Friday, February 22, 2008

What I Discovered About Obama's Talk of Change

I went online and took a look at Obama’s “Blueprint for Change” just to see if he actually said or offered anything that was original. The answer is actually NO! His so-called Blueprint for Change is just more of the same old Democrat garble that we have heard for the past umpteen years, with a bit of the more recent rhetoric on Iraq thrown in. His talk about changing Social Security as the same as the Democrats have put forth for the past 12 years — raise taxes. At first, Obama had said that all options were on the table when it came to Social Security, but it seems that when pushed on the subject, he starts taking the options off the table and leaving only the TAX INCREASE as the way to solve the Social Security problems.

George Stephanopolous stated in a recent conversation*: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?

Obama: Everything should be on the table.

Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?

Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.

UH OH, what happened to EVERYTHING is on the table?

So let’s see what is left on the table. Raising the retirement age and raising payroll taxes! The Democrats have been saying that for years. Hillary puts forth the same thing until she is cornered, and then she seems to take the same road as Obama.

After Hillary did her “rope a dope” dance with the same questions, it seems that Obama has changed his plan slightly. He got there by the simple process of elimination, as he learned that, in Democratic politics, there are some things one cannot even think about (partial privatization) and others that, on reflection, one should not consider during a campaign (benefit reductions).

That left Obama with only one option — the oldest idea in the Democrat book — even though he started his "new politics" campaign last year with his position that "everything should be on the table." So I have to ask … What is different, and where is the change? I see nothing different and certainly no change in the Democrat position on SS for the past quarter century.

On Iraq: He'll bring all our combat brigades home from Iraq in 16 months. The Democrats have been saying this, or something similar, for the past four years and, to date, nothing has happened. Obama, of course, can say that he never voted for the war and be truthful about it, rather than, as with John Kerry, he was against it before he was for it, and now he is against it. I give him that much at least! But what is he really saying about how he will do it? So far he’s said: There will be no permanent bases in Iraq. But, again, that is no more than what other Democrats have been saying they would do. Does he really mean it, or does he have a hedge? If al Qaeda "attempts to build a base in Iraq," he will use U.S. troops for "targeted strikes" on al Qaeda. SAY WHAT! I thought he was going to take all troops out, since he was against the war in the first place, come hell or high water? Sounds like typical Washington political posturing to me, and all good politicians always leave themselves a loophole through which they can wiggle should their plan fall apart. So, again, I have to ask … What is new or different, and where is the change?

Obama proposes universal health insurance to cover those presently uninsured. What is new with this, and how is he going to pay for it? I read the details, and from what I have read, he really doesn’t have a firm plan but seems to be attempting to copy the Romney Plan, except when it comes to how it will be paid for. Unfortunately, Romney won’t be able to introduce his plan since the far right wing has decided that being a Mormon is unacceptable and, thus, caused the early demise of any hope the GOP may have had to defeat whoever the Democrat candidate may be in November.

On education, Obama proposes a Zero to Five program of learning and care for children and families, adds funding to No Child Left Behind, and makes college more affordable. He doesn’t say how he will pay for this, especially in the light of his proposed tax cuts for the lower and so-called middle class. Nothing really new in the Zero to Five program, since it seems to be a warmed over version of the pre-school program under the Great Society of LBJ. Throwing more money at the NCLB, which has done more to dumb down the American education system than any other tried and failed program ever attempted. Making college more affordable for whom? There are grants and scholarships for those who are willing to apply for them and ways for anyone to go to college who really has the ability to go and the desire to do so. Short of freezing tuition or just giving anyone who wants to give college a shot a wad of money to waste, I don’t see anything really new in this program either. So, once again, I have to ask … What is new, what is different, and where is the change?

It seems that Obama is no different from most of what we already have in Washington and certainly no different from any Democrat that we have seen running for office since the ‘70s. He’s good at speechifying, but otherwise, I am afraid he is no more than an empty suit, filling empty heads with empty promises that will bring about, for the most part, empty pocketbooks, as we will once again be robbed to pay for programs for those who are not willing to put forth even a pittance of their share. The only change we will see is that little bit of change we now have left over flying out of our pockets.

*Stephanopolous and Obama conversation courtesy of “American Thinker.”

No comments: