EDITORIAL: Why I Am Not Voting For Barack Obama

I am a rare and endangered species in America - I am Black, and I am not voting for Obama.

The racial undertones of this 2008 Presidential Election cannot be ignored…well, not by persons like myself. Although most Americans have done everything they can to stay away from the racial issues, the fact of the matter is that most Black people in America are voting for Obama simply because he is Black. As long as he doesn’t admit to worshipping the devil or being a serial killer, they will support his candidacy as the fulfillment of the dream that fostered the Civil Rights Movement and every struggle for justice that Black Americans have endured in this country. I get it; really, I do. I would hope that non-Black Americans are at least able to sympathize with that position, considering the circumstances. Such a unilateral and uncontested, even blind support of a candidate is charged almost purely by emotion, but in this case it is at least emotionally justifiable.

Nevertheless, I wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama if you paid me to, which ironically enough, is exactly what he is doing.

Barack Obama’s economic policies often offend me. He has re-branded all out socialism as “Change” and “Hope”, or as MadTV so eloquently put it, “Chope”.



Among Obama's flawed economic policies are a “Windfall Profits Tax”, a “tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate”, an indexed minimum wage increase that automatically rises with inflation, and a federal ban on the permanent replacement of striking workers. If you have a one-sided view of the economy, this sounds great; more money in your inelastic pocket. However, these kinds of anti-capitalist policies would actually contribute to the destruction of the balance that makes our economy strong in the best of times because it unfairly assures the underdog that he will never experience the worst of times. America cannot be the “Land of Opportunity” if those who take advantage of the opportunities are penalized as a result. Minimum-wage jobs are not designed to support families of 3 or more; that‘s what professional degrees, skilled trades, and even second jobs are for. Strikes are risky, and an employer has every right to fire employees who don’t show up for work, whether it makes him a cold-hearted miser or not. Unfair redistribution of wealth is socialism, pure and simple.

If you want to be a socialist, move to China.

On the other hand, while McCain is not as conservative as I would like, his economic policies are far more fair and balanced. For example, McCain's remedy for victims of the sub-prime mortgage lending bubble is to adjust their loans to reflect the current value of their homes as opposed to the former, inflated value. They still have to pay the debt they signed up for, but there is a compassionate act of good will on behalf of the government that demanded the banks begin lending to the sub-prime market in the first place. Instead of penalizing Americans who make over $250,000 a year (which is not rich, by the way), he wants to reduce prices on gas and food, which is fair to everyone. McCain also lists a number of economists who approve his economic plan on his website, which lends to it’s greater realistic soundness compared to Obama’s plan.

I enjoy my freedom too much to have my vote bought by someone who would rather see me live as a poor, minimum-wage earning worker for the rest of my life than help empower me to become a business owner who can afford to hire employees and make profits without being unfairly taxed. I can’t sell out to someone like that.

I don’t care if he’s Black or not.

--> www.FedPrimeRate.com Privacy Policy <-- --> SITEMAP <--

EDITORIAL: Just Because College Is Expensive, It Doesn’t Mean That You Shouldn’t Have To Pay For It.

Editorial

As I was listening to The Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday, I heard a sound byte of Senator Obama and a young college student who was a little disgruntled about the cost of her education. Obama agreed that what she was experiencing wasn’t fair, and of course, went on to give his typical encouragement blurb about change, hope, or what have you. Limbaugh came back to rant about how Obama doesn’t think that people should have to pay for higher education because he is a socialist. Thoughts of my own mountain of student loan debt soon drowned out the radio, and I found myself sincerely contemplating the issue.

Was Obama right? How much should I have to pay for higher education?

Just to be sure Rush’s argument wasn’t unfairly slanted, I checked Obama’s position on his website, www.barackobama.com. His official stance on higher education costs read as follows:

...Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service...

Low to middle income families would surely welcome such policies, and for good reason. According to the U.S. Census bureau, the cost of postsecondary education has more than doubled since 1990. Faced with today’s gloomy economic climate and grim future, parents and students are crying for relief. Obama promises to educate high school graduates for 1/3 of the cost of tuition.

But is that his job?

While the tax credit sounds great to those who qualify for it, it should worry Americans who do not, because they will be the ones paying the bill. With Obama appeasing the American middle class by promising to increase the tax burdens only on Americans making more than $250,000 a year, this wealth redistribution system essentially boils down to the “rich” and the government taking care of the “poor”.

Is that really fair?

Others argue that the cost of a student’s college education should only be negotiated by two parties - the college and the student. This could be viewed as a free-market approach to education. While some insist that private institutions not backed by the government only serve the rich, the opposite is true. Harvard University has plans to increase student aid this year in a grand effort to subsidize tuition so that more deserving students can afford to attend. This is a good example of a private institution compromising with students to accommodate the changing economic climate.

Whether you like Obama’s plan or not, the truth is that the U.S. government already offers generous student loan programs that empower millions of Americans to pursue higher education while contributing to the American economy. While we hate to pay back the student loans that seem to multiply exponentially as soon as you sign on the dotted line, we enjoy the professional positions that we are able to pursue as a result of our advanced education. Furthermore, the interest goes to help fund the government that provided the initial loan. This allows students to pay their own way through college without having to offer collateral or pay out-of-pocket. Is that not more than fair?

Just because college is expensive, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have to pay for it.

My parents knew that they would not be able to afford to pay all of our college tuition, so they told us to study hard and apply for as many scholarships as we could. They took out loans to cover some of the difference, and so did we. That’s life. Otherwise, we would have either had to put off going to college until we could acquire the necessary savings and credit or pursue other options. This approach to funding higher education wasn’t pleasant, but it was most certainly fair. It’s fair because the return on the investment has the potential to be exponentially higher than the investment itself. If I owe $100,000 in student loans but I make $150,000 per year, the investment pays off substantially. Unfortunately, since great jobs are not guaranteed, college education is a risky investment. That doesn’t mean, however, that if you come up short that it wasn’t fair because the cost of the education was too high. You might then be able to requisition the government to bail you out because you lost money pursuing gain that did not pan out for you.

Wow; that sounds eerily familiar…

--> www.FedPrimeRate.com Privacy Policy <-- --> SITEMAP <--