In a recent Newsweek article titled “The Right Way Back,” Michael R. Bloomberg offers his advice to the new president. As mayor of New York City, a businessman and a father of two girls, he gives his ideas—“take ‘em or leave ‘em.” His focus is on the economy and key areas of reform, which include infrastructure, energy, immigration and education.

Regarding infrastructure, Bloomberg states a bold plan would help middle-class Americans by creating jobs, but also prepare the nation for growth and innovation. He would call the plan a “New New Deal: investing more, more wisely, and getting bigger returns.” In order to invest in this new infrastructure, earmarks must be reformed, but not totally removed from government.

Energy production is the most critical building block in the structure of the new economy. Due to our increased dependence on foreign oil, both parties have offered wise suggestions on how America can become self-reliant within energy production. A few steps that are necessary to achieve this goal include both short-term ideas, such as nuclear power and offshore drilling, and long-term initiatives, such as a carbon tax, higher energy-efficiency standards and investments in green jobs. Bloomberg writes that America can either generate green energy, therefore creating millions of green jobs and revenue for the economy, or it can further drain the national debt by purchasing green power from other nations.

Immigration, often a hot-button topic among Americans, is in dire need of reform. Bloomberg suggests that our current plan is allowing brilliant minds to escape after they have earned degrees from American universities further draining our economy. In order to retain current innovators in our own country a few things will need to be accomplished. “The elements of the most practical and effective plan combine ideas from both the left and the right: imposing tighter border security; creating a 21st-century worker identification card that will allow employers to verify the legality of a job applicant and allow the federal government to enforce the law; increasing lawful opportunity for those seeking the American Dream; and—following in the footsteps of President Regan—allowing those who are here illegally the chance to earn the right to stay.”

Bloomberg suggests that education reform will only be accomplished with “top-to-bottom change…. that means higher standards, higher salaries, merit pay, tenure reform, school report cards, a longer school day and more.” He insists that the money America spends on education may be enough, but it is not spent correctly. If the correct modifications are made within the education system, there is no stopping the future of America in its return as “an economic superpower.”

In order to pursue any political agenda, the partisan divide must be healed, something that can only be done by showing respect, building trust and letting both sides taste victory. Bloomberg suggests that following these steps, resisting Washington rule and being honest with the American people will enable the next president to accomplish “a bold, independent agenda” within the next four years, no matter who may be sitting in the Oval Office.

How would you like $1,000 right now, no tax, no strings attached from your government? Well that’s what is happening in Australia. I just hung up the phone from talking to my mother and apparently Australians are very happy right now. Why? Because the government is staying true to its word regarding its $AU10.4 billion economic bailout plans to strengthen the Australian economy again. I have talked about this earlier in this blog, as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced his “Economic Security Strategy” aimed at relieving personal debt to lift Australians out of the global economic crisis. Lump sum payments will be given to veterans, families, the disabled, seniors and pensioners. Here’s what citizens will get:

Pensioners, people with disability, seniors, carers and veterans will receive $AU1,400 for singles and $AU2,100 for couples

Families will receive $AU1,000 per child under 18 that is monetarily depended (that includes university students!). Think about it. If you have four children, that’s $AU4,000 upfront, no tax.

Sounds great right? So why can’t this sort of action happen in the United States. Instead of giving money to the corporations and expecting wealth to trickle down, the Australian Government has given money directly to the people who need it most to free our country from debt. Better still, a specific date of December 8, 2008 has been announced for payments to Australians. It’s a no strings attached action by the Rudd Government to help Australians now.

Now, I am no economics expert to say the least, but it seems logical to me. Yes, the population differences in Australia compared to the U.S. is enormous, but just look at the Australian bailout plan figures ($A10.4billion) compared to the U.S. figures ($US700billion). Between the two candidates in the running for presidency, Barack Obama has the right idea for strengthening the U.S. economy. Last week he announced his economic plans if elected president, with a focus on lowering taxes for the elderly and middle class. But people need to pay off their debts and they need to do it now. An immediate, lump sum payment straight into people’s pockets allows them to walk down to the bank and pay off their credit card right then and there.

Barack Obama and John McCain have finally come clear on their plans to relieve the financial crisis if elected president. We can now see the two candidates’ economic policies after McCain’s announcement of a $52.5 billion plan yesterday. Here’s the run-down:

Obama has proposed a $60 billion plan with emphasis on tax cuts for the middle class and low-wage workers. He intends to increase spending for public works to create jobs. He has also reinforced his call for eliminating income taxes for older people with less than $50,000 in income.

McCain’s economic policies comes to a slightly lower figure of $52.5 billion. His new plans seem to focus on the elderly with tax cuts on capital gains and on withdrawals from retirement account by people 59 and older and tax waiver for unemployment benefits. But the New York Times explains these benefits will not come into play for months. Both these plans are on top of the billions of dollars already injected into financial institutions.

But what I’m concerned about is how their plans will affect me. Being from Australia, I want to know what the new economic plans will mean for Australia. Whether America is aware of it or not, their actions, your actions, who you vote for and your economic policies all affect Australia. Your economic woes are translated in Australia as middle class families struggle to pay off a mortgage, pay the bills and pay for gas. More and more families are selling their homes and switching to renting because they simply cannot afford it anymore. In times of a global crisis, the entire world is affected. The U.S. economy is basically now in recession and we are feeling it overseas.

Australian leaders too are announcing their solutions to the economic crisis, with Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd addressing the nation yesterday. An article in the Australian, a credible and balanced Australian national newspaper, today reported our prime minister’s plans to strengthen the Australian economy. With a slightly smaller budget figure of $10.4 billion, Rudd will give a one-off cash handouts for pensioners, low-income families and first-home buyers, will fuel a six-month spending spree that will sustain economic activity and allow Australia to maintain economic growth. The article explains Rudd’s measures are designed to counter weeks of international stock market turmoil and overseas bank collapses now cascading into the real economy, threatening economic growth and jobs in Australia. This is just one example of countries around the world in financial angst over the declining stock markets.

In the Oct. 13th Newsweek, there was a sidebar discussing the difference between "Wall Street" and "Main Street" and why animosity is being portrayed between the two. I think its a very good question. The author, Devin Gordon, wondered why the two could not coexist harmoniously, and why Americans would not want an equal presence from both. It seems to me that it is necessary for the two to work together, not be separate concepts for the candidates to throw in each others faces, depending on which would better fit their bill that day. We all have the images of the cookie-cutter Wall Street banker, but "we all" refers to the common people, the "Main Street" people who invest just as avidly as the businesses and individuals they're apparently opposing. It seems to me that the "Wall Street"/"Main Street" feud is simply a concept that each candidate can tout their support for. It is all interlinked, and should be seen as so. After all, the economy effects each and every one of us, if not directly, then it will surely trickle down as our economy's downward spiral continues. Why not put the supposed animosity aside and focus on what is going to be best for all people, no matter which street they live on?