The New Hampshire Debates

The New Hampshire Debates

Here are my quick thoughts on the debates tonight.

Republicans:

Well I now understand why Huckabee is doing so well. The man has a solid solid presence and frankly I would say he had the best mix of 'in touch' and presidential demeanor. His religious bearing/history mixed with a fair amount of Arkansas dirty laundry concerns me. Romney is a tool... I just can't think of any other way to put it. He is the definition of a slick politician and everyone, I mean EVERYONE on the stage took pot shots at him the whole night. Ron Paul, how do you do him justice? These are the three I didn't know and Ron Paul is the one that still has me scratching my head. He is very feisty but the question remains, is he just feisty or is he foaming at the mouth mad bonkers and a stark raving mad economic ludite? I will have to look harder at him because he is damn smart, and his background says he isn't nutz. Part of me would like to see someone like him go in and take a sledgehammer to existing beauracracies, but part of me really cringes to think what a bull in china shop approach would do. All in all its proabbly an event you would rather read about in a history book than live through... but it might just be time for something like that. Guiliani, I said it before and I will say it again. He is following last years play book. He is trying to follow the established road to the presidency and has not seemed to fully grasp the fact that this round is going to be different. If the old playbook were working then Barak Obama would not have just taken a primary with a clear lead. Change is the word and he aint it. McCain is McCain. Venerable veteran who is getting better at the national stage every time he goes through this... if he had another 10 or so goes I think he might finally put it all together. I am starting to like him as a VP choice... I honestly think he would make a decent president but I just don't think he will ever put the votes together. Fred Thompson surprised me a bit, he was pretty solid but he has much the same problem Giliani has and the man just isn't 'with it'. He is smart, and he is Washington smart. But I don't think he is front man material.

Democrats:

Richardson is toast baring some miracle... perhaps a VP selection. Edwards is not quite there. he is passionate but he is no longer as carefree in his speaking as he once was. He kept going off on 'I don't want to leave anyone out or offend anyone' tangents during otherwise good responses. He clearly stepped into Obama's camp and sniped Clinton on multiple ocasions, perhaps an indication of things to come? Clinton did well. She definatly lost her temper a couple of times but I really don't think that is a bad thing. As long as she doesn't stick her foot in her mouth in the heat of passion I can think of worse things than a well spoken indignant candidate. She just doesn't have the 'slickness' of her Husband and if she keeps the lid on her temper to much it will just draw attention to how much less accomplished she is at the glass facade political game. She is going to have to fight hard to proove she is still an agent of change because one thing she isn't is 'fresh'. Sure she has the whole 'First Female for President' thing going on but hell... most folks have already cracked jokes about her already having served two terms as president. It is going to be interesting to see how well her experience card plays out. Obama is one smooth dude. He certainly doesn't come across as green. He has the kind of charisma political campaign managers have wet dreams about. He is starting to fill out the details of his positions and his ideas of how he wants to handle being president. But he needs to do more on this front. The cloudy poupular agent of change image will take him a bit farther yet but before long he has GOT to silence the growing volume of calls asking for more details on just how he is going to 'change' things.

All in all I think the Democrats have got to be happy that finally they seem to have the better crop of candidates. The Republicans have a good candidate... if you could combine all the strengths of the guys that were on stage. And apart from Ron Paul none of them had that air of something new going on. However despite the Romney attacks I think the air was FAR more charged with the dems on the stage. They have the ability to pull their party apart if they are not careful. And I don't mean pull apart as in be devisive... I mean a full on party split that could end us up with two candidates and perhaps a new party. If they do manage to split the party then the race dynamics are going to seriously favor the republican nominee unless there is a real cross party movement for someone. Strap yourselves in folks. This is going to be a long and rather interstin ride.

A look at “The Issues”. Part 1: Social Security

I went out and checked out the glassbooth website today. You know on the surface this seems like a cool concept. Fill out some Q and A to find out which presidential candidate best suits you. However on closer inspection I found a few things I really didn't like. One, it did not just show you the complete candidate comparison list by default. Two, it really didn't seem dead on regarding some of the things I was looking at. But that aside I think it is a fantastic website for taking a look at some collected information about the various candidate about 'THE ISSUES”.

Of course... this look mostly confirms my suspicions that sound bites just don't make for good issues discussion. For example lets take a look at the social security debate. Based on the quotes listed Hillary and Obama are pretty far apart on the issue of SS. They both think privatization is a bad idea but they are diametrically opposed on the issue of extending the cap on SS earnings. Hillary thinks it is silly to consider the additional tax without first dealing with fiscal responsibility and doesn't like the idea of increasing taxes (how very centrist of her). Obama looks at the new source of revenue as a means to attain fiscal responsibility. If you ask me they both are a bit off center on this one.

First I just have to pick on Hillary. Who says you have to increase taxes if you extend the cap? You could just as easily reduce the rates but extend the cap such that it was a relatively revenue neutral choice... one which in my mind would be VERY favorable. It would be a real drop in the middle class burden and significantly up the SS contribution made by the top 5% who account for more than 50% of the wealth in the nation. Bam Bam... you get raised taxes on the wealthy in a fair way (paying SS on all income and not just the first 90k or so) AND you drop the load on the middle/lower class. Seems like a no brainer to me if ever there was one. I mean come on... you get to hand pretty much anyone making less than 100 grand a 1-5% raise... if that ain't a vote getter I don't know what is.

As for Obama? Well his stance is classic “Counting chickens before they hatch”. I always disapprove of spending money before it comes in. The current available Federal Budget is in excess of a couple of Trillion dollars. Frankly, I feel if the Government can't be fiscally responsible with that then I don't think a new resource is going to help much. I think Hillary is right that we should sort out the current mess without asking folks for more money... however as I said above, you don't have to ask for more money (overall) when extending the SS cap.

Regardless of if the move was made to alleviate the SS rates, or just to extend through all earnings I think SS is long overdue for a serious overhaul. I think it is time that SS stopped being viewed as an individual bank in bank out program and instead be viewed as a general purpose program in which the healthy working population pays to support those that cannot. I don't think SS should have scaled payout rates according to pay in. Benefits should be based on cost of living and tied to inflation much the same way Obama suggests regarding the minimum wage. In fact I think the Minimum wage and SS benefits should be largely connected at the hip. After all, they are fundamentally about the same thing, how much it costs to live. I think folks should receive SS benefits and additional retirement income up to double the base living income (poverty line). IE their SS payouts begin to decrease once they get more money on their own than they do from SS alone until they receive no SS retirement benefits if their private sources are double the poverty income level.

Lets look at a simple practical examples. Lets say the SS payout is 100 dollars a year. With no private retirement income you get your 100 dollars a year of SS. If you have 50 dollars of private income you get 150 (SS + your income). If you get 100 in private you get 200. But if you get 150 in private income then you still only get 200 total. So once you get 200 in private income you receive no more SS benefits. The idea being that at that point you are privately receiving double the current poverty line in retirement income. I think the dead zone in there is more than worth the safety net you get in return.

I don't think this means you have to throw out the basic concept behind the privatization of SS accounts either. The Gore idea of a Locked box is comforting but in reality money locked away is generally money not doing what it is best at (making more money). If you are of a biblical bent then go check out the parable of the talents. I certainly agree that the government needs to stop using SS as a slush fund for government programs that realistically will never pay back what they take out. It needs to be a responsibly managed investment setup run strictly on conservative reliable return ventures. For example I talked a while back about how we could establish a pure scientific research facility whos technological achievements could be spun off on a for profit basis and it would take only a small portion of the SS fund to put it in action. Done properly it might manage to create a self sustaining system in which a large chunk of corporate profits ARE government profits used to sustain programs like SS without asking for tax money but instead by reaping the rewards of products in the market place utilizing government funded/developed technology.

At any rate the old saw goes “It takes money to make money” And it takes a lot of money to make a lot of money. Individual privatized accounts are not 'a lot of money' but there are few sums of money that match just the yearly income of SS... much less any kind of long term accrual in times when input outstrips payouts. The idea of individual money management is pretty absurd though attractive concept. Bet the whole pile and reap the benefits of large scale investments rather than throwing all the little peons to the wolves individually. Just whatever we do we have got to stop this raiding of the piggy bank with nothing but worthless agency iou's to show for it.

Ok I think I have ranted long enough....

The VW Golf MKV GTI with DSG Review

I want to talk about a new car that is a real piece of work. It seems to combine the impossible. Practicality, Affordability, and Performance. Of the three affordability is probably its weakest link since there are several very practical cars for well under 20k… but not so many hot performance cars. This is the gold standard car of the Euro Hot Hatch. After all, the introduction of the Golf GTI birthed the class. While VW abdicated their throne for a couple of generations, the MKV has reclaimed it with a vengeance. Simple, Purposeful interior, Everything is at the drivers fingertips. Hatchback practicality for hauling people or gear (choose one mind you) and the ability to cruise sipping gas at 30mpg with every airbag possible on a car these days. Tight suspension, Alphabet Breaks and an out of this world power box mated to the emerging standard in performance transmissions gives you some serious giggle inducing performance…. All for ~25k. Not cheap, not expensive. Its peers are the Mazda 3, RSX-S, Civic SI and several other multipurpose front wheel drive rockets. The DSG sets it apart. Some call it boring… I call it technology. Finally I can have a car that is fun to drive and has a clutched transmission that my wife can drive since she doesn't have to work a clutch pedal. I get my crisp high performance shifts and real gear/engine control while she gets boring drive to the grocery store ease.

How fast does this transmission shift? When it guesses right? By the time you register the noise it makes, the next gear is fully engaged and the revs are rapidly climbing to the next bfffft gone click. Even a bad shift where it is guessing wrong is pretty crisp… slow for a good clutch artist, about par for your typical joe schmoe just punching the clock and not trying to click and go. I won't say anything silly like it is more enjoyable than a clutch job… but for performance it is pretty damn hard to question it. I know every one of you that has ever loved a clutch pedal has also had those days/times where you just wish you could throw the damn thing into drive and forget about it for a little while. Of course the feeling passes, and you know you would never give it up for the pain that is a slush box. But the DSG isn't a slush box so most of the fun is there in the paddle shifters. The mental game is all the same… you just have to leave your left foot on the sidelines.

How good is the performance? Well… I drive by the seat of my pants. The seat of my pants going around my favorite twisties in my roaring 89 5 speed Mustang GT says 55-65 is pushing it.. and if its raining the posted caution sign is probably much closer to being right than wrong. Driving the GTI… 75-85 feels right and my stomach does flip flops imagining what I would have to do to get that same sensation I used to have squealing tires in my stang at 65 through a nice curvy section of mountain road. I don't believe It is ever going to give me that same raw feeling. But if I want to experience some sideways Front wheel drive mayhem I have just to click off the traction control program, use my DSG launch program and go for it… for the most part I think I will pass. It is a nice change of pace to throw far more than is legally allowed at a road and have a car that is yawning at me and calling me a pussy for not going at it harder. Going fast in the GTI vrs an older car like my mustang is like comparing the DSG to your typical 5/6 speed row action… it does it so well for you that it does a good job of making it boring. But no so boring I didn't sign on the line to trade in my Mustang.

As for practicality? That one is well established. This is just a dressed up Rabbit/Golf. Hatchback bliss. But here you go. I am 5'10 and a smidgin.. and I am Husky (if you are being nice). The salesman was about 6'2 or so. I had him sit in the front passenger seat and place the seat where he had a good inch between his knees and the glove box while I sat in the back… I had a good inch or two myself from the back of the seat. The back seats have air vents (directed center console and under seat) and cup holders as well as through access to the trunk. Color me surprised. The trunk/boot whatever you want to call it isn't large, But it will haul a load of groceries or enough crap for a couple on a weekend jaunt. For any more you need to fold down the seats or go for the roof rack. I think a roof rack and bag would suit a family of 3 best, and be a tad tight for 4… but forget Fido. If you are there you are looking bigger than this class anyway. Golf clubs require at least one of the seats down. All in all a very capable small car.

As for style? That is in the eye of the beholder. I rather like the 3 door hatch look… and with the factory 17" wheels, clean lines (read no crazy wings and intakes) and subtle trim details, the car stands apart from its less capable chassis mate the Rabbit, but brings a much needed understated air to the class of performance compacts. To the initiated, the GTI stands out… to others it just looks like a compact car. That is good for some and not so good for others. To each their own and all that.

All in all this car is one hell of a ride and the grin is still firmly stuck on my face a week after I drove it home.