Change we can believe in, or not

By Ted Belman—October 17, 2008

Defense

Bush increased defense spending after Clinton reduced it. Obama now wants to reduce it dramatically. This is not change we can believe in.

War on Terror

Bush adopted a policy of preemption which resulted in the US invading first Afghanistan and secondly Iraq. In the present campaign neither McCain nor Obama talks about this concept or even the war on terror. But they do talk about getting Osama ben Laden. Bush and McCain want to win in Iraq and then focus on Afghanistan. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and increase US forces in Afghanistan. Is this change we can believe? One has to be foolish or naive to withdraw from Iraq and squander the victory that is at hand. Does anyone believe that Iran won’t fill the vacuum and thereby further increase her hegemony. If the US withdraws from Iraq, how can it possibly maintain influence in the ME. Is this change we can believe in.

Obama still wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter. I venture to say that the majority of Americans don’t agree with him. Is this change we can believe in?

Obama wants to talk to all our enemies including Iran and argues that this is a change we can believe in. Yet the truth of the matter is that Bush has been talking to them at a low level for years and our European allies have been talking on our behalf at higher levels all to no avail. Actually Obama has backed away from his desire to talk without preconditions and has suggested all kinds of qualifiers. Thus his position is little different from Bush’s. There is very little change here. Certainly none we can believe in.

Unilateralism

Bush favoured this after 9/11 and was at odds with France and Germany who were in bed with Saddam Hussein. The Democrats preferred multilateralism. They still do. But Obama has failed to notice that France and Germany have now rejected their old policies and elected new leaders. Europe is moving to the right. Bush is now working with them to solve our mutual problems. Thus Obama is not suggesting a change from the current cooperation but arguing for more of the same. So no change there.

Israel/Palestinian Conflict

Bush initiated the Roadmap and called for a two-state solution. Bush changed the rules of the game with the Annapolis Summit. For the last year his administration has expended a great deal of effort to achieve an agreement but to no avail. The only change Obama is suggesting is one where the US forces Israel to capitulate. Once again this is not change we can believe in.

AIPAC

Bush embraced AIPAC and worked with them. Obama wants to end decades of putting Israel’s interests first. Jesse Jackson only confirmed it. This too, is not change we can believe in.

Taxes

Bush reduced taxes across the board. McCain wants to reduce them even further. Obama says he wants to reduce taxes on 95% of Americans. And so, except for 5%, he is following the tax cuts of Bush. But who can believe he will do this. Besides 40% of these people don’t pay taxes at all so Obama’s Plan involves giving them a check otherwise called a tax reduction but in reality an income redistribution. In effect he wants to take from the rich and give to the poor. Given that Corporations in America pay taxes at a much higher rate than most of the world and the fact that higher taxes drives away businesses and jobs, I don’t think this is change the American people can believe it.

If on the other hand he really intends to increase taxes for all, in line with his voting record, this is surely not change we can believe in.

Economy

Obama blames the Bush administration for the meltdown. In doing so he totally denies the role that subprime mortgages played and the fact that the Democrats, himself included, pushed for it. In fact he wants all the homeowners who bought in, to be protected. The Democrats even attempted to funnel money from the bailout to ACORN. He is thus proposing more of the same and not change we can believe in.

Now if someone advocated regulating ACORN and strictly limiting their funds and power, this would be change we could believe in.

Although he blames Bush for deregulation, he and his fellow Democrats were the ones who prevented regulation of Freddie and Fanny.

He complains about the deficit that Bush ran up without regard to the costs of the war on terror and 9/11. He ignores the fact that the deficit went up almost three trillion after the Democrats got control of the House. He is also proposing almost another trillion in spending for ‘09 so how is this change? Bush can certainly be faulted for spending too much but Obama wouldn’t be any better. McCain is the change agent here. McCain is the only one who can get spending under control.

There is another basic difference. McCain believes government is the problem and wants policies that rely on the private sector to bring about the recovery. The Democrats want to solve all the problems by a tax and spend policy. They believe government is the solution. Once again, not change we can believe in.

The choice is clear.