The cult of individualism

     Perhaps the most disheartening of outcomes given our current political state is the exaltation of the individual as the sole arbiter of that which is true and right. Perhaps, we have indeed achieved the dream of liberty and individual autonomy. However, in a world of subjective understanding, the lack of recognition of objective reality has created a space where all acts are good, so long as the actor identifies the act as good. This misguided philosophy accepts individual authenticity as the penultimate human ideal. Somehow, in the fog of 'post-modernity', it is the most virtuous act deny all objective realities, to include basic natural law, in order to be one's "true self".
     The role of first principles and virtue are seen as antiquated ruins which serve no purpose in these current times. In this quest for individual authenticity there is a deep desire for a collective validation. The problem here is that if other individuals do not agree with the claim of authenticity, they are coerced by the collective society which gives validation. This takes the form of the use of pejorative terms to discredit a person's statement (racist, sexist, etc.) at a minimum to the coordinated effort to silence free speech (such as the black brigade at the recent protests at the University of California-Berkley) at the most maximum level. This is seen as the most correct act. In order to preserve individual autonomy, one must silence the free speech of others (which may be hurtful), while simultaneously limiting free speech for all other individuals in the name of the individual. The cult of individualism embraces this contradiction as a proof of its validity.
     Rather, this contradiction reinforces the notion of "correct" speech, which ultimately limits the expression of ideas and handicaps true human liberty and freedom. It is in this space that authoritarian viewpoints are embraced (on either side of the political spectrum), tolerance is compulsory (to the point of negating deeply held beliefs), and free thought is vilified as non-democratic. This was the warning given by Orwell, whose own ideas and words are now politicized in order to maintain societal control.
     I suppose given this societal construct, we have the political leaders (both Republican and Democrat), that we deserve. Is it any wonder why simple decision making seems to be a herculean task that only the greatest of statesmen could make? People are too busy being validated by their own individual definitions that they forgot one key component; human beings are more than a binary.

What to make of our Political Life?

It has been quite some time since I have decided to sit down and actually attempt to put my thoughts down on this blog. Rather than typing away in some strange echo chamber of the internet, I found solace in the written word found in any number of journals, notebooks, margins of books, etc. It wasn't until about a week ago that the desire to begin this blog again was relit. For those who know me, I watch politics like other people play Fantasy Football. I am constantly intrigued at how Americans, in particular, view themselves in political life. Unfortunately, it seems that most Americans have decided that if a particular candidate does not win, it somehow negates the entirety of not only the electoral process but the nature of our Constitutional Republic as well. Please notice that I wrote Republic, not Democracy. They are not the same. That statement will be addressed in a later post. As for now, I believe it is time to go back to the First Things. So for the next few entries, the focus of this particular blog will attempt to answer the question, what do we make of our political life? 

Time to look again

     As I have not written in quite some time, I figured that I would take a gander at the current governmental shutdown, and try to parse, in some small way, how this happened.  As always, this is just my opinion, and I am going to do my level best to not shift blame to one party or another.  In fact, the political issue (that is party politics) has colored the lens of many in how they feel about or think about our system of government.  As so , we must begin at the beginning.

     First, who holds the power in this situation?  Is it the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate??  In order to fully understand the functional issues at hand, it is necessary to go back to 1789 and the U.S. Constitution.  Ultimately, the question is this; is it good that we have a government that has differences of opinion, and if not, is it better to have a unitary party in power, in which the majority voice dominates public opinion and the minority voice?

     Article I, Section 7 is rather explicit in the function of the House of Representatives in the legislative process, specifically about bills that raise revenue.  It states "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills".  That is quite a mouthful, but is necessary to see that the functionality of the Congress is clear as it relates to funding or what is currently known as 'budget bills'.  The House begins all funding bills.  Period.  The End.  Not the President.  Not the Senate Majority Leader.  Not the Secretary of Treasury.  The House.  Why is this??  Perhaps the Founders of our nation had a good idea on how things would work.  The House of Representatives is truly the "People's House".  Every district in every state is represented in that chamber.  That means that the voice of the people is most clearly heard in the House.  That also explains why the negotiations in the House can be so cantankerous.  If you are a House member, you are up for election every two years (rotating).  So, it would be logical to see that the member of the House would, by default, listen to those who elected him/her.

     What then of the Senate?  If the House has passed legislation, as duly elected representatives, what is the role of the Senate in all of this.  Again, it is clearly outlined in Article I, Section 7.  "The Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills".  In lay terms it means this.  The Senate has the responsibility to bring legislation duly passed by the House to the Senate floor.  If they pass a bill that is similar, but has differences in language, or amendments, both chambers form a joint conference in which they compromise to ensure passage of the legislation.  Compromise is necessary in our system, as ideology (either left or right) can hinder the business of government.

     And then there is the Executive.  All that branch can do, in accordance with Article I, Section 2, clause 2 is either veto 'in toto', sign into law, or do nothing.  If the executive chooses to do nothing and Congress is in session, thirty days later the legislation becomes law.  Nowhere is the Executive branch granted the power to establish negotiations, or to unduly influence the legislative body in its Constitutional right.  In fact, the power of veto, found in the above clause is in Article I, the Powers of the Legislative Body.

     So, we come to this.  The government is shutdown.  Every political pundit under the sun is blaming a party or individual (tea party, Sen. Cruz, Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid).  But if we look objectively, it seems that the problem lies at the feet of the Senate.  As of this writing, the House of Representatives has passed 10 spending bills (http://thehill.com/video/house/327235-house-sends-tenth-funding-bill-to-the-senate).  So, objectively, the House is fulfilling its functional role in the legislative process.  It would seem that the Senate is not doing so.  I am not concerned with the reasons (not a CR, piecemeal approach, etc.) but am concerned that the functional aspects of our government are being stopped due to political posturing on both sides of the aisle.

     The nature of our Republic is the necessity for compromise.  No one gets their way all the time.  My youngest daughter understands this concept.  She is 7.  The fact that elected officials do not understand this basic human concept defies logic.  However, all we need to do is look to Tocqueville for the basis of the debate.  When does public opinion infringe on individual liberty?  The quintessential American question still drives our political thought today.

The politics of now (individualism as the death knell for democracy)

       Alexis de Tocqueville wrote prophetically it seems.  In reading "Democracy in America", I marvel at how well he identified not only the deficiencies inherent in the US system of governance, but also the appropriate balance that the citizens create in ensuring liberty.  This may seem counter intuitive, the idea that democracy and liberty are at odds, however it is obvious given the recent events that have occurred in the United States.  While not wanting to address the issue of race in the Trayvon Martin case, or the lack of institutional fortitude exhibited by Congress to pass even a simple bill, it is necessary to see how our system of governance has become hostage to the moment.  As such, it can no longer fulfill its basic purpose.

     So, let's first define some terms.  Liberty is the ability to follow your own beliefs, thoughts, etc. without an arbitrary power structure attempting to stop you.  Of course, that is my definition.  The Oxford dictionary defines liberty as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political viewpoint.  The same dictionary defines democracy as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.  With these definitions as the base from which this blog will grow, let's find out what exactly is going on.

     The idea of liberty, that is, the ability to live as one sees fit without fear of an authoritarian system denying that ability, was radical in the age of enlightenment.  While revolutions gripped the world (United States, France), the idea of freedom from an absolute leader was the compelling factor to the establishment of both republics.  It is necessary to view liberty in this vein.  While there are those who would argue that the President of the United States is an absolute leader, this is a false premise.  An absolute is never voted out of office.  The framers of the Constitution had a very real fear of an absolute leader and created the presidency with very limited powers.  Since then, the power of the executive branch has expanded, however that is a whole other blog completely.  This clinging to liberty is what has driven the idea of individualism in the United States.  The ability to be free to create your future is paramount to the idea that most Americans have about their own lives.

     As for democracy, it is only a system of governance.  I cannot state this with more vigor.  Democracy, as a system of government, allows for the pursuit of individual liberty.  However, as a system of governance, democracy has a responsibility to ensure that all citizens are afforded the same right to pursue liberty.  It also has the responsibility to ensure that laws that are legally established are justly enforced.  The enforcement of laws via democracy can lead to a natural rift with liberty.  How?  Those pursuing liberty may feel that the democracy that they live in are an absolute power that is only designed to limit their ability to be 'free'.  

     It is the paradox of the pursuit of liberty intertwined with a democracy that represents the people that devolves into the issues that we, as a nation, face today.  So, what is a possible remedy for this?  The political concept of 'self-interest rightly understood' as developed by Alexis deTocqueville is the best way to balance these desires.  It is the desire of most people to pursue their own freedoms as an individual.  That, it seems, is a natural extension of the human condition.  Individualism, couched in liberty, can create a society that fully devolves into anarchy.  On the other hand, collectivism, couched in democracy, can devolve into absolutism.  When one individual can claim that their right is greater than the right of another individual, we, as a society, face the death of a young man (regardless of race), shot by another man (regardless of race) which is allowable by law.  This is the devolution of liberty.  To protect the rights of one individual over another is not democracy.  However, if the law is passed by a legislative body and found to be legal, it is democracy.  This is the politics of now.  Rather than follow the idea of coming together as individuals with common interests to change the laws by becoming politically active, citizens only protest and expect someone else to make the change.  Certainly, the right to assemble is guaranteed, however, why only assemble?  Why not attempt to run for office, and become the voice for those with whom you hold a similar self interest?  It is not the job of the government to ensure that you are treated a certain way.  Rather, it is the role of the citizen to be active and able to become the check against those who are in government.  That is the only true way in which to balance our desire for liberty with a democracy that represents the will of the people.  

     Indeed both liberty and democracy can coexist.  In order for that to happen, citizens must realize their role in the system as well.  By simply finding those who have the same interests, and then petitioning the government or becoming a representative of the people, citizens can fulfill their duty to be the ultimate check and balance against any leader (legislative or executive) who uses their role to become a despot.

What if??

Forgive me for a moment.  This blog is my feeble attempt at historical fiction.  I hope you enjoy.

     The memory of the battle of July 1-3 was still fresh in President Lincoln’s memory.  The absolute carnage done to man weighed heavily on his mind as he boarded the train from Washington to Gettysburg.  The simple lawyer from Springfield, Illinois wondered how things had devolved to this point.  While a staunch opponent of slavery, at least that was how he was portrayed in the Confederacy, Lincoln truly thought that this institution would die a quiet death, as the founders of the country had hoped.  Instead, the union was now staring down the abyss of fracture and discord, and the abyss was looking back at him.  Settling into his seat, surrounded by his staff, Lincoln stared at the blank sheet of paper.  “This paper mocks me”, he silently thought, as the train slowly departed the station.  While he was not to be presenting the oration for the Gettysburg cemetery, he would be required to make a few remarks to help lend the necessary presidential strength and gravity to the day’s events.  The steward opened the small window to allow the cool air to circulate in the cramped car, as the president watched the countryside, decimated by war, slowly pass around him.

     Smoke gently poured into the presidential coach as the train picked up speed in the Maryland countryside.  Lincoln blinked once or twice, as it seemed that a silhouette formed out of the mist.  “I am truly here”, said a voice.  Again, convinced that lack of sleep and the stress of the war had somehow tricked his mind, the president wiped his eyes.  “My dear Mr. President, I am not a figment of your imagination.  Perhaps I may not be familiar to you,” the voice said.  From the mist came a man, seated across from Abraham Lincoln.  He was dressed in a rather ancient way, with an air about him that seemed familiar to the president.  “Dear Sir, who, may I ask, are you?  You seem familiar, however I am at a loss as to how to place you in my mind.”  “I may be familiar to you in your history,” the man replied.  “I am Pericles, of Athens.”  Lincoln, a man who was not one easily startled or shocked, had to make an effort to not let his jaw drop to the floor of the train.  Was this truly the man who shaped democracy so many generations ago?  His funeral oration had been one of the founding documents for democracy in the world, and here he was, across from Lincoln.  Indeed, his life as a simple country lawyer had been dramatically changed, but this confounded him.  “I see that you are about to give an oration of your own, Mr. Lincoln.  How is it that we should find ourselves in such a time as these, where perhaps I can give you an insight into the greatness you have, especially during this time of war in your own Union.”  The thought of this made Lincoln chuckle to himself.  Indeed, he had read the Funeral Oration of Pericles during his studies, but had never drawn the parallel to his own situation as his guest had.  Perhaps he could help.

     “Let me begin,” Pericles said, “by reminding you of the greatness of the democracy that your country now stands to lose if not unified.  I, like you, had a group of citizens who were facing the death of loved ones, but I could not allow them to see the deaths as for naught.  Rather, those brave Athenians gave their last dying breath to defend something greater than any of us knew at the time.”  Pericles looked out the window, as the memories of battles and wars of generations past came vividly back to him.  The utter destruction of his beloved Athens, the death that came from prolonged conflicts, the never-ending struggle for freedom.  “How is it that you were able to help guide your democracy back?” the president inquired.  Pericles came back from his reminiscence and answered, “I had to remind not the warrior, but the citizen, that the democracy that we Athenians stood for was the greater good to be fought for.  In my time, it was not the same, however the battle between those who are free and able to choose for themselves versus those few with power who choose for all, is universal.  I believe you called it ‘the consent of the governed’”.  Mr. Lincoln was amazed.  It was the consent of the governed that counted.  He was not going to Gettysburg in order to mourn, but rather to put the sacrifice of those men on the battlefield in context of the larger war.  Indeed, Little Round Top, Big Round Top, and Pickett’s Charge would all be remembered by those who studied military strategy, but what of the average citizen?  It was there that Lincoln would make his stand.  Slowly in his mind, the words began to form.  Pericles seemed to smile as he saw the thoughts running through the President’s head.  He had found a kindred spirit, and knew that Mr. Lincoln truly understood the sacrifice of those men in that small Pennsylvania town. 

     The train steward tapping his arm woke President Lincoln with a startle.  His window closed, surrounded by his staff, he was in Gettysburg.  “Did you rest well, Sir?” asked a member of his staff.  Lincoln looked at the man in wonderment.  “When did I fall asleep?”  The staff member chuckled, “Mr. President, you were asleep before we left the station in Washington.”  The president scrambled to write the speech he was due to give in a few short minutes.  Feeling his pocket, he found a neatly folded paper, with the words “Four-score and seven years ago.”  Surely, he had not spoken to Pericles.  Perhaps he was so tired that he wrote it days prior and put it in his jacket.  Then, he looked at the back, which had inscribed in a hand writing not his own "Αυτό που αφήνουν πίσω τους δεν είναι ό, τι είναι χαραγμένο σε πέτρα μνημεία, αλλά αυτό που είναι συνυφασμένη με τη ζωή των άλλων."  (What you leave behind is not what is engraved on stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.)

DNC and RNC Platforms, and democracy

     Now that the election is over, the President has been inaugurated, and the standard politics of our nation's capital begin in earnest, I figured that I would blog about the platform that each party ran on.  This is, again, my opinion, and in no way am I trying to convince the reader what to think.  Rather, it is necessary, as a fully informed citizen, to see what it is that the major parties are stating are there overarching views and beliefs.  By taking a closer look at the platforms, we are able to see where political disconnections occur, and can better understand how the GOP lost not only the Presidential election, but also lost seats in the House and Senate.  It is a concern for me that we no longer have two vibrant political parties.  Rather, the Republicans are running the serious political risk of becoming a regional party (primarily in the South), and that they will not be trusted by the public to return to power in the future.  Honestly, that pains me to write.  When there is no divergent opinion, no debate, and no ability to compromise, our democracy as a whole suffers.  This is not to say that the Democrats are better than Republican.  However, this blog will identify where the GOP platform has perhaps lost touch with the general public, and in that vacuum, the Democratic Party has seized not only the political high ground, but also the terms on which any substantive change can be discussed.  The GOP has a difficult road ahead of it, but it is necessary for our democracy to have political parties that have honest differences of policy positions, but that the public is engaged in the dialogue as well.  This begins with the ability of the public to look deeper into the reasons why both the GOP and DNC have certain platform positions, and then decide for themselves whether or not they agree or disagree with them.  From there, it is incumbent on the party to engage the public to demonstrate the viability of their positions, and how they will govern by them.

     Every four years, the American people have the opportunity to directly vote for the chief executive of their country, the President of the United States.  While most pundits and political scientists begin tracking the candidates from the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, most citizens do not truly start to form an idea about the candidate of their choice until each party holds its convention.  While the nomination of a candidate is the result of this gathering, internal work is done.  Of primary importance is the creation and ratification of the platform of the party.  A platform is the principal objectives and positions a party ascribes to on certain economic, social, and foreign policy issues.  This paper will compare and contrast the Republican Party’s platform of 2012 and the Democratic Party’s platform of 2012 on the issues of taxation, military and veteran funding, and energy policy.

     The Republican platform addresses the issues of taxation by stating, “Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s freedom.” (McDonnell, 2012).  From this point, the platform develops the idea that taxation should only be used for national defense and providing care for those who cannot care for themselves.  However, the platform makes clear that any “restructuring of federal taxation, to guard against hyper taxation of the American people, any value added tax or national sales tax must be tied to the simultaneous repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which established the federal income tax.”  (McDonnell, 2012).  This linking of restructuring the tax code, while abolishing the federal income tax seeks to recreate how the government is funded, however it does not address the issue of how taxes would be collected by the federal government.  If repealed, would taxes be based on the census of the states and levied in that fashion, or would the government be based on a flat tax rate?  Neither of these integral points is addressed.

     The Democrat’s platform approaches taxation from a different point of view.  Rather than address taxation through repealing the income tax, they propose, “creating a tax code that lives up to the Buffett Rule so no millionaire pays a smaller share of his or her income in taxes than middle class families do.” (Schultz, 2012).  By embracing the Buffett Rule, the democratic party sees taxation as a necessary part of governance, and that those who are in the higher income brackets are able to pay a proportional amount of taxes as those who are in lower income brackets. 

     Both political parties show their economic tendencies in their tax policies, as the democrats tend toward a more Keynesian model of taxation in the economy, whereby the republicans view taxation as a hindrance to the goals of a free market society.  In this context, the role of a tax rate that is balanced in order to fund government agencies falls on the side of the democrats.  It Is my opinion that maintaining the current tax code and reforming the loopholes created in the law is the most prudent way with which to address the current short fall in income for the government.  Furthermore, by widening the base of taxes, the government is also able to pay down its debts, and reduce the overall deficit.  If, as the republican show in their platform, the income tax is repealed, it becomes necessary to restructure the entire system of taxation and as such, creates a higher deficit level as the money that is taken in would not have an appropriate outlet for being either received or spent.

     The republican party, long known as military and veteran friendly, uses their platform to continue robust defense spending and by ensuring that veteran’s care is “the gold standard” (McDonnell, 2012) for those who have served.  However, the platform does not outline how it will fund or improve the systems that are in place, other than requiring that VA department heads be appointees rather than careerists.  Military spending is seen as of paramount importance, and any cut to that spending is not viewed as acceptable under the current republican platform.  As defense is non-mandatory discretionary spending, the platform maintains the current levels of defense spending and growth, while at the same time, desiring to lower the taxes that come into the government to fund both. 

     The democratic platform embraces a strategy based defense-spending plan, which would base military budgets on the current national defense strategies.  This approach allows for cuts on systems that would not work, or would not be viable in future conflicts.  Veteran spending is outlined as being of major importance, with the legislative record of accomplishment of the first Presidential term, as well as addressing the issue of Veteran homelessness.  With a goal of ending veteran homelessness by 2015, the democratic platform put forth clear goals by which to govern, and identified issues that are more current than the republican platform identified.

     As in the first comparison, the contrast in spending on military and veteran issues is not nearly as different on paper, however the plan put forth by the democratic platform clearly identifies issues that can be addressed and achieved.  It is my feeling that this approach of having clear goals and achievable ends is more in line with not only most of the population, but also with my personal feelings.

     The final comparison between the republican and democrat platforms addresses the energy policy that is pursued by both.  The republican platform is most concerned with energy independence, and touts the use of coal, natural gas and oil, and nuclear energy.  The concept of renewable energy is addressed; however, the caveat is that the taxpayer should not be held to pay the bill for its research and development.  The republican platform states that by using coal, natural gas, and oil, the U.S. already has energy independence, and it is only due to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that these vast reserves have not been tapped.  Nuclear energy is seen as an alternative as well; however, the funding for spent fuel rods is not mentioned because of using this.  Finally, while renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.) is mentioned, it is viewed with more skepticism that any real policy that would change the way in which the American people use or receive energy.

     The democratic platform, by contrast, clearly supports the foundation of renewable energy as the cornerstone of any energy policy.  By using an “all-of-the above” energy strategy, the democrats’ platform states that it can increase employment by rebuilding infrastructure.  This also creates cost savings to the consumer, as the cost to transport energy sources goes lower.  This approach to energy policy is more in line with the rest of the international community, as many European countries have embraced solar, wind, and other forms of energy reliance.

     This embrace of a more global energy policy seems to make more sense than the one espoused by the republican platform.  Rather than being insular in nature, renewable energy can create jobs through infrastructure growth, new markets, and utilize the inventive nature of the American people to position the U.S. to be the leader in the world both economically, and in energy policy.

     Both political parties have addressed the major issues of the day in their platforms; however, the differences that they espouse show more than just a difference of opinion.  Rather, it shows that the democratic party is more willing to use different options to move the country forward than their republican counterparts are.  This disagreement and dialogue is at the core of the U.S. governmental system, however, the ability to enact these ideas and govern them is the larger issue at hand.  In the final analysis, the platform of the Democrat Party in 2012 is more in line with what the country desires its future to look like.

References

McDonnell, B. (2012). 2012 republican platform. Retrieved from http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

Schultz, D. W. (2012). Democratic party platform. Retrieved from http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-

Analysis of President Obama's proposed tax policy

     In this post, I will take a look at the tax policies that President Obama is positioning as a candidate for a second term as President of the United States.  As I have done in my previous posts, this will be an analysis from a realist perspective.  With that being said, let us begin looking at what exactly the tax policy would be. The positions that are being shown can be found here.  Additionally, this shows the power of the bully pulpit that every president enjoys, as President of the United States (POTUS) can utilize multiple media platforms in order to inform and persuade the American public.

•  Lower tax rates
    The first policy in President Obama's tax policy is "the tax system should be simplified and work for all Americans with lower individual and corporate tax rates and fewer brackets."  This is by far an idealistic, and honesty a simplistic way of attempting to address what is currently a major dialogue point in American politics.  Any candidate, regardless of party,  can attach themselves to a lower tax rate pledge.  The difficulty now is how do you attempt to keep taxes low, while at the same time expanding the spending required by the federal government.  Again, the same issue that plagues Governor Romney's plan as shown in my last post, is here as well.  The simple, realistic, and quite honestly, obvious issue is that attempting to maintain any level of spending without either (a) changing mandatory spending laws, or (b) raise the tax rate to support the current spending requirements, is untenable in the short and long term.
•      Cut inefficient and unfair tax breaks.
       This portion of the President's plan is also overly idealistic.  The use of terms like "fair" and "unfair" creates an immediate spearation in the society.  As stated in the proposal, "cut tax breaks that are inefficient, unfair, or both so that the American people and businesses spend less time and less money each year filing taxes and cannot avoid their responsibility by gaming the system. This includes cutting tax preferences for high-income households; eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; closing loopholes for investment fund managers; and eliminating benefits for corporate jet owners."  The last statement is one that does nothing to actually address the issue of cutting inefficient and unfair tax breaks.  A more realistic approach would be to state that tax loopholes would be closed to ensure that businesses are unable to not pay the current tax rate.  In this way, there is clear cause and effect.  This is the point of dialogue, not to set an idealistic view that somehow all people feel that there are those that have and those that have not.  To do so does not address the issue at hand, that of spending and tax revenue.
•      Cut the deficit.
       The President's plan says it wants to "cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade through tax reform, including the expiration of tax cuts for single taxpayers making over $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000."  This is the first portion of the plan that comes close to passing a realist view point.  From this, it is easier and more identifiable to see how the President views deficit cutting in light of current tax law.  To allow the expiration of tax cuts, as stated above, is not fully accurate.  In fact, the tax cuts had a greater impact than just on those making over $200,000.  The chart linked here does a great job of explaining that.  If it is just a matter of letting those tax rates revert back to their previous levels, it is a true statement that the government will gain more funds to spend.  This may be the most realistic approach to increase the coffers while not creating any new taxes.  No whether or not Congress has the political will to do so is another issue entirely.
•      In this preliminary analysis, it is obvious that these policies are overly idealistic in their nature.  Perhaps the most difficult question either candidate will have to answer will be, how do you maintain federal spending while not increasing or changing the tax rate?  In my next blog post, I will analyze the last two points of President Obama's tax policies.