Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, John McCain is going to be all smiles as we approach the November election. If you are a conspiracy theorist, or just find it a curious irony as I do, you must be noting that, just this week, the Federal Reserve decided to leave the Fed loan rate at 2%, the Iraq and U.S. governments are negotiating a withdrawal timetable for our troops, and oil prices are falling fast.

All of these headline-worthy items will benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats. Furthermore, all of these improvements will help the folks on Wall Street and Main Street. The stock market is way up today, they say on dropping oil prices: Stocks jump as oil prices fall sharply.

This has the taint of political engineering or "electioneering," even if it is just coincidence. Maybe the world is just happy to see Dubya go into retirement ... who knows?

Earlier I posted Obama's $1000 giveaway is a take away! and now it's time to rant about Dear John. He is on record as claiming he can balance the federal budget by the end of his first term without raising taxes. I think we have heard that before. It's not going to happen. Why do politicians insist on uttering such nonsense?

Republicans and my colleague Aaron Katsman are trying to blame Democrat Barack Obama for rising gas prices. This is election-year politics at its worst.

For one thing, as the Washington Post and other independent observers note, drilling for more oil will do little to alleviate the pain U.S. drivers are feeling at the pump. The available supplies are probably not going to make much of a dent in our never-ending thirst for the black gold. Remember, the oil may not be as easy to get or cheap to process.

"Drilling off the coasts would increase U.S. oil production but have no short-term impact on gas prices," the Post says. "While some analysts disagree, an Energy Department report last year said production would not start until 2017 and have no 'significant' effect on prices or supplies until 2030."

An even more ridiculous idea floated by Republican John McCain is the so-called gas tax holiday, which has been roundly denounced by economists and Obama as a dangerous economic gimmick. Experts estimate that it would save the average consumer a whopping $30.

Every so often, you hear about an idea that is so godawfully bad that you have to giggle. I'm not talking about minor stupidities like a Porsche minivan or a movie based on a video game. No, I'm talking monstrously bad, like McDonald's selling sushi, condoms marketed to Catholics, or beer made for toddlers: ideas that are so hideously terrible that they are epic.

Here's an example: Llewellyn Werner, the Chairman of C3, a Los Angeles-based holding company for private equity firms, is investing $525 million into an amusement park in downtown Baghdad. You heard me right: Baghdad Disney.

I'm not even going to go into the terrible jokes that this brings to mind, although I already have some great ideas for colorful characters that could wander through the park in big animal suits. Regardless, "The Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience" will have a skateboarding area, a concert theater and a museum, and is being developed with the help of the group that built Disneyland. While I admire Werner's dedication to bringing fun and entertainment to the embattled residents of Baghdad, I can't help but wonder about the wisdom of building an American-style amusement park in an area where any reflection of American culture is a red flag. Werner, however, is convinced that the people of Iraq will embrace the lighthearted fun of his new venture.

On the other hand, maybe he's right. "Baghdad Disney" might be just the thing to bring American values to Iraq. I wonder if there are any plans in the works for a water park!

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. After a half-hour in any amusement park, he starts to plot against American culture.

What's the new president - - Republican or Democrat -- likely to face after taking the oath of office in 2009?

Daunting fiscal problems -- and right at a time when Congress may have to consider more fiscal stimulus to jump-start the U.S. economy, one economist observed.

The biggest problem, economist Glen Langan said, will be the federal government's budget deficit. The United States is on-track to record a $200 billion deficit in Fiscal 2009 and a $241 billion in Fiscal 2010 -- and that's if the U.S. economy doesn't fall into a recession, Langan said, citing Congressional Budget Office data.

"The baseline CBO projections present a large budgetary task for the new president, but by itself it's not an impossible one, absent a major recession. The problem is there's no money available to tackle any other problems, including ones a Democratic president would address -- health care, energy policy, education and infrastructure. And don't forget the Iraq War, anti-terrorism efforts, and potential mortgage assistance programs," Langan said. "If there aren't changes to the tax code, given the current revenue structure and tax rates,to say the next president's hands are tied regarding new programs, would be an understatement."

When President George Bush prepared for his final State of the Union address, his speech writers definitely had their hands full, with recession fears, and growing impatience over the Iraqi war looming on American's minds. He put on a good face, and did his best to assure Americans that all was OK, but did the American people buy it?

Bush's second term as America's 43rd president has been a rocky road. The President has dealt with low approval ratings, resulting from growing disapproval over the war in Iraq, and most recently the mortgage crisis and slowing economy. Earlier this week, he tried to reassure the country that things were in good shape, and that the country had good things to look forward to in 2008.

The main thing on the minds of most Americans right now is a possible recession getting ready to hit the country. While the President admitted that "growth is slowing," he pointed out that the benefits from a recently agreed upon stimulus package would go a long way to fight off any looming recession.

The package cleared its first hurdle recently with the House of Representatives passing a $146 billion recovery package. Now it moves on to the Senate where its future is a bit more uncertain.

It's hard to picture an oil sector projecting production in Iraq as a significant factor in global oil supply, but that, in fact, is what some analysts in the sector are doing.

While the policy debate on the political merits and national security impact of the Iraq war continues at full-throttle in the United States -- the issue is almost certain to be a factor in the 2008 U.S. president election, many political analysts agree -- Iraq's oil sector continues to make slow, but nevertheless steady progress.

With the decline in successful sabotage against Iraq's petroleum facilities, oil output has increased by 400,000 barrels daily to about 2.4 million barrels per day, inching closer to Iraq's production of 2.8 million barrels per day before the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003, The Christian Science Monitor reported Monday.

With people from all sides calling for increased government intervention in the wake of the subprime meltdown, we've found a surprisingly intelligent viewpoint coming from an unlikely source: Vice President Dick Cheney.

Full Disclosure: I would be hard pressed to think of three nice things to say about Mr. Cheney. I apologize to the three people reading this who have some modicum of respect for him. But he may be on to something in his reaction to the subprime mess.

Here's what he told Fortune: "The fact is, the markets work, and they are working. And people -- some of the big companies obviously -- have taken risks. Risk means risk. And there's an upside as well as a downside in some of the choices they've made. We have to be careful not to have this set of developments lead us to significantly expand the role of government in ways that may do damage long-term for the economy."

I actually think Cheney's right. Think about the message a bailout would send: "Speculate wildly and profit handsomely if it goes well. If it doesn't, Uncle Sam will be in to bail you out."

What's next? Sending in federal officials to reimburse gamblers who lose at the craps tables? It's good to know Cheney wouldn't expect the Government to step in should the war profits his former company Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL) is enjoying suddenly take a plunge. No danger of that!

Oil Update: Oil is now above $90 per barrel. This latest push higher by oil was blamed, for the most part, on tensions between Turkey and Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) rebels seeking Kurdish independence, which threatens to disrupt oil transport in northern Iraq. Crude oil reached new nominal high Friday of $92.22, although in real terms the price is still below oil's inflation-adjusted high of $101.70 set in April 1980 during the Iran hostage crisis.

Here's a snapshot of crude oil market conditions using three analytical frameworks, or measuring sticks, if you will, with a note on several intangibles:

Geopolitical: Add the Turkey/Kurd dispute to Iran (nuclear technology/weapons) and the Iraq War ,to confrontations and military actions that are adding a "war premium" to the price of oil. Depending on the analyst, that war premium has inflated crude oil's price by $10-$25 per barrel. Political unrest in Nigeria and a hawkish stance in Venezuela also items on analysts' radar screens.

Former President Jimmy Carter just doesn't know when to shut up. Here is the man who may go down as the worst president in American history and he still is trying to build his legacy. A legacy of what? A legacy of saying stupid things at the worst time? Saying the recent elections in Venezuela, which he oversaw as an "observer" were fair and equitable? The man who let the shah of Iran fall in 1978, only to see the Ayatollah Khomeini take over and begin a reign of terror, including the 1979 hostage crisis at the American Embassy? Carter should call it a day and go back to Habitat for Humanity -- where he has done good work.

Carter has seen many members of his staff leave their posts recently, as his latest book was viewed as a joke. He is pro-Palestinian and virtually anti-Jewish. He says he isn't, but his statements supporting the wrong group show otherwise. Carter speaks to anyone who will listen as if he believes he was a great and wise president. Right.

Carter's presidency was marked by record high interest rates, international failures culminating in the failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran, and the idiotic "fireside chats" where he accused Americans of being in a "malaise." America was so "malaised" that Carter was crushed by Ronald Reagan 48 states to 2. The day Reagan was inaugurated, the hostages were released -- some 444 days after their capture. The State Department had warned Carter that the embassy was at risk, but Carter chose to ignore the warnings. Gee, what a surprise.

So why do we even give this guy a forum to spout off like a scorned lover? He never got over the Reagan landslide, and has taken every opportunity to publicly criticize President Bush. There was an unwritten rule that retired presidents do not openly criticize the current occupant of the Oval Office. So much for protocol.

Jimmy, it's time to go back to Plains, Ga., and retire -- for good.

Georges Yared is the CIO of Yared Investment Research and the author of "Baby Boomer Investing...Where do we go from here?"

The New York Times (NYSE: NYT) has admitted that it gave MoveOn.org a huge discount on a full-page advertisement attacking Iraq commander General David Petraues that it didn't deserve.

Public Editor Clark Hoyt argued in his column yesterday that MoveOn.Org should have paid $142,083 for the "General Betray US?" ad instead of $64,575. The ad also violated the Times' own standards and shouldn't have run in the first place, Hoyt said, pointing out that the ramifications for the blunder are huge.

"It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor," he said. "And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash the Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media."

Even though the Times screwed up, this error was one of idiocy, not malfeasance. People can buy advertisements that are guaranteed to run on a certain day and those that run at a time that's not guaranteed for a cheaper rate. MoveOn.org, which explains its thinking behind the ad here, should have been charged the more expensive rate.

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan risk their lives everyday for the United States. The least the Department of Defense can give them is access to News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) MySpace and Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) YouTube and similar Web sites.

According to a Department memo obtained by the Associated Press, the military argued:"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge."

The ban, which takes effect Monday, applies to all troops serving overseas.

It's ridiculous.

First of all, the military networks are gigantic enough to be able to handle the bandwidth being used by members of the Armed forces chatting with their friends on MySpace or watching YouTube video clips. I bet that a team of smart people could figure out a way to prevent classified information from showing up on these sites.

Maybe people in the War Zone could give out their screen names to their commanding officers. If the Pentagon can figure out how to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles, it certainly can figure out how to solve this problem.

Moreover, denying soldiers a cheap, easy and fairly safe form of entertainment seems petty. Then again, the men and women serving overseas put up with quite a bit.

Many probably are too busy to spend much time surfing the Internet.

Looks like president Bush is in a negotiating mood and may be preparing for a more "can-do" type conversation with Congress. I was discussing corporate financial reporting with a colleague when I saw this story, which made me wonder whether there was a proper accounting of the war on the part of the government. I know the war is "off budget" and just lurks in the shadows of Washington D.C. while contributing to our national debt and ever increasingly having an inflationary effect. But is there a proper accounting?

This seems eerily familiar. Was it not Enron that in recent years fell from grace (once the 9th largest public company) because, in part, it juggled its books when the numbers did not look favorable? Strangely, it too had many "off budget" items not properly accounted for, hidden from shareholders -- are we not shareholders in our nation?

Like Enron, we find ourselves falling from grace. Not to be to bleak about the subject, but it concerns me that if the true figures were known to the public in a way they could relate to, we might lose more people to heart failure and depression than our military has lost to date fighting in Iraq. See: National Priorities Project Cost of Iraq War Notes and Sources for some figures and discussion on the subject.

Haliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL) is the latest U.S. company headed oversees for friendlier tax laws.

The company is relocating its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai, which the Associated Press points out has some of the world's most liberal tax and residency laws. Haliburton said its moving because of the growth opportunities in the region and analysts say its smart strategically. The company also is eager to jumpstart is stock price which has barely budged over the past year.

Though the stated reasons are financial, there's obviously a political dimension.

The Democrats who control Congress are going to make Haliburton's life miserable. Last month, federal investigators claimed that Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq, the AP said.

Not surprisingly, bigshots in Congress were outraged.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called it "an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years." House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) may hold a hearing on the issue, an aide told Reuters.

There's been a hubbub over similar moves by Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) and other companies. In reality, there's little the Congress can do. In fact, I bet some Democrats would be happy to help Haliburton box its stuff up.

Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT) and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC) today posted solid fourth quarter results today, helped by the huge increases in defense spending from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both companies also raised their earnings guidance.

Lockheed's profit was $729 million, or $1.68 per share, versus $568 million, or $1.29 a year earlier, the Bethesda, Maryland-based company said in its earnings release. Sales rose 6 percent to $10.84 billion. Analysts had been expecting profit of $1.46 and sales of $10.77 billion, Thomson Financial said.

The company raised its profit forecast for the year to $5.80 to $6 per share, from its previous guidance in October to reflect improved performance in its aeronautics business. Revenue is seen at $40.25 billion to $41.25 billion. Analysts had expected profit of $5.87 on revenue of $41.6 billion.

``We've had very consistent program performance and execution,'' Lockheed CFO Christopher Kubasik told Bloomberg News. ``One thing we're striving for is perfect execution on all 3,000 of our programs. When you meet your deadlines and deliver products and services on time and on budget, you see the contribution to the bottom line.''

Northrop's profit rose to $453 million, or $1.28 per share, compared with $331 million, or 92 cents, the Los Angeles-based company said. Revenue jumped to $8.02 billion from $7.67 billion. Profit from continuing operations was $1.29, beating Wall Street expectations for profit of $1.26, according to Thomson Financial.

The company's guidance for 2007 was $4.80 to $5.05 per share on sales of $31 billion to $32 billion. Analysts had expected profit of $4.85 on sales of $31.8 billion.

Yesterday I was raked over the hot coals by several readers that feel we are doomed by a housing bubble that I would not accept. See: Housing Truth from Main Street; which turned out to be quite a controversial post.

I stand by most of what I wrote. However, there were plenty of valuable insights that are worth reflection among the ranting and raving. A particular comment by David Gross, although not very deep is important for its simple summary of many comments. It stimulated a response from me that I thought was worthy of a separate post and further discussion.

David's Comment