Nice to see that the New York Times agrees with my take on McCain's economic proposals saying, "But a major component of his economic plan — like those of Presidents Bush and Reagan — centered on tax cuts."

However, there were aspects to his plan that were not from the Republican "all-tax-cuts, all-the-time" playbook.  It's worth touching on a few of those ideas.

In addition to the harebrained "gas tax holiday" proposal, McCain proposed that we stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Preserve.  Makes sense since the reserve is at adequate levels and we'd be filling them at record high prices.  Of course, as my friend Bev twittered, today's horror inducing prices are today's bargains. (Says Bev, "More from my diary of 1975. I was spending $65 a week to feed a family of 7 and was appalled at the cost. Oh for the good old days!")  Still, suspending government gas purchases may be a good way to reduce demand on gas and, perhaps, slow the climb of gas prices.

In terms of the housing crisis, McCain proposes a HOME plan, essentially an idea to convert qualifying loans from the various interest-only, adjustable rate varieties into fixed-rate 30-year loans.  It's a conservative strategy designed to help individuals keep their homes if they are credit-worthy and have equity.  I certainly like this approach better than the Democrats' recent proposal to bail folks out by absorbing their lost equity.

The last bit of the plan I wanted to mention falls under the heading of "Job Security."  He has some innovative ideas about Unemployment Insurance including combining redundant programs (I'd have to see more detail about this before I say it's a good thing but it sounds reasonable); developing a portable, "lost earnings buffer" account that would allow employees to carry a portion of their unemployment contribution with them; and a "re-employment bonus" for folks who quickly re-enter the workforce.

You'll note that I am mostly positive about these details of the McCain economic plan.  In these sub-points, I think he has some good ideas and creative approaches.  Unfortunately, these are minor issues in his plan.  The majority of his economic approach does exactly what he says he doesn't want to do--simply "dusting off" the economic policies of four, eight, and 28 years ago.  Reagan and Bush, two deficit spenders who railed about fiscal discipline while buying votes with tax cuts.  Frankly, I can't see there's much of a difference between them and McCain, despite the fine print.

I'd intended to do a bit of research and writing on the candidate's economic policies and then, ever so conveniently, John McCain announced his economic plans today.  I love serendipity.

Unfortunately, there are a number of things not to like about his plan.  It's a bit too convoluted (as are all economic plans) to go into thoroughly on a blog, so today I'll be touching on the plan in general and a few of the specific proposals.  Over the coming week, I'll delve into some of the less "sexy" portions of McCain's proposal and also into the two Dem's.

My central conclusion about McCain's proposal is that, true to his party, McCain seems to conflate the ideas of "Economic Policy" and "Tax Cuts."  Although he doesn't go as far as Dubya in making tax cuts the sum total of his economic policy, much of what he announced today had to do with feel good, short term injections of money into the economy (in the form of tax cuts and anticipated consumer expenditures of dollars saved in taxes on goods and services) rather than solving the very real problems of the deficit and the economic burden of the war.

The two areas he addessed in terms of tax cuts were corporate cuts and "family" cuts.  For corporate cuts, he proposed a 10% reduction in taxes across the board.  For a detailed and convincing summary of why a reduction of corporate tax rates is relatively ineffective as economic stimulus, read the article by the Center on Budget Priorities.  It's important to note that federal corporate tax rates are at historic lows (while many corporate profits, particularly in the energy sector are at historic highs) and corporations only foot 8% of the federal tax bill to begin with.

More appealing on the corporate front is McCain's proposal (which I've written about before) to provide a tax credit to companies for research and development.  The American economic engine has always been driven by American ingenuity.  Such a tax credit might be a jump start to revving that ingenuity engine back up again.  (Love the way engine and ingenuity have internal rhyme!)

On the "family" front, McCain proposes a number of tax cuts:

--Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax completely.  While it's true that the AMT (originally designed to help close loopholes for high income earners) now affects middle class families instead of the folks it was aimed at, a better solution is recalibrating the tax so that it fixes loopholes for high earners while providing relief to middle class families.

--Doubling the dependent exemption.  This idea might actually have some economic stimulus effect.  I haven't gotten into the nuts and bolts but it would be especially helpful if limited by income to middle class families.

--Gas Tax Holiday.  Mere pandering, in my opinion.  Giving us a "holiday" from the 18 - 24 cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline might inject some short term stimulus into the economy, but at what price?  First off, the tax pays for infrastructure, which is in need of assistance nationwide.  Secondly, the tax does nothing to encourage a change in gasoline consumption--something which rising gas prices might encourage and which is highly desirable. 

Overall, I'd have to guardedly agree with the Democratic Candidates' conclusions that McCain's plan is "more of the same" rather than an innovative approach to healing our economic woes. 

It's been two years now (almost exactly) since we left Santa Clarita for Orange County.  One of the most common questions I get from folks who knew me in the SCV is "what non-profit are you working with?"  My answer for the past 24 months has been, "None."  Or "I'm not ready yet." 

Today I took a tiny step toward changing that by meeting with our friend, Tom Dobyns, who is on the board of a local non-profit.  We've been aware of Orangewood Children's Foundation ever since Tom convinced us to become Ambassadors (a luncheon and donation sort of involvement) several years back.

Orangewood, according to my notes from today's conversation, is a temporary shelter for kids who are taken from their homes and waiting to be placed in foster care.  Like many charities, it started with a small vision--in this case, why should kids from abusive situations be placed in juvenile detention next to kids who've committed crimes--and has grown to include many programs designed to help the 3,000 kids in foster care in Orange County.

A few weeks ago, Tom talked to me after golf about the mentoring program that Orangewood has for these kids.  Each board member has a program he or she takes ownership of, and in Tom's case, it's the mentoring program.  He talked about the high level of growth the program is experiencing, the need for mentors and funding.  And just like that, I was in.

Our plan is for me to start out by getting to know the Foundation, educating myself on the program and people.  Then I'll stick my toe in by writing a grant or two.  After talking with Tom today, it felt like a little puzzle piece settled into place.  Kids from broken, abusive homes who need the safety net of mentors who care.  Sounds like a good reason for coming out of charity-retirement to me.

I didn't intend not to blog this weekend--my apologies for anyone who kept checking in hopes of an update.  There were a number of unintentional things about this weekend and they all turned out to be quite lovely.  Serendipitous, even.

Dan and I were due to spend Friday evening with our friend, Gloria, in Pasadena.  We met Gloria about 12 years ago during a golf school expedition to Aviara Golf Academy in North San Diego County.  We became friends over blisters and excellent golf instruction.  Later that friendship grew to include her husband, Ron, and we spent many days on the links as a foursome.

Since Ron passed, we've tried to stay in touch with Gloria off the course as well.  But when we headed out to Pasadena on Friday afternoon, the traffic was at a standstill and it was clear that the two hours we allotted to get between here and there would not suffice.  So we called Gloria en route and rescheduled.

This allowed us to be home to join my brother, Dean, and sister-in-law/buddy, Donna, at our house for dinner.  They came up to spend the Masters weekend with us.  We had a thrown together dinner of steaks, asparagus and salad--eating our first meal out on the patio at our lovely granite countertop.

The boys golfed the next day while Donna and I hung out.  We joined them for lunch at Pelican Hills, watched a bit of the Masters and then came home for the rest.  I hadn't really planned dinner so we gathered cheese, crackers, fruit and wine into a "plethora" of food--then played poker for several hours.

I won.  Honest.

Today was breakfast, more Masters viewing and another catch as catch can lunch.  In a past life, I would have been much better at planning meals, having an agenda for each day that included more than lounging, reading, cards and chatting.

However...unintentional worked just fine.  Better, in fact, than hyper-planning.  It's such a blessing to just hang out with family who are friends (and friends who are family).  To enjoy each other's company simply and genuinely.  Here's to unintenionality.

Considering Wednesday's post on which candidate is "more green," I found today's article in the LA Times on suspension of the chinook salmon season particularly interesting.  The article reminded me that The Environment is much more than one issue--even if that "issue" is global warming.

To summarize the article, the declining population of California and Oregon's chinook salmon has reached such a low point that there are concerns about the ability of the fish to survive, especially if fished this season.  As a result, the federal government has suspended the 2008 fishing season for chinooks.  The article cites numerous reasons for the decline in chinook population; changing ocean temperatures, changes in the offshore food chain, draining of the Sacramento delta to provide water to Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley, the impact of bridge building on juvenile fish...to name just a few.

Add to that two nuggets of current common wisdom; 1.  That salmon is better for you than other fish (especially tuna and swordfish), 2. That it's good to eat wild salmon and bad to eat farmed salmon.  Both facts lead to an increased demand in recent years for wild salmon like California and Oregon chinook.

Definitely an environmental issue.  But also a health issue, a food issue, an infrastructure issue and (several) sustainability issues--sustainable water usage in Southern California, sustainable fishing levels, to name a few.

The complexity of just this one sub-issue of the larger climate change issue is an argument that we need more than just a nod to the "green" this election cycle.  We need a leader who is committed to making significant changes in our way of interacting with the environment.  We need a leader who grasps complexity and develops innovative answers that meet multiple needs.  We need a leader who will hold us accountable for the changes we need to make now and who will challenge the people of the world to imitate our example.

It's clear to me that McCain is not that leader.  As to Hillary and Barack?  I'll be watching them carefully and reading more speeches to parse just who might be the better leader into a sustainable future.

Pulled a muscle in my upper back while playing golf today, so I'm a couch potato today.  Thank God for vicodin, ice packs and loving caretakers!  (Not necessarily in that order...)

Ah, timing!  Yesterday I promised to address the environmental credentials of McCain, Obama and Clinton.  Then what appeared in my mailbox but the latest issue of Newsweek with a cover story that asked the question, "Who's The Greenest Of Them all?"

I still went to the candidates' websites and reviewed their positions.  (You can do the same thing by clicking on each candidate's name above...extra credit to those who actually visit the sites!)

My summary of the candidates' relative level of "green-ness" dovetails almost exactly with the magazine's.  Obama and Clinton are virtually identical in the major objectives of their energy and environmental proposals.  McCain is greener (he believes climate change is real!) than most Republicans but his position lacks detail and specifics.

The main thrust of the Clinton/Obama plans are:

--Reduce carbon emissions by 80% through use of a market-based cap and trade system.  The target date in both cases is 2050.

--Invest in clean energy alternatives and research. (Clinton-$50 billion; Obama- $150 billion.)  Clinton would pay for part of hers by closing tax loopholes on businesses.  Obama would reinvest part of the cap and trade revenues.

--Increase fuel efficiency. (Obama-52 mpg, Clinton-55 mpg.)

--Restore American leadership on the issue of climate change/global warming.

Clinton positions her issue summary as doing more than just taking care of the environment--it's also an opportunity to grow the economy.  She also reveals a more pragmatic bent by addressing the need to adapt to those climate changes we can't avert or have yet to reverse.

Obama addresses some issues Clinton doesn't touch on--organic and small farms, inner city issues, etc.  He also drills a bit deeper on some of the strategies he proposes, but not enough to tilt me in his direction. 

McCain, by contrast, sets no specific goals, talking in generalities on the extremely short issue summary.  He thinks it's a pretty good idea to limit carbon emissions...but how much, by when?  He thinks cars should get more efficient...but again he doesn't provide specific targets.  Frustrated by his lack of detail, I checked out a speech he gave on the topic and noted with interest that he positions the environment as a security issue and that he's very much pro-nuclear power (and he can pronounce it, too!).  Obama sees nuclear power as a lesser evil while Clinton views it as plain evil.

Since I'm not an expert in environmental issues, I found it useful to check out the opinions of the League of Conservation Voters, along with their lifetime ratings of the three candidates.  (Obama--96%; Clinton--90%; McCain--26%).  They haven't endorsed a particular candidate as of this writing.

To summarize, Clinton and Obama seem genuinely committed to effecting policy and pracitcal changes designed to combat climate change and to leverage American innovation in the process.  I'd say their positions are pretty much equal.  So if you prefer their approach to the enviroment, the decision will really come down to which person you feel would be more effective at leading, cajoling, mandating and effecting that change. 

McCain's acknowledgement that the issue is genuine is a positive, but frankly his lack of specifics makes me hesitant to believe that he is genuinely committed to doing the hard work, especially if it's unpopular with businesses.  Maybe that's just my 47-year-old cynicism speaking, but I believe if you're looking for a candidate who won't compromise on the environment, McCain's not your best choice.

I know I promised I'd get to parsing the candidate's "green" qualities...but this blog is about another type of promise.  After our discussion of "great" rock and rollers, and after Hal's comments about most famous women anythings...it occured to me that I'd like to talk up a performer I feel is particularly talented...a woman with promise.

I'd put her in the rock category, although her music does tend pop at times.  I found her when checking out One Tree Hill this season.  I've got a tendency to fall in love with a song, jot down what seems to be the title lyric and then hop onto I-Tunes at my next opportunity.

Thus, Kate Voegel.

Check out some of her songs here.

What I like about Voegel's voice is that she's got some depth and richness to her voice, yet she can also warp it into a growl or soften it into a sensuous purr.  She's got good range, although she doesn't have the pipes of Christina Aguilera.  Anyway, I'd recommend No Good and I Won't Disagree to anyone wanting to sample her music.

Any female songsters you're particularly excited about these days?

I'll get to the candidates tomorrow.  Promise.

Had a wonderful visit today with my Mom and her friend, Paolo.  Paolo and Mom met through the Old Globe Theatre in San Diego when they worked together there.  A few years after she retired from the Globe, Paolo mentioned an upcoming trip to Italy and suggested she join him and another friend of his.  She proposed it as a variation on our Mother-Daughter trips...and the next thing I knew, we were on a (very small) tour of Italy with Mom, Paolo, Paolo's friend and I making up 4 of the six tour members.

(See below for a photo of Mom, Paolo and I in Denver a few years ago.)

It was great to get caught up, to relive a bit of that trip and to share our new home with Paolo, who's become family over the years.  It feels like forever since I've seen Mom, so it was refreshing to see her doing so well and looking so healthy.  (God bless Dr. Levinsohn for her new knees...and Mom for going through the painful rehab!)

We had a long afternoon of chatting, noshing and generally enjoying each other's company.  Dinner was a Martha Stewart-style Cobb Salad (only without the bacon and the egg...so really a non-Cobb-Cobb) and I just now remembered I wanted to add avocado!  (So I guess that makes it a non-Martha Stewart, non-Cobb-Cobb?)

Ah well.

It's wonderful to me how, in addition to the terrifical actual family Dan and I enjoy, we have friends who have become family over the years.  Paolo shared that he believes the Creator puts us in each other's paths to help us learn, grow and figure out how to love each other.  That's as good a theory as any I've heard.  I am grateful to the Creator today for the family I was born into, the family that took me in, and the family that keeps on growing.

I was musing about rock and roll performers with a friend the other day and posed the question, "Who is the biggest, all-time, rock and roll star?"  My friend and I agreed that it had to be Mick Jagger.  My support for the choice is his longevity of career, the impact of his music on a following generation of rockers, and my opinion of his talent level. 

Dan and I were lucky enough to see the Stones in concert a few years back and I hope I have half as much energy when I'm the age he is now.

The conversation turned to female rockers and there, I admit, I'm stumped.  Biggest, all-time, female rock and roll star?  The best I came up with was Sheryl Crow...but I'm not sure she's in Mick's league.

So, on a Saturday morning--I put it to you blog-readers.  Who's the biggest, all-time, rock and roll star of the female gender?