Illinois lawmaker, wrote bill mandating videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and sought other changes in system
that had produced wrongful convictions.
JOHN MCCAIN: Has supported expansion of the federal death penalty and limits on appeals.
EDUCATION
BARACK OBAMA: Encourage but not require universal pre-kindergarten programs, expand teacher mentoring programs and reward teachers with higher pay not tied to standardized test scores, in $18 billion plan to be paid for in part by delaying elements of moon and Mars missions. Change No Child Left Behind law "so that we're not just teaching to a test and crowding out programs like art and music." Tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college expenses for students who perform 100 hours of community service a year.
JOHN MCCAIN: Favors parental choice of schools, including vouchers for private schools when approved by local officials, and right of parents to choose home schooling. More money for community college education.
GAY MARRIAGE
BARACK OBAMA: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions, says states should decide about marriage.
JOHN MCCAIN: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and similar benefits.
GLOBAL WARMING
BARACK OBAMA: Ten-year, $150 billion program to produce "climate friendly" energy supplies that he'd pay for with a carbon auction requiring businesses to bid competitively for the right to pollute. Joined McCain in sponsoring earlier legislation that would set mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Supports tougher fuel efficiency standards.
JOHN MCCAIN: Broke with President Bush on global warming. Led Senate effort to cap greenhouse gas emissions; favors tougher fuel efficiency. Favors plan that would see greenhouse gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050. Supports more nuclear power.
GUN CONTROL
BARACK OBAMA: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.
JOHN MCCAIN: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. "I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved -- which means no gun control."
HEALTH CARE
BARACK OBAMA: Mandatory coverage for children, no mandate for adults. Aim for universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to that in plan for federal employees. Says package would cost up to $65 billion a year after unspecified savings from making system more efficient. Raise taxes on wealthier families to pay the cost.
JOHN MCCAIN: $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, $5,000 for families, to make health insurance more affordable. No mandate for universal coverage. In gaining the tax credit, workers could not deduct the portion of their workplace health insurance paid by their employers.
HOUSING
BARACK OBAMA: Tax credit covering 10 percent of annual mortgage interest payments for "struggling homeowners," scoring system for consumers to compare mortgages, a fund for mortgage fraud victims, new penalties for mortgage fraud, aid to state and local governments stung by housing crisis, in $20 billion plan geared to "responsible homeowners."
JOHN MCCAIN: Open to helping homeowners facing foreclosure if they are "legitimate borrowers" and not speculators.
IMMIGRATION
BARACK OBAMA: Voted for 2006 bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency and payment of back taxes and fines. Voted for border fence.
JOHN MCCAIN: Sponsored 2006 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check. Now says he would secure the border first. Supports border fence.
IRAN
BARACK OBAMA: Favors direct direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, believing it would give U.S. more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions. Will offer incentives if Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.
JOHN MCCAIN: Favors tougher sanctions. Says unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness not the answer and says U.S. should bolster its regional military posture. Has stated military action is "not off the table."
IRAQ
BARACK OBAMA: Spoke against war at start, opposed troop increase. Will immediately begin bringing troops home if elected and plans phased withdrawal, with combat brigades out within 16 months. Will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
JOHN MCCAIN: Opposes scheduling a troop withdrawal, saying latest strategy is succeeding. Supported decision to go to war, but was early critic of the manner in which administration prosecuted it. Key backer of the troop increase. Willing to have permanent U.S. peacekeeping forces in Iraq.
SOCIAL SECURITY
BARACK OBAMA: Proposes raising cap with an unspecified "small adjustment" that would subject a portion of higher incomes to Social Security taxes.
JOHN MCCAIN: Would consider "almost anything" as part of a compromise to save Social Security, yet rules out higher payroll taxes for now.
STEM CELL RESEARCH
BARACK OBAMA: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.
JOHN MCCAIN: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.
TAXES
BARACK OBAMA: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.
JOHN MCCAIN: Has stated "No new taxes" if elected. Twice opposed Bush's tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. On February 15, 2008, promised balance budget in first term. On February 19, 2008, McCain's economic advisor told press McCain's overall goal is to balance the budget by the end of his second term. In April 2008 that cutting taxes and stimulating the economy are more important than balancing the budget.
TRADE
BARACK OBAMA: Seek to reopen North American Free Trade Agreement to strengthen enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In 2004 Senate campaign, called for "enforcing existing trade agreements," not amending them.
JOHN MCCAIN: Free trade advocate.
***Disclaimer*** I reserve the right to correct and inadvertant errors or omissions.
**** Links Added 09/13/2008 at 1155am****
http://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693 , please note that this data is from June 20, 2008. There is an update which was completed after the DNC and there will be another one next week. These updates have revisions and calculations based on what each candidate said during their speech.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1840
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)