Sunday ruminations

What a week! The First debate. The USA/Gallup poll said that Obama won. I think it was a draw. Palin threw herself under the bus in the Katie Couric interview. Wall Street came to the brink of total catastrophe. These are intense times. The genesis of the meltdown on Wall Street, as I understand it (and I am no expert by any means) was the adoption of the "Chicago School" of economics made famous by Milton Friedman. Starting with the Reagan administration, government gave more and more freedom to the markets with the notion that the markets could regulate the economy better than governments. They forgot the "Lord of the Flies" lesson. William Golding's novel followed children on an island striving to make their way without adults. It led to violence and chaos. The children, it turned out, needed adult supervision. Well, Wall Street, left to its own devices--without regulation (read 'adult supervision'), ends up in chaos and destruction. I believe that markets should be allowed free movement but there must be regulation to provide checks and balances against greed. In Argentina, they called the "Chicago School" 'Jungle Capitalism'. There needs to be balance between free markets and principles that defend the people against the excesses of greed. Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans can come together to find that balance.

Sunday ruminations

What a week! The First debate. The USA/Gallup poll said that Obama won. I think it was a draw. Palin threw herself under the bus in the Katie Couric interview. Wall Street came to the brink of total catastrophe. These are intense times. The genesis of the meltdown on Wall Street, as I understand it (and I am no expert by any means) was the adoption of the "Chicago School" of economics made famous by Milton Friedman. Starting with the Reagan administration, government gave more and more freedom to the markets with the notion that the markets could regulate the economy better than governments. They forgot the "Lord of the Flies" lesson. William Golding's novel followed children on an island striving to make their way without adults. It led to violence and chaos. The children, it turned out, needed adult supervision. Well, Wall Street, left to its own devices--without regulation (read 'adult supervision'), ends up in chaos and destruction. I believe that markets should be allowed free movement but there must be regulation to provide checks and balances against greed. In Argentina, they called the "Chicago School" 'Jungle Capitalism'. There needs to be balance between free markets and principles that defend the people against the excesses of greed. Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans can come together to find that balance.

The First Debate

I thought Barack and McCain were even on the ability to get their views across, however, Barack could have been less conciliatory, especially when McCain made condescending remarks about how his experience.  I think Barack will be better next time.

The First Debate

I thought Barack and McCain were even on the ability to get their views across, however, Barack could have been less conciliatory, especially when McCain made condescending remarks about how his experience.  I think Barack will be better next time.

Why I am voting for Obama/Biden

To put it simply, I think Barack Obama will make a better President than John McCain.  I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but from what I have read, I like his ideas and plans.  Essentially I am concerned about 1)  The state of the U.S. economy; 2) The War in Iraq and our standing in the world; 3) The need for a better U.S. health care system.  I think Obama is a better choice than McCain to address these issues.

THE ECONOMY.  Obama spent 12 years teaching as a lecturer (an Adjunct) at the University of Chicago.  It was a part-time job that helped him earn money, but it also exposed him to the "Chicago School" of economics that Milton Friedman made famous.  Friedman and others in the Chicago School believe in a laissez-faire economic philosophy that is conservative at the core--it calls for the "markets" (all of us individuals who make individual and separate decisions in the buying and selling of stocks, goods and services) to regulate the economy rather than the economy being managed by governments (a more Rooseveltian and heretofore typically Democratic party approach). 

Obama buys into to the Chicago School with a few caveats.  Markets aren't good at certain things--like resolving problems of pollution or stopping the issuance of unrealistic mortgages that borrowers cannot repay, and the markets haven't been able to sort out the problems with Health Care.  In 2006, Obama introduced legislation to try to stem the out-of-control lending in the sub-prime mortgage market.  This would have been one of those incidents when he would call for government intervention into the markets.  Too bad the legislation didn't pass.  We could have avoided the present day financial meltdown.  Thus, while Obama mostly favors an approach that would have the markets (and not government) steer the economy, he does believe that on certain areas there must be government input (i.e. the environment, the mortgage crisis, and at least in the beginning, a partially subsidized Health Care system).  I agree with him on this. 

Clinton was the first Democrat to have a more centrist approach to the economy (unlike Democrats that came before him).  Clinton addressed the huge U.S. budget deficit and he succeeded in eliminating it.  Before he left office the government had a surplus of funds that led to the topic of "how to spend the surplus."  The surplus was short-lived.  It didn't last long into the Bush administration.   Bush produced a huge deficit, even greater than the one Clinton inherited.  The extra expenses for the war in Iraq come from unbudgeted funds, i.e. borrow, borrow, borrow.  Future generations will have to pay that back.  McCain has said that the economy is in good shape.  He doesn't present a coherent plan to address the deficit.  He wants to preserve the tax cuts that Bush got passed for the top 1% of income earners (even though he opposed those cuts when they were first presented--he now favors them to appease the Republican base).  Obama wants to cut taxes too.  However, he proposes tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000 a year.  He wants to spread the bounty of a market-based economy to a far wider group of families than do the Republicans. Essentially, from what I have read, McCain will want to defend a traditional Republican approach to economics that has tax cuts at the core--but these tax cuts are principally for the wealthiest of Americans. 

I believe that what has made America great has been the large middle class that allows families to enjoy a decent standard of living.  Over the past eight years there has been a widening gap between the wealthiest 10% of Americans and the rest.  I like the fact that Obama has surrounded himself with seasoned economists that come from academia rather than politicians.  Obama's approach to economics is "middle-of-the-road."  His first economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a young University of Chicago professor who shares Obama's market-oriented views.   This summer he added Jason Furman as his lead advisor.  Furman worked in the Clinton administration and has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.  Because of the amount of money borrowed to pay for the war in Iraq, it will be very hard to avoid an upsurge in inflation.  The new President, whether Obama or McCain, will be faced with staggering debt, rising inflation.  When inflation comes with a downturn in the economy, they call it "stagflation" which seems to be on the horizon.  I think Obama and his brain trust of economic experts will do a better job of steering the U.S. economy than McCain.

THE WAR IN IRAQ.  The invasion of Iraq was orchestrated by the neo-conservatives led by Dick Cheney.  In retrospect, their philosophy was not all that bad.  They believed that a Democratic Iraq would prove to the rest of the Arab world that democracy was a better form of government.  They reasoned that once Iraq was democratized other Arab countries would be wooed by their success and it would spread.  They envisioned a more peaceful world where the clash of civilizations would be lessened.  However, instead of laying out their vision forthrightly for the American public to embrace, they hammered on our fears by talking about supposed weapons of mass destruction.  In other words, they lied to get their way into the war and then hoped that Iraq would open their arms to democracy and it would succeed.  It may still succeed despite the missteps.  The military had a good plan for defeating Saddam, but the U.S. government had an inadequate plan for the aftermath.  Instead of enlisting the help of our allies, like France and Germany--we essentially went it alone except for Great Britain and a few other countries that offered symbolic assistance.  Our troops got caught in the cross-fire of civil unrest in Iraq and we had an inadequate amount of troops.  I give McCain credit for seeing this early on.  From the beginning McCain said that the U.S. did not deploy enough troops to secure the peace.  He was right.  But I don't think the reasoning of turning Iraq into a democracy was the appropriate response to September 11.  Iraq was not the country that attacked us. 

This "go it alone" approach has cost the U.S. a great deal in the world in terms of our image and standing.  Whereas in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, there was much sympathy for the U.S.--now there is no sympathy and in fact, much bitterness if not hatred on the part of the rest of the world.  I think Barack Obama can help restore the standing of the United States in the rest of the world.  The democratic government of Iraq has indicated that they want a withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq.  Obama can help that take place and then turn attention to the more ominous threat--Afghanistan and finally tracking down the real culprit of Sept. 11--Osama Bin Laden.  McCain says he will hunt down Bin Laden too, but he also insists that the U.S. needs to stay in Iraq for a long time.

HEALTH CARE.  Whereas Hillary Clinton favored mandating that all Americans have health insurance, Obama favors a balanced approach where the government can help correct market imbalances in the system, but not take over the system entirely.  His goal is to reduce the cost of health insurance and then allow the markets (back to the "Chicago School" influence) to make a government subsidized health care system attractive enough that uninsured people will choose to sign up for it.  Obama starts with the premise that all Americans should have access to affordable health care.  He wants to build on our current system and provide a way for those currently without insurance to have it.  He says he wants to mandate that all children have medical insurance.  McCain says that he does not want government interference in health care--let the markets alone decide.  He wants to create tax-exempt Health Savings Accounts and give tax credits for medical expenditures (which are already in place for those who itemize deductions).  He does not address the need for children to have health insurance coverage.  I do agree with McCain on his stance toward reforming medical malpractice laws to try to eliminate abusive lawsuits of doctors.

On other issues, I tend to side with Obama over McCain.  Obama favors funding embyonic stem cell research.  McCain opposes it.  Obama opposes a federal amendment to make marriage only between and a man and a woman.  McCain favors such an amendment.  Obama favors civil union laws for gays, McCain is personally against them but says states should be able to make their own laws on this matter--but that civil unions should not have to be recognized beyond the state where it takes place.  Obama favors immigration reform, including tightening our borders.  McCain used to favor such reform, but changed his stance when he started running for President.  He insists that we must secure our borders--which I agree with.  I used to agree with his former stance that along with securing our borders we must also find a way to allow illegal immigrants to become legal.  Obama favors a woman’s right to choose with regard to the issue of abortion.  McCain favors taking that right away.

I also think that Obama’s choice for a running mate in Joe Biden is better than McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin.  Biden’s 36 year experience in the Senate will bring wisdom and experience.  While I applaud McCain for choosing a woman, Palin is against a women’s choice in the question of abortion.  She has 18 months experience as governor and before that was Mayor of a town the size of Chatham, NJ.    

Finally, I think that Barack Obama has the winsome quality to bring people on board for the changes that need to take place to keep America a great country.  There has been so much that has gone wrong over the past eight years:  Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo imprisonment without habeus corpus, inattention to the serious threats of global warming, an ill-planned war in Iraq, the squandering of a budget surplus and the subsequent deep deficits not to mention rising oil prices.  Bush cannot be blamed for all of these, but they happened on his watch.  While I don't think that McCain would be the same as Bush, I do believe that we can do much better than McCain and that Obama provides a clear choice for that improvement.

This is where my thinking stands today. I would love to hear your views. 

Why I am voting for Obama/Biden

To put it simply, I think Barack Obama will make a better President than John McCain.  I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but from what I have read, I like his ideas and plans.  Essentially I am concerned about 1)  The state of the U.S. economy; 2) The War in Iraq and our standing in the world; 3) The need for a better U.S. health care system.  I think Obama is a better choice than McCain to address these issues.

THE ECONOMY.  Obama spent 12 years teaching as a lecturer (an Adjunct) at the University of Chicago.  It was a part-time job that helped him earn money, but it also exposed him to the "Chicago School" of economics that Milton Friedman made famous.  Friedman and others in the Chicago School believe in a laissez-faire economic philosophy that is conservative at the core--it calls for the "markets" (all of us individuals who make individual and separate decisions in the buying and selling of stocks, goods and services) to regulate the economy rather than the economy being managed by governments (a more Rooseveltian and heretofore typically Democratic party approach). 

Obama buys into to the Chicago School with a few caveats.  Markets aren't good at certain things--like resolving problems of pollution or stopping the issuance of unrealistic mortgages that borrowers cannot repay, and the markets haven't been able to sort out the problems with Health Care.  In 2006, Obama introduced legislation to try to stem the out-of-control lending in the sub-prime mortgage market.  This would have been one of those incidents when he would call for government intervention into the markets.  Too bad the legislation didn't pass.  We could have avoided the present day financial meltdown.  Thus, while Obama mostly favors an approach that would have the markets (and not government) steer the economy, he does believe that on certain areas there must be government input (i.e. the environment, the mortgage crisis, and at least in the beginning, a partially subsidized Health Care system).  I agree with him on this. 

Clinton was the first Democrat to have a more centrist approach to the economy (unlike Democrats that came before him).  Clinton addressed the huge U.S. budget deficit and he succeeded in eliminating it.  Before he left office the government had a surplus of funds that led to the topic of "how to spend the surplus."  The surplus was short-lived.  It didn't last long into the Bush administration.   Bush produced a huge deficit, even greater than the one Clinton inherited.  The extra expenses for the war in Iraq come from unbudgeted funds, i.e. borrow, borrow, borrow.  Future generations will have to pay that back.  McCain has said that the economy is in good shape.  He doesn't present a coherent plan to address the deficit.  He wants to preserve the tax cuts that Bush got passed for the top 1% of income earners (even though he opposed those cuts when they were first presented--he now favors them to appease the Republican base).  Obama wants to cut taxes too.  However, he proposes tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000 a year.  He wants to spread the bounty of a market-based economy to a far wider group of families than do the Republicans. Essentially, from what I have read, McCain will want to defend a traditional Republican approach to economics that has tax cuts at the core--but these tax cuts are principally for the wealthiest of Americans. 

I believe that what has made America great has been the large middle class that allows families to enjoy a decent standard of living.  Over the past eight years there has been a widening gap between the wealthiest 10% of Americans and the rest.  I like the fact that Obama has surrounded himself with seasoned economists that come from academia rather than politicians.  Obama's approach to economics is "middle-of-the-road."  His first economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a young University of Chicago professor who shares Obama's market-oriented views.   This summer he added Jason Furman as his lead advisor.  Furman worked in the Clinton administration and has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.  Because of the amount of money borrowed to pay for the war in Iraq, it will be very hard to avoid an upsurge in inflation.  The new President, whether Obama or McCain, will be faced with staggering debt, rising inflation.  When inflation comes with a downturn in the economy, they call it "stagflation" which seems to be on the horizon.  I think Obama and his brain trust of economic experts will do a better job of steering the U.S. economy than McCain.

THE WAR IN IRAQ.  The invasion of Iraq was orchestrated by the neo-conservatives led by Dick Cheney.  In retrospect, their philosophy was not all that bad.  They believed that a Democratic Iraq would prove to the rest of the Arab world that democracy was a better form of government.  They reasoned that once Iraq was democratized other Arab countries would be wooed by their success and it would spread.  They envisioned a more peaceful world where the clash of civilizations would be lessened.  However, instead of laying out their vision forthrightly for the American public to embrace, they hammered on our fears by talking about supposed weapons of mass destruction.  In other words, they lied to get their way into the war and then hoped that Iraq would open their arms to democracy and it would succeed.  It may still succeed despite the missteps.  The military had a good plan for defeating Saddam, but the U.S. government had an inadequate plan for the aftermath.  Instead of enlisting the help of our allies, like France and Germany--we essentially went it alone except for Great Britain and a few other countries that offered symbolic assistance.  Our troops got caught in the cross-fire of civil unrest in Iraq and we had an inadequate amount of troops.  I give McCain credit for seeing this early on.  From the beginning McCain said that the U.S. did not deploy enough troops to secure the peace.  He was right.  But I don't think the reasoning of turning Iraq into a democracy was the appropriate response to September 11.  Iraq was not the country that attacked us. 

This "go it alone" approach has cost the U.S. a great deal in the world in terms of our image and standing.  Whereas in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, there was much sympathy for the U.S.--now there is no sympathy and in fact, much bitterness if not hatred on the part of the rest of the world.  I think Barack Obama can help restore the standing of the United States in the rest of the world.  The democratic government of Iraq has indicated that they want a withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq.  Obama can help that take place and then turn attention to the more ominous threat--Afghanistan and finally tracking down the real culprit of Sept. 11--Osama Bin Laden.  McCain says he will hunt down Bin Laden too, but he also insists that the U.S. needs to stay in Iraq for a long time.

HEALTH CARE.  Whereas Hillary Clinton favored mandating that all Americans have health insurance, Obama favors a balanced approach where the government can help correct market imbalances in the system, but not take over the system entirely.  His goal is to reduce the cost of health insurance and then allow the markets (back to the "Chicago School" influence) to make a government subsidized health care system attractive enough that uninsured people will choose to sign up for it.  Obama starts with the premise that all Americans should have access to affordable health care.  He wants to build on our current system and provide a way for those currently without insurance to have it.  He says he wants to mandate that all children have medical insurance.  McCain says that he does not want government interference in health care--let the markets alone decide.  He wants to create tax-exempt Health Savings Accounts and give tax credits for medical expenditures (which are already in place for those who itemize deductions).  He does not address the need for children to have health insurance coverage.  I do agree with McCain on his stance toward reforming medical malpractice laws to try to eliminate abusive lawsuits of doctors.

On other issues, I tend to side with Obama over McCain.  Obama favors funding embyonic stem cell research.  McCain opposes it.  Obama opposes a federal amendment to make marriage only between and a man and a woman.  McCain favors such an amendment.  Obama favors civil union laws for gays, McCain is personally against them but says states should be able to make their own laws on this matter--but that civil unions should not have to be recognized beyond the state where it takes place.  Obama favors immigration reform, including tightening our borders.  McCain used to favor such reform, but changed his stance when he started running for President.  He insists that we must secure our borders--which I agree with.  I used to agree with his former stance that along with securing our borders we must also find a way to allow illegal immigrants to become legal.  Obama favors a woman’s right to choose with regard to the issue of abortion.  McCain favors taking that right away.

I also think that Obama’s choice for a running mate in Joe Biden is better than McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin.  Biden’s 36 year experience in the Senate will bring wisdom and experience.  While I applaud McCain for choosing a woman, Palin is against a women’s choice in the question of abortion.  She has 18 months experience as governor and before that was Mayor of a town the size of Chatham, NJ.    

Finally, I think that Barack Obama has the winsome quality to bring people on board for the changes that need to take place to keep America a great country.  There has been so much that has gone wrong over the past eight years:  Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo imprisonment without habeus corpus, inattention to the serious threats of global warming, an ill-planned war in Iraq, the squandering of a budget surplus and the subsequent deep deficits not to mention rising oil prices.  Bush cannot be blamed for all of these, but they happened on his watch.  While I don't think that McCain would be the same as Bush, I do believe that we can do much better than McCain and that Obama provides a clear choice for that improvement.

This is where my thinking stands today. I would love to hear your views.