I, TOO, SING AMERICA

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.

Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
“Eat in the kitchen,”
Then.

Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed—

I, too, am America.

  — Langston Hughes (1902 - 1967), African-American poet, novelist and playwright.

Sometimes, I really wish I didn’t have to turn to the foreign media to get the best news from an unbiased and objective perspective. The Economist has long been one of those foreign sources of news to which I have turned to get a broader perspective of world events.

The Economist generally has a center-right leaning … it is a British magazine concerned with world events and the economy, after all … and yet, like so many other media outlets, it is giving its endorsement to Barack Obama.

If there is anyone out there reading this blog that is still undecided about whom to vote for, please read this article … for once, I’ve quoted the entire article, rather than just an excerpt. Hopefully The Economist won’t come after me for copyright violation.

Read the article, and then go vote. Cast your ballot for whomever you think will better lead the United States over the next four years. I feel that man will be Barack Obama, which is how I cast my ballot in early voting. Even if you vote for the other guy, please make sure you get out today, brave the lines and the weather and exercise your right, your privilege … and as far as I’m concerned, your duty to vote.

Just vote.

An endorsement of Barack Obama | It’s time | The Economist
Oct 30th 2008 - From The Economist print edition
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017

The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

A-train railing against free-market realities. Okay, so it’s not truly a free market, but there are limits to what banks receiving funds under TARP can do; limits designed to protect the American taxpayer as a senior investor (the investments are in preferred securities after all), whilst not placing excessive limits on free-market flexibility for the banks to make money.

Making direct investments by buying preferred securities which must pay an annual 5% dividend for the first 3 years, and then an annual 9% dividend thereafter, and effectively leaving the rest of the program to the free-market is a bad thing? Preventing golden parachutes for the top-5 executives is a bad thing? Paying performance-based bonuses to the bankers that actually bring business IN to the firm, generating revenue and profit to enable the firm to continue is a bad thing?

Would people prefer that the bankers leave and start hedge-funds instead, thus ensuring that TARP fails and the American taxpayer does not get paid back?

I love how the important paragraphs in the story that retreat from the headline and indicate that things aren’t quite as extreme the headline makes them sound are buried deep within the story, which most people won’t read from start to finish.

Bush under fire for giving billions from rescue fund to banks - Salt Lake Tribune

The rescue legislation included some limits on executive compensation. And it does not allow institutions receiving the money to increase dividends. Lazear said that Treasury officials will make sure those requirements are met.

But he also suggested that the government would go no further in placing conditions on banks in the program. Lazear said that to do so may hamper their voluntary participation, and may also dampen the kind of free-market flexibility the administration believes will work best to get credit moving again. The first checks moved out to big banks this week.

Instead, he said that incentives in the program as well as free-market realities will result in the program’s success. For instance, the law requires that banks pay “quite significant dividends” to the government, meaning they have every reason to start lending again to make the kind of money necessary to both make a profit and to pay back Washington. The law requires a quarterly 5 percent dividend to the government that increases to 9 percent after three years.

On executive pay, she said that participating banks are complying with the law’s requirements. Under the law, an executive who receives a bonus based on false financial statements must repay it. The law also says that “golden parachutes” are not available for the top five executives of a company.

At least the Wall Street Journal puts the important information front and center:

Securities Firms Tackle Pay Issue - WSJ.com

Wall Street is waking up to the political tempest over billions of dollars in year-end bonuses likely to be paid out at securities firms lining up for government infusions, top executives are in discussions to possibly cap their own compensation, according to people familiar with the situation.

While the discussions remain fluid and many details still must be agreed to, the talks underscore an emerging consensus among some of the securities industry’s most powerful executives that the escalating pay controversy is creating yet another public-relations mess for Wall Street.

“There are going to be some people in the financial-services industry who will show real leadership here and recognize the reality of the situation,” one senior Wall Street official said.

And as Wall Street firms examine their pay and bonuses, distinctions are being made between the highest-ranking executives and lower-level traders and investment bankers who aren’t widely known beyond Wall Street but could get plucked away by rival firms if compensation practices are significantly altered.

As a result, the most likely scenario in the firm-by-firm discussions is a sharp decline in compensation for chief executive officers, but fewer changes in how bonuses are paid to most employees, according to a person familiar with the matter.

A repost from March, prompted by various Twitter and other assertions that the United States was founded on “Christian principles” … nothing could be further from the truth.

The only part of became the United States that was founded on “Christian” principles was the original Plymouth colony in Massachusetts, by the Puritans who were escaping religious persecution in England … and of course, they promptly started inflicting their own warped sense of Christian values on the Native Americans and amongst themselves (Salem Witch Trials, anyone?).

In any case, back in March mother sent me more mom-spam, this one being a purported re-write of the Preamble of the Constitution, accompanied by a series of articles. Some of the articles are basic pleas to common sense. But one in particular really got my goat.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! GET OVER IT!!!

The problem is that this nation was NOT founded on the belief in one true God. Far from it; when asked about it, Alexander Hamilton once flippantly responded that the United States was not in need of “foreign aid.”

Please show me, in the original Constitution, where it makes mention of God. Please!

Unfortunately, you can’t, because the word does not appear once in the entire document.

The word God did not appear on US money until the Civil War, and did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, as a reaction to the McCarthy-driven anti-Communist hysteria.

Oh, sure, there are two brief mentions in the Declaration of Independence (cf. the phrases, “Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God” and “endowed by their Creator”), but the Declaration of Independence is not the document on which our nation is based … the Constitution, which was drafted 11 years later, holds that estimable position.

Heck … most people think that George Washington was the first President, too … but he wasn’t.

There were several Presidents of the United States prior to George Washington. Under the Articles of Confederation (drafted in 1777 and ratified in 1781), the following men served as President of the United States in Congress Assembled:

• Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781)
• Thomas McKean (July 10, 1781 – November 4, 1781)
• John Hanson (November 5, 1781 – November 3, 1782) — the first to serve a full one-year term, and the first selected after the surrender of the British Army … but not the first.
• Elias Boudinot (November 4, 1782 – November 2, 1783)
• Thomas Mifflin (November 3, 1783 – October 31, 1784)
• Richard Henry Lee (November 30, 1784 – November 6, 1785)
• John Hancock (November 23, 1785 – June 5, 1786)
• Nathaniel Gorham (June 6, 1786 – November 5, 1786)
• Arthur St. Clair (February 2, 1787 – November 4, 1787)
• Cyrus Griffin (January 22, 1788 – March 4, 1789)

By the way … the word “God” isn’t mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, either.

And because some people weren’t clear on the concept, the first 10 words of the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

If God isn’t an establishment of religion, I don’t know what is.

Furthermore, in the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1797 in one of the Senate’s only unanimous votes, Article 11 famously states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Note that Jefferson did not even capitalize the name of God in his letter. He, along with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were not Christian, although they were Deists … they believed in one Supreme Being, however, but rejected many elements of the Christian church. James Madison, primary author of the Constitution once wrote on Christianity:

What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

For what it’s worth, I do believe in God, or rather that there is a higher power within all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist alike … even in the fuckwit currently inhabiting the White House. I guess that makes me a Deist, like Jefferson, et al.

But God, in whatever form, has NO place in official government, by design. Please try to remember that when you cast your ballot over the next 6 days.

On the bike, however, is a different story all together … when I’m on the bike, I’m constantly praying … if only to make it to the top of the next rise without my lungs exploding. And I wear my Madonna del Ghisallo … now without a rash, since I finally got a nickel-free chain. And as a legally-ordained minister in the Universal Life Church (and member of The Church of the Big Ring), I feel like that’s acceptable.

I need a transcript!!!

I did agree with this statement: “I understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgage on time, file their tax returns every April 15th and are reluctant to pay the excess costs on Wall Street,” he said. But, he added, “given the situation we’re facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah … Steven agreed with George Bush on something. Amazing, huh?

Update: 9/25/2008 - Transcript available at NYTimes.com

Bush to address nation to push bailout - CNN.com

NEW YORK (CNN) — President Bush will deliver a prime-time televised speech Wednesday night to pressure Congress to pass a $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street, the White House announced.

Bush’s speech is set to begin at 9:01 p.m. ET and will take just less than 15 minutes.

Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke warned Wednesday that the Wall Street crisis is the worst the nation has faced since the end of World War II and urged Congress to take action on a proposed bailout package.

Congress is considering whether to allow Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to use federal funds to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related securities and other assets that have caused turbulence on Wall Street and have undermined credit markets worldwide.

But Paulson and Bernanke faced deeply skeptical lawmakers, including members of Bush’s own party, when they pitched the plan before congressional committees Tuesday and Wednesday.

This will be interesting … it’s time that someone attempted to explain the plan to the average American citizen.

I’m hardly an expert, but I’ve been reading everything I can get my hands on over the past few days to try to find out what’s going on, even going so far as to contact one of my company’s economists to try to get a better explanation.

I believe the effect will be short-term pain and eventual recovery, versus what I think will be the long-term pain if we don’t do anything.

The economy is not healthy. It’s not going to heal itself, no matter how much Art and Julie want it to.

I also question Barack Obama’s decision not to step back from the campaign, at least for a few days, as did John McCain. I think that Obama needs to do the same thing ASAP; for appearances sake, if nothing else.

This is not a time for campaign bickering, but for the parties to come together and hammer out some sort of agreeable plan. The economy is sick, and unfortunately some intervention is necessary. It needs more controls than in the original proposal, but those compromises should be fairly easy to come by if both sides stop thinking in a partisan manner, and start thinking about Americans.

Regardless of McCain’s motivations, if Obama doesn’t step back as well, I know the Republicans will use his decision for political fodder … “see, we put ‘Country First’, while Obama put Obama first” …

We don’t need that.

The most important thing is to put some sort of review/oversight over Paulson’s actions once the bill is hammered out and passed.

The former Section 8 (the “32 dirty little words”), which is now section 12 in the 9/21 draft proposal (and now “39 dirty little words”) needs to be addressed. There is no way that Paulson’s decisions under the act should not be subject to review …

The speech just started. More thoughts later.

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention - Yahoo! News

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a “bridge to nowhere.”

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term “bridge to nowhere,” according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin’s campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

So she was for the bridge before she was against it.

And while she did cancel the bridge project after she was elected, $223 million in funds had already been allocated to Sarah Palin’s Alaska, were delivered and accepted by Sarah Palin’s Alaska, and have yet to be returned to the Federal Government by Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

And while Mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town’s first ever lobbyist, who secured over $27MM in Congressional earmarks for the town; earmarks which were specifically condemned by Senator McCain.

I guess she was for earmarks, before she was against them.

PALIN: “There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate.”

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

Gosh! Look at that! Major legislation co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner!

That major ethics reform legistion? That’s the FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006, introduced on 4/6/2006 by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), with three initial co-sponsors: Barack Obama (D-IL), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), and JOHN S MCCAIN (R-AZ).

I guess Governor Palin doesn’t consider ethics reform legislation co-sponsored by her running mate to be a major legislation … I guess because Senator Obama’s name is on the bill as well.

PALIN: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

A small business that makes more than $250,000 a year is doing pretty well, when you consider that “making money” means net profit … i.e., profit after all expenses and overhead, profit after payroll, profit after all of those expenses that can be written off, reducing the business’s tax burden.

And did you know that Palin supported RAISING the sales tax in Wasilla, in order to build a $14.7MM sports center in her hometown of 8000 people?

So she was for higher taxes before she was against them.

From CBS News:

PALIN: “To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.”

I wonder if this is a recent flip-flop on Gov. Palin’s part, since the birth of her own child with special-needs. Thus far, since she has been in office, Gov. Palin has actually slashed funding for schools for special-needs kids by 62%.

The Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (pre-Palin) allocated nearly $8.265MM dollars for early development and special needs schools. In 2008 and 2009, that amount was cut to a mere $3.156MM dollars per year. Perhaps Gov. Palin will allocate some of that $223 million she accepted (and has yet to return) for the “Bridge to Nowhere” to education.

So she was against supporting special-needs children before she was for it.

PALIN: “America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

So, rather than attempting to drill our way out of the mess we’re currently in (a strategy that even noted REPUBLICAN oilman T. Boone Pickens says won’t work), Obama chooses to invest in renewable energy, creating more jobs and cleaner home-grown energy in the United States (because we’re not buying the wind and sun from China or the Middle East). Senator McCain and Gov. Palin prefer to drill off the coast of California, and in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve … a strategry which will add a mere 3% to the world’s oil supply when the United States currently uses 25% of the oil produced, and our needs are growing faster than we’ll be able to increase production.

PALIN: “Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.”

Apparently, it’s increasing spending and long-term debt. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government expenditures of Wasilla, excluding capital outlays, were $7.05MM dollars. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—the expenditures were only $4,317,947, an increase of 63 percent.

In addiiton, in fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the long-term debt was $18.64MM dollars. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt … none … zip, zero, nada.

So she was against fiscal responsibility before she was for it …

Shall we go on?