It’s well known that I’m a huge supporter of Senator Obama for president, but Shoo recently pointed out that my politics should largely steer me away from Obama’s policies. And it’s true! I believe that his policies to reduce the influence of money in Washington are more important — though less exciting to the average voter — than most of this stuff.
But here are some of Obama’s specific objectives, and my quibbles:
• Middle class tax cut: Obama’s the only candidate to propose a middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans – $1,000 per working family. He’ll also eliminate income taxes for any senior making less than $50,000 a year. And he’ll raise the minimum wage every year to keep pace with inflation.
I understand how tax cuts drive votes, and how politically popular putting a couple hundred dollars in people’s pockets can be. That said, our previous budget deficits are now putting hundreds of billions of dollars per year into the pockets of China and Japan. To me, balancing the budget is more important than giving money to the middle-class.
• Health care: Obama’s universal health care plan cuts costs more than any other plan in this race – it will save the typical family up to $2,500 on their premiums. Hillary Clinton’s plan would have the government force everyone to buy health insurance, and she’s said she’d “go after” your wages if you don’t.
I am suspicious of government plans to provide universal health care by punishing those who don’t get it. But 100% coverage is the goal, and it’s especially important to enroll healthy young adults who don’t need it. (They balance the budget of the whole thing.) The real problem in our system is the inherent waste of having so many middlemen and the bizarre anti-health financial incentives our system has. Having one’s employer provide health insurance for one’s whole family makes no more sense than having the employer provide cars or food.
• Housing crisis: Obama has proposed a fund that would provide direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud. He’d help those who are facing closure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes. And he’d provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.
My sympathy for both sides of bad home loans is limited. A great many greedy lenders arranged for people to take out loans they couldn’t afford for houses beyond their means, and three years later the problem is becoming apparent. Republicans want to protect the poor banks from their lazy debtors, while Democrats want to protect the poor borrowers from the evil lendors. How about a little responsibility? The lendors should go bankrupt if necessary, and the debtors should move back into houses they can afford. Yes, this will cause temporarily dropping real estate prices, but at least both sides will know that this sort of thing doesn’t pay. In America, debt is the new form of indentured servitude.
• Retirement security: Obama will require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings. You can keep this account even if you change jobs, and the federal government will match the savings for lower-income, working families.
Isn’t this called Social Security?
