Endorsements

Economy: Obama's proposed tax cuts would benefit more Americans than McCain's. Obama's economic plan creates disincentives for companies to ship jobs overseas, and rewards those that create new jobs back home. McCain would cut corporate tax rates with no trade-off in the form of creating American jobs.

Tax cuts ? After presiding over a debt of nearly 10 trillion dollars, the issue becomes who would benefit the most from tax cuts. McCain can't speak credibly to spending cuts because of his insistence on maintaining the occupation. The 'disincentives' for practicing productive business in this country is high enough. Fiddling with the tax code doesn't do it. Major financial weaknesses are very apparent with this recent meltdown. There is no such thing as an 'American' job, unless you're a government employee.

Health care: Obama offers a balanced program that allows for the continuation of employer-based health coverage but creates a public plan, comparable to what members of Congress receive, that individuals and small business could buy into. Such a plan could have the negotiating clout to lower drug and health care costs. McCain's proposal of a $5,000 credit per family toward the purchase of private health insurance would not begin to cover the cost of a typical policy.

Allows for continuation . . . ? The HMO Act of 1973 forced employers of companies with over twenty five employees to provide basic coverage. It distorted pricing and opened the floodgate for petty and invasive litigation against large insururers (that's how we got John Edwards). President Clinton ratcheted up the effect by insuring that every sniffle and cough also be covered. As hard a pill as it is for some to swallow, free market health care would do more to lower costs than either candidate will allow in their limited paradigms. Medicare provides a lot of health care to people who can't afford it. Otherwise pick your charitable venue before offering the thuggery of a single payer system to all. That's civilization.

Energy: Obama plans to invest $150 billion in clean and alternative energy and eliminate our need for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. He is also flexible on offshore drilling, not locked into a partisan stance. McCain focuses heavily on fossil fuels with a combination of offshore oil and natural gas drilling. His "alternative" energy plan is largely a $2 billion annual investment in clean coal technology, and 45 new nuclear plants.

Obama's apparently very comfortable with 'investing' other people's money. I'm still waiting for David Paterson and Shelly Silver to come down and help me chop wood for the winter. Yet, my fellow citizens have no compunction about subsidies to burn oil in their homes. It's a global market. As long as there is oil cheaper in some areas than others, it will be more profitable to cultivate it there. Stop tying consumer interests to bad foreign policy. Whatever has to be done to drill safely and cleanly offshore, fine. But unless its profitable, let's not stake the production of energy on the taxpayers back. If you're going to mention nuclear, deal with the legislation that makes insuring such ventures so difficult. Let's not nationalize energy like its some noble feature of the insane Cold War.

Foreign policy: Obama advocates a responsible, phased withdrawal of most troops in 16 months. McCain's plan is open ended. Obama's foreign policy focuses on dealing with Afghanistan, discouraging North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions, rebuilding alliances and diplomacy with adversaries like Iran. McCain, whose Web site lacks a specific outline of foreign policy, focuses on missile defense, a bigger military, a better intelligence.

Phased withdrawal ? From all countries abroad ? Obama has been virtually silent on Guantanamo Bay. Neither candidate talks about the role of Empire and the cost at home for being abroad. A deeper look into Obama's policy reveals a capacity to maintain the current policies of occupation. Once the advisers settle in, look for a long four years. Why not just say McCain's position is repugnant and untenable as the last eight years show ?

Supreme Court: Obama hasn't offered a detailed judicial philosphy, but has said he would look for judges who "have a sense of what real-world folks are going through" and stand up for people who are treated unfairly. McCain takes the conservative "strict constructionist" view; his Web site singles out "liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage." Obama says the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling on abortion was correct. McCain says it was wrong.

The Constitution is doomed as long as judicial review is the soup de jure for every red and blue graduate from the monopolies that are law schools in this country. Support an open bar system.

As I've always maintained, third parties exist to drive issues in this country. With no basic acknowledgment that such a choice even exists in a state favored to Obama by many points, it is an explicit admission at how complicit and docile the average editorial board is. Supporting their nonsense through patronage only increases that effect.