Property Taxes

Here is a question for all state and local politicians:

The value of real estate has tumbled - in some places by as much as 40%. So we must wonder, since taxes are supposed to be based on the value, why property taxes have not dropped accordingly.

We all need to pressure the politicians to do the right thing.

Meanwhile, did you watch the Presidential debate last evening? Some statements were made that were obviously dishonest, so we did some checking at WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG, a non-partisan organization. Here is what we discovered:

OBAMA: "Actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

THE FACTS: The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama would increase spending by $425 billion over four years and reduce spending by $144 billion for a net increase in the deficit of $281 billion.

OBAMA: "I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us." Obama also insinuated to have attempted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

THE FACTS: McCain has indeed favored less regulation over the years but supported tighter rules and accountability on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years before the start of this financial crisis prompted in part by those giant mortgage underwriters. Obama was not a leader in that unsuccessful effort. Some of the current problems can be traced to legislation passed in 1999 that lifted many regulations over the financial industry. That deregulation was championed by then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, a McCain supporter, but also by President Clinton, who signed the legislation, and by former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now a top Obama economic adviser.

Seems Senator Obama should spend some time getting acquainted with the truth. And perhaps he should be advised that his stance on invading Pakistan to get bin Laden, without permission of that sovereign nation, is not any different from invading Iraq. And if we learned bin Laden was hiding in Canada, or Britain, would it still be OK to invade those sovereign nations? Let us not forget that, despite our desire for vengeance, America has an obligation to hold the high moral ground. To invade any nation for the sake of getting revenge on an individual is not the way of American values. If Pakistan attacks us, yes, by all means. But otherwise, they are a sovereign nation, and no one has any right to violate that sovereignty.

To put it in perspective, would it be right for another country to invade America simply because we took in a defector from that country?

One final note about last night's debate. In several instances Obama made reference to the problems we face being attributed to George Bush. I will not debate that. But Obama should not, either. He should remember that he is running against John McCain, not George Bush. He needs to show McCain enough respect to debate him on HIS record, not on Bush's. Obama would be the first to cry foul if McCain had used the same tactic by calling into play the bad acts of Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, or Bill Clinton, just because he, too, is a Democrat. Campaign against McCain, Senator Obama, and not against George Bush. That is disingenuous, and dishonest.

To McCain I would suggest that he refrain from being wishy-washy on the important issues. He has a good plan, but has no idea how to sell it. And his campaign managers are the worst in American history. Sometimes I think they must be working for Obama.

As for Tom Brokaw, I am sorely disappointed. In a "town hall" debate, the questions are supposed to be "out of the ordinary". But he went to great lengths to ignore all those, and only chose the ordinary questions. This made for a boring debate where the candidates merely recited their previous positions. Nothing new, really. I was looking forward to some hard questions never asked before, on a wide range of topics. But Brokaw let us down. He chose the same questions that the media has been asking all along - with one exception - the final question: "What do you NOT know?" Now there was a question that would require thought, and could not have been prepared for. And those are the questions that Brokaw should have chosen.