Obama Watch is simple. It's a new feature of The Citizen Post in which I, or anyone else interested, will post articles, blog posts or other news articles detailing the actions taken by the Obama administration and compare those to what Obama said he would do during the campaign.
As many of you already know, I voted for Obama. I've supported his campaign for quite some time, I wrote posts in support of it, I contributed money to it, I almost made calls for it . . . almost. However, as the politicians like to say, now that the election is over it's time to put partisanship aside. I agree. I also think putting partisanship aside should work both ways. And so, while I supported Obama during the election, now that he's going to be President it's time to put that support aside and watch what he does with a bipartisan eye.
This blog has received some criticism for being too left-leaning, even bordering on Obama worship. While I personally maintain that the opinions I shared during the election were based on a decision I made as a result of independent research, I also take such criticisms seriously--though I try not to take anything too seriously anymore.
Enter the Obama Watch. Hopefully this will help to bring more balance to The Citizen Post, while at the same time helping us to stay involved in the process and keep our politicians connected to their campaign promises.
I'll go first.
Here's a link to an article in yesterday's edition of the New York Times outlining the role of lobbyists, and their money, in the Obama transition team. Lobbyist influence was a main talking point of the Obama campaign. He argued time and again that lobbyists' influence in Washington came between the interests of the people and those meant to govern on their behalf, and that he was going to stop it.
Here's a link to another New York Times piece talking about Obama's decisions of late on education reform and it's priority in his Presidency. As a reminder, in his Democratic nomination acceptance speech, Obama said in part, "I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American--if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."
So how's he doing so far? In the spirit of bipartisanship, I prefer to let you read and tell me what you think.
5 comments:
I don't know if the fall in the US performance in math and language is related to the teachers.
Mr. Obama's plan seems to focus on replacing the current teachers, pay them more, and expect more (vague). Also he promises to make sure that individuals can 'afford' a college education if they 'commit' to serving the community or country (once again vague).
I submit that there is more of a value problem in the US. Many individuals and families no longer value education as it once was valued in the US. I don't forsee any effective government approach on this front.
I am for increasing teachers' salary. They are truly underpaid, underresourced government workers. I will sign up for that tax increase.
I don't know if targeting the price of college is an effective goal. There exist myriad scholarships and affordable community college opportunities. FAFSA already covers quite a bit.
I am for an increase in teachers pay and encouraging college education. I don't think that any of Obama's changes target the real problem, however.
-Al
From the article, it unfortunately sounds like education reform is taking a back seat.
Also, it seems like health care reform may continue forward regardless of the costs to the country. (Mr. Obama did promise to sign health care reform into effect before the end of his first term--sans condition.) Senator Baucus (Montana) has released a plan that will completely cover all the uninsured, requiring everyone in the US to have health insurance.
I haven't read the bill yet. I don't know how the government will ensure that everyone is covered, but it will be expensive. If a government subsidized HMO is offered at the same time it is required for all to have health insurance, more than likely the NHE will be offered to all levels of income.
I think this will cause everyone to drop their health insurance (me included--if I'm going to pay taxes for it and I can get it for cheap, I'm going to get it), place a fantastic burden on the government and the program will be abandoned. A similar situation happened in Hawaii.
Once again, I haven't read the bill. I'm leaving out of town again and don't have much time to sift through its nuances. I could be wrong. But I'm not for reforming health care regardless of cost. Baucus' plan sounds bad.
-Al
Also on the horizon:
"Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That's the first thing that I'd do."
-Al
You didn't mention it, but I would like to bring up Obama's role in the auto industry bailout. I voted for Obama, and am now quite disappointed that this is one of his first executive actions. It was apparent in the last weeks of the campaign that a bailout was inevitable, given that both McCain and Obama supported it.
A few arguments for a bailout:
It is an opportunity to make the US a world leader in the auto industry again. We (the taxpayers) can rebuild it from scratch and make sure they produce what the market desires.
Unemployment could jump to seven or eight percent in a very short amount of time if we allow them to collapse, the many companies that leach off of the industry would die, and we would probably further lower GDP.
If US car companies are gone, we wouldn't be able to buy parts for the millions of American cars on the road, the resale values would approach zero. It would be like flooding the market with Yugos.
A few arguments against a bailout:
Economics 101: there are limited resources in the US, and when those resources are allocated inefficiently productivity slows. US Auto companies are highly inefficient and they are eating up resources that could be used in much better ways.
We need the innovation and enthusiasm that comes with new companies. With the bloated auto industry that doesn't have to be profitable because it gets help from the government, it is impossible for a new company to compete.
If we bail out car companies, won't other industries demand money from Uncle Sam? Where do we draw the line?
We tried this in the 70's. It didn't work.
Congress isn't smart enough to write a good bailout package.
Here is a good article in the WSJ: Just Say No to Detroit
Good job, Jed.
I read both articles you suggested, and don't see anything to criticize the President Elect for so far.
I don't agree with the arguments the gentleman made about education. It's too early to tell whether Obama is forgetting his commitment to education. When the patient is dying from heart failure, you need to get his heart beating again before you give him food. He may be starving, but that won't kill him nearly as fast as his failed heart.
Post a Comment