http://www.ToTheCenter.com/ ToTheCenter.com's philosophy is simple. The average person may not recognize a political left or right; but rather, somewhere in between. Our mission is to keep our opinion and news "down the middle" for all. http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6831 APP reports that Democratic candidate Barack Obama told supporters yesterday that he will “need to win” the state of North Carolina in order to become president this fall and asked them to “fight for the White House.” Obama and his GOP rival John McCain have increased their staffs in the Tarheel State in preparation for what many expect to be a close fight, despite the fact that North Carolina has not gone for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election. "We've got to fight to make sure America gets back on track," said Obama. "I'm going to need to win North Carolina." Obama has utilized his enormous war chest to spread his campaign to states that don’t usually go for the Democratic Party, such as North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia. The Illinois senator recently attended a townhall event in Raleigh, touting his ideas on economic policy and saying that an end to the Iraq War could make possible more investments here at home. He also argued, “The nation can't drill its way out of its oil problem and instead needs to invest in alternative sources, such as solar and wind power and electric cars.” http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6830 Barack Obama has taken the gloves off for some bare-knuckle fighting, or so his supporters hope. The New York Times reports that the Democratic candidate has gone on the offensive in key battleground states with a series of negative ads that seek to portray Republican rival John McCain as “disconnected” from the everyday hardships of the middle class. In unleashing his attack, Obama has reportedly declined to use the popular campaign tactic of unveiling new ads for the press in an attempt to garner free media attention. Although the Illinois senator initially ran as a candidate who would “transcend” run-of-the-mill politicking, he has targeted these negative ads at local stations while simultaneously showing positive ads on national stations during the Summer Olympics. These new commercials take a “sharper” tone than previous ones and seem to represent an effort on Obama’s part to show concerned Democrats that he is hitting back at McCain with deadly force. “If you can go quietly negative, that’s what he’s done; I think the perception is that he’s still running the positive campaign,” said Evan Tracey, who serves as the president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence. “It’s a pretty smart, high-low, good cop/bad cop strategy.” http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6829 According to the Associated Press, rescue crews have located a handful of hikers who were missing after floods tore through a remote part of the Grand Canyon. According to Coconino County Sheriff's Department spokesman Gerry Blair, the 11 missing hikers were found in the canyon Monday. "We have met them, and they're OK," Blair said. The missing tourists became stranded after thunderstorms caused creeks to overflow, creating run off that caused hiking trails to wash away. The thunderstorms reportedly dumped 8 inches of rain Friday through Sunday on the region. Helicopters had to ferry about 255 people out of the canyon from the Havasupai tribal village of Supai. "The only other possibility that exists (that people are still stranded) is someone who went down there who didn't sign up," Blair said, according to the Associated Press. In the next few days, as the water clears, rescue crews will check the hiking trails and surrounding gorges by helicopter and foot again, and crews will do a more comprehensive ground search when the flood waters recede in a few days, Blair stated according to the Associated Press. http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6828 According to Kenneth Rogoff, former IMF chief economist, “The worst of the global financial crisis is yet to come and a large U.S. bank will fail in the next few months as the world's biggest economy hits further troubles. The U.S. is not out of the woods. I think the financial crisis is at the halfway point, perhaps. I would even go further to say ‘the worst is to come.’” Rogoff is an economics professor at Harvard University. He was also the International Monetary Fund's chief economist from 2001 to 2004, according to Reuters. Rogoff continued, “We're not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we're going to see a whopper, and we’re going to see a big one, one of the big investment banks or big banks. We have to see more consolidation in the financial sector before this is over. Probably Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- despite what U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said -- these giant mortgage guarantee agencies are not going to exist in their present form in a few years.” The statements come just days after investors decided to dump shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Monday after a newspaper report said government officials may have no choice but to effectively nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6827 On Tuesday, the Kremlin stated Russian troops will pull back from Georgia's heartland by the end of this week. Even with this statement, NATO said it will continue to freeze contacts with Moscow until all Russian forces are out of the country. Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, has accused NATO of siding with a “criminal regime.” According to the Kremlin, Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president stated, “Russian forces would by August 22 pull back to the positions set out under the French-brokered cease-fire. The remaining contingent that was used to reinforce the peacekeepers will be pulled back to the territory of South Ossetia and to Russia.” According to Reuters, U.S. officials have not yet seen any substantial Russian removal. Shota Utiashvili, an official at Georgia's Interior Ministry, stated, “The Russians time and again move their tanks to Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital) from Gori and then back again. I categorically deny this amounts to a withdrawal.” http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6826 It has been a cry from the Democratic party. They label themselves as the "Party of Change," yet in reality are they? Both the GOP and Democratic parties in America have a long and storied history in America of partisan politics and closer examination of the record would seem to bear this out. It is of interest to note how both parties' platforms have evolved and changed over the centuries, since they first bellowed their party's war-cry and emerged as one of the two major political parties in America. I would like to note neither party is without their scandalous and pernicious acts: Clinton and Kennedy both had affairs while in office, and Nixon had his "Watergate" scandal. Yet is either party fit to rule the nation? My answer would be a resounding no. It is both parties, which even with all the partisanship and bickering, that make up our two-party system in America. Yet there exists other parties, albeit minor in their contribution to the political arena, who offer the real possibility of change. Perhaps, Americans are content with the politics of the recent past, but I find little solace in either party, or any real credibility. I am bothered by some of the third party candidates, who would send us on a path of self-destruction and annihilation from which we would emerge as little more than a mundane nation of fools. I believe change should be slow and mandated by changing values and morales, but only after they have withstood the test of time and have made their way into mainstream American culture. By the same token, I am bothered by those candidates who have us return to a time of hatred and bigotry in America, where the bogeyman was under your bed. This is what I would label as politics of fear. It has been my observation the GOP are just such a party of "the politics of fear." We were told Saddam had WMDs, so we needed to take him out. In retrospect, there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq and, meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden continues to be a free man. Perhaps it is the plan to keep the bogeyman at large so our animosity will be directed at another person, rather than those who are in a position to make real change. The other point I would make about the GOP is they have painted themselves as the party of conservatives, but in reality are little more than hollow promises and words of deception. When a party seeks to divide rather than unite the people as the GOP has done, then, "Houston, we have a problem." It would appear I am arguing both sides of the coin, to which my reply would be, yes, I am. My point is that regardless of who is elected in November, change will be slow, as it should be in the political arena. I welcome your comments and look forward to responding to your questions and/or concerns. http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6825 Who will capture the lion’s share of the veteran’s vote in November? John McCain believes that his staunch support for the Iraq War, along with his military service, is his trump card in this game. "Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight," the Republican candidate declared to the 109th convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. . . . The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines." The campaign of Democratic rival Barack Obama issued a prompt reply. "It is hard to understand how Sen. McCain can at once proclaim his support for the sovereign government of Iraq, and then stubbornly defy their expressed support for a timeline to remove our combat brigades from their country," Obama spokesman Bill Burton fired off in an e-mail. Along with the troubled economy, the Iraq conflict is expected to be the most important issue of this year’s election. McCain, a Vietnam veteran, has been a consistent supporter of the war and stood foursquare behind the 2007 troop “surge,” which was implemented in order to alleviate the security crisis in Iraq. Obama has called for a conditional troop withdrawal from the country as well as increasing America’s effort in the war in Afghanistan. http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6824 A Taxing Proposal By Tim Holland The area that Congress, and most legislative bodies, seem to neglect is in the follow-up to the legislation they enact. There is the tendency to collect the signing pen and move on to the next challenge. Remembering the details of the legislation (if they were ever totally known) is useful only when touting its benefits during the next election cycle. Sound cynical? Of course, but the cynicism is well founded. Too often we run up against laws and rules that, when enacted, were ideally suited for their time and quite necessary, but as the years pass and technology, living standards, work environments, and even family and moral standards evolve, many of the old laws become useless and, in many cases, obstacles in themselves. Asking for our legislators to be visionaries is probably going too far as an election requirement, but why not at least require that they acknowledge that the needs of the 21st century are going to be as different as the 20th was to the 19th and 18th? In truth, the differences will be even more dramatic as the last half of the 20th century experienced more change than the previous 200 years combined and the 21st century is following in the same mold. Early in George W. Bush’s first term, the Congress passed a series of tax reductions that contained an interesting twist: They had expiration dates. The concept of adding a term limit to the legislation was a compromise to the Democrats, as a way of getting them to agree to the tax cuts. However, in retrospect, maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea. In a world that is changing as quickly as ours, does it make sense to establish rules that will last forever? Even the Constitution has a provision for amendment so that it remains relevant to the time in which we live. So why not establish a system where all laws passed must be reviewed, if they do not expire, within a set time after passage? The system we have now is one in which Congress is, essentially, ruling from the grave, whereby a previous generation of legislators sets the agenda for the current society. If you were to use the example of de-regulation of the banking system in the United States, would the difficulties we are now experiencing in financial markets be as severe if the effects of de-regulation had to be reviewed and reauthorized every ten years? If nothing else, certainly there would have been a public discussion of the results of de-regulation and the direction the industry was heading. There may also have been an opportunity to add, delete or modify the rules based upon how the banks were actually adapting to the new environment (what was working and what was not). There are many legislative areas where maturity dates might be useful and most of them seem to revolve around de-regulation: Consider the airlines, utilities, global trade, environmental protection, natural resources as just a few examples. Small steps are sometimes better than large ones, especially when technology is changing so quickly. Those in the industries or activities that are directly affected always want everything permanent if they believe it is in their favor, but is it good for the rest of us? Keep in mind that the current ruling business leaders seem to be slaves to quarterly earnings reports and all long-term visionary plans are always approached in light of what will be the effect on short-term earnings and stock prices. So would it be so bad to say to the lobbyists: “Okay, we’ll give you what you’re asking for, but if it doesn’t turn out the way you promise, it will be undone”? Well, maybe not completely undone, but certainly revisited and revised. Now, the idea of expiring legislation would work both ways in that tax increases and new and re-regulation rules would be subject to re-evaluation at a set date in the future. This tactic has been used in a number of local instances where a sales tax was put in place until a dollar figure was reached that would support the construction of a road, bridge, school, etc. It’s a novel (but old fashioned) idea where the current generation pays for something to benefit their children and grandchildren (it’s called savings), rather than have bonds issued that will be paid for by the next generation (debt financing). The latter, of course, is what the finance experts like, just as banks would prefer you use your credit card and pay them interest, rather than save for something. In the current economic environment, the idea that a previously enacted tax reduction might expire could be a bad idea. However, it’s not a bad idea to have the issue raised and a debate held as to whether the tax legislation actually delivered what was promised and how it could have been made better and what should be done going forward. The idea of simply making the law permanent doesn’t seem to be a good idea in view of the country’s current balance sheet. Here again we are involved in the question of the fairness of passing the price of our excesses on to our children rather than be willing to pay for them ourselves. Being in the midst of an election cycle that is billing itself as one of “Change,” perhaps this would be a good issue to be addressed by not only the national candidates but also the local ones? Fiscal responsibility is not just about “no new taxes,” it’s also about paying your bills and making sure that the services and requirements the people demand are properly funded, without mortgaging their future. http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6823 Obama’s back from vacation and he says he’s ready to kick some serious Republican butt! The Washington Post reports that the Democratic candidate took up the fight again on Monday and attempted to assuage the concerns of some Democrats by telling them he is ready to “fight back” and counter the negative attacks that have piled up in his absence. Obama told a townhall audience in Albuquerque, N.M., that his rival will simply continue the policies of his unpopular predecessor, President George W. Bush. He also sought to reassure members of his party who are worried that he will fall victim to the kinds of attacks that were leveled against John Kerry in the 2004 election. "Everywhere I go, people have told me, 'I'm getting nervous. The Republicans, they're so mean. They're going to Swift-boat you. They're doing things to you. What are you going to do?'" Obama said. "I have to just remind people that it is true that, just as John McCain has embraced George Bush's policies, he's embraced his politics. And the same people who brought you George Bush are now trying to package John McCain." The Obama campaign has also adopted a new line of attack – portraying McCain as a wealthy person who is “too out of touch to represent the common man.” http://www.ToTheCenter.com/news.php?readmore=6822 So how do you determine who is rich and who isn’t? If you ask John McCain or Barack Obama, you may get different answers. Of course, this comes as no great surprise. As presidential candidates for the major parties, the two men have planted their flags on opposing sides of almost every significant issue. The Los Angeles Times reports that income classification is no different. When asked to give their definition of "rich" Saturday night, McCain and Obama gave wildly divergent answers. Obama: "I would argue that if you are making more than $250,000, then you are in the top 3, 4 percent of this country. You are doing well." McCain: "I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?" According to the McCain campaign, the senator’s answer was meant as a joke. Ha, ha, ha. Income distribution analysts reported that "the answers appeared to reflect shifting political calculations more than economic reality." According to them, neither candidate was off the mark because there are "no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments." "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a leading economist at the Rand Corporation. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point."