Is This Ironic Or What?

In what has to be one of the most ironic moments in US political history, John Edwards arguably the best progressive candidate in the Presidential race is being ignored. Mr. Edwards is being ignored not because of his ideas or policy positions. It is not because he is not a tireless and exciting campaigner. No, my friends it is because he is a white male. Despite both other candidates call for and representations of change, no one is pressing the issue of changing the status quo more than John Edwards. In normal times with the mood of the country, Mr. Edwards would be the front-runner. However, times are different. I never thought I would say that being a white man in America is detrimental to being elected President. It sounds crazy just saying it, but here we are. With history weighing in the balance, Mr. Edwards could not have picked a worse time to run for President. There is Hillary Clinton making a bid to be the first woman nominated by a major Party and Barack Obama trying to become the first black man nominated. Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards the march towards history will not be kind.

After almost 220 years and 43 Presidents, all of whom were white males, the tide appears to be changing. Because of these history making events the Edwards campaign has been ignored and minimized by the media and a lot of the voting public from the start. It seems that the Democratic primary voters have decided to vote for anyone, but the white guy. This is not to say that the other two candidates are not capable or attractive. It is not to say that they do not present ideas and visions of America that the voters like, but no one has articulated the current struggles that America faces as well as John Edwards, in my opinion. So as the country and the Democratic voters flirt with history, a white male that seems to finally get it goes unnoticed.

There will be voices that say it is about time for the changes we are witnessing and I for one could not agree more. I have to ask myself though what is better, to have a history making President or a President that will make history. While I believe that either Obama or Clinton will do a better job of being President than any Republican, is that good enough for us? We are at a defining moment in American history and I for one do not want to choose a President that’s just better than a Republican. I want a President that will have the courage to take on the entrenched power structure that has allowed the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthiest Americans. While I applaud the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their historic significance, I don’t have confidence that they will take on the difficult task of reforming a system that is thoroughly corrupt and broken.

My sense is that they will attack some of the symptoms, but leave the disease intact. After George Bush this may satisfy a great many Americans, I however will not be one of them. I am not looking for Bush-lite in the war on terror, corporate influence over our democracy, or empire building. I want someone who will repudiate in no uncertain terms the past and not just the past eight years. I was watching Bill Maher on HBO and he had Tony Snow on the panel and listening to him trying to continue to justify the policies of this administration and the status quo was more than I could bear. What it did do was further illustrate to me the depth to which the propaganda has reached. This is no time for band-aids, we need to tear down the old and create something completely new. If I hear one more person say we are “fundamentally sound” as a nation, I am going to scream.

We are not fundamentally sound as a nation. We have hundreds of people imprisoned without trials in Cuba, we have over 2 million of our own citizens imprisoned, we have 150,000 troops in Iraq with no plans to get them out, we have over 40 million citizens without basic healthcare, we have just 1% of the US population owning 38% of the wealth, we have millions of people who are getting or about to get evicted from their homes, we have racial tensions boiling just under the surface, we have homelessness and poverty at record levels, we are torturing our fellow humans, we have a democracy that is being sold to the highest bidders, we are continuing to replace living wage jobs with service oriented minimum wage jobs, and we have a two-party system that is not responsive to anyone.

It is time we stop kidding ourselves, we have some serious issues that need to be addressed. We need a President that is willing to lead the fight to reclaim America for all Americans. It has always amazed me how the wealthy have used their talking heads to discredit those who talk about real change. Obama and Clinton are only offering to change how we do things, not changing what we are doing. John Edwards is saying we need to change not only how we do things, but also just as importantly what things we do.

The media has ignored him and they have labeled him a hypocrite. Here is what I don’t understand; when a poor person speaks out against the wealth discrepancy they are labeled a communist or a socialist that is jealous of the wealthy. When a rich person speaks out against the discrepancy they are labeled a hypocrite. My question is this, “who can speak out against the wealth gap”? The answer is no one can. The media will continue to ignore, denounce, and misrepresent anyone who has the nerve to speak out against the corporate raping of America.

I believe in John Edwards. I believe in his determination, his commitment, and his honesty. The American people are being offered a hoax. The hoax is that they are being offered the appearance of change in the candidate’s appearances, while the candidate that offers true change in substance is being marginalized. This is the real irony of the election, because it is the white guy.

Read more!

Human Nature or Bad Priorities

I recently read an unpublished study by a group of economists and its findings raised a number of questions for me. The study was designed to see if there was a difference in what blacks and Hispanics spent their money on compared to their white counterparts. For a while now there has been this public discussion about whether blacks spend too much money on “flashy” items instead of on other things, like education and savings. The discussion was brought to a head by the recent comments of comedian Bill Cosby stating that blacks will spend $500 on a pair of sneakers instead of educational toys for their children. There was an outcry from many in the black community denouncing Mr. Cosby. I have to admit that I have also been involved in such discussions and have been ridiculed for making similar statements to Mr. Cosby’s.

The authors of the study entitled, “Conspicuous Consumption and Race”, are Kerwin Kofi Charles, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai Roussanov ; while their empirical data seems sound as with any study the conclusions are open to interpretation. The gist of the study is as follows, using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) the authors wanted to compare the spending habits of blacks, Hispanics, and whites of comparable income for things they labeled as “visible goods” (clothes, cars, and jewelry). Do blacks and Hispanics spend more on these items? Based on the results of the study the answer is a resounding yes. On average blacks spend 30% more on these items than their white counterparts of similar income.

The question now becomes why? The conclusion drawn by the authors of the study suggest that it is primarily based on how and where we demonstrate our wealth. In a consumer driven society the mark of one’s status is based directly on the fact that one is consuming and on what one is consuming. All who are able play the game, keeping up with the Jones. It’s just we play it in different ways.

Economists refer to items that we purchase in order to reveal our prosperity to others as wealth signals. But why use sneakers, as opposed to phonics toys, as a wealth signal? First off, for a signal to be effective, it needs to be easily observed by the people we're trying to impress. This includes not just those near and dear to us, but also the person we pass on the street, who sees our sneakers but would have a harder time inferring how much we're spending teaching our kids to read. For a wealth signal to be credible, it also needs to be hard to imitate—if everyone in your community can afford $150 sneakers, those Zoom Lebron IVs would lose their signal value.[1]

So according to the conclusions drawn by the authors, the reason blacks spend more on visible goods (clothes, cars, and jewelry) is because of where we are located. We are trying to impress different groups and each of those groups has different signals. Whites are trying to impress other whites and blacks are trying to impress other blacks. Their argument is as follows: based on median incomes and housing patterns blacks earning 42,500 which is the median income for blacks are surrounded by other blacks and so their income would be considered high on the neighborhood scale. Whites on the other hand making the same amount would be lower on the income scale in their neighborhood (66,800 is the median income for whites) and therefore could not financially take part in the signals game, so these whites are spared from having to spend on these visible goods.

Here is my problem with the conclusions produced from the study by the authors. If this is human nature then why don’t all people do it? The whites that are making the same income as blacks should still be playing the game even if it is on a smaller scale. Why do blacks that are making under the median income still purchase these visible items while whites don’t? Based on their analysis there is still cultural factors in the fact that what blacks are using to impress each other are not the same as the visible items whites are using.

I believe that the reason we see these differences is based on two factors. The first is the length of time blacks have had to accumulate wealth and the second is the cultural messages we have been taught. For many blacks the length of time that they have had to accumulate and handle wealth has been only a few decades. Why is this important? It is important because as we have seen with lottery and other sweepstakes winners people who have not had money blow it very quickly on foolish things. Also, as many of our athletes and entertainers have shown there are certain behaviors that are deeply embedded and acquiring money does not make them disappear. If you or your family has been poor for more than a single generation then your poverty is generational and you are governed by different standards. The things you value are developed by your environment, so in one sense the authors are right. If you are raised in poverty, then you will value wealth signals of that environment. Even after you leave that environment they remain with you. We see it every day on the television; you will have superstar athletes wearing 2 and 3 carat diamond earrings. Do you think a white of similar income would purchase those same items?

The second relates to the things we value as a culture. The reason we would rather spend the money on sneakers rather than books or educational toys is because those things are not viewed as having value. We don’t seem to value long-term rewards. We want instant gratification. The long-term values of having an education or saving money are not promoted in our communities. In other words, it is more important to have the child look wealthy today to impress than it is to invest in the child’s future to become wealthy later which is not impressive. Look at the cultures that value education, what is impressive to them is not flashy jewelry, clothes, or cars. Somewhere we have either chosen or been sold on the belief that these things denote class and wealth, when in actuality they denote neither. One of the main reasons the dope trade is so attractive is that it promises fast and easy money. Why wait and work hard trying to get an education when you can sell poison. The sad thing is that most of these guys aren’t even trying to get rich, they’re just trying to make enough to get a few things.

These are mostly grown folks so what difference does it make what they spend their money on anyway? First, making these purchases reinforces the false notion of wealth. Second, if you are spending more on one thing, then subsequently something is getting less. There is only so much income available to spend. So, if you are spending 30% more on flash, then some other areas are receiving less. There is only so much money to go around and usually according to the study the areas that are receiving less are education and savings. These are the two areas that actually help to build wealth in the long run.

The question now becomes, why are these areas not valued? I remember growing up in an atmosphere of hope and promise for the future, education was promoted even by those who didn’t have any. Children were encouraged to become educated and those that did were given motivation to go further. Have we sunk into a vicious cycle of poverty that begets poverty? Have we been seduced by the “pimp my” syndrome, where the façade is more important than the substance? Where does it end? I had a friend who’s two sons and a cousin, who were by all indications good kids, they went out and carjacked an old couple to go joyriding because her and her husband were not able to get them the gifts for Christmas they felt entitled to. Needless to say they are locked up and three more black boys are lost to the system.

The problem is that we as a nation are spending too much money on things that have no real value in order to impress people who make no difference in our lives. The problem for blacks is that we can’t afford it financially, spiritually, and culturally. Somewhere there has been this disconnect from obtaining things through hard work to this quick and easy idea. I don’t know where it came from, but I know it had better change soon or it won’t matter how much your sneakers cost when you’re laying in the coffin or in prison.

[1] http://www.slate.com/id/2181822

Read more!

The Secret Is The Question

The more I watch the news, the more incensed I become. It’s not the incessant blather about Brittany or the rock star status of Obama that troubles me, this is to be expected in a country that values entertainment more than knowledge. No, what is more frightening to me is how the debate in America is being framed by those who would have us stay ignorant of the facts and the real issues that we face as a nation. The way this is being done is nothing short of brilliant by the purveyors of dribble. The way you control the debate is not by being in command of the facts or even by being right. No, the way you control the debate is in the questions you ask. You control the answers by the questions you ask the interviewee. What troubles me is how so many of the “newsmakers” whether they are captains of industry, politicians, or sports and entertainment figures all play the game.

An example would be the infamous do you support the troops question or the why do you cheat on your wife. Both questions presuppose a given fact that has not been previously agreed to by the person answering the question, but by answering the loaded question you immediately agree with the premise. In other words if I say yes I support the troops, I am actually also saying yes I support the mission they are on and with the wife question I am saying yes I in fact do cheat on my wife. For an example of this technique in action, here is an interview between Wolf Blitzer of CNN and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

BLITZER: The surge in Iraq, as it's called, General Petraeus' strategy, at least as far as U.S. casualties, Iraqi civilian casualties are concerned, seems to be paying off, seems to be working. Albeit the political progress is not where it should be with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Are you prepared to concede, though, that if -- if the U.S. had done what you wanted six months ago or a year ago, simply start pulling out, there would have been no prospects of any sort of political resolutions, any political stability in Iraq?[1]

Notice how by the phrasing of the question Mr. Blitzer is trying to get the Governor to concede to facts that are not in evidence; that the surge is working. This is a common ploy by the corporate media to limit the debate to topics and issues they want discussed and to insert information they want disseminated instead of the real issues that need discussing. Many times the person being interviewed falls into this ploy, my question is do they do it out of ignorance or are they in concert with the person conducting the interview?

The following is how the Governor responded to the question and it is one of the reasons I have always liked and respected Governor Richardson.

RICHARDSON: There is no military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. This policy is flawed. It's not working.

Has there been any progress in political reconciliation in Iraq? No.
Has there been any progress in distributing oil revenues equally? No.

Have there been any regional elections? No.

Is the Iraqi government moving toward training their own people more effectively? No.

This is a quagmire.[2]

Governor Richardson refused to concede the embedded point that Wolf Blitzer is trying to make, by not doing so he is able to expose the fallacy in the position of Wolf Blitzer. Now to reinforce his point the Governor should have posed the question to Wolf Blitzer, what constitutes success? Until these types of questions are asked the media will continue to portray the “surge” as being a success and as a reason to continue the current Iraq policy. The goal is not to get us to sign off on the “100 year war”, the goal is to get us to continue to sign off year by year, until before you know it we’ve been there for 50 years. The way they hope to do it is the same way they have done for all of our other occupations, stabilization and pacifism. These blossoming democracies need our support.

It is time we as an informed public begin to expose these tricks for what they are and begin to ask the real questions of our politicians and our leaders. We are currently in an election cycle and now is the time to ask the questions that the corporate media are not asking. We must begin to hold the candidates feet to the fire and stop relying on promises and dreams. There are so many questions that are going unanswered because no one is asking them. Let’s start asking.

[1] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/06/le.01.html
[2] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/06/le.01.html

Read more!

Can Polls Be Trusted?

If there is one thing the New Hampshire primary should have taught us all is that polls are unreliable, especially this year. There are too many dynamics at play that cannot be gleaned from simple raw data. I have said from the outset that polls will be ineffective because by their nature they are ineffectual for determining what a person is really thinking. The trouble with America today is that we are having a crisis of honesty. Many of us want to pretend we are somebody we are not. How many of us are willing to admit what is going on in the deep recesses of our minds and hearts? Too many of us want to be judged on what we say and not on what we do. The bottom line will be which group polled will be true to their numbers. Will all the women who say they will vote for Hillary come through or will all the whites who say they can vote for a black man come through for Obama. It will be really interesting to watch the pollsters squirm from here on out, because how can they have faith in any of their numbers?

If the poll numbers continue to not be supported by the election results, what shall we do then? Will the truth about America be exposed once again? There will be those who will find excuses for the disparity or the lack of honesty, but to those who are able to see; the truth will be “self-evident”. Anyone relying on the polls to bolster their candidate’s position in this race is just spitting in the wind. Until this thing is over all bets are off. I have read that many bloggers have questioned the methodology of the pollsters in New Hampshire. I don’t think it’s the pollsters fault or the Republican results would also have shown an anomaly. You can’t blame the pollsters if they are right on the one side and wrong on the other. Some have blamed the news media for mischaracterizing the race out of some desire to see Obama win. While there may be those who would relish writing the story of our first black nominee, this does not explain the drastic difference in opinion and reality.

There are other forces at work and we would be foolish and naïve to ignore them. If this were not so how could the pollsters have predicted McCain as the Republican winner, but were so wrong picking the Democratic winner using the same polling methods? As much as I want to believe that Hillary’s sudden surge was based on her emotional outburst that turned the tide, I think that for many New Hampshire voters when finally alone in that booth they faced a moment of truth about who they were and what they truly believed about Obama and America. I believe that this phenomenon will be repeated throughout this election process and it bodes badly for Obama and his message of hope. Sure, there will be those who will say that Hillary’s experience argument is finally getting traction with voters, but I don’t believe it.

John Zogby, who does the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, said the 18 percent of New Hampshire voters who reported making up their minds on Tuesday "is just an unprecedented number."

Like most polls, the last Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby survey ahead of the primary was quite near the mark for the Republican race, predicting McCain would get 36 percent to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's 27. The final result was 37 to 31. But on the Democratic side, the survey predicted Obama would have 42 percent of the vote to Clinton's 29, when in fact she won narrowly.[1]

The thing that I find interesting is how everyone in the media including the pollsters is running away from the race issue. This could be a defining moment in American history and I believe it will go unreported and the reason is because America will not want to face itself in the mirror with the truth. The truth is that despite all the hype of the media, the blogosphere, and the progressives America will not vote for a black man for President. It will be reported that it was everything but that simple truth. It is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. It is easier to blame the pollsters than to look at what really happened. There will be those who say that was New Hampshire a rural white state, but so was Iowa. They will say that as we get to more populous states this will be a non-issue, but when it continues to happen what will you say then?

There will be those who point to Iowa as proof that I am wrong, but Iowa merely reinforces the rule by being the exception. Iowa was a caucus in which the dynamics are different than a primary. In a caucus you have a group of people in a room together, not the solitude of a voting booth which makes it a bit more difficult not to be swept up in the emotion. Iowa raised expectations to unrealistic levels and created hysteria heading into New Hampshire. The first thing I learned growing up as an athlete is never believe “the hype”. You are never as good or as bad as people say you are.

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.

I’ve experienced this myself. In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall.[2]

So let me get this straight, the reason for the poll error is that poor whites are not polled and so there is no way to gauge their effect on the election? This is incredible, when all else fails blame it on the poor, white folks. Everybody knows that most of them are racists anyway. By placing the blame on their doorstep, the more affluent and cosmopolitan liberals can deny their own biases. I love it. This is almost as good as the alien hacking the election essay. One of these days we will have to gain the courage to confront our fears, because until we do they will always be our nightmares.

The reason I think this is a watershed moment is because we have the opportunity for once in over 300 years to be honest with each other about race and America. We can once and for all remove the façade that has allowed so many to sleep at night content that progress is being made and that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell prove it. Rather than run from this “inconvenient truth” we can learn from it and use it to open honest and frank discussions about those dark secrets that we hold cloaked in our liberalism. The time has come for us to recognize the truth that is America, we love our blacks so long as they are not running the free world. This isn’t about experience, it is about can we trust a black man to be the most powerful man in the world? Let’s see we can trust someone with Alzheimer’s, we can trust a “compassionate conservative”, and we can trust a crook. We can trust a womanizer, we can trust an alcoholic, and we can trust a sexual predator. But God forbid that we can trust a black man.

I know there will be those who will make the same argument for Hillary, but this isn’t that essay. This essay is about confronting the demon that so many have chosen to ignore or only comes out around like minded folks or in the solitude of a voting booth. Of course we will never know exactly who these people are and this anonymity will provide cover for all. New Hampshire is a wakeup call, I hope the rest of America is listening.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0960368620080109?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10003
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10kohut.html

Read more!

Don’t Cry For Me America

In what is sure to be condemned as a “why I hate Hillary” essay I feel compelled to discuss the last few days of New Hampshire and what I think the consequences of Hillary’s performance will be in the long term. While it is true that for many voters, especially women Hillary’s emotional melt-down was a final deal maker for her eventual win in New Hampshire. The problem is that just like most things in America men and women can see the very same event and interpret it differently, I guess that whole Venus and Mars thing.

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I admire Hillary tremendously. I think that she was probably the more talented of the two Clintons, but due to the country’s unwillingness to elect a woman we got Bill instead. I think Hillary will do a credible job as President if elected, but she would not be my first choice. To me Hillary represents the past. Even though I enjoyed some of my best year’s income wise with Bill Clinton I have no desire to see the country go backwards for any reason. I also have issues with Hillary’s foreign policy positions and I believe that she supports the American empire which I will discuss later.

In many of the interviews I have heard from women after New Hampshire, a lot of the women (which Hillary carried 46% to Obama’s 34%)stated that the turning point for them in selecting Hillary was her tearful response when asked how she was handling the campaign pressure. For many women it was a defining moment in that it presented Hillary as human for the first-time in the campaign. More women seemed to have identified with her more following the outburst than previously according to the interviews. I for one find this hard to believe in that one of Hillary’s strong suits from the outset was going to be women identifying with her. If these interviews are true are we to assume that she had them and then lost them and then got them back? I think for a lot of women it will be difficult to cast a vote for anyone but Hillary as long as she is in the race. This is not to say that all women will support her, but because of her attempt to make history and her shared history with many women who feel frustrated with the “good old boy” network she will garner a lot of female support.

This is the upside of the outburst; the downside is that while many women saw it as a strength to be vulnerable and emotional, many men will take the opposite tack. This scene will reinforce their belief that women are not emotionally stable enough to handle the pressure of governing or making tough decisions, so while it was a benefit to one group it can be a hindrance to another. The real question now becomes who will be most affected by it. Will it draw more women to Hillary than she already had like it did in New Hampshire or will it push away men who would have supported her? Will the Republicans use it in the fall?

While there are many who will dispute my conclusions the truth of the matter is that there are a substantial number of men who will use this as an excuse to not vote for Hillary. Would these men have ever voted for Hillary? We don’t know, but what we do know is that there is a long history of misogyny in America. There is a reason that we have not had a woman as President. And despite popular belief there are a large number of women who will not support Hillary, just as there are a large number of blacks who will not support Obama.

I read that the woman whose question elicited the emotional outburst from Hillary did not vote for her in the primary. After doing some blog crawling I have also found that there are women who viewed the incident as a sign of weakness. We are living in crazy times where every move a candidate makes is scrutinized and used for political fodder by both sides. I personally do not believe that Hillary showing emotions disqualifies her or anyone else from being President. I for one am tired of the phony “cowboy” persona that has been perpetrated the last eight years. I would hope that we as a nation have evolved beyond the day when a candidate crying would be a disqualifying factor for office, but stranger things have happened.

Hillary stated in an interview that there is a double-standard being applied to male and female candidates. I agree but crying isn’t one of them. In what is affectionately referred to as a Muskie any man that cries on the campaign trail is as good as history regardless of the circumstances. I’m sorry Hillary but that dog ain’t gonna hunt. While it is true you receive more scrutiny in some areas, so do the other candidates in others. I don’t think any candidate gets more grief for their appearance than John Edwards. I have never heard of a man being too handsome to be President. So let’s be fair, there is enough meaningless reporting to go around and so there is no need to get sensitive.

“I actually have emotions,” she told CNN’s John Roberts on a damage-control tour. “I know that there are some people who doubt that.” She went on “Access Hollywood” to talk about, as the show put it, “the double standards that a woman running for president faces.” “If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,” Hillary said. “A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.”[1]

As we continue this nominating process I am sure much will be made of the “boo-hoo” bump, but again it shows that we have a strange way of nominating people in this country. Will this be the moment that rights the Clinton ship and propels her to the nomination? It’s anybody’s guess, but for a lot of women it did solidify their solidarity with Hillary and for some it reminded them of why we need a woman in the White House. Maybe at some point before the convention we can get back to the important issues that are facing this country. Hillary Clinton crying in my opinion is not one of them.

[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/08/clinton-i-actually-have-emotions/

Read more!

When Does The Average American Worker Get a Raise?

Who says wages are flat-lining? They maybe if you are working in the private sector, but if you happen to be lucky enough to work for the Federal government, happy days are here again. President Bush signed an executive order authorizing the increases that affects 1.8 million workers. While I would never begrudge any worker their pay or any increase they can get, I can’t help but notice that those groups of workers who are organized continue to receive pay raises while those who are not organized do not. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if dark forces are at work here conspiring against the average worker?

President Bush today signed an executive order that provides nearly 1.8 million federal employees with an average 3.5 percent pay raise and also increases salaries by smaller percentages for the armed forces, members of Congress, federal judges, diplomats and others.

Under the order, the vice president will receive a $5,400 salary increase, to $221,100. The speaker of the House will receive a $5,300 increase, to $217,400, and the majority leader of the Senate will get a boost of $4,600, to $188,100.

In 2008, members of the House, senators and U.S. District Court judges will be paid $169,300. The chief justice of the United States will be paid $217,400, and Supreme Court justices will receive $208,100.

Members of the Cabinet, usually heads of large departments, will be paid $191,300 this year. Deputy secretaries of departments and heads of major agencies will receive $172,200.
Members of the Senior Executive Service, the government's career senior officials, will be paid from $114,468 to $172,200, according to the order.[1]

Now granted a 3.5% pay increase is not a lot, it does however underscore the disconnect between the Beltway and the rest of middle-America. When most other workers will be scrambling to hopefully this year get the increases that have eluded them in the past few years, it is nice to know that our Federal brethren will be taken care of. According to my crack research staff, there have only been two years since 1969 that Federal workers have not received an annual increase 1983 and 1986. I wonder how many of the other average wage earners in America can make that same claim.

Despite reports to the contrary, there are struggles going on in America. There is the struggle to return democracy to the people and away from corporate lobbyists and career politicians, there is the struggle to gain equal protection and opportunities for all Americans, and there is the struggle to balance the threat of terrorists with the freedom of democracy. There is also the struggle of closing the gap between the wealth and incomes of the wealthy with the average American, a gap that has grown larger in the last few years than at any time in our history. In this struggle I believe and agree with John Edwards that it is naive to believe those wealthy people will redistribute their wealth easily or happily. No my friends there will be an epic struggle. It is unfortunate that doing the right thing doesn’t come naturally to these folks, but I guess that’s how many of them got into their positions of affluence. There are those who would have us believe that everything is well in America, but that is a lie. In their usual fashion the MSM is failing to report the concern and in many cases the downright anger of many people with the disparity that continues to grow between the corporate interests and their interests.

People no longer believe the old mantra that what is good for General Motors is good for America. Corporate America has proven time and time again that their interests do not mirror the interests of the average American. The days of blind loyalty and trust of the American people to corporate America are coming to a close. The curtain is being pulled back and Mr. Edwards is exposing the greed for what it is. It is a shame that only one mainstream candidate is trumpeting the cause of the downtrodden and he is being marginalized and ignored. What many people have failed to understand is that as the middle-class goes, so goes America. With so many of our middle-class citizens finding it harder to make ends meet, drowning in debt and stagnant wages the very fabric of America is being unraveled. The sleeping giant is about to awaken and the silent majority will speak.

If the next President does not begin to address these issues there will be large scale restlessness in America unlike any we have seen in decades. The media would have you believe that Mr. Edwards and those calling for change are anti-wealthy, that is false. They are not anti-wealthy, they are anti-greed. Americans have always accepted the tenets of capitalism that some will be wealthy and some will not, but the level of greed that is occurring today is unprecedented. Not only is there great disparity in wealth, but also in the democratic process. Our democracy has been hijacked by the greedy and their tentacles are reaching into every aspect of our lives.

No, there will be no surrender of the lobbyists, corporate interests, or the ruling-class. The change will only come with a fight. Many pundits and talking heads refer to John Edwards as the angry candidate, I for one am glad that he is angry. I know I sure am.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010402402.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Read more!

The One Trick Pony

According to the MSM, the American voter has an attention deficit problem. In recent reporting they are saying that the war in Iraq is no longer an issue and that the economic insecurity of the American people is what will drive the primaries and the general election. Every election the talking heads, pundits, and pollsters try to boil the election down to one issue, one issue that will be central to the election of a Party, a candidate, or a movement. It appears in their eyes that the American electorate is incapable of focusing on more than one issue. In the early stages of this perpetual primary season it was the war. Each candidate was going to be judged on their positions concerning the war, troop levels, and experience. Now, the election is going to turn on the economic instability being felt by millions of Americans.

DES MOINES — The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are navigating a far different set of issues as they approach the Iowa caucuses on Thursday than when they first started campaigning here a year ago, and that is likely to change even more as the campaigns move to New Hampshire and across the country.

Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.[1]

Isn’t it great to be told what’s important and what isn’t? If I wasn’t so cynical I would view this as a coup for the Republicans, everyone knows they didn’t want to run on the war and if the media has anything to do with it they won’t. I feel extremely gifted that I am able to walk and chew bubble gum at the time. Despite their best efforts to deflect the presence of 140,000 US troops in Iraq, I for one still view Iraq as a major issue. It’s funny though that there are still two Republicans who want to keep the war front and center. The first is John McCain, Mr. McCain somehow feels vindicated for his unwavering support of the war by the “success” of the surge. The second is Rudy Giuliani; Mr. Giuliani has nothing else to run on except 9/11.

While stating the obvious that economic issues, immigration, and health care are important issues these in no way make Iraq any less important. Are we to understand that the American electorate is so one-dimensional that they can only focus on one issue at a time? When going into the booth their focus will only be on just the economy, the war, or some other issue. I beg to differ with the media, there are a number of voters that will weigh a number of different issues at the same time. While they may prioritize those issues they will be conscious of all of them.

No candidate can embody the complete views of any one voter, so many voters look for the candidate that best articulates their views on the most issues that matter to them. I hardly think that most anti-war voters will vote for a candidate that advocates advancing the war, even if he or she does agree with them on tax policy. Just as I am sure most fiscal conservatives would have a hard time supporting a candidate that advocated large deficits even if they did agree with his or her war policy. Oh wait a minute, bad example! We have seen that the war and large deficits don’t seem to prevent the fiscal conservatives from supporting their man.

The caucuses in Iowa while only a small percentage of the American electorate have made one thing extremely clear, that Americans want change. The change they are seeking is not just about Iraq, the economy, or any other single issue. The change they are seeking is a fundamental change in the direction of America. There has been a growing frustration with many voters and non-voters alike concerning the direction of the country in not just the last eight years, but the last few decades. This frustration has caused many Americans to opt out of the electoral process, thus leaving many pundits to believe that there was harmony. This year that view is about to be shattered in a big way. The strength of Barack Obama is that he is able to energize those frustrated voters and bring them back into the process.

This is an untapped resource that everyone knew was there, but many thought could never be reached. The election this year is not about any one issue or maybe even about any issues at all. This election is about altering the current state of America. The silent majority of inactive voters are tired of the system as it stands today. They are tired of the gridlock in Washington and the poisonous political tone that has characterized our political debates. They are tired of the only legislation being passed is what benefits the wealthy while their concerns are ignored. These people have embraced the call for change being offered by Obama and they don’t care about his experience, his race, or his background.

The winds of change are blowing and it is scaring the hell out of the status quo. People are not buying the, I can change it from the inside argument any longer, they have heard their options of experience versus change and they have chosen change. Now comes the time when the talking heads and pundits who don’t understand the phenomenon to try and explain it. They will try to boil it down to one incident, one issue and in the process they will expose their lack of understanding of what is taking place. There is a growing storm and the longer it blows, the stronger it will get. America is ready for a change, the question is now what will the powers that be do to stop it?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03elect.html?hp

Read more!