In wake of the presidential races it appears that we’ve had several big decisions with ballot measures that will likely bring court challenges.

• Arizona has banned gay marriage.
• Arkansas has banned gay couples from adopting children.
• California appears to have banned gay marriage.
• Florida has banned gay marriage.
• Michigan now allows medical marijuana and stem cell research.
• Nebraska has ended Affirmative Action.
• Washington has allowed doctor-assisted suicide.

It will be interesting to see where these decisions take us in terms of court battles with gay marriage.

The biggest variable in today’s election could swing the results and it has little to do with the positions of either candidate.

Will the newly registered voters brave the LONG lines to vote or will they give up after seeing the wait?

With wait times exceeding several hours in some places, some estimates in upwards of 3-4 hours, it will be interesting to see if some voters wait it out.

Pork projects, discretionary spending, or whatever you want to call it, is capped at 1% of the total federal budget. Cutting 1% of the federal budget probably isn’t going to solve all our problems, so if John McCain is being elected for the purpose of cutting out pork projects that’s only going to save us $18 billion dollars.

For all the wrath pork projects receive, many of them are actually worthwhile endeavors. By cutting that spending we will be eliminating many of those grants, programs, and projects this money supports. While in the long run that probably would be a good thing for our country to cut it, I’m not convinced the problem has as large of an effect as it’s being pushed at.

Cutting out all the pork isn’t going to put a dent in our deficit or national debt problem.

Furthermore, the number has actually fallen in the last year. Have we put enough pressure on the projects to limit them or is this election year talk?

Over the past few weeks I’ve heard Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders speak out against “privatizing” Social Security. Now, I’m not sure if privatizing the program is the best way to go, I think we’ve got an awful lot more work to do with regards to that subject. But there is one thing I am sure of, these same people speaking out are railing that Republicans want to gamble with the future of Americans by putting this money into the stock market.

Investing in the stock market is absolutely not gambling. In fact, it’s not even close. Over the past one hundred years, every 10 year period in the stock market has made a positive return (even during the great depression). Certainly there will be down years, but investing is a long term process, as we’ve heard a million times.

The average rate of return for US stocks from 1900-2000 was 10.1%, while government bonds gave a return of 4.8%. Short term treasuries, which represents cash, returned an average of 4.1% over the 100 years.

If you had invested $1,000 a year for 40 years during that period (or your working lifetime), then assuming an annual return of the average you would have $547,667. Investing your money in government bonds would give you $127,100, and leaving your money in Short Term T-Bills would leave you with $106,275. Of course, market timing plays a role in the discussion, but lets make the math easier.

This past year is an excellent example of the turbulence of the stock market, it’s down almost 40% this year, but over the long term we’re not talking about gambling – it’s investing.

The bottom line is that putting Social Security into “riskier” investments is not gambling, it’s being smart. But we can’t have a one-size fits all approach, if we’re going to put things in the markets. We’ll have to let people choose.

I don’t often agree completely with the Republican National Committee. They are extremely partisan, which I cannot fault them for because that is the purpose of the committee. However, despite my support for Barack Obama in the election in just a few days, I realize the importance of the RNC’s recent campaign against electing 60 Democrats into the Senate. They have hit the nail on the head in regard to not electing 60 Democrats to the Senate, a House Majority, and a Democratic President.

For those that don’t know, 60 Democrats would mean the Republicans would no longer have the ability to block votes by refusing to end debate (of course, the flip side is true as well). Giving one party unchecked power is extremely dangerous. Even Democrats should realize that divided government is a huge advantage to our system and allowing on groups ideals to be railroaded through the legislature is not a smart move.

Now I’m not saying the Democrats are out there to pass plans that will destroy our country, that’s not what I’m saying at all. However, when you are given unchecked power and allowed to pass your plans without considerable discussion and the necessity of bringing those from the other side to the table, you’ll get plans that haven’t looked at the issue from all viewpoints.

Both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are guilty of looking at one viewpoint from time to time, but we cannot let that time be on an issue critical to our country. For example, if Obama’s health care plan is allowed to run through Congress because the Republicans are unable to hold up debate to look over the issue a little more, then we are not going to get the best plan.

I believe in Obama, his intelligence, and his abilities, but that doesn’t mean he has developed a perfect plan. In fact, I think he’s far from perfection. I don’t think he’s taken the right approach, but he’s on track. A partisan divide is necessary to move us along that track, to discuss deeply.

Giving one party all the power is dangerous, no matter which one it is.

Photo courtesy Indiana University.

The results are in and people are claiming Joe Biden held his own and Sarah Palin didn’t disappoint. I must agree, even though I’ll have to give Biden the nod as the overall debate winner, Governor Palin came close.

However, don’t take that as an endorsement of the potential Vice President, as Palin benefited from the poor debate format. The moderator moved the candidates quickly from subject to subject almost as if attempting to cover the entire range of issues in a single debate.

This was wasteful of the American people’s time. Why not focus on the economy, the war, and healthcare. Giving ample time to each subject instead of skipping from question to question. Instead we addressed very little on each issue and even a few that probably don’t deserve to be at the forefront of debate.

Both candidates realized they didn’t have enough time to answer the questions and both were a question behind most of the night. They didn’t go back to answer previous questions in the sense that most candidates do, they just weren’t finished with the previous subjects.

Moderator Gwen Ifill failed at extracting much substance from either candidate. Every time things seemed to be getting going into some real debate and real subjects we would have to stop again and move onto the next subject.

If we have just focused on a few issues, then we might have gotten some depth out of the Vice Presidential candidates. I partially blame the McCain campaign for this as I’m sure they had their strict requirements at opening Governor Palin up to a “real debate.” If this would have happened, she would’ve been tossed to the wayside.

The most depth we say all night was Joe Biden’s analysis of the Middle East. He displayed great poise and intelligence in that setting. I was saddened that neither candidate was able to elaborate on the positions of their tickets any more than just a few brief statements before Ifill interrupted them to move onto another subject.

Why couldn’t we just talk about the real issues, that really mattered to Americans? Glossing over is for the campaign stump speeches, not debates.

As many of you know I define myself a a Moderate Republican focusing on low taxes (especially corporate & capital gains). Tax & Economic Policy are the chief issues for me, and I share that belief with many of my fellow Americans.

This election is posing a problem for me that goes beyond issues and rhetoric. I have yet to decide upon a candidate, I’m struggling internally and I haven’t found the answer just yet.

If I take a straight take on issues I probably agree with John McCain more than Senator Obama. But taking an honest look at both men, they’ll both do a fine job. Neither one is going to ruin America, we’ll be fine no matter who is elected.

My quandary on who to vote for stems not from Tax Policy, a vice presidential pick, or party affiliation. Rather, it’s a gut feeling that I have, an instinct. John McCain is the safe choice for our country. He’ll change up the status-quo, pull us out of this economic slowdown, and we’ll be just fine. But that little voice inside all of us is telling me that I’m missing something, I have a hunch that Barack Obama has the chance to not just let America be fine, but to be great.

And the odd thing is, I know exactly what he going to do to make himself great. Well sort of. It’s not a policy he’s proposed yet, it’s something he’s going to do in a few years. But it will change the way we think in America, it’ll change how we work, how we operate.

This isn’t hope and dreams. It’s not “The Audacity of Hope” and it’s not “Change we can believe in.” It’s not any of those things.

This feeling brings me back to the ever famous, Mac vs PC commericals. John McCain is the safe choice, a PC, he’ll get things done and things will work out just fine. Life will move and and we’ll be better of because of him. But Senator Obama is the Mac, he’s got the chance to create a “sleek” America.

While I fundamentally disagree with him on economic policy, taxes, social security, and to an extent, healthcare – I simply cannot just leave this feeling on the table. Can I pass on my fundamental objection to his policies to get to this “great proposal”?

So, my quandary continues…

When Gov. Sarah Palin stated she said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the famous “Bridge to Nowhere” project she opened herself up a major can of worms. I’m personally not a huge Sarah Palin fan, I don’t feel she has the necessary experience and I don’t think she’s ready for the Vice Presidency. Now although I still haven’t decided my vote this November, I’m sure Palin’sperformance over the coming weeks will play a role in my final decision.

However, Palin needs to cut the talk about earmarks. Before you try and argue that she has room to talk watch this CNN special.

Whether you like Mike Huckabee or not, this is one excellent speech.