I am by no means surprised that the embattled Attorney General has stepped down, I am surprised that it has taken so long.

Politically speaking and in my opinion, keeping him on this long, allowing him to go to Capitol Hill and contradict his own testimony so many times and allowing so many others to go to the Hill and contradict testimony so many times, was an insane move by the Bush administration.

There was no way he was going to be able to stay and be effective. That much was clear months ago. Keeping him in the cabinet all but assured little if nothing in the way of policy was going to be accomplished by a president who was not only a lame-duck but was facing an insurgency from within his own party. To the public, who probably followed this whole affair with disinterest, it did accomplish one task. It heaped another layer to the sense of “corruption, ineffectiveness, divisiveness and self-interest” that has filled the White House.

What implication will this have for 2008? Firstly it will help play into the overall theme of a “need for change”. Secondly a lot of that will depend on the person President Bush decides to send in his place. Whomever that is they will need to be confirmed by a Democratic Congress, Several of whom are running for president and will use these hearings as a chance to flex muscle and score points. If it is a divisive nominee the process will also be used against those Republicans running for re-election or the presidency in order to pin the labels mentioned above to their campaigns.

There are lots of rumors and the president is set to make an announcement soon, so I won’t go too much into the speculating until then. Lets just say that in a VERY dull summer, things are heating up.

“I would say the risks of recession are now greater than they’ve been any time since the period in the aftermath of 9/11.” - Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers

I have been harping on the idea that the two major republicans issues in 2008 will be taxes and terror. It also is starting to appear that the economy as a whole with the word “recession” looming will play a large role in the election. President Bill Clinton’s 1992 mantra “Its the economy, stupid” looks like it could well apply again. It also could be a repeat of 2000 when Bush/Cheney talked down the economy and called for tax cuts to avoid an incoming recession while painting Gore as the candidate who would raise taxes and spur an economic downturn.

So who wins and who loses if the economy is the #1 issue?

Senator Barack Obama outlined how he would help rebuild New Orleans. From the Senators Web site here is his point by point plan:

- Ensuring the FEMA Director reports directly to President Obama, serves a fixed six-year term so he or she is insulated from political pressure, and has professional emergency management experience.

- Developing the health care infrastructure by building new facilities and providing incentives like loan forgiveness to attract more medical professionals back to New Orleans.

- Creating a special “COPS for Katrina” program to empower communities to hire local enforcement personnel, as well as helping local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies establish an integrated regional crime control partnership.

- Rebuilding schools and assisting communities in the Gulf Coast to make necessary infrastructure investments so kids from all backgrounds have safe and supportive environments to learn. Creating a loan forgiveness program to bring college students back to New Orleans.

- Developing transit partnerships to ensure public transit is integrated across New Orleans’ parish lines and a possible rail line connecting New Orleans with Baton Rouge.

- Ensuring that every displaced resident has a home to return to, by strengthening the Road Home Program, working with the state to guarantee that every application for housing assistance will be approved no later than two months after it is received, and increasing the supply of rental property.

- Rebuilding the local economy, both by fighting to ensure more local residents direct and implement Katrina-related recovery and reconstruction activities, as well as targeting tax incentives to lure businesses to the hardest hit areas of the Gulf Coast.

- Working with emergency management officials, emergency responders and other experts from all 50 states to create a real National Response Plan, which will ensure we have fully-trained and prepared personnel to respond to disasters across the United States.

- Creating a National Catastrophe Insurance Reserve, which will save homeowners $11.6 billion on annual insurance premiums.

- Ensuring that New Orleans has a levee and pumping system to protect the city from a Category 5 storm.

“Part of the problem, I’ll be honest with you, I just don’t think there is a sense of urgency in the White House, where the president is cracking the whip, day in, day out, and saying, ‘Why is it that we’re not getting this done?’”

This comes from the Associated Press:

The government of embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday it may impose a state of emergency because of “external and internal threats” and deteriorating law and order in the volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said some sentiment coming from the United States, including from Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama, over the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan “has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.”

Now the article is quick to point out:

But it appeared the motivation for a declaration of an emergency would be the domestic political woes of Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism who took power in a 1999 coup.

His popularity has dwindled and his standing has been badly shaken by a failed bid to oust the country’s chief justice _ an independent-minded judge likely to rule on expected legal challenges to the Musharraf’s bid to seek a new five-year presidential term this fall.

It is an important reminder to Senator Barack Obama and all the candidates this political season that whatever America does and whatever American leaders say can quickly be turned around into the kind of “propaganda” Hillary Clinton warned about during a debate when she said she wouldn’t promise any meetings with combative world leaders.

I am sure all of the campaigns including Obama’s will be quick to spin this.

I bring this up because a large chunk of the debate tonight was devoted to China:

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

I have been reading the Health Care plans of the candidates and I have written pretty detailed posts about Obama’s & Clinton’s. Last week Rudy Giuliani started talking about his so I wanted to note why I haven’t done the same for the Republican former mayor as I have for the two Democratic Senators.

Frankly the Giuliani plan had almost no details other than he wouldn’t give you Universal Health Care, wouldn’t figure out what to do with the uninsured BUT would provide tax incentives for individuals to deduct the cost of private plans with the idea that Americans seeking private insurance would take the burden off of employers.

The problem is he provided no information on how he would fund such a system.

Now I have been and will continue to be critical of the enormous price tags that will result from the Edwards & Obama plans but as Media Matters points out some reporting has gone after the Dem plans as big government spending machines but have ignored the price tag and the lack of explanation of a Giuliani plan. The Democrats on the other hand have indicated they would roll back the Bush tax plans as one way of paying for theirs. The problem is they also have other plans on how to spend that money and the numbers don’t entirely add up.

In short there is little substance to the Giuliani plan which is why I haven’t written more.

From the article:

Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.

“Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do,” said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.

First it was Barack Obama’s talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic frontrunners have been joined by Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.

Though part of me really does cringe as well whenever I hear these candidates discuss foreign policy in such a flippant manner, I do have to say it is probably a good thing to know Obama will bomb Pakistan, Clinton won’t rule out nuclear weapons and Tancredo will bomb holy cities in Mecca before we elect them to the presidency. Considering the weight with which we in the U.S. take and get insulted by everything said by every leader and potential leader around the world it does worry me to think what impact it will have on already strained U.S. relations with… well.. every nation in the world.

The NY Times Caucus Blog is reporting that Republican candidates are getting an interesting question “Is the federal government working on a NAFTA superhighway extending from Mexico to Canada?

Read the rest of this entry »

John Edwards provided details in Des Moines, Iowa today on his tax policy under the title “conomic Plan to Restore Fairness, Reform America’s Tax Code, & Reward Hard Work”. It has some basic tax premises that will be embraced by those on the left and heavily scorned by those on the right.

Objectives
(1) create three new tax breaks to honor and strengthen three pillars of America’s middle class: savings, work, and families
(2) require a fair contribution from the wealth of high-income Americans, reversing the shift of the tax code onto middle class wages
(3) end special tax breaks for insiders

How will he achieve it?
In short by raising taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for tax breaks (and social programs) for other Americans.

Read the rest of this entry »

In any other year when the top Republican candidate didn’t also support public funding of abortions, this might be a titanic Republican campaign issue. It still could be but we will see.

Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband’s health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover “reproductive-health services.” Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Since both candidates are exploring a universal health care plan that pretty much amounts to tax-payer funding of abortion.