Creekside Review

Apropos of Everything

It all makes sense now.

"He always used to say, 'Never do nothing you wouldn't want printed on the front page of The New York Times.'"

That's so true, Billie Dawn. So true.

Shameless.

"Stopped the Bridge to Nowhere"? Come on. It's like they're daring you to call them liars. Somebody needs to take that dare.

The problem, of course, is that we've all gotten used to political ads and speeches that bend the truth. Like when they say "Obama voted to raise taxes hundreds of times" when what they're talking about are lots of little procedural votes on the same spending bill adding up to their grand total. We've gotten used to that, and can bat that away as rhetoric.

But running an ad that is just a flat-out lie? I don't want to get hyperbolic here, but it should be a criminal act, political malfeasance, to create or air an advertisement like this. Can the Bridge to Nowhere sue for slander?

Bridges, Lies, and Democracy

Hilzoy at the Political Animal takes a step back for a moment from Sarah Palin's repeated lie that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere:

When politicians lie -- and here I mean not just putting the best spin on things, but out and out lying -- they might as well walk up to each and every one of us and say: Hello! I have no respect for the value of your time! You might have other things to do -- work, playing with your kids, taking a long hike in the mountains, whatever -- but I don't care. I'm going to put you in a position where you're going to have to research everything I say, or else just give up on your civic duty. You don't get to assume that my words are, if not exactly true, at least somewhere in the general vicinity of the truth, and decide whether or not to vote for me. If you want to be an informed citizen, you'll have to become obsessive.

The problem is that it's hard and time-consuming to be obsessive. Many of you will probably gray out before I even finish this post.

I've had some long talks in the last few weeks with family members about taxes, deficits, health care plans, and the differences between the candidates. Here is a fact that I'm having difficulty convincing my audience of: Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan relies on a tax increase for one group of people: Those making more than $200k a year. You know how many people that is? Less than 5% of this country. The other 95% of the country will most likely see a decrease in their yearly tax burden.

Here's another way to put it. If you're working and middle class--and you probably are if you're reading this--you'll get an additional $1,000 a year knocked off what you pay in taxes under Obama's plan. If you're middle class, you'll get about $300 more under McCain's plan.

Now, if you're a member of the richest 0.1% of the country? Alll 5 or so of you? You'll probably pay around $800,000 a year more under Obama's plan. (It should go without saying that you got waaaay more than that amount each year these last 5 to 7 years from Bush's "temporary" tax cuts.) Under McCain's plan? The richest 1% would get an additional $300,000 knocked off their already low tax plan. A handy chart puts these numbers side by side. (Fun aside: 60% of the nation's taxpayers earn below $67,000 a year in household income.) And that's just income. Not wealth. Income. Capital gains and 401k's (which are treated separately!) is probably for another post.

The fact is that this stuff is all kind of academic and can be confusing. (The other important piece is that this is what the candidates hope for, now. It's up to Congress to actually pass either budget and series of tax hikes/cuts.) But it takes time and consideration to put all this together. And I probably got some shit wrong.

That's why when a candidate lies, he or she just makes our job as citizens harder. Look. There's a debate to had about whether it's useful to tax the richest among us significantly more in a time when we haven't seen a greater disparity between rich and poor since the 1920's. Will those taxes help avoid a depression or create one? What else does Obama plan to offset the chance that those tax hikes will mean higher unemployment? (He's glad you asked that, actually.) But let's have that debate instead of lying about your and your opponents' positions.

Here it is again: Obama and McCain are offering targeted cuts to the middle class. Obama is offering more than McCain. The bulk of McCain's tax cuts go to the richest 1%, those making more than $600,000 a year in family income. But what Obama is not proposing is a tax hike on anyone OTHER THAN THOSE PEOPLE. Let me say it one more time: Obama wants to increase the taxes of a relative handful of people in the United States.

There. I hope that helps.

Also, if you still want to make this about bridges to nowhere, here that is again: Palin campaigned for governor on a promise to make that bridge happen. Before she took office, Congress pulled that earmark based in part on its symbolic mockery value. Then when she took office, she abandoned support for the project when it became clear that there would be no federal money allocated for it. And as mayor, she brought home more pork for Wasilla than a frat boy slumming on a Saturday. (Yeah, I went there.) She has a very slim actual record of reform.

"Community Organizer"

You know why Giuliani and Palin disparaged Obama's experience as a community organizer last night?

Because the thing Republicans fear most from an Obama administration is exactly that: an organized community.

UPDATE: The more I think about it, the more empty this attack really is from the Republicans. They supposedly believe in small government (now that they've disowned W). Wouldn't the importance of community organizers be increased in their perfect vision of government?

In other words, Sarah Palin just shit all over George H. W. Bush's "thousand points of light."

AND ONE MORE THING: It's one thing to distort your opponents' records, it's another to lie your ass off about it. Keep antagonizing the press and a few of them might actually do their jobs.

But Will She Learn to Snatch Out Putin's Eyeball?

I go away for a few weeks and McCain loses his mind. For a guy who is so dreadfully concerned that the Democratic ticket isn't serious enough about foreign policy, the question of how such a neophyte can be an effective second for him sure seems worth asking. Well, the McCain camp is glad you asked: "She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long," said Charlie Black, advisor to McCain (and all-around scalawag).

OK, I'm not even touching the "he'll be around" part. (So optimistic! Most doctors!) I can't get past the condescension and cynicism in the first part. "At the foot of the master"? The guy who would have us in a war with Russia if he had his way? I'm not sure he's got the right feet for teaching.

But I have to admit that wasn't my first thought after reading the quote. Did anyone else picture this besides me?

I wish the ticket were this cool.