Most Americans spend dozens, if not hundreds, of hours attempting, not always successfully, to do their tax returns. We spend almost $30 billion paying accountants to fill out the complicated forms, and by some estimates we devote $110 billion of our own labor just keeping track of all the necessary records and paperwork. Americans pay about 85 percent of the taxes they owe, better than in most countries, but the shortfall is still a drain on the Treasury (and the rich seem to find a way to avoid taxes legally). Is this costly, demoralizing struggle between the IRS and the rest of us really necessary?

The short answer is no. There is a way to relieve almost all Americans of the annual April 15 nightmare. What’s more, it’s a necessary first step toward a plan to cut the looming federal deficit. The time is right for thoroughgoing tax reform—a true clean slate—that will bring in more revenue while giving the public a greater sense of fairness. The reforms we propose will even allow most people to take home more pay than they do now.

The place to start is to cut almost everyone’s payroll and income taxes by half. Yes, you read that right. Cut most tax rates, which now run from 10 to 39 percent, by half. All individual taxes would be collected through company withholding taxes on compensation (salary, bonus, deferred payments, etc.) and investment income (dividends, interest, capital gains, rents) to individuals. The very rich—those making more than $2 million a year—would still pay a top tax rate of 30 percent on earned income. The rate on investment income would be 15 percent. The result: individuals would not have to file tax returns, most Americans would take home more pay than they do now, the tax base would be broadened, and the AMT—the alternative minimum tax, which sweeps up more taxpayers every year—would be eliminated.

Too good to be true? There’s no free lunch. The revenue lost to the government—roughly half of all personal federal taxes—has to come from someplace else. The best fix is to eliminate all deductions and exemptions for individual taxpayers—all those tax breaks that were intended to promote economic activity or serve worthy social goals but have ended up creating myriad unfair outcomes. It’s true that the wealthiest 1 percent currently pays about 18 percent of all taxes. Still, thanks to clever tax dodges, the top 400 income earners pay an average tax rate of 16.6 percent; megabillionaire Warren Buffett notes that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.

Deductions are costly to the federal Treasury—siphoning off between a fifth and a quarter of all revenue. Wipe them out and we will have restored a significant percentage of the money lost by cutting income-tax rates. Where does the rest come from? A 12 percent tax on consumer goods, collected in increments as they are produced and sold, would raise $600 billion, more than closing the gap.

Some will argue that a consumption tax would raise prices, maybe even unleash inflation, and hurt the economy. Many economists, however, believe that a modest value-added tax (VAT) can actually boost the economy in the long run. It encourages saving and investing over consumption and debt—the twin habits that helped push the country into the Great Recession of 2008. Though savings rates are going up, we are still “unwinding” our personal debts and have a way to go. We can put more money in people’s pockets by lowering income taxes but encourage saving and investment with a consumption tax.

This basic version of the Clean Slate Plan is revenue-neutral—it neither raises nor lowers the total amount of taxes flowing into the Treasury—but it can be adjusted to deal with changing economic conditions. (Precise predictions are impossible because changing tax rates can alter economic behavior in ways that are hard to predict.) If the government wants to give the economy a quick boost in a downturn, the VAT rates can be lowered. But if we need to raise revenue (and over the long run, we surely do), they can be adjusted upward.

This is where the Clean Slate Plan really promises to do some good for the country and for the future of our children and grandchildren. For some time, Americans have refused to pay for the services they get from government. Last year we paid federal taxes amounting to about 15 percent of the nation’s economy. But the government spent or paid out in benefits close to 25 percent of GDP. We had to borrow the difference. The total federal debt keeps growing. It’s about half the size of the economy now, high though not horrendous by historical standards. But as the baby boomers age and the costs of caring for them go up, our debt will very shortly mushroom to the sort of levels seen in Greece.

Will there be rioting in the streets as we slash benefits? Or will we inflate our way out like some banana republic, impoverishing people on fixed incomes? Clearly we have to do something about the federal deficit. We might be able to grow our way out—but very few economists believe this. Almost everyone, even politicians in moments of off-the-record candor, agree that we’ll have to cut spending and raise taxes, probably in equal measure. There will have to be a compromise: Democrats will have to bend on their unwillingness to cut spending, and Republicans will have to give on their refusal to increase taxes. Setting the VAT at 15 percent rather than 12 percent, for instance, would produce an extra $150 billion or so a year in revenue. The beauty of the Clean Slate is that it offers a simple way to boost revenue that is fair, open, and progressive—and gets the IRS out of people’s lives.

The rich will not be soaked, but they may actually have to pay higher tax rates than their secretaries; the special interests will squawk and protest. There may have to be some adjustments—the poor and the very old may need at least partial reimbursement for the VAT they pay, and possibly there should be pretax exemptions for individual savings, like the 401(k). Charitable deductions could be handled the same way. Of course, if exceptions are made for savings plans and charity, the tax rates will have to be adjusted upward—marginal income-tax rates might be cut by a third, instead of half. But such exceptions should be kept to a minimum in order to create a truly clean slate.

Obama spoke during an afternoon celebration of his historic election, featuring musicians led by Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce as well as famous actors, all entertaining an estimated half-million people on the National Mall with songs and readings aimed at capturing the gravity of the moment.

Obama, the first African-American to be elected president, looked out at the sea of people and told them, “What gives me hope is what I see when I look out across this mall. For in these monuments are chiseled those unlikely stories that affirm our unyielding faith _ a faith that anything is possible in America.”

He gazed fleetingly at the Washington Monument in the distance. “Rising before us stands a memorial to a man who led a small band of farmers and shopkeepers in revolution against the army of an empire, all for the sake of an idea,” he said.

He looked at the World War II memorial down the mall, “a tribute to a generation that withstood war and depression, men and women like my grandparents who toiled on bomber assembly lines and marched across Europe to free the world from tyranny’s grasp.”

And just before him, he saw the reflecting pool, “a pool that still reflects the dream of a King, and the glory of a people who marched and bled so that their children might be judged by their character’s content.”

Finally, Lincoln — “watching over the union he saved,” Obama said, “sits the man who in so many ways made this day possible.”

Remember their struggles, Obama urged the crowd, and remember the “thread that binds us together in common effort, that runs through every memorial on this mall,” and offers a lesson that “there is no obstacle that can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.”

Washington was crackling with energy on Sunday. The crowd chanted “O-bam-a” after his speech, and the echoes were audible several blocks away. The people sang along with Pete Seeger, Springsteen and others in a rousing chorus of “This Land is Your Land.”

Obama, staying with his family at Blair House across from the White House, began his day at Arlington National Cemetery’s Tomb of the Unknowns, where he and Vice President-elect Joseph Biden laid a wreath.

Obama then headed to the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, one of the city’s most historic African-American churches. Organized 170 years ago, it has been an important player in the city’s cultural and religious life.

Hundreds were packed into the sanctuary when Obama, his wife Michelle, their two daughters and Marian Robinson, Obama’s mother-in-law, entered and took seats in the second row, near the altar. “God has prepared you and placed you,” Senior Pastor Derrick Harkins said. “God will not forsake you,” he said. “Go forward in prayerfulness and faithfulness.”

He spoke of those who turned away from what he called the “flowery bed of ease” to champion justice _ civil rights icon Rosa Parks; Nazi resistance hero Dietrich Bonhoeffer and King, whose 80th birthday is being celebrated Monday.

“Perhaps, just perhaps, you are where you are for just such a time,” Harkins said.

Sunday afternoon, Obama joined the throng at the Lincoln Memorial, site of the August 28, 1963 “March on Washington” that featured King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

The Obamas and the Bidens sat in a glass-enclosed area to the left of the faux marble stage, and heard actor Denzel Washington open the program by noting that “we are inspired by the man we have elected to be the 44th president of the United States of America.”

Out came Springsteen, backed by a predominantly African-American choir, and they sang “The Rising,” his ode to America’s efforts to deal with the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Other readings and songs followed, as Queen Latifah recalled how Marian Anderson sang there on Easter Sunday in 1939 after the Daughters of the American Revolution refused her permission to sing before an integrated audience at nearby Constitution Hall.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson observed that “Martin Luther King did not live to see his dream fulfilled. His dream is being realized by all of us being here today.” Next came Bono of rock band U2, who said that on Tuesday, “that dream comes to pass.” Beyonce ended the two-hour event by leading everyone in “America the Beautiful.”

The crowd had gathered early on a cloudy day when temperatures stayed in the 30s, but nothing seemed to bother them.

Geoff Keough and Lauren Gaudio dressed for the occasion in red, white and blue floral leis, American flag eye masks, and for Keough, a spangled Uncle Sam top hat. They brought hot coffee.

Dawn Arrington was not happy about the long security lines, but figured it was worth the wait. “I think it’s a trial run for Tuesday,” she said of the concert and its logistical aggravations. “How could we not make it?”

City residents were grateful for Obama’s Sunday schedule. Local resident Faye Roberson said many in the capital, particularly those living in its most poverty-stricken neighborhoods, shared key elements of Obama’s biography.

“Obama can understand people trying to feed their families,” said Roberson, who has lived here for 40 years.

Sue Williams of nearby Alexandria, Va. agreed. The federal employee was heading for the Mall with her sister and parents, who had come from Massachusetts for the inauguration. They were covered in a flurry of Obama pins, hats and other paraphernalia.

“Obama can help elevate the credibility of this country around the world,” Williams said. “There’s an underlying sense of hope and optimism that I’ve never seen before.”

(Erika Bolstad and Jack Chang contributed to this story)

In the House, the Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing on the program in advance of legislation offered by committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., that would place tough new restrictions on recipients of the money and require spending to reduce mortgage foreclosures.

The legislation is scheduled to reach the floor of the House on Wednesday, with a vote set for Thursday.

That flurry of activity comes in the wake of President George W. Bush’s decision Monday to act on Obama’s behalf and ask Congress for access to the remaining $350 billion of the money Congress authorized to rescue the nation’s financial sector.

The request reached Congress as lawmakers and Obama also were assembling a spending and tax-cutting stimulus package of $800 billion, or possibly more.

“It is clear that the financial system, although improved from where it was in September, is still fragile,” Obama said Monday.

Bush’s notification set a 15-day deadline for Congress to disapprove of the request. The Bush administration’s handling of the money has met bipartisan criticism in the House and Senate. Lawmakers have complained that the Treasury Department’s use of the money has been muddled and misleading, that recipients of the funds have faced little accountability and that the program has done nothing to reduce home foreclosures.

If the Senate rejects a motion to disapprove the funds, it would pave the way for Obama to begin dispensing the money about a week after he assumes office Jan. 20.

Congressional Democrats said they hoped Obama’s desire to place greater restrictions on the money and broaden its goals to loosen more credit would build support among otherwise skeptical lawmakers. The House tentatively scheduled a vote for next week. If both chambers refuse to release the money, it would be up to Obama to issue a veto — a dramatic first act by a new president — in hopes that Congress would not override him.

The request by the Bush White House made it clear that the money was to be used by the incoming Obama administration. It directed lawmakers to a letter Monday from top Obama economic adviser Larry Summers that vowed to make significant changes in the way the program is administered.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was encouraged by Obama’s efforts to add more conditions and to require greater accountability for the use of the money. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voiced skepticism but left open the possibility that he could be persuaded.

“I would be hard-pressed to support additional funding for the TARP without sufficient assurances this money will not be wasted, misspent or simply used for more industry-specific bailouts,” McConnell said.

Summers’ letter, however, was not as detailed as the legislation proposed in the House by Frank. That bill would set new conditions on the institutions that receive the money, requiring limits on executive pay and an end to owning or leasing private jets. It also would require spending at least $40 billion from the fund on foreclosure mitigation.

Financial services industry lobbyists said they opposed a provision in Frank’s bill that would allow the Treasury Department to apply executive pay restrictions to banks that already have received government money.

Scott Talbott, senior vice president at the Financial Services Roundtable, said the group would like to see Congress’ concerns addressed without the retroactive provision. The Roundtable represents 100 of the largest banks and insurance companies, including such government fund recipients as Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Some lobbyists hoped Summers’ letter would reassure lawmakers and make legislation such as Frank’s less likely to pass. Summers’ letter doesn’t address the question of retroactive limits on executive pay.

At the same time, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued a directive Monday asking banks and other financial institutions to track how the federal money or guarantees they received helped them boost “prudent lending” and efforts to help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosures.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo, Chris Rugaber and Marcy Gordon contributed to this report.

Members of his party are doing their best to appeal for the funds without appearing greedy, ungrateful or hostile to their new leader.

“If I was a top adviser to the president elect, I wouldn’t necessarily be advocating saving those dollars,” said Raymond Buckle, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

“It was critically important that we not repeat what happened in ‘93, ‘94,” when President Bill Clinton held the purse strings and Democrats lost 54 U.S. House seats and eight senators during midterm elections.

“We need the resources to build the national grass roots network for the Obama agenda. We need to make sure the president is successful and that the administration fulfills his promises,” Buckley said.

The Democratic National Committee is carrying about $5 million in debt, with almost $12 million cash on hand. DNC officials say they expect to have the debt paid by the end of the year.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign CommitteeDemocratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is nearly $13 million in debt. carries some $19 million in debt and less than $3 million on hand. The

Obama raised more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain. In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day.

“This is the first presidential candidate and president who has not been publicly financed in the general election,” said Ken Gross, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer. “Every other president since Jimmy Carter has not had excess funds.”

Obama opted not to participate in public funding system. In exchange, he was able to continue raising money, while McCain accepted $84 million in taxpayer money, and the spending restrictions that went with it, through the public financing system.

“The only example that comes to mind is John Kerry,” Gross said. “He finished his primary campaign with a $15 million surplus. That created some grumbling, since he lost.”

Democrats blamed Kerry’s loss, in part, on a campaign hierarchy that didn’t spend wisely or aggressively. Kerry’s own campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, called it “gross incompetence to hoard that money when the race was bound to be so close.”

Obama aides are aware of the stigma and don’t want to appear inelegant or selfish. They are weighing whether to keep the money to build a massive grass roots program to support his agenda, or to cycle that money to the party apparatus. Both ideas have strong advocates, but it’s unclear to those involved which way Obama will go.

“We aren’t in a position to announce what the next steps for our organization are today, but are continuing a dialogue with our supporters about their vision for how we move forward,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

Party officials around the country say the campaign leaders have signaled they shouldn’t expect the money to come to them directly, if at all. Instead, many party officials expect Obama to use his funds to advance his own priorities, to support his massive Internet-based organization and to have cache for special causes. With almost 4 million donors, Obama’s fundraising list could prove golden for future Obama-backed drives.

“Right now, it looks like the sky is the limit,” Gross said.

Obama aides emphasize the campaign expects to continue having expenses, along with tax obligations and political operations. They also say Obama has little interest in bankrolling state committees or individual candidates. Those involved say the logical option is the Democratic National Committee, although no one is pressing for a quick transfer.

On Wednesday, Obama send a fundraising e-mail to his supporters asking them to help retire that debt by buying coffee mugs or fleece sweat shirts. Obama and Democratic aides alike say they would use similar efforts going forward, but were aware that asking too often could dilute the effectiveness of the list.

Legally, Obama can donate the extra money to charity, transfer it to another political campaign, or dole it out in $2,000 increments to local candidates, Gross said.

“That’s not too attractive, but it’s something,” Gross said.

Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton may also have a hand in that sentiment.

Some 40% of women over 50 years old, a core Clinton constituency in the primary, said they were more proud of their country — the highest level of any sub-group of voters, according to the poll.”

Put aside the mud-slinging for a moment. More than one-third of voters said the 2008 presidential election has made them “more proud” to be an American, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

With the first African American candidate on the Democratic ticket, and the first woman on the Republican ticket, 34% of voters said this historic election has improved their view of the country.

Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton may also have a hand in that sentiment. Some 40% of women over 50 years old, a core Clinton constituency in the primary, said they were more proud of their country — the highest level of any sub-group of voters, according to the poll.

Just 12% said it has made them “less proud,” with voters over 65 years old registering the lowest dip in pride at 19%. The majority of voters, 45%, said the election season has made no difference in how they view America.

2. The Iraq war

3. The economic implosion this fall.

4. Without the national security card McCain couldn’t win.

5. Hillary Clinton made Barack Obama a better candidate than he ever would have been on his own.

6. McCain picked Sarah Palin without vetting her, and believed she was interchangeable with Hillary Clinton.

7. McCain and his team bought the notion of the mythical anti Obama Hillary block and doubted that Hillary Clinton, along with Bill Clinton, would bring her supporters home (in droves).

8. McCain and his team botched the roll out of Sarah Palin, throwing her into the deep end of the media pool, instead of letting her wade with the wingnuts and radio barkers who would have protected her.

9. McCain turned into a candidate no one recognized, sacrificing his core “maverick” message.

10. McCain and his team misjudged, underestimated and disrespected the formidable talent of Barack Obama and the team he put together.

While bailouts, regulation and taxes have dominated much of the national discussion, there is also an intense battle being waged over a critical piece of legislation that will revitalize our struggling middle class and get our economy back on track.

This battle over the Employee Free Choice Act is one that began well before our current crises, but which has gained new intensity as voters look beyond the political rhetoric and more closely examine the candidates’ positions on issues affecting the middle class.

Reacting against public momentum and the real potential of a pro-worker President and majority Senate, anti-union corporations have engaged in a well-funded attack to mislead the public on the Employee Free Choice Act.

While it is no secret that Senator John McCain opposes this critical bill–his opposition has become a favorite talking point in recent stump speeches–the majority of attacks from anti-union corporate interests have focused on key Senate races, the outcomes of which could decide the fate of this bill.

Whether from big business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce or deceptively named corporate front groups such as the Employee Freedom Action Committee, the public has endured a heavy dose of rhetoric against any candidate who supports change to our corporate-dominated economic system.

Tens of millions of dollars have poured into battleground states to protect an economic status quo that is heavily stacked against the majority of America. It’s time the public gets an honest depiction of the Employee Free Choice Act and how it will benefit America during these tough economic times.

Clearly, the middle class is bearing the burden of this economy, one in turmoil from the housing and financial crises. While worker productivity increased over the last seven years, wages remained stagnant. We lost 159,000 American jobs in the month of September alone, and continue to see costs for energy, health care and food skyrocket.

Even in times of record profits, corporations and their highly-paid CEOs often treat employees unfairly: cutting back hours, health benefits, and raises. And when workers try to form unions to improve their lives, they’re often met with harassment and resistance from these companies. In fact, 30 percent of employers faced with an organizing effort fire workers for their support of a union.

It’s no coincidence that the decline of the middle class has corresponded with a drop in union membership. Workers in unions earn 30 percent higher wages on average, and are 59 percent more likely to have employer-covered health insurance. Particularly in these tough times, workers need more opportunities to get ahead. That’s why unions matter and make a difference. Increased union membership will strengthen America’s middle class and re-energize our economy; we can accomplish both with the Employee Free Choice Act.

This critical legislation will give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure a contract with their employer in a reasonable time period and create real penalties for employers who fire workers and break the law. More than anything, the Employee Free Choice Act will reform our outdated labor laws to level the playing field, allowing workers to exercise their right to form a union if they so choose. In doing so, it will build upon, as well as offer, more opportunities for America’s workers to ascend into the middle class through good-paying, union jobs.

Unfortunately, while this year’s Senate candidates often speak of helping the middle class, many of them join Senator McCain in strongly opposing passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and even blocked it from getting an up or down vote in the Senate last year.

Millions of Americans are indeed paying close attention to the candidates, their positions on issues, and their ability to change the current trajectory of the economy. The Employee Free Choice Act is one of the most important vehicles to address the concerns of middle class families and it deserves the support of all our political leaders.

And don’t forget the man who stood up before a packed crowd and said he was “scared” of an Obama presidency — nevermind the racially tinged cat calls and rounds of boos from McCain’s other gymnasium crowds.

The town hall format was supposed be the Republican nominee’s favorite campaign forum, highlighting his shoot-from-the-hip style, his broad knowledge on a slew of issues and his irreverent wit. He loved it so much that he challenged Obama to a string of town hall debates.

But with their potential for amplifying unscripted outbursts and attention-diverting disasters, the microphones at high school gymnasiums and basketball arenas across the swing states have gone silent during the final stretch of the presidential campaign.

McCain, a man who has prided himself on discussions with the common man, has not entertained a single question from audience members since Oct. 10, when he faced a belligerent crowd in Lakeville, Minn., that at times turned against him.

The disappearance of the town hall format from McCain’s campaign is striking, political observers said, offering a vivid example of how a signature strength became a potential liability and was abandoned. (Obama, too, has done away with the town halls, last taking questions from voters on Sept. 12 in New Hampshire.)

“The town hall format proved to be a little embarrassing for the campaign, and it built a negative picture about what this campaign is all about,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, adding that the encounters were “too costly.”

Over the past few weeks, McCain has replaced his beloved town halls with large rallies, press statements delivered at factories and in hotel ballrooms, “town square” stump speeches given in the center of small towns, and stops at restaurants and other local landmarks.

That could change on Sunday. Down in the polls with just a few days remaining before Election Day and apparently willing to risk the uncontrolled format, McCain is scheduled to hold a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, where independent-minded voters gave him victories in both the 2000 and 2008 primaries. The most recent polling shows Obama with a sizable lead in the Granite State.

“We think New Hampshire has always been a battleground. We wouldn’t go there just for nostalgia purposes,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in a conference call with reporters. “We are pretty committed to finishing the campaign in New Hampshire.”

Town halls are typically smaller events than rallies, making them less than ideal forums to reach large numbers of independent and undecided voters, said one senior McCain aide, who explained that only the most dedicated McCain supporters got tickets.

But the angry crowds — including people who screamed “terrorist” and “liar” in reference to Obama — worried McCain and his campaign aides, who feared a backlash from undecided and less partisan voters. McCain himself on occasion sought to soothe his crowds’ emotions after media reports started focusing on their out-of-control comments.

“We want to fight, and I will fight,” McCain told supporters earlier this month in Minnesota. “But I will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments. I don’t mean to reduce your ferocity. … I just mean to say, you have to be respectful.”

We have ambitious goals; we want to get to 30,000 total contributors, and we want to get Orange to Blue candidate Dan Seals up to $75,000, to help enable him to run this fantastic ad from the next President of the United States.

As Dan Seals stands with the next President, his opponent Mark Kirk stands with the last:

Whose side are you on?

Of course you’re tired. Of course you’re tapped out, the economy being what it is. But as the next President himself says,

This is no ordinary time, and it shouldn’t be an ordinary election.

We’re on the verge of a historic moment – for the online activist community, for the Democratic Party, and for the United States itself. Every dollar you donate tonight goes to a brighter future, to bringing about the change we’ve dreamed of, hoped for, prayed for over the last eight years.

Leave it all on the field. Leave nothing in reserve. Wake up on November 5 with no regrets.

McCain charged that Obama, bidding to become the first black president, “began his campaign in the liberal left lane of politics and has never left it. He’s more liberal than a senator who calls himself a socialist,” he added in Hanoverton, Ohio, a reference to Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.

Yet with the economy almost certainly in a recession and the country clamoring for change after eight years of Republican rule, even some of McCain’s allies conceded the obvious. California Gov.

Arnold Schwarzenegger said it would take a “major struggle for him to win” _ although he quickly added the Arizona senator had come back before when he had been counted out.

Privately, McCain’s aides said their man trailed Obama by 4 points nationwide in internal polling.

An Associated Press-Yahoo News poll of likely voters put the Democrat ahead, 51 to 43, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The same survey gave McCain reason to hope _ one in seven voters, 14 percent of the total _ said they were undecided or might yet change their minds.

While the race for the White House drew most of the attention, minority Republicans in Congress braced for the loss of more seats in both the House and Senate.

Some said fresh polling in North Carolina suggested that incumbent GOP Elizabeth Dole had fallen further behind since airing an ad that tried to tie Democratic rival Kay Hagan to atheists.

Four days before the election, Obama was expanding his reach, and drawing large crowds as he moved methodically from one state to another that voted Republican in 2004.

After a stop home in Chicago to share Halloween with his two daughters, Obama took a bus ride about 30 miles across the state border, capping his day with a rally in Highland, Ind. “We are four days away from changing the United States of America,” he proclaimed to a cheering crowd on a comfortable October evening.

Indiana is one of about a half-dozen states that went for President twice but remain up for grabs late this election season. Bush won the state by a 60-39 percent margin in 2004, and the competitive nature of the state this time around shows the strength of Obama’s standing.

Obama used the occasion of Halloween to rib McCain in a new way, saying the Republican wore his usual costume: “Just like every year, he’s going as George W. Bush.”

Earlier in Iowa, Obama said, “What you started here in Iowa has swept the nation.” His victory in the state’s Democratic caucuses on Jan. 3 set him on the path to the party’s nomination, and now to a lead in the presidential polls in the campaign’s final hours.

One senior adviser said the Illinois senator had been given the names of potential Cabinet and White House staff picks for review but had not had much time to consider them. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Obama could name a chief of staff as early as next week if he wins the election, in an effort to project a sense of urgency. Aides have contacted Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois to consider a possible appointment to the post, but no job has been offered.

source: huffingtonpost.com