The argument goes that I can buy many things if not everything that I need online, why can’t I vote? This is much the argument that CNN made today. Unfortunately one cannot make this comparison and even if that comparison was valid, we still shouldn’t do it.

1. Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is.
2. It is inherently unfair to the poor.

Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is

In the case of ecommerce there is a level of risk that is taken by the seller, bank, and user.  That risk is managed but is far from perfect.  It also requires a fairly high level of personal data to be shared and yet is still not foolproof.  The estimated fraud rate is at 0.9% which is far higher than is allowed in voter counting error!  In addition, stores reject over 2% of all transactions.

In most municipalities, a recount can be justified if the race is within one percent.  If we would implement a system based on our existing ecommerce technologies that would force a recount if the vote was within 4 or 5% (1% for too close, 0.9% for fraud, 2.5% for obvious fraud).  Would you accept it if the voting system said it doesn’t believe that this you are a valid voter so it is rejecting it and you will now need to go to your voting booth even though it is 5:45PM.  You would almost certainly sign the petition of your candidate saying that you were denied the right to vote even though you were legitimate and therefore the votes should be recounted or invalidated.

Couple this with the safety and honesty of voting today. In the US, a voter can be harassed and beaten up before and after they enter the polls but once they walk into the building they are very safe.  Unless they specifically ask for assistance, they have no one looking over their shoulder. Even when they ask for assistance the process is usually two people of opposite parties help the individual to insure no undue influence is happening.  Contrast that to the activist preacher that has coffee and cookies at his house and invites all of his members to come over and use his computer to vote and is right there to help you with all of the intricacies including making sure you push the right radio buttons.

With ecommerce fraud, there is the transfer of goods, services, or money to the criminal.  This means that there are clues as to that criminal’s identity and potentially over time the police can catch that criminal.  With internet voting, it happens once or maybe twice per year and the transfer of wealth is extremely hard to connect.

The ecommerce systems also requires a huge amount of personal data that consumers are willing to share with their bank and their store but NOT their government.  Can you imagine the outcries if you were required to have a credit card or a bank account and a phone number to vote!  In the process of checking your credit card, the processing company can check to see if you are paying your bills – no way the government is going to get that right.

Until we allow a national identification system with biometrics, there really can be no online voting and you shouldn’t trust it if it was there.

It is inherently unfair to the poor

The bigger issue is that it is heavily biased to the rich and likely even the white voters. We already have complaints that internet access is difficult for poor and colored people (Jesse Jackson likes to talk about this in his speeches).

Without being too racist or too broadly generalized, rich white people that can afford to have lots of computers in their homes (1 plus for every adult for sure) could easily vote without having to brave the storms, ice, and cold.  It would almost certainly give them nearly 100% participation and they normally vote Republican or at least are more likely to vote Republican.

But what about the working stiff that is barely making minimum wage and therefore cannot afford to own a couple computers with high speed internet.  Let him brave the snow and ice. He is poor and generally speaking is a Democrat so make him go to the voting booth in the back of some school or church, wait in line, and fill out the manual forms that are reserved for the poor people.  The really travesty is that since there will be less rich people at the polls then we don’t need so many of those expensive polling machines and booths and we can have fewer polling locations. Those poor people can take the bus farther to vote.

So even when it is technically possible to vote online, until we can make the access to that voting infrastructure equal we shouldn’t do it. Thurgood Marshall taught us that “separate but equal” is never possible. We cannot make it easier to vote for the wealthy than it is for the poor. It probably already is slanted this way with access to transportation and more flexible work hours but at least all people, rich or poor, need to trudge to the same voting location to make their voice heard.

Related posts

• RANT! emails again – 1 of 2 (0)
• RANT! Airports and electricity (0)
• Polaroid – a testimony to bad management (0)
• AT&T is whining about the iPhone (0)

This is reprehensible conduct. What is worse is our support of a society that allows this. The US will give approximately $400M to Uganda in aid in 2010. We need to put strings on this money. It doesn’t come free. The recipients of this aid must not have laws that will cause more hardship to some of its citizens. We can enhance the benefit of that aid to more than just children that need medicine by requiring these countries to adopt standards that approximate the realities of human rights in the 21st century.

I understand that withholding aid to countries with low human rights ratings will hurt the most disadvantaged in that country. But, by providing aid to those that are disadvantaged we are also propping up and supporting the government of the country. We should not be friends with countries that have a low level of human rights standards.

What is even more disgusting is that it appears that some of this hatred was seeded by people from the US that say that they are Christians. This is not Christian behavior! I would write about these groups that instigated this behavior if I could find their names but the article only mentions them in one paragraph and then doesn’t delve into them in more detail.

A few paragraphs from the Washington Post:

The front-page newspaper story featured a list of Uganda’s 100 “top” homosexuals, with a bright yellow banner across it that read: “Hang Them.” Alongside their photos were the men’s names and addresses.

In the days since it was published, at least four gay Ugandans on the list have been attacked and many others are in hiding, according to rights activist Julian Onziema. One person named in the story had stones thrown at his house by neighbors.

A lawmaker in this conservative African country introduced a bill a year ago that would have imposed the death penalty for some homosexual acts and life in prison for others. An international uproar ensued, and the bill was quietly shelved.

But gays in Uganda say they have faced a year of harassment and attacks since the bill’s introduction.

The legislation was drawn up following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy they say allows gays to become heterosexual.

Related posts

• No related posts.

First, a bit about myself. I hate taxes. I know that I need to pay them. I know that I make a good living (not from this blog mind you) and I need to pay into the system more than some others that don’t work as hard as I work. I get all of that.

In general though, I don’t want to pay taxes and I definitely don’t want to pay MORE taxes. I would much prefer that the federal, state, and local governments do a better job of using my money wisely. I would also appreciate that my money is not transferred to someone that won’t work (strong distinction from “can’t work” and “can’t find work”). In fact, if an adult WON’T work then I am perfectly comfortable with that adult starving to death and dying. Probably my only regret in that scenario is that my tax dollars will likely have to go to bury his sorry body. I realize that this isn’t a very Christian attitude but, frankly, God gave that adult man or woman 2 legs, 2 arms and a brain to use to work – not to live off of the generosity of others.

Now, back to the President’s proposals. I just don’t get it. Something doesn’t make sense. According to CBS News:

President Barack Obama will call on Congress to pass new tax breaks that would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their new capital investments through 2011, the latest in a series of proposals the White House is rolling out in hopes of jump-starting economic growth ahead of the November elections.

An administration official said the tax breaks would save businesses $200 billion over two years, allowing companies to have more cash on hand. The president will outline the proposal during a speech on the economy in Cleveland, Ohio, on Wednesday.

I understand that part on a simplistic level. It makes perfect sense to me that if businesses don’t have to pay taxes on capital investments, they will be able to justify more money (the original money plus the tax money they didn’t have to spend) on capital investments. They might even spend more money on that as the internal return on that investment would be a little bit better without the tax overhead. This would potentially mean more purchases of goods by businesses which, in theory, would spark more jobs to be created.

However, according to the Washinton Post:

Corporate America is hoarding a massive pile of cash. It just doesn’t want to spend it hiring anyone.

Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers.

This means that the businesses are doing well, even if people are not doing well. So the President’s message is that we need to give these rich businesses an incentive to have them spend the money and that incentive will be taxes. I guess that makes sense. How about doing the reverse though? Why not tax them on the cash that they leave laying around and don’t invest? That way the US coffers don’t go down but actually might go up if they don’t spend it AND we get the benefit of increasing capital expenditures.  In fact, we might get MORE business spending with my plan. Why not heavily tax any cash that is in excess of last year’s cash reserves for the company.

It gets a bit more confusing. When it comes to people, the President feels the exact opposite as he does on businesses. He is fully okay with taxing a person more if they make more money. He wants to increase taxes on those that make a certain amount ($250K seems to be the magic number right now). This is exactly the opposite of what he is doing for businesses. For people he isn’t incenting them to spend more money to jumpstart the economy, he is simply taxing them for making more money. 

If a person last year made $220K and then had a great year and made $275K, the President wants to sock it to that enterprising citizen. He wants to charge him more for the right to be a US citizen and live in this great land. That 25% increase is going to drive that individual to pay a much higher rate of income tax. But not the company that is in the same city as the individual. That company has increased its cash by 25% (according to the article cited above) and it is receiving a tax break, not a tax bill.

How about a similar offer to people, Mr. President? How about you say that you don’t have to pay taxes on anything that you buy that generates manufacturing jobs in the US.  Buy a car – get a tax write-off for your down payment.  Buy a house – get a tax write-off for your down payment. Replace the windows in your house – no taxes on that money.  Buy a pizza – that isn’t taxable either. Even your latte at Starbuck’s should have no taxes if you treated people like you treat corporations. Buy a TV or computer manufactured in China though and you pay income taxes. Sorry Best Buy and Apple – you get screwed in my plan but not really since it just remains status quo for you. The people that benefit are the people that live within the borders of the land of the free and the brave.

Like I said above, I don’t like taxes. I know that there has to be some taxes because I want to have those brave soldiers that rescue ships that are attacked by pirates. But how about a little common sense and fair play when it comes to the tax burden.

Related posts

• Will Clinton take over as VP? (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)
• The continuing saga of the Illinois Senator (2)
• RANT! Tom Daschle on taxes – update (2)

Let’s face it – there should be no such thing as “too big to fail.” Most of us work for companies that are not in that category. If our employers screw up and the company goes down the tubes then we will individually hurt and perhaps the micro-economy around that company will hurt a bit but for the most part the US GDP won’t even see the speed bump. This is the way that it should be – screw up and fail then just pick yourself up and get on with life.

“Too big to fail” simply stinks of a type of monopoly. I know that monopoly prevention is usually about consumer rights and price gouging, but is this that far from where we are now? Isn’t consumer price gouging exactly what we just went through with the TARP program?  I know that my taxes feel like I am getting gouged! This is especially true when I know that I am paying way too much in taxes and that still doesn’t cover what the US government spends! If it is a choice between taxing me more and the US Government (and the state governments) spending more, than I know the choice that I want to make – cut the damn spending!

So what is my suggestion?

The FDIC was nice enough to give us a list of banks here. The first thing that I see is there are some BIG banks! How can these not be monopolistic when they are that much larger than banks that are ranked just 10 places below them.  We need some sanity here.

1. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be larger than double the size of the next smallest bank.
2. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be more than five times larger than a bank that is ranked 10 spots below it.
3. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be more than ten times larger than a bank that is ranked 20 spots below it.
4. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be more than twenty times larger than a bank that is ranked 40 spots below it.
5. The top 100 banks combined size cannot exceed double the combined size of the banks ranked 101-500.
6. No FDIC insured bank can have more than 10% of its ownership by a non-US entity.

Yes, I know that the title of this article only says 5 rules but the list has 6 rules. The last rule is simply to reduce our banking exposure to undue influence by foreign nationals. We need to realize that our banking and financial systems is just as much of a strategic US asset as our defense contractors. We want the decisions of our strategic institutions to be governed by good business intentions and not the political aspirations of a foreign body.

Because of all of this re-arrangement, we would have to do this with plenty of warning. I would suggest that the law wouldn’t take effect for 5 years after signing to give the banks time to adjust. Also, in the first 5 years after the law is in effect (years 6-10 after signing), the penalty should simply be a 1% fine for the amount of out of compliance the bank was in e.g. if a bank was too large by $1B than the fine would by $10M. After the first decade, a bank would be taken over by a government agency to accelerate their divestitures, existing management and board of directors would be fired (and forbidden to run a bank for 10 years), and then new management would be installed by the shareholders.

There would also need to be a grace period of perhaps 3 years if banks ranked lower than the bank in violation decreased their size by more than 10% in a year and that caused the non-compliance. We cannot punish one institution due to the acts of another. However, we can require them to adapt to the current situation within a reasonable time, I suggest 3 years.

What would this do for the financial institutions?

The first thing that would likely happen is that the banks below 500 would likely start to get bought up pretty rapidly by the banks that are 101-500.Also, the top 100 banks would start to divest portions of their business to other banks (or create new entities) so that they could balance out. It definitely would mean that the top 10 banks would get smaller relative to the next 20 banks. That is the point, they would no longer be too big to fail. While we wouldn’t want them to fail, we also wouldn’t be on the hook as taxpayers to fix their screw-ups.

With the built-in delays and grace periods, it would probably take 20 years to get to a better balance. That is okay. In the words of some great philosopher: haste makes waste. It took us several decades to get the current mess that we are in and if we try to adjust too quickly, we will screw it up.

I know that there will be a lot of nay-sayers that think this won’t work or some other way will work better. I am sure there are good ideas out there but any idea that still concentrates wealth in the hands of a dozen corporations is simply not a solution to the core problem. Those suggestions are only to take care of a problem that presented itself already – in other words they are a band-aid to an existing cut. My suggestion is that we know that injuries and mistakes will happen in the future (banks will always fail) but let’s not get in trouble as a nation because of the problem.

Related posts

• Time to talk about flat rate taxing (0)
• Tax plan just doesn’t seem to be fair (0)
• Companies say health care costs hard to swallow (0)

I am just aghast at how stupid these companies are. Current reports are that they didn’t install an “acoustic switch” on the well. From NewsInferno:

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded last week was not outfitted with a safety device that might have prevented the massive oil spill now nearing the U.S. Gulf Coast. The device, known as an acoustic switch, is a last-resort protection against underwater spills, and is required by regulators in Norway and Brazil. Unfortunately, the U.S. has no such regulation for oil wells operating off of its shores.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, an acoustic switch is a remote control device that a crew can use in an attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down a well that’s damaged. The switch is meant as a last resort, as the primary shut-off systems almost always work on wells when they are out of control. It can be triggered from a lifeboat if an oil platform has to be evacuated.

According to the Journal, U.S regulators did consider requiring the acoustic switch on offshore wells, but drilling companies resisted because of its cost, and questions about its effectiveness. To be fair, the switches have never been tested in real-world situations, only simulations. U.S. regulators also maintain they are prone to causing unnecessary shutdowns.

Are these guys just plain stupid.  Didn’t they see Jurasic Park where the pessimistic mathematician, Ian Malcolm, talks about if something can go wrong then it will go wrong?

BP AND ITS KIN SHOULD HAVE BACKUP SYSTEMS FOR THE BACKUP SYSTEMS THAT ARE BACKING UP THE BACKUP SYSTEMS.  IF THEY DON’T HAVE 6 FOOLPROOF WAYS OF TURNING OFF A BROKEN WELL THEN THEY SHOULDN’T DRILL!

Related posts

• Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists (0)
• Don’t drink from hotel glasses or coffee cups (1)
• Video: Fish killing oil comes on shore (0)
• Healthcare for illegals (0)
• BP is down – should they get a bailout? (2)

I agree with their policy of charging for carry-on luggage.

I am sick and tired of getting to the airplane on time, quickly and efficiently getting to my seat with my one computer bag, settling in with a good magazine and my iPhone, and then watching all of the other idiots try to stuff all of their earthly possessions into the overhead compartment.

When I flew last week, at least 4 people didn’t have room overhead and had to gate check their bags. This simply slowed down the boarding and we left the gate late. In addition, the person sitting beside me had to gate check her bag because it simply didn’t fit in the overhead bin. I am not sure why she thought it would fit, it was so large and heavy that she couldn’t lift it over her head (and i swear that my overweight 6’3″ frame would have fit into the bag she was hauling).

I think the airlines are screwed up.  Make checking bags more efficient and friendly but shrink the size of the bag that is allowed on the plane to be briefcase size. Get their passengers onto the plane without the process feeling like I am being crammed into an old VW van. Then when we land, it won’t take me 20 minutes to get off the plane while the fat woman in front of me tries to pull her massive flowered bag out of the compartment and wheel it down the aisle.

Flying was never fun but now it is becoming painful.

Related posts

• No related posts.

I would add that there is another huge tax that I am paying that many people that are poor do not pay.  My oldest son is in college.  Because I work very hard and make a very nice income, I pay list price for college education. My son is not eligible for financial aid simply because his old man works too hard. Luckily, he understands the value of hard work as well and has earned some merit based grants based on his academic credentials. He also works at part-time jobs to help pay the way. Anything in excess of that, Dad pays for.

I wouldn’t complain about the costs of sending my son to college except that the system is not totally fair. I am very familiar with another family with kids that are slightly older than mine. In their case, the father has had little success in building a career and essentially earns a buck or two over minimum wage. The mother doesn’t like to work, and even though she is a trained nurse she only works 15 hours a week – not because she can’t find work but rather she doesn’t want to work that many hours (she says standing too long makes her feet sore). Together, they sired 6 kids (obviously they knew how to work at something). As those kids grew up, food stamps were regularly available to them and they ate a free school lunch. The kids are smart and when they finish high school they have all gone to college – the most any have had to pay is ten grand for 4 years at a very good private college. Most of the others paid nothing except for incidentals. One studied overseas for a year for free.

All of these kids received government secured student loans. These are capped at a certain amount per year.

I am happy that these 6 kids are devoted to their future enough that they have gone to college. They appear to be starting their lives in good jobs and I am happy for them and wish them well. However, as I write checks for college for my son, I am jealous of their lazy parents – they don’t work hard and their kids are not penalized for that. I work hard and am penalized.

It just doesn’t seem fair and I am fed up.

By MIKE DONAHUE

I’m in the 32% federal and 10% state income tax brackets. I pay a 1.2% property tax on very expensive California real estate. I am subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. I am self-employed and subject to a 15% payroll tax on the first $100,000 in income and an 8.75% state sales tax. If I have a gain from investing, I pay a minimum of 15% federal and 10% state tax but can only write off $3,000 per year if I lose.

And now the government wants me to pay more?

As a child I mowed lawns, shoveled snow, had a paper route, sold sandwiches at school, and cut up dead trees and split them for firewood to sell during spring break. I have worked every summer since I turned 14. I took out student loans for college and worked 35 hours a week, at night, to pay for the rest.

Since I graduated in 1983, I have been in straight commission sales and have had many 60- to 70-hour work weeks. No secure salary, no big promotions, no pension—just me profiting though helping others while being subject to the swings of the economic cycle. The first 20 years were tough, but it’s finally starting to pay off.

I drive a nicer car (bought used), live in a better neighborhood, have more retirement savings than many. But I am certainly not rich, and every month I find my ever increasing bills (and taxes) tend to match my income. I have more than most only because I’ve worked harder than most and because I am a saver. It was not easy.

Why then does the government feel so entitled to take my money and give it to others? Why should I have to carry so many people on my back? Call me cruel. I don’t care. I give to whom I choose—but since so much is confiscated (and wasted in the process) I have little left I wish to give.

During the 1990 recession I could have qualified for state and federal assistance, but my wife and I managed to get by as she worked nights while we juggled our infant daughter between us. It was hard. However, it never occurred to us to take from others to subsidize our shortage. It’s not our way.

Life is hard. You learn when you fail and you make changes when things hurt. Why then is the liberal agenda trying to make sure nobody feels any pain? And why does the government feel so entitled to steal from many in order to give it to others. What has happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

My patience and pocketbook are reaching the breaking point. I am not for equal outcomes regardless of effort. I’m tired of being the mule. Maybe I will quit and live on the dole for awhile. I probably even have enough health issues to join the one in seven adults categorized as disabled. I’ve been poor and I’m not afraid to go back.

Remember it was social mobility that made America great—the ability to earn and get ahead. If Congress continues to buy votes at the expense of social mobility we will no longer be a great nation. The truly rich will stay that way but many “Henrys” (high earners, not rich yet) like me will quit. We may be only a small percentage of the population but we pay a large portion of the taxes and employ many. If you take the incentives away you will lose Henrys.

Mr. Donahue is a financial adviser in La Jolla, California.

Related posts

• You want change – you can have change (0)
• Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-05-31 (0)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)

President Barack Hussein Obama has been talking for quite some time about the “mess” that he inherited from George Walker Bush. He has made references to mops and other allegories to describe the challenges that he has faced. While that is all well and good for the first few days of the Presidency, at a certain point BHO needs to own the problem.

That day is today.

There is no defined time for the honeymoon period of a new candidate. Most people felt that September 11, 2001 was close enough to the inauguration of George Walker Bush (just under 9 months) that the attacks on that dreaded day were at least partially the fault of William Jefferson Clinton. The honeymoon is certainly longer than the first 100 days that are all the talk at the beginning of a term. Everyone seems to agree that it doesn’t extend beyond a year from the date the person is elected.

For the past 12 months, BHO has been the President or the President-Elect. Every day he has received security briefings. Every day he has had access to and influence over thought leaders on a wide range of issues. Every day, he could pick up the phone and call any world leader, banking leader, Senator, Governor, or Representative.

When a person inherits a farm or house or china from a parent, from that day on the item or property belongs to the heir. This is the same now for the issues within the United States. The mess no longer belongs to GWB – it is the sole ownership now of BHO and he better get to work fixing it and stop talking about mops!

Related posts

• RANT! Mexico attacks! (0)
• Obama has set the standard as the Great Communicator (1)
• Least qualified President in decades/century?/ever? (1)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• President seems to be a pretty good basketball analyst (1)

I do think that it is interesting that the rude outburst occurred due to a statement from BHO regarding healthcare for illegal aliens. There is a reasonable argument that BHO, while perhaps not lying, was not telling the complete truth. Check out this interesting video below and then read the rest of my comments.

Now I see that the Democrats in the Senate would like to toughen up the loopholes to prevent illegal aliens from getting taxpayer supplied insurance. I don’t get it, BHO says that this can’t happen but now a few days later there is an amendment that prevents this thing that can’t happen.  Makes me think that BHO was bending the truth a bit and probably knew it.

Of course the solution that the Senate is currently thinking about is to use Social Security numbers.  Seems reasonable.  SS numbers have become the defacto national identity card that we need. I have ranted on this before, if we would just have national identity cards then we would control much of the illegal problem that we have.

Below are a few clips from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

A key Democratic senator said Friday that lawmakers planned to toughen provisions in a health bill to prevent illegal immigrants from enjoying benefits, in a Democratic response to concerns by some Republicans.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee met Friday, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said they wanted to use Social Security numbers to ensure that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for subsidies envisioned as part of a plan to expand health coverage.

President Obama’s health-reform proposal has sparked heated debate over whether the plan benefits illegal immigrants, as demonstrated by Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst. WSJ’s Elizabeth Williamson breaks down the details of the proposed new government-run insurance plan.

Still up in the air is whether illegal immigrants would be banned from participating in federally regulated insurance “exchanges” under Democrats’ health bills, even if the immigrants were willing to use their own money to buy policies. On Friday, a coalition of three dozen faith-based groups wrote to Congress to express anger at the proposed ban.

Related posts

• The 100 accomplishments of the George W. Bush administration (3)
• First thoughts on the day after election (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)
• President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics (0)

Dear Employee: 

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices  would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy caused by banks that can’t run an effective business, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead.

This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn’t know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty ‘Obama’ bumper stickers on our employees’ cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can’t think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change…… I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.  

            
                                                          THE BOSS

Related posts

• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)
• RANT! Tom Daschle on taxes – update (2)
• President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics (0)
• Obama has set the standard as the Great Communicator (1)