In e-mail exchanges with one of my daughters, I've done my best to understand the tax proposals of the two candidates and their potential consequences. I've discussed some of what I've learned below, under "Responses to reservations." But I confess to not being an expert on the subject. I hope that whoever is elected, there will be serious discussion of whatever proposals are made, along with some tinkering and compromise. What follows is a short list of my reasons for supporting Obama's proposals, followed by indications from experts that these proposals are positive ones.
(1) Obama's main tax proposal is that taxes will not increase for those making less than $250,000 a year--in fact, for most, tax rates will be slightly lower--while tax rates will be slightly higher (raised from 36 to 39%) for those making over $250,000. These are not drastic changes. They certainly do not consitute
"socialism" (see below on that pseudo-issue). They aim at helping a struggling middle class. Helping the middle class may well do more to jump start and expand the economy than drastically lowering the rates for the wealthiest Americans, which is what McCain proposes.
(2) Obama's proposals also aim at helping small businesses, especially those just starting out. Capital gains taxes will be eliminated or reduced for small businesses. (By the way, 98% of small businesses make less than $250,000.)
(3) Obama also proposes tax credits for business making new hires, as long as the jobs remain in the United States. The aim, of course, is job creation. At the same time, he proposes reducing tax credits for business that ship jobs overseas.
(4) One reason for the Wall Street melt down was apparently lack of adequate oversight and regulation. McCain has argued for years for more deregulation; Obama was quicker to see the problems that were resulting from that approach.
(5) Though economists and CEOs differ on which candidate has the best plan, among those who prefer Obama are Warren Buffett and the CEO of Google. Note also the following:
Former Republican Senator Larry Pressler has endorsed Obama, saying: "I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of [former Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin and [former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker better." (See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14963.html.)
Charles Fried, Solicitor General under Reagan and until recently an advisor to the McCain campaign, has also endorsed Obama. Fried is a conservative Harvard economist. (See http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/24/reagan-appointee-and-recent-mccain-adviser-charles-fried-supports-obama.)
A general comparison of approaches to the economy may be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html.
Also, The Financial Times (a UK publication) has endorsed Obama (I note them here because it would seem they would know something about economics). Their endorsement (click here or here) is quite striking because, as non-Americans, the writers are able to be dispassionate and reasonably objective. (Late breaking news: Another UK publication, the highly respected journal The Economist, has also endorsed Obama: click here.)
The Financial Times does find one serious flaw with Obama's proposals--his statements against free trade. I've heard Obama say several times that he favors free trade but believes that free trade agreements need to include provisions that guarantee fairness. Assuming that his support of free trade is genuine and that the conditions he would set on agreements would not be unreasonable, then I'm OK with Obama on that issue as well.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
A Guide to "Election 2008"
You can either browse through the posts below or use the links I'm providing here to find particular items. Below you'll find:
(1) "The Purpose of This Site."
(2) "Who I support and why"; "Why Obama?: Reasons"; "Why Obama?: Preliminaries"; "Responses to reservations"
(3) "Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama"; plus other Republicans for Obama (see "Republicans for Obama"; another site at http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341; and "The Moderate Voice")
(4) "Some reassurance on the economy"
(5) "Get to know the candidates." (Plus more here.)
(6) Information on Barack Obama: "Take a few minutes to listen to him" (includes links to a number of important speeches); "Obama in 30 seconds" (quick campaign ads). (See also #2 and 5 above.)
(7) Information on John McCain: "John McCain." (See also #5 above.)
(8) Posts on McCain's vice presidential choice: "What if McCain chooses Romney?" (which of course he didn't); "Sarah Palin"; "Sarah Palin, part 2"; "Sarah Palin, part 3".
(9) The candidates' health care plans: "Obama's and McCain's Health Care Plans"
(10) "My views on the issues."
(11) Personal feelings about religion, politics, and party affiliation: "Religion and politics: Especially for Latter-day Saints"; "Why I'm a Democrat (sort of)."
(1) "The Purpose of This Site."
(2) "Who I support and why"; "Why Obama?: Reasons"; "Why Obama?: Preliminaries"; "Responses to reservations"
(3) "Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama"; plus other Republicans for Obama (see "Republicans for Obama"; another site at http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341; and "The Moderate Voice")
(4) "Some reassurance on the economy"
(5) "Get to know the candidates." (Plus more here.)
(6) Information on Barack Obama: "Take a few minutes to listen to him" (includes links to a number of important speeches); "Obama in 30 seconds" (quick campaign ads). (See also #2 and 5 above.)
(7) Information on John McCain: "John McCain." (See also #5 above.)
(8) Posts on McCain's vice presidential choice: "What if McCain chooses Romney?" (which of course he didn't); "Sarah Palin"; "Sarah Palin, part 2"; "Sarah Palin, part 3".
(9) The candidates' health care plans: "Obama's and McCain's Health Care Plans"
(10) "My views on the issues."
(11) Personal feelings about religion, politics, and party affiliation: "Religion and politics: Especially for Latter-day Saints"; "Why I'm a Democrat (sort of)."
The Purpose of This Site
This site is intended for three main audiences:
(1) Anyone in the world interested in the 2008 American political season, especially the campaign for the presidency of the United States.
(2) My family, friends, and acquaintances, some of who will be pleased to know of my opinions, some of whom will be troubled or even shocked. (One of my purposes will be to explain and even persuade--or at least to leave those who read in a diminished and somewhat calmer state of puzzlement.)
(3) Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"). The Church is officially neutral in politics and has in fact affirmed that both major parties espouse principles in harmony with Church beliefs. Yet many Latter-day Saints, especially in Utah, are convinced that only one party (Republican) and only one political philosophy (conservative) harmonize with their religion. As a Latter-day Saint, I intend to challenge that view and argue that Latter-day Saint beliefs are compatible with candidates and positions that some of my co-religionists would refuse to even consider.
Some readers may not find this site useful or appealing. This site is not intended for those who believe in vast conspiracies that render even the best candidates suspect or who think that the whole election process is futile since evil forces are actually running to whole show. If you really believe everything FOX News tells you, you may not find what I have to say persuasive. I am not interested in vilifying or demonizing any of the candidates--and so if that's your thing, you may not have much fun hanging out here. And if you like to bash particular religious, political, or ethnic groups, I'd rather not have you indulge in that here.
(1) Anyone in the world interested in the 2008 American political season, especially the campaign for the presidency of the United States.
(2) My family, friends, and acquaintances, some of who will be pleased to know of my opinions, some of whom will be troubled or even shocked. (One of my purposes will be to explain and even persuade--or at least to leave those who read in a diminished and somewhat calmer state of puzzlement.)
(3) Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"). The Church is officially neutral in politics and has in fact affirmed that both major parties espouse principles in harmony with Church beliefs. Yet many Latter-day Saints, especially in Utah, are convinced that only one party (Republican) and only one political philosophy (conservative) harmonize with their religion. As a Latter-day Saint, I intend to challenge that view and argue that Latter-day Saint beliefs are compatible with candidates and positions that some of my co-religionists would refuse to even consider.
Some readers may not find this site useful or appealing. This site is not intended for those who believe in vast conspiracies that render even the best candidates suspect or who think that the whole election process is futile since evil forces are actually running to whole show. If you really believe everything FOX News tells you, you may not find what I have to say persuasive. I am not interested in vilifying or demonizing any of the candidates--and so if that's your thing, you may not have much fun hanging out here. And if you like to bash particular religious, political, or ethnic groups, I'd rather not have you indulge in that here.
My views on the issues
I still have a lot to learn. But here is a stab at expressing my current views on some of the important issues. Click on the topic to go to an explanation of my views.
FOREIGN POLICY (including Iraq)
HEALTH CARE
EDUCATION
ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT
CIVIL RIGHTS (human rights, civil liberties)
IMMIGRATION
FAMILY/SOCIAL ISSUES
FOREIGN POLICY (including Iraq)
HEALTH CARE
EDUCATION
ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT
CIVIL RIGHTS (human rights, civil liberties)
IMMIGRATION
FAMILY/SOCIAL ISSUES
Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama
It's 7-minutes long--you can watch Colin Powell's strongly and intelligently argued endorsement of Barack Obama by clicking here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490
Who I support and why
[For a brief (and updated) list of reasons, see "Why Obama?: Reasons."]
On our anniversary (last May 17) my wife and I saw the new Narnia film Prince Caspian. I overheard a couple behind us talking about Obama. The wife said, "He's a good guy, isn't he?" The husband responded, "Well, he sounds good."
My experience over the past few months is that Obama not only sounds good--he's actually even better than he sounds. Time after time, when he's had to deal with difficult challenges, he's shown integrity, intelligence, and courage. I feel I've gotten to know him, not only by observing him during the primary season and beyond,but by learning about his life and reading what he has written.
I respect John McCain as well. We could certainly do much worse. But I enthusiastically support Obama.
My reasons include:
(1) Obama's remarkable character and capacity for leadership. I've heard a number of people say, "He inspires me to be my best self." He has motivated millions of people to participate in the political process and for many has revived hope that we can work together to solve problems rather than wallow in partisan bickering. I've been impressed by his honesty and genuineness; his desire to unite rather than divide; his ability to transcend ideology; his ability to lift and energize; his intelligence and good judgment; his calmness and dignity under stress; his efforts to be civil and respectful; his refusal to pander; his moral and spiritual grounding; his beautiful family; and his inspiring personal story.
(2) His intelligence and ability to see the various sides of an issue. Obama doesn't tend to jump to impulsive decisions or take simplistic views on difficult issues. He truly thinks things through and tries to come to a well-informed and balanced view of subjects. Rather than going to one extreme or the other on divisive issues, he looks for common ground where we can work together to resolve problems.
(3) His positions on the issues. I don't agree with him on everything, but I like his views on many issues that are important to me, including the Iraq War, foreign policy, immigration, and the environment. Those who accuse him of a lack of substance clearly haven't done their homework. He has detailed positions on many important issues, and you can easily find those positions. Try this link, for instance: "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan for America" (a PDF file with details of Obama's positions). Or this one: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (to link to Obama's positions on specific issues). To compare his views with mine, look at this summary of my views: "My views on the issues."
(4) My hope that he'll be able to help bring about needed change--in part because of his ability to get people involved at the grassroots level. Though it's hard to predict, I believe that Obama as president may well be able to provide leadership that will help us make progress in solving some of the problems we're faced with--in part because of Obama's ability to explain and persuade and his resistance to partisan pandering. I hope that Congress, and even more, the American people, give him a chance and come to appreciate his intelligence, good judgment, and genuine good will. He believes that real change comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. But I believe he may be able to inspire people from the grassroots level to the highest levels of government to work together in solving problems.
By the way, his campaign has done a great job of involving people at the grassroots level: anybody can volunteer to host an event (and hundreds have been held--including one we hosted and a couple we attended); there have been voter registration drives getting thousands of people involved in the political process for the first time; and the campaign even encouraged holding neighborhood meetings to give input into the party platform. It has been exciting to see participatory democracy in action. (For some personal stories, see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/hq-voices-for-change.)
Two further reasons I think electing Obama president would be a good thing:
(5) I think it's time for a major change in the White House--and though McCain would be at least somewhat different from Bush, I don't think having him as president would be enough of a change. I think it's time for the Democrats to have a turn.
(6) I believe Joe Biden would be a much better vice president than Sarah Palin.
To all of these reasons I would add some personal background. One reason I'm supporting Obama as enthusiastically as I am is that I've really enjoyed the excitement of being part of something so big, so positive, so historic. Here's a brief history of how my family and I have gotten involved.
Last year a friend gave my wife Dreams from My Father, Obama's memoir; she became an Obama supporter while I was still surveying the field. Ultimately, her enthusiasm was contagious--and three of our children (two of them voting age) became Obama supporters too. Since then we've contributed money and phonecalling time; I've commented on political blogs; I've talked to family, neighbors, and friends and even communicated with a superdelegate; and I've been involved in local political activities as an Obama supporter (I'm a precinct chair and county convention delegate in the local Democratic Party).
There have been ups and downs along the way, but I've almost been grateful for the challenging times because I've been so impressed by how Obama has handled things. I keep feeling, "He's even better than I thought he was." His speeches are among the best I've heard during over 40 years of being aware of such things. My wife and I were both deeply moved--and enlightened and inspired--by his speech on race and felt that it was a historic event, that we would not be surprised if our grandchildren were to study that speech in school some day. And a relative--no fan of Obama, I'm afraid--listened to his speech after the North Carolina primary and declared it one of the great political speeches he had heard.
Though I've been disappointed by the mean-spiritedness, even viciousness, of which people in both political camps are capable of, I trust the ability of the American people in general to respond to goodness and truth. With the belief that my trust is well placed, I'm hopeful that Obama's positive approach and his capacity to unite can help inspire Americans to join to healing our divisions and solving problems. I believe Obama has the potential to be a truly great president.
On our anniversary (last May 17) my wife and I saw the new Narnia film Prince Caspian. I overheard a couple behind us talking about Obama. The wife said, "He's a good guy, isn't he?" The husband responded, "Well, he sounds good."
My experience over the past few months is that Obama not only sounds good--he's actually even better than he sounds. Time after time, when he's had to deal with difficult challenges, he's shown integrity, intelligence, and courage. I feel I've gotten to know him, not only by observing him during the primary season and beyond,but by learning about his life and reading what he has written.
I respect John McCain as well. We could certainly do much worse. But I enthusiastically support Obama.
My reasons include:
(1) Obama's remarkable character and capacity for leadership. I've heard a number of people say, "He inspires me to be my best self." He has motivated millions of people to participate in the political process and for many has revived hope that we can work together to solve problems rather than wallow in partisan bickering. I've been impressed by his honesty and genuineness; his desire to unite rather than divide; his ability to transcend ideology; his ability to lift and energize; his intelligence and good judgment; his calmness and dignity under stress; his efforts to be civil and respectful; his refusal to pander; his moral and spiritual grounding; his beautiful family; and his inspiring personal story.
(2) His intelligence and ability to see the various sides of an issue. Obama doesn't tend to jump to impulsive decisions or take simplistic views on difficult issues. He truly thinks things through and tries to come to a well-informed and balanced view of subjects. Rather than going to one extreme or the other on divisive issues, he looks for common ground where we can work together to resolve problems.
(3) His positions on the issues. I don't agree with him on everything, but I like his views on many issues that are important to me, including the Iraq War, foreign policy, immigration, and the environment. Those who accuse him of a lack of substance clearly haven't done their homework. He has detailed positions on many important issues, and you can easily find those positions. Try this link, for instance: "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan for America" (a PDF file with details of Obama's positions). Or this one: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (to link to Obama's positions on specific issues). To compare his views with mine, look at this summary of my views: "My views on the issues."
(4) My hope that he'll be able to help bring about needed change--in part because of his ability to get people involved at the grassroots level. Though it's hard to predict, I believe that Obama as president may well be able to provide leadership that will help us make progress in solving some of the problems we're faced with--in part because of Obama's ability to explain and persuade and his resistance to partisan pandering. I hope that Congress, and even more, the American people, give him a chance and come to appreciate his intelligence, good judgment, and genuine good will. He believes that real change comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. But I believe he may be able to inspire people from the grassroots level to the highest levels of government to work together in solving problems.
By the way, his campaign has done a great job of involving people at the grassroots level: anybody can volunteer to host an event (and hundreds have been held--including one we hosted and a couple we attended); there have been voter registration drives getting thousands of people involved in the political process for the first time; and the campaign even encouraged holding neighborhood meetings to give input into the party platform. It has been exciting to see participatory democracy in action. (For some personal stories, see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/hq-voices-for-change.)
Two further reasons I think electing Obama president would be a good thing:
(5) I think it's time for a major change in the White House--and though McCain would be at least somewhat different from Bush, I don't think having him as president would be enough of a change. I think it's time for the Democrats to have a turn.
(6) I believe Joe Biden would be a much better vice president than Sarah Palin.
To all of these reasons I would add some personal background. One reason I'm supporting Obama as enthusiastically as I am is that I've really enjoyed the excitement of being part of something so big, so positive, so historic. Here's a brief history of how my family and I have gotten involved.
Last year a friend gave my wife Dreams from My Father, Obama's memoir; she became an Obama supporter while I was still surveying the field. Ultimately, her enthusiasm was contagious--and three of our children (two of them voting age) became Obama supporters too. Since then we've contributed money and phonecalling time; I've commented on political blogs; I've talked to family, neighbors, and friends and even communicated with a superdelegate; and I've been involved in local political activities as an Obama supporter (I'm a precinct chair and county convention delegate in the local Democratic Party).
There have been ups and downs along the way, but I've almost been grateful for the challenging times because I've been so impressed by how Obama has handled things. I keep feeling, "He's even better than I thought he was." His speeches are among the best I've heard during over 40 years of being aware of such things. My wife and I were both deeply moved--and enlightened and inspired--by his speech on race and felt that it was a historic event, that we would not be surprised if our grandchildren were to study that speech in school some day. And a relative--no fan of Obama, I'm afraid--listened to his speech after the North Carolina primary and declared it one of the great political speeches he had heard.
Though I've been disappointed by the mean-spiritedness, even viciousness, of which people in both political camps are capable of, I trust the ability of the American people in general to respond to goodness and truth. With the belief that my trust is well placed, I'm hopeful that Obama's positive approach and his capacity to unite can help inspire Americans to join to healing our divisions and solving problems. I believe Obama has the potential to be a truly great president.
Responses to reservations about Obama
I've defended Obama against the extreme prejudice and unfair attacks he's been subjected to--and I really believe that anyone with an open mind and a feeling heart who gets to know him will at least acknowledge that he's a "good guy."
But of course, he has his flaws. He’s a quick learner, but he still has a lot to learn. (I would say the same of McCain, except that I don’t see him as being as receptive to learning.) I don’t know how well some of Obama’s proposals would work, assuming they are put into practice in exactly the way he has proposed them. But he is intelligent and pragmatic enough, I believe, that he’ll make adjustments when needed. Here are my responses to some specific reservations some have:
1. Lack of experience: Especially considering his relative youth (though he’s not as young as John F. Kennedy was), Obama has lots of experience relevant to serving as president. He has rich, direct experience with the world and with life and with much of the variety that makes up America. His work as a community organizer put him in touch with people struggling with unemployment and community problems. It involved hands on, practical experience. He has not had experience as an elected executive (neither has McCain), but he’s been actively involved in local, state, and national politics for more than two decades.
2. Lack of accomplishments: Again, his accomplishments have been impressive given his age. Contrary to Sarah Palin’s claim that he hasn’t had a single legislative accomplishment, he proposed or sponsored many pieces of legislation at the state and national level. Among the bills he helped turn into law as a senator (sometimes working closely with Republicans) are these: the 2007 Ethics Reform Law (described as the "most sweeping since Watergate"), legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose their bundling activity, legislation (co-sponsored with Republican Dick Lugar) to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, legislation to help protect medical benefits for veterans and improve services for homeless veterans, and various items dealing with energy and health care. (For more, see http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php.)
3. Socialism: The latest McCain campaign line has been that Obama’s proposals amount to socialism. That’s rubbish. Consider these points: (a) When the Bush tax cuts for those with higher incomes were proposed, McCain opposed them, on the grounds that they would make it impossible to give the middle class as much tax relief as he believed might be needed. That's essentially Obama's position. Does that make McCain a socialist? Obviously not. (b) McCain makes his claim about Obama in part because the tax cuts Obama proposes for those making less than $250,000 a year may lead to refunds to some people who have not paid taxes. But that happens now (e.g., Earned Income Credit--established under Reagan) and would also happen under McCain’s own health care plan, which gives a credit to everyone, including those who pay no taxes. (c) Another reason for McCain’s claim is that Obama’s tax cuts are made possible by increasing taxes (modestly) for those making over $250,000 a year. But McCain’s credits for health care are funded by taxing people for the health care benefits provided by employers, and so he also provides credits through taxes levied on some taxpayers. (d) The United States has had a progressive tax system for a long time, and McCain doesn’t propose to scrap that. (In fact, see the note at the end.) All Obama is proposing are some minor adjustments to the current tax code. It is absolute nonsense to call that “socialism.” It may be fair to say that Obama’s proposals do not assume a state of pure, unregulated capitalism, but neither do McCain’s. In fact, the United States has had a “mixed” economy for a long time. It has not been purely capitalist since the late 1800s when “robber barons” ruled, leading to reforms that virtually everyone believes were necessary to temper or eliminate the abuses that come with pure, completely unregulated capitalism. (e) Some call Obama’s health care plan “socialized medicine.” It is not. (See the next item.) (f) Clearly, America’s closest encounter with socialism has been the bailout recently proposed by President Bush and supported by both parties (and both candidates). In particular, the government’s buying of equity in banks has amounted to partial nationalization. But Obama (like virtually everyone else) views such measures as temporary responses to an extreme crisis. They do not represent his general approach to the economy. (But he does favor some measure of regulation of Wall Street. See more on this below.) (NOTE: See the note at the end of the post for statements McCain and Palin have made favoring the "sharing" or shifting of wealth.)
4. Obama’s health care plan: Obama’s plan is not “socialized medicine.” Contrary to McCain’s assertions in one of the debates, Obama will not be deciding who you can have as a doctor or what procedures you can have. (Have you noticed that insurance companies tend to decide those things for us currently?) Here’s a summary of Obama’s plan:
Under Obama’s proposal, those who now have an employer provided plan would simply keep it, but possibly with reduced premiums. Those without an employer-provided plan would have affordable choices through a “national health-care exchange” that includes private options and the option of choosing a national health-care plan. Businesses (with the exception of some small businesses) would be required to provide health insurance to employees. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage or setting prices based on health status or pre-existing conditions. Preventive care would be emphasized, and coverage of children would be mandated. Government would pay for a portion of catastrophic care coverage. A tax credit would be provided to help small businesses provide health care coverage. There are also provisions (which would have no tax consequences) to reduce drug costs and the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians. (For more, see "Obama's and McCain's Health Care Proposals".)
5. Obama’s tax proposals: Obama has proposed reducing taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year and increasing taxes (modestly) for those making over that amount. I’ve heard estimates that that means tax cuts for somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 to 95 per cent of Americans, including most small businesses. His plan also includes tax credits for every job a company creates as long as the job remains in the United States. I have no problem with his plan in general—it seems fair to me, especially considering that some of the wealthiest businesses and individuals have figured out ways to pay a disproportionately small amount of taxes and also considering that middle class Americans work just as hard as those who are wealthier.
But I have pondered the concerns some have that these increased taxes might slow economic growth by making less money available for investment. I don’t know how valid those concerns are. But I believe there’s some evidence that economic growth would not be stunted. The tax rate for those making over $250,000 would still be smaller than it was under Clinton, and the country’s economy did exceptionally well under Clinton. In fact, someone pointed out (I believe it was Mario Cuomo) that the times in recent history when this kind of adjustment was made to the tax code, the economy was not hurt but benefitted. (See also this article in the Christian Science Monitor for a similar assessment.) Given the fact that Obama intends to emphasize health care and education, including reducing health care costs through a much stronger emphasis on prevention, it can be argued that he intends to help put in place a foundation for economic stability and growth that could have a very beneficial long-term effect on the economy.
For an objective comparison of the two candidates' tax plans, see http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article or http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm. For a favorable assessment of Obama's approach to the economy, consider the comments of former Republican Senator Larry Pressler, who now backs Obama: "I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of [former Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin and [former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker better. . . . [McCain's] handling of the financial crisis made me feel nervous" (see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14963.html). Note also that conservative Harvad economist Charles Fried, Solicitor General under Reagan and until recently associated with the McCain campaign, now backs Obama (see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/24/reagan-appointee-and-recent-mccain-adviser-charles-fried-supports-obama.aspx). These endorsements suggest to me that Obama's economic proposals are reasonable.
6. Economic responsibility: Some have expressed concern that Obama, with all his ideas for health care, education, etc., plus a Democratic congress, would spend us into the ground. That’s not going to happen. For one thing, Democratic leaders have already started talking about having a “pay as you go” plan (such as was practiced under Clinton, when the U.S. debt stopped its growth). There is strong sentiment among Democratic leaders that we need to reserve the immense deficit spending that has taken place under Bush—by far the worst deficit spending in American history. I am confident that Obama will be realistic and careful, taking into consideration the economic realities. (By the way, I’m sure McCain has the same intentions. The one thing I hold against him economically is that he favored deregulation through much of his Senate career—the very kind of deregulation that helped lead to our current economic crisis. The fact is that, when some people are using lots of other people’s money—as has happened in the mortgage and investment worlds, lack of rules and supervision does not lead to good results.)
7. The Supreme Court: The next president may well make two Supreme Court nominations. These would replace two of the more liberal current judges. Nominations by Obama would not do much to change the current complexion of the Court; nominations by McCain might (though he says he would not use a litmus test), but they could have rough resistance in the Senate. Some people look forward to shifting the Supreme Court further to the right. I don’t. As it is, it is a relatively conservative court, and I would hate to have it go even further in allowing for suspension of civil liberties and in preferring the powers of government and corporations over the rights of individuals. (On this last point, see one example of the evidence: http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/62901.)
8. Hot button social issues: Both candidates favor defining marriage legally as a relationship between one man and one woman. Both also favor extending reasonable rights to homosexual couples but without defining their relationship as marriage. On abortion, McCain favors giving the individual states the right to determine policy. Obama believes that "ultimately . . . women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision." He opposes late-term abortions as long as exceptions are made for threats to the woman's life or health. And he favors measures to discourage abortion by encouraging sexual responsibility and adoption and making the choice of giving birth (rather than abortion) more economically feasible. I believe more progress in reducing abortions will be made with Obama's approach than with McCain's. (For more on this issue, including the official LDS Church, see http://bruceyoung-whyobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-my-views-candidates-views.html.)
9. “Palling around with terrorists”: This one drives me kind of crazy (1) because it is so unfair and misleading and (2) because it has helped provoke threats of violence. Here’s the truth.
Contrary to Sarah Palin, Obama does not “pal around with terrorists” (or even former terrorists). Contrary to the robocalls now being made, he has not had a “close association” with a terrorist who has “killed Americans.”
I’ve heard reports that no one was killed by the bombings Bill Ayers participated in during the 1960s. But even if someone was killed—which of course would be appalling—I consider phone calls that try to link Obama to the “killing of Americans” by “terrorists” both inflammatory and incredibly misleading. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was involved in these radical activities, and he has strongly condemned what Ayers did 40 years ago. His association with Ayers was very limited; it mainly consisted of a “meet the candidate” lunch 13 years ago and common membership on a board that also included two university presidents (University of Illinois and Northwestern) and Republicans as well as Democrats. The board was funded by the Republican-leaning Annenberg Foundation, whose president (Leonore Annenberg) is a McCain supporter. I just talked yesterday to a friend of mine (a former roommate at BYU) who lives in Chicago, and he told me he knows Ayers too—everybody in the educational community does. He’s a major advocate for helping high school students at risk. He’s very mainstream these days, and nobody would have felt they had to refuse to associate with him if this year’s presidential campaign hadn’t turned him into a symbol.
Those are the facts. They are not difficult to find out. There’s no mysterious missing information. This issue (or non-issue) is obviously being brought up now, with automated phone calls and frequent mentions at campaign rallies, for political purposes. It’s a distraction. It’s misleading. It’s wrong.
[NOTE ON MCCAIN AND PALIN STATEMENTS ON "SHARING" OR SHIFTING WEALTH: Both McCain and Palin are on record as favoring the kind of "redistribution" of wealth that is inherent in a progressive tax system or, in the case of Alaska, in taking money from large corporations and simply giving it to all the citizens of the state. In 2000, McCain appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” and was asked by a young woman why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain answered that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” Then:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
In Alaska, where there is no income tax or sales tax, government is funded by "huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, . . . that 'we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.'” The "collective" sharing of resources by the people as a whole is much closer to "socialism" than anything Obama has proposed. (information and quotations from a New Yorker article by Hendrick Hertzberg: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg)]
But of course, he has his flaws. He’s a quick learner, but he still has a lot to learn. (I would say the same of McCain, except that I don’t see him as being as receptive to learning.) I don’t know how well some of Obama’s proposals would work, assuming they are put into practice in exactly the way he has proposed them. But he is intelligent and pragmatic enough, I believe, that he’ll make adjustments when needed. Here are my responses to some specific reservations some have:
1. Lack of experience: Especially considering his relative youth (though he’s not as young as John F. Kennedy was), Obama has lots of experience relevant to serving as president. He has rich, direct experience with the world and with life and with much of the variety that makes up America. His work as a community organizer put him in touch with people struggling with unemployment and community problems. It involved hands on, practical experience. He has not had experience as an elected executive (neither has McCain), but he’s been actively involved in local, state, and national politics for more than two decades.
2. Lack of accomplishments: Again, his accomplishments have been impressive given his age. Contrary to Sarah Palin’s claim that he hasn’t had a single legislative accomplishment, he proposed or sponsored many pieces of legislation at the state and national level. Among the bills he helped turn into law as a senator (sometimes working closely with Republicans) are these: the 2007 Ethics Reform Law (described as the "most sweeping since Watergate"), legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose their bundling activity, legislation (co-sponsored with Republican Dick Lugar) to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, legislation to help protect medical benefits for veterans and improve services for homeless veterans, and various items dealing with energy and health care. (For more, see http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php.)
3. Socialism: The latest McCain campaign line has been that Obama’s proposals amount to socialism. That’s rubbish. Consider these points: (a) When the Bush tax cuts for those with higher incomes were proposed, McCain opposed them, on the grounds that they would make it impossible to give the middle class as much tax relief as he believed might be needed. That's essentially Obama's position. Does that make McCain a socialist? Obviously not. (b) McCain makes his claim about Obama in part because the tax cuts Obama proposes for those making less than $250,000 a year may lead to refunds to some people who have not paid taxes. But that happens now (e.g., Earned Income Credit--established under Reagan) and would also happen under McCain’s own health care plan, which gives a credit to everyone, including those who pay no taxes. (c) Another reason for McCain’s claim is that Obama’s tax cuts are made possible by increasing taxes (modestly) for those making over $250,000 a year. But McCain’s credits for health care are funded by taxing people for the health care benefits provided by employers, and so he also provides credits through taxes levied on some taxpayers. (d) The United States has had a progressive tax system for a long time, and McCain doesn’t propose to scrap that. (In fact, see the note at the end.) All Obama is proposing are some minor adjustments to the current tax code. It is absolute nonsense to call that “socialism.” It may be fair to say that Obama’s proposals do not assume a state of pure, unregulated capitalism, but neither do McCain’s. In fact, the United States has had a “mixed” economy for a long time. It has not been purely capitalist since the late 1800s when “robber barons” ruled, leading to reforms that virtually everyone believes were necessary to temper or eliminate the abuses that come with pure, completely unregulated capitalism. (e) Some call Obama’s health care plan “socialized medicine.” It is not. (See the next item.) (f) Clearly, America’s closest encounter with socialism has been the bailout recently proposed by President Bush and supported by both parties (and both candidates). In particular, the government’s buying of equity in banks has amounted to partial nationalization. But Obama (like virtually everyone else) views such measures as temporary responses to an extreme crisis. They do not represent his general approach to the economy. (But he does favor some measure of regulation of Wall Street. See more on this below.) (NOTE: See the note at the end of the post for statements McCain and Palin have made favoring the "sharing" or shifting of wealth.)
4. Obama’s health care plan: Obama’s plan is not “socialized medicine.” Contrary to McCain’s assertions in one of the debates, Obama will not be deciding who you can have as a doctor or what procedures you can have. (Have you noticed that insurance companies tend to decide those things for us currently?) Here’s a summary of Obama’s plan:
Under Obama’s proposal, those who now have an employer provided plan would simply keep it, but possibly with reduced premiums. Those without an employer-provided plan would have affordable choices through a “national health-care exchange” that includes private options and the option of choosing a national health-care plan. Businesses (with the exception of some small businesses) would be required to provide health insurance to employees. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage or setting prices based on health status or pre-existing conditions. Preventive care would be emphasized, and coverage of children would be mandated. Government would pay for a portion of catastrophic care coverage. A tax credit would be provided to help small businesses provide health care coverage. There are also provisions (which would have no tax consequences) to reduce drug costs and the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians. (For more, see "Obama's and McCain's Health Care Proposals".)
5. Obama’s tax proposals: Obama has proposed reducing taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year and increasing taxes (modestly) for those making over that amount. I’ve heard estimates that that means tax cuts for somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 to 95 per cent of Americans, including most small businesses. His plan also includes tax credits for every job a company creates as long as the job remains in the United States. I have no problem with his plan in general—it seems fair to me, especially considering that some of the wealthiest businesses and individuals have figured out ways to pay a disproportionately small amount of taxes and also considering that middle class Americans work just as hard as those who are wealthier.
But I have pondered the concerns some have that these increased taxes might slow economic growth by making less money available for investment. I don’t know how valid those concerns are. But I believe there’s some evidence that economic growth would not be stunted. The tax rate for those making over $250,000 would still be smaller than it was under Clinton, and the country’s economy did exceptionally well under Clinton. In fact, someone pointed out (I believe it was Mario Cuomo) that the times in recent history when this kind of adjustment was made to the tax code, the economy was not hurt but benefitted. (See also this article in the Christian Science Monitor for a similar assessment.) Given the fact that Obama intends to emphasize health care and education, including reducing health care costs through a much stronger emphasis on prevention, it can be argued that he intends to help put in place a foundation for economic stability and growth that could have a very beneficial long-term effect on the economy.
For an objective comparison of the two candidates' tax plans, see http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article or http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm. For a favorable assessment of Obama's approach to the economy, consider the comments of former Republican Senator Larry Pressler, who now backs Obama: "I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of [former Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin and [former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker better. . . . [McCain's] handling of the financial crisis made me feel nervous" (see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14963.html). Note also that conservative Harvad economist Charles Fried, Solicitor General under Reagan and until recently associated with the McCain campaign, now backs Obama (see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/24/reagan-appointee-and-recent-mccain-adviser-charles-fried-supports-obama.aspx). These endorsements suggest to me that Obama's economic proposals are reasonable.
6. Economic responsibility: Some have expressed concern that Obama, with all his ideas for health care, education, etc., plus a Democratic congress, would spend us into the ground. That’s not going to happen. For one thing, Democratic leaders have already started talking about having a “pay as you go” plan (such as was practiced under Clinton, when the U.S. debt stopped its growth). There is strong sentiment among Democratic leaders that we need to reserve the immense deficit spending that has taken place under Bush—by far the worst deficit spending in American history. I am confident that Obama will be realistic and careful, taking into consideration the economic realities. (By the way, I’m sure McCain has the same intentions. The one thing I hold against him economically is that he favored deregulation through much of his Senate career—the very kind of deregulation that helped lead to our current economic crisis. The fact is that, when some people are using lots of other people’s money—as has happened in the mortgage and investment worlds, lack of rules and supervision does not lead to good results.)
7. The Supreme Court: The next president may well make two Supreme Court nominations. These would replace two of the more liberal current judges. Nominations by Obama would not do much to change the current complexion of the Court; nominations by McCain might (though he says he would not use a litmus test), but they could have rough resistance in the Senate. Some people look forward to shifting the Supreme Court further to the right. I don’t. As it is, it is a relatively conservative court, and I would hate to have it go even further in allowing for suspension of civil liberties and in preferring the powers of government and corporations over the rights of individuals. (On this last point, see one example of the evidence: http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/62901.)
8. Hot button social issues: Both candidates favor defining marriage legally as a relationship between one man and one woman. Both also favor extending reasonable rights to homosexual couples but without defining their relationship as marriage. On abortion, McCain favors giving the individual states the right to determine policy. Obama believes that "ultimately . . . women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision." He opposes late-term abortions as long as exceptions are made for threats to the woman's life or health. And he favors measures to discourage abortion by encouraging sexual responsibility and adoption and making the choice of giving birth (rather than abortion) more economically feasible. I believe more progress in reducing abortions will be made with Obama's approach than with McCain's. (For more on this issue, including the official LDS Church, see http://bruceyoung-whyobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-my-views-candidates-views.html.)
9. “Palling around with terrorists”: This one drives me kind of crazy (1) because it is so unfair and misleading and (2) because it has helped provoke threats of violence. Here’s the truth.
Contrary to Sarah Palin, Obama does not “pal around with terrorists” (or even former terrorists). Contrary to the robocalls now being made, he has not had a “close association” with a terrorist who has “killed Americans.”
I’ve heard reports that no one was killed by the bombings Bill Ayers participated in during the 1960s. But even if someone was killed—which of course would be appalling—I consider phone calls that try to link Obama to the “killing of Americans” by “terrorists” both inflammatory and incredibly misleading. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was involved in these radical activities, and he has strongly condemned what Ayers did 40 years ago. His association with Ayers was very limited; it mainly consisted of a “meet the candidate” lunch 13 years ago and common membership on a board that also included two university presidents (University of Illinois and Northwestern) and Republicans as well as Democrats. The board was funded by the Republican-leaning Annenberg Foundation, whose president (Leonore Annenberg) is a McCain supporter. I just talked yesterday to a friend of mine (a former roommate at BYU) who lives in Chicago, and he told me he knows Ayers too—everybody in the educational community does. He’s a major advocate for helping high school students at risk. He’s very mainstream these days, and nobody would have felt they had to refuse to associate with him if this year’s presidential campaign hadn’t turned him into a symbol.
Those are the facts. They are not difficult to find out. There’s no mysterious missing information. This issue (or non-issue) is obviously being brought up now, with automated phone calls and frequent mentions at campaign rallies, for political purposes. It’s a distraction. It’s misleading. It’s wrong.
[NOTE ON MCCAIN AND PALIN STATEMENTS ON "SHARING" OR SHIFTING WEALTH: Both McCain and Palin are on record as favoring the kind of "redistribution" of wealth that is inherent in a progressive tax system or, in the case of Alaska, in taking money from large corporations and simply giving it to all the citizens of the state. In 2000, McCain appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” and was asked by a young woman why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain answered that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” Then:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
In Alaska, where there is no income tax or sales tax, government is funded by "huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, . . . that 'we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.'” The "collective" sharing of resources by the people as a whole is much closer to "socialism" than anything Obama has proposed. (information and quotations from a New Yorker article by Hendrick Hertzberg: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg)]
Get to know the candidates
Get to know the Obamas and Bidens by clicking here:
Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php
Michelle Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_michelle.php
Joe Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_joe.php
Jill Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_jill.php
Get to know the McCains and Sarah Palin:
John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/About/
Cindy McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/About/Cindy.htm
Sarah Palin: http://www.johnmccain.com/about/governorpalin.htm
Of course, there are lots of interesting details these sites don't reveal. For those, you can look elsewhere on this blog, or you can do your own searching.
Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php
Michelle Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_michelle.php
Joe Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_joe.php
Jill Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_jill.php
Get to know the McCains and Sarah Palin:
John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/About/
Cindy McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/About/Cindy.htm
Sarah Palin: http://www.johnmccain.com/about/governorpalin.htm
Of course, there are lots of interesting details these sites don't reveal. For those, you can look elsewhere on this blog, or you can do your own searching.
Get to know the candidates: additional sites
Here are links to various sites that give more background.
Some thoughtful comments by Colin Powell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auco5TU8Y9g&feature=related
[the above preceded by many months his October 2008 endorsement found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490]
Bios of Obama:
A video shown before his speech at the convention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL0KxjeKlrM
An earlier video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWl7EGjiGSE
Michelle's bio (a video introduction to her):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Utt-6HumUU
(or http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/laurinmanning/gG5d49 )
Introduction of Michelle Obama by her brother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmHapnwwvXE
On the Obamas' family and faith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eUkc9GCMEQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FxySmugusg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3hHZeMWh48&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZdi1JnMxFU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3CpBR9YcZw
(from a minister who is close to the Bush family:)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/jenna-bush-wedd.html
Some thoughtful comments by Colin Powell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auco5TU8Y9g&feature=related
[the above preceded by many months his October 2008 endorsement found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490]
Bios of Obama:
A video shown before his speech at the convention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL0KxjeKlrM
An earlier video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWl7EGjiGSE
Michelle's bio (a video introduction to her):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Utt-6HumUU
(or http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/laurinmanning/gG5d49 )
Introduction of Michelle Obama by her brother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmHapnwwvXE
On the Obamas' family and faith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eUkc9GCMEQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FxySmugusg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3hHZeMWh48&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZdi1JnMxFU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3CpBR9YcZw
(from a minister who is close to the Bush family:)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/jenna-bush-wedd.html
Claralyn Hill
Claralyn Hill is a local candidate--running for Utah State House of Representatives, as moderate, fiscally conservative, pro-life Democrat. She actually switched parties to run--partly because the Republican party has become so dominant it doesn't really allow the democratic process to work. Many races are uncontested, and in this case, her opponent was appointed (basically chosen by the Republican party) to fill a slot when the incumbent Republican resigned.
She's remarkably well informed, experienced, capable, energetic, and intelligent. She's worked for over 20 years on various community issues. She has sensible and well informed positions and is especially strong on ethics reform, education, and health care. She's an attorney by profession, specializing in family law. She's been on the board of United Way, the Utah Community Credit Union, and the Provo School Foundation. In my opinion, she is clearly 3 to 4--maybe 5 to 6 or more--times as qualified as her opponent.
But he's a Republican, which means he's guaranteed the election unless people really pay attention and vote for the person and not the party.
Here's a link to her campaign site: http://www.voteforhill.org
And here's a fine letter she wrote to the local paper (the Provo Herald): http://english2.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/being-a-democrat.htm
She's remarkably well informed, experienced, capable, energetic, and intelligent. She's worked for over 20 years on various community issues. She has sensible and well informed positions and is especially strong on ethics reform, education, and health care. She's an attorney by profession, specializing in family law. She's been on the board of United Way, the Utah Community Credit Union, and the Provo School Foundation. In my opinion, she is clearly 3 to 4--maybe 5 to 6 or more--times as qualified as her opponent.
But he's a Republican, which means he's guaranteed the election unless people really pay attention and vote for the person and not the party.
Here's a link to her campaign site: http://www.voteforhill.org
And here's a fine letter she wrote to the local paper (the Provo Herald): http://english2.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/being-a-democrat.htm
Sarah Palin, part 3: More experienced than Obama?
As Republican spokespeople have tried to defend the choice of Sarah Palin, one thing they've said is that she has more experience than Barack Obama, at least more executive experience.
Let's consider for a moment. Yes, she's had more experience than either McCain or Obama as an elected official with an executive position (mayor and governor). As noted previously, her experience as governor has been very brief: just over a year and a half.
But if executive experience is broadened to include administrative experience in general, then both McCain and Obama can claim some. Both have administered their senate staffs. Both have headed national campaigns. Obama's in particular has been wonderfully effective, bringing in and making use of a great amount of funds, overseeing the work of something like 2500 employees, and also drawing on tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of volunteers.
Also, though some have made light of Obama's work as a community organizer, they really shouldn't--their remarks betray either ignorance or deliberate distortion. Doing significant community work in the South Side of Chicago, dealing with unemployment and housing issues, working with government officials--and more than all of that, getting things done: these are no small thing.
The reality is that Obama has had lots more experience in the public sector and at various levels of government than Palin. He's also had a good deal more international experience, not only having deep connections with Indonesia and Kenya, but having met with leaders of nations around the world and dealt with important international issues (nuclear proliferation and others) for a good number of years now.
Let's consider for a moment. Yes, she's had more experience than either McCain or Obama as an elected official with an executive position (mayor and governor). As noted previously, her experience as governor has been very brief: just over a year and a half.
But if executive experience is broadened to include administrative experience in general, then both McCain and Obama can claim some. Both have administered their senate staffs. Both have headed national campaigns. Obama's in particular has been wonderfully effective, bringing in and making use of a great amount of funds, overseeing the work of something like 2500 employees, and also drawing on tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of volunteers.
Also, though some have made light of Obama's work as a community organizer, they really shouldn't--their remarks betray either ignorance or deliberate distortion. Doing significant community work in the South Side of Chicago, dealing with unemployment and housing issues, working with government officials--and more than all of that, getting things done: these are no small thing.
The reality is that Obama has had lots more experience in the public sector and at various levels of government than Palin. He's also had a good deal more international experience, not only having deep connections with Indonesia and Kenya, but having met with leaders of nations around the world and dealt with important international issues (nuclear proliferation and others) for a good number of years now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
