Solving sequestration is a click away

Don't believe the hype. You can solve the sequestration problem that purports to send our economy over a fiscal cliff in a few weeks. It's easy - really! I did it. It takes minutes. It's called priorities. Make them.

The New York Times put together this very good online budget puzzle that was released a little more than two years ago and asks if you can solve the $418 billion FY15 budget shortfall. What's great about the puzzle is that it totals up all your tax increases and spending cuts and gives you a rough dollar amount. 

This puzzle is incomplete. It doesn't, for example, allow for tariffs, something I would implement if I were president or a Representative to Congress. It doesn't allow for the implementation of a transaction tax on Wall Street, another thing I would consider. It doesn't allow you to cut specific departments. But it's a good start towards balancing the federal budget.

Nope, not gonna do it ...

Alas, we're six days from the election and I should have thrown something together yesterday at the one week point. Umm, yeah, but I was still dealing with hurricane messes, OK?

Here's where we're at via the Real Clear Politics Electoral College map. They have a ton of toss up states - in other words, it's still anyone's game and anyone's guess.

Personally, I don't really care who wins at this point. My life probably isn't going to change, either way, for the better. In fact, it will probably get worse regardless of who wins.

President Barack Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction and Republican Mitt Romney isn't going to do any better.
They both are small S socialists - one is a semi-corporate socialist and the other is a definitive corporate socialist.
Neither has a real plan to fix the deficit and the debt, neither will tackle the problem of the Federal Reserve manipulating the currency, neither addresses the globalization problem and the fact that globalization is the real economy problem here, neither offers any real cuts to our defense department - or really, the offense department, etc.
Having said all that, I do like to guess sometimes and I really should take a big guess. Here are some thoughts on the outcome.
First, I don't believe the notion that Romney is going to win by a landslide no matter what FoxNews says and I don't believe that the president is going to win by a landslide. The race is going to go down to the wire. We might not even know who the winner is for days after Nov. 6. That's a safe bet, believe me.
The country is so divided at this point.

And that's what makes speculation so difficult.
However, can I get closer than the first chart? Sure. Maybe. Here it is:
Even though both candidates are obsessed with our fine state, it is insignificant. The four votes don't mean anything unless Obama really doesn't have New Mexico and Iowa and if he doesn't have those states, it will be a blowout for Romney.
It is basically down to Ohio and Wisconsin - Romney needs one, Obama needs both. Obama doesn't have anywhere else to get the votes. At the same time, I don't know if Romney can win either Wisconsin and Ohio. I'm just not sure at this point. It's either going to be Obama by 1 or more, or Romney by 3 or more. It's that close.
Let me close by saying that the most important thing isn't the guessing - the most important thing is getting out there and voting, no matter what or who for.

With 30 days left, it's anyone's guess ...

It's now 30 days before the presidential election.
During the summer, I posted a 100 days map of how I thought the presidential race would go, based on that data. We're a month away. Here is another map.
First, a lot has changed since then. President Obama had a disastrous debate performance; Mitt Romney was recorded on hidden camera making derogatory comments about the 47 percent percent of people who don't pay taxes.
But at the same time, not a lot has changed on the map. I've added some toss up states to mess around a bit. I think these states could go either way.
Figuring the scenario I have now, with Obama losing a few of the normally red states he gained in 2008, it could come down to this: If Romney can win Florida and Wisconsin, he wins the presidency and doesn't need Ohio. If he can win New Hampshire, Florida, and New Mexico, he doesn't need Ohio or Wisconsin.
I think Florida will go red. I think New Mexico stays blue. That means Romney needs either Wisconsin or Ohio, not both. It's the only route to the White House. The campaign seems to be spending a lot of time in Ohio. Maybe they know something everyone else doesn't. Bush won Ohio in 2000 and 2004 but didn't win Wisconsin. U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, is from Wisconsin.
I suspect, barring a major disaster, another botched debate, a bomb going off, or some other major incident, the presidential election will go right down to the wire. It will be 2000 redux, with Gary Johnson possibly playing "Nader spoiler" (I hate that term but I have to use it) against Romney. I'll also take a look at all the numbers again a week or two out and see what they say.

Update: Vote fraud at Iowa caucuses

This is an update to the previous entry I put together in the wake of the Iowa Caucuses about a week ago: ["Rumor: Vote fraud at Iowa Caucus?"].