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.

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…

In order to understand the failure, we should first look at where this plan originated - the Bush Administration. This was a brokered bill; nonetheless, the original framework for the bailout was crafted by the Administration, lead by Treasury Secretary Paulson.  Like virtually anything that could had had a chance of passing the Untied States Congress,  the final iteration of the bill was a compromise through and through. In order to get behind the bill, Dems got executive pay limits added for companies selling their mortgages to the government as well as the ability to have controlling shares of some companies, and the Administration got their $700 billion.

Notice how I’m saying the ‘Administration’ instead of Republicans. Minority Leader Boehner’s support for the plan was late and  tenuous at best. His lukewarm support reflected that of the Republican membership. 66% of House Republicans voted against the bill - one that was framed by their President. I understand that as the rift between George Bush ‘big-government’ Repubicans and ‘fiscal conservatve’ Republicans grow, it is politically less tenable to side with the President. But when nearly 60% of House Democrats voted for the bill, it’s hard to say the Democrats didn’t do their part.

With the way congress works, Speaker Pelosi can only deliver Democrats - and she did deliver Democrats for a bill that was framed by a Republican President’s Administration. It was Boehner’s responsibility to put country first and bring along more Republicans to support a president of his very own political party; he failed to do so.

Pelosi isn’t free of blame, but with the way Congress functions you can’t heap all the blame on the Speaker. In looking at the vote totals, Boehner is more at fault than she.

And on a side note, welcome Eric to the debate that never ends

I’m not sure who Speaker Pelosi was thinking when she gave her speech around 12:20pm, but she forgot who was in her audience. Pelosi gave one of the most divisive speeches I’ve heard. If she was making any attempt to unify Congress behind this bill, she failed miserably.

When you are attempting to bring two parties together, you do not attack one of the groups. That is stupid and it reflects upon Pelosi’s ability to lead this Congress.

She must be replaced. There is no option on this matter. Pelosi has failed her party, but even worse, she has failed her people.

Of everything I’ve read, I find the proposal of top economist, Brian Wesbury. The plan has been most promoted by Dave Ramsey, the “Get out of Debt Guy.” While I sometimes question Dave’s macroeconomic theories, I think he’s made an excellent choice in going towards Brian’s (and likely other economists’) plan.

The Revised Bailout Plan

1. Suspend Mark-to-Market Accounting
2. Insures sub-prime mortgages, similar to FHA loans.

While Mark-to-Market sounds great in reality, in practice it has a major exception that causes it to fail. Unfortunately, we’ve hit that failure. Mark-to-market accounting requires companies to “mark” assets to their current value on the marketplace. This works great for assets that are sold on a day to day basis like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. However, there is currently no market for sub-prime instruments. Nobody will buy them. Therefore, when Merrill Lynch was forced to sell its sub-prime assets for 22 cents on the dollar it became apparent that mark-to-market was vastly undervaluing the “true” value of the assets.

Furthermore, we don’t need to buy all these assets - we simply need to create a market for them. Instead of buying toxic assets, lets allow the federal government to insure the loans. These assets will then become “un-toxic” to an extent and the market should restart.The best part of this plan is that it will cost around $35-40 billion to insure these loans.

While I don’t like bailing out people, it’s apparent something is going to happen and I think this is the best proposal that has a chance as getting through Congress.

Suggested Bailout Reading

• Cost of the Bailout - New York Times
• Dave Ramsey’s Bailout Plan - Dave Ramsey
• Obama’s Four Bailout Conditions - New York Times (The Caucus)
• Economist Wesbury on Mark-to-Market - Brian Wesbury [PDF]
• Worth of assets government would purcahse - New York Times

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

I met Eric two years ago in Future Business Leaders of America, where he went on to destroy me in a run for President of the Indiana chapter. Despite our differences in some areas of policy, he shares views with both myself and Patrick in that we look for a solution that best serves instead of clinging to “party values.”

Eric is a freshman at Indiana University studying history and, surprise, political science. Eric leans left like Patrick, but he’s grown tired of the “conservative” and “liberal” labels and instead terms himself a “progressive.”

Both Patrick and I look forward to seeing Eric’s work appear here on Political Equinox. He will offer us a new level of depth, especially with respect to the Supreme Court - a subject on which Eric skillfully declares himself a “junkie.” Speaking that he hopes to attend law school, I’d say that Eric has picked the right topic to study. We expect great things from Eric and you will not be disappointed.

Look for Eric’s work to begin appearing throughout the next week or so as he warms up to the new system.

Welcome Eric! We hope you’re ready for the ride.

Bringing Capital Back Into America

Currently there are some $10 trillion dollars of capital that has been moved away from the United States into foreign assets in order to shelter these assets from the aggressive and oppressive United States tax laws.

All of this investment is currently building other nations roads, sending foriegn children to school, and building the very factories that steal American jobs.

Wouldn’t it be absolutely wonderful if we could bring all of this money back into America? Think about what America could do with $10 trillion in additional capital invested into our economy. Think how many jobs we could create, think how much would be invested in our future, in our economy. Think about how much would be purchased with those investment gains.

America – The Labor Front

If the FairTax were passed in America, our country would soon become the tax haven of the world. There would be no corporate taxes, which would enable foreign companies to move there operations to the United States in order to gain favorable tax advantages.

All of those manufacturing jobs that are heading elsewhere in the world would be on the next ship back to America because of the enormous tax advantages. Talk about creating jobs!

Prices Compete Globally

Since the FairTax is not charged to products sold to international customers, America no longer plays at a 20% disadvantage because the embedded tax the current system causes is gone. With the embedded tax removed Americans will pay that 23% FairTax, but if Apple sells iPod’s around the world they will be able to reduce prices because the embedded cost of taxation will be removed.

Therefore, America companies will be able to gain a greater share in the market. In this globalized market, it is important for companies to nail down as much of the international market as possible.