Election 2008

A Cost of obama

This entry was posted in Election 2008 on by

If you are typical mid-level lawyer living in New York City an obama victory in November may cost you the equivalent of a $34,000/year pay cut.
I suspect most folks will have little sympathy fsomeone who grosses around $280,000/year.
Nevertheless, everyone should include an analysis similer to that in the linked article in making their own decisions about who to vote for. Do you come out ahead or behind on a straight tax basis? What will be the financial impact on you of other economic and social policies? Do you value the things that the taxes will be used for? If you come out ahead is it because you earned it or because the difference is coming out of someone else’s pocket? How do you fell about that?

Of course, it may well be worth a $34,000 pay cut to many folks in this category to assure a discontinuance of some of the presidential policies of the past 7 years.

All You Need is Change

This entry was posted in Election 2008 Federal Government Government on by

Change, we are going to change things! This idea has been the recent mantra of the 2008 election.
Mark Morford nails the truth of this:

No, not the bland politicalspeak Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton brand of broad sloganeering bumper-sticker change, the kind where part of your naive perky innocent unicorns-in-the-sky self really wants to believe it’s all going to be hopeful and good and radically different, but yet you kind of know, deep down, when you peel back the masks and the rhetoric and the spin, that when all is said and done, pretty much the exact same jackals and demons and CEOs will run the bleak global circus, same as it ever was.

The only change we will get from clinton, obama or mccain is in the details of how the voters are bribed.
None of them will do anything to change the fundamental system of privilege and corporate welfare that creates the conditions for massive income disparity and corporate rapaciousness in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. There will always be income disparity in a healthy economy but in a healthy economy it will truly be the result of individual capabilities, effort and creativity not earmarks, subsidies or direct and indirect wealth transfers.

The Winners Represent Minorities

This entry was posted in Election 2008 Government on by

Sandy Levinson asks:

But isn’t it a bit odd that the candidate for one of the major parties might well not represent a majority of his party, especially in the states where he will inevitably have to concentrate his fall campaign?

Not really.
I suspect that a detailed analysis will show that in many, if not most, primaries the winning candidate does not represent a majority of her party. First, the actual voters split. Second, significant percentages of the eligible voters do not vote,
It is even more the case in general elections. Has a president ever won a majority of those eligible to vote? Or a majority of the population that would be eligible to vote if they registered?
The winners are all flawed in this respect.
I do agree with Levinson that the electoral college should go and that allocating delegates proportionately in primaries would be much better than the winner take all approach of some states. Of course, the parties are not about democratic proportionality or majority rule. They are simply about winning the spoils which I am sure is one of the things driving the ridiculously arcane delegate selection processes in many states, for example California and Washington.

Oh, those two parties we seem to be stuck with really are a pain. While it is highly unlikely that they would ever agree it sure seems that we would have a much healthier political system if our election processes were not structured in such a way that pretty much guarantees a two party system.