There's a lot of posts since I last posted them here, so instead of adding a whole bunch of new topics I'll post them as replies to this post.

See the orginal post if interested in all the links back to the initial challenge


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3437

Veterans Who Served With Kerry Take On Swift Boat Lies

June 20th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Back in November T. Boone Pickens offered $1 million to anyone who could dispute the claims of the Swift Boat Liars who he helped finance during the 2004 election. Kerry took him up on the offer, but Pickens reneged. Kerry issued this response, and the Chicago Sun-Times posted this recap.

Ten veterans who have served with Kerry or witnessed his actions have written to Pickens again trying to take him up on the challenge. Sam Stein reports on the letter they sent along with evidence:

“Dear Mr. Pickens,” the letter (pdf) begins, “We are the crew and individual servicemen who served on or with Patrol Craft Fast 94 in Vietnam in early 1969… Regrettably the lies of the SBVT, which you helped bankroll and apparently still defend, tarnished the sacrifices we made, called into question the medals we were awarded and challenged the very authenticity of our service… We have children and families who were deeply affected by these lies and we believe you and the SBVT whom you supported owe us and the American people an apology for the tactics you bankrolled.

“We are aware of media reports that at a dinner in Washington D.C. on November 6th, 2007, you made a public challenge that you would give a million dollars to anyone who could show that anything the SBVT said was false. We also know that Senator John Kerry, who was the skipper of the PCF-94, contacted you to take you up on that challenge. We are writing to you now as a group to accept your challenge and document how you funded lies and character assassination.”

What follows, aides to Kerry say, is one of the most comprehensive conglomerations of evidence disputing the SBVT attacks. Taking on the argument that, somehow, Kerry didn’t deserve his Silver Star, the signatories dispute ten “falsehoods,” including the claim that Kerry chased and killed a “young Viet Cong in loincloth” (it was an actually a “man of normal military age” carrying a B-40 rocket); that he only was in combat with this one individual (there were “multiple VC scrambling to get away”); and that Kerry made a tactical error in captaining his boat that day (”there was no ‘plan’ to charge the bank”). The letter concludes with perhaps the most poignant and currently relevant point.

“Finally, the continued insistence that Kerry has not released his full military record is refuted by the Navy, which has publicly certified he has, and by three newspapers which have independently received signed releases and reviewed those records.”

Indeed, it is important to remember that in 2004, Kerry posted military records on his campaign’s website and allowed selected reporters access to his military medical records. After the campaign, he signed a 180 waiver, authorizing the release of his complete file to three publications.

It is amusing that many right wing blogs continue to post false claims that Kerry refused to release his military records even though they have been posted on line and reviewed by the media. They don’t care about the facts any more than Pickens does. Any doubt that he will once again renege on his challenge?

The video:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3422

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3412

Friday I had a follow up post which primarily contains a video of Obama discussing his tax plans, plus the following:

Republicans have been making a number of false claims about Obama’s tax plans. The video above shows Obama describing his actual proposals. As noted yesterday, the vast majority of Americans will receive a tax cut under Obama, not a tax increase as the Republicans are often claiming. In the video Obama makes it clear that those earning under $250,000 will not receive an increase in taxes–not in their income tax, not in Social Security payroll taxes, and not in capital gains taxes. The vast majority will receive a tax cut.

I’m not saying things will definitely turn out this way as we cannot predict the future, and the president does not have complete control over tax policy. However this does contradict a number of claims being thrown around by Republicans who are misquoting Obama’s tax proposals to scare people into voting Republican.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3408



The Consequences of The Candidates’ Tax Plans

June 13th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Earlier I noted how Republican claims of higher social security taxes under Obama are greatly exaggerated. Later in the day a study came out from the Tax Policy Center comparing the effects of the tax policies of both candidates. (Full report here in pdf format.)

The graph above gives a quick look at who benefits the most from the policies of each candidate. Not surprisingly, those in the lowest quintile get the biggest breaks under Obama’s plan while those in the top one percent get the biggest tax breaks from McCain.

Those results could have been predicted easily. The more interesting question for myself was how the tax plans would affect all us more affluent “elitists” who back Obama. The Republicans will try all sorts of scare tactics to convince the upper middle class to return to voting for them even though in recent years their economic policies have not been of benefit to the upper middle class.

Hilzoy’s analysis helps answer this question, along with a review of the data on pages 22-24:

The cutoffs for these quintiles (in 2008 dollars) are as follows: “20% $19,740, 40% $38,980, 60% $69,490, 80% $117,535, 90% $169,480, 95% $237,040, 99% $619,561, 99.9% $2,832,449.” (p. 24.) It’s worth noting that if you check the table on p. 24, which has more detail than this graph, you can see that people below the top five percent (which starts at $237,040) do not lose after-tax income under Obama’s plan, and people making $237,040-$619,561 lose all of $12 a year, on average. It’s only in the top one percent that people take a sizable hit. But since so much of the Bush tax cuts went to them, that seems fair to me.

Based upon these numbers, it doesn’t look like the bulk of the affluent voters who are supporting Obama are going to pay more in taxes. We might receive a bit more of a tax break from McCain, but the bulk of his tax breaks go to those in the top 0.1%. For example, looking at the 90-95th percentile, Obama’s plan provides an average tax cut of $2789. McCain’s plan gives an average tax cut of $4380.

It is doubtful things would ever turn out exactly as these predictions state, but if we go by these numbers the upper middle class does do slightly better under McCain than Obama. Personally I’m willing to go with the slightly lower tax cut if it means a better chance of ending the war and undoing the other harm committed under George Bush. Despite all the scare tactics used by Republicans, we are not really talking about that much money considering the income of this group.

Of course we can expect the ultra-wealthy to go for McCain, provided they vote purely based upon taxes and not on what is best for the country. The top 0.1% receives an average tax cut of $269,364 from McCain while they would see an average tax increase of $701,885 under Obama. (Again, this is largely a consequence of them receiving the largest benefits under Bush’s plan). On the other end of the spectrum, McCain would give the lowest quintile an average tax cut of $19 while Obama would give them an average tax cut of $567.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3407

Obama’s Philosophy and Economics

June 12th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

I’ve previously posted portions of an article by Cass Sunstein on Obama’s views. He has posted a revised version at The New Republic. Here’s a portion which which explains Obama’s views, primarily on economic matters. This gives some clues as to how libertarian ideas have influenced his views:

He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows. He appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In some of his most important disagreements with Senator Clinton, he suggested caution about mandates and bans, and stressed the value of freedom of choice.

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards, and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican Tom Coburn to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama’s healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.

But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in allowing people to choose as they see fit. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.

It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit–an approach, pioneered by Republicans, that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work. In the environmental domain, Obama is a strong supporter of incentive-based programs, not of command-and-control. Here too, he draws on ideas that have been pressed most prominently by Republicans (and he gives them credit for their initiative in this domain).

But Obama is no a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). “Triangulation” has no appeal for him. Both internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. As everyone knows, he publicly opposed the war in Iraq at a time when opposition was exceedingly unpopular. (In his speech opposing the war, by the way, he went out of his way to emphasize, before a largely pacifist audience, that he does not oppose all wars: “After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.”)

As everyone also knows, Obama favors high-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. (This is an idea, by the way, that has large support among economists and that can be traced to an essay by Ronald Coase on communications policy.) He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality, and proposing a reform of the patent system.

His campaign has spoken of moving toward “iPod Government”–an effort to rethink public services and national regulations in ways that will make things far simpler and more user-friendly. These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn’t even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: “We coach Little League in the blue states, and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.”

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3406

Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan

June 12th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Time has some more information on Obama’s effort to fight internet smears which I mentioned a couple of days ago. The plan includes a web site which debunks the smears, but other campaigns have also done this in the past. The campaign also plans to enlist supporters to help:

Obama is enlisting his millions of supporters to help him hunt down and quash these stories, just as those supporters helped him turn his insurgent campaign into a history-making juggernaut. Says Obama adviser Anita Dunn: “We will not allow Michelle — or, for that matter, Barack—to be defined by rumors.”

For more than a year, Obama relied on conventional means to confront the blogosphere’s superheated rumor mill—to little effect. The “fact-check” feature on his website, for instance, only seemed to spawn more, and wilder, rumors. A mention there of Obama’s birth certificate spurred National Review Online to demand that he produce it to dispel groundless reports that Obama was actually born in Kenya and therefore would be constitutionally ineligible to be President; that his middle name is not Hussein but Muhammad; and that his mother actually named him Barry. That National Review article in turn became fodder for cable television.

According to campaign officials, what finally launched Obama into a full rumor counteroffensive was a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson. Quoting “someone in touch with a senior Republican,” Johnson claimed that there was a video of Michelle Obama “blasting ‘whitey’ during a rant at Jeremiah Wright’s church.” (Later versions of the rumor had Michelle’s “rant” happening at a Rainbow/push Coalition conference.) No such videotape has surfaced.

Even enlisting supporters to help fight rumors is nothing new, but perhaps Obama’s campaign can do a more effective job. Unfortunately there probably is no totally new way to fight these smears.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3405

Scare Tactics of the Wall Street Journal

June 12th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

In recent years the Republicans have been losing much of their traditional support among the upper middle class as their economic programs have benefited only the ultra-wealthy. The Wall Street Journal, along with other conservatives, have been trying to scare such voters into voting Republican with misleading claims about Obama’s tax policies, especially on Social Security. For example, today they write:

He has vowed, for example, to erase the Bush tax cuts not only for those who make more than $250,000, but to end the cap on Social Security taxes, which amounts to a tax hike on anyone who makes more than $100,000 in income. More recently, Austan Goolsbee, an Obama economic adviser, told me the new cap might be set at $200,000.

All of this has caused some heartburn among certain Democrats in high cost-of-living states. New York Rep. Joseph Crowley says a couple with earnings of $100,000 could be “a police officer and nurse.” “In New York City,” he adds, “they’d be struggling.”

There are several misleading statements here. First of all, Obama has not called for raising the cap on everyone earning over $100,000. He has spoken of using a donut hole so that this tax increase only affects those at a higher income level, such as those making over $250,000.

A second error in this is that Social Security taxes are based upon individual not joint income. Therefore the couple he describes would not be affected based upon their joint earnings of $100,000.

There is yet a third misleading aspect of this. John McCain has also supported increasing the cap (as has Hillary Clinton). It doesn’t appear to matter who is elected with regards to this issue.

There is one place where they are correct. Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will not pay for all the programs which the Democrats are proposing. However that is nothing new. The Republicans have been supporting programs which exceed our tax revenues for years. John McCain’s proposed military spending cannot be supported based upon current tax revenues, and he has been quite vague as to how he would cut spending to balance his proposed tax cuts.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3403

Video of segment from Countdown with Kerry interview is in original post.

Keith Olbermann discussed John McCain’s views on the war after his controversial interview earlier in the day. John Kerry spoke out against McCain both earlier in the day as well as in an interview on Countdown (video above). Kerry was very critical of McCain’s views on the war (which are far more serious than any one sound bite).

Back in 2004 their were rumors that Kerry was considering McCain as his running mate. Others believe that the story originated with John McCain as a means of enhancing his own reputation. Regardless of the validity of those rumors, we can be certain that McCain is not going to return the (possible) offer and consider Kerry to be his running mate. There is talk of Obama choosing Kerry to add foreign policy experience and gravitas to the ticket. While this is unlikely to happen, Kerry is not ruling out accepting the position if offered:

Jacki Schechner: It was inevitable we were going to get this question so I’m just going to throw it out there. But somebody says…her name is Lola…she says, “Would you consider running with Obama, and if so, what would you do to decrease the crisis with the Middle East and use diplomacy in reducing the economy and dependence on oil?”

Senator Kerry: Well, Lola, I’ll answer the first part of your question by saying that having made the selection for Vice President, it’s a good idea not to consider running with the person who’s choosing. Let them decide who they want to have run with them. So the answer is no, I’m sitting here like everybody else and watching with amusement while this process goes on.

Jacki: Would you be interested?

Kerry: Only…the answer is probably not, but if the right definition were given to the job, then you’d be foolish not to say that you would think about it or consider it. And you’d be dishonest, likewise.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3403

Video of segment from Countdown with Kerry interview is in original post.

Keith Olbermann discussed John McCain’s views on the war after his controversial interview earlier in the day. John Kerry spoke out against McCain both earlier in the day as well as in an interview on Countdown (video above). Kerry was very critical of McCain’s views on the war (which are far more serious than any one sound bite).

Back in 2004 their were rumors that Kerry was considering McCain as his running mate. Others believe that the story originated with John McCain as a means of enhancing his own reputation. Regardless of the validity of those rumors, we can be certain that McCain is not going to return the (possible) offer and consider Kerry to be his running mate. There is talk of Obama choosing Kerry to add foreign policy experience and gravitas to the ticket. While this is unlikely to happen, Kerry is not ruling out accepting the position if offered:

Jacki Schechner: It was inevitable we were going to get this question so I’m just going to throw it out there. But somebody says…her name is Lola…she says, “Would you consider running with Obama, and if so, what would you do to decrease the crisis with the Middle East and use diplomacy in reducing the economy and dependence on oil?”

Senator Kerry: Well, Lola, I’ll answer the first part of your question by saying that having made the selection for Vice President, it’s a good idea not to consider running with the person who’s choosing. Let them decide who they want to have run with them. So the answer is no, I’m sitting here like everybody else and watching with amusement while this process goes on.

Jacki: Would you be interested?

Kerry: Only…the answer is probably not, but if the right definition were given to the job, then you’d be foolish not to say that you would think about it or consider it. And you’d be dishonest, likewise.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3399


A Libertarian View of Obama on The Value of Markets

June 11th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Some libertarians have a knee jerk opposition to Obama because of he is a liberal Democrat, with much of the libertarian echo chamber repeatedly equating liberal Democrat with socialist regardless of how absurd this is. I’ve quoted many statements from more open minded libertarians who understand the more libertarian traits of Obama compared to most mainstream politicians of either party. Libertarian Megan McArdle and liberal Matthew Yglesias discussed the choices of Obama and McCain for The Los Angeles Times. While I try not to be biased by my lowered opinion of Yglesias over the past several days due to an atrocious blog post on Saturday, I believe McArgle made the most significant point of this exchange:

Obama is the right man for his party, and McCain is the wrong one. Obama is not only personally inspiring, but he also seems to have a deep understanding of the value of markets and transparency; he aims to fix outcomes, not tinker with the process. McCain, on the other hand, shows little respect for spontaneous free order or suspicion of expanded state power; he seems to think that the main problem with the government is that the wrong people are pulling the strings.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3397

Campaigning in Missouri Foreshadows Obama Advantages

June 11th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

A report out of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch contains a couple of important points which might foreshadow the course of the campaign. Barack Obama discussed campaigning in the rural parts of Missouri where he has little chance of winning:

“In the rural parts of the state, showing up makes a big difference,” Obama said. “My general view is, even if I don’t win those areas, we can narrow the gap and that may make a significant difference in how we do statewide.”

While he said this in Missouri, the same applies to several other battleground and weakly red states which could be tipped.

Obama was campaigning on health care:

Obama told reporters that millions of Americans in similar straits could be helped by his proposals for a voluntary national health insurance plan for the uninsured, self-employed and small businesses.

No one would be rejected because of illness or pre-existing conditions, he said, and premiums would be kept affordable. Companies that don’t provide health coverage to employees would kick in money to help pay for the national plan.

There response from the McCain camp illustrates how unrealistic their plans are:

Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a conference call Tuesday that Obama’s plans would create an unwieldy and costly program that forces unfair mandates on businesses.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is proposing to end tax breaks on businesses that offer employee health insurance and give benefits to individuals so they can purchase insurance.

McCain offers “more of a free-market approach,” Donatelli said, leading to more choices for consumers. He predicted that competition would prompt some insurers to ease their restrictions on pre-existing conditions.

The last paragraph demonstrates how weak McCain’s health care plan really is. It is all based upon the hope that the insurance industry will spontaneously change their ways after he gives them everything they want. In theory it is possible that some day the insurance industry will decide to go after the market of those with preexisting conditions and ease their current restrictions in order to attract this market. While possible in theory, it is highly unlikely as it goes in the opposite direction of everything else the insurance industry has been doing for years.

The insurance industry makes its money by finding ways to take in premiums while minimizing what they have to pay out. This includes making it difficult for people to purchase coverage at a time when insurance companies have to make payments on them. At present restrictions on preexisting conditions would be even more severe than they now are if not for government regulations. For example, some states limit the period that an insurance company can restrict coverage for preexisting conditions to six months.

As long as we have our current situation of many people being uninsured, the insurance company will realize that people are holding off on treatment of medical problems until they can get insurance. McCain’s approach would not make this situation any better. His plans would shift the cost of health care more towards individuals, even if they have health care coverage. The only way that insurance companies could realistically offer comprehensive coverage without limitations on preexisting conditions would be as part of a plan which offers universal coverage.

Just as Obama’s plan to campaign in areas where Democrats have avoided campaigning in the past will help him win, Obama will have the edge whenever healthcare is debated if the McCain campaign continues to make such weak arguments for their non-plan.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3394

Obama to Fight Internet Smears

June 10th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The Guardian reports that Obama’s campaign is forming a unit to combat internet rumors:

Barack Obama is recruiting senior staff to a new unit which will combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet that threaten to cost him votes in the presidential election against John McCain.

The unit is part of a huge expansion of Obama’s campaign team as he shifts from the Democratic nomination race to the campaign for November’s election.

As well as the rumour-mongering problem, units are being set up to deal with other perceived vulnerable points, including off-the-cuff remarks by his wife Michelle. McCain’s wife, Cindy, questioned Michelle’s patriotism in February after she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

Brooks Jackson, director of the Washington-based FactCheck.org, an independent academic organisation set up in 2003 to monitor the factual accuracy of statements made in elections, said yesterday there had been false rumours on the internet about George Bush and John Kerry in the 2004 election.

“With Obama, it is particularly vicious,” Jackson said. He added that one of the most persistent is that Obama, a Christian, is “some kind of Muslim Manchurian candidate, planted by Islamic fundamentalists to betray the country and it is very widespread”.

The real question is how they combat these rumors. John Kerry’s campaign had a web site debunking all the attacks on Kerry, but this only has an impact on the people who actually read the site. Rapid response has been an important part of campaigns at least since Bill Clinton. Under the fold I’ve placed the transcript of a report on NPR’s Morning Edition on rapid response efforts of the presidential campaigns.

Obama has been highly successful in many aspects of his campaign. Hopefully he can be more successful than previous campaigns in fighting all the untrue rumors which have been too large a part of politics.

(Article on Kerry's rapid response is at the post linked above)

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3393

John Kerry Wins Profiles in Compassion Award

June 10th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

John Kerry has won this year’s Profiles in Compassion award from The Animal Welfare Institute. From their press release:

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has announced Senator John Kerry (D-MA) as the latest recipient of its “Profiles in Compassion” award, recognizing his strong commitment to protecting animals and their habitats. One of the few members of the US Senate to rate a perfect 100 percent on AWI’s Compassion Index (www.compassionindex.org ), Senator Kerry recently introduced S. Con. Res. 86, a resolution that calls on the Bush Administration to stand up for whales at the annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting to be held in Chile later this month.

“In the face of increasing pressure from pro-whaling nations, the US must reclaim its historic position as a leader in whale conservation and support the moratorium on commercial whaling. The time is running short to protect the world’s dwindling whale populations,” said Senator Kerry, who has been actively working on the whaling issue for years. In February, he was co-host with House Natural Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall of a Save the Whales Again! press conference featuring actress Hayden Panettiere.

The United States is the current chair of the IWC, the international body founded over 60 years ago to be responsible for the conservation of whales. Since that time, a ban on commercial whaling has been instituted, two sanctuaries have been established, and attitudes toward whale conservation have improved. However, Japan, Norway and Iceland have flouted the whaling ban and continue to whale for commercial gain by exploiting loopholes in the IWC Convention. Under the moratorium, these countries have killed more than 25,000 whales, including over 11,000 who were taken under the guise of “scientific research.” Norway and Iceland have also resumed the trade in whale meat with Japan, in flagrant defiance of an international ban on such trafficking.

An animation:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/opinion/wa...