GOP darkhorse gaining ground

For most, it’s too early to pay attention to the contenders for president. I can’t say I begrudge them. We are a year removed from having to pull the lever and a case certainly can be made that campaigns for president begin far too early. If all the media is going to do is handicap the horserace and report on non-issues ad nauseum, maybe we ought to look at a two month sprint to the finish line, rather than this capital intensive beauty contest.

Americans are busy people, having managed to get through the summer barbecue season and recently, the World Series. Fall’s here and it's time to focus on football, not to mention that holiday trifecta of Thanksgiving, Christmas and Super Bowl Sunday. Rather than be troubled with things like where candidates stand on the issues and whether or not Mitt, Rudy, Hillary, or Barack have a plan for exiting us from Iraq, we’re focusing our attention on what pie to bake for Thanksgiving and whether or not to buy that large screen television they’ve been hankering for and calling it a Christmas gift.

I’ve definitely dialed down my fixation (or what some might call, obsession) with following every detail of the presidential campaign. I used to regularly track the front-runners and follow the field all the way to the back of pack, where presidential posers reside, but I’ve backed off a bit from scrutiny of each and every nuance. I still regularly check polls, watch debates (or better, choreographed sound bites) and even look at each candidate’s website for policy details, to see if they actually have a plan on how they might govern.

On the Democratic side, there really isn’t much drama. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, for better, or worse. Obama has been underwhelming, to say the least. John Edwards, freed from the constraints of being vice-presidential in 2004, has been acting like the attack dog, actually talking about issues that affect ordinary Americans and holding Clinton’s feet to the fire. Unfortunately, his wife’s occasional missives get more mainstream coverage than his solid grasp of the issues. The only other time Edwards seems to get any media up tick is when it’s time for him to get a haircut.

The real drama in this race seems to be on the Republican side. While Romney and Giuliani have been running towards the front of the GOP pack, far right conservatives have been lukewarm towards those two. Many representing the rabid element on the far right fringe are uncomfortable with Mitt, the Mormon and a so-called “moderate,” like Giuliani, because he won’t pass the one-issue litmus test on abortion with the bible-thumpers.

To satisfy elements at the base of the party, new blood, in the form of Fred Thompson, has mounted a challenge to Mitt and Rudy. Having played president on the silver screen, Thompson immediately gained traction upon his entry, for a party that has a propensity for actors in high places.

Recently, Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, has been making a bit of noise, sprinting from the back of the pack and getting some exposure and press, heading into the Iowa caucus. A recent University of Iowa poll shows Huckabee in a virtual dead heat with the other frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. This is great news for Huckabee, a virtual unknown to most Americans, outside of Arkansas.

The results of the poll, conducted October 17-24 and released Monday show Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had 36.2 percent of Republican support, followed by Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, with 13.1 percent and Huckabee at 12.8 percent, the poll showed.

An analysis of the poll highlighted Huckabee's shift in support among voters, most likely evangelical Christians. In the August survey, taken right before the GOP straw poll in Ames, Huckabee had the support of less than 2 percent of Republicans.

David Redlawsk, a Univeristy of Iowa professor of political science and the co-director of UI’s Hawkeye Poll indicated that Republican candidates that want to challenge “must motivate Christian conservatives,” which is a group that Redlawsk recognizes as a key to Huckabee’s surge.

Well-known evangelical pastor, the purposeful Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church, one of America’s largest megachurches, recently issued the following statement on his radio program.

“I know most of the candidates running for president but I’ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike’s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I’ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don’t. That’s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He’s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That’s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader - someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn’t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.”

Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, has the Christian cred to energize the followers of Jesus. Like another former Arkansas governor, born in Hope, Huckabee is someone that arrived at the dance late, without a lot of name recognition, but history tells us what happened to the other guy, who is out campaigning to become America’s first, "First Husband."

Like William Jefferson Clinton, Huckabee has some campaign skills and positions that connect with enough Americans to make him potential dark horse on the GOP side. Better yet, he actually has some qualities of governance that matter. Money will be an issue, as it is for everyone but the top four (Romney, Giuliani, Clinton and Obama); if Huckabee can finish a solid third in Iowa and make some solid early showings in New Hampshire, Michigan and Florida, heading into February’s Super Tuesday, he might just make it interesting on the right side of the presidential ticket.

How high can we go?

Oil prices continue to ratchet upward, with today’s oil futures nearing a record of $95/barrel. As the cost of oil for heat rises and the price of gasoline heads higher, Google’s stock thrust through the $700 ceiling.

While I don’t claim to be an economics major, there seems to be some disconnect between the performance of the market and the perception of the strength of the US economy. If the stock market is a leading economic indicator of economic growth, then why are many Wall Street analysts voicing concerns about the sluggishness of the economy and worse, talking about recession? Recent reports on home sales point to a major slowdown and foreclosures are occurring at a record pace. One doesn’t need to be an expert in finance to know that the high cost of essential items, like fuel and food, doesn’t bode well for many, as we chug towards darkness and the colder days of winter.

It’s hard to find much about oil prices in the mainstream media that recognizes the peak oil possibilities spoken of by Kunstler, The Oil Drum and others. I’d say $100 oil is a pretty safe bet at this point.

Because I spend quite a bit of time on the road for my job, I’ve kept a close eye on gas prices. Back in August, 2006, when I started in my current position, the Cumberland Farms around the corner from my office had regular at $3.02. Since then, prices have backed off to $2.56, last March. Late May and early June saw it spike back to a “high” of $3.06 and the summer months it stayed consistently in the $2.75-$2.85 range.

Since I receive a mileage allotment, I do ok and cover my costs when gas stays below $3.00/gallon. I’m concerned where prices are headed, as oil continues to trend higher. It certainly affects people like me and others not as fortunate.

For anyone interested in something more than the inadequate, often clichéd reporting coming from mainstream financial storefronts, read through the comment section in The Oil Drum’s, "This Week in Petroleum" section.

In relation to my thoughts about peak oil possibilities, I’m back reading JK’s Monday pronouncements again and actually looking forward to them, sans comments, at his own website, not the blog.

FEMA fakes it

FEMA, coming of its botched response to Hurricane Katrina, needed to make a solid showing in the way it responded to the wildfires, in Southern California.

Early reports from the frontlines indicated that FEMA’s response had been quick and targeted to the needs of the region—that was until yesterday, when stories began to circulate about Tuesday’s faked news conference.

Apparently last Tuesday, FEMA informed news organizations that it was holding a new conference 15 minutes prior to the event—insufficient notice for reporters to make it on time to the briefing. Like much of what passes for transparency in the Bush administration, FEMA’s Deputy Administrator, Harvey Johnson, apparently with a nod to the adage of “the show must go on, had agency staff members act as stand-ins for missing media members and begin asking questions, the kind of questions that those in the business would characterize as “soft ball” questions.

While it might be laughable for its stupidity, if it wasn't the nation’s top agency, tasked with coordinating the first response to disasters in the U.S. Actually, FEMA’s disdain for media protocol is nothing new. Back in September of 2006, in the aftermath of Katrina, FEMA had requested that new photographers refrain from photographing victims and refused to allow reporters and photographers to accompany FEMA personnel on boats looking for victims. There was little or no coverage about this at the time.

FEMA issued the following statement, which in BushCo fashion, is just dripping with disingenuousness and coated with the veneer of cynicism that all Bush communiques with the media are known for.

FEMA's goal is to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment. Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received. We are reviewing our press procedures and will make the changes necessary to ensure that all of our communications are straight forward and transparent.

At FEMA, our focus is disaster operations and, in this case, it means working closely with the State of California to support their response to the devastating fires. We're committed to being there for the State and being good partners. In working to do so we did not put enough focus on how we communicate to the public.

The real story -- how well the response and recovery elements are working in this disaster -- should not be lost because of how we tried to meet the needs of the media in distributing facts.
We can and must do better, and apologize for this error in judgment.

Contrary to FEMA’s statement, the real story is how much this smacks of Soviet-era newspeak that we used to shake our heads and chuckle, when viewed from afar—little did we know that our leaders were watching and looking to imitate a similar lack of transparency in our own country.

It just keeps getting weirder and weirder all the time with this group of war criminals and political hacks.

Correctly diagnosing Maine's tax problem

Personally, I’m weary of much of what passes for policy dialogue in Maine. Going back to 2004 and before, when the champion of “slash-and-burn” tax cap referendums, Carol Palesky, foisted her referendum on the Pine Tree State, we’ve had a steady bleating coming from all corners that Maine’s taxes are too high. Rarely in that discussion are causes for these higher taxes ever addressed. Ah, actually, if cause-and-effect does get raised, the cause is always those “lazy people on public assistance,” or some variation of Maine as welfare kingdom.

While looking up a former client on LinkedIn and reviewing his contacts, I got directed over to a very interesting blog, by a gentleman in Wisconsin named John Michlig. I’ve had sprawl on my mind since last week’s GrowSmart Summit and have been doing quite a bit of reading on the subject. I found Michlig’s blog right up my alley. In fact, Michlig’s fully articulated writing style and variant takes on sprawl were refreshing. Rather than the usual wonkish, or condescending missives that too often pass for commentary, when it comes to smart growth and sustainable urban planning, Michlig’s writing is smart, original and makes real sense.

Take for instance, his post titled, “Sprawl-based Growth is EXPENSIVE.” Referencing Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, by Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, Michlig clearly delineates an issue that no doubt is affecting our tax situation—the much higher costs associated with the primary means of development that Maine, particularly rural Maine, is experiencing—that being suburban sprawl.

Maybe this helps define what was gnawing at me most of the day, last Friday and after, sitting through a variety of workshops, in Augusta. To hear presenters sit and tell Summit participants that all we need to do is cut the size of state government, is a misrepresentation of the values that I think GrowSmart Maine is trying to perpetuate (unless I’m totally off track).

Michlig's posts that I’ve read thus far, clearly indict much of what is currently being foisted on residents of our state by developers. Rather than drink the Kool-Aid of the “slash and burn” crowd, let’s begin to address our zoning policies and not weaken our environmental regulations (which is another point that David Flanagan intimated during his presentation, by using the code words, making Maine more “business-friendly,” which always means making it easier for “pave and park” types of development projects).

Speaking of Flanagan, he’s managed to garner another invite as a panelist, this time for a symposium of business leaders and economic development “experts,” hosted by Mainebiz and MPBN, addressing the supposed “Pessimism” that exists in Maine’s business community. Maybe Alan Caron should be a bit more careful who he chooses to model smart growth for Maine.

I don’t know about pessimism in Maine’s business community, but Maine’s legacy of feudalism that passes itself off as economic development brings out the pessimist in me.

The obscenely wealthy and all the rest of us

Class is rarely mentioned in America today. We talk about sports, presidential elections and the past few days, forest fires. This isn’t to say that for people living in Southern California, experiencing the horrors of fire and devastation, there’s anything else they can focus on. Furthermore, death and natural disasters will always “lead,” when it comes to today’s news programming.

Despite ubiquitous news coverage, the scope of what gets reported seems to narrow over time. When Paris Hilton had her little run-in with the law, that’s all we seemed to have beamed into our homes. It’s probably not accidental, as corporations profit from the increasingly ignorant American population.

One of the things obvious to me in our very own state, is the growing chasm between those with real wealth and the rest of us. By using the term “us,” I’m lumping myself in with the diminished middle class (propped up by credit cards and other “smoke and mirrors” means of capital acquisition and attainment), watching whatever advantages that were carved and acquired during an aberrant period of post-WWII democratization and sharing of the wealth. Included in the “us” are those classified as lower income, some barely at a subsistence level and others living hand-to-mouth. For many of us on the bottom strata of the middle class, its not hard to imagine how easy it would be to descend to the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Social Darwinism, or the “survival of the fittest (or maybe, richest)” seems to be back in vogue in our fine nation.

I know it’s World Series night and all eyes will be focused on our national version of “bread and circuses,” but seeing this article by Holly Sklar and also, regularly rubbing elbows with people struggling to stay afloat, made it impossible for me to avoid injecting a dose of reality into today’s post.

One of the things that was apparent to me last Friday, when I was at the GrowSmart Summit, was that the crowd was not representative of most of Maine, at least the rural parts of Maine where average incomes are much lower than some of the more privileged parts of the state. Maybe that’s why panelists like David Flanagan, who keeps popping up on panels everywhere, are able to talk about cutting the state budget by $800 million and do so with a straight face, without batting an eye.

Here is a blog post linking to another article on the good fortunes of the richest Americans.

I give you Sklar’s article, which I read in Dissident Voice, in its entirety; consider this while you watch millionaires cavort and frolic about.

Billionaires Up, America Down
by, Holly Sklar

When it comes to producing billionaires, America is doing great.

Until 2005, multimillionaires could still make the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. In 2006, the Forbes 400 went billionaires only.

This year, you’d need a Forbes 482 to fit all the billionaires.

A billion dollars is a lot of dough. Queen Elizabeth II, British monarch for five decades, would have to add $400 million to her $600 million fortune to reach $1 billion. And she’d need another $300 million to reach the Forbes 400 minimum of $1.3 billion. The average Forbes 400 member has $3.8 billion.

When the Forbes 400 began in 1982, it was dominated by oil and manufacturing fortunes. Today, says Forbes, “Wall Street is king.”

Nearly half the 45 new members, says Forbes, “made their fortunes in hedge funds and private equity. Money manager John Paulson joins the list after pocketing more than $1 billion short-selling subprime credit this summer.”

The 25th anniversary of the Forbes 400 isn’t party time for America.

We have a record 482 billionaires — and record foreclosures.

We have a record 482 billionaires — and a record 47 million people without any health insurance.

Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires — and 5 million more people living below the poverty line.

The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006. That won’t get you two pounds of caviar ($9,800) and 25 cigars ($730) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The $20,614 family-of-four poverty threshold is lower than the cost of three months of home flower arrangements ($24,525).

Wealth is being redistributed from poorer to richer.

Between 1983 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1 percent of households grew by 78 percent, reports Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. The bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.

In 2004, one out of six households had zero or negative net worth. Nearly one out of three households had less than $10,000 in net worth, including home equity. That’s before the mortgage crisis hit.

In 1982, when the Forbes 400 had just 13 billionaires, the highest paid CEO made $108 million and the average full-time worker made $34,199, adjusted for inflation in $2006. Last year, the highest paid hedge fund manager hauled in $1.7 billion, the highest paid CEO made $647 million, and the average worker made $34,861, with vanishing health and pension coverage.

The Forbes 400 is even more of a rich men’s club than when it began. The number of women has dropped from 75 in 1982 to 39 today.

The 400 richest Americans have a conservatively estimated $1.54 trillion in combined wealth. That amount is more than 11 percent of our $13.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the total annual value of goods and services produced by our nation of 303 million people. In 1982, Forbes 400 wealth measured less than 3 percent of U.S. GDP.

And the rich, notes Fortune magazine, “give away a smaller share of their income than the rest of us.”

Thanks to mega-tax cuts, the rich can afford more mega-yachts, accessorized with helicopters and mini-submarines. Meanwhile, the infrastructure of bridges, levees, mass transit, parks and other public assets inherited from earlier generations of taxpayers crumbles from neglect, and the holes in the safety net are growing.

The top 1 percent of households — average income $1.5 million — will save a collective $79.5 billion on their 2008 taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. That’s more than the combined budgets of the Transportation Department, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Tax cuts will save the top 1 percent a projected $715 billion between 2001 and 2010. And cost us $715 billion in mounting national debt plus interest.

The children and grandchildren of today’s underpaid workers will pay for the partying of today’s plutocrats and their retinue of lobbyists.

It’s time for Congress to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy and close the loophole letting billionaire hedge fund speculators pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries.

Inequality has roared back to 1920s levels. It was bad for our nation then. It’s bad for our nation now.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service