This started off as an e-mail that I wrote not too long ago to a friend who I had been having political debates with through e-mail for a while. I wanted to post this here, partly to share my ideas but mostly to try and open up this debate. This seems to be particularly relevant when considering McCain's new strategy of question if Obama's change is the kind American wants. So please feel free to question my argument and put forward any of your own as I am always trying to learn more on the many topics put forward in this "e-mail."

I read an article recently from the New York Times, “The Story of Obama, by Obama.” It is essentially 3 pages of describing what a brilliant writer he is, how he really didn't have much experience with writing but was able to pull off all of these incredible writing/biographical techniques through which to tell the story of his life. There are many quotes from professors and publishers about how talented he was. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that, and it probably is all true, not exaggerated. but it does open up the possibility that he has the ability to convey with words a sense of "change" and "freshness" that may not actually be there. Given a general pessimism in the public, Bush’s extremely low approval rating, and the tendency to blame any and all current problems on the current president, I believe that an individual gifted enough with words could create a “wave” of enthusiasm fueled by the dislike of the president and founded on the idea of something different, and that this could be accomplished no matter what the substance of the “change.” I'm not saying necessarily that that is the case, but, given his capacity with words and his physical embodiment of something different (young, from the north/northeast, and black), until the actual facts behind his claims are looked at the possibility must be acknowledged.

Obama has founded his campaign on this idea of "change." His main argument for why we should elect him (and why people say they will vote for him) is that in him we have "change we can believe in." Obama will bring fresh new ideas and new strategies to how things are done in Washington. Now from this initial proposition, he provides his different strategies for change. This is of course a breakdown that I have constructed on my own through my own observations, but these are also the general sources of current public pessimism. First, he says he will bring a change of politics in Washington, he will get rid of the influence of lobbyists, no longer engage in the "old politics" that so much muck up the system, and unite the country. Next he will bring "change" to this country through his new approach to foreign policy, that we need to get out of Iraq and take a more diplomatic approach to our policies abroad. Finally there are his economic policies as he claims that we need change from the "failed economic policies" of Bush and the Republican party in general. He will make the country more profitable, lower unemployment and increase productivity (much of this includes dealing with such issues as the current state of energy). From my experience, in what I have heard him say and his supporters say, these are the three main points that consist his "fresh" ideas, so I think, in order to decide whether this description is accurate or if he has simply convinced a majority of people that he will, through his proven capacity to use words very effectively, you need to look at the specifics within each of these three categories.

First, you should read this interesting article that touches on a few points, but I think mostly highlights Obama's "new" politics: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23643866-5013948,00.html I think this article is good because it paints an important picture of the political climate that Obama has "grown up" in and partly been involved in. Let me say though a lot of what is brought up in the article isn't to his fault especially since much has to be questioned or taken with a grain of salt due to the biased nature of the article. What I do fault him for though, and the article brings it up, is for acting so lofty, for being above all the dirty politics, being a fresh face untarnished by how dirty politics can be, yet he's been involved with people like Ayers, Rezko, and even oil executives (of course, Obama has even been able to excuse himself from this by saying that nobody can help getting a little dirty when involved in politics, but then, I argue, why couldn’t the same be the case for McCain or any other politician?) Next, and here's where you can see a clear contradiction with McCain, is how he turns a blind eye and even involves himself with pork barrel spending and ear-marks. The article gives an example of this where he does favors for being allowed to be involved in a bill filled with pork (or "steak") barrel spending. Even worse, how about his most recent support for the awful farm bill that just got passed as well as the continuation of the ethanol subsidies. The Farm bill is filled with pork barrel spending and does such things as give subsidies to families making over 2 million dollars (here's an article on the farm bill http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1808465,00.html?xid=rss-topstories). As for the ethanol bill, you sent me that lengthy article on what was wrong with how we (Bush, democrats, and Obama) support ethanol and make sure foreign ethanol doesn't get into the country. We subsidize ethanol which diverts resources away from more efficient uses like wheat, soy, and corn for food. Also its production uses more energy then it produces and ends up having more negative effects then positive on the environment.

Now how about the "old politics" that Obama claims he is a change from? This isn't something from the article but just what I've decided from my own observations. These old politics, as far as I can tell, are about making personal attacks, assumptions about personality from personal associations, and making general attacks rather than focusing on specific issues. Yet I find it interesting that Obama has the most to lose from being connected to negative associations. Why isn't it important to know who a presidential candidate associates with? It's true talking policy plans is the most important, but these people will be president beyond some of the ideas that they put forward now and will have to address new issues that will suddenly come up that they can't address now. Who they associate with and surround themselves with (for 20 years!) gives a very good indication of a person’s views. Again this is not something that a decision for or against Obama should be made on, but it should definitely factor in and it should make one question his motivation for his "war" on "old politics," is it a genuine concern or something he's created to protect himself. A specific example is how Obama can start to say "lay off my wife." How come what she says isn't "allowed" to be criticized and analyzed when she speaks for her husband, she campaigns for him, but of course attacks on what Bill Clinton says or Geraldine Ferraro says are fair game but attacks on Obama's wife are "old politics."

Finally, Obama promises change from the highly partisan politics that we are stuck in. It seems to be more of the case that we can all unite as a country as long as we abandon our own beliefs and agree with Obama, just as any investigation and questioning of his past is simply a distraction. As it points out in the article, it turns out he is the most liberal member of the senate. There seems to be nothing of what he believes or policies that he supports that can be associated with Republican ideals. He says "Democrats don't have a monopoly on good ideas" and yet why doesn't he agree with their ideas, an action that essentially implies none of them are good? I'd also like to point out this claim of uniting the country towards an age past partisan politics is one that Bush made when running for his first term. Not only that but what evidence is there that he can "reach across the aisle" and work with Republicans to unite the country? True, many Republicans (even life long Republicans) have switched over to Obama, but is this evidence of his ability to reach across the aisle or simply a bi-product of the pessimism fueled, change driven desire for something different. McCain on the other hand has spent a large part of his political career working with democrats putting together numerous bills with democrats and sharing their views on things like climate change, finance reform, and torture. What I conclude from this is that there is very little evidence that Obama will in fact change politics, get rid of the old politics, and unite the country, and his claims of this are simply rhetoric.

Next is foreign policy. What I intend to argue here is not necessarily a point of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place or if we should leave. My intention is to critique Obama's judgment and here, specifically, his judgment in foreign policy. Here's a quote from Obama's website, part of a larger essay on his plans for foreign policy specifically on Iraq and Afghanistan. He says, “Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared” So his judgement on Afghanistan seems to be that it would be wrong to leave Afghanistan, to withdraw troops and his reasoning behind this strategy is that in the past, when there was a power vacuum left there it was filled by a religious extremist, terrorist friendly government, the Taliban. He is also pointing out that it is in our national security's best interests to ensure a stable democracy in Afghanistan because it is dangerous to leave a political vacuum. Obama does not offer any clear explanation as to why Iraq is so different from Afghanistan, but only uses language like "the first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq" and "there is no military solution in Iraq." And yet there are some striking similarities between the two situations. First, there has been an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq fighting against the Americans and Iraqi government (they have only recently been weakened as a result of the surge). More significantly though is the presence of Al-Sadr. This is more significant not only because Al-Sadr is extremely anti-American but also because he is more powerful in Iraq and has the support of Iran. Obama doesn't only disregard his own advice but also that of generals on the ground and politicians in Iraq. For example, the Foreign Minister of Iraq Hoshyar Zebari has said, "the dangers [of American withdrawal] could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state." Such a situation seems like it would very likely lead to exactly what Obama warns about in Afghanistan. Not only that but Obama says he would leave troops in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda and other such terrorists. So if he supports fighting these groups what would he do if Iraq falls into civil war and anti-american religious extremists gain power? Here (as with support for ethanol and claims of uniting the country) we can draw a comparison with Bush. Bush has also disregarded the warning of his advisors and generals that the war in Iraq would not be easy, that we needed more soldiers, and that we shouldn't be over confident. Obama would be making the same mistakes as Bush. Not only that but it seems from his views with Afghanistan that if we pullout and Iraq were to collapse, Obama would feel responsible to go back in since our security would be at stake, much as an unstable Afghanistan is our responsibility.
Here is another recent Obama quote and another argument for pulling out: "Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran, it is precisely what strengthened it.” This seems to me like more of the argument that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and based on that we should leave. In my opinion, he doesn’t seem to go deeper into an explanation of why our presence in Iraq has strengthened Iran. My own reasoning for why the American invasion of Iraq strengthened Iran is first, yes, it took away from a military threat we can pose to Iran with our military tied up in Iraq, but it also created instability in the region allowing Iran to support groups that advance its interests which include a weakening of the U.S. Also, as the situation in Iraq worsened, it severely weakened America’s credibility around the world. As the situation got worse and Iraq seemed further from stability, it gave more fuel to extremists looking to recruit new jihadists. All they have to do is say “look at what the U.S. did to Iraq” and they have a new teenager to fight for them. So yes, Obama may be right in pointing out that our invasion of Iraq has strengthened Iran, but upon examining the causes it seems that withdrawing from Iraq would strengthen Iran further. Now compare his judgement to McCain's who in 2004 said , "that it was "a serious mistake" not to have had enough troops in place "after the initial successes" and that the mistake had led to "very, very significant" difficulties." He supported the surge and listened to the advice of his generals, namely Petraeus. Following this advice led to things like Al-Qaeda in Iraq being so severely weakened, the establishment of the Awakening movement, and improvements like those described in this article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/middleeast/12basra.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss So why does Obama represent change and how does he exhibit sound judgement? Instead it seems as if he is feeding off of the public’s being against continued occupation of Iraq, while taking a seemingly contradictory view on Iraq to show that he is not against war for the sake of being against war. This makes me question not only his judgment but also his claim to be a new breed of politician (his arguments about Afghanistan and Iran also help convince me that it is in America’s best interests to stay until stability is reached)

Another reason Obama supposedly represents change is because of how he will meet with leaders of countries like Iran and Cuba without preconditions. That there is nothing wrong with it and it is how America used to lead the world, it is after all what even JFK and Reagan did. Keep in mind it is also what Carter did, most recently meeting with Hamas where they supposedly said they would like to allow Israel to exist... still no tangible results to speak of. You should take a look at this: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=748818438&play=1 So it is completely false to claim it's the same strategy as Reagan, and why hasn't Joe Biden come out to support Obama in his strategy? Finally I'd like to ask, what does Obama propose to say to these leaders, what will be accomplished, how will Obama personally be able to convince them of what they should do? He hasn't said what his plan is, just that he'll talk to them. People are simply excited by this because it's so different, it's the complete opposite of the strategy that we have been proposing and so the implications of what he says aren't fully examined. We don't need the complete opposite of the strategy we've been pursuing but we also can't continue with the same strategy either. In this respect, McCain delivers. It's wrong that McCain does not support diplomatic strategies, he just says that he would meet with preconditions, he's said he would meet with Raul Castro for example. He also does value the importance of listening to the rest of the world, “When we believe that international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must also be willing to be persuaded by them.” He also does have a relatively positive image abroad, and personally knows many foreign leaders as a result of his Washington experience, and is very experienced in traveling around the world as a result of his experience in the Navy.

Finally there's Obama's economic policies; he is going to bring a change from the "failed economic Bush policies," the tax cuts for the rich, etc... I go back to my very first point here, that Obama is a phenomenal speaker who is currently playing off of people's discontent with the current state of things. Our economy isn't doing too well right now, that is true, but is it evidence of Bush's economic policies being failed ones? (here is an article of "reviews" by economists on the different presidential candidates policies: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWYzNzZlOTgyZGU2ZDFiYTdiM2QwYmE2OTRiM2Y3N2Y=&w=MQ==) It was less than a year ago that people were saying we were headed into the next great depression, then we were headed into the next 70's type recession, and yet as bad as things are we are not even in a recession! (Here is an article that makes comparisons with Obama's policies and those of Herbert Hoover, the president who presided over the great depression: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzIwNGI4ZTVjN2VkM2M5NjcxZWQ2NWMxMWNlYjdmZWM= and another) Our GDP growth for the first quarter of 2008 was just reevaluated at .09%, not at all good but it is growing. There has been an increase in unemployment but it is only up now to around 5.5%, lower then levels 10 years ago, the increase has been much smaller then the recession in 2001 (which was a relatively small recession), and while we are in a downturn we still have much lower unemployment then the socialist type countries of western Europe. The recent increase in unemployment may also be a bit deceptive: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-min-wage-behind-50-jobless-rate-jump.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/adjusted-for-labor-force-todays-jobless.html Not only that but, despite what Obama has said (From Obama’s speech on June 9th in Raleigh, N.C. “We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history…This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.”), the cause of the recession had little to nothing to do with Bush. Firstly, it should be noted that recessions are a natural characteristic of free markets; it is generally believed that they function to “purge” the market of weak performers and allowing for market readjustments (in this case home prices returning to prices where people can afford them). Second, the current situation was caused by financial institutions giving out bad loans (one reason was a bill that I don't know too much about but had to do with a company called country wide, and the government basically forced companies to give out bad loans. It didn't start the collapse but it contributed) and also people taking out loans that they couldn't afford, building up credit that they couldn't back up. Some of the blame has also been put on Greenspan who may have left interest rates low for too long and maybe leaving the markets alone longer then they should have. None of this had anything to do with Bush and under his economic policies the economy has been extremely resilient enough to not only avoid having the next great depression but not even be in a “recession” at all.

So what are Obama's plans for the economy? The main thing is that Obama would raise taxes when the economy is in a slow down, and said he would when everyone thought it was a recession. In macroeconomics, that's one of the first lessons you learn, increasing taxes brings down consumption as well as Investment, and when you bring those down, it brings down output, which at .09% would bring us into a recession. He wants to get rid of "Bush's tax cuts for the rich," which he seems to forget put more of the tax burden on the rich and even give negative taxes to lower income people (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm). According to CNBC’s Dennis Kneale, a family of four with one income earner making 40,000 dollars a year would actually see their taxes increase on average by $2,345. Obama has also proposed increasing the capital gains tax up to 25-28%. Historically, when these taxes are lowered it actually increases revenue. In his debate with Clinton in PA, Obama was asked about this and he answered by saying "well sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't... but what we have to remember is to change these failed policies of the Bush administration." that was paraphrased of course, but that first bit is actually exactly what he said, and no, history has shown that lowering these taxes DOES increase revenue, always. He seems to follow this creed that all business is bad and should pursue equity at all cost. And yet when you look at the capital gains tax, 80% of those effected actually make under 100,000 dollars and almost 50% make under $50,000! Obama also supports a windfall profit tax on oil companies, which is a failed tax policy from the Carter years that was meant to control and tax the profits of oil companies. There's a reason we don't have those taxes anymore, they didn't work. All they did was increase foreign oil companies profits and “according to the American Petroleum Institute (API), 1.26 billion fewer barrels of oil were produced domestically due to the tax.” (“Dodd: Government Can Mandate What Profit is 'Fair' for Business” By Jeff Poor; Business and Media Institute) (what was that about failed economic policies?), and it decreases incentive to invest in energy (including alternate sources) domestically. So while we're at it, why don't we control the profits of the 57 other industries with higher profits than "big oil," like some food companies which, compared to oil's 12%, have experienced a recent increase in profits of over 200%! He also wants to uncap the payroll tax. Look at this quote from Larry Kudlow from CNBC, "While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations. In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase." Now how about foreign trade? Obama is generally a protectionist. For example, he says that he wants to renegotiate NAFTA, as well as against the free trade with Peru and Colombia and continue the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. So what happens if all these are stopped (tariffs continue)? Prices go up for all Americans. Obama has talked about how when income was adjusted for inflation during this period of growth, there has been little to no improvement. So what happens if prices go up even more? Same exact thing, if not worse. Also costs for companies go up, so not only do you have these massive tax increases on the rich (the people who have most of the capital and actually give people jobs in the first place) but also costs go up so there's less incentive to start a business in the states, while we already have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. On top of all that, Obama wants to increase minimum wage, another intro economics lesson would tell you that that increases unemployment. (a couple other articles you should read about Obama's tax policy: http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/wm667.cfm?renderforprint=1 and http://principleandpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-plans-to-increase.html the second one is pretty short). And finally despite such accusations as this, “We were promised a fiscal conservative. Instead, we got the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. And now John McCain wants to give us another. Well, we’ve been there once. Were not going back,” according to a rough estimate of Obama’s spending and taxing plan by Michal Farr of Farr, Miller and Washington, Obama plans to cut taxes by 80 billion dollars and increase spending by 300 billion dollars.

Another thing that's been hurting our economy and contributing to the middle and lower class crunch is the price of oil. Obama says that he would deal with the increase price of oil and energy in general but hasn't put forward any comprehensive plan, but simply puts it forward as proof of “the failed economic Bush policies.” In fact he recently said in a speech in Oregon that what Americans need to do is start making sacrifices. That's hardly a plan at all. There are a couple ways to get energy costs down. First is nuclear energy, and this is something that McCain is very strong in support of. He would restart production of Nuclear power plants (we haven't made a new one in 20 or 30 years) and streamline the process you have to go through to build one including figuring out the safety issues. This is something both China and France have pursued and it's a much more eco-friendly and foreign energy independent way to get our energy. Also why not opening up oil production in the U.S. and stop restricting our own oil companies so we don't have to rely on foreigners. There is a quote by George Will that puts this very well: “America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.” Chuck Schumer recently made a statement saying that if OPEC increased production by what we are asking, price could go back down $25 a barrel. It turns out that if we were to drill in the proposed 2% of ANWAR for oil, the price per barrel would go down the same amount. Not only that but you will hear how Bush has put us in a greater position of foreign dependence when in fact we have enough oil in our own territory to be 100% energy independent for 60 years. (for more on U.S. oil deposits, see: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-policies-put-most-us-oil-off-limits.html). I’m not advocating drilling everywhere possible in the states, but we can’t try and force other countries to produce more for our benefit, when we follow a completely opposite philosophy here. You can’t blame $4 gas on Bush when there are so many options and solutions that have been taken away from him to deal with it. A final thing for energy, that all three candidates actually support, is the cap-and-trade, McCain having the least stringent plan, which is extremely limiting of growth. It also increases government presence in American companies and involves a huge cost to investigate the 5 million business and decide the allocation of the carbon permits. It's not worth going too far into this but it turns out the more efficient approach is to institute a carbon tax.

Final two things are health care and education. I don't know too much about Obama's health care policy, but I do know that one of his biggest talking points on the subject is rising medical costs. Do you know what makes up a big part of these medical costs? One of the contributing factors is the huge amount of insurance that doctors have to get to protect themselves from being sued. The way I see it, tort reform is very effective way to reduce medical costs. What do you think the chances are of getting tort reform with a democratic congress and president in power? Also some problems with getting more government involvement in health care are what you can see in Ontario. First of all, it's true that the lines get really long here. this is in a city of 3 million people so I wonder in a city of 10 million like New York City. Worst of all, there's a huge shortage of doctors here (in Ontario). I forget the percentage but most of the doctors here are 40 years old or older. Nobody wants to be a doctor anymore and some that do study to be doctors end up going down south to the states where they can make more money (one of my friends that I work with actually has an uncle that moved to the states for that exact reason). A couple notes of interest are the successes of the growing private health providers sprouting up in places like CVS pharmacies and Walmarts (they have over 80% approval in wait times, service, and price. It is interesting to see how the private, free market can solve problems) as well as the Singapore health system (http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14/singapores-health-care-system/)

With education, Obama supports a top down approach. He wants more testing and evaluation to reward better teachers for example. This is one of the few things that Obama says he supposedly agrees with Republicans on, even though many conservatives don’t actually support the “No Child Left Behind” approach. Many, McCain included, support a bottom up approach. He wants to give the choice of schools to parents, a voucher system. If you give parents credit towards public education for their kids and then they get to pick the school, the schools will compete against each other and better teachers will be rewarded as a result. This eliminates complex and unnecessary bureaucracy while still providing incentive to improve the school system. This has been a proven system in places like Sweden, which has one of the best school systems in the world.

The American political system was designed as a system of checks and balances so that power does not lie with one person or even one political ideal. It encourages debate to find the best solution. I believe with the most liberal Congress and president in history, many policies will be rushed without the due process that both conservative and liberal policies should be subjected to. Obama can do a lot of good with his position in the Senate. Despite rumors to the contrary, Obama has been quite active in the Senate and has put forward many progressive policies that, when balanced out with conservative values and ideas, can be very beneficial for this country. So, as McCain has now made a central theme of his campaign, even if you do believe that Obama represents change, something new and fresh, is it really the type of change that this country needs?