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.

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.