Posted by John Publius Jr. on January 18th, 2009 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, Blog
The song “Happy Days Are Here Again” was written in November, 1929, shortly after the stock market crash. It became Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1932 election campaign song, and has been the unofficial song of the Democratic Party ever since. To many, this song evokes bittersweet emotions: an acknowledgement of hard times and hope for a brighter future.
The U.S. (and global) economy is in very bad shape, the worst since the Great Depression. President Barack Obama takes office at a time when we need hope and a new beginning. I don’t expect the Obama administration to fix the economy immediately, but I want to see significant action soon. Obama also faces major foreign policy and security challenges. I’ve heard much discussion about the Bush administration recently, and it makes sense to evaluate the outgoing administration now. I am much more interested in turning a new page and looking forward to the long-awaited and promised change. I essentially gave up on the Bush administration in 2005, after its inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina.
It’s very encouraging that a large percentage of Americans are happy with the Obama transition team and the incoming Obama cabinet choices. Obama has wisely crafted policies and decisions to unite us. In spite of gloomy economic conditions, optimism is in the air. Some of the ideological warriors are showing a willingness to collaborate on solutions. The Obama Era starts with an ideal that “we are in this together”, rather than the tired paradigm of the past: “us against them, survival of the fittest”.
We are in for a month-long debate about the 2009 fiscal stimulus package. Obama must work with the U.S. House and Senate to pass legislation that will produce new jobs quickly. State and local governments are facing bankruptcy. Many industries need some kind of “bail out”. Critics complain about federal spending and deficits, but we have no real choice other than to “print money” and inject the economy with many billions of new dollars. “The velocity of money” is an important concept. The federal stimulus must circulate money widely for it to work effectively. Funding “shovel ready” projects is smart and rebuilding U.S. infrastructure is necessary. This will create jobs quickly and strengthen our long-term economic standing.
Democrats prefer increased spending while Republicans emphasize tax cuts. The Obama proposal offers both. I suspect this is primarily a political decision rather than the best economic choice. Nevertheless, doing something reasonably effective now is better than fighting about the “perfect plan” for months. Rebuilding inner-city schools is a great idea even though some may label it as “pork barrel spending” and an “earmark”. Funding development, research, and production of green technologies is an obvious step and essential to our future. Restructuring the health care industry also must happen. Health care is simply too expensive for corporations, families, and individuals. How about giving nurses more power?
I hear some people still argue that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was not effective. This argument is misguided. While it’s true that the depression lasted until World War II, Roosevelt prevented the economy from getting even worse. His administration gave people hope and that is worth more than a specific dollar amount. The U.S. depression of the 1930s was in the context of a global economic meltdown. Roosevelt kept America true to its democratic ideals while other parts of the world sank into totalitarianism. Roosevelt’s rebuilding efforts positioned the United States to enjoy tremendous prosperity once the depression ended.
Spring is just around the corner. Americans have many reasons to be grateful. By electing Barack Obama, we proved we can unite around good leadership instead of wallowing in the counter-productive ethnic conflicts of the past. Despite massive economic problems, we still enjoy a standard of living well above most of the world. As we watch the violence in the Middle East, we realize that we are lucky to be here instead of many other places.
Many people have strong opinions about the economy, regardless of their expertise on the subject. What I find interesting is that award-winning economists disagree with each other fervently. No one really knows what is the best solution or even what will work to some extent. Roosevelt did quite a bit of experimenting, and in retrospect, many believe he should have spent much more right away. Obama has a mandate for change. We need bold actions, professional follow-through, and transparency. The Obama team has great talent, and I find it annoying to get bogged down in tedious arguments about Timothy Geithner’s tax filing mistakes.
Economists agree that ultimately psychology plays a primary role in the economy. A dollar is worth a dollar because we all think it is. The word “credit” comes from the Latin word “credo”, meaning “I believe”. Our economy has fundamental structural problems. We cannot wish these away, yet optimism vs. pessimism impacts decisions throughout the economy. Ultimately, money is not important. We have our dignity and we have each other. I agree with many people who feel that Barack Obama is the right person at the right time. Through his strong leadership and intelligent decisions, we will overcome the huge financial hardships we face as individuals and as a nation. Happy days are here again, but we need to have some patience because it will take some time for the economy to recover.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on November 5th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
On November 4, 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.
By electing the first African-American President of the United States, America turns an important page in our history. Over 100,000 people celebrated in Grant Park, Chicago as the election results were announced. Barack Obama addressed the crowd, which responded with euphoric chants of “Yes, We Can!”
Obama not only won all of the traditionally Democratic states, he also won the key battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. New battleground states emerged in 2008, and Obama won them all: Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Missouri was the only traditional battleground state that John McCain won.
The Obama campaign fulfilled the important goal of expanding the electoral map by winning states in the South and the Southwest. In Political Science, a “landslide” is when a candidate wins by more than 10%. Obama won an electoral landslide, defeating McCain 364-174. The popular vote was closer, with a margin of approximately 7%. Election officials are still counting the votes, and at this time the totals are Obama 63,893,037 (53%) and McCain 56,404,917 (46%).
Obama won for several reasons: widespread disapproval of the Bush administration and the U.S. economic meltdown made the conditions extremely difficult for John McCain. The Obama campaign was truly historic in assembling the largest grassroots organization ever in the U.S. Literally millions of people volunteered and/or donated to the Obama campaign. This led to many newly registered voters and very high turn-out for Obama on election day and even earlier due to “early voting” provisions in some states. Obama’s messages of hope and uniting Americans resounded strongly in a country tired of division and fear.
Analysts will continue discussing what this all means. The vote totals were very decisive but not overwhelming. Many states were very close, but the 2008 election was a much clearer decision than the extremely close 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
The Democratic Party gained seats in both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, building on the gains Democrats made in the 2006 congressional elections. The Democrats are projected to have a minimum of a 56-40 majority over Republicans in the Senate, with results for 4 seats still being counted. Democrats are projected to have a minimum advantage of 254-173 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, with results for 8 seats still being counted. Consequently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) have increased their power.
The Obama administration and the Democratic Party clearly have a “mandate” to enact some important changes. Voters want and expect action. The Democrats now have the power and hold that responsibility. We will hold them accountable two years from now in the 2010 congressional elections.
Simply by electing Barack Obama, the image of the United States throughout the world has improved, literally over night. This is not enough and this is not policy. The Obama administration faces many perilous global circumstances. Establishing new U.S. policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are key first steps.
Necessarily, people will focus mainly on the economy, and this is not a simple problem to solve. We have some short-term major problems and long-term major problems. The U.S federal government needs to do more to stabilize the financial markets and bring relief to the struggling middle class. We are likely in the beginning of a long, deep recession. Extending unemployment benefits and tax relief for the middle class are obvious first steps toward easing the pain. The U.S. must become more competitive in global markets and we need a strong and stable dollar. For both the short-term and the long-term, the U.S. economy must provide good jobs for the middle class.
The high costs of energy, health care, and education are long-term problems that have hampered the U.S. economy. We have an historic opportunity to restructure these vital sectors. This is likely where the political battle lines will be drawn in the early days of the new Obama administration and stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The success or failure of new economic policies will depend largely on the American people and Obama’s leadership abilities. A working majority of U.S. voters must support specific new policies in order for changes to occur and be effective.
John McCain gave a magnanimous concession speech, which included this call for unity:
I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.
Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.
The United States has changed. For the momemt, U.S. politics have shifted toward the left. It is up to the Democratic Party to work with the American people in forming new policies that will improve our country.
Sphere: Related Content
8 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 19th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
John McCain and Barack Obama face the same challenge of all presidential candidates: to consolidate and energize the party base while winning over the center.
This challenge presents many dimensions for each candidate. Today I focus on John McCain and the Republicans, and soon I will post a separate article about Obama’s coalition.
John McCain is remarkably unpopular among conservative Republicans. During the Republican primaries, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity continually criticized McCain. At times their attacks were so vicious that they reached the level usually reserved for Democrats and liberals. One of my first articles on this blog was about this phenomenon: The right-wing attacks on John McCain.
According to some critics on the political right, John McCain is not a “true believer” in core conservative principles, especially on these specific issues: taxes, immigration, and the environment. McCain’s advocacy of campaign finance reform angered some conservatives. They especially dislike McCain’s willingness to sometimes work with Democrats. For purists of all ideologies, “compromise” is one of the most hated words and deeds, and McCain is guilty of occasionally committing this political sin.
Once McCain clinched the Republican nomination, criticisms of him from the traditional right diminished considerably as conservative talk radio shows shifted their focus back to what they do best: attack Democrats. “Hold your nose and vote!” This is a popular slogan for purists in both parties every four years. Most conservatives dislike McCain, but they see him as “the lesser of two evils”. In their perception of political reality, McCain may be a “liberal”, but he is much less dangerous than that “radical leftist”, Barack Obama.
The Three Legs of the Republican Stool
I always thought “stool” was a poor choice of words, but it holds an honored place in the Republican lexicon. Technically, “modern” conservative Republican thought goes back to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, but Ronald Reagan was the culmination of theory and practice. Reagan effectively combined three key elements: 1) strong national defense, 2) limited federal government (especially low taxes), and 3) social conservatism.
These three concepts held special and specific meaning when Reagan was first elected president in 1980. The United States and the world have changed significantly since then. The Reagan administration was part of that change. In 2008, we face new challenges and none of the Republican candidates in 2008 effectively captured the hearts and minds of today’s conservative Republican voters.
John McCain won the nomination largely by default. He was perhaps the candidate closest to representing conservative principles simply by not violating any one of them too much. His biography as a war hero and one who has sacrificed so much is beyond reproach. McCain is especially popular with moderate Republicans and some independents. These voters gave McCain an important edge over his competitors. Without a Ronald Reagan in the mix, John McCain ultimately emerged as the compromise candidate for Republicans.
The Traditional Republican Base is in a Quandary
Of course, most people who voted for George W. Bush will vote for John McCain. Bush’s approval rating is among the lowest ever recorded at about 28%, but that still translates into approximately 34 million voters (Bush won over 62 million votes in 2004). Many believe that President Bush and his administration have greatly damaged the “Republican brand”.
A very effective theme for the Democrats in 2008 is: “John McCain would be Bush’s third term”. It would be political campaign malpractice for the Democrats NOT to use this.
Most of the Rush Limbaugh “ditto-head” Republican base will vote for John McCain. Again, the emphasis is on voting against the Democrat Obama. Many voters in every election vote against someone rather than voting for someone.
A segment of conservative voters may reject McCain and instead vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. (See my previous article: Libertarians, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the “Revolution”). Libertarians know that Bob Barr is not going to win the presidency in 2008.
Additionally, John McCain is not especially popular among “conservative Christians”, many of whom supported Mike Huckabee in the 2008 Republican primaries. This church-based constituency was a key to the success of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Political organizing of this base has been a cost-effective way for campaigns to tap into volunteers, resources, and many votes.
John McCain shares the same positions on some issues important to conservative Christians, especially his opposition to both abortion rights and gay marriage. However, candidates like Huckabee and Bush more “speak their language”, while McCain appears less comfortable talking about religion. McCain’s lack of familiarity with this community resulted in making ill-conceived alliances with “televangelists” John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama hopes to attract some of this constituency and widen the discussion with this community to include other topics central to Christianity, such as caring for the less fortunate. Conservative Christians are often misunderstood and unfairly pigeon-holed. Labels often cause confusion, for example, someone may be “conservative” in their religious beliefs without necessarily being politically conservative. Political campaigns would be wise to pay attention to these voters and avoid making assumptions about them.
Turnout is Key
The 2008 presidential election may be very close, especially if recent history is a guide. Both Barack Obama and John McCain must win overwhelmingly among traditional party voters of their respective parties. Turnout is perhaps the most under-rated key to winning elections. Even if McCain wins more than 90% of traditionally Republican votes, how many will turn out to vote? Obama’s success in the Democratic primaries was largely due to high turnout.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Republican presidential candidates especially have enjoyed the benefit of good grassroots “get out the vote” organizational efforts to produce high turnout on election day. While high turnout (for your candidate) is an important key to winning an election, having many highly motivated volunteers is a key to producing high turnout. This is perhaps John McCain’s biggest vulnerability. Many Republicans may “hold their nose and vote” for McCain, but few are motivated to work on getting their friends, neighbors, and undecided voters to do likewise.
McCain suffers “an enthusiasm gap” as reported in this article by Yahoo News:
For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain’s. Sixty-five percent of Obama’s backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain’s, and the Democrat’s supporters are three times likelier to express pride.
The Fight for the Center:
John McCain and Barack Obama want to win over the center, the undecided voters, independents. At the same time, they need to keep their respective party bases happy and enthused. John McCain especially has enjoyed a successful political career by gaining the favorable label of a “maverick”. He does NOT mindlessly vote the “party line”, instead he sometimes “reaches across the aisle” to the other party in order to get legislation passed.
See my recent article McCain and Obama Are Both Flip-Floppers, So What? and check out our Interactive 2008 Electoral Map Calculator. The campaigns are focused on having a winning electoral map strategy, and honing optimal policy positions on key issues is essential to achieve this.
A good case study is John McCain’s recent flip-flop on offshore oil drilling. His earlier opposition to offshore drilling fit his somewhat popular maverick image by taking a pro-environmental stand contradictory to most of his party members. Voters in Florida are especially concerned about potential environmental hazards of drilling for oil off the Florida coasts. Soaring gas prices emerged as an immediate concern for many voters across the map and the ideological spectrum. The McCain campaign calculation is that flip-flopping to now support offshore oil drilling will pay off. They are hoping McCain’s flip-flop will gain votes in some key swing states while maintaining enough support in Florida to win there as well. It’s also a nice sop to the voracious ideological appetite of the conservative Republican base.
Republican political strategist Dick Morris is well known for his work in Bill Clinton’s presidential administration. His advice has often been effective, at least in terms of helping politicians increase their short-term popularity. Morris is especially associated with the concept of triangulation: take policy positions that remove an argument from the opposition, help win over the center, and leave your base with no where else to turn. Bill Clinton’s support of welfare reform and Bush 43’s policy of extending federal prescription drug benefits to seniors are two recent examples of political triangulation.
I have seen Dick Morris on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes several times recently. Sean Hannity, in case you don’t know, is one the guardians of conservative Republican ideological purity. While Hannity continues to urge John McCain to move to the right, Morris argues for the opposite approach. Read this Dick Morris article published by the Washington Post. This short excerpt sums up Morris’ broad strategy advice:
McCain can win by running to the center . . . His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers.
In some elections one candidate is able to unite and enthuse the base while also winning over voters in the middle. That candidate becomes President.
Note: Coming Soon - an article about Barack Obama’s coalition building challenges.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 6th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
In Defense of Flip-Flopping:
Imagine an American leader with a specific strategy to fight a foreign enemy and save New York City. Then this leader meets with leaders from France and instead adopts a very different strategy, the French strategy. As we celebrate the 4th of July, remember that this flip-flop by George Washington in 1781 enabled the fledgling United States to defeat the British in Yorktown, Virginia.
Abraham Lincoln was a big time flip-flopper, especially on the issue of slavery. Instead of holding to strong principles on the most important moral and social issue of the 19th century, Lincoln’s position on the slavery issue continually shifted according to the political winds. After many years and much tragedy, Lincoln finally abolished slavery for politically and militarily strategic reasons. Also, thank goodness Franklin D. Roosevelt finally flip-flopped on his position regarding fighting Hitler and the Nazis in 1941.
Changing your mind is not necessarily bad. History is very interesting and teaches us important lessons, but I’m much more interested in the future. What will a candidate really do if elected president? I want leaders who evolve and grow. The tragic mess of the Iraq War is largely the result of a myopic, inflexible, obstinate mindset.
Perhaps the greatest “invention” of all time is the scientific method. Science has the humility to start with the premise that we don’t know the truth, and perhaps we never will. We continually test theories and measure, learn and revise. Effective government is an ongoing process. Government is far from pure science, but the concept of learning and re-evaluating is essential. Each day brings new challenges and shifts in economic and demographic reality. Policies that made sense in 1984 are often not good choices today. Of course, in wartime, policies need to change instantly as “events on the ground” dictate and as our understanding deepens.
The Political Problem of the Flip-Flop:
Don’t misread my “defense of flip-flopping”. Just because flip-flopping is not always bad does not mean it’s always good. It is always a political risk in that it raises questions of character. People accuse candidates of not having strong principles, opting out to do only what is politically expedient, and of lying, breaking campaign promises, not being trustworthy.
Hearing that a candidate is a flip-flopper persuades some knee-jerk voters. All politicians are flip-floppers. John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” and Barack Obama’s “New Politics” are good campaign slogans. Each accusing the other of “flip-flopping” is easy, but hopefully a worn-out tactic and meaningless label in 2008. Often the flip-flop accusation itself is politically expedient. Emblematic of the dumbing down of political discourse, sound bites and meaningless labels replace intelligent discussion of difficult and intricate policy.
Recent Flip-Flop Disasters:
We have two big examples of the flip-flop label impacting recent elections. In the 1988 presidential campaign, Republican George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes”, and then during his presidency, Bush raised taxes. This especially angered some Republicans who either voted for Ross Perot or stayed home for the 1992 election. This flip-flop was one factor enabling the election of Bill Clinton. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry recorded this most unfortunate sound bite: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [in funding for the Iraq War] before I voted against it.” Republican operatives used this in their larger negative portrayal of Kerry as being unreliable. The flip-flopper label stuck on Kerry and hurt his public image.
McCain/Obama Flip-Flops: 2008 Greatest Hits:
We are going to hear much about candidate flip-flopping until November. The flip-flop label hurts the most when it sticks to just one candidate. Both McCain and Obama have each accumulated sizeable lists of flip-flops. Attacking each other as a “flip-flopper” makes as much sense as criticizing their opponent for being a Senator.
Basically, flip-flopping doesn’t really matter unless: 1) people really care about that specific issue, and 2) a candidate clearly breaks a promise important to many voters. Another scenario is an established pattern of flip-flopping in which a candidate rapidly changes positions on many issues. Neither McCain nor Obama have flip-flopped in a way that will hurt them significantly.
Here’s a short list of some well-publicized McCain and Obama flip-flops and a quick review of why each doesn’t matter.
Obama on Campaign Financing: in 2007 Obama promised to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a public financed general election”. Obama clearly flip-flopped on this one when he announced last month that he would opt out of public financing. This means Obama will not accept the $84 million of federal government funds available to him. In doing so, he is exempt from fund-raising limits. Obama has kept his promise to not accept money from PACs (political action committees) and corporations. Individuals are limited to donating a maximum of $2,300. Few people follow the intricacies of campaign financing rules. Those who actually follow this realize that Obama’s new approach saves the federal government $84 million. Also, the problem with campaign financing is precisely that PACs and corporate interests have too much influence. By accepting only small donations from individuals, Obama’s campaign exemplifies what campaign finance reform laws strive to achieve. Reference.
McCain on Privatizing Social Security: John McCain has recently taken both sides of this controversial topic, as quoted in the Baltimore Sun:
Two weeks ago, Mr. McCain said, “I am not for privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Funny that categorical claim, too, because according to a Wall Street Journal story March 3, here’s what Mr. McCain said just three months ago: “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed.”
This is an important issue that divides people, but McCain has time to clarify where he really stands. He may anger some Republicans/conservatives if he clarifies that he is against privatization. Given recent stock market performance, support for privatizing Social Security is dwindling.
McCain and Obama cut ties with controversial religious leaders: Both McCain and Obama had embraced religious leaders who ended up being campaign liabilities because of their inflammatory statements and fiery rhetoric. Both presidential candidates flip-flopped by ultimately denouncing, renouncing, and rejecting their former allies. Very few voters will change their vote because of they dislike these rejections.
McCain on Off-Shore Drilling: McCain has been a long-time opponent of offshore drilling, but recently (three weeks ago) changed his position in favor of offshore drilling. This is like many flip-flops: people are much more concerned about the actual issue than the act of flip-flopping. McCain is hedging his bet that his new position will be more popular than his previous opposition to offshore drilling. Reference.
Obama on Iraq: This is a case in which no flip-flop happened. Obama has been remarkably consistent on the issue of the Iraq War. Some anti-Obama operatives (e.g., Fox News) are attempting to manufacture a controversy simply by accusing Obama of flip-flopping. This is compounded by complaints from a few left-wing “purists” who abhor any suggestion of nuance and especially any move toward the political center. Example (Barack at Risk by Tom Hayden).
Barack Obama has often repeated his well-crafted sound bite that “we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as George Bush was careless getting in.” Obama has always been clear that he wants a quick but orderly withdrawal from Iraq based on the recommendations of the generals in the field.
Obama has recently re-iterated his belief that U.S. policy in Iraq needs flexibility based on the advice of commanding officers. Some have jumped on this statement to characterize it as a “flip-flop”. Attempting to couple the flip-flop label with a key issue is a good campaign tactic, but it is much more effective if it is based on at least a shred of truth. The hope must be to alienate some of Obama’s strong anti-war supporters. In all fairness, this tactic should hurt only the credibility of the false accusers. Reference.
More McCain and Obama Flip-Flops:
The Move to the Center: Politics 101 teaches that once the primaries are over, the presidential nominees from each party move to the political center and away from respective left and right extremes. As John McCain and Barack Obama attempt to win over the political center, we will see more real flip-flopping and accusations from both of the candidates and their campaigns. The bottom line is that you can’t simply vote against the flip-flopper: all candidates flip-flop and maybe that’s even a good thing.
The left-wing purists are a problem for Obama, and the right-wing purists are a problem for John McCain. This sounds like a good topic for my next article.
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 6th, 2008 — in Opinion Polls - VOTE!, Issues/Policy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mainstream Media, Blog
Just when I thought the Democratic Party nomination would only be a referendum on bowling vs. basketball, finally the media is covering a real issue: gasoline prices.
Gas prices impact most people much more than candidate flag pin accessory decisions. It is encouraging that we can analyze a real issue.
Hillary Clinton has joined John McCain in calling for a “gas tax holiday”, proposing a suspension of the federal tax of 18 cents per gallon of gasoline during the summer months. Many analysts and Barack Obama have heavily criticized this proposal. They claim that this “gas tax holiday” would have little economic benefit and encourage more gas consumption when our energy policy should instead focus on conserving oil and other energy resources. Clinton critics also decry this proposal as nothing more than political pandering. (Steve Brenan’s article is one example. If you can find someone praising the proposal, please post it in the comments - I always want to present “both sides”). Clinton has dismissed her critics as simply “elite opinion”.
For many people, a temporary elimination of the federal gas tax will not add up to meaningful savings. However, most people whose income depends on significant driving would welcome this relief.
Loading …
The “gas tax holiday” proposal is not a major issue, but it opens the discussion to a critically important one: U.S. energy policy. Everyone should know about the “peak oil” debate.
The candidates actually have much more substance than the goofy nonsense that dominates the media coverage.
Remarkably, unlike the websites for the Democrats, the “issues” section of John McCain’s website does NOT include “energy policy” as one of his issues. It does list “Second Amendment” (guns) as one of the major issues. I really try to be objective, but WOW!
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
