Nothing Else Matters
Lest you think by reading the title above that this post is about Metallica and their classic hit from 1991, let me jump right in to the matter at hand. Political elections possess a dichotomy that is virtually unparalleled in that they are exceedingly complex and yet profoundly simple at the same time. This election is no different. There are countless variables to be considered: race, age, sex, political climate, shifting demographics, personality traits, and voter turnout to name a few, let alone the beliefs of the candidates and the events of the day. Every election cycle, scores of people feebly attempt to account for all of these variables when making their, usually off base, predictions. In their defense, though…it’s a daunting task. Honestly, it’s probably an impossible one, and my theory is that the more data they compile the more they realize how much more data there is that they haven’t yet compiled. Therefore, it also stands to reason that amidst the charts, polls, and never ending facts, figures, and speculation about them that one could very easily lose sight of the forest for the trees. It seems the pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators often do. You see, countless variables to be considered aside, elections are conversely very simple in that, in the end, they usually come down to one, and only one, real issue. Again, this election is no different. The only question, then, is…what’s the issue?
It’s the economy, stupid. More specifically…gas prices. No surprise there, I imagine. Nearly everyone is fed up with $4 gas. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, undecideds, you name it…everybody wants the fuel situation addressed, and they want it addressed now. It’s the universally cared about problem, and the one that still leaves many yet uncommitted to either candidate. Think about it. If you are passionate about life issues or the war, for instance, you’ll have no problem identifying with either Obama or McCain, depending on your views. However, millions of Americans don’t have strong feelings on these topics but are extremely concerned with how much it costs them to fill up their gas tank each week. Hard partisans, like myself, had theoretically already cast our votes before the presumptive nominees were even announced. The thing is, though, guys like me don’t decide elections. It’s the silent, unresolved voter who looks only at the most pressing predicament of the day that decides elections…and folks, there are a ton of them out there. That is why, in my opinion, whichever candidate can better convince those still undecided persons that they are best equipped to ease their collective pain at the pump will no doubt also ease their way into the Oval Office. So which candidate is in a better position to do this? Interestingly enough, the sky high gas prices actually offer both Obama and McCain each a great political opportunity.
Barack Obama is a far left candidate running for President in a center-right country. He is noticeably less qualified than his opponent, and his only real political skill is speaking behind a teleprompter. Therefore, he did the only thing he could do…to try and make this election a referendum on George Bush. However, the main issue that has made Bush so unpopular (the Iraq war) has improved so dramatically as of late, that it has left Obama with nothing to talk about but the economy. Luckily for him, gas prices are out of control. Because, even as he and Democrats everywhere constantly caution us that we are stumbling into a deep, deep depression, the numbers don’t really add up. The economy grew 3.3% last month, which is anywhere between 1 and 2 percentage points higher than nearly every other country in the industrialized world. Unemployment has been, on average, lower during the Bush years than during any of the previous four decades, and government revenue was drastically higher during Bush’s two terms than during Clinton’s, even though Bush slashed taxes and inherited a recession. I could continue. So, if it wasn’t for gas prices hurting the wallets of Americans everywhere, and in turn giving them the impression that we’re headed over a cliff economically, what could Obama’s platform be? It couldn’t be “more of the same” if the same was a war that’s been won and a robust, growing economy. With fuel costs the way they are, though, Obama is able to point to the two oil-men in the White House and pin the blame on them. For him, $4 gas is a God-send.
John McCain, on the other hand, though he would on paper beat Obama 10 out of 10 times, entered into this election as the underdog. He did so primarily because of the sour climate for Republicans, which can be traced back to George Bush and his 30% approval rating. In fact, even though of all the Republicans to win the nomination McCain is perhaps the least like George Bush, there was probably nothing he could have done to counter Obama’s claims that he would be simply Bush’s 3rd term. Nothing, that is, until an opportunity arose to align himself on a mammoth issue with upwards of 70% of the American public. Drill here, drill now. There isn’t an excuse good enough to convince the vast majority of Americans that drilling for oil on our shores isn’t a smart idea, and by picking an Alaskan who gets that as his running mate, it seems that John McCain may get it too. All he has to do now is beat it like a dead horse, and the Presidency is his to lose.
So, where does that leave us? Well, there is now only a month and a half until the election. Gas prices remain higher than ever, and undecided voters are looking for someone to blame and for someone to turn to. The next President of the United States hinges on who they perceive those someones to be.
I got to be honest, I have a hard time identifying with the undecided voter. Of course, like I said before, I’m the guy that, because of a myriad of issues, and barring some catastrophic shift, knows I’m going to vote Republican before I know who the Republican to vote for even is. Hey, and I know I’m far from alone in that thought process. Apparently though, there are millions upon millions of Americans out there who aren’t like me (go figure)…and in their minds, in this election, lowering gas prices is what matters most. In fact, to them you could almost say that nothing else matters.
I can hear James Hetfield now.

© 2011 - Aaron Braun-Duin
September 17th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Hey man, you should see the movie IOUSA. It was a real eye-opener for me. I understand you are a hard-core Republican, but it is really difficult for me to believe that the economic climate has improved under Bush.
Clinton was very committed to balancing the Federal budget. In fact, under Clinton, during a couple of years, the federal government was bringing in more revenue than it was spending. Under Bush, it will grow to upwards of 10 trillion. That is double what it was 8 years ago. That is a huge deal. There are many reasons why this is so important. I will let the movie explain them, though. It will do a better job than me.
Furthermore, the Bush administration’s failure to regulate Wall Street has left a very small minority of people very rich and a very large majority of people with houses and 401Ks and retirements and pensions worth considerably less than what they were previously worth. That is disgusting to me. I do blame the right-wing theory of trickle-down economics. In my opinion, trickle-down economics is a flat out a crock of crap. Especially, unregulated, trickle-down economics.
The harsh reality of it all is that the only way we are going to enjoy our middle class (if that’s what it is) lifestyle in the long run is if leadership has the balls to raise taxes (especially for the very wealthy) and spend less. The deficit is big deal and it’s only going to be fixed by leadership making difficult, unpopular decisions. Not by lower taxes, spending more, and then acting like everything is OK. That is only going to cause more harm than good in the long run.
[Reply]
September 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I definitely agree with you that the deficit is out of control and is a big problem. I also agree that the Bush Administration should share a large chunk of the blame for it. Where I don’t agree, though, is that they are at fault because they haven’t taxed enough or because of a failed “trickle-down” policy. The deficit has ballooned because of their reckless spending. Since government revenue has been through the roof during the past 8 years, it’s hard to point to anything else. In regard to Clinton, most of his good achievements (welfare reform, balanced budget) could just as easily be attributed to the, at the time, new Republican led Congress (which hadn’t yet lost their way). But yeah, George Bush has been a big government guy, and I haven’t liked it one bit. However, to think that the Democrats (given their history and stated goals) will somehow reign in this spending is, in my opinion, naive at best. For what it’s worth, the McCain – Palin ticket actually is made up of two individuals who have pretty fair records of fighting government waste.
In regard to trickle-down economics, opponents seem to regard it as the policy of giving the wealthy extra advantages so they can get richer and richer, because this arbitrarily helps the poor too. I agree that this sounds silly. However, I don’t think this is what Bush or Republicans have done. All Bush did was to reverse course somewhat on the already steeply progressive income tax system. Through various means, the wealthy in this country already pay virtually all the taxes. The percentages are actually quite staggering. So now, Obama wants to further soak the rich under the guise that it’s “neighborly.” How this can do nothing but further stifle growth is beyond me. Obama even admits as much himself by stating that he may have to wait until things pick up a bit before implimenting his tax increases on the rich, for fear of tanking the economy. Obama and the Dems constantly preach about saving the middle class from the greedy rich people, forgetting that it is those rich people who pay their salaries, and honestly, most of their taxes. What Obama advocates is really nothing more than socialistic income redistribution. Robin-Hood Obama. I can’t get behind that kind of philosophy. It’s class warfare, and though it’s often politically effective, it’s never economically effective. Why we think as poor or middle class people that it is morally ok for the government to forcefully take a higher percentage of money from those better off than us than they do from us is a concept that I don’t get. That is socialism, pure and simple. We can all call it something different if we want, but you know, you can put lipstick on a pig
[Reply]
September 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Consider this example:
Investors on Wall Street come up with a new way for high risk people to get mortgages. These plans are back loaded which means the home owner gets a nice easy rate to start and then after 3 years the rate goes up significantly. Some of them even had penalties for early payment.
The investors sell these mortgages to lending companies (fannie, freddie, AIG, you name it). The lending companies are happy to take them since they are promised so much money on the backend.
The home owner defaults. Yes, in many cases it is the home owner’s fault for taking such a horrible loan. In some cases, circumstances were not on their side. Regardless it doesn’t matter.
The lending companies get no money from defaulting loans. They, in turn, must be bailed out by the government (using tax dollars).
The economy slides a bit. You and I and everyone who had nothing to do with this mess suffer because our house values and 401K values go down.
Who gets rich? Only the original investors.
So lending companies, home owners who took these loans, and innocent bystanders all suffer at the hands of a few people exploiting loopholes and look-the-other-way regulations.
It is not anti-American to have regulations. It is not anti-American to take more from the people who can afford the most. The “free market” works best when there are rules in place to give everyone a fair shake. Giving the very rich a fair shake is a very different thing from giving the very poor a fair shake.
If that is socialism, maybe we need a little socialism. Free market capitalism is not an altar in which we burn pragmatism at the stake.
[Reply]
September 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Your example has merit. I never was arguing that regulation is inherently wrong in all instances (though I would like to place a large portion of blame for the current housing crisis on homeowners who took out stupid loans). Everything has there time and place.
My primary beef is the “soak the rich” message. Your example about the lending crisis ever so subtly painted a picture of the rich people in this country as being shysters who gained their wealth at the expense of others. Is that true in some cases? Absolutely. For instance, do most CEO’s make an exorbitant amount of money while running companies into the ground then scooting off to the Cayman’s scott-free afterwards? No doubt. Does all of this hurt middle-class folks like you and I? Definitely, no question about it, and smart, sensible, economic rules that would create greater accountability on all fronts could be very effective in these instances. They, like you said, could compliment the free market.
Here’s the thing, though, even with that. Half of the problem in this whole lending situation is that the lenders at their core level know that when push comes to shove the government will just bail them out. That is why they will happily accept junk loans sure to go into default. If the government would just let them crash and burn, like they deserve to, there would be instant accountability. Without consequences, there is none. I just tend to think that the consequences should be, 9 times out of 10, not more regulation…but less. In other words, “hey, lending giant, the US government isn’t your mommy. You want to make stupid decisions? Fine, then you can go out of business too.” It just always seems to me that whenever there are economic problems, the solution from the left is more government. Well, news flash. Most of the problems are the government’s fault to begin with, so to give them more control, more stake in the game, and more of the people’s money, I don’t think makes much sense.
You know, it also seems as if Americans everywhere are personally spending themselves into trouble and looking to the government to help them, all while the government is spending itself into trouble and looking to the people for more money (taxes). Crazy. A little personal responsibility across the board would be nice.
Ok, so back to the “soaking the rich” thing. That, I strongly feel, is anti-American, socialistic, and doesn’t belong here. Here’s why: subtracting the shysters and the cheats from the wealthy, 99% of the rich people in this country are good, honest people. They are people that at some point weren’t wealthy (or their family wasn’t). They were ordinary Americans who truly either just worked harder or smarter or both than the rest of us. Why should they be punished for their success? Just because they can afford it? It’s just not right. Furthermore, how does punishing Joe-business owner who makes $500,000 a year with a 50% plus tax rate help you get a fairer shake in life? It doesn’t. Plus, Joe-business owner is not responsible for the economic condition of anyone but himself, and that is not only true for him, but also for the poorest of the poor, and for you and I. You know, it has been proven to be true time and time again that when government takes from the producers it strips away their incentive to further produce, and when the government turns around and gives their money to the non-producers it encourages them to continue not producing.
America never should strive to be the place where all are equal, but rather, the place where all have equal opportunity. You and I, today, have the same opportunity as the next guy to be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. Say you do become richer than rich. Even if I didn’t, I would still fight for your ability to do that, and I would still fight for your ability to keep more of the money you earned. It would be your money. Not mine, not the governments, nobody’s but yours. I would imagine too, if in the future you did find yourself to be very well-off, you would feel the same way too…and if you didn’t, God bless you, you can give all your money away. Giving away your money and having it taken from you, though, are worlds apart.
In his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama said (paraphrasing) “If you and I can afford it, what’s wrong with us paying a larger share in taxes…it’s neighborly.”
I’m telling you. That is scary, scary language right there. It’s neighborly to donate money out of your own free-will, because you care, because you can. It’s wrong to have it taken from you. That is the socialism I’m referring to, and no, I don’t think we ever need any more of that in this country.
I’m not saying we burn pragmatism at the stake for no other reason than to say we held fast to our free-market principles, but socialism…unfairly soaking the rich? I honestly can’t find anything remotely pragmatic in that. Setting aside the fact that it is horribly unfair to those people who fought and clawed their way to be rich, it stagnates the economy, and because of the stagnation it doesn’t even increase government revenue.
And you know what, even if it did increase government revenue, 10 bucks says that the government would waste it all anyway. The government has enough money. What they don’t have is any fiscal restraint. It’s like the NBA player who can’t pay his bills. Was the problem not enough money or not enough personal and financial responsibility? You can give that guy more and more money every year, and he will find new, creative ways to spend it all. Of course, unlike the government, the NBA player can’t just print new money in his basement to cover up his sins…but now I’m just rambling.
[Reply]
September 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Actually, I wasn’t even really talking about the guy making $500K a year. I was thinking more in the range of $50M+ a year. The $500K a year guy still has to budget at some level.
I heard a story recently about the richest investment banker in the country. He makes $3.6B a year. Yet, officially he is only taxed 15%. Furthermore, he doesn’t even have to pay for most of it because he runs it through foreign banks. So a guy making more money than he could ever dream of spending is paying a lower % in taxes per year than you and I do. Stories like that lead me to think that more rules need to be put in place.
Back to the guy making $500K a year. He certainly can afford to pay higher taxes. I don’t make even near that and I can afford to pay higher taxes. I would, too, if I knew that is what it will take to balance the federal deficit.
A quote from IOUSA goes like this. “Balancing the deficit is like losing weight. The only two ways to lose weight is to eat less and/or workout more. The only two ways to balance the deficit is to spend less and tax more.”
One of my original intentions in starting this debate was to make the point that if we don’t balance the budget soon we will be worse off later than if we have to pay more taxes now.
I’m certainly not an expert in this area at all. Virtually everything I’ve argued came from a movie. However, given that dichotomy presented above, I’ll take a little more pain now.
[Reply]
September 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Like you, I’m also not an expert. Just kidding, I am
No, but seriously, I totally agree 100% that the deficit is out of control and that it needs to be addressed. And honestly, I would also pay more taxes if I could be assured that the deficit would decrease dramatically in conjunction with my tax increase. I want to do what’s best for the country and keep it prosperous. Absolutely. I really just don’t the government needs (or deserves) any more of my money, though. What they need is a good dose of fiscal restraint and responsibility.
I guess the main problem I have is confidence. I have no faith whatsoever that even if the government got a 200% raise tomorrow that they would turn around and do anything to reduce the national debt. I would bet the farm that they would squander it away in pork-barrel nonsense faster than I could say farm. Washington is like the guy who just won a gazillion dollars in the lottery…more likely than not to be worse off in 5 years.
All that being said, John McCain, for all his faults, has consistently fought wasteful spending in the Senate for several decades, and Sarah Palin has drastically cleaned up the spending garbage in Alaska. So maybe there is hope?
On the flip side, there is nothing that would lead me to believe that Obama would take any real steps in these areas (not that I was going to vote for him anyway). So, if this issue is really important to you, and if you’re an undecided voter…I’d consider that.
[Reply]