http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?_pageid=73,76…

It's a solid plan that would work.

Needless to say, I feel a bit sorry for whoever wins this time around. And as far as Hillary goes, do we really have to go there? Hopefully someone new will get in the spotlight; someone who truly does have a coalition of moderates. Hillary would never win over the right. She would be divisive. Haven't we had enough of that by now?

In any event, there is one remedy to this: the leapfrog term I suggested several days ago. If Obama willingly announces (right away) only to hold office for four years, turn it over to Hillary in four years and then resume again in four years, their chances at coming out clean and actually making headway to resurrect our nation are very good.

Not to mention that if Obama did this with Hillary smiling and nodding in agreement at his side, he would probably see the largest lead in a presidential race in US History.

I suggested the leap-frog terms exactly from a point of strategy. No matter who is in, the stress load will require a superhuman to sustain four years. Obama is young, spry and will wane visibly before our eyes but will rebound nicely if he gets a breather. Hillary could use his youth to take the edge off the crises, then come in and work her magic. Four years after that, Obama returns to a much better economy and political climate to ride out the last four years of twelve that we Americans sorely need democrats and diplomats instead of mavericks, cowboys or narcissists fouling the last drops of water in our well.

The GOP can wait twelve years. We did back in 1980-1992.

Also, if I may, during deep recessions and depressions, it is counterproductive to worry too much about the budget deficit. There's a difference between the economics appropriate to a healthy economy and the economics appropriate to a sick one. The question about deficits is not so much how big they are, but whether they were incurred for good reason — i.e. something that pays off in better economic productivity in the future. It might well be that spending to shore up demand pays off because of the damage long-term recessions can do to the future health of the economy.

I've been thinking we're looking at a one-term president myself. Dealing with the chickens coming home to roost will be Job Number One for either President McCain or President Obama, and holding the system together is likely to be a higher priority that shaking up major portions of it.

So, no privatizing social security, no shifting health care tax breaks from companies to individuals to make health insurance 'portable. No government funded health insurance program (other than the existing Medicaid and Medicare) in the immediate future. No money to fund tax cuts (for either Obama's or McCain's preferred recipients). Just several years of muddle through, trying to make Congress act like adults.

Not what either of these guys was looking forward to a year ago. Probably too late for them to withdraw. One of them will have to deal with it.

Hillary must be sitting there shaking her head and thinking she dodged a bullet, though.

Do you actually believe that the Obama Administration will be able to resisit the idea of open borders and unlimited immigration as a way to help the housing industry. Do you actually believe that the Obama ADministraitn will be able to contain healthcare costs or actually manage to micromanage the energy sector of th economy.

It does not matter if the economy makes a recovery. The demographic trends all help Obama stay in office no matter how bad his performance.

I completely agree with this.

You often say individuals should be more responsible. I often counter by saying the problems are structural–built right in to the way we do business. I believe that is true. I believe that millions of people having the same problem isn't a million individual problems, but one big social problem.

But I also agree that individuals should be more responsible. If everyone would just behave responsibly, many of those big social problems would go away.

Often, though, individuals don't recognize their own problems. Sometimes the problems get too big to ignore, but sometimes the bigger they get, the more comforting it is to ignore them.

I hate to go all twelve-step on everyone, but sometimes people hit a low point, give up their denial an achieve a moment of clarity in which their responsibilities (not just to themselves, but to the people around them as well) become obvious.

But some people never get there. They're willing to keep going lower and lower still. And they're completely willing to take you down with them.

Naturally, I believe I've reached that moment of clarity. But I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that what seems like clarity can just as easily be a mirage.

I think it was none other than George W Bush who referred to elections as “accountability moments”.

It's true that all these politicians are out here promising the moon. That's how they win elections. A more honest accounting might not benefit a more honest candidate. I'm not defending the telling of lies. But I'm recognizing the problems that are built right in to the system.

What I see clearly is the disaster wrought by the executive branch: Swiftboating politics, rising spending, two expensive, poorly managed wars, the largest entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson, all while cutting taxes.

I also see clearly the complicity of the legislative branch: Years of rubber stamping unsurprisingly followed by an inability to stand up for itself. (As a Democrat, I despise Harry Reid for his unwillingness to articulate any alternative to anything at all.)

So I hope this November, people will vote for accountability.

There: that ought to convince everybody.

If does not matter how badly he performs. He will always get 98% of the black vote, 80% of the Hispanic vote, 80% of the Jewish vote, 98% of the homosexual vote. As demographics change in the U.S. there will not be enough people to even consider voting for someone other than the incumbent Democrat to make most elections competative.