Jed recently invited us to share our decisions and express the reasoning behind them. Here's mine.
I'm voting for Obama for these reasons:
- On balance, I agree more with Obama on the issues.
- I've observed Obama to be thoughtful and intelligent and to be a careful and wise decision maker.
- I've lost some respect for John McCain.
I'd like to elaborate on each of these points.
The Issues
In a comment on an earlier post I mentioned that, weighing the candidates' positions on all the issues, I conclude that Obama's positions are more consistent with my beliefs and values than are McCain's positions. Here's why:
- Taxes: I side with Obama - Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have failed to stimulate the economy or create jobs and they have contributed to the largest federal budget deficit in history. McCain wants to extend those tax cuts and even further them. Obama wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. I find Obama's position more fiscally responsible.
- Economy: I side with Obama - Obama seems to have a better understanding of the economy and of the factors that led to our current economic crisis. I believe that Obama's interest in intelligent, effective regulation and oversight is appropriate. Obama has been surrounding himself and consulting with intelligent, trustworthy economic experts. McCain, on the other hand, once admitted that economics is a weakness for him and was taking economic advice from Phil Gramm who was a prolific deregulator and who complained that those who didn't believe the economy was doing well were "whiners".
- Education: I side with Obama - Obama's education plan is much more specific than McCain's, and I find Obama's ideas fresh, creative, and compelling. I believe that education is critical to reducing poverty and crime, ensuring our country's continued competitiveness, and fostering an effective democracy. We all have a personal stake in ensuring that our fellow citizens receive a good education. I think Obama's proposals would do more to improve our educational system.
- Health Care: I side with Obama - I don't think we're getting our money's worth for what we spend per capita on health care. (The US spends more, per capita, on health care than any advanced nation, yet our health, measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, is among the worst across advanced nations.) I believe that insurers spend too much time and money working to deny coverage and claims for those who need and deserve them and that this practice adds undue administrative overhead to the cost of private insurance. I believe that underinsurance discourages people from preventive care, so that by the time they're in real trouble they require expensive, emergency care (and the rest of us paying customers bear the cost of that care). I believe that Obama's health care policies will do more to ensure that more people get access to decent health insurance and to reduce the cost of health care for everyone.
- Foreign Policy: I side with Obama - I believe that Obama's disposition to engage in more diplomacy and to work better with our allies will improve our standing in the world, help us regain the trust of our allies, and help us work more effectively with other nations to fight our enemies. I agree with Obama's positions on Iraq and Afghanistan. I conclude that McCain is too predisposed to act unilaterally and to strike militarily before exploring diplomatic options. I think his foreign policy positions are too similar to the neoconservative philosophy that has yielded such terrible results over the past 8 years.
- Abortion: I'm ambivalent about the two candidates' positions - Abortion is not an issue that has featured prominently in this election and, to be honest, I think it too often distracts us from issues that are more immediate and have more of an impact on our lives. I mention abortion here because I know it is an important issue to many who read this blog. I agree with McCain that abortion is an issue that should be decided by the states, not by the federal government. However, I think Obama's positions, as evidenced by his voting record, would do more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions (read Matt's summary of the candidates' voting records here). So, while I tend toward McCain on the general issue, I agree with Obama that we should have a multi-pronged approach to the problem.
As you can see, on my scorecard on the issues Obama comes out way ahead.
Obama's Character
From what I've observed of Obama he is thoughtful and intelligent. He surrounds himself with bright people and he listens to their advice. He weighs the options carefully before making a decision.
Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate is evidence of this. Biden is well-known for speaking his mind and for not being a "yes-man". Obama knew this. His choice suggests to me that he's interested in hearing dissenting opinions. Biden also fills what many considered to be gaps in Obama's resume: Biden has extensive experience while Obama is a relative newcomer. Biden is a foreign-policy expert where Obama has little foreign policy experience. Obama's choice indicates that he carefully considered what he needed in a Vice President and chose someone that would help him govern well, not just win an election.
When the economic crisis swelled in mid-September, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Obama convened a meeting with economic and financial experts including Robert Rubin, Warren Buffett, and Paul Volcker to help him understand the situation and develop ideas for addressing it. I am reassured by the fact that Obama seeks out smart people and turns to them for advice when he needs it. On the other hand, the advice that McCain has received and the behavior he's exhibited during the crisis do not give me confidence.
I was fascinated by this analysis of Obama's talents by conservative commentator David Brooks.
Why I've Lost Respect for McCain
Back in 2000, if John McCain had won the Republican presidential nomination, I would have voted for him against Al Gore (in retrospect, though, I think Gore would have been a better president). I was very disappointed that McCain lost the nomination to Bush. I thought McCain offered much better proposals than Bush. When Bush's was campaigning for huge tax cuts, McCain was calling for paying down the national debt. I was repulsed by the brutal smear tactics the Bush campaign used against McCain. I was impressed with how McCain ran his campaign: granting unfettered access to the press and talking "straight" whether or not his audience agreed. During Bush's first few years, I was impressed that McCain continued to offer a voice of reason. He voted against Bush's first tax cuts and opposed some of Bush's worst judicial nominees.
But sometime during Bush's first term, McCain must have realized that he would never win a Republican presidential nomination unless he tacked right and appealed to the conservative ideologues his moderate positions had alienated. He befriended those he used to refer to as "agents of intolerance". He hired the same operatives that so unfairly smeared him in 2000 to advise his 2008 campaign. While he still travels in the "Straight Talk Express", his talk doesn't seem so straight anymore. He changed his position on Bush's tax cuts. He reversed course on immigration.
I question some of the decisions McCain has made during his campaign. His decision to suspend his campaign in mid-September seems rash, unnecessary, and ineffective in hindsight. I think McCain's choice of running mate betrayed his mantra of country first. In my opinion, if McCain really put his country first he would have reached across (or at least into) the aisle and chosen someone like Joe Lieberman as his running mate. (Rumor has it that's what McCain wanted to do, but didn't out of fear of the backlash from conservatives.) Instead, he put his party first and chose someone that appealed to the evangelical base, that he hoped would help him win an election, but that arguably couldn't do much to help him govern.
In short, McCain isn't the maverick he used to be. Of course, if he was he probably wouldn't have won his party's nomination. But I've lost respect for him and I disagree with the new McCain on practically every issue.
Countering the Counter-Arguments
Allow me to address one of the most common arguments against Obama: his lack of extensive experience. John Kennedy had little experience when he ran for president. His only political experience was as a state representative for six years and a US senator for eight. Abraham Lincoln's experience when he ran for president consisted merely of a few terms as a state representative in Illinois and a single term in the US House of Representatives.
Obama's brief experience would matter more for me if I didn't know where he stood on the issues. But I believe that if you've researched the issues and the candidates' positions, and if you've cut through the mudslinging to the real substance, then you know where Obama stands, whether you agree with him or not.
I feel like I know where Obama stands and I agree with him on so much more than I disagree. That's why I'm voting for Obama.
27 comments:
Good job Alex.
I want to talk about health care a little. I'm generally of the opinion that we need universal health care. I believe that health care, like education, isn't well served by free market forces. It appears to fall under the preamble's mandate to "promote the general welfare".
However, unlike education, where there is general agreement on what constitutes an acceptable "curriculum" there is little agreement on what constitutes "adequate" health care. Adequate care of my body is much more subjective than adequate education of Rach's 6 year old.
A hypochondriac might think he needs to see his doctor every day, while a patient with an as yet undiagnosed but serious illness that's a real puzzle to the doctors, might really need very frequent visits until the puzzle is solved.
So who will decide these things? Does anyone want to give me some enlightenment?
In Obama's plan, the decisions of what's covered are still up to private insurers, just like they are today. His plan is to help you buy private insurance (although he'll let you buy into a public plan if you want) or to encourage your employer to offer you private insurance.
But if you're curious about how it works in countries that have a government run health care system: there, a public body decides. So, in both public and private health care systems, "bureaucrats" are making the decision. The difference is whether those bureaucrats have a profit motive or are working in the public interest.
So about the economy: TWO of Obama's biggest contributors are two top CEO's from Fannie Mae that were ousted (one walking away with $90 million). Why haven't we heard about that? Because media is so flippin liberal. Back when sub-prime mortgages were in debate, McCain wrote a letter of "warning" but those idiots who Obama so gladly accepts $ from only had one thing on their mind.
As for taxes, if we remember trickle down economics from Reagan, tax cuts across the board is the only thing that will stimulate the economy. I don't think either of them has it right. However, taxing the wealthy (including small businesses) causes job shortages, lower wages, etc. How would that stimulate the economy if those with money can't afford to pay the middle class?
Oh and with the healthcare issue. I think universal healthcare is the last thing we should do. The ONLY thing the USA has going for it now, is our advances in medicine. Because there is such a competitive healthcare system, we have things like MRI's, new surgery techniques, basically most of the advances in medicine.
I don't agree with any change that is a flip from the current situation, I think that is an approach that ISN"T thought through, in many more areas than just healthcare. I think we should be putting caps on how far insurance companies can go.
I think you overstate the impact that raising taxes has on job creation and economic growth. Clinton raised taxes, yet economic and job growth didn't suffer. In fact, he presided over one of the greatest economic and job booms in our history. And if cutting taxes on the wealthy drives job growth, why has job growth been so poor during the Bush years? You might say, "Clinton's job growth was because of the Internet." Or, "Bush's poor jobs record is because of some other factors." In that case, you'd be admitting that other factors have more of an impact than tax policy on job creation, which contradicts your original claim.
About Fannie and Freddie, I think you overstate their role in the economic crisis. I offer two reasons for this claim: (1) Fannie and Freddie don't underwrite mortgages directly. They buy mortgages from banks. (2) Fannie and Freddie weren't involved in subprime lending. A subprime loan is by definition a loan that doesn’t meet standards that Fannie and Freddie have to adhere to. By law Fannie and Freddie only buy mortgages issued to borrowers who make substantial down payments and carefully document their income. Now, I'm not contending that Fannie and Freddie played no role, but if you're going to implicate Obama, let's talk specifically about what role they played and how that relates to Obama.
You suggest that the mainstream media haven't reported that Obama has received contributions from Fannie & Freddie, and that this demonstrates liberal bias. First of all, keep in mind that individuals can contribute no more than $2,300 to any single candidate, so contributions from the CEOs themselves couldn't have amounted to much. And corporations can't contribute directly for federal elections, although they can establish Policital Action Committees that raise funds from individual donors (individual contributions to single-candidate PACs are also limited to $2,300). The New York Times did report that Obama has received more contributions from Freddie and Fannie employees than McCain has. Can I now claim that the New York Times has a conservative bias?
And if having ties to Freddie and Fannie disqualifies a candidate, then I'm afraid you've just disqualified McCain as well. One of his aides is former consultant for Freddie Mac.
About healthcare, if by "universal healthcare" you mean healthcare administered by the government: that isn't what Obama is proposing. When people use the term "universal healthcare" in connection with Obama's proposals, they mean that his proposals have a goal of extending health insurance to the currently uninsured. He wants to help you get private health insurance. He is not proposing to have the government replace the private health insurance industry.
About medical innovations, are you suggesting that countries that have universal healthcare systems don't have MRI's or other medical advances? I don't think you are. I think you're acknowledging that a lot of medical innovation is incubated in the US. But such medical innovation isn't doing us much good if it isn't improving our health. And again, our health statistics are poor relative to nations that do have universal healthcare.
I found the National Review article (below) very interesting, particularly in light of recent ACORN news. While I am reasonably certain Obama would not sanction tactics such as falsifying voter registration documents, I am concerned about his deep ties to ACORN and extensive network of leftist organizations and leaders.
The cloaked and oft times hidden socio-political views and political agenda espoused by these folks are profoundly un-American. I simply do not understand how the national media and public can continue to ignore the implications of this disturbing fabric that runs through Obama’s life. I realize that the public is sooo ready for a “demographic” change in our Country’s top leader; but people, please OPEN YOUR EYES. Are you truly ready for the unintended and potentially devastating consequences of electing the wrong person? I know that for many Obama seems highly attractive and brilliant, but is he right as America’s top representative? The stakes are perhaps higher than at any other time in history.
Dy
ARTICLE BELOW
COPYRIGHT 2008 National Review, Inc.
Senator stealth: how to advance radical causes when no one's looking.(Cover story).Stanley Kurtz.
National Review 60.16 (Sept 1, 2008): p32.
AFTER hearing about Barack Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Fr. Michael Pfleger, and the militant activists of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), it should be clear to everyone that his extremist roots run deep. But the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has yet another connection with the world of far-Left radicalism. Obama has long been linked--through foundation grants, shared political activism, collaboration on legislation and tactics, and mutual praise and support--with the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based "community organizers."
The same separatist, anti-American theology of liberation that was so boldly and bitterly proclaimed by Obama's pastor is shared, if more quietly, by Obama's Gamaliel colleagues. The operative word here is "quietly." Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama's legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors' most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago's supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies--at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career. It's high time for these shadowy, perhaps improper, ties to receive a dose of sunlight.
The connections are numerous. Gregory Galluzzo, Gamaliel's co-founder and executive director, served as a trainer and mentor during Obama's mid-1980s organizing days in Chicago. The Developing Communities Project, which first hired Obama, is part of the Gamaliel network. Obama became a consultant and eventually a trainer of community organizers for Gamaliel. (He also served as a trainer for ACORN.) And he has kept up his ties with Gamaliel during his time in the U.S. Senate.
The Gamaliel connection appears to supply a solution to the riddle of Obama's mysterious political persona. On one hand, he likes to highlight his days as a community organizer--a profession with proudly radical roots in the teachings of Chicago's Saul Alinsky, author of the highly influential text Rules for Radicals. Obama even goes so far as to make the community-organizer image a metaphor for his distinctive conception of elective office. On the other hand, Obama presents himself as a post-ideological, consensus-minded politician who favors pragmatic, common-sense solutions to the issues of the day. How can Obama be radical and post-radical at the same time? Perhaps by deploying Gamaliel techniques. Gamaliel organizers have discovered a way to fuse their Left-extremist political beliefs with a smooth, non-ideological surface of down-to-earth pragmatism: the substance of Jeremiah Wright with the appearance of Norman Vincent Peale. Could this be Obama's secret?
FROM REVELATION TO REVOLUTION
Before outlining Gamaliel's techniques of political stealth, we need to identify the views that they are camouflaging. These can be found in Dennis Jacobsen's book Doing Justice: Congregations and Community Organizing. Jacobsen is the pastor of Incarnation Lutheran Church in Milwaukee and director of the Gamaliel National Clergy Caucus. Jacobsen's book, which is part of the first-year reading list for new Gamaliel organizers, lays out the underlying theology of Gamaliel's activities. While Jacobsen's book was published in 2001, it is based on presentations Jacobsen has been making at Gamaliel's clergy-training center since 1992 and clearly has Galluzzo's endorsement. So while we cannot be sure that Obama has read or taught Doing Justice, the book certainly embodies a political perspective to which Obama's more than 20 years of friendship with Galluzzo, and his stint as a Gamaliel instructor, would surely have exposed him.
In Jacobsen's conception, America is a sinful and fallen nation whose pervasive classism, racism, and militarism authentic Christians must constantly resist. Drawing on the Book of Revelation, Jacobsen exhorts, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! ... Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins." The United States, Jacobsen maintains, employs nationalism, propaganda, racism, bogus "civil religion," and class enmity to bolster its entrenched and oppressive corporate system. Authentic Christians forced to live in such a nation can "come out of Babylon," says Jacobsen, only by entering into "a perpetual state of internal exile."
Of course, many believers do feel at home in the United States, but according to Jacobsen, these inauthentic and misguided Christians have been lulled into the false belief that the United States is somehow different from other countries--that it stands as a genuine defender of freedom and democracy. According to Jacobsen, the desire of most Americans to create a safe, secure life for themselves and their families constitutes an unacceptable emotional distancing from the sufferings of the urban poor. Jacobsen says that whenever he feels himself seduced by the American dream of personal security--this "unconscionable removal from the lives of those who suffer"--he rejects its pull as the deplorable "encroachment of America on my soul." To "feel at home in the United States," maintains Jacobsen, is not only to fall victim to a scarcely disguised form of political despotism; it is to betray Christianity itself.
Although Jacobsen acknowledges that the sufferings of the poor in America do not quite rise to the level of the Nazi Holocaust, he nonetheless finds a similarity: "The accommodation and silence of the church amidst Nazi atrocities are paralleled by the accommodation and silence of the church in this country amidst a calculated war against the poor." He recounts being present at the Pentagon "to fast and vigil with a group of religious resisters against the madness of nuclear build-up and militarism generated in that place" and is horrified when he sees that many in the American military actually think of themselves as Christians. For Jacobsen, this means that the church has "aligned itself with oppressive forces and crucified its Lord anew."
Jacobsen has a low opinion of the food pantries, homeless shelters, and walk-a-thons that make up so much religious charitable activity in the United States. All that charity, says Jacobsen, tends to suppress the truth that the system itself is designed to benefit the prosperous and keep the poor down. He complains: "The Christians who are so generous with food baskets at Thanksgiving or with presents for the poor at Christmas often vote into office politicians whose policies ignore or crush those living in poverty." "Most churches do not operate on the basis of healthy agitation," he says, but instead "on the basis of manipulation, authoritarianism, or guilt-tripping."
The solution, says Jacobsen, is community organizing: "Metropolitan organizing offers a chance to end the warfare against the poor and to heal the divisions of class and race that separate this sick society." "Militant mass action ... fueled by righteous anger," he maintains, offers authentic community, and therefore "the possibility of fulfillment in a vacuous society." He continues: "If the pain and human degradation all around us doesn't stir up within us sufficient anger to want to shake the foundations of this society, then it's probably best for us to go back to playing church."
Other than the sense of community that is generated by militant struggle, what does Jacobsen offer as the cure for America's ills? He is short on detail here, but there are tantalizing hints. Jacobsen invokes the communal property and absence of private ownership that prevailed among early Christians as a possible model. Despite his initial skepticism regarding such selflessness, says Jacobsen, he has seen this sort of "radical sharing of limited resources" on a trip to a poor African church in Tanzania. Unfortunately, says Jacobsen, "the church in the United States lacks community. The American church by and large is privatistic, insular, and individualistic. It reflects American culture."
These, then, are the beliefs at the spiritual heart of the Gamaliel Foundation's community-organizing efforts. They show clear echoes of Jeremiah Wright's and James Cone's black-liberation theology, and it's evident that Obama has an affinity for organizations that embody this point of view. But a question arises. Gamaliel's goal is to build church-based coalitions capable of wielding power on behalf of the poor. These congregation-based organizations are supposed to counterbalance and undercut America's oppressive power structures. Yet if most American Christians are deluded servants of a sinful and oppressive system, how can they be molded into a majority coalition for change? Given the privatistic, insular, and individualistic character of American culture, theological frankness might backfire and drive away potential allies, exactly as happened with Reverend Wright. Thus arises the need for stealth.
FAKE RIGHT, GO LEFT
It might have been all but impossible to penetrate the strategic thinking of Obama's cohorts if not for the fortuitous 2008 publication of Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-based Progressive Movements, by Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts. This is the first book-length study of the organizing tactics and political ideologies of Gamaliel and ACORN, the two groups to which Obama's community-organizing ties are closest. Swarts's study focuses on Gamaliel and ACORN in St. Louis, but given the degree of national coordination by both groups, the carry-over of her findings to Chicago is bound to be substantial. Because Swarts is highly sympathetic to the community-organizing groups she studies, she was granted an unusual degree of access to strategic discussions during her period of fieldwork.
Swarts calls groups like ACORN and (especially) Gamaliel "invisible actors," hidden from public view because they often prefer to downplay their efforts, because they work locally, and because scholars and journalists pay greater attention to movements with national profiles (like the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition). Congregation-based community organizations like Gamaliel, by contrast, are often invisible even at the local level. A newspaper might report on a demonstration led by a local minister or priest, for example, without noticing that the clergyman in question is part of the Gamaliel network. "Though often hidden from view," says Swarts, "leaders have intentionally and strategically organized these movements that appear to well up and erupt from below."
Although Gamaliel and ACORN have significantly different tactics and styles, Swarts notes that their political goals and ideologies are broadly similar. Both groups press the state for economic redistribution. The tactics of Gamaliel and ACORN have been shaped in a "post-Alinsky" era of welfare reform and conservative resurgence, posing a severe challenge to those who wish to expand the welfare state. The answer these activists have hit upon, says Swarts, is to work incrementally in urban areas, while deliberately downplaying the far-Left ideology that stands behind their carefully targeted campaigns.
While ACORN's membership is fairly homogeneous, consisting chiefly of inner-city blacks and Hispanics, congregation-based community organizations like the Gamaliel Foundation tend to have more racially, culturally, and politically mixed constituencies. The need to overcome these divisions and gather a broad coalition behind its hard-Left agenda has pushed Gamaliel to develop what Swarts calls an "innovative cultural strategy." Because of the suspicions that blue-collar members might harbor toward its elite, liberal leaders, Gamaliel's main "ideological tactic," says Swarts, is to present its organizers as the opposite of radical, elite, or ideological. As Swarts explains, they deliberately refrain from using leftist jargon like "racism," "sexism," "classism," "homophobia," "oppression," or "multiple oppressions" in front of ordinary members--even though, amongst themselves, Gamaliel's organizers toss around this sort of lingo with abandon, just as Jacobsen does in his book.
Swarts supplies a chart listing "common working-class perceptions of liberal social movements" on one side, while displaying on the other side Gamaliel organizers' tricky tactics for getting around them. To avoid seeming like radicals or "hippies left over from the sixties," Gamaliel organizers are careful to wear conventional clothing and conduct themselves with dignity, even formality. Since liberal social movements tend to come off as naive and idealistic, Gamaliel organizers make a point of presenting their ideas as practical, pragmatic, and down-to-earth. When no one else is listening, Gamaliel organizers may rail at "racism," "sexism," and "oppressive corporate systems," but when speaking to their blue-collar followers, they describe their plans as "common sense solutions for working families."
Although the Gamaliel agenda is deeply collectivist and redistributionist, organizers are schooled to frame their program in traditional American, individualist terms. As Swarts puts it:
What makes [Gamaliel's] ideology liberal rather than conservative
is that it advocates not private or voluntary solutions but
collective public programs. They seek action from the state: social
welfare programs, redistribution, or regulation.... But publicly
[Gamaliel and other congregation-based groups] usually emphasize
individual responsibility on the part of authorities.
What Gamaliel really wants, in other words, is for the public as a whole to fork over funds to the government, but they're careful to frame this demand as a call for "personal responsibility" by particular government officials.
The relative homogeneity of ACORN's membership allows it to display its radicalism more openly. According to Swarts, ACORN members think of themselves as "oppositional outlaws" and "militants unafraid to confront the powers that be." Yet even ACORN has a deeper, hidden ideological dimension. "Long-term ACORN organizers ... tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists," says Swarts, while ordinary members rarely think in these overtly ideological terms; for them, it's more about attacking specific problems. In general, ACORN avoids programmatic statements. During a 1980 effort to purge conservatives from its ranks, however, the organization did release a detailed political platform--which Swarts calls "a veritable laundry list of progressive positions."
Although ACORN's radicalism is somewhat more frank than Gamaliel's, ACORN has an "innovative cultural strategy" of its own. ACORN's radicalism is incremental; it's happy to work toward ambitious long-term goals through a series of baby steps. For example, although ACORN has fought for "living wage" laws in several American cities, these affect only the small fraction of the workforce employed directly by city governments. The real purpose of ACORN's urban living-wage campaigns, says Swarts, is not economic but political. ACORN's long-term goal is an across-the-board minimum-wage increase at the state and federal levels. The public debate spurred by local campaigns is meant to prepare the political ground for ACORN's more ambitious political goals, and to build up membership in the meantime.
WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS
Throughout his career, Obama has drawn on all of these strategies. In Illinois's Republican-controlled state senate, Obama specialized in incremental legislation, often drawn up in collaboration with groups like Gamaliel and ACORN. His tiny, targeted expansions of government-financed health care, for example, were designed to build political momentum for universal health care. And his claim to be a "common-sense pragmatist," rather than a leftist ideologue, comes straight out of the Gamaliel playbook.
New evidence now ties Obama still more closely to both organizations. Not only was Obama a trainer for Gamaliel and ACORN, he appears to have used his influence to secure a major increase in funding for both groups--arguably stretching the bounds of propriety in the process.
In 2005, the year after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Community Change released a report titled "Promising Practices in Revenue Generation for Community Organizing." One of the report's authors was Jean Rudd, Obama's friend and the president of the Woods Fund during Obama's years on that foundation's board. Buried deep within the report lies the story of Obama's role in expanding the Woods Fund's financial support for groups like Gamaliel and ACORN.
Since the start of his organizing career, Obama was recognized by the Woods Fund as "a great analyst and interpreter of organizing," according to the 2005 report. Initially an adviser, Obama became a Woods Fund board member, and finally board chairman, serving as a key advocate of increased funding for organizing during that period. In 1995, the Woods Fund commissioned a special evaluation of its funding for community organizing--a report that eventually recommended a major expansion of financial support. Obama chaired a committee of organizers that advised the Woods Fund on this important shift.
The committee's report, "Evaluation of the Fund's Community Organizing Grant Program," is based on interviews with all the big names in Obama's personal organizer network. Greg Galluzzo and other Gamaliel Foundation officials were consulted, as were several ACORN organizers, including Madeline Talbott, Obama's key ACORN contact. Talbott, an expert on ACORN's tactics of confrontation and disruption, is quoted more often than any other organizer in the report, sometimes with additional comments from Obama himself. The report holds up Gamaliel and ACORN as models for other groups and supports Talbott's call for "'a massive infusion of resources' to make organizing a truly mass-based movement."
Support from the Woods Fund had importance for these groups that went way beyond the money itself. Since community organizers often use confrontation, intimidation, and "civil disobedience" in the service of their political goals, even liberal foundations sometimes find it difficult to fund them without risking public criticism. As the report puts it: "Some funders ... are averse to confrontational tactics, and are loathe [sic] to support organizing for that reason. They essentially equate organizing with the embarrassment of their business and government associates." The Woods Fund is both highly respected and one of the few foundations to consistently support community organizing, so its money acts as a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, providing political cover for other foundations interested in funding the hard Left. Obama apparently sought to capitalize on this effect, not only by expanding the Woods Fund's involvement in organizing, but by distributing the Woods report to a national network of potential funders.
Formally, the Woods Fund claims to be "non-ideological." According to the report: "This stance has enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments,' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship." Yet ACORN received substantial funding from Woods, apparently aided by Obama's internal advocacy, and we now know that ACORN members have played key roles as volunteer ground troops in Obama's various political campaigns. That would seem to raise the specter of partisanship.
A 2004 article in Social Policy by Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes, titled "Case Study: Chicago--The Barack Obama Campaign," explains that, given Obama's long and close relationship to ACORN, "it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers" in Obama's campaigns. Perhaps ACORN volunteers observed the technical legalities and helped Obama merely in their capacity as private citizens. Even so, it seems at least possible that Obama used his position at a supposedly nonpartisan foundation to direct money to an allegedly nonpartisan group, in pursuit of what were in fact nakedly partisan ends.
Given Obama's political aspirations, it's notable that the focus of his Woods Fund report is its call for "improving the tie between organizing and policy making" and shifting organizing's focus from local battles to "citywide or statewide coalitions." The report boldly criticizes Saul Alinsky himself for being excessively focused on local issues, complaining that "he did not seek to fundamentally upset the distribution of power in the wider society."
The ultimate goal of all these efforts--fundamental disruption of America's power structure, and economic redistribution along race, poverty, and gender lines--is entirely compatible with the program outlined by Dennis Jacobsen in Doing Justice. Obama could hardly have been unfamiliar with the general drift of Gamaliel ideology, especially given his reputation as an analyst of community organizing and his supervision of a comprehensive review of the field.
Even after becoming a U.S. senator, Obama has maintained his ties to the Gamaliel Foundation. According to an October 2007 report for the University of California by Todd Swanstrom and Brian Banks, "it is almost unheard of for a U.S. Senator to attend a public meeting of a community organization, but Senator Obama attended a Gamaliel affiliate public meeting in Chicago." Given this ongoing contact, given the radicalism of Gamaliel's core ideology, given Obama's close association with Gamaliel's co-founder, Gregory Galluzzo, given Obama's role as a Gamaliel consultant and trainer, and given Obama's outsized role in channeling allegedly "nonpartisan" funding to Gamaliel affiliates (and to his political ground troops at ACORN), some questions are in order. Obama needs to detail the nature of his ties to both Gamaliel and ACORN, and should discuss the extent of his knowledge of Gamaliel's guiding ideology. Ultimately, we need to know if Obama is the post-ideological pragmatist he sometimes claims to be, or in fact a stealth radical.
RELATED ARTICLE: Campaign eternal. (--JIM GERAGHTY)
THE Book of Ecclesiastes tells us that to everything there is a season. In the world of Barack Obama, the season to govern is fleeting, while the season to campaign stretches on longer than a Russian winter.
By Election Day, Obama will have spent 59 of the preceding 112 months campaigning for higher office. That total excludes any perfunctory campaigning to retain his seat in the Illinois legislature, but includes seven months of a failed bid for Bobby Rush's House seat, an astounding 29 months running for the U.S. Senate, and his current marathon for the presidency. Put another way, Obama spent more of the past decade asking voters to promote him than did any other American--even more than John Edwards, who has invested 48 months in a Senate race and two presidential bids since 1997.
All of that time spent seeking ever-higher offices left Obama with limited time for governing. This may not have seemed all that consequential when Obama was an obscure Democrat ranking low in seniority in a Republican-controlled state legislature. But in politics, things can change quickly: Obama has noted that in Illinois he "passed ten bills in my first six years and 25 in my seventh year." Things like that happen when the president of the Illinois senate, Emil Jones Jr., adopts you as a political godson. But now that Obama is in a position of national influence, governing has taken up even less of his time. After making almost every vote in his first two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has missed almost half of the votes since January of 2007. GovTrack.US ranks his vote attendance as "exceedingly poor relative to peers."
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Obama's 1999-2000 campaign for the House was one of his later starts--which is surprising, since dislodging a four-term incumbent is much tougher than running for an open seat. Perhaps that thumping defeat is what prompted him to take the term "head start" to new extremes when in June 2002 he formed his exploratory committee for a March 2004 U.S. Senate primary. Criticism of Obama's campaigning style at that time is similar to the knock on him today--condescending and too fond of himself. But a year and a half of practice ironed out Obama's worst habits, and he began to hone his endlessly praised oratorical skills.
In the end, Obama needed only to be "good enough" as a candidate: Not one, but two of Obama's rivals experienced unexpected political immolation when the Chicago media developed a sudden and mysterious determination to open sealed divorce records--first Democrat Blair Hull's, then those of Republican Jack Ryan.
Obama's presidential-primary win undoubtedly was a tougher fight than his Senate race. But it still followed that earlier pattern--an astonishingly early start followed by a long stretch of little or no interest, including nine months of mediocre debate performances. Then, as in Illinois, his rival suffered intense press scrutiny at the worst possible time. Hillary Clinton was ripped for an evasive, conflicted answer to a question about drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. Next, her tale of dodging Bosnian snipers--repeated several times since December--exploded at the end of March, very shortly after the toxic sermons of Jeremiah Wright came to public notice. If the sniper tale hadn't blunted the effects of the Wright controversy, the Democrats might have a different nominee.
That 59 months of campaigning doesn't include any hours spent stumping in 2005 or 2006, even though some of his biggest time commitments those years could easily be mistaken for a presidential campaign. He completed a two-week, 20-city book tour, made dozens of appearances for House and Senate candidates, raised $6 million for the party, spoke to New Hampshire Democrats, and appeared at Sen. Tom Harkin's steak fry in Iowa.
We do not have a deep sense of how a President Obama would govern-because he hasn't governed much at all. One thing is certain, however. If elected, he would begin his 2012 re-election campaign very, very early.
Thank you for opening my eyes. Obama might have ties to an organization that believes that the disparity in this country between poor and rich is a problem, that racism exists in our society, or that we've been overly militaristic! How could I ever vote for such a person?
Of course, I'm being facetious. I, too, believe that those things are a problem. Mormon and Moroni predicted that they would be. Why would Obama's acknowledgement of those problems disqualify him from being our president?
Please notice that this blog has been dedicated to discussing the issues. I welcome your contribution, but please tell us which positions on the issues you disagree with. Do you disagree that class distinction is a problem in the US? Do you disagree that we've been overly militaristic?
I could post articles that discuss ties that McCain has to questionable groups or individuals, but I find it more productive to talk about the issues and the candidates' policy proposals. Please contribute to a constructive discussion.
OK, so taxes:
-First off, really the economy sucks and no tax cut will cure it. So with that set aside, I don't understand Obama's tax policy (this is not to say I completely agree with McCain's but I dislike Obama's more).
Obama says he'll cut 95% of Americans taxes, how can he do that when 30-40% don't even pay income taxes? If he increases taxes on those in the top 5%, that includes those making $153,542. If you're living in NYC, for a one-income family like mine, that number puts me right in the middle class.
Currently, those who fall in the top 5%, pay 60 % of all federal income taxes. The top 1% (those who make $388,806) pay 40%. Those are some pretty high numbers. Under Obama's tax policy, the top one percent would pay up to 54% of their income in taxes. One world...Socialist. Next they be asking for our first-born child.
Lastly, should those 30-40% who don't pay taxes even have a vote on this policy? Why would anyone ever try to be successful when they are paying for the slug next door who choose to ride the system. Yes, great solution Obama. Punish the successful. (With this I am not talking about those who I will label as "criminal" CEOs/Exon- Mobilers. I think something should be done about that but it's a different issue)
Health Care:
-Obama's $65 billion plan institutes TAX-PAYER funded health care. Again, those non-tax payers love this plan, "More for me. Less for them. And I don't have to do ANYTHING!"
As far as my earlier comment, what I was saying is that due to the competitive drive (meaning people can actually get paid more for performance), many medical advances have been developed or discovered here that have benefited the rest of the world.
And I will say that yes, b/c we don't have universal healthcare, it is possible to find better healthcare options. I didn't say ANYTHING about other countries having bad care, they have just benefited from many of the advantages of our medical advances.
-Fannie & Freddie:
-I'm not stupid enough to point fingers at individual contributors. I'm terrible with words and didn't make myself clear. Perhaps I will do a better job here. Two major Democratic supporters (not fiscal) on Obama's team are Rep Barney Frank and Sen Chris Dodd. Both pushed for and helped develop the affordable housing and home improvement lending programs through Frannie and Freddie. Both at some point earlier this year claimed that these companies weren't facing a crisis. Both were against government taking over the companies.
Frank has recieved over $4s,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae and his former partner was an executive at the time. He pushed lower restrictions on two & three family home mortgages.
Dodd is the number one recipient in congress of funds from Fannie Mae.
These are some men who would be working with Obama. Where is their interest? These are the men that Obama is consulting with on our economy? Conflict of interest? YES?
As I stated before, while these men were pushing these lending programs (yes, they did trickle down from Fannie Mae). On May 5th, 2006, John McCain warned the Majority Leader of the danger this could put the American taxpayer in later on. Sounds like he knows enough about economics to have some foresight whereas Obama only has hinesight.
First let me say that I really appreciate the use of specifics in your argument against Obama's tax policies as they help me better understand your point of view. For me, this is one of the areas of the campaign that has the potential for soliciting a lot of constructive discussion on the issues, without letting emotions get involved, so I'm glad you've brought it up (not to mention the fact that it makes an accountant's heart like mine go pitter-patter).
About Obama's claim that Americans will get a 95% tax cut, I think it's a fair point that you make and sounds to me like Obama may be inflating the potential effects of his proposal in order to win more lower- and middle-income votes. Gotta be honest, wouldn't put it past him--he is a politician after all. However, the specifics of his tax proposal are that he will lower taxes for anyone making under $250,000 and only "raise" them for people making over that amount in the sense that they will revert back to their pre-Bush tax cuts level. I guessing the $153,542 figure you've cited is calculated by looking at something like average American income and figuring out what the top 5% of that means. Still, as a fellow NYC-er I hear you on how much taxes hurt. I hate looking at my pay stub. And $250,000 is not the same in NYC as it is in other parts of the country. In either case, for more specifics on both candidates' tax plans, see here.
I think the argument for bottom-up vs. trickle-down economics is a fair one that we should all think about. The way I understand it, bottom-up economics argues that if we give more tax breaks to the rich and to corporations it doesn't necessarily mean that their prosperity will flow down to the rest of us. You could argue that they'll give us more jobs if they have more money; then again, they may just buy another house or a helicopter. The argument for trickle-down economics is the opposite, if you don't reward success then what motivates people to achieve that success? And the achievement of success stimulates the economy along the way which is better for all of us. I think they're both valid arguments (especially since some pretty smart people have argued for both of them throughout time) and I completely respect the fact that we may disagree on this issue--in fact I think it's great.
As for Health Care, I'm no expert so I'm staying out of this one except to say that I think we tend to oversimplify both candidates' policies. Obama is not for "government-run" health care and McCain is not for "you're on your own" health care. For more specifics on their plans see here.
To the Fannie and Freddie stuff, I think this is McCain's warning that you're referencing, correct? You're right, it's good stuff. It's worth noting that the "crisis" to which McCain and others were responding was accounting fraud and not sub-prime lending, but I think it's still fair to say that McCain had some good and insightful things to say, such as, "OFHEO's report solidifies my view that [Fannie and Freddie] need to be reformed without delay" and "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." Pretty insightful words back in '06 I must admit. Here's what politifact.com has to say about it and the fact that Obama has received money from Fannie and Freddie people (btw I responded to your comment about politifact.com being "lefty" and would like to hear your thoughts).
In any case, thanks for engaging in the discussion and for being willing to defend your views. I hope this helps.
I echo Jed's appreciation of akdoxey's follow up and use of specifics.
About Obama's tax policies offering a tax benefit to 95% of families: his tax proposals include tax credits, so even if you don't pay income tax, you'll get the benefit of some of his tax credits (Jed gave a great explanation of the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction here). It's more accurate to say that 95% of families get a tax benefit than it is to say that they'll get a tax cut. Good catch.
When Obama says that 95% of families will get a tax benefit, he's not implying that 5% of families will get a tax raise. In fact, he's been very specific that only those making more than $250,000 per year will see an increase in taxes. Some families will see no change in taxes.
About Fannie and Freddie, I'm willing to concede that Frank and Dodd were beneficiaries of donations from employees of those organizations, and that some of Frank's and Dodd's initiatives may have contributed to Fannie and Freddie getting into trouble. It seems to me that you're saying that because members of his party dropped the ball, Obama is guilty by association.
But I still contend that Fannie and Freddie played less of a role in the crisis than other factors. Lax lending standards (outside of Fannie and Freddie's purview) and lack of regulation and oversight of large investment banks have been a much larger factor in the crisis. I contend that the Republican party has been by far the stronger proponent of deregulation and limited oversight. And that makes McCain guilty by association.
Now, I infer from some of your other comments that you and I have a different perspective on the poor. I assume (and I'm sorry if I'm being presumptuous), that you tend to believe that poor people deserve to be poor because they don't work hard. Therefore, they don't deserve any help from the government.
I believe that, while that is sometimes the case, many people are poor because they haven't had the same opportunities I've had: a family that fostered intellectual curiosity, a good education, better access to technology and information. I believe that many of the poor work harder than I do, but for much lower wages. Therefore, I believe that we should help the poor. I believe they deserve access to a better education. I believe they deserve to be able to get decent healthcare (in fact, I believe it will be cheaper for all of us if they get more preventive care). I believe they deserve a little tax credit now and then.
You and I may just have to agree to disagree on this. But I think it is important that we understand why we disagree. Thank you for engaging in a constructive dialogue.
This all helped to understand you sides as well however, I just get frustrated because it's hard to know what to believe when you read conflicting arguments from two different reputable sources (in regards to what the candidates are saying). I guess the scary thing about voting for any candidate is that everything could change as soon as they got into office.
I don't think it's all Fannie and Freddie's fault either I was giving more of a sarcastic (but notable) argument to what you posted on your blog as ntelligent, trustworthy economic experts that Obama is consulting with.
As for the poor. Here's my story. My husband is in med school. We are on medicaid, not all people receiving government aid ride the system. However, I live around A LOT of people that do. I study health education in school so I would be the first to say it's cheaper to take a preventative approach than treatment. In our current system, the poor actually have more opportunity to get help than the lower-middle class. I don't agree with that. Why should someone who "decides" not to go to school (it is a decision b/c coming from poorer circumstances doesn't keep you from going to school- the govt understands the value of education and will gladly pay for someone to go to school, esp out of that class.) receive all this tax-paid help when the people who are barely squeaking by can't afford insurance. Now, I know that you're thinking this should be a reason I agree with McCain's healthcare plan but, I just strongly disagree on it being a tax-payers problem. I think, like in CT- or is it MS- companies, including restaurants and lower paying companies, should be required to give insurance benefits. Those who have put in long hours, TOO much money, and many years into school should not be responsible to carry more of the poor's burdens. Our current taxes are already soo crippling. Obama calls it patriotic to pay more taxes but I don't think there's anything patriotic about being FORCED to give to the poor. That should be a choice, and I do "give" to the poor in ways besides my stollen taxes.
whoops, I meant disagreeing with Obama's
You a great point about the poorest having access to help while the middle and lower-middle classes are feeling the real squeeze: not wealthy enough to meet every need, but not poor enough to qualify for help.
I believe that Obama's tax policy is more beneficial to the middle class than is McCain's, but I understand what you're saying that it's hard to know which sources of information you can trust. I can offer what I think have been balanced sources of information.
One is The Economist magazine. They recently had a very good, well-balanced review of the candidates' policies. Here is their summary of the candidates' tax and economic policies: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12321597.
Another source I've found to be well balanced is the Tax Policy Center. Their analysis is more detailed, but heavier reading. You can find it here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf.
Thanks again.
My sentiments exactly go to akdoxey on the healthcare issue. My husband is also a med student and for the last 3 1/2 years it has been a struggle, if not me begging for medicaid. We have never been able to receive coverage for my husband and I only get coverage if I am pregnant. So what I am telling you is that we have both been uninsured for most of the past 4 years. We receive our loan money twice a year and have to budget that money to last for 6 months at a time. I was informed on more than one occasion that it would be more beneficial to me to spend that money so that I could qualify for food stamps and medicaid. I became furious (which probably didn't help my case) and told the caseworker that they were asking for people to be dishonest and irresponsible. My response was a shoulders shrug and continued denial of assistance.
I could go on and on about how infuriating and belittling it is to go in and apply for assistance and repeatedly be denied when I know that my husband will spend the rest of his working years giving back to the community and paying MASS quantities into taxes.
The VAST majority of my husbands patients have no insurance or are medicaid patients...which means they will never pay a dime for healthcare. The ingratitude that he and the other doctors receive from these patients is sickening. I know that it is their duty to perform surgeries, and give healthcare to these patients, and I know that you don't do service for recognition, but some common decency would be appreciated.
I had co-workers that received foodstamps and medicaid when I was working in Utah, yet they managed to buy brand new trucks, every conceivable new game system that came out and throw huge parties at their house every weekend providing food and drink for everybody. How does this happen? If they are so poor that they need medicaid than how are they affording these other niceties?
I wish that I were exaggerating these circumstances because it would make me feel a lot better about the possibility of continuing to pay for other peoples healthcare, and if Obama wins (which I think he will) than paying for even more peoples healthcare.
I have read the arguments repeatedly that we are supposed to give to the poor, etc. And I agree...but to a certain extent. And I think by me being against Obama's healthcare plan it doesn't make me a bad person. It doesn't mean that I don't want to assist the poor ever in anything.
There has to be some regulation in the people that are receiving govt. healthcare. I think that they need to give back to the community in some way. Maybe there needs to be some stipulation that they have a job of some kind, even flipping burgers at McDonald's part time, before they receive assistance. I know not everybody can work and that a lot of people are on disability, but I think that needs to be regulated more too.
I know that on more than one occasion that there has been scripture quoted on this blog to show why we need to give to the poor, assist them, etc. I haven't taken the time to go back and look up the references. It doesn't make me angry, but I'm not sure how it is different than people using scripture to back up their abortion stances. I have been a member of the church for 30 years and I know that the church is pro-charity/service. Anyway, I think it is better if we leave all of that out of these arguments. I think it just gets too personal/heated that way.
I really appreciate both Jenny and Amber's comments about their personal experiences. It's really helped me see how government can affect people's every day lives. And Jenny, I could not agree more with your comments regarding the use of scriptures or church to back up political arguments. I think it has it's place in our own internal debates or perhaps discussions with family members, but not in a public blog such as this. Thank you for your strong and helpful views on this subject.
I was wondering if you and Amber could help me further understand this issue of health care, specifically as it relates to your situations. Putting either candidates' health care plans aside for a moment, if it were possible for us to all have access to government-run health care, would either of you be for that? To me that seems like a solution to Jenny's problem of not being able to access health care like she needs to and also to Amber's problem of some paying taxes so that others can have free health care (if we all get it, would it be ok if we all paid for it?). However, I am far from an expert on health care, which is why I wanted to pose the question to you guys since it sounds like you have much more experience on the subject then I do. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks again for contributing.
Jenny, thank you for your comment you expressed a lot of what I have been feeling about help toward for the poor. I have been having the a moral struggal with this issue. I agree that we need to take care of the poor but when it is the government that is providing this aid it is too easy to abuse. I too have seen it abused. I think this is the problem with a government run welfare system. The government doesn't have the resouces to regulate the system so it get abused. Unfortunately, I can not think of a better way.
As far as health care goes I admit that I am not an expert and don't fully understand the details of either plan. I know that as it stands Obama's plan is not technically universal health coverage but I fear that it is a step in that direction. I do not like the idea of more government involvement in health care. The government has seemed to screw up everything they have gotten involved in, and I can only assume health care would be the same.
I know that Obama has stated that if you like your health care plan as it is there will be no change but if you do not have health care they government would provide a plan for you. My question is what keeps small companies like mine from abandoning providing heathcare knowing that the government will provide a health care plan? In that case those that were happy with there plan would have little choice but to take the governments plan or enrole in a private plan at there own expense.
Here is why I'm voting for Obama.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iOCT142008Baracksplan.htm
October 14, 2008 – Half a decade. That's how long I've waited to write this article.
For half a decade the only articles I've been able to write were the ones that explained that, despite "expert" commentary to the contrary, the nation was headed toward a major economic collapse. And then that the collapse was beginning. And then to repeat, yes, really, there's going to be a collapse. And then, finally, I guess now you see what I meant.
The reason I've been able to predict exactly what was going to happen to the economy half a decade ahead of time was not because I'm psychic. It was because during that period, with Republican conservatives in control of the government, there were no significant changes of policy. And so the disastrous course that was set beginning with the first round of Bush tax cuts just trickled on and on, like a slow motion bullet headed toward the nation's heart but with the nation pinned there by the GOP, blindfolded by media nonsense, and so doomed by an easily escapable problem.
Any significant change of policy during that time could have headed off this disaster. But neither Republican nor Democrat ever really hit the mark.
Until now.
Senator Obama's plan was shocking for many reasons. So far ahead in the race, it was unexpected that he would release such a bold, detailed plan. But more than that, it was truly shocking to see, for the first time in a generation, a politician hit a mark so directly on the head. Delivering exactly to the true middle class, rather than to either the poorer people or the richer, Obama's simple, relatively cheap economic rescue plan, if enacted, would immediately and significantly alter the course of the American economy for the better.
Here's why this plan blows all previous ones away.
The first part is pretty simple and only somewhat significant. His offer of tax cuts directly tied to the creation of new jobs - offering $3000 per new job created in America. For years one of the things I pointed out as a flaw in the conservative dogma was that they claimed giving tax cuts to businesses would create jobs, but they never attached any mechanism to the cuts that made it so. They simply handed money to companies, which could decide to use the money for bonuses for their CEO's - which is what they did - rather than create jobs. If they truly wanted to use tax cuts to business to create jobs, I wrote for years, there had to be something in the cuts that required them to be used for hiring.
Obama's plan does exactly that. And notice the last part of his plan - "$3000 per new job created in America." Previous cuts allowed companies to spend their cash overseas. Obama explicitly stops this.
What you see here is a fundamental shift - Obama is actually looking out for America and for the American people. The Republicans were not stupid. They knew if you just handed cuts to businesses without specifying what the money had to be used for, it would go to bonuses and overseas projects. They just didn't care. They were the rich CEO's and they just wanted companies to get richer.
What Obama proposes in this part is simple, but massively different. For the first time in years, the American people are not having their hands tied behind their back while the government spits directly in their face. No lies, no games, no looking the other way. Barack Obama knew what needed to be done, but didn't put his trust in businesses, as conservatives do. He, in effect, instituted oversight and regulation all within a tax cut. And with that he got at the fundamental flaw of the conservative economic scheme: the idea that businesses act with America's best interest in mind, rather than for the profit of their executives and stock holders, which we all know is actually the case.
This part of Obama's plan is very nice. But what he came up with next was not only brilliant, but the most significantly positive step one could have imagined to immediately fix what is broken in the American economy - and in such a way that it has no real downside.
Barack's plan would allow people to withdraw 15% of their retirement funds, up to $10,000, in 2008 and again in 2009.
Now why is this such a big deal? And when I say big deal, I mean so big this could single-handedly save the American economy and head off depression and collapse.
Here's the rub: the average American family currently owes just under $10,000 in credit card debt.
What was destroying the American economy - and going to continue to destroy it for years - was that the American people weren't just spent out, they were overspent. After decades of spending more than they actually had thanks to easy credit, not only were they going to have to cut spending to get back to what they could afford, but all across the nation, people were completely slamming the door on spending to focus on trying to pay down all the debt they had accumulated.
Now with the numbers we've been hearing lately, $10,000 might not seem that much. But for your average middle class family, to pay that off while still getting by would literally mean years - two to five years - of eliminating virtually all non-essential spending. Cars, vacations, even going out to dinner, all things big and little were getting cut from household budgets left and right. With 2/3 of the American economy consumer spending, this was the problem that was destroying our nation.
Now look at Barack's plan. A family can, without penalty, immediately take $10,000 from their IRA and, instantly - instead of crimping and cutting for 4 years - have that debt be gone. And for those a little deeper in, they could do it a second time right after January, since it's allowed in 2008 and 2009.
There are a number of very important things to notice about this plan: unlike a tax cut stimulus plan, this doesn't cost the government a massive amount of money the nation would have to borrow. This plan allows people to help themselves get out of the mess they made. And, at the same time, it both: 1)1 injects a bunch of cash into the economy, particularly helping fend off bank collapses by having people be able to pay off their debts - all without government borrowing - and, 2) gets people instantly out of the holes they are in, enabling them to begin spending again, and so instantly reviving every layer of the economy, from the corner pizza store to the car dealer.
The best part of this again, like with the first part of Barack's plan, is that more than just being a new policy, it is an important change of philosophy and a more advanced, doubly positive solution. Rather than the government bailing out those in trouble, this allows people to be bailed out but instead by themselves. Beyond this being better for the nation's economy, it is the philosophy of self-reliance and responsibility.
Most notably, this plan, unlike previous plans offered by Democrats, which helped only the poorer among us, or by Republicans, which helped only the richer among us, this plan directly hits the mark of helping the one group that always gets missed: the true middle class. If you are poor, this part of the plan won't help you at all. You won't have much of a 401(K), if any, and so won't have any funds to draw on. And if you are rich, $10,000 won't mean much one way or another.
But for the hard working people in the middle, people earning typically from the $30K's all the way up to $200K, this will be a lifesaver and game changer for each and every household. Even for families that can only withdraw $2000, that would still be years worth of paying down credit cards, since families with less would be able to pay less each month, and would be caught in the credit card interest cycle. Suddenly, boom, $2000 gone in 2008, another $2000 in 2009. Back in the game.
And for the others who can take more, they can either knock out credit card debt or, for those who mortgage woes, use that $10,000 a year to stay afloat for a while - $10,000 can buy a lot of time for a mortgage holder.
And again, since the funds are personal funds and not a tax handout, it is like a massive stimulus program and bank rescue program combined with no real cost to the nation whatsoever.
That is true brilliance.
This part of the plan could put people back on their feet in an instant and save countless banks and lenders by enabling people who would have otherwise gone bust to meet their obligations.
The only question anyone could have about this plan would be won't it hurt at retirement time? But truly, if everyone keeps crimping their spending for years to pay down this debt instead of doing it the way Barack's plan does, so many people would lose their jobs due to economic retraction that they would be far worse off come retirement time.
It's been a long time since I've been able to write an article that had any positive economic news in it. It's been a long run of dire and dark. But now there is hope. If this plan is enacted, combined with Obama's claim that he would launch an all out drive to build a new alternative energy economy, not only can America avoid a massive depression, but America could pull out of this recession in rather short order and, even better, climb to economic heights never seen before by bringing home all the wealth that's been going over to the Middle Eastern oil cartels, Russia, and Venezuela.
The third part of Obama's plan is also very sharp. State and local governments are in dire straights. Declining property tax, etc are sending numerous of them toward bankruptcy. Obama's plan would set up an emergency loan agency just for state and local governments. You know where they've had to go before? To a company called AIG - yes, that one we've had to bail out twice now, while it spends half a million on posh retreats. No more would local governments have to go to AIG - nor go bankrupt.
Again, philosophically, Obama is ending the era of putting America's trust in business. No more trusting AIG to back our governments. We are instead going to trust our government over the businesses. A fundamental shift, and not a moment too soon.
The last part of Obama's plan is a bit of a snoozer - a 90-day freeze on foreclosures. Not something too exciting one way or another. But it does buy some time for the other parts of the plan to be enacted, as well as for people to make plans for dealing with their mortgage situations.
It can not be overstated how important and miraculous this plan rolled out by Barack Obama is. And for a candidate who was far enough ahead in the polls that he could have played it safe and avoided putting any plan out there, it was a brave move, and much to the nation's benefit.
Politically, by truly putting tangible economic turnaround out there for the entire American middle class - pending the election of Obama and Democrats so they can pass this bill right after the election - Obama has won the pocketbooks, and likely the hearts and minds of millions of middle class voters. They say people always vote their pocketbooks. For millions, this plan would lift misery and stress and replace it with a return to normal life, with no bill left to pay down the road. With a vote for Barack meaning $10,000 will instantly be put in their pockets, it is hard to imagine anything but an even more massive swing toward Obama's candidacy by middle class voters. Look for a possible bluing of many currently red states, from the plain states to parts of the south.
I don't know where this idea came from for Obama - if it was Warren Buffet or another advisor who gave it to him. But for Obama to choose the plan that exactly hit the mark, and in the gentlest, smartest possible way, he has shown in one of America's most desperate moments ever that he has the vision and leadership to right the nation's ship amidst the wildest storm.
Bravo. And thank you, Barack, for at last allowing me to write an article about a potential positive development for the American economy.
gregs life, the thing you have to think about in regards to Obama's healthcare plan is that you already are paying for the uninsured as it is today. When the uninsured get sick and go to the emergency room, who do you think ultimately ends up paying for it? Not the uber-rich who barely pay any taxes as it stands, but it, like most things in this nation, falls on the middle class. My hope is that under Obama's plan that some of these people, the majority of whom aren't abusing the system, they are just going to the emergency room as a last resort, will be able to get more regular check-ups and be able have some preventative care.
And this is just me and my new age idealism, but I think there is an outside chance that having the piece of mind of having insurance will keep a lot of people well, our minds and bodies are amazing things when we have less stresses put on them and knowing you won't go bankrupt if you happen to get sick, I believe, will take a lot of undue stress off a nice size chunk of our population. Although I've been wrong plenty of times.
I don't know all that much but I like the point Greg brought up. If everyone will have access to "free" healthcare then if a company can save money, they won't provide it. Then what happens is an extremely spit market. Those who are rich enough to buy seperate insurance or pay out of pocket for the care they WANT will do so and then the rest will kind of be stuck.
Medicaid/medicare actually pays a good portion of billed compared to other insurance companies but I fear that if gov't ran healthcare they would regulate it too much and then Doctor's (ie my husband) would barely make anything. We will be $200k in debt when we're done with school. We need to make enough to pay that back. And the gov't doesn't give ANY assistance to grad programs. It's not just about the money though, it's about the incentive for Doctor's to increase and keep up performance. If you live in NYC, you will probably agree with me that the customer service SUCKS, if it even exists. It is because no matter what people wil come. I think that's what happens when you don't have to compete for service. And as I stated many times, then innovations, new developments, etc. don't improve.
I think that the gov't (esp candidates) needs to stop trying to solve problems using the peoples taxes. Force companies to provide insurance- if it means putting a cap on the CEO's salary then so be it, they don't need that million dollar-plus bonus- or they should regulate insurance companies more. Leave the people alone for once.
I just don't think the gov't should keep feeding the system that teaches people they should do less for more.
Oh and Jared, 60% of federal income is paid by the top 5%. Yes, it falls on everyone, the middle class may feel like they have less but percentage wise, more is coming from the rich.
I just want to clear up something: Obama's not offering free health insurance for anyone. He offers help (subsidies) for those that can't afford health insurance. I don't think that gives companies much incentives to drop health coverage.
What does scare me is McCain's proposal to tax employer provided health insurance. That means that the health insurance my company provides me is suddenly going to cost them an extra $4000 per year (assuming the average policy for a family costs $12000 per year and a roughly 30% marginal tax rate). I think that gives my company a strong incentive to drop health insurance.
Jed, you asked me if I would be for govt. insurance (socialized medicine, universal healthcare, etc.) and the answer for me is: absolutley not.
As with akdoxey I think going anywhere near that would be a huge mistake and a detriment to our healthcare on a whole for all of the reasons she listed: competition, innovations, advancements, etc. And at the risk of sounding selfish--we've got to pay back those $300,000+ loans too.
The reason that I am against Obama's healthcare plan is that it seems to generally be leaning in the direction of socialized medicine. It is too close for me. I know that what Hilary wanted to do was even more closely related to universal healthcare and so I am grateful that it's not her plan we might have to deal with. And like Greg...I can't claim to fully understand either politician's healthcare plan either.
I am nowhere being an expert on this topic and can only offer my opinion. But here goes.
I have lived most of my life with govt. insurance. My dad was in the Air Force for 22 years and so anytime we needed a doctor it was at an AFB hospital. This meant for us that you don't choose your doctor, you show up and when they call your name you go in and see whoever is available. Now, we were really lucky and nobody in my family needed anything more than routine check-ups, antibiotics, etc. No major healthcare interventions. But there is something to be said for getting to choose your doctor.
I know from personal experience and from meeting with and hearing about some of my husband's coworkers that there are good doctors and there are bad doctors. Just like in any profession, somehow some real doozies slip through the cracks and you don't want anything to do with them. If your health is in question you don't want to get stuck with the 'bad' doctor. But in a govt. run program, where you don't necessarily get to choose, then you are playing Russian roulette.
Some of the med student wives that have been on medicaid for their pregnancies did not get to choose their doctor. Nor did they seem the same doctor every time they had an appointment. The docs that showed up to deliver their babies were complete strangers to them.
My mom had three babies at military hospitals, and while she did have good healthcare, I'm not denying that, but she never had the same doc for appointments, etc. and sometimes waited in the waiting room for 3 hours at a time as it used to be that you would show up and they would see you in the order you came in. And same thing, when it came time to have the baby the doctor was somebody she'd never met before.
My older brother served in the military for 4 years and at that time the govt. had started outsourcing a lot of medicine to civilian hospitals. They found it to be more effective to send those serving in the Air Force and their family members out to different hospitals. If the govt. was choosing to outsource then, several years ago, then what is going to happen if the entire U.S. relies on govt. for healthcare?
I have to use my pregnancy as an example because it is (thankfully) the only time in my life that I have needed consistent healthcare over a period of time. I was lucky and was able to select my doctor. She was a fantastic doctor that came highly recommended to me. I developed some complications in the middle of the pregnancy and from then on out had to be seen 2-3 times a week until the end of the pregnancy. It scared me to death, and I had already built a great relationship with my doctor and felt very comfortable with her. I can't imagine having to experience that not knowing what doctor I was going to see at the next appointment and just having to trust that they knew what they were talking about.
Of course we know that their are countries that already run on the socialized plan. I have good friends that are from Canada, and have lived long-term in England that have experienced this system first-hand. These are people that are educated and who I trust and they think that the system is absolutely awful. Now I know that this is their opinion and that you could probably find tons of people in both Canada and England that think the system is great.
I have heard horror stories about the wait to get in to see doctors under the universal system. What would you do if you wanted a second opinion on something? Or a third? What happens if you have been feeling sick and unknowingly have an aggressive form of something but you have to wait forever to meet with your primary care physician before they can send you to a specialist?
Another argument I have is that govt. regulates education. I think everybody generally agrees that there are some major problems and inequalities that go on in education across the nation. Education has been regulated by the govt. for how long? And they still are needing to fix these problems. If the govt. is struggling with education than why do we want to throw healthcare on top of that? Let's get all of the education problems worked out first...before we heap the staggering weight of healthcare on top.
Medicaid and Medicare are govt. run healthcare programs, and while they help a lot of people the system is being abused right and left. This is already too much for the govt. to regulate. It is an absolute mess.
And speaking of customer service issues...try going in to a medicaid office. Yikes. I cannot wait for the day that I no longer have to work with a medicaid office.
Thanks so much for your comments Jenny (and Greg and Amber). I really do appreciate hearing your opinions and your specific experiences. I feel like I'm starting to get a grasp of some of the complexities at play here.
So, Jenny, if I understand you correctly, your objection to government-run health care revolves around the following complaints:
1. It would lower innovation, competition and advancement which could inhibit doctor's ability to make money, which is no good for the student loan bill
2. It would deprive us of our choice of doctor and our ability to build relationships with our doctor
3. It would lead to long wait times
4. Your experiences already with Medicaid have not been good
5. Your friends abroad have had bad experiences with government-run health care
6. The government runs education and that's broken, so we shouldn't let them run health care.
I have to say Jenny, I think it's a good list. If you don't mind, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on a couple of them.
I tend to agree with you on #1. I know there's arguments against it, but I'm not sure I buy them. Oh and I don't think you're selfish at all, as someone who's also got a student loan bill, I completely understand why that's on your mind. #2 is something I'd never thought of, but I think you're right, having a choice of doctor and being able to build a relationship with him/her is important.
#3 and #5 are interesting. I'm pretty sure my brother Alex and his family had a great experience with government-run health care while they were living in the UK. Of course, Alex is a strong supporter of increased government involvement in the health care system, so maybe he went into it with a different attitude (Alex, care to respond and share your experiences?). Anyway, it's interesting to hear that others hated it when he liked it. I've also heard NPR pieces touting the benefits of it (with personal stories) and I have to tell you, it sounds kinda nice.
I have a question about #4. From your previous comments I'm sensing that your big complaint with Medicaid is that they've been jerks about giving it to you. If that's the case wouldn't making it easier for you to get it have helped? Or am I misunderstanding?
Anyway, I hope that didn't seem like I'm attacking your list. Like I say, I think they're all great reasons, I just thought I'd share my thoughts.
I do have some more questions for you (or anyone else who has an opinion on the matter) if you don't mind. Given your list of complaints, what do you think we should do? Anything? If so, what?
One more thing that is important to understand Jed, is with the innovations, advancements that's not for money, it's for healthcare around the globe. Without out competition, there's less incentive to advance (unfortunately, money does play a role in putting in more time). This has contributed to longer, healthier lives, better results in preventative care and surgeries,
So I had a much better experience with medicaid in Utah than in NYC. Way different pregnancy/delivery stories there. For me, the greatest argument is that I'm TOTALLY in favor of less government control in every aspect, hence the reason I'm republican. I get scared of the unknown that could happen if gov't gets too powerful of something.
To Jed's question: Yes, we had a very positive experience with the NHS (the UK government's healthcare system) when we lived in the UK. You can read about our first experience here.
About discontent with the NHS, I read a story in The Economist a few months ago that said that something like only 25% of UK citizens are completely happy with the NHS. But the same story reported that something like only 15% of US citizens are happy with our private healthcare system. So, yes, you hear a lot of complaints from Canadian and UK citizens, but you also hear a lot of complaints from US citizens. And I never met a UK citizen who would be willing to give up the NHS and have the UK go back to a private healthcare system.
To clear up some misconceptions: We were able to choose our own doctor. Everyone in the UK chooses their own doctor. Choice is a big part of their system. And the wait times we experienced every time we interacted with the NHS were less than the wait times we experienced in the US's private healthcare system (not to mention that we didn't have to spend half an hour filling out insurance forms).
And about strangers showing up to deliver babies: Both of our children were born in the US in the private healthcare system (we had employer-based private insurance), and both times a stranger delivered the babies. As I understand it, that's just the way most private practices work: the doctors take turns being on call for delivering babies.
To #'s 3 and five, yes those are weak arguments. It's all just opinion based...and not even my opinion since I've never experienced it for myself. I was only repeating what I was told. And maybe their political feelings did have some say in it--two are Republican and one is a moderate. I was also basing that info off of a special I watched on a medical channel back in the good days when we had satellite.
I am glad that Alex had a good experience in the UK. It is comforting to hear about positive experiences.
About Medicaid-- my problem isn't that I was treated like a jerk, even though it didn't help. And it sort of really isn't based on me being denied. When you are on medicaid it is pretty great insurance. I never once received a bill, statement, etc. They covered all of my costs and only a couple of times did I ever run into the problem of something that they wouldn't cover...usually related to a medicine that my OB wanted me to take. So I am really grateful for when I was on it because there is no way in the world we could have paid those bills. And my daughter is still on it and it is nice not to have to worry about her healthcare.
My problem with Medicaid is that it is a complete mess. From my coworkers in Utah, to my experience here in Missouri, to my older brother's experience in Florida...I'm thinking it is probably the same across the entire US. The abuse of the system is gross. I don't think they have the time, staff, or money to put any more effort into regulating it more than they already are. And I kind of think they don't care very much. But I care a whole lot when US citizens are paying for it.
I talked about my coworkers completely scamming the system, my brother had a very similar experience in Florida and repeatedly states that welfare/medicaid people drive the best cars in the neighborhood.
In my experience, when applying for medicaid, the only thing you need is a driver's license, social security card, and a bank statement. I am sure if you are working (and you report it...this is key...my coworkers were not even reporting that they had a job. They claimed to be unemployed) then you would take in a paycheck stub or something to that affect. They ask you a few simple questions about your assets (cars included...but you never have to show car titles, etc. they just take your word for it. I could say that I have no car or that I drive a brand new cadillac and I would have to show them the same proof...which is absolutely nothing), they ask about your utility bills, rent, etc. and again you never show proof of any of it. It's all based on whatever you tell them.
In all my years of working in Utah with my fraudulent coworkers I kept expecting for somebody to knock down the door and call my co-workers out on their dishonesty. Never happened. For years and years they got by with working 30 hours a week, making more than minimum wage, and not reporting any of it. I know that there are ways that the medicaid system could have checked into this, but to my knowledge they never did. For instance, a simple look at tax records should show a person being employed as taxes are automatically taken out of a paycheck.
Another big problem that I have with Medicaid is that they penalize you for having money in the bank. I hope I can explain what I mean here...what I mean is that the only paper you take in with you is a bank statement. For us, getting paid twice a year, it looks like we have a lot of money in the bank. But my husband and I receive no other money throughout the year. So whatever is in the bank has to be budgeted over 6 months. And it isn't very much money when you look at it like that. But we continually get denied because our money in the bank exceeds the allowable amount. I am here to tell you that divided over 6 months I look at the money and I'm not even sure how we make ends meet. I brought this up with my caseworker and the one said that I would be better off spending the funds. The other claimed/admitted that a lot of the clients were not honest and she figured a lot of them just didn't put their earnings in the bank. The maximum allowance for money in the bank is very low. Very low. And to me it seems that by having that standard the medicaid system is promoting dishonesty or spending of money that could be set aside. What's to make a person put money in the bank, or save money if they could if it will end up penalizing them?
What it comes down to for me is that the system is a total wreck and the govt. is running it. For me my biggest problem with universal healthcare is my feelings about argument #1 and #6. Although I guess you could probably tell that I feel passionately about medicaid as well.
And unfortunately, I don't have any solutions to the healthcare problem, although I really like some of the ones Eric listed above. Honestly, and sadly, I have never put too much thought into it. I've just kind of accepted the system the way it is, which I know is wrong. But I will still maintain that I don't think government involvement is the way to go.
I guess I should make it clear that I don't think all people that are medicaid are scamming the system. I know and don't doubt at all that there are definitely those in need, who are good people, but have hard lives. And I am glad medicaid is there to help those people. I just wish we could weed out the others ones.
Jenny,
Thanks for sharing those experiences. That's very eye-opening. And it raises concerns and helps us all see how the system should be improved.
To be honest, those stories help me appreciate the simplicity of a system like the NHS. Everyone pays taxes and everyone gets healthcare. People like your coworkers that underreported their income wouldn't be scamming the system. They'd be paying for it out of their taxes just like everyone else.
(I have to admit that I would prefer a single-payer system like the NHS. Again, that's not what Obama is proposing. You're right that Hillary's plan was closer to a single-payer system--even though even she didn't go that far--and I preferred her plan to Obama's.)
Another solution to the problems you mentioned is that the government could invest in better information technology to be able to find and stop the fraud. It sounds simple that a Medicaid worker should be able to look up an applicant's tax records to verify their income. But I've found that government agencies often don't have access to each other's data and it's not easy to match data from one system to data from another (my company provides technology to do that, so I know a little about what the existing systems are like).
The thing is, to invest in technology like that requires money. And we all have an aversion to spending more money on programs like Medicaid. We've gotten in the habit of thinking of government agencies as ineffective and problematic, and not worthy of more investment. On the other hand, if we invested more in them (not just money, but also smart people and more attention), they maybe they would stop being a problem and start being a better solution.
I know what I'm saying is high-level and theoretical, but I thought I'd share a different perspective.
Post a Comment