A tug of war between Trump’s capitalist approach and Clinton’s socialist agenda

Posted by Shyam Moondra

In the post-WW II era, the industrial revolution led the western world to a period of high economic growth and prosperity. But then came the period of complacency in which the governments encouraged shorter work weeks, longer paid vacations, liberal benefits, and increased freebies from the governments in the form of subsidized food, education, health care, housing, and child care that made the population increasingly dependent on the government and less self-reliant. The wave of socialism, coupled with higher taxes and higher government expenditures, has contributed to the decline of capitalist system which is making it harder for free-market economies to grow. The slow or negative growth has led to higher budget deficits and record national debts. These trends have been more prevalent and more pronounced in Europe where many countries are now in dire financial situation. In the United States, it has been estimated that during the presidency of Barrack Obama, the welfare programs have increased government expenditures by $1 trillion that could not possibly be sustained in the future. Obama’s legacy is doubling up the national debt to almost $20 trillion.

The global financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent bailouts of banks around the world have created another destabilizing situation in the form of income inequality. The top 10% of the people around the world handsomely benefited from bank bailouts and they became even more rich, while the rest of the people lost ground. Even today, almost a decade later, a majority of people are still struggling. In the United States, stagnant incomes of the middle-class has become an explosive issue in the current election cycle. Globalization of trade has also contributed to stagnant incomes of common people because high-paying manufacturing jobs are being outsourced to emerging economies where the labor cost is much lower than in the western world. In many industrialized cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo, we now see a frighteningly ghostly sight of deserted plants with broken windows and falling roofs, and deteriorating homes and streets.

During the current presidential election, Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has sharply moved to the left to attract the supporters of her primary opponent Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), a self-proclaimed socialist. She now promises a minimum wage of $15 an hour, free college education, free health care for all children, and no more trade deals (such as TPP) that have the potential to move high paying jobs from the U.S. to other emerging countries. To pay for all new programs, she proposes to increase the taxes on the rich and corporations that are comparatively already too high. If Clinton wins in the general election, we will see a third Obama term with continuing budget deficits and crushing national debt. The Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, proposes to increase infrastructure spending and reduce taxes for the middle class and corporations to give economy a big boost. Trump’s overriding focus is on growing economy faster to create more high-paying jobs (Trump also disfavors unfair trade deals such as NAFTA and TPP) and only that will move the recipients of government freebies from welfare rolls to employment rolls. High growth rates will also reduce chronically high unemployment rates among the minorities in the inner cities. The polls consistently show that almost two-third of the electorate thinks that presently the country is moving in the wrong direction which seems to favor Trump’s approach.

If Clinton wins in November, she might keep most of Obama’s policies in place with an emphasis on “tax and spend” philosophy. If Trump wins, his focus would be to cut taxes and spend on infrastructure to stimulate economy, reduce regulations to make it easier for small businesses to thrive, and modify trade deals to discourage migration of high-paying manufacturing jobs to other countries. Only the election will tell where the electorate stands in terms of Republican capitalist approach with reduced government regulations vs Democratic socialist approach to solve the twin problems of stagnated wages and income inequality.

Brexit paves the way for Trump to win the presidency

Posted by Shyam Moondra


Yesterday, the people of the U.K. decided in a close referendum to exit the EU. Supporters of so-called Brexit were jubilant and called the day as Independence Day. The people were basically voting against globalization, influx of uncontrolled immigration of refugees from Syria and elsewhere, and increased terrorism risk posed by open borders within the EU. The same issues are driving the candidacy of Donald J. Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee, here in the U.S.

Trump has been hammering at the issue of unfair global trade deals that are encouraging American multi-national companies to move jobs to less industrialized countries with cheap labor, causing stagnated job market domestically and huge loss of manufacturing base in the U.S. This globalization has amounted to an unprecedented transfer of jobs and wealth from rich countries to developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Mexico, and others. The workers here in the U.S. have experienced stagnated incomes and increased income inequality that are fueling resentment among the masses. The rise of Trump is no accident; given the global trends, it was inevitable that extreme dissatisfaction among the population will turn into popular movements.

The U.S., like in the E.U, has also had this growing problem of illegal immigrants, numbering in tens of millions from Mexico and other impoverished countries in the region aided by the U.S. open borders. These undocumented immigrants are taxing the government services system and creating a shadow economy that is hurting the country’s economic well being. The U.K., along with other E.U. countries, has had similar economic migration because of passport-less borders within the E.U. In the U.S., the current presidential election cycle has afforded the people a timely opportunity to voice their opposition to illegal immigration. Trump, who has advocated to build a wall along our southern border with Mexico and to deport millions of illegal immigrants, easily managed to capture the support of many Americans who urgently want the immigration reforms. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presumptive nominee, has in fact opposed Trump’s proposal to build the wall on the southern border with Mexico and she has also spoken against deporting millions of illegal immigrants who are already here in the U.S.

In the wake of growing violence in the Middle-East caused by the rise of ISIS, millions of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere are trying to migrate to the EU and the U.S. This huge influx of migrant asylum seekers in the West has created an opening for ISIS jihadists to enter the EU and the U.S. as refugees and engage in Islamic terrorism. In recent months, we have had a marked increase in terrorist acts in France, Belgium, Germany, and the U.S. that has been attributed to ISIS. Many local residents resent their governments agreeing to let thousands of refugees with possibly fake Syrian passports enter their countries and increase the risk of terrorist acts in their own homeland. President Barack Obama, in spite of reservations expressed by many security experts, has continued to let thousands of migrant refugees come to the U.S. In fact, Clinton has said that she will increase the number of these refugees who are allowed to settle in the U.S. over and above proposed by Obama.

The nationalist feeling has been on the rise in the West and the Brexit referendum is the first concrete proof that the people want less globalization, better control of their country’s borders, and more strict standards for allowing migrant refugees to enter their countries on asylum. Trump’s “America First” is not just a slogan; it is a heartfelt expression of millions of people around the world and they want their governments to put them first. The Brexit referendum has strengthened the basic premise of Trump's political campaign and he may very well win the presidency in November, albeit by a small margin.

Obama wins the convention contest – Romney faces make-or-break moment in presidential debates

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Both Republicans and Democrats just finished their back-to-back conventions that seem to give President Barack Obama an edge over the Republican challenger Gov. Mitt Romney. The political party conventions provide a staged platform for introducing their respective candidates, highlighting their visions, and energizing their respective party faithfuls. The Republican Convention was held in Tampa, Florida followed by the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. In 2008, Obama narrowly won both of these states when he ran against Republican candidate Sen. John McCain; this time, Florida is a must-win state for Obama to prevail in November.

The Republican convention, partially disrupted by the tropical storm Isaac, turned out to be a missed opportunity for Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. The convention organizers used most of the convention time focusing on reasons for not re-electing Obama as opposed to articulating why people should vote for Romney. The convention was a perfect setting for Republicans to present what the undecided voters were craving for – Romney/Ryan’s vision for the future, especially how they would speed up the economic recovery and create lots of jobs. Romney and his wife, Ann Romney, did a good job in telling the audience who they are, what values they live by, and what role their Mormon faith plays in their lives. However, Romney said nothing about his core convictions and his positions on various issues that seem to have evolved over time. Ryan, supposedly an “idea man,” turned into an “attack dog.” Ryan used up all of his speech to criticize Obama; since then there has been extensive reporting on many of the things he said that turned out to be untrue (more recently, Ryan even lied about his time of marathon that he ran when he was younger).

The Republican convention was the least forward looking convention in recent history. Basically, Romney’s message was “elect me first and then I will tell you what I would do.” This was an important opportunity for Romney and Ryan, with tens of millions of people watching on televisions at homes, to clearly explain what they would do to create jobs or what their policies would be on Medicare, tax cuts, and spending cuts. Given that the U.S. armed forces are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, it was stunning that both Romney and Ryan neglected to acknowledge the sacrifices of men and women in uniform (very odd for Republican Party known to be strong on defense and security). And then there was Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood who gave a bizarre stand-up comedy performance that seemed so out of place at a serious forum. After the convention ended, people were still talking about the Eastwood episode and Romney’s message got lost in the noise.

Recent polls have shown that Romney is running behind Obama among female voters; therefore, most convention speakers talked about women issues. However, that focus seemed kind of forced and unauthentic. Several speakers talked about repealing Obamacare but without explaining what they would replace it with. The speakers aroused the enthusiasm of the delegates by repeating President Ronald Reagan’s line “Are you better off today than four years ago?” which he used against then Democratic incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Judging from the response of the audience, the convention appeared to have succeeded in energizing the Republican base. However, to win the election, they needed to impress the independents and moderates; it appears that they utterly failed to do so. Republicans made the case why people shouldn’t vote for Obama but they didn’t make the case why they should vote for Romney. Given the lackluster Republican convention, it’s not surprising that Romney got no lift in the polls from the convention, as is normally the case. Romney’s flip-flopping and Ryan’s tendency to lie make Romney and Ryan as the least trustworthy candidates of modern times.

In a recent post-convention speech, Romney used the word “God” several times, suggesting that he doesn’t believe he solidified the support of conservative Republican evangelicals, as yet. Also, Romney conceded that certain parts of Obamacare are desirable and he would like to keep them in his new health care plan that would replace Obamacare. Romney also said that Congressional Republicans made a mistake by agreeing to mandatory $1.5 trillion worth of across-the-board spending cuts. Romney's recent comments seem to suggest that he is trying to move to the center to gain support of the independents and moderates.

Democrats, on the other hand, did a much better job in putting up a good show at their convention. They had several good speakers, notably First Lady Michelle Obama, who delivered one of the most effective convention speeches ever, and former President Bill Clinton, who delivered another remarkable speech in which he explained complicated policy issues in a way that people could easily understand. Clinton said that the relevant question is “are you better off today than two-and-a-half years ago?” (and not “are you better off today than four years ago”). The reason being, as Clinton argued, Obama’s first one-and-a-half years were used up to deal with the worsening recession caused by the severe financial crisis left behind by Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush. During the Bush’s final year, we lost 2.6 million jobs. In the last two-and-a-half years, Obama has created 4.5 million new jobs. In recent months, the data seems to suggest that the housing market has finally started to recover and the average housing prices are beginning to rise. So the Democrats’ message was that we are on the right track and Obama should be given four more years to finish the job.

Bill Clinton has been at odds with Obama since Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary elections of 2008. Recently, Bill Clinton made some comments that seemed to support Romney (Romney campaign even used Bill Clinton in their political ads); although later Bill Clinton backtracked on those comments. The theory behind Bill Clinton’s strong support for Obama at the convention seems to be that Hillary Clinton would fare better in the presidential election in 2016 against a new Republican candidate rather than running against incumbent President Romney; so Bill Clinton is doing everything he can to get Obama re-elected.

Sen. John Kerry, in one of the best speeches he has ever delivered, outlined Obama’s foreign policy successes and he painted Romney as utterly inexperienced and naive in foreign affairs. Romney’s following statements were cited as examples to show that he is not ready for the job he is seeking: On Day 1 he will declare China as the currency manipulator, Russia is our enemy number one, he will order the U.S.  military involvement in Syria and Iran (the American people have no appetite to get involved in more large scale wars and by the way how would Romney pay for these new wars?), and that on Day 1 he will move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Obama’s speech was good but not as effective and inspiring as in 2008. To his credit, he touched upon his vision going forward that Romney neglected to do. Vice President Joe Biden stayed out of trouble which is good enough for him; although he did come up with a catchy sound bite “Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” Democrats did a good job in pointing out that Romney has a record of his constantly changing positions on issues, so it is hard to pinpoint his core beliefs, if he has any. Obama’s main problem is economy and the recent jobs report, which showed that only 96,000 new jobs were created last month (although unemployment rate went down from 8.3% to 8.1%), crystallizes that problem.

Democrats had many more interesting and effective speakers than Republicans did. All in all, Democrats won and Obama came out of the convention season with a slight edge over Romney.

The next critical phase of the 2012 presidential election consists of a series of one-on-one debates in October, the first of which is scheduled for Oct 3rd in Denver, Colorado to be moderated by PBS’ Jim Lehrer. Obama is currently ahead in the polls by a few points in terms of popular votes and comfortably ahead in terms of electoral votes; therefore, the burden is on Romney to demonstrate in the first debate that he is ready for the highest office in the land. If Romney stumbles in the Denver debate, it would be awfully hard for him to recover.

Obama-Clinton ticket could lock-in the presidency for twelve years

Posted by Shyam Moondra

The latest polls indicate that President Barack Obama would win over Republican challenger, Gov. Mitt Romney, by a small margin. Given that Obama was handed a severe recession and a major financial crisis by his predecessor President George W. Bush, two presidential terms may not be enough to fully recover from the recession and put in place policies that would help achieve long-term prosperity. That means, Obama must not only win the second-term with a comfortable margin but his victory must also be decisive enough to generate the coattail effect to help Democrats win the House of Representatives. Also, he must not be reduced to a lame duck president in his second term and he must leave a succession plan to continue his policies beyond his second term. And what that means is that Democrats need the Obama-Clinton ticket to face the Republican Romney-Ryan ticket.

Hillary Clinton, who has done a tremendous job as the First Lady, Senator, and currently as the Secretary of State, would instantaneously fire-up half of the voters, the women, whose overwhelming support could easily hand a grand victory to Democrats in November. Clinton showed extraordinary campaigning skills in 2008 when she ran against Obama in the primaries. Not only Clinton could help Obama win the second term, her female supporters could prove to be instrumental in Democrats’ winning the House as well. With Democrats controlling the White House, Senate, and House, Obama could then move forward on his balanced approach to reducing deficit/debt, education, energy independence, immigration, and infrastructure improvements.

Clinton, who tends to be at a little right to the center in terms of her political philosophy (less than, of course, former President Bill Clinton, who ruled from the right more than most other Democratic Presidents), would provide a perfect balance to Obama who has a tendency to rule from the left of the center (and that is his biggest weakness in the current political environment).

After Obama’s second term, Clinton would be a shoe-in to run for the office of the president in 2016 and win. Clinton could then continue with the Democratic agenda and finish the job in her two terms. While Vice President Joe Biden is a good man, Clinton’s popularity, her leadership skills, and political acumen are far more superior to those of Biden. Biden’s tenure as the Vice President has not been as remarkable as that of Clinton as the Secretary of State.

At their Party Convention, Democrats have to find a way to make the switch in the vice presidential candidate. In fact, Biden could remove himself as a candidate and then nominate Clinton instead. Of course, if Obama-Clinton ticket wins, Biden could be given a choice assignment, perhaps a cabinet position (e.g., as Secretary of State, given his expertise and interest in foreign affairs) or he could be named as personal emissary of Obama, a sort of world trouble shooter, to accomplish big things such as orchestrating a settlement between Israel and Palestinians or engaging with North Korea, the kind of job that Biden might in fact enjoy. Another possibility for Biden would be to become the President of World Bank.

The most important issue for the next president would be to come up with a long-term deficit reduction plan which will bring down deficit by $5-6 trillion over ten years with a fair mix of tax increases and spending cuts. This important job couldn’t be done without first getting rid of gridlock in Washington, DC. An Obama-Clinton ticket would go a long way to accomplish that.

Romney and Ryan – Retrofit and Rack

Posted by Shyam Moondra

In 2008, Republican presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain was running behind Democrat Barack Obama and McCain was looking for a game-changer to energize his uninspiring campaign. McCain found it in Sarah Palin, then Governor of Alaska, whom he chose as his running mate. However, Palin turned out to be a disastrous choice which ultimately led to McCain’s humiliating defeat in the election. Now, four years later, it is déjà vu all over again. Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney is running behind Democrat President Obama and Romney needed a game-changer, so he picked as his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, an ultra conservative from Wisconsin where Obama is presently ahead in the polls.

Romney’s announcement of Ryan being his running mate has indeed energized the Republican base, judging from the size of the crowds that are showing up at their joint appearances since the announcement. The same thing happened when Palin was chosen by McCain as his running mate; her colorful speeches (that included such lines as “pig with lipstick”) did arouse the crowds especially the conservatives, but that initial excitement didn’t last for long and eventually it became clear that Palin was not a wise choice after all. Ryan would probably meet the same fate. Once Ryan's budget plan is dissected more fully and his positions on Medicare and Social Security programs, tax cuts for the rich, abortion, and gay marriage start sinking in the hearts and minds of various constituents, the initial excitement would fade and reality set in.

Romney has been a moderate Republican all his life, which is evident from his record as the Governor of Massachusetts, where he reformed health care that later became the blueprint for Obamacare. Romney’s policies there on many social issues such as abortion and gay marriage were too similar to those of Obama and too moderate for right-wing ideologues. Those may be the reasons why Romney rarely talks about his accomplishments as the Governor of Massachusetts on the campaign trail. Of course, since Romney started running for the president of the United States in 2008 (when he lost the nomination to McCain), Romney has tried rather unsuccessfully to re-brand himself as a conservative. He flip-flopped on many issues just to appeal to the conservatives many of whom deeply distrust him. In Ryan, a multi-term Representative from Wisconsin, Romney found an ultra conservative, who could possibly help Romney solidify his support within his own Party. The Ryan pick, however, is a retro move, Romney’s desperate attempt to retrofit his credentials to make him look like an authentic conservative, which he is not.

Ryan is a decent family man with impeccable personal qualities. His humble beginning is very appealing to many voters, which contrasts to Romney’s inability to connect with the ordinary folks given Romney’s enormous wealth and affluent background. Ryan has shown a great deal of courage in proposing his budget plan that would end Medicare as we know it, knowing full well that even some fellow Republicans would find it too extreme and that it would be ripped apart by many of his own senior constituents. His staunch support of conservative ideology (small government, low taxes for the rich and corporations, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-welfare programs, anti-entitlement programs, pro-gun, pro-personal freedoms, and pro-business) makes him a darling of the conservatives within the Republican Party, especially the Tea Partiers. However, this pick will ultimately prove to be a rack for Romney’s campaign because it will make it impossible for Romney to put together a winning coalition.

Here is a rap sheet on Ryan:

Positives:

• A decent family man with integrity and strong personal convictions.

• He is a self-made man with humble beginning, in sharp contrast to the affluent background of Romney.

• He is a policy wonk with good understanding of the budget issues. As the Chairman of House Budget Committee, he is well respected in and out of the Congress.

Negatives:

• Recently, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that the number one requirement for a VP pick is that he/she must be ready to become President on a moment's notice. Palin was not, nor is Ryan. Ryan is too young and has almost no foreign affairs experience.

• Ryan’s budget plan relies heavily on gutting Medicare and Social Security programs (that didn’t cause the current deficit) and giving tax cuts to the rich (as part of unproven “trickle-down” economics).

• Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare will shift the burden on to the senior citizens while creating a huge profit potential for the insurance companies. Given that Ryan received around $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, his proposals are tainted with potential conflict-of-interest.

• Ryan is way too conservative (almost to the point of being extreme) when it comes to issues like abortion, gay marriage, women pay equality, and civil rights.

• Ryan is part of the House Republican leadership team that is damaged because of its misbehavior during the debt ceiling debate that eventually led to the downgrade of government securities from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor, the first ever in our history. Their extreme tactics were overwhelmingly disapproved by the people.

Ryan lost no time in making federal budget as the number one issue and criticizing Obama for $1 trillion deficit and $15 trillion debt (never mind if Obama inherited from the former President George W. Bush severe recession, $1 trillion deficit, $10 trillion debt, and 2.6 million jobs lost in Bush’s final year in office). In fact, Ryan supported Bush’s $1 trillion worth of unnecessary tax cuts to the rich and tax subsidies to oil companies and farmers, $1 trillion spent on unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $700 billion worth of bank bailouts that became necessary after Bush reduced bank regulations which precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Ryan was part of the problem but now he wants to fix the problems he helped create. Obama agrees that we need to reduce deficit; in fact, Obama negotiated with Republican House Speaker John Boehner a grand plan that would have reduced deficit by $4.5 trillion over ten years but that plan was torpedoed by Tea Partiers within the Republican Party because it included tax increases for the rich. Ryan is wrong when he says that Obama is not concerned about the deficit and debt; Obama wants to reduce deficit through a balanced approach (that combines tax increases and spending cuts) while Ryan wants to do it by gutting the Medicare and Social Security programs that didn’t cause the current deficit and make the middle-class bear the main burden of dealing with the deficit problem.

Ryan's selection would only solidify the support of women and senior citizens for Obama, supplementing Obama’s already strong lead among the Blacks, Hispanics, and young college students. The presence of Ryan on the Republican ticket may also push Independents to favor Obama. A powerful coalition of voters coming together like this is a sure prescription for a landslide victory for Obama in November. It’s now more likely that Obama would win the critical states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, thereby accumulating far more than 270 electoral votes that he needs to prevail. A coattail effect of Obama’s victory may also mean that now there is more than 50% chance that Democrats may even end up winning the House of Representatives as well. It wouldn't be a surprise if Romney soon starts thinking about replacing Ryan on the ticket - well, that's what flip-floppers do.

A clean sweep by Democrats (controlling the White House, Senate, and House) would finally end the gridlock in Washington, DC and pave the way for a balanced approach to reforming the tax code and reducing budget deficit (by combining spending cuts and revenue increases in a 4:1 ratio) and making progress on the issues of immigration, education, and energy. In January, 2013, it’s very likely that the old grand plan of reducing deficit by $4.5 trillion over ten years, hammered out by Obama and Boehner, might finally get a second chance.

Imperfect presidential candidates and disastrous Congressional leaders – would voters seize the moment and end gridlock?

Posted by Shyam Moondra We are witnessing a unique period in history which is full of political anomalies. Recent opinion polls show that President Barack Obama may win re-election in November by a whisker, which is extraordinary because in modern times an incumbent president with an approval rating of under 50% and with unemployment rate hovering over 8% has never been re-elected. We have a Congress with an approval rating of just 9%, the lowest on record, and yet the voters keep sending their incumbent Senators and Representatives back to the “Do nothing” Congress. Finally, we have the voters who seem to be conflicted between their desires to not give an absolute power to any single Party, which invariably leads to corruption and ideological domination, and to avoid a divided government that can’t seem to get any thing done. The 2012 presidential and congressional elections would be pivotal for determining whether we continue to have a political stalemate or we have a government which is capable of addressing the critical issues of jobs and economy. The Shakespeare quote “We know what we are, but not what we may be” seems to adequately describe the current uncertain political situation.

Imperfect Presidential Candidates

President Barack Obama, the Democrat incumbent, has many good qualities but he is somewhat handicapped by the slow economic recovery. Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, seems to suffer from a wide range of negatives that far outnumber his positives. Below is a cheat sheet on how the two candidates fare in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.

Positives for Obama:

Obama is likable, honest, intelligent, excellent communicator, and a decent family man. First Lady Michelle Obama, a very popular figure in her own right, is Obama’s strong asset. Obama understands public policy issues well and he tends to think strategically. He has strong convictions about protecting the interests of low-income and middle-class families that he believes lost ground during the last decade. His staunch support for the people at the lower economic strata, that account for 70% of all consumer-spending and thus are the backbone of our economy, earns him overwhelming grass-root support.

In spite of slow economic recovery, Obama has an impressive overall record. He inherited a troubled economy from former President George W. Bush, who left a national debt of $10 trillion, budget deficit of over $1 trillion, two on-going unpopular and expensive wars, a major financial crisis, and severe recession (2.6 million jobs lost during the final year of the Bush presidency). Bush gave away unnecessary income tax cuts to the rich and tax breaks to oil companies and rich farmers, authorized to spend $700 billion for bank bailouts, and spent $1 trillion on two wars. That was a plateful for the incoming new president. Obama methodically wound down the war in Iraq and is in the process of doing the same in Afghanistan. He pushed for bank and auto industry bailouts and stimulus spending on infrastructure that helped save or create over four million jobs and revitalize economy. Obama persistently pushed for rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the rich who haven’t paid their fair share of taxes in the last ten years. Obama managed to get his universal health care plan passed by the Democrat controlled Congress, a feat that no other president could achieve before him.

Obama brilliantly used high-tech weapons (such as unmanned drones and stealth helicopters) and Special Forces to kill or capture high-value targets of Al Qaeda including Osama bin Laden, who eluded Bush for years. Obama ordered initial bombing in Libya and then let allies finish the job and shine in glory in helping Libyans achieve freedom from tyranny. Obama leveraged our close military-to-military relationship with Egypt to help Egyptians achieve their freedom without bloodshed. Obama’s persistent diplomacy (backed up by cyber warfare and threat of military action) led to crippling sanctions on Iran on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program that brought Iran to the negotiating table. Obama’s low-key approach to foreign policy, impressively executed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, helped repair the U.S. image around the world which was badly damaged during the Bush years.

Negatives for Obama:

On the negative side, Obama is often perceived as anti-business and he seems to have socialist tendencies. Obama has been tirelessly pushing to help poor people in these tough times (per recent Census report, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line of $22,314 is now 15.1 percent or 45 million, the highest since 1993) through increased food stamp and other welfare programs. However, in the process, he may be unwittingly resurrecting a welfare state that President Bill Clinton methodically dismantled during his two terms. If extended to the extreme, this transformation towards a welfare state may ultimately lead us to the same situation as Greece is in today, albeit in slow motion. Obama’s emphasis on using tax dollars to solve social ills, as opposed to letting the free-market economy do it, poses a big danger for the long-term because it creates a population that heavily relies on the government help rather than become self-sufficient and self-reliant. Also, Obama suffers from a personality flaw – he is unable to forge partnerships with the opposition in Congress in the mode of President Ronald Reagan, who was able to use his charm on Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil to push through his agenda. Obama wanted to do a few things that would have helped the economy (e.g., more stimulus spending and aid to the states), but he simply couldn’t break through the gridlock in the Congress. While the people blame mostly Republicans for causing the gridlock, they also partially blame Obama for not being able to develop close working relationships with the Republican leaders in the Congress. Obama tends to be aloof and his lack of solid hands-on leadership skills makes him somewhat ineffective in managing the national affairs.

Positives for Romney:

Romney is a decent family man, articulate, and wealthy. He has good business connections, here and abroad, that are helping him raise huge campaign contributions, but he lacks grass-root support. By all accounts, he is a competent and effective manager. His experience as the Governor of Massachusetts could also be viewed as positive, even though Romney has largely abstained from talking about it on the campaign trail perhaps because many of his policies there had more similarities rather than dissimilarities with those of Obama, especially in the area of health care.

Negatives for Romney:

Romney’s biggest liability is that he is unable to connect with the ordinary people. His mannerism and attitudes make him look out of touch. During one of the Republican primary debates, he offered Governor Rick Perry a wager of $10,000 on a political point, which shows that he is far removed from the day-to-day struggles of the common people. Romney lacks convictions and vision. It’s as if he wants to become president just to see his family name go in the history books, something that his father couldn’t do. He hasn’t shown passion or strong conviction for any particular issue that would propel him to enter the presidential race, in the mode of Reagan, who strongly believed that big government was bad and the former Soviet Union was an evil empire. Romney’s tendency to change his positions on issues is so legendary that he has rightfully earned the nick-name “flip-flopper.” His constant flip-flopping proves that he has no personal convictions on issues that matter so deeply to his supporters (e.g., abortion). This also makes it difficult for the people to trust him.

Lack of detailed plans on how he would create jobs makes him not at all credible. Romney’s slogan “reduce taxes and cut spending” is a familiar Republican mantra – Bush tried this “trickle down economics” but it didn’t work. In any case, if he won and if after the November elections the Congress were still divided, he would have the same difficulty in getting his tax plan through the Congress as Obama does. Romney says he would cut taxes and to recover the lost revenues he will eliminate certain deductions and tax subsidies without specifying which ones. That’s like walking through a minefield; it’s easier said than done. The independent think-tank, Tax Policy Center, did a detailed analysis of Romney’s tax proposals and concluded that his proposed tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing after-tax income by an average of 1.2 percent for individuals earning less than $200,000 (or about 95% of the taxpayers). It’s clear that Romney is more concerned about the rich rather than the distressed low-income and middle-class families whose support is critical for him to prevail in November. Romney says that he would repeal Obamacare but he has said nothing about what he will replace it with. In a nutshell, Romney has not really spelled out exactly how he will make things better for the ordinary folks and, therefore, he presents no compelling reasons for these 98% of the disadvantaged people to vote for him.

Romney’s murky personal finances are a major liability; for ordinary people, it’s hard to understand his secret overseas bank accounts and $100 million IRA. His refusal to release his past tax returns raises the suspicion that he probably paid no or very little income taxes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has said that someone who worked at Bain Capital (without naming his source) told him that Romney paid no taxes for ten years. This is a thorny issue for most voters. How can anyone vote for a tax dodger and put him in the White House? Romney must release his tax returns for the last ten years and explain his murky finances including his secret bank accounts in tax havens. In modern times, all presidential candidates have released their past tax returns for at least ten years, so Romney’s refusal to do so is very irritating to millions of voters. His role at the private equity firm Bain Capital, where he made his fortune by outsourcing jobs to China, India, and Mexico, is another nagging issue for the voters, especially for the Independents.

Romney’s comments on China and Russia seem naive and dangerous. His inexperience in foreign affairs was also evident during his recent visit to London where he publicly expressed doubts if London was ready for Olympic Games, which led to a direct rebuke from Prime Minister David Cameron and which produced nasty headlines in the U.K. press. He quickly flipped and tried to calm the waters by saying that Games would be successful. His public disclosure that he met with the top spy of MI-6 raised eyebrows in the intelligence circles. During his recent trip to Israel, his negative comments about Palestinians drew sharp condemnation from the Arab leaders and some countries even expressed fears that if Romney won, he would destabilize the region and make the world less peaceful. Romney's statement that if he became president, he will move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was provocative; he was clearly angling to win some Jewish votes in November. This statement, however, directly contradicted the long-standing policy of the U.S. under Republican and Democrat presidents that stipulates that the final status of Jerusalem were to be negotiated by Israelis and Palestinians. Romney proved beyond doubt that he is not ready to occupy the most powerful office in the world.

Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts, but he rarely talks about his tenure there. This makes one wonder if his record in Massachusetts was too liberal for hard-core conservative Republicans or if his policies there were too similar to those of Obama, especially in the area of health care. Romney pioneered health care reforms in Massachusetts that became a blueprint for Obama’s health care bill, and yet Romney has been very critical of Obamacare that he wants to repeal if he is elected as the president.

For many conservatives, Romney is not conservative enough. Also, Romney’s Mormon faith is a big turn off for some evangelicals. This shows that, within the Republican rank-and-file, the support for Romney’s candidacy is not enthusiastic enough to prompt a huge turnout on the election day. Romney is unlikely to get much support from large minority voter blocks such as Blacks and Hispanics. At a recent NAACP gathering, Romney was booed by the audience. His tough talk on immigration has neither pleased conservative Republicans nor helped him gain any support among the Hispanics. Romney's support among yet another influential group of voters, the women, is lagging far behind that of Obama.

The negatives for Romney are so many and so troubling, it’s like a miracle how well he is doing in the polls so far (losing to Obama by only 4-6%). All in all, Romney is an unattractive and unexciting candidate who is unlikely to win in November.

Disastrous Congressional Leaders

The current 112th U.S. Congress has an approval rating of only 9%, which is the lowest ever. This Congress has been often referred to as “Do nothing” Congress because of its failure to address the major issues related to economy and jobs. In other countries, this level of approval rating would amount to no-confidence in the government and the leaders would resign, forcing new elections. However, the American people are stuck with the present Congressional leadership at least until the November elections.

The current Congressional leaders, especially on the Republican side, are staunchly partisan and they are primarily responsible for the gridlock which has made it impossible for the Congress to compromise and move forward. There are many serious problems that need to be addressed, e.g., economy and jobs, tax reforms, debt/deficit, immigration reforms, campaign contribution and corruption, and declining education, and yet Republicans, influenced by their Tea Party comrades, are making it impossible to solve any of these problems. Their “my way or highway” attitude is incompatible with the basic underlying principle of democracy which is to find common ground. For example, Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R) hammered out a grand plan for reducing deficit by $4.5 trillion over ten years, which was thrilling and well received by the financial markets, but it was torpedoed by the Tea Party extremists within the Republican Party.

The American people agree wholeheartedly with Obama on many key issues and yet the Congressional Republicans are creating obstacles in moving forward on those issues. For example, a vast majority of Americans believe, like Obama does, that the rich people and corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes and yet Republicans are pushing for more tax cuts for them. It’s very wrong when rich people like Romney and Warren Buffett pay so little in taxes or when companies like GE, Google and Goldman Sachs pay only 0 to 10% in taxes. Clearly, the tax code has too many loopholes that make it possible for the rich people and multinational companies to not pay their fair share of taxes.

On the issue of increasing the debt ceiling, the people were shocked to see how badly Republicans behaved in the Congress. Some of them even openly advocated that the federal government should default on its debt. Those kinds of extreme tactics were not well received by the people and the financial markets. The voters largely blame Republicans for the U.S. securities being downgraded by Standard & Poor from AAA to AA+ rating, the first ever in our history. It’s very likely that the voters would punish Republicans, especially the Tea Partiers, for their bad behavior and throw them out of office in November. There is a slight chance Democrats may re-capture the House, paving the way for a more normal functioning Congress.

A 9% approval rating for the Congress makes it the weakest link in the government and it diminishes the Congress as an institution. A small minority of extremists are holding the country as a hostage, violating their commitment to fight for the well being of their constituents. It would be in the best interest of the country and its people, if Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Erick Cantor, and Nancy Pelosi would accept responsibility for poor rating and resign on moral ground to preserve the integrity of the institution. We desperately need new leaders, who would be more willing to compromise and put the country’s interests ahead of their own and their Party’s interests.

What would voters do in November?

Most opinion polls indicate that the upcoming election will be close. While Obama may have a slight edge at the moment, the voter sentiment is still evolving. They feel that Obama will do more for the middle class and Romney would be good for the rich people. While voters understand that Obama was handed a plateful of problems by his predecessor Bush and that the divided Congress made it difficult for Obama to do what needed to be done for growth and job creation (e.g., more stimulus spending), they are nevertheless disappointed at the results with unemployment remaining chronically high at 8.3%. By and large, voters agree with Obama on increasing taxes for the rich and closing the tax loopholes. The voters are, in general, skeptical of Romney’s proposed cuts in taxes and spending. Just as Obama failed to deal with the divided Congress, the voters doubt Romney will fare any better in pushing through his conservative agenda. In the end, the voters might just go with Obama, a known quantity, rather than try an untested Romney, who during his recent foreign trip committed several gaffes and seemed not ready for the top job. Obama, who is currently ahead in the polls by a slim margin, is likely to gain strength as November approaches, especially after the presidential debates in October, and would eventually win the election by a comfortable margin.

As to the Congressional elections, the voters, who overwhelmingly disapprove the job the present Congress is doing, are likely to play a more decisive role this time around. Democrats would likely strengthen their position in both houses of Congress. The voters dislike gridlock and they mostly blame Republicans for causing it. While they give very low marks to Congress as an institution, paradoxically, in the past they have continued to re-elect their incumbent Senators and district Representatives. But that might change in November. Having seen the disastrous results from the divided government they elected last time, this time they could be more decisive and send a clear message to Republicans and their Tea Party partners that a normal functioning government is much more important than worrying about ideological domination. Some of the extreme Tea Party members may not come back in the next Congress, which will help partially restore bi-partisanship and move the country forward in a cooperative way. The Democrats are expected to keep the control of the Senate; they might even increase their majority by a few seats. There is a slight chance that Democrats might regain the control of the House as well; at a minimum, Democrats could gain enough seats to make Republicans in the House more amenable to compromise and take constructive actions on jobs, tax reforms, and budget deficit. The voters are mindful of the fact that a status quo on the political scene will be a big negative for the financial markets and economy. It will not inspire confidence in the corporate world, which will hamper capital investment and job creation. We could also see a long-term damage to our global economic power and declining living standard for years to come.

If there is a clean sweep (taking over all three, the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives) by either Democrats (slightly likely) or Republicans (very unlikely), the country will move in some direction, right or wrong. It’s a trial-and-error thing; we always have the next election cycle to make any adjustments. Hopefully, we will get it right eventually.

Obama’s re-election campaign is in disarray – need to retool strategy and sharpen up the message

Posted by Shyam Moondra

President Barack Obama has thus far failed to articulate why he should be re-elected. His message is often muddled and confusing. While Obama has done a good job in explaining why Governor Mitt Romney would not make a good president, he has not yet made the case for his own second term. As a result, many Democrats are now beginning to feel that Obama could lose and many Republicans are now feeling energized with the thought that Romney has a better than 50-50 chance of winning the White House. The same team of brilliant political strategists that helped propel Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency has surprisingly fumbled the ball in their efforts to get Obama re-elected.

During a recent press conference, Obama said that “the private sector is doing fine.” Romney and other Republicans picked on that and labeled Obama as being out of touch. What Obama meant to say was that corporate profits are running at record levels; it would be dumb founded to tell the unemployed and underemployed that economy is doing fine. Obama just made a poor choice of words. Later, Obama tried to correct his misleading statement by clarifying what he really meant to say, but the damage was already done.

Obama has done a very good job in foreign affairs. Recent polls indicate that, on security matters, the American people overwhelmingly approve Obama’s performance as the commander-in-chief. To bolster Obama’s security credentials, someone in his administration may have leaked classified information about our use of unmanned drones, double-agents penetrating the terrorist organization Al Quaeda, and cyber warfare against Iran’s nuclear operations. Most Americans and our allies are bothered by the use of national security secrets for political purposes. The Department of Justice is now investigating if anyone in the administration leaked the classified information. Why didn’t the administration officials just point to the end results rather than elaborate on how it was done? The admission that the U.S. is engaged in cyber warfare will only encourage our adversaries to increase their own efforts in developing cyber warfare capabilities to damage our power grid or other sensitive public installations.

Recently, former President Bill Clinton, the most popular among the living ex-presidents, said things that seemed to politically help Romney. First, Clinton praised Romney’s “sterling” record as a businessman, which is in sharp contrast to Obama’s message that Romney’s record at Bain private equity firm is one of job destroyer. Clinton also said that the Bush tax cuts should be temporarily extended for everyone, which contradicts Obama’s position to not extend these tax cuts for the rich, a position which is overwhelmingly supported by the people. Clinton later tried to clarify his statement on tax cuts saying that he agreed with the president, but the Republicans made the best of Clinton's gaffe.

Lately, Obama has been talking about hiring more teachers as a way to solve economic problems, but many voters feel underwhelmed by this new vision of Obama’s second term. Also, Romney has so far outdone Obama in raising campaign funds which will also boost Romney’s chances of winning the election. Lagging campaign contributions suggest that Obama’s grass-root support is not as strong this time around as it was in 2008.

The above political gaffes and missteps show that Obama’s re-election efforts are in disarray. Obama seems to be focusing on Romney’s past record without articulating his own vision for the future; the polling data suggests that Obama’s approach is not being very effective. Obama needs to talk more about his accomplishments during his first term and also provide his vision for the second term.

The following could be Obama’s narrative of what he has accomplished so far:

• Obama’s bailouts of banks and auto industry and stimulus spending helped stabilize the economy. Towards the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, we were losing jobs but now we are gaining jobs, albeit at a slower pace than desired.

• Corporate profits are at record levels that will pave the way for increased capital investment and more hiring going forward.

• Obama pushed for temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts that were instrumental in turning the economy around.

• Obama pushed for regulatory reforms to prevent a recurrence of the 2008 financial crisis that decimated our economy during the final year of the Bush presidency.

• Obama successfully used a high-tech approach (from unmanned drones to cyber warfare to stealth helicopters) in the fight against terrorists, achieving high efficiency at minimal cost. He could cite the killings of the top Al Quaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, something that had eluded Bush for years. Obama’s emphasis on brains over muscle has won high marks among the American people and our allies.

• Obama kept his campaign promises of ending the war in Iraq and winding down our combat missions in Afghanistan, both wars being viewed by a majority of Americans as wasteful and unnecessary.

• Obama diplomatically outmaneuvered Iran and got punishing U.N. sanctions imposed on the theocratic regime. These sanctions are proving to be onerous on the Iranian people that has brought the regime back to the negotiating table on the nuclear weapon issue. The biting sanctions have also made it unnecessary, at least for now, to wage a potentially expensive and unpredictable war against Iran by Israel or/and the U.S.

• Obama shrewdly put together a coalition against Libya and let our allies do the heavy lifting. Obama brought democracy to Libya without waging an expensive on-the-ground military campaign. Again, this is an example of Obamanian use of brains over muscles.

• Obama successfully leveraged our military-to-military relationships in bringing democracy to Egypt without bloodshed.

• Obama tackled the nagging problem of spiraling health care cost, which is negatively affecting our economy. Early indications show that the health care cost increases are slowing down as a result of Obama’s health care reforms.

• Obama accomplished many things in spite of the lack of Republican cooperation in the Congress. Obama could cite the following issues where he could have made more progress had there not been a gridlock in the Congress: deficit reduction, pay equality for women, immigration reforms, student loan, etc. It shouldn't be hard for Obama to run against "do nothing" Congress that has the lowest approval rating of 9% on record, thanks to the radical tendencies of the Tea-Party dominated Republicans in the House.

The following could be Obama’s narrative of what he wants to do in his second term:

• Reform the tax code to ensure that the rich individuals and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. When Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary or when GE pays 0%, Google pays 2%, or Goldman Sachs pays 10% in taxes, then we know that the tax code needs to be re-worked. We need to eliminate tax loop-holes and tax havens as well as tax subsidies to rich oil companies and farmers.

• Come up with a long-term plan to reduce deficit by combining revenue enhancements and spending cuts in a balanced way.

• Pursue an aggressive measurable plan to make the U.S. energy independent.

• Implement our military focus on the emerging Asia-Pacific region by shifting military assets to that region to protect our long-term security interests.

• Develop a bi-partisan approach to reforming our immigration laws and making our borders more secured.

• Tackle the problem of declining academic standing of the U.S. students in the world. We need a more aggressive plan on improving educational standards that will, in turn, ensure that our companies remain competitive in global trade.

Obama became the president at a time when we were in the middle of the worst financial crisis and severe recession since the depression of the 1930’s, and the country was involved in two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since then he has had many accomplishments that have not yet been talked about in the present presidential campaign. Obama also needs to explain to the people what he wants to do in the second term. An aggressive campaign strategy should also include the goal of helping Democrats regain the control of the House that would help Obama get his proposals passed by the Congress. Of course, Obama should continue to point out Romney’s less than “sterling” record as a businessman and as the former governor of Massachusetts, and lack of Romney’s vision for the future. Romney has said nothing beyond repeating the unproven mantra that he will reduce taxes and cut spending without giving any specifics on how. Obama has a pretty good chance to be re-elected, only if he and his team could do a much better job in articulating where they have been and where they are going. It’s Obama’s election to lose!

Stock markets headed higher prompted by global coordinated actions

Posted by Shyam Moondra

The stock markets were oversold around the world primarily because of fear and uncertainty. However, coordinated actions by the governments of major economies are beginning to have a positive impact on investor sentiment. This kind of coordination is unprecedented and is a direct result of interdependencies of world economies caused by increasing global trade.

Although the 3Q08 earnings reports of many companies were much better than expected, they generally gave a cautious guidance for the 4Q08 based on the negative impact of the global credit squeeze. However, aggressive infusion of liquidity by the governments around the world and lowered interest rates seem to have worked and the credit markets appear to be inching towards normalcy.

The housing market in the U.S. has been in a downward spiral, but the latest reports of an unexpected increase in new home sales and increase in mortgage applications seem to suggest that the housing sector may have hit a bottom. Recent rapid decline in home prices and lower mortgage interest rates are finally bringing new home buyers to the market. More and more existing homeowners are also flocking to the refinance market.

The stock market started its decline after DJ index hit a peak of over 14,000 at a time when the average PE ratio was around 17, significantly less than 30 when the 2001-2002 bear market began. With a dramatic stock market decline of almost 45% since the beginning of 2008, the average PE ratio has come down to a level not seen since the early 1970's. The current extremely low valuations of many companies make the overall market so attractive that an explosive up move of almost 1000 points on DJ, like the one we had yesterday, doesn't seem that surprising.

Many analysts blame Alan Greenspan, the former FED Chairman, for keeping the interest rates too low for too long that fueled the housing bubble. I don't think it was the low interest rate that led to the housing excesses; the main culprit was the lack of regulations that led to risky lending practices and to the unregulated mortgaged-based derivative securities. Had we been more diligent in recognizing the risky nature of unregulated practices, we might have seen continued prosperity for many more years to come.

The recent polls indicate a land-slide victory for Sen. Barack Obama, who will become the next president of the United States. His priorities on reducing taxes for the middle class, creating new jobs in the construction industry through a massive infrastructure improvement program, pursuing an aggressive energy policy that will not only stop the flow of money to OPEC countries but also create high-paying jobs here in the U.S., and significantly reducing health-care cots could spark the next bull market which could last for many years.

Sen. Biden performed superbly in his debate with Gov. Palin

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Sen. Biden did a superb job in articulating why the next administration needs to focus on the middle-class, need to move away from disastrous Bush-McCain policies on Iraq, regulation, tax cuts for the rich, and confrontational foreign policy. He brought out his common touch when he talked about his middle-class upbringing. I was afraid he will say something stupid, as Sen. McCain hoped for, but he didn't. Biden offered a lot more substance than Gov. Palin did - she just provided some talking points. Biden was very gracious and treated Palin with respect which provided a sharp contrast to how McCain treated Sen. Obama during their first presidential debate - McCain came across as angry and disrespectful which made him look unpresidential.

Biden, with complete command of the issues, is clearly ready to be president but I didn't feel the same way about Palin, who came across as shallow in her understanding of the complex issues and she offered simplistic common-sense views rather than well thought out solutions.

McCain has run one of the worst campaigns in the history: telling lies, being not forthcoming, having no vision for the future (there is more to the problems than just pork-barrel projects!), and offering no solutions to a wide range of problems. McCain has proven to be erratic and impulsive (lacks calmness and steady hands in the face of crisis - almost as if he doesn't know what to do, as demonstrated in his suspending campaign and saying that he will not debate and then flip-flopping), a man who could very easily make a bad decision. Also, McCain made an unwise choice in Palin who is clearly not qualified and not ready to be the vice president, heart-beat away from the presidency.

Has John McCain lost his bearings?

Posted by Shyam Moondra

In recent weeks, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency, seems to have lost it completely. His campaign is so poorly run that one has to wonder how he is going to manage the country! He has not presented any cohesive plan to deal with the pressing substantive issues of economy, energy, etc. Lately, he has resorted to attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama, which is inconsistent with his reputation as being straight shooter and above dirty politics.

Let's look at some facts:

1. McCain made statements that had factual errors and had to be later corrected. And it happened, not just once or twice, but may be as many as half-a-dozen times. Is that because of his advanced age? Is he fit to be near the nuclear button (not to forget his legendary red hot temper)?

2. When McCain ran for the presidency the last time, he proclaimed that he wanted to change the politics of Washington, DC and would run a clean campaign. Well, all that has changed this time. He is now running non-stop attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama. He is back to the old dirty politics, championed by mostly Republicans. This time dirty politics may not work because the people are going through tremendous hardship and they desperately want a leader who would solve problems of economy, oil prices, healthcare, etc. As a result, dirty politics may help McCain solidify his support among hard-core Republicans, but his attack ads will cost him the votes of the Independents and conservative Democrats. To them, McCain, as a straight shooter, was the main attraction, but once he resorts to dirty politics, he loses that attraction. His comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton has backfired; even Spears is reportedly unhappy about her image being used in political commercials.

3. He keeps changing his position on a variety of issues.
a. He first strongly criticized Obama for talking about setting a time-table for the withdrawl of American combat forces from Iraq, But when President Bush started talking about "time-horizon" and Iraqi President al-Maliki's expressed support for Obama's position, McCain switched his position and now he says that he could live with a "time-table." Now that's a big u-turn from his previous plan to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
b. Initially, he gave "no new taxes" pledge, but now he seems to be backing away from it.
c. First, he proclaimed that he would balance the budget by the end of his first term in office, while also making the Bush tax cuts permanent. But when questions were raised about if it's at all possible to do that (the numbers don't add up), he seems to be backing away from such a lofty goal. McCain instantly lost his credibility. This seemed to prove, what he once said himself, that he doesn't really understand economics.
d. First, he said that Iraq was a top priority, but now he seems to be shifting focus to Afghanistan/Pakistan, but only because Obama has been talking about this for a long time and now even Pentagon seems to agree with Obama.

4. The main concern American people have right now is economy, but McCain – 'The Surge Man" – keeps talking about the Iraq war and hammering Obama on this issue. He erroneously thinks that this election is about the war in Iraq. He is just out of touch.

5. McCain's response to the high oil prices was to give the consumers an "oil tax holiday," saving them a whopping $30! The idea was so silly and laughable that, not just most economists, but even President Bush and most Republicans in the Congress wouldn't even go near it.

6. He has been trying to project himself as a tough guy. How is he going to deal with Iran? McCain parodied the Beach Boys' song, saying "Bomb, Bomb, Iran…" Well, the macho strategy in Iraq has cost the U.S. dearly; the American people have no appetite for another war. Again, McCain seems to be out of touch. Recently, President Bush sent a top diplomat to a meeting with Iran on the nuclear issue, which is consistent with what Obama has been saying for some time now.

McCain was not making progress, at least in terms of polls, so someone must have advised him to go on the attack, spending millions of dollars on ads against Obama. These attacks worked in the past when the country was prosperous and there were no major issues. But this time, the people desperately looking for leadership to end the war in Iraq (that has cost thousands of lives and two trillion dollars), to reduce huge budget deficit that Bush has piled up, to create more jobs, to come up with an effective energy policy that combines alternative fuel sources and conservation, to address the healthcare crisis, and do something about the decline in education. McCain, by going on the attack and not offering any strategic vision on important issues that people care about, he is simply making himself as an irrelevant candidate.

Is President George Bush secretly trying to help Sen. Barack Obama?

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Sen. Barack Obama has been talking about his strategic vision on a number of different issues, only to be mocked by Sen. John McCain and his surrogates. However, in the last few weeks, President George Bush seems to be embracing some of Obama's ideas, which lends the question if Bush is secretly trying to torpedo the campaign of McCain, his one-time political foe.

Here are a few examples:

1. Obama has been consistently advocating direct diplomacy in dealing with Iran. He was the first to say publicly that he would be willing to meet with the Iranian president to discuss the nuclear issue. McCain and others quickly jumped on Obama, calling him naïve and inexperienced in foreign affairs. However, recently, President Bush dispatched a top State Department official to join the representatives of other major powers at a meeting with the Iranian officials to discuss the issue of nuclear enrichment, undercutting McCain's position on the issue.

2. Obama has been talking about setting a time-table for withdrawing American combat forces from Iraq, His main reason for this position is that a time-table will force the Iraqi government to speed-up the internal political reconciliation, so that Iraq could become a full-fledged sovereign country sooner rather than later. McCain is, of course, opposed to setting any time-table. But now Bush is talking about a "time-horizon" within which American soldiers could be pulled out of Iraq. Even Iraqi officials are now in agreement with Obama, leaving McCain in a very awkward position.

3. Long time ago, Obama correctly identified Afghanistan/Pakistan as the region to focus on in the war on terrorism and not Iraq, He even suggested that 2-3 brigades from Iraq could be moved to Afghanistan to deal with the deteriorating situation there with respect to Al Quaeda and Taliban. Lately, the Defense Department is also talking about the need to send more forces to Afghanistan. That led McCain to also jump on the band wagon and call for more troops for Afghanistan.

4. When McCain proposed a gasoline tax holiday, Obama called the idea a "gimmick," which will not provide any meaningful relief to the consumers. The Bush administration and other Republicans seemed to agree with Obama, and the McCain proposal was dead-on-arrival.

5. Obama proposed to make a major investment in transportation and infrastructure projects to create thousands of jobs in the construction industry. McCain thought that was pork-barrel spending. However, many in the Congress in both parties seem to agree with Obama, and now efforts are underway to position infrastructure spending as the second round of stimulus to give a boost to the sagging economy. While Bush has not explicitly signed-up on a second stimulus package, he has not said "no" either.

Lately, the way Bush has been aligning himself with Obama on so many different issues, it is forcing McCain to make u-turns, again and again. That makes McCain look like a typical politician, while Obama is winning the praise from the electorate as being a pragmatist, a strategic thinker, and a problem solver.

Playing the game of selecting Obama's running-mate

Posted by Shyam Moondra

As the November presidential election approaches, the voters are now increasingly playing the guessing game of who would be Obama's running-mate and cabinet members.

Since Obama will make history, if he wins, it does not appear necessary to make another history by selecting a woman or a black or a hispanic running-mate (how much history people can take in one shot?). That means the choice would likely be a white man. Since the problems we are facing are so complex and entrenched, it will require an energetic team. That means Obama's running-mate should be a white man roughly his age. Based on that, the likely choices would be Edwards, Bayh, or Webb. Edwards didn't do good as a presidential candidate or as a VP candidate during the last election, so his vote getting abilities are in doubt. Bayh could help win Indiana but he lacks charisma. Webb has the military credentials and could help win support among the rural blue-collar white voters, but he is viewed by many as somewhat unpredictable. Other choices would be Biden (strong national security and foreign affairs background) or Nunn (a southern conservative with strong defense background, who might help win the votes of Republicans and Independents).

The cabinet should have at least a few women, black, hispanic, asian, and Republicans. The likely choices would be Powell or Biden (State), Hagel or Gates (Defense - someone who must agree to reorganize Pentagon and cut wasteful spending), Treasury (Dimon, JPM CEO), Health (Clinton), AG (Edwards), EPA (Gore), Energy (Richardson - he fumbled the job before, but should be given another chance), HUD or Education (Jindal, a pragmatic rising star in the Republican party), Labor (Reich), National Security Advisor (Dudd or Cohen or Nunn), Trade Representative (Ford), and U.N. Ambassador (Hill). Other important jobs to be filled would be new chairpersons for Federal Reserve Board (Bernanke has not been up to the task), SEC (Cox, who is in bed with Big Business, failed miserably in enforcing the laws), CFTC (let the oil and commodity bubble form hurting our economy), and FTC (failed to protect consumers).