I'm an election-night junkie. I love watching the coverage. In 2004, I set my clock based on what state's polls closed at what time. I love the maps showing the electoral votes with the ticker on the bottom giving exit poll data. Exit polls - are they still legal?
Of course, in 2004, I bought into the mainstream press' ideas that John Kerry was going to be the next President. Today, I've heard the full spectrum of prognostication. Tammy Bruce said this morning that McCain was going to win Pennsylvania or at least make it very close. No Republican has won Pennsylvania in 20 years. But that's okay, she said he'll take Florida, Ohio, and Virginia as well. I like the optimism, because it contrasted nicely with Bill O'Reilly doing a post-mortem on what McCain did wrong to lose the election.
I will be honest, unlike everyone else in the news. I have no idea what to expect tomorrow. There's a chance McCain could win, and there's a chance Obama could win. Either way, I'll be glued to the TV as much as possible.
So, to get back to Dr. A, I wanted to do some responses to her points before the polls open up tomorrow. If I can debunk a few Obama myths in the next few hours, maybe it will help. Take it away, Dr. A!
Obama actually has a rational plan for energy independence that would completely change the nature of our relationship with the oil-producing nations of the Middle East (eg: they wouldn't matter to us anymore), create jobs, and ensure that the US holds the patents on alternative energy technology that would be extremely valuable exportable commodities. McCain's "spending freeze" and lack of support for basic scientific research will only ensure that the US falls further behind technologically and will have to purchase alternative-energy technologies from other nations with better foresight.No one ever talks about Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, or Mexico becoming energy-independent. Why is that? Because they are willing to tap their own natural resources. And yet we aren't. Obama has made some recent, token gestures toward offshore drilling, but this is clearly a politically calculated move, because it's never been part of his platform before. What has Obama discussed as far as energy policy goes? CAFE standards, clean coal, wind, and solar. Will any of these initiatives get us out of the Middle East oil market? Not likely.
CAFE standards are the antithesis of free-market capitalism. Here you have the government telling a manufacturer that it must provide vehicles that meet certain fuel economy standards. Last I knew, we are free in this country to purchase as we see fit. Manufacturers, therefore, should be able to sell as they see fit, to meet the market demand. Until this year, fuel economy was not a primary motivational factor for consumers buying cars. If it were, the Geo Metro would be the best selling car of all time. But it's not (good for me, since I got a great deal on a used one). People choose vehicles for a variety of reasons. I know the Left gets hung up on the popularity of the SUV, thinking it is merely a status symbol. First, if that's true, it's a free country! Second, there are many other reasons to drive an SUV, including towing and payload capacity, seating, driving in snow and other adverse conditions, and general safety in an accident.
As fuel costs have risen, the SUV has become less desireable. As such, manufacturers have sunk R&D dollars into more efficient vehicles. Now that there's a stronger market for them, companies are willing to invest. Welcome to the free market. You'll now see the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles increase. And this is coming without changing the statutory minimums.
As for the scientific initiatives, see my post on corn ethanol. I'm all for new ideas and new technologies. I'm all for green technology and paradigm shifts if they make sense. But, again, if there's no market for it, a company is not going to invest in it. That's bad business. If the government chooses to invest in it, it's still bad business, but the difference is something called logrolling, which means you continue down the same path, even if it makes no sense, because it's a government program. You may call the McCain plan a spending freeze, because it doesn't put out taxpayer money like a shopping spree. However, the idea McCain had a few months ago to put up a bounty for a significant technological advance is a great idea. We saw the results from the X Prize, where smart people were given the incentive and someone succeeded in building a privately-funded spacecraft. Do the same thing for energy innovation with government money, and you'll see results.
Obama's healthcare plan isn't perfect, but would help tremendously with the current problems of the uninsured.Basic principle: healthcare is not the responsibility of the government. Furthermore, it's not something that will improve with the government's "help".
What's missing in the healthcare system is competition. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies don't compete for your business. According to the Census Bureau, the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. So that's a majority of the American public that doesn't choose a plan based on what's best for them. Where's the incentive to compete? Where's the incentive to innovate? Where's the incentive to operate more efficiently to gain more market share? There is none. By extension, our doctors and our hospitals get captive business from us, based on what our insurance will cover. To take it a step further, they can charge whatever they want, because we largely don't see what they're charging. It's a symbiotic relationship. Healthcare providers charge higher rates so people need insurance to cover the high costs. Insurance companies charge higher premiums to cover the higher costs, and no one shops around, so there's no risk of losing business.
Now, take the idea of government-sponsored healthcare. Does it increase competition? Does it drive costs down? Does it do anything to improve the condition of the market? No. Quite the opposite, it harms the free market. Let me give you this illustration. The government buys cheese to distribute to low-income consumers. It has to pay a premium for this cheese, because it demands a significant quantity and has to make good for the dairy farmers who are selling it. So, if the government is buying cheese at $3/lb., it means that every grocery company will have to pay the same price. A grocer that was getting cheese for $2.25/lb. will soon find that no one is willing to sell to him at that price - not when the government is willing to pay more. So what happens to the price of cheese in that grocer's store? It goes up! Now fewer people can afford cheese and more people have to get it from the government. It continues this way until the government has to socialize the cheese industry.
In actuality, the cheese industry will probably be okay, because there are many options. But in the world of trial lawyers (big Obama contributors) who drive up the cost of being in health care, the health care market is already strained. And a move to involve the government will threaten it further. A move where government uses its position to stimulate the private sector and thus drive down costs through competition is much preferred. Ask Mitt Romney about the plan he signed into law in Massachusetts.
Honestly, one of the things that has impressed me the most about Obama is that he really seems to understand that the reason for US economic superiority in the last half of the 20th century is the amount of technological innovation that happened during WWII and the Space Race.That's a good analysis. Economic superiority comes from invention and development of industries. Imagine a better product, bring it to market, and suddenly a new industry is born. Jobs are created. People make money, from the top of the corporation down to the guy mopping the bathrooms. Talk about spreading the wealth around! It's a model of economic growth that doesn't punish success, that doesn't rely on redistribution of wealth, and that tears the ceiling off of what could be. Awesome, Dr. A! Unfortunately, I don't hear this model in Obama's plans. Instead, I hear that we need to roll back tax cuts and get the "wealthy" to start paying their "fair share". I hear that we need to punish successful and innovative companies with a "windfall profits tax". I hear that America needs to stop thinking like the world's only superpower and start letting the rest of the world dictate what we eat and drive. His agenda doesn't sound compatible with striving for the greatness America has enjoyed since the Second World War.
McCain mostly advocates research being funded by private corporations. The problem with this is that when you have profits as your bottom line for research & development, the quality of your research suffers... which would you trust more, research on the efficacy of a new medication done by Professor X funded by the NIH or the same study done by Pfizer?This goes back to my earlier point. Companies have to get results in order to survive. Government programs can go on indefinitely. Companies have to find ideas, find ways to bring them to market, and find out if they are feasible. Government functions as if it had unending resources and lives in a world of limited accountability. Companies have to function as efficiently as possible, since they face competition. Government has no competition. Private industry, while derided by the Left, is an invaluable asset in building innovation for the future. To answer your question, I'd trust the company that has the incentive to bring a better product to market over the government that manages Social Security any day of the week.
I do think Obama knows at least something about economics and knows enough to seek the right expert advisers.If Obama has any idea how the economy works, he hasn't shown it. His former political mentor is a self-proclaimed communist. He has promised to raise taxes in spite of a poor economy, which has never worked to bring about economic recovery (unlike the opposite, which does have a track record of working). No country has ever taxed its way out of a recession, and I can think of no socialist nation that we could call "thriving". He has proposed hundreds of billions in new spending without matching spending cuts. He has
no record in this area, so he can only be judged in his own words, which say quite a bit.
To wrap up, the case against Obama is strong. He has no accomplishments in his tenure as a state legislator or a US Senator. He throws around a lot of concepts that he either doesn't understand or is deliberately misleading people based on who his particular audience is. He would be hard-pressed to get a position of mid- to high-level management in any company in this country, and yet he is asking to be the top executive in government. He claims to be a transformational candidate, yet his record shows no signs of change. He claims to be a new type of politician, but he is running the same old liberal playbook. I want change in this country, but Barack Obama is neither qualified nor willing to bring it.
