“One Little Hour”

A friend recently posted the following note outlining Senator Obama’s stance on the issues.

I think that it is vitally important to examine the fundamental points of a political candidate’s reasoning. Before we label a candidate and throw him/her into our categories, take a moment to really examine political candidates, in this context, through the prism of reality, truth, and objective opinion. The following points were made by Senator Obama on October 29,2008 in his televised address to the nation:

Outline for America’s Future
Purpose of Plan: To restore health of the economy

Immediate Plan
Cut taxes for families making less then $200,000
Tax credit for hiring new employees in US
Eliminate tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas
Freeze foreclosures for 90 days
Low cost loans for small business

Long-term Plan
$15 billion a year in energy efficiency and renewables (wind, solar, and biofuels)
Create 5 million clean energy jobs
Help auto companies retool for fuel efficient cars
Tax credit to hep afford fuel efficient cars Tap Natural Gas Resources
Invest in clean coal technologies
Expand domestic oil production
Eliminate government programs that don’t work
Biggest savings for the United States is to change policy in Iraq
Tax credit to cover tuition to university in exchange for service to community or country
Improve information technology
Require healthcare coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions
Rebuild military to meet 21st century challenges
Renew tough direct diplomacy to prevent aggression
Refocus on Al Qaeda and Taliban

Any thoughts?

I thought I’d post my subjective two cents on these policies as an explanation of why I withheld my vote from Obama this morning. (Objectivity is rather like Christlikeness: an ideal to be striven for but never reached). For clarity’s sake I’ll go through Obama’s plan point by point.

1. Obama promises to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. What’s not to like? I actually thing there is a subtle, yet significant, danger to the consequence of Obama’s plan. Cutting taxes is great, but the effect is to drastically increase the number of people who will pay no federal income taxes. This sounds great (as a fiscal libertarian I think taxes are legalized extortion), but taxes are an important way of tying decision making to responsibility in a democratic society. The idea goes back to Aristotle and Plato who argued that property owners were the basis of a stable society. Why? Because they had a stake in the decisions made. If Greece decided to fight a war than their property would be endangered; in theory this would encourage consideration and hinder rash decision making. They would face the consequences of their votes. America’s founders were conscious of the dangers of the Roman mob and Greek demagogues. They feared the mob because the mob effectively voted itself bread and circuses at no cost to itself…the cost was born by Roman citizens in the provinces and by the well to do. So how does that apply to America? The birth of a modern mob fueled by cable and food stamps. People who do not have to pay for more expensive expanded social services are more likely to vote for them. (My father would point out here that I’m quite free with his money, but rather stingy with my own.) I propose that almost all Americans should pay taxes, but the rate of those taxes should be small. Even Jess and I, although we are living below the federal poverty line, should have to pay a little something in income taxes as a reminder that we share in the burden of government.

2. The tax credit for hiring new employees is a minor distortion of the market, not enough to get me worked up yet in principal distasteful. Why should companies be encouraged to hire new employees even if it would be more efficient for them to pare down the number of workers? This proposal would discourage efficiency and ultimately taxpayers foot the bill twice over. Companies are forgiven taxes which means more of the budget for individuals to pay; and less efficient companies make more expensive products so as consumers we end up paying more.

3. Eliminating tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas. Another market distortion, one that Adam Smith himself dealt with in Wealth of Nations. Jobs/industry/production flows to where it is most efficient at creating wealth. So one nation might be more efficient at producing steel because of larger ore reserves while another has more fertile fields for growing grain. To subsidize a less efficient mode of production rather than allowing it to flow to a more efficient producer decreases potential wealth creation. Companies move jobs overseas not out of some conspiratorial desire to destroy America but because other nations are more efficient at creating that given product. We benefit in the end because the price of that produced good or service ultimately declines.

4. Freeze foreclosures for 90 days. Populist rhetoric akin to McCain/Clinton’s proposed summer gas tax holiday last year.

5. Low Cost loans for small business. Another relatively mild distortion of the market. Why are small business more worthy of cheap loans than large businesses? I share he American sympathy for the little guy as much as the next guy, but I’d rather allow lenders to decide who is worthy of cheap loans rather than dictating it by government fiat.

6. Money for renewable energy. Are we seriously proposing that government increase its intervention into the renewable energy market? Did we learn nothing from the corn ethanol debacle?! Besides, wind and solar energy are highly inefficient. If government would simply remove regulatory obstacles and discourage legal challenges than the energy market would work things out itself (i.e., build nuclear power plants). You want energy independence? You want to emit less carbon? Nuclear energy is the only feasible alternative. One of the founders of Greenpeace actually came to the same conclusion. (Hooray for Samuel Sinnamon!)

7. Help auto companies retool for more fuel efficient cars. This proposal is either helping by mandating that cars meet minimum fuel efficiency standards (which means those cars are more expensive for who? Us.) or by subsidizing r&d. The real story here is that Asian car manufacturers (Toyota, Honda, etc) predicted this 20 years ago and did all the r&d themselves and so are reaping the benefits of their foresight (and so are an excellent example of how the market does a better job than the government). The losers in this story, American car manufacturers (hello Detroit!), are asking for handouts…rewarding incompetency and inefficiency is not a smart move. And lest we are tempted to say that if they go out of business the workers will suffer we should remember that Americans will buy cars from somebody. Thus the decline/failure of Detroit is the triumph of Toyota/Honda/co…this is not bad. The people with the best idea deserve to prosper.

8. Tapping natural gas for cars. Once again, why do we want government deciding the fuel of the future? I think the (successful) car companies can figure this one out on their own. Besides, it looks like electric cars are the wave of the future. The question is what will we use to produce electricity and for an answer see number 6. There is a bit of cognitive dissonance (inconsistency) in Obama’s plan here. He wants to shift away from fossil fuels…but then proposes shifting to another fossil fuel…go figure.

9. Expand domestic oil production. It is worth noting that Obama initially opposed all new oil drilling, but under great pressure (including rising poll numbers for McCain/Palin; “drill baby, drill”) Obama changed to support some further drilling. But it is significant to note that the proposed drilling only puts on the table a arbitrarily small percentage of the currently off limits continental shelf.

10. Eliminate government programs that don’t work. Hooray, an idea that I can back completely!(-; Then again…the only programs I’ve ever specifically heard that Obama wants to eliminate are school voucher trial programs and No Child Left Behind. In their place he proposes even more money going to states in block grants with fewer stipulations. I don’t think that counts as much of a real cut. I put the plank down to political positioning since he is adopting the same rhetoric used by McCain to appeal to independents.

11. Iraq, etc. True.

12. Education tax credit for community service. Fine.

13. Improve IT. No, horrible, bad, evil…just kidding. A bit like saying ‘fighting child molesters.’ Anybody opposed? Yet I bet that any any proposal will include the government spending more money and deciding where that money will be best sent. How did I feel about that again? Oh…

14. Healthcare insurance. Another step towards government provided healthcare…not a big fan. Every additional stipulated coverage, as seen in states that require insurance plans cover acupuncture or pre-existing conditions, raises the costs of insurance. This results in fewer people who can afford coverage (and higher costs for everyone else).

15. Foreign policy (other than Iraq). Window dressing. I bet that Obama will be like Bill Clinton on foreign policy. When people get up in a huff about something he’ll drop a missile (Sudan) or send in a mission (Somalia). Otherwise Obama’s going to spend his time “fixing” domestic problems.

I really appreciate the opportunity to focus on policy today rather than personality. I’m not withholding my vote from Obama this morning because of his pastor, his Chicago machine background, or his associations with various and sundry questionable persons. I am withholding a vote for Obama because his policies would waste potential future wealth that could solve the problems he wants to fix. Ironically I believe his proposed policies would either exacerbate the problems he is trying to mitigate or create other, bigger difficulties.