Edward's Big Plan

John Edwards is, once again, right on his priorities but ridiculously wrong on his policies.

He has correctly recognized the national shame that is the U.S.'s poverty rate. His solutions, though, are raising taxes, instituting minimum wage laws, and reducing incentives for investing in American business. The results will be higher employment, reduced growth in living conditions, and a dramatic decrease in economic growth.

What is disconcerting is that Edwards seems to be falling into the Socialist trap of viewing the resources traded in the worldwide economy as somehow being of a fixed quantity. The greatest contribution of Capitalism is to expand development of resources. When you are over0taxing those who are in a position to hasten the development of resources, you reduce the amount of resources in the system. When you disincentive investment and development, you reduce the ability to grow our resources.

The way to cure poverty is not through continued entitlement programs. Johnson started us on this track 40 years ago and we've spent tens of trillions of dollars and have gotten nearly nothing: poverty rate among working-aged adults has only gone down a tiny amount and the poverty rate among children has increased.

The way to cure poverty is by attacking the root causes of poverty while aggressively working to expand jobs.

Edwards plans big for presidency
Candidate: Sacrifice must be priority, too
The Concord Monitor

John Edward says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."

"It is central to what I want to do as president to do something about economic inequality. I do not believe it is okay for the United States of America to have 37 million people living in poverty," he said in a meeting with Monitor reporters and editors this week. "And I think we need, desperately need, a president who will say that to America and call on America to show their character."

At every stop, Edwards said, he tells voters he'll ask them to sacrifice. Asked to describe what he means, he described his plan for increases in capital gains taxes, saying taxes on "wealth income" should be in line with those on work income.

"I think if we want to fund the things that I think are important to share in prosperity, then people who have done well in this country, including me, have more of a responsibility to give back," he said. Later, he added: "There are no free meals." Like other Democrats, Edwards named his top three priorities as ending the war in Iraq, enacting universal health care and and overhauling the American energy system. "Those are three things instantly I would do," he said.

Edwards might be the best candidate for the Dems

ABC News has a report about an attack by Edwards on Clinton. His best quote, and he's right on with this:

There was a story in today's New York Times about this issue and about her vote on this issue. And some of her advisers said that she voted yes because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I may be wrong, and you'll have to tell me, have we already decided who's going to win the New Hampshire primary?...Instead of primary mode versus general election mode, instead of saying one thing in the primary and something different for the general election, how about if we do tell the truth mode all the time. How about if we say exactly what we believe and stand by that position.

He also skewers her for saying she feels that the solution to the money-in-politics issue is public campaign financing while she continues to eschewing public campaign financing.

He may be completely and utterly unqualified for the office, but John Edwards continues to strike me as the best of the candidates for the Democrat's nomination.

Edwards Attacks Clinton on Questionable Contributions
Political Radar on ABC News

After an article in Friday's "Los Angeles Times" revealed that Clinton received large donations from poor residents living in New York City's Chinatown, the Edwards campaign pounced on the opportunity to bring more attention to the questionable contributions.

"This morning we all read in L.A. Times that many Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again. Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said in a statement on Friday.

"Senator Clinton has said public financing is the answer. Senator Edwards has opted to take public financing, but Senator Clinton has not. Senator Clinton should explain why she doesn't mean what she says...The bottom line is we need a nominee who can do two things: campaign in all 50 states and challenge our broken system in Washington. With every day

the growing question has to be can Hillary Clinton do either?"

Last Sunday while campaigning in New Hampshire, Edwards sought to bring Clinton down a notch by pointing to a story "The New York Times that explained the New York Senator's vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Obama's more qualified for President because he served in state government...?

Senator Barack Obama has come out and indicated that despite his 2 1/2 years as a Senator, he's more qualified than either Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards because he's spent more time in elected office. Technically, he has, but this is far from reassuring...

Am I the only one concerned that the three top candidates for the Democratic nomination have, combined:

17 years in Federal legislative office
0 years in executive office at any level
0 years in legislative leadership experience at any level
0 years in party leadership experience at any level
0 years in military experience at any level
0 years in corporate management experience
0 years in ambassadorial positions

People talk about George W. Bush's lack of experience, but at least he was a two-term Governor, had run a company, and was a military officer (even if it was the National Guard, it is at least something). In comparison, Senator Clinton has 8 1/2 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend her. Senator Edwards has 6 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend him. Senator Obama has 2 1/2 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend him.

It just shocks me that other Democrats aren't doing better. There are dozens of current and former Democratic Governors, dozens of Democratic Senators and Congressmen with more than 8 years of experience, dozens of Democrats who were ambassadors, and a fair number of former Congressional leaders and former Executive department heads. Why aren't we even considering any of these much more qualified individuals?

For Obama, It's Now or Never
ABC News

ABC News' Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, said Wednesday that this may be his last change at running for president.

Asked if his '08 bid was just a strategic move to position himself for a run in 2012, Obama said he didn't think his wife would allow him to run again if it doesn't work out this time.

"Well, I'm not sure - I don't think my wife's going to let me do this twice. So let me be clear about that," Obama said while campaigning in Iowa.

Obama also sought to answer charges from his Democratic rivals that he is too inexperienced to be president, by pointing to his experience in the Illinois state legislature.

"I've been in elected office longer than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton," said Obama. "I've passed more bills I'm sure than either of them - certainly in the state legislative level."

Brian Dickerson on Geoffrey Fieger

In yesterday's Freep, Brian Dickerson calls Geoffrey Fieger a "courtroom Robin Hood...championing the rights of the downtrodden."

Umm...no. He strikes me as an opportunist who preys on the downtrodden, using legal tactics often found by appeals courts to be illicit, and receives headline-grabbing jury awards, even though the vast majority of them are struck down on appeal. His care doesn't appear to be for the individual plaintiffs he represents; it comes across as trying to make a quick buck on the occasional big-time award that doesn't get struck down, even if it appears that he knows that his idiotic tactics are going to screw over the vast majority of his clients.

Fieger plots a wide-angle legal defense
Detroit Free Press

Is Geoffrey Fieger a courtroom Robin Hood who has earned the powerful political interest by championing the rights of the downtrodden?

Or is he a multimillionaire businessman who has surreptitiously used his considerable wealth to magnify his own political clout?

The only reasonable conclusion, for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade or so, is that Michigan's best-known trial attorney is both.

But now that the U.S. Justice Department has him in its crosshairs, Fieger's freedom may depend on his ability to convince jurors that he is more the victim of a political vendetta than the legitimate target of a campaign to cleanse campaign finance.

Even liberal media won't give Fieger a break

The liberal Detroit Free Press has conducted an investigation into the Federal Justice Department's methods for investigating illegal campaign contributions over the past five years. They have found other instances where charges were filed, including charges against Republicans. This clearly disproves Geoffrey Fieger's assertion that this is a crime that is never punished and goes a long way to disprove his ridiculous charge that this is selective prosecution.

Fieger not the first targeted for giving
Detroit Free Press

WASHINGTON - Defense contractors. A toy company. A coordinator for a senior residence in Florida.

Those are among the people the U.S. Justice Department has charged with making illegal campaign contributions in the last five years.

This week, Southfield lawyer Geoffrey Fieger and his law partner Vernon Johnson responded to charges that they illegally reimbursed employees for $127,000 in contributions to former Sen. John Edwards' 2004 Democratic presidential campaign by saying they were singled out for political prosecution.

But a Free Press analysis Wednesday of more than a dozen campaign finance cases initiated by the Justice Department since George W. Bush became president in 2001 indicates that, while such prosecutions might not be routine, they do occur.

And charges have been brought against Republican supporters as well as those who gave to Democrats.

John Edwards claims environmental credentials

Despite driving an SUV, flying around the country in a private jet, and heating a 30,000 square foot home - including its full-size, indoor basketball court - John Edwards' campaign has the audacity to claim that he's "conserving at home." Of course, his campaign hides behind the idea that he's buying "carbon offsets" and this is his purchased indulgence. There's no reason he couldn't be content with, say, a nice compact sedan for his small family or a comparably reasonable 4,000 square foot house.

No matter what sort of hybrid engine he puts in his SUV or what sort of energy efficiency improvements he has for his 30,000 square foot house, he's still producing massively more pollution that the people to whom he is preaching environmental responsibility.

Edwards vs. the SUV
The Politico

Speaking to machinists in Florida today, John Edwards said he'd expect Americans to sacrifice their inefficient cars, and specifically to give up their SUVs, AP reports.

But campaigning turns out to be a pretty high-carbon practice. All the candidates ride around, particularly in Iowa, in big cars - Hillary rode an 18-wheeler; Obama rented an RV; and Edwards, whose convoy is often mini-van centric, had this Cadillac SRX Crossover beside him in Iowa on his arrival from announcing his candidacy for president in New Orleans, according to his Flikr stream.

Actually, Edwards isn't anti-SUV - he seems to be quite consciously avoiding the trap of appearing to demand that Americans drive only Trabants. His spokesman says he drives a hybrid SUV, the Ford Escape, at home in North Carolina, though the AP reported in April that the family has an SUV and a small truck as well.

His website says "Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck, or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy."

Edwards: I'll keep my 30,000 square foot mansion, you give up your VUE

John Edwards gave a speech this morning in which he asked Americans to give up their SUVs. He was, not surprisingly, mute on the question of whether a family of 4 really needs a 30,000 square foot mansion. At least he doesn't drive an SUV himself, right? Oh, wait...he does...

It's a hybrid, though, so it must be alright. I mean, after all, it does get 27 miles per gallon in highway driving.

Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs
North Carolina News ABC 13

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

Edwards got a standing ovation when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He says tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.

He says jobs that provide equipment for America's defense need to be made in the United States.

Who's nostaligic?

You know, for someone who says he is against "outdated answers...rooted in nostalgia", John Edwards sure seems inclined to support outdated answers.

His answer for the poverty rate in America? Tax the rich, give to the poor, despite evidence that this has not decreased poverty.

His answer for fighting global warming? Apply economic hurdles to the auto industry, despite evidence that this has not decreased total emissions.

His answer for health care? Apply a government-run HMO like they have in France, the U.K., and Canada, despite evidence that this has not increased overall health care quality.

I'm in complete agreement with Edwards' priority on these topics. However, while his priorities on these (as well as on education) are in the right place, his methods are exactly the sorts of nostalgic, outdated answers that he's decrying. The answer to poverty is not transfer payments. The answer is improvements to education and economic growth, creating new jobs. The answer to the energy crisis is not mandating thousands of dollars of improvements to every car but investment in CNG, Fuelcell, and other future technologies while addressing the issue across all industries - switching from coal to nuclear power generation, dramatic improvements in home insulation requirements, movement to more energy efficient technologies like compact fluorescent bulbs and programmable thermostats - instead of focusing on one industry which is already highly efficient. The answer to health care is not scrapping a system which works for 85% of Americans but rather to refocus on how we spend money in emergency situations for the uninsured to give them a basic level of primary care to extend their lives, expand their quality of life, and to spend the same money more wisely.

Edwards slams Clinton, 'establishment elites'
CNN

WASHINGTON - John Edwards didn't mention a chief Democratic presidential rival by name, but it seemed clear whom the White House hopeful was targeting in a fiery speech Thursday in New Hampshire.

The former U.S. senator from North Carolina, who finds himself lagging significantly behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in most national polls, told New Hampshire voters to reject "establishment elites" and "outdated answers...rooted in nostalgia."

"The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't," Edwards said. "it's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt - and still is."

Clinton often touts the successes of her husband's administration on the campaign trail as does the former president.

But Edwards said that voters shouldn't replace "a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats." Seeming to take a page out of Republican talking points from the '90s, he added, "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate."

John Edward's poverty tour

Anthony Bradley’s analysis of John Edwards’ poverty initiatives is spot-on. Where he fails, however, is in addressing the issue fully.

He is absolutely correct in his analysis that having fathers involved in the lives of their children is a critical component in making sure those children stay out of poverty. Other than that, though, it’s bereft of alternate solutions.

America's poverty rate exceeds 18%, which is a national shame and embarrassment. Increased job opportunities, improvements in education, reduction of crime, and mentoring the youth to encourage the next generation to advance are all critical in the fight on poverty. Republican principals of economic development, personal responsibility, and reduction in crime can be instituted along side the existing support institutions to help people move to independence. Advocating policies which support job creation, reduced crime, improved education, and mentoring can solve the problems causing poverty, not just addressing its effects. Unlike the Democrat anti-poverty initiatives, which have shown decades of failure, investing money directly in the means to bring people out of poverty will result in a net increase of tax revenues as the people moving out of poverty get higher paying jobs and pay more in taxes than they received in benefits.

Edwards' poverty tour embraces failed policies
The Detroit News

The oft-quoted saying from the book of Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun," is especially true of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards' well-intentioned but misguided "poverty tour." Edwards' proposals to help the poor are nothing more than a remix of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" and, like those previous initiatives, miss the mark.

Edwards proposes to raise the minimum wage as high as $9.50 an hour from the current $5.85, strengthen labor laws and promote "responsible families." Government wealth redistribution schemes, more unions and expanded government social programming have not helped the poor in the past and will continue to fail the truly disadvantaged in the future.

Raising the minimum wage does not help the poor over the long term. As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation points out, a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut both the number of workers they hire and their employees' working hours, which reduces overall job opportunities for the poor. Economic research shows each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment by roughly 2 percent.

In addition, few minimum-wage earners actually come from poor households. Most minimum-wage earners tend to be in nonpoor groups, such as suburban teens.

Labor unions don't help the truly disadvantaged either. They pursue their own protectionist interests, which include minimum wage increases that make unskilled labor too expensive for employers.

John Edwards: I'd invest billions in Michigan

Interesting that it's John Edwards and not John Dingell making this proposal...

The U.S. government should invest billions to help Michigan become the hub for transforming the nation's energy economy, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday.

Speaking to more than 1,800 Democrats at the annual Jefferson Jackson dinner at Cobo Center in Detroit, Edwards said he'd like to see Michigan evolve.

"We should put billions of dollars into creation of the new technology and $1 billion should go right to the car companies," he said. "I don't want to see the cars of the future built anywhere else."

AP loves John Edwards

Translations from politispeak:

"Providing universal health care for all Americans": Instituting a single-payer insurance compensation system which will decrease health care for the upper and middle classes in order to provide equal medical care for all while eliminating incentives to create new medical techniques and medicines.

"Rebuilding America's middle class and eliminating poverty": Expanding entitlement programs, including into middle class, which is the most wealthy, most prosperous, and most inclusive it has been in any country at any point in history. (I have no idea how this is "rebuilding" America's middle class.)

"Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth." Increasing taxes on the 27% through 35% brackets and increasing taxes on capital gains. (I'm sure he can explain how it's fair that if my wife and I were making $30,000 a year we'd be paying about 5% of our income in Federal taxes but if we're making $100,000 a year we'd be paying about 15% of our income in Federal taxes and if we're making about $10,000,000 then we'd be paying about 1/3 of our income in taxes).

As an aside - only 1% of the Federal budget comes from people who make less than $30,000 a year, the nation's median income. Frankly, I'd be inclined to eliminate taxes on the first $30,000 of income if only to make people stop bitching about the taxes on the rich. Then again, I'm in favor of a simple tax structure. eliminate all of the stupid tax breaks/credits/etc. and go with the flat rate where all income, regardless of source, is taxed equally, something like:

0 to 30K 0 %
30K to 45K 10%
45K to 100K 25%
100K to 1mm 33%
over 1mm 37%