Deconstruction [political kitty is political]
Honesty compels me to admit I would've forgotten to watch the DNC if it hadn't been on after football, but all that aside, I have lots of commentary. Some of it is squeeful, but more of it is analytical and potentially critical, so you have been fairly warned.
I totally jumped up about three sentences into the speech and grabbed notecards, so a lot of this analysis is going to follow the flow of his speech. Also, in the interests of full disclosure: in March 2000 I registered to vote in Maryland as a Republican, because at the time I believed McCain was the best of the four options available in the primary season. In 2008, I voted for Ron Paul in the Maryland Republican primary. Having lost my preferred candidate (as I knew I would, but I wanted to make the statement regardless), I am inclined toward Obama, but I require significantly more research and careful analysis before I make my final decision.
Disclosures having been made, my thoughts, let me show you them.
I noticed that the speech started out with strong statements against McCain and his stances on policy. Later in the speech, he mentioned that he wants to move forward from the "old politics" of insulting each other's character based on policy disagreements, and I was all set to call shenanigans. Then, however, I replayed what I could clearly recall of what he had said, and it occurred to me that while he has been consistently questioning McCain's judgment and policies, he specifically has not called him out on matters of character, and of this I approve.
He mentioned the Bush/McCain position that the economy has been good for the majority of the last eight years. And the thing is, the market has experienced positive growth, uninterrupted, since roughly 2003. (I should know; I'm working for a financial advisor.) Generally speaking, you will find that the market has one negative quarter for every three positive. It therefore makes sense that we are in for a rough and possibly protracted ride, given the long string of positive growth (I am so not getting into the lengthy argument of inflated prices; I'm just providing some generalities for context.) So, yes, the economy of late has sucked. It was driven by a culture of debt and keeping-up-with-the-Joneses (and I freely admit I participated in it) and the bubble could not expand forever.
However, as much as I violently dislike BushCo and most of their actions and policies, I am not completely willing to blame the President or even the Republican Party as a whole for the economy; much of the issue was driven by banks which relaxed their lending standards. You can argue whether you feel that was the result of insufficient regulation on the part of the government, and it is possible and/or likely that someone should have noticed this was going on and done something about it, but it's not a single-person or even a single-party scapegoat.
I found the examples of everyday workers, and the invocation of "the dignity of work," crafty and touching. I admit that the words had the intended effect of making me go "awww, isn't America great?" but they lacked substance. I'm interested in his emphasis on the American Promise, which I had not heard encapsulated in precisely that way before. Although it does make sense, in that my parents always told me I had the option to be whatever I wanted, and i know that's the ideal - I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it a promise.
I sat there with my eyebrows raised while he started talking about his changes, and specifically, the changes to the tax code. While I agree that the tax code is excessively arcane and could use an overhaul, suggesting tax cuts does not combine well with his later promises to spend significant quantities of money to improve various programs (more on that in a minute.) I think his promise of cutting taxes for 95% of working families is very sweeping, very grand - and very impractical! Remember, Social Security and all those other programs you're promising to update and expand are going to cost you money. Closing loopholes in the tax code will definitely help, but it will take years for the effects of a program like that to occur. It is likely their effects would not be felt by the time the next election rolls around. I'm curious how much revenue actually comes from the capital gains tax (and I'm too lazy to Wiki it), and what the corresponding burden is on small businesses. What would such a cut actually accomplish? I should ask my boss; he probably knows.
I am excessively skeptical of his goal of ending our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years. How can we possibly build the infrastructure necessary for that, invest in the research and technology, and cause these changes to be widespread enough? Especially if he proposes cutting taxes? This takes a lot of money and a lot of work; biofuels aren't necessarily the answer, and because one can't really store the electricity that's generated, the unreliability of solar and wind power is also an issue. Nuclear power has significant safety issues associated with it. All that being the case: show me a solid plan, sir.
I definitely agree that drilling for more oil is not a long-term solution, but I think the ten-year goal is unnecessarily idealistic (did you notice that, if this goal fails, Obama will already be out of office by the time those effects are felt? Because I did.) There's a LOT of infrastructure alteration and rebuilding that would have to go through, especially with retrofitting existing cars (and this would drop the bottom out of the used-car market, which is another economic concern - I, for example, cannot afford a brand-new car, especially if I can't trade-in the old one.)
At least he seems to recognize the sheer volume of investment that would be required, although I'd like to know the basis for his $150 billion investment figure. Natural gas is a nice idea, but like other fossil fuels, it will run out eventually. Same problem with clean coal. Nuclear power has safety issues, as mentioned above. I'm not saying these are not better alternatives to oil, but it should be observed that neither are they permanent alternatives, or even necessarily lifetime alternatives for those of us who are young.
I really liked his suggestions for education - incentives in the form of scholarships for people who will then go into civil service as teachers and other servants. I think that, long-term, something like that has a great return-on-investment, but you still have to worry about startup costs, and remember that we're currently operating on a horrific deficit. (I see a trend of this: investing in our future. My only concern is where does the startup capital come from?)
He really glossed over health care in his speech. I'm aware of the many abuses of the insurance industry - both by the insurance company, and by doctors and patients gaming the system, as I saw plenty of both when I worked at Hewitt. I get the feeling it's really only in the speech because he's aware that it's a concern for many Americans, as it rightly should be - but I haven't yet seen a compelling plan to fix it. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's broken, but I have yet to see a good solution. (And yes, I am aware that I am not quite smart enough to come up with a valid plan myself and therefore this is all pointless bitching.)
I definitely agree that bankruptcy laws need significant overhauling (2005 Bankruptcy Act, I am glaring at you right now) and that Social Security needs to be rescued. A few weeks ago Melzer made the point that the way Bill Clinton finally balanced the budget was cancelling the fact that SS funds are held in trust and returning them to the general government pool. Had that not been done, Social Security would not be in quite as dire straits as it is now, because you wouldn't be losing the money you put into it to things like the Iraq war. (No, I don't have figures. I'll get them at some point. I like being an educated kitty.)
"Equal pay for an equal day's work" - does anyone have hard facts and figures on how true this is, that doesn't involve over-career averaging? The reason I make the specification is because it was pointed out to me at some point in the past that part of the reason that women "make less" than men is because they are more apt to take time off work for childbearing/rearing, caring for an ailing family member, and other such pursuits, which, because they are spending fewer years in the workforce and able to bring fewer years of experience to the table, would naturally bring down career-average figures. I'm not saying that it's not true that a woman might make less in the exact same position as a man, but I would like to see such figures. I am sure someone on the f-list will provide, or else at some point in the future I'll un-lazy.
Okay, now we're finally on to where does the money come from. I agree that closing corporate loopholes in the tax law is a good plan, and goes with the above-stated goal of revamping the tax code in general - but again, this takes TIME to put into play. It's going to take a long time for Obama to put into effect most of what he wants to do, and I think a lot of people (myself included) are getting caught up in the rhetoric without looking at the practicalities. A line-by-line analysis of the budget is definitely more practical, and easier to put into effect on a faster time scale, but that's a fucking massive document, yo. Where are you going to find the time?
"Programs can't replace parents." OH GOD YES. Thank you. Thank God somebody is calling on parents to be parents instead of expecting teachers to do it. Kitty approves wholeheartedly (I think this is the first thing in his entire speech I can't quibble with in the slightest.) My parents were very involved in my life and still are, and I know i turned out better for it. More people need to be that involved. I know we're all very busy and trying to make ends meet, but we really need to stop and remember what's important in life: our families and our friends, our children, and not the next shiny thing that Mr. So and So bought. Though, good luck getting our culture of sloth and "not my fault" to take some personal responsibility. (At least I *own* my fuckups.)
I didn't have much to pick on regarding his comments on 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I was particularly amused by his citation of Iraq's budget surplus vs. our deficit. I want our troops home, goddamn it. I did notice that he was making a commitment to training and equipment for our troops - where does that money come from? The tax simplification (which, by the way, could have far-reaching and unintended consequences in the financial/accounting industry - has he considered that?), closing of loopholes, and editing of the budget aren't necessarily going to provide for all these things he wants to do. Granted, some of those costs would be reduced if we were not actively at war, but still.
He mentioned wanting to "restore our moral standing." Just what the fuck does that mean?
He had some nice political neat-footing regarding abortion ("I think we can all agree on reducing unwanted pregnancies") and the Second Amendment ("I'm sure we can uphold the Second Amendment and still keep AK-47's off our streets").
I was especially touched by his comment that regardless of our opinions on gay marriage, we should make it possible for our brothers and sisters to visit their partners in the hospital and not be treated with discrimination. 90% of me squealed out loud with delight and joy. My inner idealist did a very happy dance. (My inner cynic, meanwhile, was amused at how neatly he stepped through that particular minefield.)
"This election has never been about me, it's about you." Let me tell you about this land I have for sale in Florida. Ideally, a republican government (which is what we have; we do not have a true democracy, we are more closely modeled on Ancient Rome than on ancient Athens) is by the people, for the people, and in an ideal world it functions as such. Welcome to our non-ideal world, please keep all hands and feet inside the train at all times. Points for effort, though; he has a trick of making me believe that he really means it. Ideal ability for a politician.
My inner cynic is screaming every time he tries to place himself outside the context of Washington or refers to how Washington is broken. You, sir, are part of the system. And while you may not be acting Just Like Every Other Politician, I find it disingenuous in the extreme for you to attempt to separate yourself from the national office that you hold in this manner.
I snorked when they ended with Brooks & Dunn's "Only in America." Nice touch; I approve of whoever picked your music. "We all get a chance/everybody gets to dance/Only in America." Of course, it'd be nice if the system and "promise" actually worked.
tl;dr version: I am critical and cynical, but damn, I want to believe. I just wish my practicality and cynicism weren't biting my ankles so damn hard.
I totally jumped up about three sentences into the speech and grabbed notecards, so a lot of this analysis is going to follow the flow of his speech. Also, in the interests of full disclosure: in March 2000 I registered to vote in Maryland as a Republican, because at the time I believed McCain was the best of the four options available in the primary season. In 2008, I voted for Ron Paul in the Maryland Republican primary. Having lost my preferred candidate (as I knew I would, but I wanted to make the statement regardless), I am inclined toward Obama, but I require significantly more research and careful analysis before I make my final decision.
Disclosures having been made, my thoughts, let me show you them.
I noticed that the speech started out with strong statements against McCain and his stances on policy. Later in the speech, he mentioned that he wants to move forward from the "old politics" of insulting each other's character based on policy disagreements, and I was all set to call shenanigans. Then, however, I replayed what I could clearly recall of what he had said, and it occurred to me that while he has been consistently questioning McCain's judgment and policies, he specifically has not called him out on matters of character, and of this I approve.
He mentioned the Bush/McCain position that the economy has been good for the majority of the last eight years. And the thing is, the market has experienced positive growth, uninterrupted, since roughly 2003. (I should know; I'm working for a financial advisor.) Generally speaking, you will find that the market has one negative quarter for every three positive. It therefore makes sense that we are in for a rough and possibly protracted ride, given the long string of positive growth (I am so not getting into the lengthy argument of inflated prices; I'm just providing some generalities for context.) So, yes, the economy of late has sucked. It was driven by a culture of debt and keeping-up-with-the-Joneses (and I freely admit I participated in it) and the bubble could not expand forever.
However, as much as I violently dislike BushCo and most of their actions and policies, I am not completely willing to blame the President or even the Republican Party as a whole for the economy; much of the issue was driven by banks which relaxed their lending standards. You can argue whether you feel that was the result of insufficient regulation on the part of the government, and it is possible and/or likely that someone should have noticed this was going on and done something about it, but it's not a single-person or even a single-party scapegoat.
I found the examples of everyday workers, and the invocation of "the dignity of work," crafty and touching. I admit that the words had the intended effect of making me go "awww, isn't America great?" but they lacked substance. I'm interested in his emphasis on the American Promise, which I had not heard encapsulated in precisely that way before. Although it does make sense, in that my parents always told me I had the option to be whatever I wanted, and i know that's the ideal - I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it a promise.
I sat there with my eyebrows raised while he started talking about his changes, and specifically, the changes to the tax code. While I agree that the tax code is excessively arcane and could use an overhaul, suggesting tax cuts does not combine well with his later promises to spend significant quantities of money to improve various programs (more on that in a minute.) I think his promise of cutting taxes for 95% of working families is very sweeping, very grand - and very impractical! Remember, Social Security and all those other programs you're promising to update and expand are going to cost you money. Closing loopholes in the tax code will definitely help, but it will take years for the effects of a program like that to occur. It is likely their effects would not be felt by the time the next election rolls around. I'm curious how much revenue actually comes from the capital gains tax (and I'm too lazy to Wiki it), and what the corresponding burden is on small businesses. What would such a cut actually accomplish? I should ask my boss; he probably knows.
I am excessively skeptical of his goal of ending our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years. How can we possibly build the infrastructure necessary for that, invest in the research and technology, and cause these changes to be widespread enough? Especially if he proposes cutting taxes? This takes a lot of money and a lot of work; biofuels aren't necessarily the answer, and because one can't really store the electricity that's generated, the unreliability of solar and wind power is also an issue. Nuclear power has significant safety issues associated with it. All that being the case: show me a solid plan, sir.
I definitely agree that drilling for more oil is not a long-term solution, but I think the ten-year goal is unnecessarily idealistic (did you notice that, if this goal fails, Obama will already be out of office by the time those effects are felt? Because I did.) There's a LOT of infrastructure alteration and rebuilding that would have to go through, especially with retrofitting existing cars (and this would drop the bottom out of the used-car market, which is another economic concern - I, for example, cannot afford a brand-new car, especially if I can't trade-in the old one.)
At least he seems to recognize the sheer volume of investment that would be required, although I'd like to know the basis for his $150 billion investment figure. Natural gas is a nice idea, but like other fossil fuels, it will run out eventually. Same problem with clean coal. Nuclear power has safety issues, as mentioned above. I'm not saying these are not better alternatives to oil, but it should be observed that neither are they permanent alternatives, or even necessarily lifetime alternatives for those of us who are young.
I really liked his suggestions for education - incentives in the form of scholarships for people who will then go into civil service as teachers and other servants. I think that, long-term, something like that has a great return-on-investment, but you still have to worry about startup costs, and remember that we're currently operating on a horrific deficit. (I see a trend of this: investing in our future. My only concern is where does the startup capital come from?)
He really glossed over health care in his speech. I'm aware of the many abuses of the insurance industry - both by the insurance company, and by doctors and patients gaming the system, as I saw plenty of both when I worked at Hewitt. I get the feeling it's really only in the speech because he's aware that it's a concern for many Americans, as it rightly should be - but I haven't yet seen a compelling plan to fix it. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's broken, but I have yet to see a good solution. (And yes, I am aware that I am not quite smart enough to come up with a valid plan myself and therefore this is all pointless bitching.)
I definitely agree that bankruptcy laws need significant overhauling (2005 Bankruptcy Act, I am glaring at you right now) and that Social Security needs to be rescued. A few weeks ago Melzer made the point that the way Bill Clinton finally balanced the budget was cancelling the fact that SS funds are held in trust and returning them to the general government pool. Had that not been done, Social Security would not be in quite as dire straits as it is now, because you wouldn't be losing the money you put into it to things like the Iraq war. (No, I don't have figures. I'll get them at some point. I like being an educated kitty.)
"Equal pay for an equal day's work" - does anyone have hard facts and figures on how true this is, that doesn't involve over-career averaging? The reason I make the specification is because it was pointed out to me at some point in the past that part of the reason that women "make less" than men is because they are more apt to take time off work for childbearing/rearing, caring for an ailing family member, and other such pursuits, which, because they are spending fewer years in the workforce and able to bring fewer years of experience to the table, would naturally bring down career-average figures. I'm not saying that it's not true that a woman might make less in the exact same position as a man, but I would like to see such figures. I am sure someone on the f-list will provide, or else at some point in the future I'll un-lazy.
Okay, now we're finally on to where does the money come from. I agree that closing corporate loopholes in the tax law is a good plan, and goes with the above-stated goal of revamping the tax code in general - but again, this takes TIME to put into play. It's going to take a long time for Obama to put into effect most of what he wants to do, and I think a lot of people (myself included) are getting caught up in the rhetoric without looking at the practicalities. A line-by-line analysis of the budget is definitely more practical, and easier to put into effect on a faster time scale, but that's a fucking massive document, yo. Where are you going to find the time?
"Programs can't replace parents." OH GOD YES. Thank you. Thank God somebody is calling on parents to be parents instead of expecting teachers to do it. Kitty approves wholeheartedly (I think this is the first thing in his entire speech I can't quibble with in the slightest.) My parents were very involved in my life and still are, and I know i turned out better for it. More people need to be that involved. I know we're all very busy and trying to make ends meet, but we really need to stop and remember what's important in life: our families and our friends, our children, and not the next shiny thing that Mr. So and So bought. Though, good luck getting our culture of sloth and "not my fault" to take some personal responsibility. (At least I *own* my fuckups.)
I didn't have much to pick on regarding his comments on 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I was particularly amused by his citation of Iraq's budget surplus vs. our deficit. I want our troops home, goddamn it. I did notice that he was making a commitment to training and equipment for our troops - where does that money come from? The tax simplification (which, by the way, could have far-reaching and unintended consequences in the financial/accounting industry - has he considered that?), closing of loopholes, and editing of the budget aren't necessarily going to provide for all these things he wants to do. Granted, some of those costs would be reduced if we were not actively at war, but still.
He mentioned wanting to "restore our moral standing." Just what the fuck does that mean?
He had some nice political neat-footing regarding abortion ("I think we can all agree on reducing unwanted pregnancies") and the Second Amendment ("I'm sure we can uphold the Second Amendment and still keep AK-47's off our streets").
I was especially touched by his comment that regardless of our opinions on gay marriage, we should make it possible for our brothers and sisters to visit their partners in the hospital and not be treated with discrimination. 90% of me squealed out loud with delight and joy. My inner idealist did a very happy dance. (My inner cynic, meanwhile, was amused at how neatly he stepped through that particular minefield.)
"This election has never been about me, it's about you." Let me tell you about this land I have for sale in Florida. Ideally, a republican government (which is what we have; we do not have a true democracy, we are more closely modeled on Ancient Rome than on ancient Athens) is by the people, for the people, and in an ideal world it functions as such. Welcome to our non-ideal world, please keep all hands and feet inside the train at all times. Points for effort, though; he has a trick of making me believe that he really means it. Ideal ability for a politician.
My inner cynic is screaming every time he tries to place himself outside the context of Washington or refers to how Washington is broken. You, sir, are part of the system. And while you may not be acting Just Like Every Other Politician, I find it disingenuous in the extreme for you to attempt to separate yourself from the national office that you hold in this manner.
I snorked when they ended with Brooks & Dunn's "Only in America." Nice touch; I approve of whoever picked your music. "We all get a chance/everybody gets to dance/Only in America." Of course, it'd be nice if the system and "promise" actually worked.
tl;dr version: I am critical and cynical, but damn, I want to believe. I just wish my practicality and cynicism weren't biting my ankles so damn hard.