Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama: The More Things Change...
D.C. Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough goes to the man's website to figure out his plans for America. Some high-spendin' samples:
» “Obama will make college affordable for all Americans.”
» “Obama will quadruple Early Head Start and increase Head Start funding. Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.
» “Obama will double funding for after-school programs.
» “Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society.
» “Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners.
» “Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
» “Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement … which provide a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to college.
» “He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe haven.
» “Obama will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion.”
......Obama plans to meddle in minutiae, such as radio programming in Topeka (“An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve”)...
|2.25.08 @ 9:19AM|#
My only hope that as president, he'll be restrained by the limitations of the off....oooooh....nevermind...here's my wallet.
|2.25.08 @ 9:20AM|#
Obama will provide hope where there is no hope.
Obama will make puppies more affordable and less likely to cause
allergic reactions.
Obama will singlehandedly cook a healthy and nutritious dinner for
all of our men and women of the armed forces.
Obama will ensure that every child likes to read.
Obama will "promote greater coverage of local issues and better
responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve"... no
wait, scrap that last one. That's just too silly.
|2.25.08 @ 9:34AM|#
From each according to his ability, to Pro Libertate according to his need. If Obama says that, then I'll vote for him.
|2.25.08 @ 9:36AM|#
From each according to his ability, to Pro Libertate
according to his need. If Obama says that, then I'll vote for
him.
What if you need a good swift kick in the ass?
LarryA|2.25.08 @ 9:38AM|#
It used to be "a chicken in every pot." Now it's "a public
servant in every home."
But once he's busy raising our children, bailing out everyone who
makes a mistake, and buying approval aboad, maybe he'll be too busy
to worry about banning guns. What'ya think?
|2.25.08 @ 9:39AM|#
Frankly, none of these things sound very "high spending" to me.
The only two potential big budget items are the housing trust fund
and the mrtgage refinincing thing, and those only seem big because
they are so vague . . . which is par for the course, no?
The reest of this represents fairly small expenditures compared to
the budget as a whole.
Now, that don't mean anyof them are good ideas, but it does seem to
imply that "high spending" is not the angle. It is easy to disagree
with Democrats on the role of government, but all of these things
seem less objectionable than the Iraq war, ethanol subsidies,
etc.
Also, his plans to open up the government to public scrutiny are
the best in the pack, in as much as they are the only such plans in
the pack. Might the long-run benefits of that sort of opening up
dwarf these relatively small spending increases.
|2.25.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Not promising. But better to blow money here than to use it to kill more people while losing more of our own soldiers. If forced to pick, I would rather have a more moral war policy than the money. But of course, I would rather have both.
thoreau|2.25.08 @ 9:46AM|#
and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe haven.
And thus we get the first hints as to how Obama will rationalize
the continuing occupation of Iraq. "I want a surge of hope for the
Iraqis! I want to crate safe havens so that every Iraqi child can
hope for a better future."
I hope that I'm wrong about this.
|2.25.08 @ 9:48AM|#
He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to
Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries,
In other words, financial support for the Iranian regime. Great
idea!
and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe
haven.
Dunno about you, but this sounds to me like an open-ended
commitment of American troops until Iraq is completely stabilized
and secure.
|2.25.08 @ 9:52AM|#
If the Head Start initiative will do something about the smell,
it might be worth the extra money.
I had a job delivering books to a Head Start. It wasn't rundown, it
wasn't full of the desperately poor, but the place stank of milk,
piss, and vienna sausages. I'd go home and change my clothes
somedays before going back on my route.
|2.25.08 @ 9:52AM|#
The ex-offenders bit sounds almost OK, except when you consider
that they probably should not have been offenders in the first
place.
How will his inner city initiatives differ from all the others
since LBJ? Will he deregulate and decriminalize so that people can
make a living without minimum wage, zoning and drug laws in the
way?
Kind of doubt it. The more things change, the more they stay the
same.
|2.25.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Bibertarians--is there anything they cannot do? Just once, I'd like to hear a presidential candidate say point blank that he's sorry, but the executive doesn't have the legal authority to do X. Bah.
|2.25.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Pro,
Kinda like Paul has said...
People want a patriarchal/matriarchal figure. They just want it to
be like them.
Christopher Monnier|2.25.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Empty campaign rhetoric and pandering. Vote a split ticket (Obama for president and Republican for Congress) and let the two fight.
|2.25.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Oddly enough, if he does all of those and pulls most of our
troops out of Iraq. The net effect will be a decrease in the
budget.
McCain's 100 years in Iraq is a very spendy proposition.
|2.25.08 @ 10:05AM|#
LIT,
Not counting Paul or any LP candidate, naturally. I meant a
candidate who was likely to win.
|2.25.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Pro,
if we want to be really picky, McCain told Michiganers that he was
not going to be able to save the auto industry, but he was probably
just saying that because he failed to realize that money drives the
economy, not war.
|2.25.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Barack Obama is a liberal, but also a solid civil libertarian,
and a consistent opponent of the Iraq War.
I can only think of three reasons why libertarians would consider
voting for him:
1. Because a truly historic rout at the ballot box for the
Republicans could convince them to reject neoconservatism (at home
and abroad) once and for all.
2. To end the Iraq War and avoid starting new wars in the same
vein.
3. Because, at this poing in our history, Big Brother stuff like
torture, domestic spying, and using prosecutors' offices to conduct
dirty tricks on political opponents outweighs having marginally
lower taxes.
|2.25.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Obama will do all that? I hate to say it, but damn - Bush is looking better and better. ;-)
|2.25.08 @ 10:20AM|#
» "Obama will quadruple Early Head Start and increase Head
Start funding. Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality
child care to ease the burden on working families.
Well that make sense. Compared to those who weren't enrolled in
Head Start, the educational achievements of students who have
attended have improved by ... zero. We need more of that.
Coupled with the NCLB act, eduaction problems are well on the way
to
extinction. Just a wee bit more money and we'll be done.
;-(
|2.25.08 @ 10:23AM|#
The way those bullet points are all written, it reads like OBAMA
is an acronymn for some nonprofit.
The Organization for Bringing Awesome Management to America
will...
Fluffy|2.25.08 @ 10:26AM|#
When I read this, I said to myself:
"Oh no, Obama sucks!........
...oh right, I forgot for a second, the other guy is that bastard
McCain."
kinnath|2.25.08 @ 10:30AM|#
As long as there are enough Republican senators left to filibuster, we can survive an Obama presidency.
OTC Addict|2.25.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Obama will be able to do away with personal responsibility in nearly every aspect of life, which is explicitly listed on the democratic party platform.
|2.25.08 @ 10:34AM|#
It's easy to tee off on Obama, but as joe said - let's
prioritise here. The key issues for the next administration (which
are the key issues for every administration if you're a
minarchist) will be public finance and not sticking our collective
dick into every foreign sausage grinder that gives us a come hither
look.
None of the possible presidents are any good at all on the first -
McCain plays the fiscal conservative, but he'll keep driving up
defence spending, which will almost certainly match any expansion
of non-defence discretionary by Obama. (It takes a lot of college
loans to oay for a single JSF, you know.) And Obama is the only one
likely to, metaphorically, keep it in his pants. Who knows - a few
billion more on refugee assistance and foreign aid might even start
repairing some of the damage Bush has done to our image abroad.
Tsu Dho Nihm|2.25.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Wow. That looks like a lot of new, wasteful spending. It looks
like a big increase in government intrusiveness. It looks like Big
Government on steroids.
Then again, we know that War Is the Health of the State. And McCain
seems determined to keep us in a series of Neverending Wars.
Obama's increases seem rather reasonable to me when compared with
the inevitable growth of government under Maniac McCain.
paddy|2.25.08 @ 10:38AM|#
The good news is that are guaranteed to get an Irish president -- either John McCain or Barry O'Bama.
|2.25.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Frankly, none of these things sound very "high spending" to
me.
Doug, even in my tripping days, I could recognize the difference
between reality and hallucinations. A billion here, a billion
there, and before you know it, it starts adding up to real money.
Yes, the Iraq war has been a phenomenol waste of money, so the
fiscal solution is end the war and have the productive sector of
society nibbled to death by ducks instead?
"Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have
high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic
achievement … which provide a full network of services, including
early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and
after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to
college.
One will surely be in Detroit. Who wants to put thier own
money on a statistically significant improvement compared to
neighborhoods not in the program?
I have to bring this line up again.
...a full network of services, including early childhood
education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school
activities,...
That is called parenting. I'm surely not the only one uncomfortable
with the feds taking on that responsibility.
|2.25.08 @ 10:46AM|#
I'm going to have to, unfortunately, agree with joe in this
case.
I think this is really an election when libertarians are going to
have to acknowledge that they have lost the economic battle.
If you take a look at the candidates on the economic front, I think
Hillary is the worst. She will continue the Iraq war (yes, she
will) as well as enormous government spending increases for various
nanny state projects.
McCain comes in a close second for his seriously misguided views on
extending the war. And who knows what other fiascos. Yes, he's the
only one who has said that he is committed to serious budget
cuts...except for our biggest, largest spending and most wasteful
department.
Obama will no doubt reach into our pockets for a multitude of
ridiculous projects, but none of them on the scale of Hillary or
McCain. He won't plunge us into fascist policies like Clinton's
mandated health care or McCain's insane adventurism.
As a serious candidate, he's the best we could ask for. And, yes,
economic liberty means fuck-all when we have no civil liberty
left.
As a note, joe, I don't want simply want lower taxes, I just want
my government to spend only the money it has. I want fair taxes for
reasonable expenditures.
|2.25.08 @ 10:53AM|#
"As a serious candidate, he's the best we could ask for.
And, yes, economic liberty means fuck-all when we have no civil
liberty left."
Yeah, we get to spend all that cash from our 3 part time jobs only
on things which the government thinks are OK for us.
|2.25.08 @ 11:03AM|#
I should like to append the previous statement above:
As a serious candidate, he's the best we could ask for.
as
As a serious candidate, he's the best we could ask for on the
civil libertarian front
I don't think he is the best we could ask for, overall.
PC|2.25.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Trotsky was probably the best the Bolsheviks could have hoped for after Lenin on a civil libertarian front.
|2.25.08 @ 11:07AM|#
I doubt this is what Obama has in mind, but Tyler Cowen had an interesting post about the effect of vouchers, recently.
|2.25.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Trotsky was probably the best the Bolsheviks could have
hoped for after Lenin on a civil libertarian front.
Yes, I agree. Without any other serious choices, would you rather
have Trotsky or Stalin?
Look, any way it goes we're fucked. The only thing I'm hoping for
at this point is a reacharound and the small chance that I'll be
the pitcher one day.
Fluffy|2.25.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Always remember that on the economic freedom angle, McCain only
sees getting rid of free speech as a means to an end.
McCain's stated reason for wanting to get rid of free speech is
because "monied interests" have too much influence on the political
process. What policy outcomes does McCain think would result when
the right of "monied interests" to participate in the political
process is throttled?
A charitable reading of his intentions on this score would say, "He
thinks there would be less pork," but I think it goes well beyond
that, given his history.
Elemenope|2.25.08 @ 11:23AM|#
That is called parenting. I'm surely not the only one
uncomfortable with the feds taking on that
responsibility.
You certainly aren't. However, I have more sympathy for structural
support for child-rearing more than many other expenditures since
it became nearly necessary for every family to become a two-income
household to stay afloat. Sure, it is a stupid idea to have
government raise kids, but babysitting a kid while their parent(s)
work(s) to put food on the table is hardly that.
|2.25.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to
develop affordable housing in mixed-income
neighborhoods.
Who wants "affordable housing" in their neughborhood? You work hard
and save your money so you can distance yourself from the projects.
If they are erected down the street, it was all for naught.
I'm sorry, but I believe long term poverty is behaviorally caused,
and most struggling folks don't want that behavior in their
neighborhoods or their schools. No, I don't have the solution for
the permanently poor, but from LBJ on, what we've been trying
hasn't worked. The war on poverty has arguably perpetuated the very
problem it has created to solve.
alan|2.25.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Joe makes some good points there. If the choice is narrowed to
McCain and Obama, from what we presently know of both candidates,
McCain will ultimately be the more expensive choice.
We tend to treat a presidential candidates pronouncements on
foreign policy to be the plot of course for how there presidency
will handle those issues, but to be frank, IMHO, Obama doesn't have
what it takes to stand up to the generals in the Pentagon, the
spooks in the three letter agencies, and the foreign policy
lobbying establishment.
If the generals want to get out of Iraq, it is doable in an Obama
administration. Otherwise, I doubt it will happen without
significant political pressure (read: midterm collapse).
I also expect an increase in 'humanitarian' adventures in an Obama
administration, that'll resemble similar happenings in the Clinton
administration, with Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan,
etc. None of these can compare in disaster to our adventure in
Iraq, but Clinton got very damn lucky none of these seriously blew
back at us during his administration. Fortune may not hold
for Obama.
Fluffy|2.25.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Speaking of Obama, I saw something stupid about Obama at
Rockwell's site this morning.
Lew approvingly links to an article claiming that Obama was taught
to hate America by his anthropologist mother.
Now, let's leave to one side for a moment the merit of that
argument. Instead, let's consider the fact that by any reasonable
standard, Lew Rockwell - and all other libertarians - hate America.
Since we hate America, what grounds are there for criticizing Obama
for hating America?
Sure, we will claim that we love the "true" America, and that
libertarian philosophy would, if put into force, "restore" that
"true" America. But loving a theoretical America that might have
existed if different political developments had taken place doesn't
mean you love America. If we're talking about the America we've
actually got, who despises its current and actual laws,
political accepted wisdom, major parties, domestic and
international policies, grasping population eager to unjustly
expropriate or shackle their neighbors, etc., more than
libertarians? Not many people, that's for damn sure.
Particularly Rockwell. His site is brimming and overflowing with
rage every day. What is the object of that rage? America.
If anything libertarians should be LOOKING for a candidate that
hates America.
|2.25.08 @ 11:47AM|#
I don't know why you guys are so nervous about this. It's not like candidates actually do anything they promise in the campaign.
crw|2.25.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Yes, I know it's shocking, but Obama is in fact a Democrat. Like
all Democrats, he sees an active role for the government in
managing the economy and providing social services. This should
surprise exactly no one. At least he's not pushing for government
muscling in on voluntary mortgage contracts, unlike Shillary and
her foreclosure and interest rate freeze. And at least he seems to
understand somewhat that choice matters, unlike Shillary and her
plan to garnish your wages or impose fines if you refuse to buy
health insurance. He's about as good as you're going to get out of
the modern Democratic party.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have nominated John "Patriotism not
Profit" McCain, and his 100 year occupation of Iraq. It seems to me
libertarians have 3 main choices on the Presidential front:
Obama, who's definitely a horrible Democrat on economic and social
meddling agendas, but who isn't as bad as some, and who has a
proven track record regarding civil liberties and transparency in
government.
McCain, who's definitely a horrible Republican on foreign policy,
but who also supports government meddling in the economy (i.e.
McCain-Lieberman) and only got churched on taxes when he needed to
secure his party's nomination.
Or you can effectively sit this one out by voting for the LP
candidate.
FWIW, I intend to split my ticket. I think one of the posters above
was right. As long as we have divided government Obama wont be able
to get much of his agenda through. At this point, all we can do is
slow down the creep. The American public clearly isn't ready to
accept a reduction of government meddling, as evidenced by Paul's
abysmal showing even in places where he should have done well, like
Alaska.
crw|2.25.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Of course, I should add Hillary may still grab it, in which case the choice becomes pretty clear.
|2.25.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Dear Andrew Ian Dodge,
Barack Obama has not proposed the public ownership of any
industries.
And no, you can't have the word back. Or "gay."
Sincerely,
The Liberals
|2.25.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Am I completely loony for planning on voting 3rd party in this
election?
I can't stomach Obama or McCain, and quite frankly, I find the
various libertarianish arguments for Obama somewhat wanting,
despite the fact that they are well presented.
The way I figure it, the odds that my vote has any mathematical
impact on the outcome of the election are so infinitesimally small
that my casting a protest vote for Loony McCrazyPants (LP) will not
change the outcome of the election one iota.
I guess I just don't understand the stigma associated with voting
third party. Are we really so in love with camping out with the
winning tribe that we're willing to sacrifice practically all of
our principles?
|2.25.08 @ 12:35PM|#
It's funny to see people complain that the meaning of the term "liberal" has changed out of one side of their mouths, and then make up these outlandish adaptations of "socialism" and insist that everyone else take them seriously.
PC|2.25.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Take his foreign policy for example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama
talks about the issue of Iraq and how we have to get out, but not
promising anything by the end of his first term when prompted in
the debate. If Zbig is in there you are going to get a lot of
foreign intervention. He gave Bush I a B in his new book and
Clinton a C. W got an F but who didn't see that coming. Bush I
would have gotten a better grade if he would have had more
intervention in the Eastern European States. Obama is not going to
"cut and run", he will be the head of a multipolar police force
that involves a couple large countries and many interventions. If
you want to compare him to a past President I think Woodrow Wilson
would be apt.
Obama's doing a lot of talk right now, and it serves everyone more
if Reason and Co. would do more background on his advisers than all
the stuff he says because those are just words. I fear the
philosopher that "influences" the ruler much more than the ruler
himself.
|2.25.08 @ 1:36PM|#
I keep seeing people talking about how Obama will get us out of
Iraq. I don't see a quick exit if his goal is:
[to] ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a
safe haven
Unless this is code designed to cover up a plan for ethnic
cleansing and partition, how does this differ from McCain's goal of
staying until the place is safe and stable?
|2.25.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Maybe if you didn't crop the quote so much that you removed the
entirety of the portion that explains his proposal, it might be
clearer.
He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi
refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside
their own country can find a safe haven.
I don't think it's very difficult at all to understand how "provide
money for refugee services" is different from "shoot at insurgents
until Iraq is safe and stable."
bill|2.25.08 @ 2:09PM|#
If elected Obama ain't gonna do crap if the Congress is still controlled by the Republicruds. Let's hope.
Jennifer|2.25.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to
develop affordable housing in mixed-income
neighborhoods.
Oh, boy. Reminds me of something they're proposing here in
Connecticut: housing is insanely expensive mainly due to
snob-zoning laws that require new houses to be much bigger than
necessary and on enormous oversized lots. So they're thinking of
taking MORE tax dollars to bribe local towns into pretty-please
loosening their zoning codes in a few areas so that people are
allowed to build, for example, a house of less than 3,000
square feet.
If you want the housing market to have affordable options, tell the
government to keep its damned hands off of it.
Brian|2.25.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Yeah, a split government would be fine and dandy, except that
Congress is not currently controlled by the GOP. The Dems control
the House (and by all accounts I've heard, will only increase their
numbers). So I should vote for Obama and hope the Republicans
retake the Senate? Its evenly split 49/49 (with "Independents"
Jeffords and Lieberman voting with the Dems most often). Harry Reid
would be surprised to hear that the GOP controls the Senate.
I don't have any confidence that minority Republicans will stand up
to President Hope O'change and filibuster.
|2.25.08 @ 2:54PM|#
I don't think it's very difficult at all to understand how
"provide money for refugee services" is different from "shoot at
insurgents until Iraq is safe and stable."
It is difficult to see how merely providing money for refugee
services creates safe havens in the presence of an active armed
insurgency with a history of targeting civilians.
You can't have "safe havens" in a country that is unsafe and
unstable.
|2.25.08 @ 3:13PM|#
As a matter of fact, RC, countries that are unsafe and unstable
are exactly where "safe havens" applies the best.
If those countries were safe and stable, the safe, stable places
wouldn't be "havens."
We provided a great, big safe haven in Kurist- er, "Northern Iraq"
for a decade, and Lord knows Iraq was neither safe nor stable.
|2.25.08 @ 3:45PM|#
"""Yeah, we get to spend all that cash from our 3 part time jobs
only on things which the government thinks are OK for us."""
I think Bush called this uniquely American.
|2.25.08 @ 6:16PM|#
We provided a great, big safe haven in Kurist- er, "Northern
Iraq" for a decade, and Lord knows Iraq was neither safe nor
stable.
Iraq was quite stable, joe. Hussein ruled the joint for how many
years?
I might point out that your example of a "safe haven" was made so
only because the US was at war with the Hussein regime, providing a
constant military presence in the form of air cover, with frequent
hostile encounters with his military.
How, exactly, are these "safe havens" going to exist in an Iraq
that is (a) neither safe nor stable and (b) has no US military
presence?
|2.25.08 @ 6:35PM|#
How, exactly, are these "safe havens" going to exist in an
Iraq that is (a) neither safe nor stable and (b) has no US military
presence?
It won't happen. Obama is just talking
sunshine, rainbows and lollipops in this instance. When we
leave Iraq, a humanitarian disaster will ensue. It won't
be Barack Obama's fault. The coming conflagration can be laid
solely at the feet of GW Bush.
|2.26.08 @ 9:08AM|#
"Sure, it is a stupid idea to have government raise kids, but
babysitting a kid while their parent(s) work(s) to put food on the
table is hardly that."
How do you figure this acceptable? The problem exists BECAUSE of
government forcing both parents to work to offset the mans tax
burden. To me fixing a problem you created by using more of MY
MONEY is not a solution.
Wow I would love a job where I can spend 30 years fucking things up
so I can then be hired for another 20 to "fix" things.
All these calls for help are aimed directly at problems the
government has created and yet now it acts like these issues have
just manifested themselves over the years all on their own.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245