Marginal Tax Rates 101

With all the current hysterical coverage of the impending "Fiscal Cliff" - or "Obama Tax Storm," depending on who you're listening to - and seeing what certain of my friends and associates are saying or posting online about it, it is unbearably clear that most Americans haven't the faintest idea of how marginal tax rates work.

It's not their fault. Politicians and the media have been talking down to us and "simplifying" the discussion for so long, that they'd have you believe things that simply are not true. For example, you may accept as "fact" that President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to raise the tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 from 35% to 39.6%.

Using that statement and some basic arithmetic, you would assume that a family with $251,000 in income would see their taxes rise from $87,850 (35% of $251,000) to $99,396 (39.6% of $251,000) - a total tax increase of $11,546. You would also be wrong.

The statement "President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to raise the tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 from 35% to 39.6%" contains three major "simplifications" that lead to these sloppy (and expensive) calcluations:

1. Uses "earnings" (implying total gross salary) instead of "taxable income" (after all deductions, adjustments, and exemptions).
2. Implies that you pay a single rate on all your earnings, instead of explaining how marginal rates apply.
3. Uses a $250,000 figure that is two decades out of date. That figure for the 2012 tax year is actually $388,350.

Let's take these one at a time...

Earnings versus Taxable Income: Nobody, but Nobody, pays income tax on 100% of their income. Each version of the IRS form 1040, from the one-page EZ to the more complicated versions with dozens of attached schedules and sub-forms allows you to reduce the amount of income on which you owe taxes. Frankly, the more complicated a form you use, the more you are reducing your tax liability.

But even a single guy, just starting out, with no dependents, educational expenses, mortgage, or anything else to deduct, just using little old form 1040EZ, will take a standard deduction of $5,950 for 2012. That means, if he earns $30,000, he'll only pay taxes on $24,050. That tax will come out to $3,173, or about 10.5% of his gross income, or 13.2% of his taxable income, even though he's in the 15% tax bracket.

What's that? You don't get how somebody in the 15% tax bracket only pays 10.5% in taxes? Let's move on to that second "simplification" ...

Marginal Rates apply to earnings above the margin: When politicians talk about raising the rate on "incomes above $250,000" (really: taxable income above $388,350), they only mean the increment, or margin, above that figure. It doesn't change the taxes paid on the first "$250,000" you earn ($388,350 taxable).

To explain, we'll build a more complicated example than our single guy above. Let's assume a couple with a nice home, two kids, and combined total salary income of $450,000. They're going to file jointly, so they'll look at Tax Rate Schedule Y-1. Their taxes will be:

• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400, +
• 15% on income over $17,400 to $70,700, +
• 25% on income over $70,700 to $142,700, +
• 28% on income over $142,700 to $217,450, +
• 33% on income over $217,450 to $388,350, +
• 35% on taxable income over $388,350.

But, before they figure out their taxes, they'll itemize their deductions to reduce their gross actual income and find their net taxable income:

• Mortgage Interest: $16,500
• Two Kids ($3,800 each): $7,600
• Charitable Giving (1.5% of their income): $6,750
• Business Expenses: $7,500
• Miscellaneous: $3,500
• Total Deductions: $41,850

(This is a real simple example with modest deductions - I didn't include any medical expenses, educational expenses, deposits to retirement accounts, etc. - These are just a few of the ways to reduce your tax liability.)

So, using Schedule Y-1 above, here's what their federal income taxes will break down to:
-->

	Earnings	Tax
Deductions	$41,850	$0
10%	$17,400	$1,740
15%	$53,300	$7,995
25%	$72,000	$18,000
28%	$74,750	$20,930
33%	$170,900	$56,397
35%	$19,800	$6,930
Totals:	$450,000	$111,992

Their bottom line is $111,992, or 24.9% of their total income of $450,000 ... even though they're in the top 35% bracket.

Using the media/political simplification of all things numerical, we would have thought they were paying $157,500 in taxes (35% of $450,000). We would also assume that the Democrats' proposal to let the top rate return to 39.6% would increase their taxes by $20,700 to $178,200 (39.6% of $450,000).

But, now that you know how real math works, you know that raising the top marginal rate on this well-to-do family will bring their total federal income tax burden to $112,903. An increase of only $911 (0.2% of their total income) - quite a bit less than the $20,700 certain politicians and journalists would suggest. Because, now you understand, the rate change from 35 to 39.6% only applies above the margin, to that last $19,800 of their taxable income.

So, where's  $250,000 in all this? When President Clinton's tax increases created the 39.6% rate twenty years ago, it was for taxable income over that figure. And, because politicians and journalists are lazy, they've just continued referring to that number ever since (if you don't like "lazy" please come up with a better explanation that doesn't include "lie"). But the cut-off point for each of the tax brackets actually adjusts each year for inflation.

By 2003, when the Bush tax cuts were going into effect, "$250,000" was $311,950, but we kept saying "$250,000" out of habit. During the 2010 "Fiscal Cliff" discussions, "$250,000" was $373,650. Today, it's $388,350. Is that really so hard for reporters and politicians to understand? Never mind...

But aren't we Taxed Enough Already? The Tea Partiers are both wrong and right on this. Regarding federal income tax rates they are completely wrong. Current federal income tax rates are at their lowest point in over 60 years. And, yes, because the base line for each marginal rate has gone up at least as fast as inflation (why $250,000 is now $388,350), that means this year's tax burden is less than last year's.

But, in part because federal income taxes have been held at historically low levels for a decade, other taxes and fees have gone up. States, not getting as much as they used to from the feds, may have increased their income, property, or sales taxes, as well as made cuts. Counties and cities, not getting what they used to from the states, may have raised local sales taxes or passed "special assessments" added on to property tax bills, and/or made cuts in services. Across the board, fees for everything from parking to getting married etc., may have increased to make up for shortfalls from another area.

Because sales taxes, use fees, etc., are not progressive, like the federal income tax (multi-tiered, the rich pay a higher rate), the burden of these taxes falls more on lower and middle income earners. So, depending on where you live, what you earn, and a few other factors, you may indeed feel as if you're paying more in taxes over-all, even with a smaller annual bill from the IRS.

Bottom Line: You probably know where I stand on this. I don't believe it's asking too much of a family that earns nearly half-a-million dollars annually to kick in another grand in taxes when the country faces a fiscal crisis. To insist on holding even this top rate down will only result in more cuts in services and/or increased taxes and fees elsewhere down the line.

But regardless of whether or not you agree with me on the politics, can we all at least agree to use real numbers and real math?

For more fun with tax brackets, this page on moneychimp.com has an easy, interactive tax calculator that allows you to see how all of this works and check your tax rates across time and space.

A Few Election Stats

One more post-election wrap-up here, now that Florida is officially in the blue column. This gives the President re-election with 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The popular vote also went to the President with 62.1 million votes (51%) to Romney's 58.8 million (48%), a 3.4 million vote advantage.

I'd say this is a clear mandate, but is this a landslide? Let's look at how the Republican pundits described what they would consider a "landslide" before the election:

• George Will predicts "321-217 Romney landslide"
• Glenn Beck, "landslide for Romney, electoral college 300+ R"
• Michael Barone predicts "Romney trounces Obama in electoral college 315-223"
• Larry Kudlow "predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide" (for Romney)
• And let's not even get started on Karl Rove...

So, clearly the Republican pundits agree that 332 electoral college votes is a "landslide" - but I'll stick with clear mandate. Or was it?

When all the dust is settled, there will still be 40% of eligible voters (about 78 million) who chose not to participate last Tuesday. And, that figure includes about 13 million voters who participated in 2008, but couldn't be bothered with it again only four years later. More analysis will need to be done to determine how much of that drop-off in voting was due to voters displaced by Hurricane Sandy, and how much due to apathy, but I'm betting on apathy to beat Sandy in a landslide.

You know from my last post that I have some ideas for fighting voter apathy. I'll have some more to say about that later. But for now, here's an interesting info-graphic about who did (and didn't) vote this year (also shows how much more effective the Obama campaign was at using social media).

Income Tax Blog

It seems apt that the final weekend before 2011 tax returns are due should start with Friday the 13th. I completed our returns and filed electronically last month, although I didn't mail the required checks until this past Monday (no refund here).

Back in January, I wrote about Mitt Romney's 15% effective tax rate. Around the same time, in the Statue of the Union Address, President Obama also talked about how wrong it is that millionaires should pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries, or teachers, policemen, or other middle-income earners. To illustrate the point, Warren Buffett's secretary was sitting with the First Lady in the audience.

"The Buffett Rule" was introduced to correct this, with the simple premise that those with over $1 million in annual income shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families. To promote passage of the Buffett Rule, the White House has posted a "Buffett Rule Calculator" - just plug in your income and your taxes, and see how many millionaires pay less than you do!

So, how did I do (actually, for my wife and I, filing jointly)? After deductions, we had an effective tax rate of 17% - higher than 37,600 millionaires. Some of our income is taxed at the 25% bracket, but our over-all effective rate is 17% thanks to some generous deductions, primarily the home mortgage interest deduction.

That deduction alone reduced our income by nearly 14% and had a dollar value greater than a full time job at the federal minimum wage. Think about that for a moment. We are not rich by any stretch, and are frankly going through some lean times. Even so, we write off from our income more than many people earn.

With the rich dodging taxes above, and the working poor struggling with a sub-standard minimum wage below, the gap is getting wider. The Buffett Rule is a small, symbolic step, and I support it, but it's just the tip of the iceberg in getting our economy working for everybody again.

(Tell your Senators to vote for the Buffett Rule by clicking here...)

When Wars Collide

We Americans love to declare war on whatever social problem we feel is of vital importance - and sometimes we assume that our political nemesis has declared the war on us. At any given time, depending on who you ask, any number of wars may be raging. From the religious right's point of view, one of those is the War on Christianity. From the progressive left's point of view, a big one is the War on Women's Health.

Over the last couple of weeks we've watched as these two wars met head on following the Obama administration's refusal to grant religious employers an exemption to new rules requiring that health insurance plans include coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services. When we talk about religious employers here, we're mostly referring to nonprofit social service organizations, universities, and hospitals: organizations that serve the general public (not just co-religionists), and who employ people of all faiths and beliefs.

To the right, this is a violation of these groups' (primarily Catholic) fundamental right to religious freedom, by forcing them to pay for a product (contraception at a minimum, abortion at the extreme) that goes against their beliefs.

To the left, the denial of this coverage violates the employee's (mostly women) access to a full range of health care options, and forces them to abide by their employer's religious restrictions - whether or not they are of the same religion.

Whose rights are more important? The employee's rights to make their own private health care decisions with their doctor's advice, or the employer's rights to not have to support practices they don't believe in?

I believe that the employee's rights have to win out. Not only for the access to care, but also for the right to privacy. Under HIPPA, we all have the right to privacy regarding our medical records, including not having to share our health care decisions with our employer.

But the employer is paying for it, right? Well, let's take a look at that a little closer. Those against the administration's decision are saying that religious organizations will "be forced to pay for contraception and abortions." But that's simply not true. Employers pay for health insurance only. What the employee does with that health insurance is their own business.

Saying that the employer has the right to dictate health care choices made by an employee is the same as saying the employer has the right to dictate what the employee may or may not purchase with their paycheck.

Do you need to ask your boss permission before making any purchases for your home? It's the employer's money after all, isn't it? Of course not! Once they pay you, it's your money, and your decision how it's spent.

Same with health insurance. Once the employer purchases it - as part of your compensation package for your labor - what you do with it is between you and your doctor only. At least, it should be that way.

Unfortunately, this being an election year, too much will be made of this perfectly reasonable decision by the administration, and they may be forced into a compromise position. While the compromise may temporarily appease those on the religious right, it will certainly be a set-back for women's access to health, and blow to privacy for us all.

The Right Policy Too Late?

Watching the President last night one thing is certain; you could see that he knew he was making the unpopular decision, that he was set to anger those who'd voted for him, and fail to appease those who didn't. One conservative friend commented via twitter, "Have to wonder what the cadettes sitting in the stands thought of this weak man before them." I, too, was wondering what the cadettes thought of him, but not because he was weak. I think it took a tremendous amount of strength to go forward with that difficult decision in the face of overwhelming opposition. But strength of mind does not make you right.


Beyond announcing the 30,000 troop surge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan and be back in time for July 4th fireworks in 2011, President Obama also went through great pains to tell us that a) the delay in announcing the decision wasn't really a delay since the plan he was asked to consider doesn't go into effect until January, b) we are progressing in the plan to get out of Iraq, even if we haven't really noticed any difference yet, and c) Afghanistan is where we should have been putting our efforts in the first place, as it was from here that Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks.


I don't think anybody can seriously argue against 'c' - whether or not you believe Iraq was justified or just a distraction, bin Laden is the confessed ringleader behind 9/11, and he was certainly on the run in Afghanistan. And, on at least one occasion following 9/11, we had him in our sight and failed to capture or kill him.


But that was 2002 and this is 2009. What makes us realistically believe we have a better chance at getting bin Laden or neutralizing al qaeda today? What makes us realistically believe that more foreign soldiers on their soil is going to help de-radicalize the Afghan populace? And by what magic leap of faith do we believe that 30,000 is the magic number of troops to finish it all up in eighteen months?


As eloquent and powerful as the words he spoke were, these are the questions that were left unanswered. Many good things were said, and much that I agree with. But it all fell short of selling me on the surge. Yes, if either war was justified it was the one in Afghanistan. But has the opportunity for success there passed? Is the mision still relevant? And do the American people have the will to support it? I'm afraid the time has passed. The right idea, just a few years too late.



Looking back at my archives here, I found my review of the speech in which President Bush announced his "surge to the finish" in Iraq, back on January 11, 2007. What I wrote about the Iraqi surge that day was;

... it's not exactly the same failed strategy. It's more of the same failed strategy. It's the same, but different.

Well, as they say, history repeats.

The one highlight last night was shortly after the  speech when The Onion came out with the headline Obama Tells Nation He's Going Out For Cigarettes. In the Onion story, the President gets a paragraph or two into his speech and says,

"Anyway, I'm going to go get some smokes, but I'll…be right back," added Obama, his voice trembling slightly. "Don't wait up."

We won't wait up.

The Myth of Health Care Rationing

Of all the idiocy being spewed against any attempted reform of our health care system in an attempt to cover all Americans is the myth that any government provision of health insurance (not care, mind you, but just the payment for it) will lead to rationing.

Contrary to what some idiots on the right will tell you, all properly functioning free markets lead to rationing... by design!

If this were not true - if we could all easily afford anything we wanted without work, saving, or sacrifice - we'd all be driving Porche's to our weekend homes in Aspen before hopping on our private jets for dinner in Paris.

It's called supply and demand and for most products and services it functions well and gives us an incentive to work harder. Freely functioning, self-rationing markets, lead to innovation, competition, and economic growth. God bless America.

Then there are those few things we deem necessities and so we allow government tinkering to make sure rationing doesn't occur. Public education (that helps us all by providing a [minimally] literate workforce), housing subsidies (not just HUD, but development incentives, mortgage interest deductions, etc.), and food subsidies (from Food Stamps to agriculture supports, etc.) are a few items that spring to mind.

At this stage in US development, however, we've done more to ensure that everybody can afford a pint of milk and a loaf of bread than a visit to the doctor. I'm pleased that we consider hunger unacceptable (at least, for those with dependent children), but I'm horrified that we still consider a basic level of good health to be a perk of success.

Leaving the provision of health care coverage entirely to the private sector and market forces has - as it is designed to do - left us with a situation where health care is currently being rationed, with tens of millions of Americans - many with good jobs and families - left out, unable to pay for their own or their loved ones' medical needs.

Now, I'm not 100% thrilled with the current Obama plan or the way it's been handled politically, but I still say that overall, it's about damn time we step in to stop the rationing of health care that our free market has left us with.

(Oh, and thanks to Phil aka "Fantastic Babblings" for inspiring this post)

Obama on Leno

Last night I broke my boycott of the Tonight Show to watch the interview with President Obama. As annoying as I find Jay Leno to be, it was worthwhile viewing. No abundantly serious hardball questions, but a mix of light banter and non-threatening inquiries into the state of the nation, which the President answered in an engaging and thoughtful manner.

And then there are the naysayers. "It's beneath the dignity of the Presidency to be on late night TV." "Speaking with comedians diminishes the office of the President," "Yadda, yadda, yadda." I'm amazed that a) people still think that way, and b) that it's taken so long for a sitting President to do the late night circuit.

In an age when more people under the age of 40 get their news from Jon Stewart than from Katie Couric, what better forum is there for exercising the bully pulpit of the presidency than a show like Leno's?

That we have a president who wants to avoid the isolation of the beltway and engage the general public in an ongoing dialog about our nation's future is something that I find refreshing and inspiring. Having a leader who meets us where we are and talks with us, rather than over or around us, is reassuring and gives many of us hope.

Then, this morning, I heard a commentator complaining about the expense of Obama's Tonight Show visit. What? The President was already in California to meet with the Governor. The expense and trouble of having the Secret Service protect him at NBC was probably not much different than if he had visited a school or a factory, and I never heard anybody complain about any Presidents making those types of appearances.

But I guess the "serious news person" giving that analysis was simply upset at being bypassed for a washed up former stand-up comedian with an over-sized chin.

Late night TV appearances are no substitute for serious, in-depth interviews and news coverage. But if this is the worst complaint we have about this President, I'm pretty happy.

For those who missed it, here it is on NBC.com.

50 Days In

No, not 50 days since I've posted a blog here (actually, it's been a little longer than that), but 50 days (plus a couple) since Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and I know you're all just dying to find out what I'm thinking. Is the honeymoon over? Do I regret my vote? Am I loving everything he does?

No. No. And No.

The honeymoon is not over, I think he's doing a great job in a very difficult situation. I'm still pleased with my choice, and have no regrets over not sticking with an independent or third party candidate. But, no, I'm not thrilled with everything.

But I'm fine with not being thrilled with everything (and, really, who can be seriously paying attention and agree with any politician all the time?). The point is that even where I've disagreed or had a different opinion on something he's proposed, I can at least understand where he's coming from. It may be a different approach, or a different degree of attack than I would have preferred, but I can agree that it's for reasons that I can at least respect.

I'm still finding this a refreshing change from the previous administration, where it was not simply an honest disagreement with a particular detail of a policy, but where I was constantly being outraged with what I perceived to the wholesale destruction of all of what I believe to be great about this country. But back to Obama...

Example one of my disagreement: Obama's tax plan will cap the tax deduction for charitable contributions at 28 percent (current cap 35%). The positive side: this is to help pay for some rather expensive, but needed, health care proposals. The negative: this could put a damper on on major donor giving at a time when the nonprofit sector is being hit on all sides with reductions in revenue coupled with increased demand for services.

As a guy who lives in the nonprofit sector, this concerns me. But I'm not as panicked about it as some people are. The truth is, we won't really know how much of a hit this will bring to the nonprofit sector until long after it's happened, and it's being done for all the right reasons. Taking a hit to fund health care reform feels a whole lot better to me than taking a hit to give billionaires another tax cut.

Another area of disagreement is in Education. My wife is a teacher, and she and her co-workers are upset about the President's recent speech on the topic of failing schools and education reform. Obama crossed in front of a few sacred cows and promised more of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policies that failed so miserably before.

Again, my wife and I (and many others) believe that NCLB was a failed policy from the concept (other than a nifty title), and that the problem was not simply "not doing enough of it." But, as I reminded my wife at dinner tonight, we knew this was coming. Obama, the candidate, was clear about his support for NCLB. This was a trade-off we made back in November so we have no right to start acting surprised or hurt by it today.

So, am I still drinking the KoolAid and thinking that President Obama can do no wrong? Absolutely not. But I'm still willing to give the man a chance. Overall, I'll give the First Fifty a strong 85% approval rating. Will it remain that high for the next four years? I doubt it, but I'm enjoying this moment while I can.

The fat lady has yet to sing on this one

Along with the hopeful euphoria of Obama's election came the sobering slap in the face of California's Proposition 8 passing. From an overwhelmingly "blue" state came the first ever amendment to a state constitution removing rights already granted. This is embarrassing to me as a Californian, far beyond the mere disappointment of losing an election, it's major step backwards in the civil rights battle that helped bring Obama to the White House.

But there are two things I'm focusing on the remain hopeful that, although we just lost a major battle, we will eventually win the war.

First: Prop 8 barely passed, with votes still being counted till late on Wednesday before an official result was announced. Compare this to the 2002 "defense of marriage" ballot proposition that passed with 61% of the vote. Despite the loss, many minds have been changed over a relatively short period of time.

A few years of "domestic partnerships" and a few months of same-sex marriage have managed to convince a large part of California's electorate that the world won't end, and their own marriages will not be damaged, by extending the marriage right to all law abiding, competent adult citizens.

This is a hopeful sign, because the real battle is just beginning. Which brings us to the second point:

Marriages that are recognized in some states, but not in others, are tainted anyway, and eventually this will need to be answered at the federal level. The lawsuits already filed as a result of Proposition 8 may be the key to that. And, if they are challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, by the time they reach that level, President Obama may have appointed one or two new justices.

Our state Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has said that, once challenged, it will be his job to defend Proposition 8, and that he will do his job - even though he opposed its passing. But he also said that, since there's no language in Proposition 8 making it retroactive, he will defend the 18,000 same-sex couples who were legally married to retain their marriage.

This pretty much guarantees that there will be legal challenges from both sides: Gay and lesbian couples who are now not allowed to marry, and Prop 8 supporters who are upset that there are still 18,000 legal gay marriages among their neighbors.

The forces of progress may have lost this one proposition battle (due in large part to deceptive advertising and intervention by religious forces from outside California), but time and history are on the side of marriage equality.

I'm not giving up just yet. Like somebody else has been saying lately, "Yes we can." Fire it up! Ready to go!

Let the healing (and the hard work) begin...

I keep going back to CNN.com and MSNBC.com etc., to recheck those headlines. It wasn't a dream. It really happened; we've really changed the world! And that was the easy part.

Last night was great; the unbelievable wave of emotion that came over me when the election was officially called for Obama at 8 PM Pacific, the shots of the cheering crowds in Chicago, DC, and NYC across the TV screen, the gracious and conciliatory speech of Senator McCain, and the historic and inspirational speech of President Elect Obama. It was a moment that will always be remembered.

Now comes the hard part. For better or worse, the President Elect will have stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate than has existed in years. It will now be his job to keep them in check; to not overreach and to keep a few ideas from outside DNC headquarters on the radar.

I fear a Congress that's like a kid in the candy shop, thinking they've got a mandate to do whatever they want without consulting the people who sent them there. If they behave in that manner, these majorities will only hold for two years. If President Obama is unable to control them, he will only be in charge for four years.

If President Obama is able to show the type of leadership I believe him capable of, and keep Congress in check, he'll be able to enact a great deal of his programs, but carefully, slowly, and with cooperation and advice from all parties. And, if he does that, the next eight years could truly change our country far beyond the symbolism of his historic election.

I'll have more to say about this, and other election results (as of this writing, it looks like Prop 8 is passing, but so narrowly that they still haven't called it officially nearly 12 hours after polls closed) in the coming days and weeks.

For today, I simply offer my congratulations to the Democrats. I was with you during this election, but I'm still an independent, and there's no guarantee I'll be with you again.

Final Pre-Election Blog (part two)

Okay, I have a few minutes before hell week gets under way here, so one more "final thought" before election day in the form of a shocking revelation: John McCain is neither Satan nor a Nazi.

Yes, it would make this election a lot clearer if either candidate were a total idiot slime bag. But the fact is, John McCain has earned our respect both in his many years in the Senate and in his service in Vietnam. He's no fool, and he's ten times the man and leader that G.W. Bush ever was or ever could be.

Yes, I admitted it: McCain isn't Bush. But in many policy areas, and the economy in particular, they both worship at the same alter of failed Reaganomics. In the economic and domestic policy realm, McCain's battle cry and Bush's are each the continued death of regulation and reliance on "trickle-down" policies that have lead directly to the current crisis that is crushing America.

I trust Barack Obama (bolstered by the endorsement of Warren Buffet and others who should know) to not just plug the current holes, but to enact meaningful changes to keep this from happening again. In Obama I see the hope and the energy needed to inspire a nation to rebuild, and bring out the best of America and in Americans.

In Obama I see our best hope for solving our healthcare crisis, with one in seven Americans lacking access to anything but the emergency room. In Obama I see the leadership needed to get us out of our oil dependence within a decade. In Obama (bolstered by the endorsement of Colin Powell and others who should know) I see a new direction in our struggle against terrorism and extremism that could ease the tensions.

If McCain wins, it won't be the end of the world. But it won't be much different or better either. He's not Bush, but the direction we're headed will be the same. And, if McCain wins, you better believe I'll be praying for his good health every morning and night of his tenure. But wouldn't a fresh start be so much better?

Oh, and now that I've admitted that McCain is neither Satan nor a Nazi, can somebody on the right please admit that Obama is neither a terrorist nor a socialist?

As the great poet, Joey Ramone, once said, "Twenty- twenty- twenty-four hours to go. I wanna be sedated."

Vote Early, Vote Often

Okay, of course the second part of that title is a joke. It should be assumed, but I need to say it explicitly or the right-wingers will use this blog as evidence of voter fraud from the Obama camp. So, here's the real title: "Vote Early, but only once."

About 30 states now have "early voting" in which certain poling places are opened up in the week(s) preceding the official election day. I love this. As much as I usually love to experience the excitement of the "real" election day, I love expanding democracy even more. And having at least a full week for citizens to cast their votes is having a tremendous effect on turn-out this year. Regardless of who wins (or which ballot propositions pass), this is a good thing for our democracy.

I went yesterday, to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, in San Jose, California. It was fairly well organized; could have been a little better, but could have been a lot worse. On arrival I was asked to take a number; number 74. They were calling number 24 at that time.

This was much better than standing in line, as we got to sit around the lobby of the building. Not the most comfortable seating, but better than standing. It took about 40 minutes for them to process the 50 people ahead of me and call 74.

Once my number was called, it still was not time to vote. That's just to talk to the counter clerk, who punches your name and address into the computer to verify your registration. They then order up your ballot. (Santa Clara County is fairly large, with several cities, and school districts, etc., so there are dozens of possible ballots based on your specific address).

It took about another 15 minutes, waiting back out in the lobby, till another clerk appeared with a box of absentee ballots and called out my name. We could either take the ballot home with us and vote by mail, or use one of the booths to mark our ballot there and return it immediately. I chose to vote there.

After marking the ballot, I put it in the slot, and peeked into the back room where it looked to be about 25 or 30 people sorting and processing the voted ballots. Remember the scene from the original movie version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where Veruca Salt's father is having all the peanut shellers opening up chocolate bars? Picture that with absentee ballots and you have an idea of the operation.

All-in-all, a very interesting experience, and a great satisfaction to have this done with, so I can ignore all the political ads for the next week. On the news they said that they expect 1/3 of the votes cast nationwide to be done through early voting, but yesterday, I think they said they'd already processed 30% of the expected vote locally.

The whole thing took just a little over an hour, altogether. Considering the crowds expected at polling places next Tuesday, if you can get your voting done early, I highly recommend it. Especially if you've moved or are a first time voter, or have any other reason to question whether or not you'll have any trouble at the polls.

For those keeping score, on the partisan offices I voted for two Democrats (including Barack Obama), one Republican (yes, really!), and one Green. NO on 4 & 8.

Ron Howard's Call to Action

Ron Howard and a couple of his old TV buddies have something to say about this election (and an amusing way of saying it)...

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Fear and Loathing on North Santa Cruz Blvd.

Yesterday, we were walking along the main drag through Los Gatos, North Santa Cruz Ave., when we spotted a woman with a sign reading:

SOCIALISM!
Obama = ACORN
-------------
McCain - Palin
While I bit my tongue, Leslie calmly started in on her with, "Where do you get your information?"

"I read," the woman answered.

"Read what?" Leslie countered.

"A lot, you should read too." (A slightly better answer than Sarah Palin gave to Katy Couric.)

I asked, "Don't you think this charge of socialism is a little inflamatory?" She didn't want to talk about socialism just yet, she wanted to talk about ACORN.

"He was an organizer for ACORN!" (Fact: Obama was an organizer for Project Vote in 1992-93, not ACORN. Project Vote is currently a partner with ACORN on one project, but that partnership came about years later. This woman didn't care to hear that, she reads, after all.)

"What you're doing is guilt by association. Why don't you have a sign saying something positive about your candidate instead of smearing Obama with these outrageous claims?" I politely suggested (well, as polite as I could muster being as angry as I was; the result of over-caffeination from some yummy French Roast earlier that morning).

"I'm an independent," was her reason for not saying something positive about McCain.

"OK... I'm an independent too," I offered, "and part of the reason for that is because of dirty campaigning like this." We go around again about guilt by association, and a few other things, each time she refuses to answer direct questions, or answers with an absurd question or suggestion to me. Somewhere along the way, Leslie has given up getting a word in once I'd started, and has crossed the street ahead of me.

Again, I tried to ask her why she wasn't out promoting her candidate. This time I tried to give her something nice to say, "Why don't you have a sign saying 'McCain = Leadership' or 'He's a hero' or 'Independent for McCain'?"

This time she didn't even give me her independent line, this time she changed the topic to the mortgage crisis and implied that Obama was responsible for it.

I was shocked, as I didn't get her reference to the false rumor that the current crisis is because Obama and ACORN each worked to force banks to make loans to poor minorities. (In real life, ACORN and Obama have each fought against redlining practices to make sure banks treated similarly qualified applicants equally, regardless of color).

But since I didn't catch her veiled reference to a proven lie, I instead answered, "Neither one of these guys is directly responsible for the current crisis, but if either one of them is to share in the blame, it's McCain, who's been a Reaganite de-regulator for 26 years, and it's de-regulation and the lack of oversight and enforcement that's lead to this meltdown."

Then I went too far for her: "McCain was part of the Keating Five, after all!"

"Ah ha!," I made her happy, apparently. "Talk about guilt by association!" She finally actually responded directly to something I said, but it was again far from reality.

"What 'guilt by association'? He was one of the five! He was..." she didn't let me finish.

"Have you ever lived in a socialist country?" she asked me.

"What has that got to do with..."

"They're trying to steal the election! ACORN is registering fake people and they're stealing the election!" I tried to bring up 2000 and 2004 as examples of stolen elections, but she was done with that topic. "They're against us!" she cried.

"Against who?"

"Against us! ACORN is against Americans!"

"Because... why? Because they represent poor people or..." before I could ask if it's because they represent minorities she's cut me off and is onto another subject. Out of the corner of my eye I see the light has changed and I have the walk signal I'd been waiting for (and missed the last two or three cycles).

This time I cut her off, "Sorry, I've got to get back to the real world. Have a nice day."

Walking back a few minutes later, we noticed that she'd moved on. Leslie was concerned for a moment that I was too rough on her, and scared her from voicing her opinion, but I'm sure she just moved on to a busier intersection someplace else.

Defending Ralph Nader, but Voting for Barack Obama

Long-time readers of this blog and my other writings know that I've been a pro-democracy crusader for many, many years, and have supported many "third party" and independent candidates over the years. You probably also know that this year I am supporting Barack Obama for president.

Here's a little video I did explaining this evolution, and the reasons for it:


Find more videos like this on VloggerHeads


Now... does this mean I've sold out and have given up on third parties or independent candidates? Hell no! I'm still committed to the cause of restoring democracy and building the electorate.

But, believing, as I do, in the rights of all candidates to be heard, I accept that this includes the candidates of the "big two" parties, and if I'm going to be fair, it means accepting that once in a while, one of them might actually have the best candidate for me at that time.

This is one of those rare times when a Democrat is the best choice for me. But I respect Ralph Nader, and recognize his right to run, and support his attempts to be included in the debates. But I'm not voting for him this time.

Experience or Issues?

According to McCain-Palin campaign manager, Rick Davis, "This election is not about issues" (see video clip, below). Really? Not about the issues?

The continuing foreclosure crisis, with thousands of families losing their homes due to spiking mortgage rates? Only a crisis in our minds, according to the McCain camp.

The continuing rise in health care costs as the number of uninsured Americans climbs to greater than 15%? Not relevant to the presidential race, says McCain-Palin.

An overstretched military bogged down in Iraq while the real villains of 9/11 roam free, planning their next attack on us? Situation taking care of itself, McCain assures us.

No, what's important here is just the guy with 25 years in the Senate proving that he's a change agent by selecting a relatively unknown Governor with less than two years in that office. And, of course, that we recognize that his opponent is somehow the ultimate political insider, despite the fact that he's less qualified than that neophyte Governor. I'm sorry, I'm getting dizzy with that last paragraph.

Look, I'll tell you what this race is not about: It's not about experience. Each of the four candidates for President and Vice President are qualified and experienced in their own way. McCain and Biden have decades in the U.S. Senate. Obama and Palin each have a different variety of experiences that brought them to this point in time.

So if it's not about experience, what should we be talking about? How about ideas? How about the issues? How about the direction that each of these candidates will take our nation? Mr. Davis doesn't want us to focus on that, because he knows that's a losing proposition for the Republicans.

From health care, to the war, to education, to the economy, and everything else, there are clear differences between the two parties, with one ready to move us forward and provide hope for American families, and the other trying to hold us back and put us in our place.

Rick Davis is just a cheap nightclub magician saying, "Look, there's nothing up my sleeve," when he tries to misdirect you with his claim that this election "is not about the issues." There's nothing up his sleeve, alright: no new ideas, no relief, no hope. Just the usual rhetoric, pandering, and fear.

Is this bad for Obama, you want to know?

John McCain has announced his VP choice, and it's none other than Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Um. Who? You know, Sarah Palin, the former Miss Alaska runner-up who was mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470) before losing a race for Lieutenant Governor and finally scoring an upset win for Governor of Alaska in 2006 (population 683,478 - 47th largest state in the Union!).

Apparently, this move is supposed to cinch the election by attracting all 18 million of Hilary Clinton's supporters to the Republican ticket.

There will be a few former Hilary supporters who's main objective is seating a woman in the White House, regardless of party or policy, who will be swayed. But I believe they are a tiny sliver of HRC's former supporters.

Anybody who was for Hilary for what she stood for will back away in horror from the McCain-Palin ticket, and specifically from McCain's "appeasing" of them by selecting a pro-life, big-oil connected, NRA member who returned to work last April only three days after giving birth to a premature baby with Down syndrome.

That Palin is willing to hit the national campaign trail at this time in her family's history says volumes about her ambition and priorities, but very little for her judgment - or McCain's.

(Just forget the fact that she's served less than two years as governor of a state with fewer people than most mid-sized cities - We will not play the "experience card").

I applaud McCain for choosing a woman (24 years after the Democrats nominated a woman VP candidate), but why Palin? Christine Todd Whitman would have attracted many more crossover voters and independents, to name one possibility.

So, I'd be tempted to say, this is good for Obama and bad for McCain, but in the end, the VP choices don't mean all that much (how do you spell "Quayle?"). The battle is between the two at the top of their party's tickets.

First thoughts on the Biden choice...

I like Big Joe. Earlier I was hoping for Jim Webb, but he took himself out of the running. So, good choice. I have no complaints.

The criticism of Biden that I've seen so far (and this is just from a few hours of the news being out) do not focus on Biden (he's hard to find fault in), but on Obama.

The same people who two weeks ago were saying that "Obama needs to shore up his outsider status and domestic policy expertise with somebody who knows how Washington works and has foreign policy expertise" are now saying "This shows Obama knows he's weak, and is really another DC insider."

Look, these people were not going to approve of Obama's VP choice, no matter who it was. Another outsider would have been criticized as lacking experience or depth. Another minority or a woman would have been criticized as "asking for too much" or "insulting the mainstream."

Senator Obama did the right thing by "balancing the ticket" - something every nominee strives to do, no matter the party or situation.

The VP Guessing Game

Now that the presidential nomination process is all over but the dropping of the balloons, all arm-chair prognosticators are turning their attention to the "veepstakes." Who will Obama and McCain pick as running mates?

Before we begin, I want to make one thing clear: I don't believe that this is "the most important choice" either of them will ever make. The VP nomination may make the difference for a handful of voters, but you have to go back to 1960, and LBJ helping JFK carry Texas, to find an election where the choice of VP put a candidate over the top. And even Dan Quayle couldn't sink Bush I's presidential bid. But let's play veepstakes anyway...

Of the rumored leading contenders for the Democratic ticket, I'll venture a guess that Jim Webb, the junior Senator from Virginia, is a strong possibility, and would make a good VP choice. He has what Obama is accused of lacking, military experience. He's a Vietnam vet and former Assistant Secretary of Defense. And, of course, he'd help in Virginia, where Obama will almost certainly lose otherwise. He'd be a reassuring presence on the ticket for those Democratic voters who are concerned about "too much change."

Okay, it wouldn't right to address this topic without saying something about Hillary. I don't think she'd be a good VP choice, but she wouldn't sink the ticket. The amount of extra votes she'd bring to the ticket are probably balanced by the number of votes she'd scare away from the ticket. And, as VP, her husband presents some problems. The Second Spouse should not be the most visible person in any administration. But you've heard all this before...

So, on to the Republican ticket. Here's where I break from the crowd. My suggestion for McCain is one that I'm surprised to not find anybody else suggesting: Christine Todd Whitman. She's the former governor of New Jersey who went on to be Bush II's head of the EPA. She quit that job "to spend more time with her family" (translation: she thought the administration, and VP Cheney in particular, were pushing too hard to reduce regulations on air pollution emissions). While she's remained active in Republican politics, she's also been vocal about criticizing the current administration's divisive political tactics.

As a more moderate Republican (and woman, obviously), she could help pull in some of the Hillary supporters who are unsure of Obama, and show that McCain hasn't become a total tool of the right. Also, New Jersey is a state that often threatens to go Republican, but usually ends up Democratic; Whitman could make the difference there.

Okay, you heard it hear first. If Whitman gets the VP nod, I want credit for suggesting it. On Jim Webb, I'm just one of the pack, I know.

Barack Obama on Race, Elections, and the More Perfect Union

Earlier I had written that Barack Obama was the first major party presidential candidate that I had been excited about for two decades (probably since the moment that Gary Hart got photographed on the Monkey Business with Donna Rice).

Then the nomination battle got even uglier than it had been. While I blamed the Clinton camp for most of that ugliness, I feared that Obama was ready to go in the mud as well and I feared that my enthusiasm would prove to have been a mistake.

And then today Senator Obama nearly brought me to tears again with another stirring and moving speech.

If you've got thirty-seven minutes to spare, skip right down to the video. In fact, just do it. I could write a long post about what I feel the highlights of the speech are, but it could never be the same as hearing it from him. I think this is important enough for every American to make the time to view.

Senator Obama makes me proud to be an American, and proud to support him for President.