A Political Glimpse from Ireland

Divided Taxation

The Renewable Energy and Job Creation act of 2008 was recently rejected in the Senate this week with 50 yeas and 44 nays. The vote embodies the typical democrat and republican divide with republicans wanting to preserve the benefits of business while democrats want to redistribute those benefits to the people through the form of taxation. The nays were exclusively Republican while there were 3 Republican Senators who voted yes. What are the Republicans fighting for? Do companies provide tangible benefits through the tax breaks and incentives they receive? The U.S does not have the lowest tax rate in the world yet 5 of the world’s biggest 10 companies are based here.

The very word ‘incentive’ implies that it is optional; a company is not required to execute an operation upon the receipt of the incentive therefore the logical conclusion leads me to believe that the Republican segment of the Senate is out of touch with the average citizen. This is where “change” arrives; politics has always run as described in the first paragraph but how about introducing legislation that taxes positively? Why can the Republicans not realize that giving company’s free reign is not good while Democrats realize that redistributing income is just going to make companies move to the Moon.

People assume that the reason a company chooses a location is because of the lowest tax rate however that may be a large factor, there are also smaller factors like the labor pool, environment, education system, political system etc… A low tax rate does not guarantee economic success as demonstrated by Ireland whose GDP dropped by 2.9% from 2007 to 2008. There is also the problem of many American companies moving production off shore yet unsurprisingly, the Republicans are going to wait for the Democrats to create incentives for companies to keep jobs in America:

At issue is the U.S. tax code’s treatment of profits earned by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. Profits earned in the United States are subject to the 35% corporate tax. But multinational corporations can defer paying U.S. taxes on their overseas profits until they return them to the USA - transfers that often don’t happen for years. General Electric, for example, has $62 billion in “undistributed earnings” parked offshore, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Drug giant Pfizer boasts $60 billion. ExxonMobil has $56 billion.

The U.S currently taxes companies on profits earned in-country and overseas which provides significant income for the treasury. My suggestion (slightly different to the bill) is that we should raise the tax rates at home for companies with over $1 Billion dollars in assets located overseas encouraging companies to shift these assets to the United States to keep their tax liability low. Taxation can be a positive aspect in any economy as long as it is utilized as a gentle push rather than a shove. The Republican Senate prefers we not push at all which has only increased the number of corporate scandals in the last 8 years while big companies continue to expand their operations overseas at the expense of the American market.

I recently found this video on YouTube when I was searching for stories related to Corporate Tax Breaks, I found the presenter quite entertaining given the seriousness of this issue:

VP Profile: Kathleen Sebelius

According to the press, Senator Obama has started to look for a possible Vice-President, one of the top names that has been thrown around from the beginning of the Obama campaign is the current Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius. Kathleen Sebelius became the 44th Governor of Kansas in 2003 and was re-elected to a second term in 2006. She is fairly popular in Kansas and according to a SurveyUSA Poll released on April 24th, she has a 61% approval rating. That being said, many people criticize her overall impact for Obama campaign if she is chosen because she would not even be able to guarantee her home state in the general election. So who is the Governor and what can we expect if she is the VP? From the Office Of The Governor:

Kathleen Sebelius was born May 15, 1948 and was raised in a Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio. She attended the Summit Country Day School, a Roman Catholic secondary school, followed by Trinity Washington University, a Roman Catholic university in Washington, D.C., and later earned a Masters of Public Administration from the University of Kansas. She moved to Kansas in 1974 at the age of 26, where she served for eight years as a representative in the Kansas Legislature and eight years as Insurance Commissioner before being elected governor.

Governor Sebelius is married to husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge, for 33 years, they have two sons: Ned and John. Both Sebelius boys are products of the Topeka public school system, pre-kindergarten through high school. Ned is a law student, and John is a graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design. At the heart of Governor Sebelius’ administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state’s renewable energy assets.

Governor Sebelius has not been with out her share of problems though as she recently vetoed three bills that would have allowed the construction of a coal-fired power plant in Western Kansas. Some critics cite these vetoes as detrimental to Kansas at the expense of the Governor improving herself on the national stage with the Democratic Party. I disagree with these critics because no matter how clean a Coal Power Plant professes to be, it is still damaging the environment. There are better alternative sources of energy out there which the governor fully intends to explore for the people of Kansas.

Beyond these minor issues, most Democrats see Sebelius as generally positive for Senator Obama even though according to Rasmussen Reports, she is only likely to increase Senator Obama’s chance of winning Kansas by 28% percent. Given that Kansas is a historically red state, I am willing to assume that as a VP; Sebelius would appeal to woman and older folk which is a segment of the population where Senator Obama does not have a strong base of support. This is all conjecture at this point but I think it would be reasonable to assume given that Senator Clinton could also appeal to the same segments and is more well known but given the last few months, she is not exactly on the short list.

Governor Sebelius would be a good choice beyond her being able to pull in some additional support for an Obama presidency because she agree’s with Senator Obama on most issues. The Kansas City Business Journal has a good write up on some the bills that she passed and vetoed for the states budget of 2009. Governor Sebelius and Senator Obama may see eye to eye but one of the biggest issues facing Americans as indicated by most polls is the economy which is not an area Senator Obama is short in, but maybe a potential VP would need to be strong in these areas? Do VP’s actually matter? Some people argue these points but I think it all comes down to the perception of the typical citizen. Other people argue that someone with national security experience is needed like former retired general Wesley Clarke or Senator Chuck Hagel.

These are all important factors to consider and they wll be explored in future posts of potential VP candidates for Senator Obama. Now a picture of the Governor from the State website:

The Strategy of Hillary Not Dropping Out

I was quite surprised these past two weeks with the insistent calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out and her adamant refusal to not drop out. Since the Bosnia incident, she has come under increasing fire from the media online and offline to let the democratic party move forward since the latest Gallup poll is showing that Senator McCain can now beat both candidates in the general election. This is not good news for a Democrat like myself or any of the other Democrats in the USA and around the world but we have to take this latest revelation in context of the election so far:

1. Senator McCain has had a fairly easy ride recently with both democratic candidates attacking each other with everything but the kitchen sink.
2. Both candidates are building up information to use against Senator McCain in the general election so once the nomination process is finalized. The Democratic nominee can fully flex his or her muscles in an attempt to nullify that lead.
3. Both Democratic nominees have a lot of money behind them and at the end of the day that money can help spread their message further and faster than Senator McCain and his bus.
4. Senator McCain’s lead is within the statistical margin of error so that if the lead held up into the general election, there is a chance that the election could go either way.
5. Senator McCain has made great strides these past few weeks in distancing himself from President Bush and the GOP’s current policies. That being said he has outlined no specific plans as to how he would turn around the American economy or improve the image of the USA in the eyes of the world.

I was also shocked to hear that my own candidate (Senator Obama) did not want Senator Clinton to drop out despite the media and many people saying that the fighting is hurting the Democratic Party. Thinking about the situation logically, I now understand why Senator Obama said that… He knew that if Senator Clinton did dropout so early in the race, her supporters would most likely vote for Senator McCain. Looking below we can see some Gallup data going up to March 22nd showing the breakdown of Clinton supporters if the general election was McCain versus Obama:

 Now let us look at the hypothetical situation of Senator Clinton winning the nomination and we can see the data is far leaner as we go up to Independents:

 I have drawn a few conclusions from the current Gallup data. The first being that the Clinton supporters seem more polarized in terms of the democratic nomination. This is where my point about Senator Obama is relevant to the current situation. If he were to suddenly win the democratic nomination after PA, a lot of the Clinton supporters would feel rather angry and vote for Senator McCain in the general election. My second point relates to what both parties are saying in the media, I believe we can safely say this is more politeness than anything else but I believe the democratic party does need to wrap this up as quick as possible because their is a fine balance between alienating current democrats with the lengthy primary process and having the other nominee’s supporters switch to Senator McCain.

Alright, I will stop with the graphs and figures… with Senator Clinton’s double digit lead in PA non-existent at the moment, I believe that if she does not win by at least 10% in the Pennsylvania primary that she should seriously consider dropping out and endorsing Senator Obama. Senator Obama with his excellent oratory ability could easily win back the independents that have started to lean towards Senator McCain because if we think about the media breakdown in the USA. Fox News is the only conservative channel out there and if we can a have the majority of the major media networks broadcasting Obama’s strengths, Senator McCain will definitely lose.

I endorse Barack Obama

Two entries in one day, I know that is pretty amazing but I told myself today that with Super Tuesday looming, I would like to write this article or rather this endorsement. The few people that read this blog may wonder what is the point of writing a long endorsement that will not influence many people but it is to these people I say that the smallest difference is a difference none the less the few people that do read my blog go out and vote for Obama, I know than that I have contributed in part to electing the man who will change America and the world that we live in.

I live in Ireland for the moment where the two largest minorities are Polish and Chinese, and if I asked the average Irishmen if they would ever vote for a non-Irish  Taoiseach (Like the President), the answer would be no. I think America has come along way from the racial tensions of the 20th century into an age where race is not a major issue. I have listened to the commentary about Senator Obama since people were speculating that he might make a run for President and a lot have people do not notice he is black. I for one do not, the very first thing I noticed about Senator Obama is at the last DNC where I thought to myself, he is an excellent speaker. Does this mean he will be a good President? Far from it but it is one of the essential qualities.

 If we look back at the last century or so, society and civilization as we know it are defined by good speakers. From Winston Churchill to Nelson Mandela, people who can get on stage and rivet an audience so that no matter how long and boring the speech is, they stay interested. Senator Obama is one of these people, he will bring a passion and consistency to the presidency that we have not seen in many years. He will be the kind of President that we need in the 21st century to save the economy as well as bring America back into the limelight as the super power it is supposed to be.

 That being said, he will also said he will also realize that China and Russia are going to remain Super Powers for the foreseeable future and there is nothing that can be done about that. The USA is entering a new era where the President must work hand in hand with the likes of Dmitry Medvedev and Wen Jiabao to create the world that I want my children to live in. A world where the peace is prevalent and terrorism becomes a word of the past, immigration is no longer an issue because people can move freely around the world but most importantly the future president of the United States of America must create a world that is sustainable for future generations to come.

 No one country can be number 1 anymore, Senator Obama can assume the presidency without the baggage of the past. Larry King commented on CNN that people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton are using the same old playbook for a world that has changed. This is true, John McCain often talks about his time under the Reagan administration, that was a different time and a different world and Senator McCain cannot save the USA from the economic crisis that has arisen or increase the competitive level of the country compared to the likes of China and Russia.

For those of you that have read this blog, young and old I urge you to think about the long term future when voting for Senator Obama. Vote and Support a candidate who can remake America into the country it should be for the 21st century. I may be 25 and some people may discount my support as the folly of youth but look back at history, and it will tell you that knowledge gets you so far but you need charisma, talent, passion and strength to truly make a difference in this world. Senator Obama has this and I wish him good luck as the future president of the United States of America.

Clinton VS. Obama (Healthcare Reform)

“In 2005, the United States spent 16% (up from 14% in 2000) of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, a greater share than any other developed country for which data are collected by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.” This was a quote taken from the annual report issued by the CDC with regards to the state of healthcare within the United States. The cost of healthcare has risen around the world and even more so in the United States due to the sheer number of providers, costly system and huge malpractice insurance amounts that most doctors have to pay. These are not all the factors by any chance but they are some of the more significant ones. I am writing this article from three perspectives:

1. My dad has been a GP for all 25 years of my existence and has experienced some of these healthcare issues from the practitioner’s side.

2. I have worked for a major Healthcare provider in the USA and do have some first hand knowledge of the systems and costs involved.

3. I have paid for health insurance from my first day of college in America till the last day of work in my previous employer.

I decided to examine this healthcare issue because it is one of the more significant issues coming up to the election and in part due to a question posed on Facebook:

I think many people around the world often listen to the promises of politicians but do not actually examine the facts behind what they say. I have done this and examined both the Healthcare plan as offered by Hillary Clinton and the plan offered by Barack Obama. Here are some of my conclusions in no particular order because they all warrant attention (All information regarding the plans were extracted from the candidates websites):

1. The first thing you will notice is that Senator Obama’s plan is 15 pages including references while Senator Clinton’s plan is a mere 3 pages. I realize this does not mean a lot but if I was a gambling man, I would say Senator Clinton relies on more than just the facts to sway the minds of the voters.

2. The plans are essential the same in a broad sense with both candidates mentioning that they want all Americans to be covered by health insurance and they use the number of 47 million Americans being uninsured. Both candidates also reference the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program as a basis for the national healthcare plan that they will create. Another similarity is that both candidates state that no American will be excluded on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

3.  With the similarities out of the way, we can go to the most significant difference that being the explanation of the plans. Senator Clinton’s plan is vague at best with two to three lines of detail over each sub-topic. She mentions modernizing the health system however unlike Senator Obama she does not go into detail as to how it gets done. Senator Obama mentions the key phrase “Health IT Investment”, as a former employee of a healthcare company, I can say this is essential in any potential health plan as the costs are quite outrageous. I cannot go into speciic amounts but my organization was paying a minimum of $10,000 a month for our I.T system which if reduced, we could pass on the savings to our customers. Working for a healthcare company, I was paying $100 a month as a premium for healthcare coverage. I also remember when I was in College, I looked around for private healthcare for just myself and the cheapest quote I could get was $140 for myself as a student. These costs are even more absurd when you consider the co-payments you will have to pay when you visit the Dentist or Doctor. Senator Obama mentions an integration of healthcare systems around the country in order to minimize costs associated with paper methodology.  My father has never practiced in America but I can see from personal experience here in Ireland and in the USA that many doctors have modernized but still heavily rely on paper. This needs to stop and this is one of the more important differences I noticed in my analysis of the two plans.

4. I will acknowledge that Senator Clinton uses two words that Senator Obama does not in his plan which is “Fiscally Responsible.”  Modernizing the healthcare system is all good and fine but where is the money going to come from? There is only so much that the Government can afford to spend and take of the drug companies, insurance providers before the cost falls to the consumer. Any potential healthcare plan must (with a capital M) be cost effective so that an already tight financial situation in the USA is not worsened because some candidate is forced to keep his promises.

5. Senator Obama mentions the use of generics; this was a major issue in the USA a few years ago because the mayor of Springfield, MA allowed his citizens to buy drugs from Canada even though the federal government declared it illegal. Generics save a lot of money and the fact that the Federal government has outlawed them thanks to the lobbying from the big drug companies is crazy. The needs of the people must be taken over the needs of big business, as long as the generics are tested fine, I see no reason why citizens of the USA cannot order medication from countries like Canada where it is far cheaper.

6. There are many other differences between these two policies but the last and probably the most important thing I would like to discuss with reference to these two candidates is that Senator Obama mentions the need for American’s to change their lifestyle. He used a good statistic referencing that 133 million Americans suffer from chronic illnesses like Diabetes, Asthma, and Obesity. As someone who lived in America for 6 years, I know all about the lifestyle. Many people drive everywhere unlike Europe where people walk a lot more, the meals are actually larger in the USA because I have compared a Large Quizno’s sub to a Large here in Ireland and the Irish Quizno’s is decidedly lacking. Senator Obama makes a good point in that Americans need to change their lifestyle in order to improve the health of the whole country and eventually productivity since people who are sick are a strain on the healthcare system and cost the whole country at the end of the day.

Changes like these are by no means instantaneous and especially the last point but my whole point in this article is that I urge voters to research beyond what the candidate says and look at the hard facts. Senator Obama’s plan is more comprehensive and covers the essential measures that effect America today and for the years to come.  Healthcare needs to be an evolving concept that intertwines the average citizen, the government, the drug companies and the insurance companies in an equilibrium that benefits all and it is my view that Senator Obama is the person who can create such a plan.