My Recent Blog Posts

I haven't been posting much over here lately. Most of my recent posts have been over at DailyKos. Click here if you want to see some of my more recent writings.

Nice New Ad By John Edwards

The Cost of War

This video will just make you shake your head in disgust or make you angry at the stupidity of unnecessary armed conflict.

Toy Soldiers

I originally entitled this post "Outrage of the Decade." I have since thought that the current title is more appropriate for the story.

Wounded Soldier: Military Wants Part Of Bonus Back:

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ―

The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.

He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.

Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.

It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.

He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.

If the Pentagon wants their money back, then give the soldiers their original limbs back. And their mental health back. And the time they lost with their families back.

I guess this is how the Bush Administration interprets "Supporting the Troops."

Speechless

I apologize for not posting. If it's not one thing, it's another. My computer was having problems with random access memory this time. I think it's fixed now. I think.

I've also been doing a lot of reading and thinking; and spending my weekends traveling and cleaning.

I am back to posting about one of the issues that got me to start this blog: health care. Michael Moore has started a new web site SickoCure.org wherein he is trying to start an organized movement to pressure candidates for national office into taking a stand for universal health care.

A question for Hillary Clinton:


A question for Barack Obama:


A question for John Edwards:


And the Daily Kos has a new post today regarding Americans and Britons going overseas to India and other parts of Asia for cheaper health care. From the post:

You don't have to go far to find someone - George Bush, for instance - who will spout the typical propaganda: America has "the best health care system in the world." True enough if you're a Congressperson or hoi oligoi who can afford to pay for treatment at one of the nation's top medical centers. But, compared with other nations in the developed world, the U.S. does a rotten job of delivering good care to hoi polloi. As plenty of us know firsthand, even Americans with fairly decent health coverage often find it hard to get the treatment the "best health care system in the world" should be providing. When it comes to delivery, the American health care system is ... an outrage.

Garry Kasparov on Real Time With Bill Maher

This one has real substance discussed. Maher's comment about needing the KGB at the beginning referred to a group of protester's at his show disrupting the program. They were conspiracy theorists who allege that the World Trade Center's tower #7 had to have been brought down by demolition explosives and Maher had called these people crazy on a previous program. Maher had to have security people called in to remove them.

Garry Kasparov on the Colbert Report

Not much of substance was discussed.

Best line:

Kasprov: "In chess there are rules. In Russian politics there are no rules."

Both Stephen Colbert and Garry Kasparov have new books on the market.

Congress Seeks To Limit White Collar Prosecutions

From the story U.S. Prosecutors Say New Limits May Help Future Enrons Go Free:

Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. businesses, with the help of civil libertarians, are on the verge of outmaneuvering federal prosecutors and persuading Congress to limit the government's power to pursue corporate fraud.

Lawmakers are considering a measure that would, among other things, bar the government from demanding that companies reveal confidential talks with their lawyers in order to win leniency in plea deals. It would also prohibit federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, from demanding that companies fire or cut off legal support for employees under investigation.

Such tools were crucial in helping prosecutors pry loose valuable information in hard-to-prove cases against WorldCom Inc. and Enron Corp. Curtailing them may mean fewer such investigations in the future, putting investors more at risk.

``Pre-Enron, U.S. attorneys never brought these cases, and after this bill is passed, they will quit bringing them again,'' says Lynn Turner, a former SEC accounting chief. ``This is a very clear message from Congress: Don't touch white-collar criminals.''

The Justice Department's guidelines for corporate cases were crafted as it and the SEC sought to cope with the explosion of financial scandals early this decade by offering companies leniency in exchange for cooperation.

That typically means a company reports potential illegality, conducts its own internal probe and waives the attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors say they need such confidential information to ensure against cover-ups and, if necessary, help them freeze assets that might otherwise be hidden or squandered.

No Secret

``It's no secret that cooperation from defendants of all types is a very effective tool we need to use in getting the bad guys,'' says Karin Immergut, U.S. attorney in Oregon and head of a Justice Department white-collar crime committee.

Immergut says the waiving of attorney-client privilege played a vital role in the prosecution of former Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ebbers for the $11 billion WorldCom fraud --he's now serving a 25-year prison term -- and helped the government locate and seize $80 million in cash from financier Martin Armstrong, who pleaded guilty in an investor fraud.

Company documents aided accounting probes at Enron and Adelphia Communications Corp., and helped convict 11 former executives in connection with a $67 million fraud at online real-estate seller Homestore Inc., the Justice Department says.

...

Mobilizing

In the absence of an all-out defense by the department, prosecutors on the front lines are mobilizing to fight the legislation. ``This bill would certainly make it harder for prosecutors to protect victims and the investing public,'' says Immergut. Pointing out that drug defendants are routinely asked to waive their rights if they want leniency, she asks why executives deserve special treatment.

``I frankly find it kind of baffling that people are proposing legislation that protects corporations and corporate officers like CEOs more than other individuals,'' she says.

I think this just shows you who our elected officials really work for. Do you ever get the feeling that it is their own self-interest they are voting on?

Relief Bill for Homeowners Passes House

Relief Bill for Homeowners Advance

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Financial relief for homeowners facing foreclosure or in bankruptcy advanced in the House Thursday when the House approved legislation to help financially strapped homeowners.

The bill, passed by a 386-to-27 vote, would give a tax break to homeowners who have mortgage debt forgiven as part of a foreclosure or renegotiation of a loan. No taxes would be owed on the value of any debt forgiven or written off. Currently such debt forgiveness is taxable income.

While the measure is anticipated to reduce taxes of some strapped homeowners by $650 million, the cost to the government would be offset in part by limiting a tax break available on the sale of second homes.

...

The House vote was the latest congressional reaction to a mortgage crisis touched off this spring by a blowup in high-priced home loans for risky borrowers, throwing a pall over the economy. Foreclosures are at record highs and late payments are spiking. Lenders have been forced out of business and investors have taken huge financial hits.

An estimated 2 million to 2.5 million adjustable-rate mortgages - worth some $600 billion - will jump from low initial "teaser" rates to higher rates this year and next. Steep prepayment penalties have made it difficult for some to get out of their mortgages, and some overstretched homeowners can't afford to refinance or sell their homes.

To help offset the $650 million in tax revenue, the legislation makes it harder to get breaks on capital gains taxes for the sale of second homes. The White House supports the measure but wants mortgage relief to be in effect three years, not permanent as approved in the House. Bush also is opposed to limiting tax breaks on the sale of second homes.

The Mortgage Bankers Association expressed strong support for the bipartisan tax-relief bill but fiercely criticized another measure, opposed by Republicans on a House Judiciary subcommittee that narrowly approved passing it to the full committee.

That measure, which faces a contentious future in Congress, would revise the bankruptcy code to aid homeowners facing default and foreclosure. If enacted, it would further trim profits at hard-hit mortgage lenders.

The bill would allow judges to order mortgage lenders to ease terms for homeowners in bankruptcy proceedings. Currently, mortgage lenders can foreclose against a homeowner in default 90 days after a bankruptcy filing.

Mortgage lenders would be "terrified" of getting wrapped up in bankruptcy proceedings, said Brian Gardner, a research analyst with investment firm Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

The MBA said in a statement: "Lenders will have no choice but to move to foreclosure right away to ensure that they are not covered by the onerous provisions of this bill. In the longer term, investors and speculators who overpaid for homes at the height of the housing bubble will have an incentive to file for bankruptcy, walk away from the loan and property, and reap an undeserved windfall."

The tax-relief bill is H.R. 3648.

The bankruptcy-related bill is H.R. 3609.

In response to the MBA, so the MBA should reap a windfall for engaging in what they knew -- or, at least, should have known -- was an overheated market (that they helped create)? Secondly, if you are in bankruptcy, where is the "windfall?" After all, isn't that a risk that lenders take when they make loans?

John Dean: The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism

John Dean has written the third part in his three part series on Authoritarian Conservatism. Here is a snippet:

Nixon created the "imperial presidency." After the public rejected that concentration of power, in the aftermath of Watergate, Reagan restored the imperial presidency in another guise. Now, Bush and Cheney have created the post-imperial presidency. Using the threat of terrorism as their justification, Bush and Cheney have embraced the so-called "unitary executive theory" - which, in truth, is merely another term for an authoritarian presidency.

I have been saying the same thing for a quite a while.

Whose Entitlement Mentality?

David Brooks in his column last Friday in the New York Times, wrote a column entitled The Entitlements People. I am going to respond to some of his statements (and the general underlying presumptions of his argument). Let's start with an alarmist statement:

The U.S. government has $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities, or $350,000 for every taxpayer. Standard & Poor’s projects that in 2012, the U.S. will lose its AAA bond rating.

The current Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is about $13 trillion. How these unfunded liabilities are supposed to equal over three times the entire annual U.S. economy is beyond me. Total tax revenues in 2006 equaled $2.4 trillion. The unfunded liabilities are supposed to equal almost 20 times annual tax revenues? Somehow that doesn't compute, either.

In a web post by a group called The Social Security Network entitled The "Unfunded Liabilities" Ruse who was responding to a USA Today article claiming that the U.S. Government would have a $53 trillion unfunded liability in the next four years in October 2004:

All of the grotesquely huge unfunded liability numbers spouted by scare mongers depend on forecasts that go out many decades, often hundreds of years. Such forecasts routinely go beyond the point where we could have any firm knowledge of what to expect. Of course, it is technically very easy to trace the implications of assumptions about future productivity, birth and immigration rates, labor force participation levels, and various costs over the next 20, 50, or even 1,000 years. These assumptions have implications for the age structure of the population, the rate of economic growth, and the cost of various government programs. Plugging those assumptions into a spreadsheet can tell us precisely how much Social Security or Medicare will cost us, extrapolated to eternity, if we like.

The problem is that over such long time horizons, small differences in those assumptions compound to huge variations in forecasts. If something (say health care costs) is growing faster than something else (say incomes) and we assume that this continues indefinitely, then eventually, what is growing fast will swamp what is growing slowly. That's arithmetic, not policy analysis.

Here it is in 2007 and now that number has shrunk to $43 trillion in Brook's column. Another assumption is that taxes will not be raised and/or inflation will not cause revenues to increase to meet those obligations. Again, from The "Unfunded Liabilities" Ruse post linked above:

The notion of "unfunded liabilities" in certain programs is based on the arbitrary assumption that certain designated revenue sources should pay for certain classes of government expenditures. The story that Social Security and Medicare should be paid for out of payroll taxes and their trust funds is not a recent creation of critics of those systems. It has been around for decades. But why? Revenues and expenditures are "fungible," meaning that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. In fact, today's Social Security surplus flows right into the pot with other revenues, while a significant portion of Medicare costs already are paid for out of general revenue. The real question is not "will the designated revenues be enough to pay for the designated programs" but "will we have enough income to afford to keep the promises we have made?"

There is no question that the nation's gross domestic product will be sufficient to meet all of our Social Security promises forever, leaving lots of income for increasing the prosperity of the young. In general, the outlook for economic growth is good. Our average income per person in 100 years is likely to be much, much higher than it is today (more than four times as high). Social Security benefits are predicted to rise from about 4.5 percent of our GDP to about 6.6 percent over the next century. Even though such long predictions are very uncertain, this one should leave us sanguine: if incomes in 100 years are only twice their present level, and incomes of the old rise from 4.5 to 6.6 percent of income, that still leaves us with $1.96 for every dollar we have today, after Social Security obligations are taken care of. We can continue to keep our modest Social Security promises, and young families still will be much better off than families are today.

I agree with the conclusion The "Unfunded Liabilities" Ruse makes when they say:

Imagine if in 1950, someone had calculated the costs of educating the baby boomers in public institutions through their college years. What an immense, unmanageable burden! And nothing-not a penny-had been set aside by 1950 to cover the costs of public universities in the 1960s and 1970s! Using the logic of unfunded liabilities that has fueled alarmist media stories, public universities should have been closed; education should have been left to the private sector.

Yet nobody ever claimed in the 1950s and 1960s that the education of the Baby Boomers was an excessive burden our society, or that our public institutions could not afford to accept the challenge. When we needed more schools, we built them. Why should the Boomers' retirement be unmanageable? We need to strengthen social insurance for old people, and we will be able to afford it.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I still think that many Americans would take advantage of Social Security as a full pension if they understood how unsecure their current pensions are.

I also want to focus on something else Brooks wrote:

Democrats vow to pay for their grand spending plans by raising taxes on the rich, even though each one percent increase in the top tax rate only produces $6 billion in revenue.

It's nice how he limits the question only to the top tax rate of income taxes. As I have pointed out before, the rich often don't pay income taxes. As Warren Buffett has tried to point out, people in his class almost always pay far lower capital gains taxes (which makes up most of their incomes). I'm curious how much an increase in the capital gains rate to, say, 30% (i.e. doubling the rate) would have on revenues. Tax revenues from capital gains were roughly $80 billion in 2005. Even if we assume that raising the rate would have some adverse effect on tax revenues, I think that $120 billion in revenue per year would not be out of the question. That would be an increase of $40 billion per year.

I think one of the problems is that even as inflation has caused incomes to rise, the payroll tax has not extended beyond $120,000 and taxes on the investor (wealthy) class is too low (even Warren Buffett agrees with this). Instead, it appears that Congress is content to sock it to the middle class through inflation's effect on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Another major problem is that we are not paying for the government we know we need. The fact that tax revenues don't pay for the government that our elected representatives allocated ought to be a clue that tax revenues are lacking somewhere. Deficit spending is only supposed to take place during war or economic distress according to Keynesian theory. The debt is then supposed to be paid back when the economy rebounds or when the war is over. But we seem to be in a perpetual cycle of government deficit and ever-increasing government debt obligations.

The fact is that all government is nothing more than a very large service-based industry. Whatever services we deem necessary need to be paid for. With a $9 trillion national debt, we are obviously not paying for the services that we are utilizing.

I guess we all just feel entitled.

Garry Kasparov on 60 Minutes

The Kasparov Revolution.

World chess champion Garry Kasparov is leading the political opposition against Vladimir Putin's government. It may be his hardest match ever. Steve Kroft reports. Click on the link above to watch the video.

The Psychology of Right-Wing Authoritarianism

John Dean is in the process of writing a three part series explaining part of his new book Conservatives Without Conscience. Something he wrote struck me:

The Followers: Right-Wing Authoritarians

In addition to being especially submissive to established authority, Altemeyer's research revealed that those he calls right-wing authoritarians also show "general aggressiveness" towards others, when such behavior is "perceived to be sanctioned" by established authorities. Finally, these people are always highly compliant with the social conventions endorsed by society and established authorities. These basic traits, submissiveness to authority and conventionality, are the essence of those Altemeyer describes as right-wing authoritarians. If these traits are not present in some significant (albeit varying) degree, he does not consider the subject to be a right-wing authoritarian. However, these people can, and often do, consistently reveal they have many other interesting traits as well.

Based on Altemeyer's study, as well as those of other social psychologists, I prepared a list of the additional traits that these personalities, both men and women who test high as right-wing authoritarians, often evidence: highly religious, moderate to little education, trust untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions other than their own), mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical toward their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent and contradictory, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive, demands loyalty and returns it, little self-awareness, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican.

The Leaders: Social Dominators

People who test high as social dominators are also economically conservative and have little tolerance for equality. They consistently agree when asked about statements such as the following: "Some people are just more worthy than others"; "This country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people were"; and "To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others." In addition, they will respond in the negative to the proposition that "All humans should be treated equally." (In fact, they are given many more questions when tested; I am merely providing a very small sample.)

Again, I have prepared a listing of the traits revealed in the testing of these remarkably manipulative and cunning personalities, who are typically men: dominating, opposes equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheats to win, highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tells others what they want to hear, takes advantage of "suckers," specializes in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican.

These lists of traits for both right-wing authoritarian followers, and social dominating authoritarian leaders, should be understood as not necessarily describing every person who falls into the type. While many have all the traits, not all will have all, or even most, of them. Most people who test high as authoritarians, whether followers or leaders, have some of these traits, however.

What struck me at first was a sense that many of these qualities seemed to be similar to that of a psychopath or sociopath ("amoral," "pitiless"). John Dean says he calls people who exhibit all of these traits Conservatives Without Conscience. That may be fitting because we often call people who are amoral and have no conscience as sociopaths. However, I admit I may be overreading this.

I've mentioned Altmeyer's work before. But I am still digesting this commentary. However, John Dean's column is worth a read. You can find his prior columns here.

Presidential Health Care Politics

Here is a quote from Paul Krugman's commentary today in the New York Times entitled Health Care Hopes

As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect cruelly but accurately puts it: “The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don’t have — and can’t get — on their taxes.”

This is actually a less funny version of Stephen Colbert's take on the issue in response to President Bush's State of the Union Address.

Krugman continues:

But the G.O.P. nominee, whoever he is, won’t be trying to persuade the public of the merits of his own plan. Instead, he’ll try to scare the dwindling fraction of Americans who still have good health insurance by claiming that the Democrats will take it away.

The smear-and-fear campaign has already started. The Democratic plans all bear a strong resemblance to the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, differing mainly in offering Americans additional choices. But that didn’t stop Mr. Romney from denouncing the Clinton plan as “European-style socialized medicine.” And Fred Thompson claims that the Clinton plan denies choice — which it actually offers in abundance — and relies on “punishment” instead.

These attacks probably won’t be effective enough to prevent a Democrat from winning next year. But that won’t be the end of the story: even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.

But Krugman succinctly gives a voice to why I am reticent to support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary:

That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

Blognetnews.com Ranks Satellite Sky Among Most Influential Political Blogs

You can see the ranking here.

Okay, I'm only #16, but at least I'm on the list!

National Debt Madness

Paulson Asks Congress to Lift Debt Limit

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday the government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1.

He sought quick action to increase the limit, saying it was essential to protect the "full faith and credit" of the country, especially at a time of financial market turmoil.

The limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise it, the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due.

Actually having tax rates reflect what government services we have decided we need would be such a terrible thing, don't you know. According to the neoconservatives, borrowing and spending (and paying interest on the resulting debt) is far preferable to, you know, actually paying for it responsibly. Now if we could just get the Democrats to get a spine and stand up to the fiscally irresponsible neoconservatives, maybe we could actually have real discussion on what this country can really afford.

The real reason the neoconservative Republicans want to keep raising the national debt is to eliminate social spending through the Starve the Beast plan.

It really comes down to a values question of "guns vs. butter." I am curious if anyone has ever studied the return on investment of foreign entanglements where we try to acquire natural resources through military engagement vs. taking that same money and plowing it into America's infrastructure and alleviation of social ills. I think that we promote too much conflict in this world. There is too much spending on "guns" and not enough on "butter."

Moral Hazard Hypocrisy

Conservatives love to argue against national healthcare on moral hazard grounds; but somehow we taxpayers and the Federal Reserve are supposed supposed to bail out educated, smart, wealthy and powerful people when they take they know -- or should know -- are excessively risky financial instruments.

Here is a snippet from Robert Reich's excellent post:

When it comes to risky behavior in the market, America has a double standard. We’re told that economic risk-taking as the key to entrepreneurial success, but when big entrepreneurs take big risks that fail it’s amazing how often they get bailed out. Indeed, the history of modern American business is littered with federal bailouts, loan guarantees, and no-questions-asked reorganizations. Some are well known, such as the Chrylser bailout of 1979, the savings and loan bailout of 1989, and the airline bailout of 2001. Most occur in the relative dark, such as the 1998 bailout of giant hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (courtesy of former Fed chair Alan Greenspan), the not infrequent bailouts of under-funded corporate pension plans by the government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, price supports for big agribusinesses facing market downturns, or the current bailout of Wall Street being engineered by Ben Bernanke’s Fed. Behind every one of these bailouts are CEOs or financial executives who were rescued from their bad bets.

Mr. Reich has a new book out called Supercapitalism.

John Edwards Proposes Regulation of Credit Cards

From Business Week:

As President, what would you do to help middle-class Americans reduce credit- card debt and help lower-income people avoid getting trapped by predatory credit-card lenders?

What we're going to do is restore balance in the credit-card market. I am proposing a Borrower's Security Act that would do the following: first, require credit-card companies to disclose the true cost of making only minimum payments, as many consumers do. Second, I would restore a 10-day grace period before imposing late fees and penalty rates. Third, apply interest-rate increases to future balances only. And fourth, end the practice of universal default, where a creditor can change a borrower's terms based on their debt payments to other creditors. We also need a new consumer protection commission, which I would call the Family Savings & Credit Commission, whose job it'll be to review all the financial services products that are being marketed to families and ensure that the terms are reasonable and fairly disclosed. [The commission would] oversee all types of financial institutions whether chartered under federal or state law.

The more John Edwards says, the more I like about his candidacy . . . and the closer I get to solidifying my support for him. He is the one candidate that seems to be really honing in on economic policies that are the most critical for the middle and lower classes. He may not have Hillary Clinton's money, and he may not have as much charisma as Barack Obama, but he is hitting every issue that I care about.

Read the entire interview for other bold proposals from John Edwards.

What's Wrong With America and What Will You Do About It?

I like the question asked and the answer given. We must answer this question to determine who we are as a people. It is central to our value system as a country.

Retro vs. Metro

Prior to the last election cycle, a website that sought to explain the division in American electoral politics cropped up.

Retro America’s commonalities are religiosity; social conservatism; an economic base of extraction industries, agriculture, nondurable goods manufacturing, military installations; and a commitment to the Republican Party.

Metro American states are loosely held together by common interests in promoting economic modernity and by shared cultural values marked by religious moderation; vibrant popular cultures; a tolerance of differences of class, ethnicity, tastes, and sexual orientation; and a tendency to vote Democratic.

In a great macro sense, it explains a lot. But even in Retro America, things are starting to change. Voting patterns based on old "extraction" industries are not as strong as they once were. The advent of the internet has made even people in rural America aware of the need for their children to have a better education and understanding of the world around them. And many people from rural areas are not as keen on the war in Iraq as they once were. The reality of the loss of loved ones in a foreign land with no perception of greater security for the country is eroding their faith in the President who says it's necessary to stop terrorism.

The economic hardships brought on by massive debts -- from medical debts to mortgages -- are breaking down the commitment to conservative free market political alliances.

Certainly these people are not becoming "Metro" in their worldview. They still have their traditional values; but there is also a realization that their children have to eat. With their relatively low incomes getting eaten away by real inflation and debt, more and more Retro voters are starting to question the wisdom of continuing to vote with a political party that supports narrow wealthy interests -- especially when it is against their own interests.

Traditionally, the conventional wisdom says that people vote their pocketbook. Does this explain why Metro political groups seem to be gaining strength? It also seems to be true that progressive faith-based organizations seem to be winning the war of ideas within the politically active faithful.

All in all, the Retro vs. Metro explanation of American political voting patterns is not as strong as it once was.