09.15.09
Misinformation 101: Spin Influences Debates
Polling can reliably reveal whatever the person who constructs/conducts the poll was investigating – if we’re given the raw data and a good description of the sampling procedure. But in practice, the data is usually glossed over in favor of a sound-bite summary tending to support the interests of the person and/or network doing the reporting on it, and the description of the sample is only included by the most rigorous of editors.
Without knowing how the sample of people was selected (and randomized) you simply can’t know anything more than what’s reported about a poll.
You can’t know, for instance, if its findings are useful in any logical sense, because you don’t know who the sample represents.
It’s all in the design
I can ask 13, 17, or 21 people a question, and come back with convincing-looking numbers that don’t look “too round.” But if I select who most of those people are it will darn sure tell you what I want you to think I learned.
An example of shaping a poll
Imagine I go to a GOP Town Hall meeting, and survey 15 people wearing shirts or carrying signs that say either “Nobama,” or, “Joe Wilson was right!” I’ll ask them one simple question:
Are you a) “for” Obama’s government takeover of our health care system that he’s pushing through the congress under the name of “reform” or b) “against reform” that will make changes that undermine the free market system that has given us the best health care in the world and cost the tax payers even more money?
OK, I’ve plausibly got 15 “b) against reform” responses now in my hypothetical example. I’ll ask 6 additional people, more or less randomly selected, that same question. Let’s say for the sake of argument that most of them magically favor reform (not a given the way the question’s phrased, is it?) But for the example say I got 4 out of 6 favorable replies.
Now I’ll summarize the poll for you based on that (fake) survey:
“In a [hypothetical] survey conducted Wednesday, only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while nearly 81% said they were ‘against change.’ That’s more than 4 out of 5 in our survey who are hoping their representatives in Congress will stop the President’s take-over of business.”
If you believe what anybody in the media tells you without understanding both the sample and the data, all you know is what the reporter’s boss wants you to believe. If you choose to believe on that basis – which you just might if it agrees with your political leanings – rather than examining the poll itself, then you’re gullible indeed. The good news is: the politicians on your side and the ratings-hungry networks (who are on the side of earning a living from ad revenues) both love you. They’ll go out of their way to validate your “wisdom and insight” into the issue.
If the poll isn’t conducted on a random sample, but merely open to those who respond…? Well, my friends, that will tell you a bit about the people who responded, of course, but one must be wary of extrapolating to draw any useful conclusions about a larger population. We call it spin. But knowing that they’re gaming us doesn’t stop the echoes.
Media complicity
In fact, it won’t surprise me to find this utterly fake survey example quoted elsewhere within days, if not hours. Can’t you see it, at DIGG maybe, or on another blog, or even on Fox? Something like:
A post on Wednesday at a liberal-leaning blog about politics and economics described a survey which concluded that, quote, “only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while nearly 81% said they were ‘against change.’” In other words, that’s more than 4 out of 5 who want their representatives in Congress to stop the President’s assault on insurance providers and let capitalism work.
There you go: lifted out of context, but the quote is nearly character-for-character what I reported in the fake “summary” above. Now we’re set up for the media echoes to persist even though the numbers are clearly unreal. Now they’re not reporting on the survey, they’re reporting on the reporting, which is just an irresponsible excuse to keep repeating the misleading numbers. Next thing you know, nobody knows how many people were at that rally on the mall in DC, but everybody believes the numbers support their hopes.
Misinformation distorts any debate. I could easily have made the example go the opposite way, of course, but I don’t want somebody to echo a story that falsely represents support for reform. In fact, some well-constructed surveys do reveal that over 90% favor “at least some reform.” But then, who wouldn’t favor “at least some” unless they were making money from the insurance industry? It’s like asking who wants lower taxes without considering how you’d pay for those government services you realize you benefit from.
Are you leading an “unexamined” life?
You know that commercial media outlets rely on advertising revenues. So, do you follow the money? Better still, my favorite (somewhat cynical) question: Why do you trust who you always have to report on things you care about? And yet, those are the sources most people trust to describe the town hall “meetings” as well as the “expert” arguments for and against reforming the health care insurance system.
08.28.09
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN CD6) missed the chance to lead
Minnesota’s 6th district congressional Representative, Michelle Bachmann, missed a golden opportunity this afternoon to step back from the partisan talking points and rumor-mongering before an overflow crowd at her town hall meeting in a Junior High School auditorium in Lake Elmo. Fresh from criticism that she had been much too quick to depart an event earlier in the week in St. Cloud, Bachmann responded to virtually every question or comment from the crowd with long-winded recitations of her already familiar litany: that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world despite outcomes surpassed by many other nations, and that the government would be interfering in and controlling medical decisions in some vast bureaucracy that was somehow worse than the actuarial and profit-driven bureaucrats at insurance companies who already countermand medical orders.
The tone was set early on, when despite the moderators admonitions that the only topic open to discussion was health care, Ms. Bachmann launched into such a long-winded, wandering opening statement that the crowd grew restless. The session was obviously scripted to limit both the questions/comments and her need to respond, complete with a Texas congressman who also responded to virtually every question, yet evidently hadn’t gotten the “death panels” talking points from Bachmann’s staff. If the Congresswoman was really interested in hearing from her constituents she might have talked less, but alas like so many D.C.-based politicians she relied on posturing at length and repeatedly for the media and her base after paying lip-service to listening as the lines of questioners grew restless.
Ms. Bachmann had the chance to reach out to those looking for real information, she even repeated her recent notion that there would have to be a “safety net” for those without insurance (divining how this differs from a public option is left as an exercise for the voter, evidently,) after assuring the crowd that everybody wants the system reformed. Then, however, she resorted to amateurish theatrics (at least we didn’t see the Grassley dragon) and cheer-leading for unsupported assertions while cherry-picking points to assure her already-confirmed supporters that she wouldn’t let taxes on their children reach 80-90% to pay for reform (which she is in favor of, make no mistake about it) without addressing what she would do, or even suggest, to improve matters. All in all, while her base was delighted with the Obama-bashing, for the vast majority of those in attendance, including the dozens who couldn’t ask their questions, or thought they might hear ideas about how to address the skyrocketing costs of health care insurance, it was a waste of time.
The one accomplishment was the ratcheting up of polarization, in utter contrast to the Representative’s stated goal of attaining a bi-partisan solution. She lacks the rhetorical polish, and the quick familiarity with the facts, that her wingman (Congressman Burgess, R-TX, a self-described “McCain surrogate”) displayed, which made her look under-prepared, if not outright insecure. From the outset it was clear that the crowd was split, and while the majority were Bachmann loyalists that didn’t mute the opposition, which roared their own approval as one questioner started out by declaring she’d turned him from a Reagan voter into a Democratic (DFL) activist.
One has to marvel at the staunch GOP line regarding government ineptitude coming from those who have controlled the White House for such a large fraction of the last quarter century, at times complete with majorities in the Congress. Still, it’s clear that Ms. Bachmann has spent little time examining her positions logically; perhaps it’s all that special interest money she gets that keeps her aiming partisan criticism at the very institution that writes her paycheck, provides for a very generous retirement, and – ironically enough – provides and pays for her health care insurance plan.
08.10.09
Aug 2009 Economic Recovery Reality Index up slightly to 16.03
Bolstered by a very 
slight improvement in the unemployment rate and average weekly earnings, since non-farm payrolls declined slightly, despite robust activity on Wall Street the Economic Recovery Reality Index (ERRI) crept up a modest 4.76 points over July 2009 to 16.03 as of August 7, 2009. Unemployment rates remained essentially unchanged among the major demographic divisions examined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and many experts still expect the overall rate to increase to 10%, in part because hiring necessarily lags other economic indicators.
Nonetheless, investors seem optimistic, some of the uncertainty surrounding the big 3 U.S. automakers has subsided, and stock markets reflect an increasing willingness to move funds back into equities over the past month. The ERRI is based in part on a weighted, hypothetical mid-cap oriented index fund (see below) which showed upward, yet uneven movement across the 10 sectors/industries being tracked. Solar technology and utilities lagged other sectors, which were led by investment in retail and cyclical consumer goods, with solid performance in basic materials and capital goods equities (construction, aerospace, etc.) Energy showed some investor confidence, while both financial and service sectors reflected substantive improvement in sentiment.
Average weekly earnings, which had fallen in June reflecting that wage earners continued to be under siege, showed a modest recovery during July by returning to the levels they had been at in May of this year. The increase in the number of “discouraged” workers is slowing – it has risen roughly 335,000 people over the past 12 months, but only 3000 were added to that number in the latest monthly figures, while the number of “involuntary part-time” workers declined slightly. (Discouraged workers are those not currently looking for work because they doubt jobs are available for them.) The bright spot in the figures may be Health Care, where employment continued to make gains – up about 20,000 jobs in July.
U.S. government unemployment figures are estimates based on a monthly survey of households. All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are counted among the unemployed, including those on temporary layoff are included (even if they do not actively seek alternative work.)
Note: The particular selections comprising the security/equity component of the ERRI (data below) were selected to track various sectors, not out-perform the broader U.S. equity markets. These are not investment recommendations, and should not be construed as such. The ERRI fund is an entirely hypothetical construct, and while the author and/or persons connected to the research and/or this website may at times hold positions in these securities, particularly via any one of a number of mutual funds, no representation is made as to the suitability of any given equity, sector, on investment strategy for the reader.
Further, while the hypothetical index fund component shows apparent growth of 23% when calculated simply against an initial cost-basis of $10,000 and an August 7 valuation of $12,298.41 it should be noted that the weighting of various sectors means the effective impact is approximately tantamount to only a 17.6% change, which is not evident in the raw data below. The ERRI fund calculation represents only investor sentiment to the extent stock market behaviors reflect this mostly professional group; domestic (and global) economic recovery depend heavily on wages and employment, as well as difficult-to-quantify public sentiment.
Data on the equities is presented “as though” an investment had been made in an “index fund” for the ease of comparison and understanding, but no such fund exists nor did any investment take place. Equity investments are volatile, particularly when not carefully diversified and monitored; the ERRI would have shown even less improvement had closing prices from even a day sooner been utilized in the calculations (since that would have reduced the “ERRI fund” improvement.) The third column in the table below represents the percentage change in the individual equity prices as of the close of the NYSE on 7 August 2009.
| symbol | 7 Aug 09 close |
% +/- |
index value |
Sector | Industry |
| EMN | $ 52.73 |
+43.09 |
1,423.71 |
Basic Materials | Chem. (Plastic & Rubber) |
| HON | $ 36.38 |
+16.68 | 582.08 | Capital Goods | Aerospace & Defense |
| CAT | $ 47.78 |
+49.64 | 716.70 | Capital Goods | Constr. & Agric Machinery |
| FDML | $ 14.98 |
+54.91 | 1,542.94 | Consumer Cyclical | Auto & Truck Parts |
| HQS | $ 9.09 |
+8.60 | 1,081.71 | NonCyclic Consumer | Fish / Livestock |
| BBEP | $ 8.73 | +19.26 | 593.64 | Energy | Oil & Gas (Integrated) |
| PZE | $ 7.02 |
+17.39 | 582.66 | Energy | Oil & Gas (Integrated) |
| AIB | $ 5.88 | +28.38 | 423.36 | Financial | Money Center Banking |
| CMA | $ 27.61 | +26.42 | 414.15 | Financial | Regional Bank |
| FITB | $ 9.71 | +37.54 | 456.37 | Financial | Regional Bank |
| CCI | $ 28.11 | +15.87 | 562.20 | Services | Communications Srvcs |
| JWN | $ 30.30 | +50.67 | 727.20 | Services | Retail (Apparel) |
| FSLR | $146.47 | +3.48 | 1,025.29 | Solar Technology | Semiconductors |
| RIMM | $ 77.09 | +16.49 | 539.63 | Technology | Comm. Equipment |
| PLXS | $ 26.58 | +23.11 | 611.34 | Technology | Electronic Instr & Controls |
| POM | $ 13.91 | +2.73 | 1,015.43 | Utilities | Electric |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised that the ideas, materials, and opinions contained herein should be used solely for informational purposes. The author does not purport to tell or suggest investment securities that should be bought or sold. Investors should always conduct their own research and due diligence and obtain professional advice before making any investment decision. Neither the author nor realitytax shall be be liable for any loss or damage caused by a reader’s reliance on information obtained in any posts, newsletters, special reports, email correspondence, or comments on the web site. The author is not a registered investment advisor or broker/dealer. The information contained herein does not constitute a representation by the publisher or a solicitation for the purchase (or sale) of securities. Opinions and analyses are based on sources believed to be reliable and are written in good faith, but no representation or warranty is made as to their accuracy or completeness, and we are not liable for errors or omissions. All such information should be independently verified with the companies mentioned. The author(s) receives no compensation of any kind from any companies that may be mentioned on this web site. Any opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. Owners, employees and writers may hold positions in the securities that are discussed; the intent is neither to suggest investment choices/strategies nor to influence market conditions, but rather to divulge methodology for inclusion of equities and sectors in the Economic Recovery Reality Index [ERRI]
Digg this article!
08.04.09
Let’s talk about euthanasia and abortion?
Abortion is a time-tested “wedge” issue, in the finest tradition of Karl Rove’s masterful divisive politics, and it’s arguably being used that way again right now in the health-care insurance reform debate.
Most of us have good enough insurance, and we all get to make the choice to keep our current system. This isn’t about the majority, this is about the 1 in 6 Americans who aren’t covered. 1 in 6 – that’s not quite 50 million Americans.
Now, nobody’s proposed socialized medicine – if they had the doctors wouldn’t be mostly in favor of reform. But it’s a tested sound bite that shaves off a few votes. Did you know they need more billing clerks at Duke Medical Center than they have nurses? Does that get through to the opponents of reform at all? No, apparently they’re happier with it spun by lobbyists and CEOs than sticking with reality.
So, too, with abortion. It’s being dragged into the debate for the express purpose of derailing the whole package – undermining an honest debate about our values, and shaving off a few votes here and there. It’s classic Rove/GOP/special interest “divide and conquer” in the face of Obama’s attempts to make real improvements.
They hope we’ll ignore that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy filings is medical expenses. Never mind that the number of uninsured Americans grows by over 10,000 people each and every day. No, no, don’t fret about your neighbors who aren’t as well off as you, that’s not your problem – just keeping listening to the $pecial interests as they spend millions of dollars per day, raised by bureaucrats at companies who decide your premiums and what they’ll cover or not cover, all to influence congress and public opinion. The bureaucrats who control our access to health care right now live rich, lavish lifestyles with no incentive to change the system, let alone to cover those who need it most.
More than half of personal bankruptcy filings are triggered by medical costs. Really.
Do you think this is about somebody else? Do you think everybody you know is really covered? Do you mind that most of the raises in the last three decades for low and middle-income earners have gone right into the pockets of health insurance profiteers, because premiums have been rising at triple the rate of inflation?
Lots of money – special interest money – is being thrown at this debate, and it’s up to us to keep the truth out there, because when people hear things like abortion, socialized medicine, or alleged euthanasia for senior citizens, many have a visceral reaction and stop thinking, let alone listening.
Are you still thinking?
04.03.09
Did you know Duke Medical system has one billing clerk per bed?
Single-payer national health insurance isn’t socialized medicine (and if it was you can bet most doctors in the U.S. wouldn’t support it.) Single-payer is simply a streamlined system in which a single agency organizes health-care financing and payments: delivery of medical care remains essentially as it in in the U.S. today – largely private
. All that’s lost is the red-tape and restrictions.
Who’s against it then? Insurance companies, because they profit enormously from the current system – even though they add no value. In fact, many people will tell you that insurance companies make it hard to get what they deserve and pay for with the premiums. That’s why it was such a major focus of Obama’s campaign in 2008: he proposed that modern health care should include giving everybody in the U.S. coverage.
To get there we need the freedom to choose between keeping private insurance—for those lucky enough to have any—and opting into a universally available public health insurance option (something like Medicare.) Ultimately, by reducing the number of agencies handling the payments we simplify the task for hospitals and clinics – less of the time and money goes to red tape, and more goes to actual medical services.
Ultimately that also means diminishing the power and profits of the private insurance companies currently siphoning their lavish earnings off your health care payemnts. They make money off the red tape, and by letting non-medical personnel decide what should and should not be prescribed to treat patients, and that’s a large part of what has caused costs to soar while coverage just shrinks.
It’s time for a reality check. Insurance companies profit from the current system, so naturally they’re opposed to changes that hurt their bottom line and their corporate bonuses. What value do they add to the process?
Money Talks
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a physician and the “chairman emeritus” of the DNC, is now on the pointy end of the stick in this battle against the entrenched big money interests trying to preserve our utterly inadequate for-profit insurance system. Big money is lobbying hard inside the D.C. beltway, and money talks.
One way to talk back is by showing D.C. many are watching the fight. If you haven’t already done so, click here to stand with Dean. Add your name, then spread the word to your friends, family, and co-workers.
Send email with the link; use your Facebook status to tell people about the campaign; write a blog post, twitter, do whatever you do to rattle your network of friends – we have seen that when D.C. realizes they’re in the limelight the roaches scatter and politicians realize that self-preservation means answering to the electorate, not the lobbyists.
“The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.“
That’s not just my opinion. It’s not Dean’s rhetoric or President Obama’s take on it either. 
That quote is drawn from the Physicians for a National Health Care Program. They want you to urge Congress and the President to enact a single-payer system - a comprehensive National Health Insurance (NHI) Program – now. I know it’s fashionable in certain circles to say government can’t get things done – but insurance companies aren’t getting it done right. Let’s put an end to insurance companies deciding what’s best in terms of medication and treatment now, those decisions should be left to doctors and nurses, not accountants and CEOs.
Digg this article…
03.04.09
We need to invest in our country
As an entrepreneur who has run several small businesses, I think it’s time to return to fundamentals on the economy, starting with investing in America again. It’s small businesses that will put people back to work; that’s how we’re going to get this country back on its feet. It’s entrepreneurs and small business owners who respond with enthusiasm instead of being bound in their decision-making by CFOs and slow-moving Boards of Directors focused on short-term bottom line numbers, (the kind of decision-making that led to the foreclosure and credit crisis, and ultimately the big business bailout using taxpayer dollars.)
To be sure, we need public education, technical schools, and affordable college tuition so young Americans are ready for these new jobs. It’s a global economy, but most of us work in the same city we live in. When we see bulldozers
and excavators moving dirt, and trucks hauling instead of sitting idle at auction sites, then we’ll know things are turning around.
The President is intent on stimulating the private sector, but big businesses with names we all know have abused deregulation and the public trust. Credit card companies raise their rates willy-nilly, and hide extra fees in the small print. How much of his economic stimulus can be paid for simply by ending wasteful government spending, and eliminating tax cuts for the super-rich?
Is it a coincidence that the size of the bailout Bush proposed roughly equals the cost of the war in Iraq?
That war has been a burden on our military, and paying the debt is a drag on our economy that will linger for years. The new President is winding that down, but we’ll be paying for it for years and spending is only half of the equation. The money to do these things has to come from somewhere. Government is here to stay: In some way we need to fund the things that make government work for the people. Our elected leaders, in turn, must stop letting our hard-earned tax dollars simply line the pockets of special interests.
The American Dream isn’t about letting lobbyists control who pays taxes and who gets rich, it’s that any child in this country should have a chance at becoming a productive adult who can support and raise a family comfortably. Working full-time and pulling your weight should mean you don’t have to worry about grocery bills, the price of commuting, or paying to see a good doctor when you or your family needs medical care.
Tax credits for continuing education make it tempting to better yourself. The tax cuts for the middle and lower class earners proposed by the Obama administration make a start at offsetting the skyrocketing costs of groceries, health care, and college, but we need to go further. One great idea is to give tax incentives to companies that cover increases in health care costs while the President tries to reform that out-of-control system.
Public pressure and increased scrutiny are starting to make companies think twice about huge salaries and bigger bonuses for wealthy executives while pleading for bailout funds and cutting paychecks and benefits and pensions of the people who do the real work. Let’s take it a step further and tax those who make money by exploiting cheap labor overseas. Our government needs money to operate, 
no matter if it’s to build roads, insure products made overseas are safe, or to keep our military strong, and if a company doesn’t want to pay American workers they still have an obligation to contribute and support the system that has made their success possible. We need to reverse the trend of layoffs and plant closures; we need to rebuild the foundation of our economy – and the American Dream – by putting Americans back to work.
02.22.09
Economic Recovery: Facts for D.C. to factor in
When Congress and the President are working on the budget, they have a perfect case study for the “no new taxes” approach right here in Minnesota: we elected a rising star of the Republican party to be our Governor in 2002 on that pledge, Timothy J. “Tim” Pawlenty. 
Now in his second term, Governor Pawlenty won the office promising to balance the state budget at a time when Minnesotans were tired of the way politics had played out in the state capitol while Jesse”The Body” Ventura as Governor, and according to Wikipedia, Pawlenty attacked a deficit of roughly “$4.3 billion without raising taxes, primarily by reducing the rate of funding increases for state services, including funding for transportation, social services, and welfare.“
“New fees aren’t taxes”
If not for the fact that the tourism industry in the state took a big hit in 2005 due to a government shutdown and closure of highway rest areas, state parks and so on, we might have been ok with the winking at that pledge and calling some things new “fees” instead of taxes (heck, it was only $300 million or so,)
and major increases in tuition at the state colleges and universities, or cuts in areas such as school spending — until we realized there was no longer a band playing at the high school events. And in places where they value music, such as Fergus Falls, the communities and booster clubs can find local funding to keep band directors such as Scott Kummrow employed, right?
We needed the revenue, clearly, and the Governor didn’t raise taxes – although local jurisdictions had to fill the gaps as the money from the state dried up, but that’s another story. By the way, adding toll lanes to busy commuter routes isn’t a new tax, either. I have some question about how to label the bond bill the governor signed last year, but he vetoed some line items so maybe we can say he somewhat limited tax increases in the future?
But lets not quibble about fees and bonding, let’s talk about the Minnesota economy and budget – that’s the point. Sure, we might have put thousands of Minnesotans to work if the bond bill had included funding for light rail connections between Minneapolis and St. Paul, and that probably would have stimulated business and tourism in those areas, but it would have made the bonding bill even larger and somebody would have had to pay and the delay only adds maybe $40 million to the cost – later, when he’s no longer the Governor. And now our budget deficit in probably only $7-$8 billion.
No New Taxes
In Minnesota trying to generalize that taxes were problematic by definition glossed over that the government runs on money: funding for nursing homes, teachers, and education was slashed, for example, and the costs passed on to local communities to “balance the budget.” The state budget deficit is now conservatively projected at double what it was when Pawlenty took office, while sales tax revenues fall and companies slash payrolls driving people onto unemployment rolls (placing their health care coverage at risk and further reducing consumer spending.) At least 
Pawlenty isn’t posturing for the pundits as Louisiana Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal and a few others are by suggesting we won’t take “stimulus” money from the federal government – He’s saying Minnesota government needs cash.
We borrow to buy homes, cars, and even smaller items that fit on our credit cards. We continually pay interest to some of the same companies that needed bailing out on Wall Street, while one group of people benefits: the rich. They don’t worry about the price of cheese, cars, or college.
History doesn’t support trickle-down theory.
For the common good it’s time we admit that when you cut taxes for the rich they mostly they stash more money into their nest egg(s) so they can retire early, live comfortably, eat cake, and travel the world. Meanwhile the rest of us watch our food budget, some see the investment in their homes plummet, and if we have put money aside we watch what remains of it shrinking in our privatized retirement accounts.
Digg this story!
10.16.08
Can somebody explain McCain’s goals and priorities?
I don’t understand McCain’s priorities or his rationales. Maybe he’s never heard of insurance companies controlling medical procedures and limiting access to prescriptions – he’s got better coverage than I do, certainly. After watching the final Presidential debate of 2008 I can’t see how most senior citizens in the U.S.A. can afford McCain’s policies; he voted against much needed-increases in Medicare funding, taking away many seniors’ only access to health care. He thinks the health care system is working just fine.
Senator McCain evidently has a different view of Social Security than I do. McCain wants to privatizes Social Security, as Bush had championed, so we’re all dependent on the vagaries of the stock market. We’ve seen the downside of that risky approach. McCain, who championed deregulation in the stock markets, thinks the health care insurance industry should be similarly allowed to regulate itself. He asserts that will improve our health care without getting bureaucrats in the way, but he wants government bureaucrats to ride to the rescue of 11 million homes with bad mortgage deals, armed with $300 billion from the bailout plan. Am I the only one who sees a disconnect?
Turmoil in financial markets threatens – if not undermines – our retirement savings. Coupled to rising costs for everything from health care to energy, senior citizens and others on fixed incomes are looking for a leader who will use the office of the Presidency to improve our financial security via fiscally sound, robust economic policies. Yet McCain wants to deal with health care reform by granting insurance companies the latitude that banks used to crash the stock market?
Obama-Biden spokesman Bill Burton called on McCain to support Obama’s New Small Business Rescue Plan, saying:
Barack Obama supports allowing senior citizens to delay withdrawals from 401(k)s, and believes we don’t have to wait for Congress to act to provide seniors with these protections. He’s calling on the Treasury Secretary to temporarily suspend Treasury regulations and allow seniors to delay these withdrawals. He also hopes that Senator McCain will reconsider his ill-advised support for Social Security privatization, which suffers from the very same problem he is now trying to solve since it would potentially force seniors to retire when the market is down and their retirement accounts have disappeared. Senator Obama also calls on Senator McCain to support his new small business rescue plan that will extend badly-needed credit and tax relief to the men and women who are creating jobs in this troubled economy.
Senator 
Obama has a plan to help America’s senior citizens. Barack Obama and Senator Biden intend to protect Social Security and make sure Americans can afford to retire. The Obama-Biden proposals will expand retirement savings program and create new pension programs. Obama’s plan will eliminate income tax altogether for seniors who make less than $50,000 per year.
The Obama-Biden plan will protect and strengthen Medicare, and allow the federal government to negotiate for cheaper drugs for the Medicare program, so seniors can afford their pills. Obama will also increase funding for LIHEAP, to help seniors pay their winter heating bills. I get that McCain wants to win, that he seeks the prestige of being President after years of service in the U.S. Congress, but I prefer the vision Obama and Biden have expressed – their ambition to use the influence of the White House to make changes that foster financial security and bolster national pride while positioning the U.S.A as a leader on issues ranging from energy and the environment to fundamental human rights.
McCain’s a fine man, and I’m sure he’d be an adequate President for those who are so wealthy that taxes are a theoretical number handled for them by an accountant that never impact their daily spending decisions. The rest of us - the folks on Main Street who are still waiting for Bush’s economic policies to trickle down some personal economic prosperity or to create some jobs – will be better off under the inspired leadership of “that one.”
