Eugene Leafty
Eugene's AOL Status:
Google

Barrack Obama

RELIGION
Member of Trinity Church where he helped create jobs.

Also in June 2006, Obama worked to broaden his party's political base, encouraging Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other church-going people, saying, "if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at – to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own – we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."[58]


SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Barrack's position
Opposes school vouchers on claims of providing more low income families with greater tax benefits like the Earned Income Credit which he helped create, so that these poor families can put there children into private school.  His claim is that providing a voucher program would destroy the public school system.  While he believes that more competition in the public school system would be desirable, switching to a voucher system and removing all support from the public school system would be disastrous.  He does not believe that the corporations that would operate the private schools would be interested in students that would be more expensive to teach [such as inner city and special needs students].  Obama receives a lot of attention for sending his children to a private school that is supported by the University of Chicago.

These tax credits would be worthless to the children of parents that don't make enough money, or any money, and are in a situation where any amount of tax relief wouldn't afford them the opportunity to enroll their children in private school.

Benefits
School vouchers would enable children to attend private school even if their parents were unemployed or imprisoned.

Several countries have successful programs similar to the voucher program, including: Chile, UK (pre-school), and the Netherlands.

Further information can be found on Wikipedia: Implementations

Problems
Many private schools are religious, and a voucher system would provide governmental support of a religious group, however, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that a voucher program would be constitutional even if it supports religious schools because the choice to use a private school is made by the parents, and the purpose is secular.

In the Netherlands, they have a program similar to the voucher program, and recently Islamic schools have been opening and becoming a political issue that would almost certainly become a greater issue in the United States.

Initiating the school voucher program could cause an exodus from public schools and cause them to fail.  A possible solution is for vouchers to only remove part of the funding that a public school receives, and require that parents make up the difference to send their children to a private school.  Private schools would only want to enroll students that would be able to educate students at the least cost to the school.  Children from lessor schools that would like to go to a better school would be less educated than their peers, and would require additional education and cost from the private school, and would make them a less likely candidate for enrollment.  Schools may have testing programs to keep out children like this.  Special needs children may also be left behind unless additional funding is provided for these children.

Additional regulations to force private schools to enroll a wider spectrum of children could possibly bring the trappings of the public school system.

Political support
Milton Friedman, a libertarian, supports vouchers without any regulation.

Conservatives support.

The National Education Association (NEA), a U.S. teachers union and the largest labor union in the country, "(U.S.) Voters, for the last 30 years, have rejected vouchers every time they've been proposed".


Estate Tax

Opposes estate tax, calling the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses".

Homosexuals

He opposes marriage by homosexuals, but not unions.  He has stated that he was glad to see Bush's position on civil unions for homosexual partners which would allow for many of the same benefits and rights that occur in marriage, such as property rights.

When pushed on whether or not marriage is a human right or civil right, his position is unclear.



Energy


Washington Monthly: Obama's energy plan

The federal government would pay 10 percent of the $6.7 billion in annual health costs for retirees that are weighing down General Motors, Ford and Chrysler if they'll commit to building more fuel-efficient cars, Obama proposed in a speech Tuesday before a panel at the National Governors Association conference. He called it a "win-win proposal for the industry."

A quick hop over to Obama's website provides a transcript of his speech, and apparently the answer is that he proposes to "raise fuel economy standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in 2008." At a guess, that means he's proposing to increase CAFE standards from the current 27.5 mpg to 40 mpg by 2023. That's a very cautious proposal, but at least it's a proposal — although I'd like to know whether his legislation adds SUVs to the CAFE regime too. I'd also be curious to know what he thinks of tradable fuel economy credits, which strike me as an intriguing idea.

Obama's plan also includes a new focus on biofuels, primarily cellulosic ethanol. His plan has five components:

  • Ramp up new fuel standards that will result in production of 65 billion gallons of alternative fuels per year by 2025.

  • Mandate that the federal government buy only flex fuel vehicles.

  • Within ten years, mandate that every car in America is a flex fuel vehicle. Include a $100 tax credit per vehicle to ease the pain.

  • Put yellow gas caps on all flex fuel vehicles.

  • Provide a $30,000 tax credit to any gas station that installs E85 pumps (i.e., a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).

While paying for the health care may be inline with his belief that health is an "instrinsic human right" and may be a better option that saving the automakers from bankruptcy, without provisions for preventing the accounting problems that caused this would permit the wreckless accounting that allowed it to happen in the past to happen again in the future.  It is a kind of tax credit, which is better than simply giving out cash, so it the right type of subsidy if money is going to be provided at all.  Another problem is that this may open up a pandora's box in which the Government would be pressured into paying for 10% of health care for any industry that could make an improvement with the emissions of their products.

The tradable fuel economy credits could be the same type of carbon credits that are being virtually traded at the Chicago Carbon Exchange in expectation that the Government will create a tradable carbon credit program to pressure industry to improve their emissions.

Biofuels and biodiesels would increase energy independence, however, it does not reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that are contributing to global warming.  While it's not neccessarily a bad idea to invest in biodiesels to reduce or eliminate energy imports, another plan needs to be implemented to reduce global warming.

In another article, he points out that China and Japan have more economical cars than us, however, they also have much smaller cars that cannot pass the crash tests in America.  Smaller cars are inherently more aerodynamic, so they use much less fuel at highway speeds, and their lighter weight also allows them to use less fuel in city traffic.


Antiwar.com: Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War


As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"


He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."