Here are a couple of headlines that caught my attention.
Interesting point about Alaska and as a voter how would you feel if you voted for someone because of information that turned out to be untrue about the opponent. But, come to think of it, isn’t that what politics is all about? How many ads did we see prior to the election that took small points and made an ad that was kind of false but had one element of truth in it. For instance, the ad Obama’s team did about McCain’s lack of ability to use computers. Turned out that he actually is a techie, just can’t physically use the computer. But, this time, the problem is that the candidate was involved in a trial prior to the election and then was found convicted a few days before the election. It turns out that notes were not turned over to his attorneys so they basically were not able to defend him against the testimony of the star witness. If I remember correctly, this is another election that depended on absentee ballots to decide the election. What do you think, should the senator step down and allow a new election to be held? Or should he step down and let the Governor name someone? Or should he hold on to his seat because no matter what was said or done, he won? As a voter who voted for him based on the conviction of Stevens, would you still vote the same way with this new information?
Speaking of senators, this article caught my attention as well.
In it, the Senate sent a message to Obama that they realize how much the higher income donate to charities and will not reduce the amount of itemized deductions on their tax return. Personally, I don’t think it will stay in the budget when it gets to the House. The economy and increase in taxes will still have an impact on donations to charities. I still wonder what the impact on his budget will have on the housing market. Right now, the reason the housing market seems to be improving is because people buying up foreclosures. In the long term, what is going to happen when people need to sell their homes due to a transfer or a new job in a different city or simply they want to sell their home for a new home in the same city. If people are facing foreclosure and don’t get the tax benefit of their mortgage are they going to decide to let their house go rather than trying to save their house. Will they have the money to even try to save their house or will taxes end up impacting their income to the point where they can’t pay their mortgages? Isn’t that a wonderful idea, people are taxed to the point where they can’t afford their own homes?