First off, a personal decision is to be made, and I'll let Volokh's Todd Zywicki explain a large reason why I should vote for McCain, as opposed to voting for Obama (I being a libertarian leaning Republican):
Perhaps most fundamentally, given the history of the world over the past 25 years I think I just had assumed that no serious politician or thinker would in this day and age hold the sorts of views that Obama seems to hold. Raising taxes in a recession, protectionism, abolition of the secret ballot for union elections, big spending increases, nationalized health care, and most appallingly (to my mind) the potential reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine"--I mean this is pretty serious stuff. And when combined with a Democratic Congress, I think we may be talking about (to use Thomas Sowell's recent phrase) a "point of no return." I guess I just assumed that Obama would be sort of Bill Clintonish--"the era of big government is over" and all that stuff. That he would have absorbed the basic insights of recent decades on taxes, trade, regulation, etc. ...
But as I've looked at the actual policy positions of the two more closely, it seems to me that Obama really seems to be pretty far out there. He is no Bill Clinton. And from what I can tell none of those libertarians or conservatives who are Obama supporters are attracted to because of his positions (other than those who care strongly about the Iraq war and foreign policy), but rather because of who he is. Obama is a compelling personality. But in reading these encomiums to him, I haven't seen any explanation as to how Obama's policies on tax, trade, spending, or regulatory would be friendlier to individual liberty than what is likely to be McCain's (as weak as those will be). As someone observed somewhere recently, this is about the first time in history that you have endorsements from people who endorse Obama on the hope that he won't do what he says he'll do rather than because of what he says he'll do.
Obama promises more of the failed economic policies of Democrats from years gone by, free markets, despite recent events, have more than shown and proved their value and worth; most people rightly criticize knee-jerk reactions against something because they are based on fear and rigid ideology, and not on any proof of failure. Obama's economic policies, coupled with a Democratic control of Congress, are not what's needed today- instead, by using populism, they will suck out the life of free-market capitalism, in favor of populist, government sponsored and controlled markets. We should not be turning our back on 20+ years of positive growth, positive freedoms, and positive experience- let the markets do their thing.
Obama proposes none of that- he proposes government interfering in the marketplace; he proposes government interfering in the free exchange of ideas; he proposes getting rid of secret ballots for union formation; he proposes a huge tax increase on the very same people that should be relied on to invest capital into the market. In a time of undercapitalization in the market, how government taking that money and giving it away makes sense is beyond me- that capital would be better used to be re-invested in the market.
Obama's reasoning behind raising taxes is simply to pay for this social redistribution of wealth spending plans, but, as even CBS has noted, "If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession." If taxes on the rich don't cut it, and, I might add he's now dropped the floor from $250K to $200K, a realization that he needs a bigger pool to steal from, then where else is he going to come up with this money? The answer- either he will continue to drop the floor on who will be subject to a tax hike, or he will have to cut his spending; guess which one I think he'll do. He'll raise more people's taxes.
All in all. . .Obama's economic plans are a recipe for disaster. In a time of recession, which Congressional Democrats have been waiting for, raising taxes and increasing spending does not work. John McCain knows that, that's why he advocates for cutting taxes and cutting government waste. He doesn't want government taking money away from the people who are best able to inject capital into the economy; he doesn't want the government to raise taxes to simply hand them out to someone else. He wants people to use their own money to make their own choices; he wants people to invest in America. He knows that the government is not a domestic charity organization.
After taxing and spending, my next near and dear topic is free trade. It is patently clear that Obama, egged on by a, to use a term from the Economist, "muddle-headed" Congress, will raise (or not lower) tariffs, will make it more difficult to enter into free trade agreements with foreign countries and will make protectionism their mantra for foreign trade. Again, history has shown us that throwing up protectionist barriers on free trade dramatically hurts American businesses and American consumers by making prices go up across the board. This is true during times of recession and panic, and it's true during times of economic prosperity. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, something that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is daring him to do. Why? Well, there's something in there that forces Canada to sell a majority of their oil to the U.S.; you can be sure that if NAFTA is renegotiated, Canada, and Mexico, will want that taken out. The result, well, a less secure and more volatile reliance on foreign oil. Instead of having a steady supply of Canadian and Mexican oil, they will put it up on the market, thereby necessitating that we potentially increase on imports of oil from less friendly countries. Obama claims that he will be better able to repair our image abroad, yeah, by making us less competitive, we'll be seen as an economic patsy, a country that is not worth the effort to trade with.
John McCain is a real free trader. He knows that in order to facilitate the on-going competitiveness of the American workforce and keep prices down, free trade is necessary. He will stand up to the unions, unlike Obama, who will sign a union card check law that will no longer provide for a secret ballot to create a union. Everything that Obama said he will do economically, John McCain won't- McCain won't raise tariffs, he wants to lower them, he won't support throwing up protectionist walls on our market, all of which hurt American business and customers. He will advocate for free trade agreements that are mutually beneficial- for free trade is one of the greatest sources of showcasing not only American technology and ingenuity, but also our core beliefs on freedom for all people without the threat of government interference.
So, yes, I'm not voting for Barack Obama. I am not voting for a return to a New New Deal, an economic program that will hurt America and its citizens more than help; I am not voting for one of the most inexperienced and unqualified nominees this country has seen in some time; I am not voting from one of the biggest frauds to run for president since Pat Paulson. Obama's minimal legislative experience is not one of envy- he is simply a yes man. In his years in the Illinois legislature, he voted as he was told, and was rewarded; in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has voted as he was told, and was rewarded. As President, I have no doubt that will sign what he is told. This is no time to vote Present. This is no time to elect someone who has shown little to no ability to think for himself- his sole ability is his ability to read lines off a teleprompter in a pleasant voice. This is no time for a yes man; this is a time to elect John McCain.
John McCain is no yes man. John McCain is his own man. John McCain has a history of putting aside partisanship and to do what's best for the country, even at his own political peril. He fought for and got signed a campaign finance law (a law that Obama is flouting by not disclosing all of his donors, especially in light of the numerous instances of fraud); he has fought for a cap and trade bill on the environment; he has fought for immigration reform; he criticized the Bush administration on the handling of Iraq; he has shown a willingness to put aside what's best for him, and do what's best for the country. Barack Obama does not and will not do what's best for the country; John McCain will.
I do not trust Barack Obama; I trust John McCain. I do not trust Obama's sense of judgment, this is evidenced by his unapologetic alliances with Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN, amongst who knows how many others that the press has conveniently not bothered to investigate, instead, he simply brushes them aside and explains them away, like a one-night stand in college. He fails to see that his judgment to associate with these people, and not be offended at any point from then on out is important. John McCain has shown humility and a recognition of doing wrong. After his association with Charles Keating, he admitted it was a mistake to meet with him; Obama has made no such apology about any of the people above, nor has even admitted it was a mistake to begin with. John McCain has gone out of his way to make amends for that mistake; Obama has not once made any attempt to make amends, or even show remorse. He does not care, and has shown no inclination to apologize. Hiding behind mis-information, half-truths, thuggish attempts to silence non-believers and critics, and straight-up obfuscation is not the sign of a leader. Barack Obama is not a leader, he's a follower, and will only move America backwards. John McCain is the leader we need. He will lead America forward, and will do it for America, not for himself. That is why I'm voting for John McCain.
I will conclude with what former Democratic speech-writer Wendy Button wrote in a recent article:
The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.” ....
The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
....
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges. .... Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”
Vote John McCain.
4 comments:
I agree with everything in this piece except for your reference to Pat Paulsen as a fraud. There are many others you could have named to make your point. Pat Paulsen was NOT a fraud.
Noma Paulsen
www.paulsen.com
You can read my blog for my counter-argument. I just want to make one factual correction. Obama didn't "lower the floor" of his tax proposal. The plan is to increase taxes on those over $250,000 and decrease on under $200,000. I don't recall anything different.
Oh, he will. I predict it will be lowered by January 20, 2009. There is no conceivable way he can get away with the amount of new government spending he's proposed without either dropping the floor to $200,000 (or lower) or increase the tax rate on those above $250,000, else he risks significantly increasing the deficit. Of course, the deficit is likely to increase anyway. . .economic downturn automatically means a decrease in tax revenue, which will mean that whatever tax revenue he recovers from increasing peoples' taxes will make up even less of the difference. This is all econ 101, and how Obama is able to go out there with a straight face and say he's gonna spend this and spend that, and give away this and give away that and only increase taxes on those above $250K is intellectually dishonest.
"He will" is different than "he did." That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, which is what makes it offensive to my sensibilities as a human being.
Post a Comment