This past weekend on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume remarked that the upcoming presidential election had little to do with John McCain and was instead a referendum on the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama. Is the country ready for an African American president? Are Americans searching for something new, having grown tired of the business-as-usual mentality in Washington? Has President Bush so destroyed the Republican Party that no GOP candidate has a legitimate shot at winning this November?
These are all fair questions, but at this point in the contest the answers are purely speculative. What is not speculative is Obama's plan for America if he is elected to the White House this November. The "Blueprint for Change," published just prior to the Iowa Caucus, offers a glimpse into where this country is headed if the Senator from Illinois becomes the next President of the United States.
Domestically, Obama's plan has three primary themes: a massive increase in the size and scope of government; the further redistribution of wealth within American society; and more government control coupled with a corresponding decrease in individual accountability and responsibility. Here are a few examples.
First, let's look at Obama's plan for growing the government. Despite his pledge at the beginning of the blueprint "...to put government back in your hands, where it belongs," an Obama presidency promises substantial and sustained increases in the size and scope of the federal government that will result in more control over the lives of ordinary Americans and more interference with the conduct of private business. Take, for instance, Senator Obama's support for free television and radio time for political campaigns. For starters, there is no such thing as "free" air time. Private broadcast stations would be forced to accept programming directed by the government (incurring cost in freedom of choice), consumers would be forced to watch or listen to programming directed by the government (incurring cost in freedom of choice), and one can only speculate that the "free" time would be paid for with taxpayer dollars (presumably at a rate not conducive to profit-making for the broadcast stations).
Keeping with the grow-the-government and take control of people's lives theme, Obama supports the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange that would "help" individuals purchase private insurance plans. I'm not sure how inserting government into individual choice and private business "helps" anyone, given that government does few things more efficiently than individuals and private sector companies. Under Obama's plan, insurers would be forced to issue every applicant an insurance policy, with monthly premiums set without regard to the health of the individual. Employers who fail to contribute to their employees' health care costs will be required to pay money into the national plan. Does anyone believe that these costs will not be passed on to consumers? Again, private companies will be told by the federal government who they will do business with and how that business will be conducted.
On nearly every page of Obama's blueprint you will find the words "create," "expand," "provide capital," "increase," "double," and even "quadruple." It's not hard to see that the Blueprint for Change is a recipe for a massive growth of the federal government that will provide national direction in lieu of individual choice.
Senator Obama is also a clear advocate of the further redistribution of wealth within American society. His plan calls for the creation of a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. According to Obama, the tax credit would wipe out any tax burden at all for 10 million families. Additionally, Obama advocates reversing most of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Given the massive increases in government spending planned in the blueprint, it's pretty easy to see that Obama will shift the tax burden to those Americans who are able to pay more. The "wealthiest" Americans can expect higher income taxes and higher Social Security taxes, while more of their fellow citizens are taken off the tax rolls altogether. And while the "wealthiest" are not clearly defined in the blueprint, I, as a government employee who makes more than $97,500 (the current salary cap for Social Security taxes) and who benefited from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, can expect to see less of my paycheck each month under an Obama administration (never mind that I have four kids and, living in the Washington, D.C. area, am decidedly middle class).
A third defining feature of Senator Obama's plan is a decrease in individual responsibility, which fits in nicely with the increased control of the federal government over the lives of American citizens. Under the Obama plan, health insurance options for young adults would expand to the point where 25-year old men and women would be allowed to stay on their parents' health plans. I say men and women because at the age of 25 you should no longer be a child dependent on mommy and daddy. You should be capable of independent thought and able to exercise individual choice, while accepting the responsibility and accountability that go along with free will.
A President Obama would also establish a fund to help Americans refinance their mortgages while providing "...comprehensive support to innocent homeowners." Call me naïve, but I believe that adults who enter into mortgages are really not all that innocent, and should be held accountable for either not understanding what they were getting themselves into or for accepting risk with adjustable rate mortgages that could increase interest rates beyond their ability to pay. And guess who would be providing the funds to bail these homeowners out? You guessed it: other taxpayers.
Finally, Senator Obama wants to implement a retirement security plan that will force employers to automatically enroll employees in a direct deposit IRA. Of course, an employee can always opt out, but government is still interjecting itself into the workplace and forcing individuals to save for retirement unless they take additional steps to stop the payroll deduction. This retirement security plan implies that Americans are not capable of making retirement savings decisions on their own. Instead, the federal government comes in, absolves them of any personal responsibility (unless, of course, they choose to opt out of the plan), and makes the decisions about what's best for individual workers.
In the foreign policy realm, Obama's blueprint clings to an Iraq plan that does not acknowledge the positive trends experienced since President Bush's surge of additional troops into Anbar Province and Baghdad last year. Senator Obama maintains his call for a steady withdrawal of troops, without regard for the risks to the security gains made since last September, arguing that the best way to pressure Iraqi leaders is to make it clear we are leaving. Of course, this plan in no way takes into consideration the ability of Iraqi security forces. The belief is that if we start to leave, the Iraqi Army and police will suddenly be spurred into action, accepting responsibility for the security of their nation. Whether or not they are actually able to provide their own security is of little importance. I can envision now the sight of the last American troops leaving Baghdad in helicopters from the roof of the American Embassy because Iraqi Security Forces were just not quite ready.
The other major feature of Senator Obama's foreign policy plan is his willingness to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Obama blueprint offers nothing new for Iran except the promise of a face-to-face with the American President. Obama's offer of World Trade Organization membership in exchange for Iranian abandonment of its nuclear program and support for terrorism has already been rejected by Tehran, as has his offer of economic investments. Is the hatred of George W. Bush so strong that we are to believe Khamenei and Ahmadinejad will give up their nuclear pursuits just because a new guy is in the White House? They must be laughing hysterically in Iran.
Mr. Hume was onto something when he said this past weekend that the November presidential election would be a referendum on Barack Obama. It should be about him. But when voters go to the polls to cast their ballots, they should do so not based on whether they think the country is ready for an African American president or out of some lingering hatred for President Bush. They should do so based on whether or not they believe Senator Obama's Blueprint for Change is the right path for America to take in the years ahead.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
Also, many other nations have national health care, and they aren't communist countries either.
Thirdly, you're barking about Obama's financial plan, but look how far in debt we are under the GOP. The dollar is hardly worth spit, which is why our fuel prices are so high.
This ex-Republican has had enough, eight years were way too many. Time to pass the torch.
Triple points for you!!!
As for debt, raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting wasteful government spending and ending congressional earmarks is. Unfortunately, neither is going away soon.
Lastly, the weak dollar has certainly played a part in the price of oil. However, so has rising demand (led by China and India) and stagnant supply (see OPEC). Blaming it all on Bush is simplistic and naive.
I'm not saying McCain is any better, but proposed policies put forward by Obama are cause for concern to this anti-big government American.
Culminating in free movement of poor peoples labor undermining the European indigenous population to large amounts of immigration. The same agenda is anticipated in 2009, unless the citizens and legal resident doesn't stop this assault on our own job market. Obama will have a titanic fight on his hands, if he tries to force the plan of ethnic caucuses and special interest entities on 80 percent of the population. Taxpayers cannot afford to support the millions of illegal aliens, attracted to this nation by predatory employers. With a massive importation deficit from China, Mexico, India and other countries. This explosive rise in our nation's trade deficit is another fundamental menace to this country and our economy. The trade deficit through the first 11 months of last year came in at $662 billion dollars, on pace to jump 17 percent from 2004's record deficit. In fact, the trade deficit has nearly doubled since the president Bush took office and still gaining momentum. Perhaps McCain would sign an executive order to halt ear-marks, but that doesn't stop the avalanche of cheap imported products. Americans should first halt the unfettered influx of millions of illegal immigrants and give the majority of these jobs, back to the legal individuals. After the borders are closed, shut then perhaps a guest worker program can be installed, but without citizenship. Democrats must endorse the SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) to bring orderly immigration back to our country.
"Remember, the GOP says the Democrats are big government, then why was the only time we were in the black with a surplus instead of a deficit was under a Democrat?" Because Bill Clinton instituted the largest tax increase in American history. If you don't mind giving up more of your paycheck for bigger government, then the Democratic ticket is the way to go.
"We really got a bum deal this time around." I couldn't agree more.
What a joke!
Heres another joke, the government trying to run the health care system. I hate to deflate the ego's of so many but the Insurance Companies are in too many pockets within Washington to allow such a thing. Look back over the Bill Clinton lies over the same thing "socialized health care" remember Hillery got paid for 8 years only to come up with a plan that made it mandatory to have insurance. Just who do you think that was for? Us or the Insurance Companies!
If someone truly wanted to save money in Washington all they need do is shut down the worthless do nothing offices set up to employ all the people that worked on the campaign. These offices don't even include the ones set up during the countries beginning like the tea tasting office. Another big savings which I can't believe the tree hugging groups haven't done anything about, I mean stripping whole forest to make books for each bill brought into congress and that includes the ones that are thrown out, "don't they all have computers yet?".
The weak dollar is the fault of the Banking world, they are the one's who all but shut down lending.
As far as McCain goes he has some baggage but he's not a leftest leaning towards socialist reform for America.
"Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class
The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that
received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health
care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class."
I don't know maybe I am reading that wrong but I think it says he will go after those making over $1,000,000. 00 per year. I didn't see anything about "I'll raise taxes on those that make $97,500.00 or slightly above"
Why do we always assume that someone will go after the worse possible thing, instead of giving them a chance to clarify their postion? So let's assume that he doesn't win, let's assume it is McCain. Is there anyone out there right now that doesn't think that the economy of this country is totally in the outhouse? If that is the case, do we know what McCain's real plan is for how he is going to change it and make it all work again? Is it not obvious at this point that in a country with 300 million people the Bush tax cuts actually did not help the vast majority of them? Has McCain come up with anything that will do so as of yet? Since I am still for the most part undecided, I would love to hear it if he has, it may just sway me over.
"Lower Costs by Modernizing the U.S. Health Care System
(1) Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees. Catastrophic
health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan
would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold
if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
(2) Lowering Costs by Ensuring Patients Receive and Providers Deliver Quality Care:"
Not "increasing spending", but lowering costs. Makes sense to me, Again can anyone tell me McCain's proposal on healthcare, which is definitely in a different outhouse in this country as insurance companies and Privately ran hospitals get richer while many people who do work and are not on Welare have no health care, no way to afford it on their own and no employer that will offer it because that may just put them in danger of losing their businesses What i Mccain's plan on that, again I am not being a smart ass, I really do not remember hearing him say much about it and if he has and I missed it, I would like to be filled in a bit. The more facts I have the better decision I can make on who to go with.
Support Disease Management Programs: Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are
spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood
pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs.
This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
Coordinate and Integrate Care: Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and
these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will improve coordination and
integration of care of those with chronic conditions by making sure programs are fully implemented
and encouraging team care.
Require Full Transparency about Quality and Costs: Obama will require hospitals and providers
to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable
medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans
will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to
administrative costs.
At a Glance
Taxes
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
Trade
Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more
American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.
Technology
Obama will encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure to reduce the
costs of health care, help solve our energy crisis, create new jobs, and fuel our economic growth.
Labor
Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee
Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban
the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to
inflation to ensure it rises every year.
Home Ownership
Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest
and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class
homeowners.
Bankruptcy Reform
Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt
companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments.
Credit Cards
Obama will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in every credit
card. He also will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers
with unfair practices.
Work-Family
Obama will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide lowincome
families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible
work schedules.
I mean it may be some bad things that are bringing it out, like how bad Bush has screwed up and yes even racism on both sides and a few other things, but at least it is getting everyone involved and in the end hopefully no one will feel cheated
Don't forget any president must work with and convince congress to implement ANYTHING he wants. A demo majority in congress is nearly certain this next time -- so who would better & easier with congress: a Demo with new ideas or a Neo-con espousing Bush's failed policies???
"I don't know maybe I am reading that wrong but I think it says he will go after those making over $1,000,000. 00 per year. I didn't see anything about "I'll raise taxes on those that make $97,500.00 or slightly above"
Obama says he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts, but does not specify which ones. His proposal is not specifically tied to incomes over 1 million; instead, he points out a statistic that says that income bracket received the biggest cut (in dollars, which makes sense since that income bracket also pays the most in taxes). I benefited directly from both rounds of tax cuts (2001 and 2003) and I certainly don't make $1 million. The lack of clarity allows for concern that my income taxes will go up. As for the $97,500, that's the current cap for social security taxes. Obama wants to raise that cap, meaning my social security taxes would go up as well.
"Why do we always assume that someone will go after the worse possible thing, instead of giving them a chance to clarify their postion?" He's had a year to clarify his position, yet still no substance. Where's the beef?
Is there anyone out there right now that doesn't think that the economy of this country is totally in the outhouse?" Still experiencing positive GDP growth and the unemployment rate is 5.5% (5% is considered full employment by economists)--that means that 94.5% of those looking for work are able to find it. That doesn't fit "outhouse" criteria in my book.
As for McCain, let's just say there's a lot left to be desired. As George Carlin has said, "Is this really the best we can do?"
"Is it not obvious at this point that in a country with 300 million people the Bush tax cuts actually did not help the vast majority of them?" You're speculating about the financial positions of all other Americans. The Bush tax cuts reduced marginal tax rates in all income tax brackets and took millions off the tax rolls completely. Poll after poll shows that Americans think the economy is in bad shape, but their personal position is okay. Why the disparity? Perception is skewed, but as they say, perception is reality.
"The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums." Great. At the cost of bigger government. And how is this paid for? With tax payer dollars. The government has no money of its own. The government only has what it collects from taxpayers. The problem with a large segment of America is that they don't care, as long as it's someone else's tax dollars.
"Not "increasing spending", but lowering costs." Lowering costs to consumers through government intervention and subsidies. Again, paid for with tax dollars from, you guessed it, taxpayers.
"Require Full Transparency about Quality and Costs: Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care." Great. And how will the hospitals and providers pay for this added requirement? Out of the goodness of their hearts they'll just suck up the loss, or will they pass it on to patients in the form of higher fees for services rendered? Can anyone take a guess?
"Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay." I'm in a working family, but I make more than $100,000 per year. Do I get the tax break? I'm not holding my breath. Here's the problem. "Working" is not defined. You and I both know that it doesn't apply to everyone, even though virtually everyone (with the exception of maybe Paris Hilton) works for their income. Even Bill Gates works at Microsoft for his billions. Does he get the tax cut?
The problem I have with most of Obama's initiatives is that they paint a picture of a generous government handing out cash to solve the problems in our country. The reality, though, is that these programs have to be paid for. And since the government doesn't have it's own money, it has to rely on taxes collected from the citizenry for all of its expenditures. People complain about the current level of debt, but support hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal spending?
"I can't believe anyone would re-print this junk!" Thanks. I do believe that's the first time my writing has been called junk. Still, I do appreciate the feedback.
"I can side with several of the negative arguments made about O.B. and his policies, BUT, Mr. Obama represents a welcome change to American government, politics and ways of seeing / doing concrete things!" How, exactly? What change? Continued rampant federal spending? Divisiveness (Obama has not crossed the aisle on any major issue)? And what concrete things? His plan has very little substance, but is heavy on feel-good phrases about how he will save the day. Give me more specifics, Mr. Obama!!
"Don't forget any president must work with and convince congress to implement ANYTHING he wants." Exactly. One of the problems with presidential elections is that the pubic puts too much stock into what the candidates say they can accomplish. The reality is that there are plenty of checks on presidential power.
What a ridiculous article....
most of this is simply not going to happen even if he DOES get elected.. the bloody democrats haven't been able to do ANYTHING they promised in the fabulous '100 days'.
what would happen IF (Obama), get elected is a quagmire of gridlock.
"You are either naive or ignorant to ignore the fact that our country is currently going down the wrong path." That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, as I am to mine. Certainly, there are many things wrong. But there always are. To believe that everything will magically become okay if we have a President Obama is pure foolishness. Will Obama get Iran to drop it's nuke program? Not a chance. Will Obama get OPEC to increase production to meet rising demand for oil? Don't count on it. Will Obama get Iraq's neighbors to chip in and work toward stability? Not likely. Will Obama fix the immigration problem at our southern border? Hardly. The list could go on.
Reality is that McCain will not be able to much as President either. Surprisingly little changes from administration to adminstration. Personally, I think Obama's youth and charisma are refreshing and a nice change from the typical Washington politician. But that's not the issue. His policy proposals are and those scare the crap out of people opposed to increased government spending and more government control.
"He plans to stay the course in Iraq after admitting that we were there for oil." You mean stay the course that has brought down violence to the levels we were seeing in the summer of 2004 when the insurgency was still getting on its feet? Oil? Of course oil matters. It's the lifeblood of the planet, not just the United States. The entire world needs access to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East; that's what makes it a vital region of interest for us. But here's a news flash: we don't control Iraqi oil. In fact, American oil companies are losing out to other nations in negotiations for Iraqi oil contracts.
"He plans on expanding into Iran, whom I guarantee will not just sit idly while we repeat the occupation from the 50's." They're not sitting idly now. Iranians are helping to kill American soldiers in Iraq. Iran is the greatest threat to regional stability. Iran has to be dealt with. That does not necessarily mean militarily, but the threat of force must remain on the table if diplomacy is to work. Diplomacy not backed by the threat of force is meaningless.
"He still doesn't know the difference between Sunnis, Shiites, Al Qaida, and Iran." Slip of the tongue. Have you never made a mistake?
"His stance on women's rights is horrendous." What are you talking about?
Be careful, you're partisanship is showing.
And by the way, I haven't allowed ratings on my articles for a very long time because I think the system is flawed. I've seen too many good writers on Gather attacked because of differing views and not rated according to the quality of the writing or the argument made.
Charles, I think what people need to realize is that the problems in this country are bigger than Bush. Because they are bigger than Bush, just changing the chief executive won't fix them. The president is constrained by the congress, and God knows we need help there (on both sides of the aisle).
Good article, Greg.
Glad to see that substance matters. Thanks for the comment.
First, I'm not a warmonger. In fact, having done two combat tours in Iraq, I despise war but recognize that it is an inevitable byproduct of relations between countries when interests conflict.
As for the recruiter, I'm already on active duty. No recruiter necessary. Who's the coward? The guy who went to war twice when his elected civilian leadership told him to, or the guy who is content to criticize on internet discussion boards?