The Cabinet

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece proclaiming our freedom from The Regime of political families – Bush and Clinton alike – that had run the country since the 80s. And, alas, I counted my chickens before they hatched. Change is coming. But it seems the motives are not as pure as they seemed. For most, the change promised by President Obama painted a picture of progress; a new America; a return to glory. So why is our President turning to the leadership of the 90s when we need change for today?

This was my initial opinion with regard to his selections for cabinet. But after careful consideration and reading, I realized that many of these politicians carry one important trait: experience. And not only are they experienced, but they are also highly educated. Take, for example, Obama’s selection for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. He is the president of the Federal Reserve of New York, he has worked for the International Monetary Fund and has studied Chinese. Or, consider Robert Gates, the current Defense Secretary, who will keep his position in the new administration. Though both fall on opposite sides of the political fence, they are well educated and experienced in their field - making them prime candidates to serve in the cabinet.
And, to also ease my fears, Obama is planning to attack this economic crisis head on. How? He is making, or leaking, his cabinet faster than any President in history. On Monday Obama said, “"If we do not act swiftly and boldly, most experts believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.” I am confident that if he follows through with this ethic throughout, that my fears will dissolve into trust.

President Obama has chosen many cabinet members with whom I have disagreed in the past. Particularly, Hillary Clinton – his chosen Secretary of State (still yet to be confirmed by the Senate, though). This is the one selection of which I am unsure. I feel that Clinton is not experienced enough with foreign policy. Not to mention the bitter relationship they have from the campaign trail. And, I am also fearful that the Clinton administration has too many familiar faces returning to office. So my hope must rest in Obama. I am hopeful that Obama will maintain control over these powerful political players, being that he is the least experienced politician of them all. In this statement, my hopes are strengthed:

To become Secretary of State, Sen. Clinton and also former President Bill Clinton have accepted restrictions. Ultimately, she must defer to the White House on policy. He [Bill Clinton]has agreed to list contributors to his foundation and also have his public speaking schedule approved by the White House. (Arthur I. Cyr)

Thus far, I am not sure what to make of his cabinet, but I respect it -- it has gone through one tedious job application. Though, with additions like Senators Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary (though he may not be as clean as he seems) and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State you can absolutely expect former-President Bill Clinton to have some influence in the White House.
Former-President Clinton has many international business and political connections through his global foundation. Since exiting the office eight years ago, he has raised over $500 million for the foundation and has created relationships with many top ranking foreign officials and businessmen. Not to mention, he has relationships that still exist from his days as our President. So, the question arises: What, if any, are his business interests, and will they interfere with Hillary Clinton's abilities in office? Yes, he does offer foreign experience to the side of Hillary Clinton, but he also adds some potentially unwanted or misguided direction to her decision making.
President Obama’s cabinet is a very interesting mix of Republicans and Democrats. There are Senators, professors, and former cabinet members. There are well respected military leaders and carryovers from the Bush administration. The truth of the matter is that Obama is, seemingly, unconcerned by party lines. He is, though, interested in fixing the crisis that we face today in America. Regardless of whom the cabinet members served under in the past, they now serve a new President. And as such, the responsibility falls to Obama. His job is not easy. He must hold tight the reigns of these experienced politicians or else we may see the return Bill Clinton to power in American Politics. Barack Obama, as Your Daily Snitch notes, did do well to win America over during the campaign. But now he must follow through.

Empty Promises?

“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours.” Barack Obama leads us to believe that the coming election is the most important political decision of our generation. He promises “Change We Can Depend On”, but it is not the change we need. Yes, both candidates promise much for the next term, and that fervor has spread through the American public. But as America faces economic collapse, two foreign wars and an ever-increasing national debt, there is little that one can hope our president will do in the next four years – regardless of who is elected.
After the $700 billion bailout, the economy has continued to run rampant. But, $700 billion is just part of the governments’ intervention into the economy – the purchase of AIG cost $85 billion, about $29 billion was pledged in the purchase of Bear Sterns by JP Morgan Chase, and the Congressional Budget Office says the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could cost up to $25 billion. So this begs the question: with almost a trillion dollars committed to the economic crisis, where does either candidate find room for the oh-so-generous tax breaks that they promise?
Yes, Senator McCain offers tax cuts, but not as many as Senator Obama does. The problem is that both plans to cut taxes raise the national debt. From Obama, a $1000 family “Making Work” tax credit is available to 95% of working families. Now of course this will bring votes, but will the votes be rewarded? There is an underlying paradox that his plan misses: the bailout is going to be paid for by taxpayers – the same tax payers that Obama and McCain want to give tax credits and tax breaks to. So, how do they plan to actually pay for the bailout?
Whoever takes leadership in January is also stuck with an over-extended military. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quietly being won by American forces, and though the end is in sight, it is still a ways away. The war in Afghanistan costs the government about $2 billion a week for 30,000 troops. Further, if Senator Obama begins to remove troops from Iraq, it will require much attention. Thus, if the President is focused on fighting and/or ending our foreign engagements, less will be focused on the broad range of changes promised to come from Washington.
And, as we are on the topic of foreign affairs, where, among all of the major issues facing our next leader, does either candidate find time to have talks with foreign leaders in Israel, North Korea, and other foreign nations that McCain and Obama want to engage? As we near voting time, I fear I cannot believe a word that spits from either candidates mouth.
When we turn to domestic issues, it is also unlikely that Senator Obama will bring about the changes he promises with regard to healthcare. He wants “affordable, accessible health care for all Americans” but he forgets that it will cost billions. In fact, he believes that, when in full swing, the program will cost about $50-60 billion each year. And, on top of that, he wants to cut coverage costs by $2500 for each insured family. Though this may sound great on paper, the implementation of such a plan would cost more money that the country has at hand – unless we want to be more financially subservient to the Chinese banks that loan the government most of its money.
The main issues of this election are straight-forward: healthcare, war and the economy. Both candidates promise change to Americans but neither have the power to instate this change. Our next leader will not be “he who brings change”. Rather, our President will be swamped with rollover issues from the Bush Administration. It’s less of a question of qualification: Senators Obama and McCain may be equally qualified to lead. It is a question of timing. This election, the only change may be the political party of our President. Though many Americans have bought into the “change” promised by both candidates, few realize that these promises are likely to be empty.

Lets Hope He Gambled Correctly

The most recent Gallup polls all have Obama beating McCain by 8 to 9%. But is that enough? And, I really mean it – though it may seem like the Obama-Biden ticket seems to have wrapped up the election with November nearing, they may need a double digit lead to even come close. Not only is Obama counting on young voters of America – those who have a historic tendency to fail to show up to vote – ,but he is also being potentially misled by the polls conducted day-to-day.This may sound harsh, but it is known as the Bradley Effect – as African-American governor-elect for California learned.
Back in 1982, Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California. He was the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, and though he was up in the polls (early prints of the San Francisco Cronicle read “Bradley Win Projected” on the cover), he was narrowly defeated in the final vote by “The Duke”. The Bradley Effect is the idea that, in a race with a white candidate and an African-American candidate, there is a tendency by some voters to tell pollsters that they are either undecided or more likely to vote for an African-American candidate and then, at the polls, actually vote for the white candidate.
Now, this may be diminishing in American politics, but it interesting to note that the polls may not be as accurate as they seem. Another problem with part of the Obama-Biden constituency is that it historically doesn’t vote. In 2000, young citizens (between 18-35), only 35% of the population voted. In 2004, though, the same group turned out 47%. This is much better – and it will hopefully be much higher in this election. Though the turnout rose 12% in 2004, it still lagged behind adults of all other age groups. In fact, 9% less young people between ages 18-25 vote. And Barack Obama is banking on these votes. Hopefully people our age vote, but chances are we won’t jump over 50% turnout – which is really a sad reality of our society.
What Barack Obama must have hope in is the fact that the Bradley Effect has diminished in this country. Though it is sad that a minority candidate must “hope” that the polls are not biased because of voter tendencies, it is a truth. Luckily, in the 2006 Senate elections, it seems that the Bradley Effect was much less present. Remember Senate-elect Harold Ford Jr. Well, probably not because his campaign lost in Tennessee. But, polling and voter records seem to be in line – white voters who said they would vote for Ford did vote for him. So, maybe it is a moot issue.
And, when we look at the youth, it seems that this election is much different than most. Not only is everyone “Rocking the Vote”, there is a real excitement and giddiness in university settings. People are ready for change, hopefully they turn out to vote for it.

Both Got It Wrong

There is an obvious, ever-growing – and increasingly formidable – need to reform the American healthcare system. The problem is that neither Sens. Obama nor Mccain has the solution – in fact, neither party has even come close. Instead, the American people are left with a half-assed, close-minded single-payer system that operates as an institutional “reform” that does little but put a band-aid on a deep flesh wound. While this may be better than no action at all, it is a failure with regard to the preservation of market capitalism in the health-care system. It is, though, a step in the right direction.
The main issue at hand is the question of how our government will subsidize health-care for the masses. To achieve “universal coverage” – as is the idea behind a single payer system – would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing the citizens to buy it. But, because the government is infamous for doing a poor job of improving quality or efficiency, a single-payer system is undesirable. Further, a member of a free society – like ours – should have the right to refuse healthcare. In other words, what right should the government have in your personal medical affairs? Anyone should have the right to refuse forced cooperation in a governmental program. It may be in the interest, for example, for one to spend the funds afforded towards healthcare on other economic ventures – and the government should not have the right to influence individual economic decisions. Also, under a “universal system”, the cost of healthcare is transferred from the individual to the taxpayer – which, also, begs the question of fairness…Is it fair to force a perfectly healthy person to pay for another’s insurance needs? No.
Even without a “universal healthcare” system, there still lives the main principle behind the reform: the idea that health-care policy should focus on making health care of an “ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people”. But, how does the government afford health-care in this country aside from using a single-payer system? Simple -- instead of using such a static and unflexible “universal model”, the government should maximize its options with regard to funding of health-care reform.
If the government desires to subsidize health-care, why should it be limited to subsidizing the program through a single-payer system? In other words, why doesn’t the government consider using cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics and hospitals, uncompensated care payments or even tax exemptions to promote the expansion of health-care for the approximately 47 million uninsured Americans?
With this vast array of options, one can hope that the nation will avoid the problems of a single-payer system – as seen in Massachusetts – while still protecting the principles of our democratic-capitalist nation. A fine compromise.
Massachusetts learned – after implementing a state-wide, single-payer medical care system – that the program still cannot incorporate a portion of the population that is simply too poor to fit into the system. It is a sad reality about our capitalist democracy: there is always a population that is too poor to afford incorporation into the program. This is a direct example of the need for different forms of subsidies for the low-income class. And, through the use of multiple means of subsidizing health-care, the government can engage a growing social issue and, at the same time, maintain a competitive health-care market.
Simply put, it is becoming more and more necessary for the state to extend its arm of influence into the healthcare industry, but government must not do so through a single-payer insurance program has pitfalls and is limited in its scope of coverage. It is time for the American Congress to start thinking outside the box and act in the interests of the American people, not the interests of the health-care industry.

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

The anti-intellectualism of America is still quite alive and kicking. The Republican party does its best to turn this sentiment into votes as it attacks Senator Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, by calling him “out of touch” with the needs of the American people. Today’s political arena is much different than that of our Founders. Instead of directly engaging in politics, we see intellectuals taking a different route – aggressive avoidance. William Buckley once famously stated that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than the entire Harvard faculty, and his idea seems to have stuck. So, as we see the Republican Party turn away from intellectual leadership – as well as an intellectual constituency – and turn to more radical, rural votes, we also see the development of Election 2008: Class Warfare.
Who would you rather have a beer with, George Bush or John Kerry? Just the simple fact that this question was a leader in influencing undecided voters in 2004 is testament to the notion that America is turning from the intellectual. Though both attended Ivy League universities – and are far from the “common man” – they tried to attract the “average voter” by presenting themselves as “normal citizens”.
Now this is not a bad thing. In fact, it is important that constituents trust their leaders. But, as the political constituency of the Republican Party continues to turn away from the cities and metropolitan areas, it is leaving behind a group of intellectual Republicans as it pursues the rural votes that it has depended on over the past eight years. This can be clearly seen in John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the “maverick” Senator got the nomination, the Bush Republicans began to lose faith in “their party”. So who else to nominate in order to excite these voters than Sarah Palin – a pro-life, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage governor of Alaska. Of course!
But now, where does this leave Republicans like myself? California Republicans are a little different than most. We’re all about leaving the economy alone (even though that’s basically not an option anymore) and we are a lot more lax about social issues. I’m stuck because I don’t want to vote for Obama-Biden because taxing the rich is not the answer, but voting for McCain-Palin leaves me with less hope than I have in Obama.
So today, I think it’s one of the hardest elections for the intellectual Republicans out there. We understand it is time for change – but Obama wants us to pay for everyone else to get in on it and Palin wants us to finally believe that the dinosaurs died 4000 years ago.
We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood

The guy in the “neighborhood” is not always someone you want to associate with. For Obama, this is exactly the case. Just because Bill Ayers is just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” (Obama), does not make him a worthy or acceptable associate. First, let’s give some background. Bill Ayers was leader among the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968 and 1969 before deciding that the action taken by this “new left” movement was not enough. Growing continuously more militant, he and his sect broke from the SDS and formed their own group, the Weatherman underground. He participated in the bombings of the New York City police headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972. He has stated his non-repentance three times.
So today, one would assume that an older, wiser, less activist Bill Ayers would be around. Wrong. Ayers, today, is an education reform advocate with a focus on transforming teaching and curriculum. So, it would seem he is now on the right track. Wrong again. He isn’t sorry for destroying millions of dollars of federal property, and on September 11, 2001, he is even quoted in the New York Times as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” But, for Obama, because he is a University of Illinois at Chicago professor of Education, it’s ok. Because it happened 30 years ago, we can let it slide. Well, The Wall Street Journal would disagree. In an article by Stanley Kurtz, several disturbing aspects about the relationship between Obama are further exposed.
From 1995 until 1999, Barack Obama led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), remaining on the board of directors until 2001. The connection lies here: The CAC was created by Bill Ayers. According to the Journal, Mr. Obama’s “first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched in 1995 at Mr. Ayers’s home.” They definitely have a history of business and political relationships. Now, let us investigate the extent of their relationship through this organization.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created with the hope of improving Chicago’s public schools. Funding comes from a national education initiative from Ambassador Walter Annenberg. As the first chairman appointed in 1995, Barack Obama worked closely with the guiding force of CAC, Bill Ayers. According to Kurtz, public documents provide proof that the two collaborated on funding initiatives – which schools to endorse, which to not. So, how did Mr. Obama, having only experience as a community organizer and fresh out of Harvard Law, jump to the head of this foundation? Documents also show that Mr. Ayers was one of a group of five people who created the board, and being that Ayers founded the CAC, no one could be appointed without his approval -- lets face it, Bill Ayers is not just the guy next door.
Next, lets look at the function of the CAC. The foundations agenda is mostly rooted in Bill Ayers’s education philosophy – he is a teacher at University of Illinois at Chicago. But, his philosophy calls for empowering students and parents to have radical political commitments. The foundation also downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism, according to the article. Being that Ayers worked at a radical alternative school in the mid-1960s, it would make sense that a similar radicalism is present today. “It works like ‘City kids, city teachers’ and ‘Teaching the personal and the political,’ Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.” This sounds good, but it undermines the entire education system, and has no proven success rate with regard to educational excellence. On funding issues, the foundation has removed its focus on math and science excellence and instead has filtered money through various far-left community organizers, “such as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (or Acorn)”. The final issue is that Mr. Obama actively worked on leadership training seminars and used Acorn and CAC assistance is his early campaigns.
Now, I’ve yet to decide who I want to vote for. I’m scared of Mrs. Palin’s inexperience and Mr. McCain’s age and senility, yet I am becoming more terrified of the other ticket. At least with McCain and Palin you get a weaker federal branch, and you get to be led in a better balance of power (i.e. a stronger Congress). Yet, when I think about the political relationships Obama has had, I am afraid if he is in office with someone as experienced in working the political system as Joe Biden, I slowly become fearful of their potential for radicalism and what they may do in office, rather than what McCain-Palin won’t do.

Change Ain't A Comin'

Though Barak Obama has faced much criticism already this election cycle, he has continued to struggle in foreign policy. So, naturally, he would select a foreign policy buff for vice president. But rather than following his own ideals, Sen. Obama has followed the party in selecting long-term Senator Joe Biden. In a campaign centered around “Change We Can Believe In” (he even sells this phrase on a t-shirt on his website), it is difficult to expect anything other than traditional party politics. With his selection of Senator Joe Biden of Deleware, Sen. Obama simply confirms that he is willing to play all the political games of the past.
Joe Biden joined the Senate in 1973. Nixon was still in office; Vietnam was still ongoing; Elvis was still alive. Barack Obama was only 12 years old. Sen. Biden is now serving his 6th term, the sixth longest period among current senators. He is a powerful veteran of the political world. Senator Biden ran for and failed in his first attempt at the presidency in 1988 (the same year that Obama joined Harvard Law School). Since then, he has been an influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
In 2002, Biden stated that Sadaam Hussein was a threat to national security and that the threat had to be eliminated. He supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq which justified the war. But this is the same for many Democrats who feel they were tricked, with false military information, by the current administration. What is odd is Biden’s exit plan: Biden is an advocate of breaking Iraq into three ethnic states. He supports neither the current plan for Iraq nor a withdrawal plan, as Senator Obama does. His desire to have Iraq broken in to three eithnic states was released in a comprehensive outline, and as a result, Iraq’s political leadership and the American Embassy in Iraq both denounced the plan. And further, some senior military planners cautioned that this type of policy could lead to up to the addition of 100,000 troops in the region, over the coming years. This Iraq War strategy is a far cry from Senator Obama’s plan, The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which the senator himself introduced and promotes troop caps and benchmarks.
“We are the change we seek.” (Barack Obama, 5 February 2008). But, Biden may not be. Though, he was selected for a reason. And he may just be the ticket to the Presidency for Barack Obama. Biden has a few important political qualities: he appeals to many middle class and blue collar workers and he is willing to criticize Senator McCain. He’s rough and tough, just what Senator Obama was lacking. He also has much experience in Foreign and National security which is one point that Senator McCain continues to point out as Sen. Obama’s weak spot.
With no incumbent president, a woman on the Republican ticket, and an African-American on the Democratic ticket, we are geared toward change. Though Sen. Biden may be one of the most senior members of the Senate, and though he may have an outburst or slip of tongue during the campaign trail, he may be exactly what Presidential hopeful Barack Obama needs.