|
|
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."
|
|