[I]f the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about — if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems. (emphasis mine)

This argument really breaks down on a number of levels, and it’s worth a look at all of them.

First, let’s start with the fact that Obama’s comparing the most advanced medical care system in the world with the job of moving a package from Point A to Point B. Any schmuck can take a package – which has your name and address right on it – and get it from here to there. If I gave anyone reading this post an addressed package, you could jump in your car and drive it to the destination with minimal failure (allowing for flat tires, the recipient having moved and left no address, random explosion of the house, whatever).

The fact is, shipping isn’t a teribly complicated business. Yet even Obama admits that the Government option is the one that gets it wrong. He points out that FedEx and UPS are doing it right, but the USPS isn’t.

So that raises the next point of failure in his argument. It’s not like FedEx and UPS were doing it first, and the government created a new mail delivery vehicle to force FedEx and UPS to lower their costs. FedEx and UPS, to the contrary, sprung up in response to a near complete failure of the government option. They arose from the ashes of countless lost packages, and inefficient government bungling. They recognized a market for reliable package delivery.

Let us imagine, however, that we treat package delivery the way we treat medical care. In the package delivery business, you must a) declare the value of your package, and b) acknowledge that should it be lost or damaged, you will be entitled to only that amount.

In May of 1996, a man cut off his own hand believing it to be evil. He refused to let doctors reattach the hand, then sued them for not doing so. He claimed they should have known he was nuts and forced him to accept the reattachment of the hand. While this is an extreme example, this sort of frivolous suit is filed every day. Malpractice suits and insurance contribute a staggering amount to the costs of health care. The total amount can be debated, but a Congressional Budget Office Brief looking at malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors rose twice as fast as medical spending between 2000 and 2002 – roughly 15%. For general surgeons the hike was even greater running at 33%.

In package delivery, the cost of package breakage doesn’t rise dramatically year over year. If it did, the companies would look at ways to reduce breakage and loss. Yet our government has ignored the skyrocketing costs of malpractice and malpractice insurance as a part of the reform debate.

Costs are a huge problem. We get that. But that raises another key difference between the healthcare debate and the President’s chosen analogy of package delivery. Research into package delivery technology isn’t a dramatic portion of the package delivery costs. Do they buy equipment? Yes. Do they invest in dfferent ways to scan barcodes and create shipping labels? Of course. Are they handwritten package slips a huge pain in the ass versus the barcoded, Internet-generated slips? I imagine they are. But unlike, for instance, pharmaceutical companies, the amount they spend on R&D is fairly constrained. They don’t spend a decade or longer trying to figure out a way to move ONE particular size and shape of package.

As a result, comparing the amount of money invested in drug research and clinical trials to the box moving industry is probably a silly thing to do. Yet their was POTUS, telling us that the two are somehow equivalent.

Looking at his argument, the one part of the example the President got right was when he said, “It’s the [Government] that’s always having problems.” If you think the same people that brought you Katrina, the US Postal Service, the missing $400 million dollar Mars Global Surveyor, the $600 hammer and the $900 toilet seat, and countless other blunders will do a better job with health of every American, look no further than the countless stories of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.

The fact is, Obama’s example probably gives us more to think about as an example of why we shouldn’t let government manhandle our health care system. As Obama points out, and as the famed economist Milton Friedman said, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

Well, let’s look at this analytically beginning with an accepted definition of Socialism. For sake of a common source, I’ll use Wikipedia. I’m not a big fan of it for discussions like this, but since the people have collectively “spoken” and regard it is sound, it’s common ground, I guess. It’s definition of socialism includes this:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.^[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Many people equate socialism with communism and Marxism, but those are really false analogies. Communism is predicated on a classless society with no government. To that extent, what we call communist nations are not actually communist at all. There have been countries that attempted to create a communist state, but most ended up totalitarian regimes. Even China, one of the stalwart adherents to communism, has realized they need to open the door to capitalism more and more.

So what’s the difference between communist/Marxist, and socialist societies? Well, the answer to that is long enough to earn you an advanced degree in most colleges, but let’s define it as a question of two things – revolution and control.

Under Marxist theory, a revolution would be necessary to wrest control of the means of production from the hands of the upper class. That would be followed by a period of control by a type of revolutionary council, and then eventually the abolition of government in favor of the collective. This latter period is where most Marxist states have gone wrong. They get caught up in the fervor of being in power, and end up inviting a revolution.

Socialism, by comparison, doesn’t necessarily require revolution. In fact, many argue that despite the fear of an Obama administration, the US is already well on the road to socialism thanks to the collapse of Wall Street and the intervention of the Bush economic team.

All socialism requires, per the definition above, is either “complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange or state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”

It is in the latter framework that we need to address the question of “Obama’s socialism”. Obama’s team has reiterated, ad nauseum, their claims that Obama is committed to the free market. In response to the 2001 radio interview, his team had this to say.

In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

Actually, that’s not what he said. If you listen to the interview, he said that he could easily develop an argument that the court’s could carry out the task of ordering redistributive policies, but that the administrative overhead would be too great for the courts so such change must come through Congress.

He also, quite specifically, never said he opposed redistributive policies, only that they must originate in legislation, not court doctrine.

So where is Congress on this? Even Nancy Pelosi, a devout liberal, is on the free market bandwagon, right?

We are all believers in the free market — it’s part of our democracy. We know that the free markets create jobs, create capital, and create wealth — that’s very important. But recently, left unregulated and undisciplined and unsupervised, they create chaos.

Well, frankly we don’t know if that’s true because we don’t have a free market. We have a regulated market. “Free markets” by definition, are free of outside influence. All transactions are between buyer and seller. When you introduce even basic constraints – say fraud protection, lemon laws, etc. – you no longer have a free market. Pelosi’s comments seem to indicate that she’s in favor of a regulated market.

So which does Obama favor? A free market or a regulated market? From his statement about the plan for government taking ownership stakes in banks, it appears to be the latter:

[T]he plan appears to extend a broader set of guarantees to banks without requiring any additional regulation, which represents more of the same failed philosophy that got us into this mess.

Ok. So Obama wants government regulation. So what’s wrong with that?

Well, let’s look back at that “widely accepted” definition of Socialism.

[O]thers advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

We now have government with a sizable ownership interest in banks, insurance, and securities. We’re also heavily involved in an automotive bailout. You can argue the current wave of nationalization started under Bush – which is true – but it’s not like Obama has opposed it.

Further, I suspect we’ll start to see justifications for expanding that reach into energy and telecommunications. The government is encroaching more and more on the people.

While it is not yet the complete nationalization of the means of production, it’s getting a lot closer.

Obama is in support of the government role in banks, wants more regulation (read: control) of the market. His cheerleaders in Congress want the same. He has talked openly of using government power to “spread the wealth” around. He has made coherent arguments that redistributive policies must come from government. (That alone leads me to believe he has spent a good deal of time thinking about it.)

With all that, I ask you, is there honestly anyone alive who can make that claim that the term “socialist” doesn’t apply here?

The Washington Times reports on the fuzzy numbers behind Obama’s tax “cut”. WashTimes looks at the rather questionable assertion that you can give a tax cut to people who already pay no taxes. To achieve their goal of “cutting” taxes for 95% of America, it seems Team Obama will simply take $500 or $1000 from some people, and give it to somebody else – no questions asked.

That idea caught the attention of AFP’s Phil Kerpen (a very bright guy):

It’s got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes.

Obama’s folks are justifying this wealth redistribution scheme by suggesting that Social Security taxes paid are now “refundable” through income tax rebates even if no income taxes were paid.

Unlike conservatives who have consistently pointed to the cumulative amount of taxes, the Democrats have suddenly discovered the “total tax burden”. They will use income taxes paid by some to rebate back Social Security taxes paid by others.

How exactly will that work, given that the Social Security trust is broke and about to start paying out far more that it takes in? Well, I suspect we’ll soon see another “soak the rich” campaign removing the social security cap so “the rich” will see dramatic increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the gap created by Obama’s rebates.

If you doubt that, you should read the quote from Obama’s campaign advisor. It may be the scariest thing you’ll ever see in print.

“Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of ‘welfare’ or ‘redistribution’ – they think it is only fair to reward work,” said Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s chief economic adviser.

You heard that right. Work that results in someone not getting ahead is to be rewarded with money taken from those whose work results in them actually making money (which is apparently work that needs to be punished).

An Obama administration will first absolve a huge segment of taxpayers from any tax responsibility at all, and then shift that obligation to those who create jobs and get ahead. The wealth redistribution schemes the Obama team wants to put in place should scare the bejeezus out of anybody with one ounce of grey matter in their brain case.

Now, I’ll first repeat my firmly held position that John McCain is no great shakes, but come on. How do you, with a straight face, suggest that Obama, who even CNN admits largely owes his political career to someone who targeted his fellow Americans with explosives, should be held harmless for that association? How do you then, in the very next breath, suggest that McCain and Palin are somehow responsible for what one or two unhinged nutbags say or do while attending a rally?

Further, when most of the Democratic party online has spent the last five years calling Bush a war criminal, a traitor, or worse, how do you feign indignation when someone suggests that calling our military a bunch of baby killers is tantamount to treason? Here is Obama’s exact quote in context:

Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages, and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

Compare that to John Kerry’s now infamous winter soldier testimony:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This portrayal of our military as a bunch of mongols ravaging the countryside with little regard for “killing civilians” and “air raiding villages” is epidemic in the Democratic Party. It is part of the anti-military talking points. You can’t possibly act surprised that people take Obama’s remarks as an attack on our military.

Yet we’re supposed to look the other way when a man who wishes to be Commander in Chief denigrates our troops?

At the same time, we’re supposed to give a candidate a pass for associating with a man who apparently believed, and remains without remorse for the belief, that the only appropriate use of military power should be against civilians working in our own government? A man who, after bombing his countrymen, still says he wishes he could have done more for his cause.

Honestly? You will defend Barack Obama’s associations with that man, and his own disdain for our troops, yet you will try, with flimsy reasoning, to connect the GOP ticket with some random crowd members?

What if the roles were reversed. What if John McCain had spent 15 years cuddling up to Tim McVeigh? What if Terry Nichols had held a campaign kickoff event for J-Mac in his home? What if McVeigh had worked to secure tens of millions of dollars for an initiative that John McCain ran? Would you give him a pass? I doubt it.

While I am shocked by the Democrats’ indifference to Ayers, I also think the events of the Vietnam war were, as Obama says, 40 years ago. People have moved on.

However, I do not see how you can ignore that, also ignore your candidates defamation of our military’s service on behalf of our nation, and then try, laughably, to make McCain and Palin responsible for some random nutjob in a crowd of thousands.

It makes you look hypocritical and ridiculous.

One of Joe Biden’s major applause lines tonight came when he demanded equal pay for women. That’s a worthy cause to be sure. But is Biden practicing what he preaches?

Maybe not.

Despite the fact that Biden employs 27 women and only 14 men (could that be a Clinton problem?), very few of the women and men share common titles. The one job where there is overlap is staff assistants. These are traditionally entry level low-wage jobs in congressional offices.

So how do Biden’s salaries stack up?

The average male staff assistant in Biden’s office (based on the most recent salary figures) made $39,162 in the time period.

The average woman in that position made $21,323.

Hey Joe! Before you demand something of others, maybe you should lead by example. Why not start by giving the women in your office a raise?

Update: It also looks like the highest salaries are reserved for men, despite their minority status. 4 out of 14 men made more than $40,000 in the period, but only 5 of 27 women cleared that mark. Two of the men earned $70k, but the highest paid woman made only $46,000

Update 2: Does Obama walk the walk? It looks like he’s certainly better than Biden. A review of his staff for the same period at least shows remarkable consistency in pay for the jobs carrying the same title. Although of the twenty highest salaries in his office, 13 are men and 7 are women.

Update 3: It also works going the opposite direction. Of the 20 lowest salaries in Obama’s office, 13 are women and 7 are men. (And please note, there is no overlap between those two lists, and I have not included anyone that worked less than the full time period.)

Update 4: For those who asked, one final note before I do some real work. Of the 20 highest salaries on John McCain’s staff, 13 are women, and 7 are men.

The new Obama ad also pushes his proposal to revive a windfall profits tax on energy companies and asserts that McCain favors tax breaks for the oil industry.

“A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says.

Obama would use the tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.

Congress enacted a windfall profits tax in 1980, during an earlier era of high oil prices, but repealed it in 1988 amid concern it discouraged domestic oil development. Last year, the House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies, but Senate Republicans blocked them.

And thank goodness they did. The windfall profits tax is a tremendously stupid idea premised on the fact that Americans want to take out their anger on someone. But a little digging provides more than a few examples of others that should be taxed. The Wall Street Journal today, helpfully, has a little list and some fact behind the “windfall” lunacy.

What is a “windfall” profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales — or does it merely depend on who earns it?

Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s “emergency” plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for “stimulus” checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take “a reasonable share” of oil company profits.

Exactly the problem. Who gets to define this ridiculous idea? Apparently, Dick Durbin.

Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat… recently declared that “The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.”

Ok, maybe the concept of capitalism has changed since I studied economics in school, but I don’t recall “there is a limit on how much profit you can take” being part of the economic formula. Let’s assume it is, however. Exxon should surely pay its share, right?

Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion.

That’s right, Exxon paid more in US taxes than it made in the US. Quite a bit more. You see, Exxon is a company that operates globally. It’s sales are global. So we actually see a US company taking money out of the hands of foreign nations, and depositing them into the hands of the US government. Now the Democrats in the US government want to take more money from around the world and spend it on us.

However, we’re not tasked with addressing that fact. We need to figure out what qualifies them for paying such a ridiculous tax. Since they’re entire US revenue already goes to taxes, maybe we can use some other metric to justify the windfall tax.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings.

None of those industries are being asked to pony up… So that can’t be it… Maybe it’s growth based…

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year… This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about “outrageous” profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett’s outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006.

The fact is, as the WSJ article points out, the idea of a “windfall” profits tax is ridiculous. It could be assessed against any company in America for any number of reasons. It’s simply another way for big government bureaucrats and politicians to redistribute wealth in America. Since Exxon’s US taxes already exceed its US income, in this case, it’s actually a way to redistribute wealth TO America.

That should make Obama’s European fans happy, huh?

Now the corollary to that is the number of election cycles in that time where I have seen Democrats throw out the racism charge as a way of shoring up their support. On that metric, the Democrats are batting .1000.

I cannot speak to what the GOP may have done in the 70s and 80s because I wasn’t there. I can, however, safely say that every conversation I have had about race in campaigns since 1994 was either a) how the Democrats were exploiting race at our candidates expense and b) how we write copy, produce ads, and develop messages with the specific goal of not providing an opening that let’s them do that.

From everything I have seen, the GOP is obsessively concerned with “not” using race as an issue. That’s not to say that the random nut doesn’t do something stupid, but there will always be examples of nuts saying and doing stupid things. That does not equate to the sustained campaign of racism the Democrats allege.

All of the evidence I have seen of systemic abuse of race comes from the other side, and their attempts to exploit “racism” not “race” for political gain.

The idea is very good. Facebook captures the interconnection of people, so how better to demonstrate Obama’s connection to some really shady people than a FB parody. It’s not quite an exact rip-off of Facebook’s profile page, which would have been easy enough to do, but I suspect they were trying to make it different enough that they wouldn’t get sued (friggin’ lawyers!).

Some might argue that mocking Facebook is a bad move given that FB co-founder Chris Hughes is running my.BarackObama.com. It may call attention to the fact that Obama has attracted some big tech names to his side. I disagree.

I think the message is compelling, and I think the connection between Obama and FB really won’t get much traction.

The only real critique I have of the effort is the relative inability to spread it around. I would suggest to Cyrus and company, that they add an option in the upper right to “Add Friends”, and provide the opportunity for visitors to virally promote the site. Regular Facebook users would likely click on the link just to see what it does.

Update: Thanks to Paul Rodriguez for pointing out that I eff-ed up the link. It works now. And thanks twice for also pointing out my screwed up title… I really need to stop posting on auto-pilot.

In January of 2005, President Bush was asked if we would leave if the Iraqi government indicated it wanted us out. His reply? “Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They’re on their feet.”

Last week, when Nouri al-Maliki announced his support for Obama’s withdrawal timetable, and signaled the Iraqi people were ready for us to leave, the Administration had an opening to live up to those words. The Administration should have immediately issued the following statement:

Today, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the desire of the Iraqi people to see a US withdrawal. We have always stated that the US is operating in Iraq only as long as the Iraqi government requests our help. We now see the Iraqi government requesting our departure and we will respect their wishes.

I have asked our military advisers to prepare a plan for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, and I expect to see 50% of our troops stateside within the next six months with a full draw down to be completed by the end of 2009.

This would have done three things. First, it would have taken withdrawal off the table as a political issue the Democrats could demagogue. Second, it would have lived up to the word of the Administration that they would leave when the Iraqis asked. Third, it would have completely deflated one of two issues that will weigh heaviest on the general election – the other being the economic turbulence.

For McCain, it would have offered a chance to shift to support withdrawal without being seen as a flip-flopper. He could simply say that he, too, agrees that the Iraqi move toward self-determination is the final condition for US withdrawal. Having met that, the US will honor its obligation and remove its troops.

Having missed this opportunity, both McCain and the Republicans have a problem in that we are now the occupying force that so many have alleged. If we insist on staying, despite clear statements from Iraqi leadership that they are ready for us to leave, the GOP is in the unfortunate position of having to justify our continued presence in a country that has said they want us out. That’s a much worse position to be in for the general election than simply supporting an unpopular war.

For my inaugural post at The Next Right, I thought I’d take a closer look at some of the incremental steps I see in the right direction. A recent e-mail exchange with a colleague pointed out one such item I had overlooked – John McCain’s “McCain Report”.

While I still must point out some of the things I find awkward about McCain’s blogs (not the least of which is that he has two of them that seem to compete with one another), I will note that Goldfarb’s content seems to be vastly superior to what is ostensibly their flagship blog – titled simply the “McCain Blog”.

The McCain Blog is largely the sort of press release and dull e-mail fodder we’ve come to expect from campaigns. It recaps the latest rally and pimps “new eco-friendly items” available in the McCain store. It gets updated every few days. The one upshot is they do allow discussion.

Goldfarb’s McCain Report, on the other hand, is actually good. It’s not full of PR fluff and cheerleading. It’s updated several times a day and it contains substantive material. It is what campaign blogs should be (save for the fact that McCain should occasionally author posts, which he so far has not).

Take one recent piece triggered by a Ben Smith item in the Politico:

As Ben Smith reported yesterday, the Obama campaign recently brought Jason Furman on as a senior economic advisor. Smith notes that Furman wrote a lengthy defense of Wal-Mart in 2005, titled “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.” In it Furman denies that Wal-Mart is suppressing wages, or exploiting their employees. The fact “that more than 1.3 million Americans work at Wal-Mart demonstrates that its compensation is at least as good as the alternatives,” he says. And he adds that ‚Äúthe available data is consistent with the premise that Wal-Mart pays wages that are comparable to the retail sector.‚Äù

His new boss takes a different view. In 2006, Obama told Fortune that “Wal-Mart is making enormous profits, and yet it has chosen to go with low wages and diminished benefits.” And in 2007, Obama told union members that he won’t even shop at Wal-Mart because of their exploitation of American workers. Has Obama moderated his views on Wal-Mart or will Furman and he just agree to disagree?

That is far from the typical piece on the campaign’s other blog:

Today, John McCain addressed the threat of global climate change and outlined his strategy to lead America to meet its obligations as a steward of this planet. The centerpiece of his plan is a market-based system designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy.

Be sure to watch the newest tv ad called, “A Better Way,” then click here for more information on the McCain Plan.

I’m actually very pleased to see the McCain camp doing something well. In fact, what impresses me most is the superior quality of the McCain Report when compared to the Obama blog.

Senator Obama released the following statement today in response to the news of the trade deficit increase:

Today we learned that the trade deficit jumped to its highest level in 13 months. This is not an accident. This is yet another sign of the failed economic policies of the Bush administration that John McCain seeks to extend – policies that reflect unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility and borrowing from abroad. Rather than get America’s fiscal house in order, Senator McCain is proposing $300 billion more in tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and he hasn’t explained how he’d pay for them. Just this week, John McCain reaffirmed his commitment to special interest-driven economic policies that will widen the trade deficit, but won’t help American automakers secure fair treatment in South Korea, and won’t ensure that China stops devaluing its currency and tilting the playing field against American workers. As President, Barack Obama will stand up for fiscal responsibility by restoring fairness to our economy, investing in a renewable energy future, and adopting a trade policy that serves the interests not just of multinational corporations but of America’s hardworking families.

You can learn more about Barack’s stance on trade here.

That is a stark contrast. The Obama team (vaunted as they are for their superior web skills) is running a dry boring blog, while McCain’s team have at least begun to get it. It’s nice to see.

(As a side note, I’d like to offer two suggestions to Team McCain. First, look into search engine friendly urls. Second, optimize the meta tags on your blog posts to actually include the specific content of the post. Especially with this new stuff critical of Obama, it’s going to be important that people can actually find it.