Voting Today
I'm writing this way too late to have any influence on anyone, but I wanted to write out some of my detailed reasons for voting for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton today solely based on policy positions. I know there are lots of other arguments that can be made based on personality, amount of experience, etc, but most of these have been beaten to death. For now, I'll leave out John McCain.
I am going to use the assumption of fiat power for each candidate. For those of you who didn't policy debate in high school, this means that we assume that each candidate's plan passes as is and strictly debate the merits and flaws of the proposal rather than arguing what will happen after proposed policies are changed by Congress. There is a long history of why this is done, but suffice it to say that if we do not do this, we quickly lose any rational standard for debate in this manner.
The issues I'll be outlining here are the economy, government openness and use of technology, and foreign policy.
Economic Policy
------------------
The key things that I will be focusing on with respect to the economy are the housing market and the gas tax holiday. I think these are the areas where Clinton's and Obama's economic policies differ greatly; everywhere else, the language is slightly different but the policy is about the same from what I can tell.
-Housing
With respect to the housing market, Clinton and Obama both attempt to address the problem of home foreclosures. Clinton and Obama would both set up a fund to help people transition from the now high-rate subprime mortgages to lower fixed-rate mortgages. Obama would also require better disclosure in an understandable format of mortgage details to buyers.
The problem arises when we consider Clinton's other housing policies. Clinton wants to implement a 90-day home foreclosure moratorium and a 5-year freeze of mortgage interest rates. While this may seem to provide quick relief to people suffering from rising mortgage payments, it will have other very detrimental effects that will greatly outweigh any benefits. Fortune Magazine estimates that this policy will cause interest rates for new mortgages to rise extremely quickly to a value higher than 8 percent, as lenders will leave the housing market. Basically, if the government shows that it is willing to throw aside the terms of a loan so greatly (rather than simply allow people to renegotiate as with the aforementioned fund), many lenders and the investment bankers backing them will immediately stop making any new loans in the housing market. This means that anyone attempting to buy a new house will have mortgage payments 50% to 100% larger than they previously had! Any people considering buying their first home or moving up to a better house are out of luck. These higher prices would eventually lead to a further depreciation of the value of a home, as demand would be lower, causing more problems with people obtaining credit. Even the Clinton-supporting Economic Policy Institute claims that this is an "ugly correction" and compares it to "untying your shoes with a buzzsaw." Barack Obama's plan is much more responsible, as it allows the Federal Government to help people pay off and renegotiate their loans without causing lenders to be out of luck.
-Gas Tax Holiday
Clinton supports suspending the 18 cent/gallon tax on gasoline for three months this summer. Obama opposes this suspension. Every economist I've read so far opposes the gas tax suspension, stating that it would actually lead to increased prices in the long run as demand for gasoline would increase and companies would have no incentive to lower prices. Effectively, economists agree these tax suspension savings will not be passed along to the consumer and that only oil company profits will increase. Also, the gas tax is responsible for providing funding for infrastructure maintenance in the United States. It is estimated by the Department of Transportation that every billion dollars of gax tax funding that comes in equates to 30,000 new construction jobs. If we do a little math, we find that 182,000 jobs in the construction industry would be cut if we allow the gas tax suspension. Clinton states that she could use a windfall profits tax on oil companies to pay into the fund for infrastructure maintenance so these jobs would not be lost; however, this doesn't make sense, as she has already committed the money from a windfall profits tax to her research into alternative fuels. She can't do both with this money. On top of this, when asked if she could name one economist that supported her gas tax policy, Clinton could not and stated that she would go forward with her policies even if the experts disagreed. Its not just that the experts disagree right now, its that there is not one economist, liberal or conservative, who thinks this is a good idea. This kind of stuff is what got us into the situation we're in right now, and is horrifying to me. Obama's policy of a long-term solution is much more responsible and would not result in the kinds of sweeping problems the Clinton policy would create.
Government Openness and Use of Technology
-----------------------------------------------------
This is an area where Obama has proposed several policies that Clinton has not. When creating a blueprint for technology policy, Barack Obama went to Lawrence Lessig, the person who created the Creative Commons license. (This license allows many works to be shared freely over the internet while still protecting copyright, and is in use by many artists and musicians.) Obama's policy of creating an online, searchable database of all governmental activity would be very useful for all people and organizations in ensuring government oversight. Obama also wants to make all governmental data available in a standardized XML format, meaning that all government activity will be easily monitorable in a machine-readable form. Citizen oversight will be easier than ever (rather than having to screen-scrape the Library of Congress or the Congressional Record). Obama has also taken a stand for net neutrality, something that Clinton has not done; net neutrality is the only thing allowing you to access any web site rather than only the ones Comcast chooses to let you. The area of governmental openness and tech usage is something that is very important to me personally, and the fact that Obama specifically states his objectives to make government open means a lot to me.
Foreign Policy
----------------
Both Obama and Clinton have taken very similar stances on foreign policy. There is only one big difference; Obama would meet with both our allies and our enemies "without precondition" whereas Clinton would not meet with other world leaders unless they adopted specific changes in their governments. As an expert on the Middle East on CNN said, Obama could "fill stadiums" if he visited Iran and directly carried the US message of democracy straight to the people. A guest toting his new book on the Daily Show (I can't remember his name, but he was involved in foreign policy in the Reagan Administration) stated that by putting Barack Obama out there speaking with other world leaders, we can show the world that the US is ready to lead again. By showing that diplomacy is the first step of the US relationship with other countries, Obama would be able to greatly improve the US standing in the world. The Cold War may have been filled with quite a bit of confrontation with the Soviet Union, but America always at least talked with them. This attitude of being willing to meet with other world leaders and attempt to accomplish US goals via diplomacy rather than other indirect or direct methods (sanctions or war, for example) would greatly improve United States standing in the international community. This can be compared to Clinton's recent statements that we could "obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel; Iran lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations and gained sympathy from them because of these remarks.
There are other reasons I'm voting Obama today, but this outlines a few of the general policy differences that made a large impact on me.
I am going to use the assumption of fiat power for each candidate. For those of you who didn't policy debate in high school, this means that we assume that each candidate's plan passes as is and strictly debate the merits and flaws of the proposal rather than arguing what will happen after proposed policies are changed by Congress. There is a long history of why this is done, but suffice it to say that if we do not do this, we quickly lose any rational standard for debate in this manner.
The issues I'll be outlining here are the economy, government openness and use of technology, and foreign policy.
Economic Policy
------------------
The key things that I will be focusing on with respect to the economy are the housing market and the gas tax holiday. I think these are the areas where Clinton's and Obama's economic policies differ greatly; everywhere else, the language is slightly different but the policy is about the same from what I can tell.
-Housing
With respect to the housing market, Clinton and Obama both attempt to address the problem of home foreclosures. Clinton and Obama would both set up a fund to help people transition from the now high-rate subprime mortgages to lower fixed-rate mortgages. Obama would also require better disclosure in an understandable format of mortgage details to buyers.
The problem arises when we consider Clinton's other housing policies. Clinton wants to implement a 90-day home foreclosure moratorium and a 5-year freeze of mortgage interest rates. While this may seem to provide quick relief to people suffering from rising mortgage payments, it will have other very detrimental effects that will greatly outweigh any benefits. Fortune Magazine estimates that this policy will cause interest rates for new mortgages to rise extremely quickly to a value higher than 8 percent, as lenders will leave the housing market. Basically, if the government shows that it is willing to throw aside the terms of a loan so greatly (rather than simply allow people to renegotiate as with the aforementioned fund), many lenders and the investment bankers backing them will immediately stop making any new loans in the housing market. This means that anyone attempting to buy a new house will have mortgage payments 50% to 100% larger than they previously had! Any people considering buying their first home or moving up to a better house are out of luck. These higher prices would eventually lead to a further depreciation of the value of a home, as demand would be lower, causing more problems with people obtaining credit. Even the Clinton-supporting Economic Policy Institute claims that this is an "ugly correction" and compares it to "untying your shoes with a buzzsaw." Barack Obama's plan is much more responsible, as it allows the Federal Government to help people pay off and renegotiate their loans without causing lenders to be out of luck.
-Gas Tax Holiday
Clinton supports suspending the 18 cent/gallon tax on gasoline for three months this summer. Obama opposes this suspension. Every economist I've read so far opposes the gas tax suspension, stating that it would actually lead to increased prices in the long run as demand for gasoline would increase and companies would have no incentive to lower prices. Effectively, economists agree these tax suspension savings will not be passed along to the consumer and that only oil company profits will increase. Also, the gas tax is responsible for providing funding for infrastructure maintenance in the United States. It is estimated by the Department of Transportation that every billion dollars of gax tax funding that comes in equates to 30,000 new construction jobs. If we do a little math, we find that 182,000 jobs in the construction industry would be cut if we allow the gas tax suspension. Clinton states that she could use a windfall profits tax on oil companies to pay into the fund for infrastructure maintenance so these jobs would not be lost; however, this doesn't make sense, as she has already committed the money from a windfall profits tax to her research into alternative fuels. She can't do both with this money. On top of this, when asked if she could name one economist that supported her gas tax policy, Clinton could not and stated that she would go forward with her policies even if the experts disagreed. Its not just that the experts disagree right now, its that there is not one economist, liberal or conservative, who thinks this is a good idea. This kind of stuff is what got us into the situation we're in right now, and is horrifying to me. Obama's policy of a long-term solution is much more responsible and would not result in the kinds of sweeping problems the Clinton policy would create.
Government Openness and Use of Technology
-----------------------------------------------------
This is an area where Obama has proposed several policies that Clinton has not. When creating a blueprint for technology policy, Barack Obama went to Lawrence Lessig, the person who created the Creative Commons license. (This license allows many works to be shared freely over the internet while still protecting copyright, and is in use by many artists and musicians.) Obama's policy of creating an online, searchable database of all governmental activity would be very useful for all people and organizations in ensuring government oversight. Obama also wants to make all governmental data available in a standardized XML format, meaning that all government activity will be easily monitorable in a machine-readable form. Citizen oversight will be easier than ever (rather than having to screen-scrape the Library of Congress or the Congressional Record). Obama has also taken a stand for net neutrality, something that Clinton has not done; net neutrality is the only thing allowing you to access any web site rather than only the ones Comcast chooses to let you. The area of governmental openness and tech usage is something that is very important to me personally, and the fact that Obama specifically states his objectives to make government open means a lot to me.
Foreign Policy
----------------
Both Obama and Clinton have taken very similar stances on foreign policy. There is only one big difference; Obama would meet with both our allies and our enemies "without precondition" whereas Clinton would not meet with other world leaders unless they adopted specific changes in their governments. As an expert on the Middle East on CNN said, Obama could "fill stadiums" if he visited Iran and directly carried the US message of democracy straight to the people. A guest toting his new book on the Daily Show (I can't remember his name, but he was involved in foreign policy in the Reagan Administration) stated that by putting Barack Obama out there speaking with other world leaders, we can show the world that the US is ready to lead again. By showing that diplomacy is the first step of the US relationship with other countries, Obama would be able to greatly improve the US standing in the world. The Cold War may have been filled with quite a bit of confrontation with the Soviet Union, but America always at least talked with them. This attitude of being willing to meet with other world leaders and attempt to accomplish US goals via diplomacy rather than other indirect or direct methods (sanctions or war, for example) would greatly improve United States standing in the international community. This can be compared to Clinton's recent statements that we could "obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel; Iran lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations and gained sympathy from them because of these remarks.
There are other reasons I'm voting Obama today, but this outlines a few of the general policy differences that made a large impact on me.