It is no secret that our economy is the middle of a recession, as evidenced by massive layoffs in the financial services market, exploding energy prices and the increase in jobless claims. One reason why we can expect our economy to continue on this shaky path is the overwhelming percentage of our gross domestic product that is targeted for entitlements. A combination of twin liberal economic packages (the New Deal and the Great Society), entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare accounted for 53% of total federal outlays in 2007, with net interest payments accounting for an additional 8.6%. With the retirement of the Baby Boomers, we can all expect these numbers to continue to increase at a fiscally dangerous rate.

(more…)

The aforementioned statement is surprisingly thought provoking. If one takes a closer look at it, he or she will notice that Edwards first points out the fact that the Democrats have made a collective choice. He then ventures to say that he has subsequently made his own decision (which appears to be directly in line with the “popular vote” among the Democrats).

It’s not rocket science: Edwards is playing political monopoly. He is erasing his past statements about Obama and positioning himself for a vice-presidential nod. Or — at the least — he is keeping his name alive for future political gain.

After all, what took the former senator so long to endorse a candidate? MLive.com quotes Brent Slay, a retired Plainfield Township businessman (and an Obama supporter), who had some interesting thoughts on the matter:

“I think it will help [Obama] immensely with the working men and women of America. My opinion is Sen. Edwards saw Sen. Obama was going to be the candidate for the party, and he wanted to be the one to push him over the edge.“

But, perhaps the most intriguing portion of Slay’s thoughts:

Slay wondered if the endorsement might signal an Obama-Edwards ticket, although Edwards has said he is not interested in running for vice president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert Duncan has been the most precise in his criticism of Edwards’ endorsement. Duncan asks, “Why didn’t Edwards endorse sooner?” — a more than valid question. He continues:

“Edwards’ endorsement of a candidate he previously blasted as inexperienced, hypocritical and lacking substance will not help Obama with voters looking for real change.“

Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Edwards was posing serious criticisms of Obama as early as December 2007:

“I know Sen. Obama gave a speech today, and he’s a good guy, but I listen to the talk about, ‘I’m going to give the insurance companies, the drug companies, and the oil companies a seat at the table, and I’m going to sit at that table, and I’m going to negotiate with them, and they will voluntarily give their power away.’ Well, that’s not the world that I live in. They’ll give their power up when we take their power away from them.”

Sounds like a vote of no confidence to me. But suddenly — when Obama appears to have the majority of Democratic support, Edwards thinks he’s undoubtedly the man for the job. Does his description of Obama back in December reflect even a portion of the confidence one should have in a candidate they are endorsing?

And then there’s healthcare — an issue that a great many Americans have a personal stake in:

Edwards also took issue with Obama’s recently unveiled health-care plan, saying it fell short of covering the estimated 45 million uninsured people in the United States. “I believe unless we have a law requiring that every man, woman and child in America be covered, we’re going to have millions of people who aren’t covered,” Edwards said.

These are big issues — issues that Edwards has suddenly begun to ignore for the sake of an endorsement.

Apparently, West Virginia voters fail to appreciate and/or understand the basic economic rules of supply and demand. McCain and Hillary are hoping the rest of the country follows suit and supports saving a few bucks a month so we can become even more dependent on a resource controlled by cartels and terrorist organizations. Playing on the stupidity and fears of Americans is a very bipartisan tradition.

The entire nation and countless foreigners are absorbing a moment that had seemed decades away, if possible at all. Smart strategists and rank-and-file voters ponder how Obama rose so far so fast, and theories abound. Historians will sort it out someday, but Obama’s blend of oratory, biography, optimism and cool confidence come to mind most immediately.

Or is he the lucky and well-timed beneficiary of racial dynamics that have changed faster than most people realized, a trend that presumably will soon yield more black governors, senators, mayors and council members?

“You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate.”

Sorry Cindy, but you don’t get to pick and choose when, as a public figure, you are open for scrutiny and public inspection. Senator McCain, a public employee, would not be where he is today without your wealth, making your fortune fair game. Want to play with the big boys? Better play by their rules. Remember all that grief Teresa Heinz received in 2004 for being a wealthy heiress? Maybe Cindy will receive the same scrutiny and abuse from the supposedly liberal press.

Plus, you have to love the irony of the presidential candidate of the party of family values initially bankrolling his presidential campaign on alcohol sales.

(more…)