The other reason is that I wanted to make sure the subject of today's blog was tackled in the most honest and non-reactionary way.
I haven't made a secret of my conservative beliefs and I've also not hidden my disdain for modern liberalism. I do agree that neither can succeed without the other and America's two-party system works because each side keeps the other in check.
So it isn't surprising that I would write about Barack Obama. However, I wish to be perfectly clear that I am not attempting to compare Senator Obama to Senator McCain. I personally believe that given the choice of the two men, I strongly lean towards Mr. McCain. However, I'm not particularly a supporter of the Arizona senator.
But this is not meant to be a comparison in the sense that I'm arguing for one over the other. In other words, my comments should be taken for where they are meant to be - simply as my own concern for the possibility of an Obama administration. Since so many who are voting for him claim they are doing so because of his policies, as opposed to his color - or the historic significance of his nomination, I too shall attempt to look solely at the issues.
Taxes and the economy
Senator Obama has said he intends to increase taxes in order to fund the largest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. His plan is to raise taxes on small business, raise the minimum wage and raise social security taxes. In his speeches, he defends this as a way of spreading "fairness". What it will accomplish is a penalty for incentive and hard work. It is nothing but a plan to redistribute wealth between those who work hard and those who don't. Historically, the more you tax, the more damage you do to the economy.
According to well-regarded economist Thomas Sowell, "Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times...the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April."
Another example of Obama's short-sightedness is gasoline prices. In fact, recently, Senator Obama was quoted as saying that the shock of rapidly rising gas prices are more of a concern than the actual price themselves. Furthermore, his plan to combat these prices are to go after the "evil" oil companies and their record revenues.
Unfortunately, he not only shows a lack of understanding between revenue and profit, but he also fails to recognize that the real causes of the rise in gas prices is due to speculation in oil futures. Much like it happened in the tech sector in 2000, the increase in speculative demand has fueled an unnatural bubble that is sure to burst.
According to former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, in the early 2000's the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) - which had previously limited investments by those outside the business, to prevent precisely the kind of speculation now gripping the market - rescinded the limits on behest of institutional investors like corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, university endowments and other investors, guided by brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, who had been most affected by the crash of the tech sector.
But to Obama and the Democrats, it's easier to go after the "big oil" bullies.
Furthermore, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised at the time of the 2002 mid-term elections, that only the Democrats had a policy to lower the price at the pump. Since then, the Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress. The price of gas at the time of the election was just under $2 per gallon. Why should we believe her (or them) now?
In my next post, I will discuss the issue of foreign policy and how the policies of Senator Obama again proves that resurrecting failed policies are not the answer.