Obama highlights plan for national service.
I took the time to read the whole plan, and at the very end it tells you how much this is all expected to cost as well as where he believes the money will come from:
Barack Obama’s national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. This plan will be paid for in part by cancelling tax provisions that would otherwise help multinational corporations pay less in U.S. taxes starting in 2008 by reallocating tax deductions for interest expenses between income earned in the U.S. and income earned abroad. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with ending the war in Iraq.
Anyone see the problem with how this will happen? No mention of who actually would have to do this and where the other cuts would come or other revenue increased.
If the war in Iraq is going to end and all of our troops are going to come home, it's interesting that it's felt that we need more troops beyond what we have now and the 140,000 currently deployed. If the war were to truly end all of those now currently in Iraq would be here in the US. I can't help but wonder if the mom in the "Alex" MoveOn commercial would have a problem with her Alex being a part of the numbers that Barack Obama would like to recruit. If the financing for this program is going to come in part from the war in Iraq ending and the war is truly going to end then why is this a concern, emphasis mine:
Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.
Unless of course he realizes that we are going to be in Iraq for quite some time and that's why we need more troops between deployments...But that can't be because he's the anti-war candidate...Isn't he?
Well, eventually as it seems he's changing his position on that as well. Considering this plan for National Service calls for more troops, I'd suggest that he was waiting for the primary to be over. After all, it's him or McCain so it's time to "get over it" and accept it.
12 comments:
Lisa,
It seems to me that you have jumped to conclusions here that I'm not sure are correct.
First, Obama is not campaigning as an anti war candidate. I've heard nothing in his campaign that would suggest this. He may be anti the war in Iraq for reasons that I think he's detailed and frankly most Americans agree with, but that does not mean that he will not defend America with military force if need be.
Having more troops to deploy and redeploy is a good idea going forward, as we've seen from this war that our troops are stretched too thin and soldiers are redeployed too many times. I think that this is learning from mistakes made and making sure that if we have another conflict that the stress on the military does not happen again.
I don’t think that Obama needs to give a civics lesson every time he proposes a plan. If there are people that don’t realize that he can’t fully implement these plans without the help of congress, then I think that it is their problem and not his. Of course he will need their help and that means that the plan will probably not be implemented exactly as proposed or possibly even at all if he doesn’t have the support for it. I see this proposal for what it is, a plan that he will have to try to get through congress, which may or may not happen.
I’ve not been entirely happy with every decision that has been made with his general election campaign, but it seems like every move his campaign makes you find a problem with.
Mark, when I have agreed with a position he's taken, I have tried to point that out as well, see here as a recent example. It's difficult at times to point out the good, but I am trying.
That said, he is believed by many including Code Pink to be the anti-war candidate. His position on the Iraq War and removing troops within 16 months has been a large part of the campaign. So a change in his policy related to that is to me discussion worthy.
The MoveOn.org ad, the many who state the reason why I should vote for Obama is because of the Iraq war, and McCain's position on the Iraq war have been huge campaign issues.
I don't think it's illogical to ask if this is a five year plan and 140,000 troops are coming home why we would need an increase in our military and why there would need to be a plan to relieve troops during re-deployment.
I also don't think it's illogical to want more of a clear idea of how a plan that contains that many pages of goals to have more than one small paragraph on how it will be paid for or acknowledgement that the majority of this plan would have to be undertaken by Congress first.
I don't think that he needs to tell people that any of his plans need to be approved by congress first, if people don't know that we are in trouble.
I tried to explain what I think he means with the increased troop level, and what I think it actually says, but you must not agree with me on that point.
I know that you occaisionally agree with Obama on something and post that. It seems to me though that you go out of your way to find things not to like about him. Nevertheless it's your blog and as you know I appreciate all of the work you do on it. It's just that I'm not sure that at this point he could do anything to change your mind, and I'm not sure you're giving him much of a chance to do so.
The problem is Mark that there are quite a few people who don't seem to understand that most of what is being promised, can't be done - by either of them. If people did then presidential campaigns would focus on what a president can actually do.
I do agree with you that I don't think Obama will make a good president, I can't say I believe McCain would be much better. It's also been made very clear that Obama knows our choice is now between him or McCain. Every time I try to find a reason to convince myself I could be wrong, I instead find more evidence of why I was right to have not supported him in the first place and to still not support him now.
Watching others who were much more pro-Obama than myself start to question some of his recent decisions and positions could have created many, many more postings, I've actually refrained from that since I did not want to become the anti-Obama blog all the time.
I personally feel those of you who voted for him knowing his lack of experience and the lack of vetting as far as would he actually stick to the positions he made placed us in this situation where we are forced with a similar situation as we faced with Kerry. Too many believed the hype that is now being proven is not true from campaign financing, to FISA, now to his earlier position on troop withdrawl. That's without even going into the issues relating to the Democratic Party and how they are treating people that are not "behaving". What I have personally experienced has made it even more difficult since I don't respond well to being "punished" for having my own opinion. Especially since I have never advocated people vote for McCain, at least not yet (lol). You can be not happy with the choices and what is being stated without the blanket assumption that because of the concerns I have expressed for several months now, all of a sudden I'm no longer a Democrat because I won't jump on the OTrain.
I'd love to be able to say, "OMG I was wrong" rather than "I told you so". Unfortunately that does not appear to be the way this is headed.
I still hope I'll be wrong, but unless some type of a miracle happens, all of us as a nation will have to face the consequences that come from this election. There are no do overs.
As I said before I have not been altogether happy with some of the positions that Obama has taken thus far in the general election.
For example, I agreed with Clark to some extent that McCain isn't automatically a better war time presidant because of his military experience, even if I thought Clark could have choosen his words a little better. I also think that Obama is changing his positions a bit based on what he thinks will help him to get elected. That does disappoint me a bit. Not to the point where I'm willing not to support him though.
I'm starting to think that some of the change that Obama preaches is - a Democrat who knows how to get elected. I think he's going to win, and I'm starting to see that he knows how to play the game and may not bring as much change to the political process as I may have thought. (reminds me of Bill Clinton) This is the level on which I'm a little disappointed.
On another level it's good to see a democrat that knows how to, "play the game". Too often as democrats we think that the electioon should be about ideas, and it's not, unfortunately. It's about framing issues in a way that gets you the most votes.
For example it has always frustrated me that the democrates basically concede many economic issues. Such as rich people are taxed more. This is a fundementally flawed argument for a lot of reasons. Mostly that really rich people make most of their money in the market which gets taxed at a much smaller rate, and stop paying pay roll taxes after 100,000. The death tax was another one. People actually believed that if they died the government was going to take all of their money, which again is not true.
These arguments involve nuances though that unfortunately don't work in elections. Just ask Kerry or Dukakis about that.
I'll agree to being a little to idealistic about Obama, just as I think many Clinton supporters were a little carried away about the extent to which she related to and represented working class Americans. These things happen in political campaigns and anyone who thinks emotion does not play a part in what candidate they support is sorely mistaken.
So while on some level I'm disappointed, I agree with Obama on most issues, and think his core beliefs better represent America as I see it.
I don't disagree some Obama supporters and some Clinton supporters were being too idealistic. I realize I've been "pinned" as a Clinton supporter but she wasn't my preferred choice, I felt she was better than Obama. I still do when it comes to the base of the party vote that will be needed that I don't believe Obama will get despite the belief stated by him and his campaign that people will not vote for McCain. Some of them will, some of them will vote third party and some will not vote at all.
He will have the money advantage but unfortunately too much of it will have to be spent on trying to get people to know him and/or to discount what they think they know about him that isn't true. I'm not sure he can win, I know his campaign now believes they can win without Ohio. I've never predicted a presidential race incorrectly since I started predicting them in 1978...Which means I'm either very good, very lucky or due to be wrong. (smile)
To be honest, I'm so tired of the hype and the false promises and then the flip flopping or backtracking or reclaifications however you want to label them.
Presidential campaigns have become more like which used car salesman can sucker you into buying "his car" all the while telling you not necessarily why his car is better but why the other guys car sucks.
I want to know why the car he's selling is really better, I want to know the mileage, the maintenance history, I want to test drive it, kick the tires, floor it a bit to test it...I don't want to pay more than it's worth or worse yet wake up and discover that there is a pile of crap in my driveway that I was stupid enough to buy.
:-)
In other words, despite my having spent years becoming very cynical, I'm still an idealist inside hoping that just once, one of these guys will be totally honest...
Back to the real topic of the post, that's why I took issue with this, once again we have a very detailed sales pitch.
Wonderfully done with lots of details as to what the benefits will be and who it will help and why we should support it.
Yet, short on details as to how exactly it will be put into place, where the money will come from and how he will get Congress which appears will not have a veto proof majority to make this happen.
Going back to my car analogy, it's like giving you the best deal of your life, then discovering that if you really want to drive it the key will cost you more than you can afford...So all you have is this awesome looking vehicle as a yard decoration...
From the beginning the biggest reason that I've seen you give for supporting Clinton is electability. This to me is another part of the game. If we're really going to vote based on the best ideas, electability shouldn't really matter. Of course, it does matter though, which was my point before. Would you rather have Obama, be totally honest about how he feels about the issues, or win. I don't think you can have both.
As to his plan, I think it has the normal amount of details that a plan released during a presidential election has. Don't want to be too specific about where you'll cut or it could lose you votes. (say you're going to cut defense spending then you're weak on defense etc....). I'm not saying that this is a great system, but isn't it really the electorates fault for not demanding more, and wouldn't Obama be foolish to give McCain ammo by telling him which programs he'd cut if Americans aren't demanding such details.
Mark, don't you think that if programs are going to be cut if someone is going to promote a plan we are owed that much honesty? If honesty was really something that was valued.
Especially if a candidate is going to make such a plan a large campaign issue. As it stands right now it could be ammo, anything can be ammo considering the petty level they use to determine what is ammo.
Setting aside my own personal feelings and putting on the analytical hat -The primary issue was electability, that's very true I felt between the two that she had a better chance of attracting the voters that will be needed to win. She wasn't selected, and there is a huge debate out there now as to Obama now appearing to be more centrist to appeal to the base that it was felt she would attract. He's loosing some of the support of his base in the process and granted most of his base would vote for him over McCain, but the real problem comes in at how well his changes in positions will be used against him. Also, a critical error in doing this to his own base is they were his most ardent supporters, they may vote for him but some of them are not going to campaign their hearts out for him as they did in the primary. His sending the message to them that they don't matter or that he's only doing this to get elected isn't going to play out well. It lends to the credibility questions and increases that as an issue that he can't afford to be labeled with. Trustworthiness was a key element of where he did not score well with the centrist base polled.
The voters he's trying to reach with his move to the center are also the voters that did not turn out for Kerry. Which is why I said he does have the money advantage and unfortunately he'll have to spend quite a bit of it on trying to get these voters to change their mind about what they think they know about him to what he wants them to believe about him.
Possible? Maybe, but his campaign is going to have to stop "Clark moments" and he's going to have to remember he can only push his base so far. His recent faith based initiative statements have not been well received by some of his base on top of FISA and not supporting Clark more. His own base doesn't care about the public campaign financing issue.
If McCain gets it together, which it appears with his campaign changes he is working on? It's not going to be that easy. Obama could regret alienating some of his base.
Obama needs to demonstrate the appearance that he will be trustworthy and that he has a plan that will work for the economy (even though we all know the impact of a President on the economy is minimal) The Democratic Party has placed this campaign in that position with their determination to try to label McCain as the "third Bush term". The downside to that is Obama may be elected, but he's created some very high unrealistic expectations that will come at a very high political price.
I would like specifics about what would be cut - yes. My points about not giving ammo to McCain before referred to what I think are the political realities of a presidential campaign.
As far a strategy goes he may have a great strategy and it may fail, I guess we won't know until election night. However the reason that I think he's going to win, is that so far his decision making and grass roots campaigning have gotten him farther than anyone thought he would get a year ago. So until I see a different result, I'm expecting that he will continue to make good strategic decisions.
Sorry, that I have such a hard time staying on topic. One thought sometimes just leads to another sometimes
Mark, I enjoy our "debates", you keep me from getting rusty in stepping outside of my own thoughts to the bigger political pictures. That's one of the things I miss most about the national political scene versus spending so much time on local issues.
What's interesting is the threads where you and I discuss things end up being very heavily read. So evidently others are enjoying us go back and forth as well.
:-)
From a campaign standpoint I understand the attempt to move to the center, that said, it's not been handled well at this point. He's really lucky that the GOP has not stepped up but it's expected they will and how he responds when it gets very hot and heavy will be a huge test.
I can also understand the disappointment of those who supported him because they believed he would support them on certain issues that he is now backing away from. I think admitting that he is not going to keep to the 16 month withdrawl date was a huge mistake. If he knew he was not going to be able to do that, he should have never made that as a campaign promise that many have held as one of their "one issues."
The problem may be though that it's harder to bash him as he moves to the center (for the republicans). It is easy for them to bash liberal democrats, but as he moves more towards the center and closer to more conservative policy on some issues, what are they going to say? He's selling out the liberals, I think that would sound funny.
It may not be that the republicans are not organized enough to attack him right now, but that he's challenging them in areas democrats haven't really challenged rebulicans in since Clinton (like religion). Maybe the old republican playbook doesn't have the answer for the campaign he's running.
I enjoy the debates as well, and also think that the 16 months statement will cause him some headaches later in the campaign.
Post a Comment