ACORN in my side.

A few posts back I opined whether the Ayers 'association' was all that McCain had. It now seems he had this ACORN issue. I use the term 'issue' very loosely.

The Obama campaign has contributed to about $800,000 to groups affiliated with ACORN. The purpose of this money was to fund voter registration drives. Every candidate does such things in order to increase their potential constituency.

ACORN leads a great number of these drives. They hire people to go out and register voters. In many cases, they pay these employees based on the number of completed applications they submit.

What happened here was that a number of people submitted applications with names including the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys and Disney characters. It is pretty obvious to just about everyone that this was just a case of people padding their numbers so they can make more money. I mean, knowing these people were paid by the form, then it is not too much of a stretch to imagine some people submitted large numbers of bogus forms just to make some extra cash.

Are they gaming the system? Yes. Are they perpetrating a fraud? Yes. Is this a threat to the fabric of democracy? No.

That last question comes from Mr. McCain himself and is comical when you look at the details of this case. In order for this to be a threat to the fabric of democracy, two things would need to happen.

1) There would have to be an intention that these false forms would be used for people to vote more than once.

2) Someone would actually have to show up at the polls and attempt to vote using the names provided on these forms.

Let's have a look at each point.

First, what is the intent. Except for those trying to smear a political opponent, it is obvious that the intent was for a few people to make some extra cash that they did not really earn.

Consider that ACORN is required by law to submit to the board of elections each and every form that someone fills out. This is a good thing. You do not want any group collecting voter registration to make any determination as to whether your form should be submitted. Think about if a McCain canvasser showed up with a registration form. You fill it out and indicate you are a Democrat. It is nice to know that this canvasser is required by law to submit that form and cannot simply discard it based on a bias against Democrats.

So ACORN complied with the law in submitting the forms. In addition, they flagged most of the forms as questionable before they submitted them. It is hard to imply fraud when the person you are accusing makes it clear to you that something is amiss.

Secondly, is someone going to actually try to vote under the names listed on these forms. This is where things get really loony.

In order to actually commit election fraud, someone would have to try to vote using the names on these bogus forms. Even if it had not been flagged by ACORN, the board of elections would most certainly be suspicious of any voter registered under the name 'Mickey Mouse'. As such, this voter would be flagged in the system and would be required at the polling place to provide some proof of their identity. The fraud scheme would therefore have to require that the person posing as Mickey Mouse have a fake picture ID stating their name as Mickey Mouse. This alone would break a rule of any crime. Do not draw attention to yourself.

Mickey Mouse is an extreme example, but even if someone tried to vote using the name of an unknown Dallas Cowboys Offensive Lineman, they would be under scrutiny. The registration would have to have an address so they can confirm you are at the right polling place. This address would have to match what is on your fake ID. For this to work, every form you filled out would need to use a different address in the district. These addresses would have to be valid.

Then comes the question of who would actually vote. Anyone can get a fake ID, but if you show up at the same polling place with 10 or more different IDs, eventually someone will probably recognize you has having already been there. You would have to rotate through different polling places or have a large number of people willing to pose as fake voters. Sure, you could all vote absentee, but absentee ballots are subject to even more scrutiny for exactly this reason.

To pull this off it would have to be a coordinated effort with lots of people and lots of funding. The logistics of such a fraud would be enormous. Not insurmountable and not impossible, but enormous. And the risks of discovery would be very high.

According to Mr. McCain, this fraud is exactly what Obama has been scheming. It is ridiculous and saying that it, 'threatens the very fabric of democracy', just emphasizes the fact that you are trying to make this a larger issue than it is.

And by the way, the fact that this ACORN 'issue' was even made public might be a violation of election law. Federal agencies are required by law to keep such election fraud investigations under wraps until after the election. Making such things public risks affecting the election. But, then this is exactly what McCain wanted.

The Obama campaign has asked for an independent prosecutor to look into whether or not the Bush administration has colluded with the McCain campaign to release news of this investigation in an attempt to influence voters. Such collusion would be a violation of the law.

I am glad to see that Obama is not sitting idly by while McCain throws his mud. I don't want Obama to throw mud, but I do want him to protect his name.

Say it ain't so Joe

Attention Joe the plumber. You're 15 minutes have officially begun. Good for you and I hope you enjoy them.

I understand you take issue with the fact that Obama wishes to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000. You say it is a slippery slope that you do not want any part of. I can respect that. Surely no one wants to part with any of their hard earned money. You also said that it is not fair that just because someone works hard and makes a lot of money they should be taxed more than others. Really? I have a few questions for you Joe.

Are you implying that the single mother who works two jobs to support her children is not a hard worker? Is the father who just got laid off because his job was sent off shore just plain lazy? If someone is not earning more than, let's say, $50,000 are they just underachievers? I hope that is not what you were implying.

For your conversation, it sounds like you believe everyone should be taxed evenly. There should not be a 'penalty' for those that earn more. If I make $20,000 per year, I should be taxed 15%. If I make $250,000 per year, I should still be taxed 15%. If I make $10 million per year, I should still be taxed 15%.

Okay. That sounds fair. Let's do some math.
15% of $20,000 is $3,000
15% of $250,000 is $37,500
15% of $10 million is $1,500,000

Boy. From the looks of it those rich people are sure getting the short end of the stick. I mean $1.5 million in taxes is outrageous. Maybe you are on to something.

Now let's talk expenses. There are certain things that everyone needs to survive. Food, clothing, shelter, health-care.

Let's use the following conservative numbers.
$500 per month for food.
$500 per month for rent.
$417 per month for health-care. (That is how much you would get per month under McCain's plan.)
$250 per month for other things like utility bills and gas for your car and such.

That comes to $1,667 per month in expenses just to survive. That works out to $20,004 per year just to get by.

Let's see how our wage-earners will get by.

After their 15% tax, the person making $10 million per year has $8.5 million to play with. Subtract the $20,004 needed to survive and they have $8,479,996 left over. Phew!. Looks like they can still take that vacation and buy that mountain retreat they'd been looking at.

Let's see how the other folks fare.

Minus the 15% tax, the person making $250,000 per year takes home $212,500. After paying the $20,004 in food, shelter, and other expenses, they have $192,496 in their bank. Might have to scrimp on the Christmas presents this year, but they should be fine.

What about the person making $20,000 per year?

After their 15% tax, they are left with $17,000. Minus the $20,004 in expenses and they are $3,004 in the hole. Time to find a cheaper apartment. Have to eat a little less. I hope no one gets sick because we'll have to cut that extravagant health-care plan.

My point in all of this is that 15% hits different people quite differently. I have no doubt that Mr. $10 million has worked very hard for his money, assuming he is not the CEO of a bank. I also have no doubt that the person making $20,000 is also working very hard for their money.

No one wants socialism where everything is distributed evenly, but perhaps we can be smart about it and make sure those that are working hard but just aren't making enough can still afford to feed their children and get to work and have heat in the winter.

Mr. $10 million would hardly miss the $500,000 more he would pay if his taxes jumped 5%. In fact, with what he makes in one year he could lose his job and not work again for the rest of his life and still be able to cover those minimum expenses. Even Miss $250,000 could lose her job and still cover minimum expenses for close to 10 years. But to Mr. & Mrs. $20,000, every dollar is critical to their survival. There is no margin for error. No 'fun money'. Every year that goes by, they just get further and further behind. To them, the American Dream is a farce.

This isn't about socialism vs. capitalism. This is about compassion for our own. This is about making sure everyone at least has a fighting chance. This is about the richest country in the world not having any of its citizens living in 3rd world conditions.

So Joe. I respect your right to have you own opinion. I also respectfully disagree with you. I do not make anywhere near $250,000, but if I have to pay a little more from my pocket so that some mother and father do not have to put their children to bed hungry, then I will.

Good luck with your plumbing business.

Here's mud in your eye.

October is upon us. Less than a month before we find out who our next President will be. Obama is leading in the polls, but just ask John McCain, who was nearly ahead a month ago, how quickly fortunes can change. In fact, ask Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis what a difference October can make.

Tonight will be Presidential debate number 2. Most agree the first Presidential debate and the VP debate were a wash. No one screwed up so no one made any significant gains. In this day and age few are willing to offer up Reagan-esque quotes for fear they will be misunderstood and have a negative effect. That is fine. All I ask is that we stick to the issues. You hear me John McCain, stick to the issues.

This country is in economic trouble. John McCain has admitted himself that he does not understand all of this economic stuff. It is little surprise that he cannot get off the topic of the economy fast enough. But, for God's sake, can you at least talk about something productive?

William Ayers? Is that all you got? A man that may have done something bad when Obama was 8 years old. At man that was cleared of charges when Obama was 14 and lived in Hawaii. A man that has since been a law abiding citizen and a professor at the University of Illinois. A man that Obama did not meet until long after his radical past. A man that Obama barely knows even today. That is the best you can do?

While the rest of the country wants to know how they will find work and how they will pay the mortgage and how they will buy perscriptions, McCain wants to talk about some guy from the 60s that was never convicted of any crime and lives on the same street as Obama. Let's focus here.

Now, to be fair, Obama has also lauched his own handful of dirt. It was just a matter of time before the Keating Five got mentioned. I would have preferred the Obama camp said nothing or just let it leak through other sources rather than producing a 13 minute video, but what goes around comes around. Let's compare.

With William Ayers you have a man that purportedly did something wrong years before he met Obama. He was never convicted of anything and has since made a respectable life for himself. The man is outspoken yes, but having strong opinions is what the first ammendment allows. McCain's claim tries to link Obama to events that transpired long before Obama ever met the man.

With Charles Keating you have a man that was convicted several times of financial crimes and has served time in prison. While Keating was commiting those crime and while he was on trial, McCain and four other senators engaged in questionable dealings with him. McCain was found to have not done anything wrong except showing 'poor judgement'. On any other day I would say this is not even news worthy, but if you are going to draw some fuzzy line between Obama and a man that was never convicted of anything, should we now also draw a line between McCain and a man who was?

Where Obama didn't even know William Ayers while he was supposedly doing the things that he was never tried for, McCain was directly related to the man that was convicted of crimes and McCain was himself put under review for his actions. The double standard that McCain is trying to use is ludicrous.

With that mud slinging aside, can we please get back to the real issues?