Mike O'Brien

In some regards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have different views. In other cases they are playing off the exact same set of music. Today's issue comes from this article which frontpages the issue of whether the cap and trade program proposed by John McCain would effectively reduce carbon emissions. BO and HC seem to have identical plan's to the Arizona Senator.

COM (my moniker for all three of them without difference) would have an annual auction of carbon credits. A credit would probably be a metric ton of carbon dioxode, that's not too much, according to the EPA my current lifestyle expends about a metric ton of CO2 equivalent every 19 days. Anyway, these credits are limited to some fixed decreasing annual amount set by Congressional fiat. If a business produces carbon, and doesn't have a credit it faces a fine. That's the cap part. However, rather than pay the fine, the business can elect to buy more offsets on the free market. That's the trade part.

The obvious downside is that there is no way some businesses are going to be able to exist. As a result COM recognizes there will be an increase in unemployment.

Beyond that, I'm skeptical about whether the cap would really work. HRC and JMC are tight lipped on how they would spend the money. However, Barack Obama mentions that he would spend the revenue

generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

Today's issue is when there should no longer be a substantial American military presence in Iraq, and what the candidates think about it.

John McCain stated today that he feels there will no longer be a substantial presence in Iraq after 2003. At that point he believes all threats to the United States and the region will be squelched.

Hillary Clinton would

support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

Barack Obama states he would have all combat troops redeployed from Iraq within 11 months of taking office. However, he voted against S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 which would have effectively done that. He says that he would establish a long-term goal of having "regional cooperation" which would increase regional stability. He would mitigate the short-term choas by being

a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.

All three of these seem somewhat idealistic to me. I would willing put John McCain's reasoning in blockquote if I could find it. However, it isn't there and I have no idea why he thinks all will be resolved in four years. The basic difference between HRC's and BHO's plans are the identity of the master negotiater who will end all of the region's problems. HRC doesn't seem to know, but feels that someone at the United Nations could do the job. Her reasoning seems to be that this worked in Afganistan, Bosnia and Kosovo - I guess expecting a different result from those situations isn't too outrageuos (only Bosnia is presently stable). BHO thinks that he is the "tough negotiator" who could make things happen. I am unable to find any source that believes he is a tough negotiator outside of his own websites and others which quote his.

Social Security is codified in 42 USC Ch. 7 and has 21 seperate functions. Generally, it provides for the indigent, elderly, injured, and those who are any combination of the previous three or their children. The basic purpose of the law is paternalistic - some people cannot provide for themselves and their family, so the government chooses to help them. Pretty much every industrialized nation has a version of this social insurance. Of the three leading presidential contenders only Barack Obama has made his position clear on the issue, the other candidates have held their cards close to their chests making them hard to read.

The Social Security Administration explains the problem:

Based on the Trustees’ best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2017 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security’s combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2041.

And they provide some solutions:

financial adequacy of the program for the next 75 years could be restored if increases were made equivalent to immediately and permanently increasing the Social Security payroll tax from its current level of 12.4 percent (for employees and employers combined) to 14.10 percent. Alternatively, changes could be made equivalent to reducing all current and future benefits by about 11.5 percent.

payroll taxes could be raised to finance scheduled benefits fully in every year starting in 2041. In this case, the payroll tax would be increased to 15.94 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and continue rising to 16.60 percent in 2082. Similarly, benefits could be reduced to the level that is payable with scheduled tax rates in each year beginning in 2041. Under this scenario, benefits would be reduced 22 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041, with reductions reaching 25 percent in 2082.

Barack Obama

supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

John McCain,

believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. [He] supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts .

The idea of private accounts isn't entirely new, but it has gained some traction in recent years. As the report notes, individuals could invest a portion of their Social Security taxes into a series of mutual funds and earn a higher rate of return than they would on by allowing the government to invest the money in government bonds. This could make up the tax/benefit gap I discussed above, but only after a phase-in period which would cost somewhere between $600B and $3T.

Hillary Clinton is largely mum on the topic, other than to say she disagrees with private accounts because

1) privatization leaves retirees vulnerable to stock market fluctuations or poor individual investment decisions.
2) the current Social Security system is progressive and assists women and families by indexing benefits to those who earn less. Women especially would be disadvantaged by a privatized system because they would have lower annual account deposits and would likely lose the advantage of spousal benefits.
3) fully one-third of payroll taxes are used to cover disabled workers and survivors. It is uncertain how the federal government could afford to pay these benefits if a percentage of the payroll tax is diverted into individual accounts.
4) the projected cost of changing to a privatized system while continuing to pay current benefits is estimated to be several trillion dollars in just the first decade, an unfunded liability that we can not afford.

I'll respond to Mrs. Clinton's concerns
1) The selection of mutual funds can be limited (to the TSP funds, for instance) to avoid a substantially risky investment. This is what a group of city workers in Texas did.
2) Of course, if you put nothing into the system, you get less out. This is an opportunity to advantage workers, not to punish non-workers.
3) The portion of SS Tax that goes to disability insurance will still go there.
4) This concern is legitimate, it is unclear where that money would come from.

Until next time.

Today's issue comes from a John McCain speech a few days ago where the Arizona Senator sounded the alarm about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wanting to reduce gun owner's rights.

Perhaps ironically, John McCain has proposed legislation to make it more difficult to purchase guns at gun shows. From the Arizona Senator's website:

At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

Barack Obama's position appears to be pro-gun:

As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.

and then he hedges his bets

He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.

Interestingly, Congress managed to violate the previously inviolable Commerce Clause when it passed the "Gun Free School Zones Act" which made it a federal crime for a person to bring a gun to a school. The Supreme Court ruled that possession of a gun is not interstate commerce, and the law was unconstitutional. This raises the issue of whether the Illinois Senator will realize if one of his "commonsense" regulations violates the constitution. He has stated he supports the outright ban on handguns in the District of Columbia as way for reducing "illegal gun possession."

Hillary Clinton's position reflects incredible honesty:

I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street …

So, there you have it, she likes the idea of doing something, but admits that she can't.

My final thought is that the issue, is kind of silly because it relies on the false premise that control will necessarily yield less crime. John Stossel has gone over this issue in detail, and I won't rehash his reasoning here. He notes that there is no relation, because, like anything else, a black market will exist for illegal products and criminals will get their guns from there.

Today's issue is recruiting excellent teachers for public schools. I choose it because both John McCain and Barack Obama have articulable policies on the subject.

Urban economists (in Measuring School Performance And Efficiency By Leanna Stiefel, for example) measure change in student performance over a year and utilize a production function based on three inputs - The individual intelligence of the student and input of the student's parents, the performance of peers, and the contribution of teachers and school. Studies show that teachers have a measurable impact on student.

John McCain believes

our schools can and should compete to be the most innovative, flexible and student-centered - not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. He believes we should let them compete for the most effective, character-building teachers, hire them, and reward them.

If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. He finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe. They can make another choice. John McCain believes that is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.

This provides a tangible immediate impact to assist students. They can start their first day of school in 2009 at the best school they can find. It's thin on details, and has some state's rights issues, but it's a generally good idea.

Barack Obama wants to recruit, prepare, retain, and reward America's teachers

Recruit Teachers: Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.

Prepare Teachers: Obama will require all schools of education to be accredited. He will also create a voluntary national performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively. Obama will also create Teacher Residency Programs that will supply 30,000 exceptionally well-prepared recruits to high-need schools.

Retain Teachers: To support our teachers, Obama's plan will expand mentoring programs that pair experienced teachers with new recruits. He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices.

Reward Teachers: Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.

Let's say the recruitment program was immediately put into place. It would take four years to bear fruit. Further, the "assessment" is voluntary, so his notion of "every teacher being ready" is logically flawed, because there is no way to prove this.

The mentorship program is an iconoclastically good idea. Mentorship programs tend to aid every organization that utilizes them. The reward program for further encouraging mentors also seems fine.

The issue I blogged on the 22nd was the price of gasoline.

The Department of Energy determined that the price of gas is controlled by
The Price of Crude Oil - 73%
State and Federal Taxes - 11% (The federal tax is currently $0.184 per gallon)
Refining costs - 10%
Distribution and Marketing - 6% (This also includes the profits of the local stations and large oil companies).

Taxes are fixed, and the energy department monitors the other factors on a regular basis. As I will discuss below a gas tax holiday would save the average consumer about $60 ($30 by Barack Obama's calculation) over the summer. Stating that oil companaies could not make a profit would save less than half of that (see the chart above).

Edited May 26, 2008: One of the hazards of issue blogging is that candidates change their mind, and then the bloggers analysis changes with it. I found a link at Mark Levin's website where John McCain discusses the windfall profits tax. I added that material below.

more below the fold

The issue I blogged on the 13th wasVeterans' Education. After World War II Congress passed the GI Bill which gives quallified veterans a monthly stipend while they are recieving some sort of approved post-secondary education. Currently, the benefits last for 30 months (which is a fixed amount of money during four years of school if you take the summer and J-term off). Presently, 30% of eligible veterans do not use a dime of the benefit, and 8% use all of it.

I have edited my original post to better reflect John McCain's position and to add some history of the legislation, and to include the cost of Jim Webb's bill.

Today's issue comes by request from Phil James who wanted to know where the candidates stand on this issue. It's a good question because the candidates have certainly gone out of their way to hide their views on it. Nonetheless, we at Polireport were able to discern the truth.

A magent school is "a public elementary school, public secondary school, public elementary education center, or public secondary education center that offers a special curriculum capable of attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds." They gained traction in the 1960s because of resegregation caused by whites moving to their own secluded neighborhoods to avoid being bussed to other schools.

Today's post comes by request from Phil James. I will exam the role of the National Education Association in the presidential race. Various state teachers' unions largely backed Hillary Clinton earlier in the campaign, but Barack Obama's positions are substantially similar. John McCain, where he has taken a stance, disagrees.

I have not yet explained the difference between conservatism and liberalism, but I will here, because this issue illustates it nicely. Conservatism is based on society consisting of independent moral agents - those who know right from wrong and are responsible for themselves (those who do not meet these requirements recieve special consideration). The state is best to leave people alone, except when they make dangerous irresponsible choices. Liberalism believes that individuals are a product of their circumstances, therefore, the most productive citizen comes from a situation carefully tailored by the state to ensure irresponsible choices are unlikely to be made.

Below the fold I will discuss merit pay and school choice.

This issue is an interesting paradox: Barack Obama and John McCain support building a border fence, Congress passed a law authorizing money and the condemnation of land.

So why will the fence never be built?