taxes

This weekend I was home, and inevitably the election came up in discussion between myself and my parents. I am still having a hard time making a decision about which candidate to support in this election. It seems as if every time I am about to choose a side, I have a conversation that puts me back on the fence. This is exactly what happened when talking to my parents. Obviously the current economy is putting a lot of added financial stress on Americans. It is not easy putting three daughters through college and soon graduate school for eight years in a row with no financial aid. This conversation prompted me to look into both candiates' tax policies to see how my family would be affected.
If Obama is elected, my family would be forced to pay higher taxes than they are paying now, a real financial burden: "Those high-income groups would see their top two income tax rates revert to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35% respectively. And their capital gains and dividend tax rates would also revert to 20% from 15%." My family would definitely be better off under McCain's tax plan.
This brings up a lot of other fundamental issues surrounding the role government. Should it allow for a Robin Hood type leader, one who steals from the rich to give to the poor? Or should people who make more money be allowed to spend it as they please and hopefully be charitable as they see fit.
Sociology also comes into play. All people are not created equal. Some are born with more opportunities than others. Still other people work extemely hard to be able able to afford the a certain standard of living. These are all difficult issues that are making it hard for me to choose a candidate this election cycle.

Child Welfare

Children's issues have long been an important issue for me. In the past, I have had internships for non-profit organizations that deal with child welfare and have been opened up to all the problems that exist in this country for those dependent on adults. This article talks about the importance of both candidates taking a stand on children's issues. The United States is the only place among developed nations not to have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCROC). This committee protects the rights of children in many scenarios such as poverty, abuse and negect, healthcare and education. While candiates have indicated that they want better education and healthcare coverage for children, neither has taken a stance on other important issues affecting children. This link will allow you to sign a petition asking the candidates to ratify the UNCROC. Make a difference in the life of children in America!

Ad Wars

Walking by the newspaper stand, a particular article in Friday edition of The Morning Call caught my eye. AD WARS: Campaigning Through Commercials. Since we had just been talking about the role of the media the previous class, I decided to read the article. Since this is a local paper, the article refers specifically to the ads aired in Pennsylvania. The campaigns spent a combined $2.6 million in Pennsylvania alone in the week following the major parties' conventions (McCain: $1,621,000 and Obama:$948,000). These ads ran 1,800 times. A letup in the ad wars is not expected due to the importance of winning Pennsylvania. These ads continue to attack the opposition and draw attention to the current state of the economy.
I found the last line of the article, a quote from Governor Ed Rendell, to be quite compelling. He said, "There is so much free media that you can put an ad on for a day or two and have an impact that is fairly lasting...You are seeing ads roll over in incredible time periods". This insight points to the changes that have occurred in advertising in general. Ads only need to air once before they are posted on YouTube or played over on talk shows. This makes me wonder where the millions of dollars that candidates spend on advertising goes if so much free media is available? And could this money be better spent?
The answer to the second question I'm sure is yes. If people worked as hard to raise money for other causes as they do for campaign ads this country could be a better place.

Economic Policy

Among other differences, Obama and McCain both seem to have rather different ideas when it comes to Economic Policy. McCain pushes for lower taxes and a limited role of the government (one that stands on your side, not in your way). Obama, on the other hand, is taking a social policy approach: rebuild infrastructure and invest in energy technology.
Today, the “fundamental problem” in the real economy referred to in this article is that people have been treating rising asset prices as a substitute for personal savings. In other words, in the past, people had been relying on the rising value of their homes or increasing value of their stocks instead of setting aside extra income. Since asset prices have not been rising much lately, people will need more savings for retirement or in case of emergency.
This underlying “structural deficiency” has caused three secondary problems to become more apparent. First, the aging population in America is growing. A large population is about to enter the years during which they have expected to spend their retirement savings. Since more savings are now needed, the transition may take longer than expected. The current credit crisis is a second problem that the American economy is facing. Banks are trying to raise more capital and lend out fewer loans, but that does not mean that capital is being allocated efficiently. Thirdly, the American economy will undergo some shifts, from consumption to investment, due to lower consumer spending. This may be beneficial in the long-run, but in the short-run it translates to lost jobs and costly readjustments. If people begin saving more, this will have an effect on consumption (it will decrease in the short-run).
The article suggests that policymakers should focus on regulatory reform that is forward-looking, avoiding further fiscal stimulus in the form of tax rebates, which will push consumers to spend, rather than save. This will only bolster the economy in the short-run, postponing needed adjustments..
Back to McCain v. Obama...which plan is better? who's right? McCain proposes to increase regulation for financial markets, extend tax cuts on individuals, and cut the corporate rate. Obama, on the other hand, plans to invest in infrastructure development and energy technology. He also plans to extend tax cuts, but only for people making less than $250,000 and certain interest groups like students, seniors, mortgage owners, and low-income workers, and savers. Obama would raise the capital gains tax and some corporate taxes. There are striking differences in the way the two candidates would apportion the tax burden: people earning more than $1 million would pay $58,000 less in taxes than they do now under McCain, but $247,000 more in taxes under Obama. Both candidates plan to cut taxes, which the article warns against. Obama, on the other hand, does plan on investing in energy markets, which the article suggests would be beneficial. With each candidate, it's estimated that about $4 trillion will be added to the national debt. Neither candidate can claim to be a budget balancer.

dirty, rotten politics

For as long as I can remember my family has been involved in politics. When I was six years old, my dad was elected mayor of my hometown, a position he held for four years. Growing up in the political scene I learned when to smile, how to shake someone's hand, who the family liked, who we didn't like; even at a young age I saw through to how superficial politics could be. Certainly all the politicians cared about the well-being of the town and its residents, but there was an underlying feeling of animosity that I never liked. This turned me off to politics until very recently.
When I turned 18 and was allowed to vote in the local elections, I registered as a Republican, like my dad and voted for who the family liked. This is how I have voted for the past three years. I see the upcoming presidential election as a chance to think for myself and learn as much as I can about both candidates in order to make an informed and educated decision. I was given hope by what was clearly a facade of civility between the two parties. I had started to think that politics wasn't really all about name calling, uncovering dirt, and attacking the opponent after all. Apparently, I was wrong, and recently, I have become discouraged. Now accusations are flying and people are losing sight of really important issues that were at the heart of both campaigns early on. It is for this reason that I will never really enjoy politics and will continue to stuggle with choosing a candidate to support in this election.

good, old fashioned family values

At both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, all candidates have devoted a lot of time to introducing their families. Family values is a political and social concept that is culture specific, and its meaning has arguablely changed over time. It is still used as a persuasive element during campaigns, but with different meaning for different people. This makes the concept easy to relate to. In the 1950s, the Cleavers were America's ideal family. Today, that concept is much harder to define. I find it ironic that all the canididates claim to have stong family values, but cannot define this vague term in today's world. They reference ideal families of the past, and praise their own families who represent the mix of what it means to be a family in America today: single parent upbringings, sons in the military, adopted children, pregnant teenagers. It is interesting that the term has such a conservative history, but today means different things for different families. I think this is just one example of how society has grown much faster than politics, and political ideologies have some catching up to do.