My Vote

I keep politics largely off of my blog and will likely continue to do so after this. But Tuesday, our country makes an important decision, one with serious implications and consequence. I am sharing my views with you not to sway you or tell you you're wrong if your decision has already been made and you don’t agree with me. In fact, I'm happy to hear comments and opinions of the matter, I just ask that we keep it a civil, healthy debate. But I decided I do want my children to know how I felt about these decisions and this election and in so doing, I am sharing them with you…

This Tuesday this country will make a decision and the world will hear our voice. Our voice will indicate whether we embrace the concepts of Socialism and take the largest step toward a Socialist society this country has ever seen. Or it will indicate that we choose our Capitalist society and try to reform what may be broken. As far as I'm concerned, this is the most important election of my time and my vote will be heard. As for me, I chose Capitalism, freedom, individualism.

I think Obama has some good points and says things quite eloquently. He is a wonderful public speaker and I've actually sought out and read or listened to word-for-word, many of his speeches. He has a way of moving people and speaking to people that is a rare gift. I think he may go down as one of the best public speakers in history. But once I begin to dissect his speeches, I find things that I don't agree with. There are some things that downright frighten me. Don't get me wrong, I think his heart is in the right place and he has good intentions and I agree with many of the issues he brings up. I just don't agree to his solutions.

At the heart of Obama's plan is a "spread the wealth" campaign which promises to offer affordable health care, education through college for everyone, require automatic workplace pensions, provide cheaper drugs, and lots of other social and welfare type programs that really do sound like a great idea. Here's the problem, how they are funded:

Obama wants to increase taxes for the "upper" class (this definition seems to be a moving target- was once $250K but the number is going down). The top 2% of the country's income earners already pay 90% of all of the taxes. Is it really fair to continue to impose more tax and on those that have worked hard and been successful and punish them for getting to that position?

He wants to reinstate the estate tax. This means that if your parents pass away, 55% of the money they would have passed on to you will instead go to other people you've never seen nor heard of. When I die, I promise you, I would much rather my money go to my children so I can ensure they are taken care of, rather than to have it go towards contraceptive education or some other program I don’t care about or support. If we take care of our families first, maybe they won't have to rely so heavily on government programs.

He is putting the burden on corporations to foot part of the bill. Many corporations are already feeling a hit during a time of recession (let's not argue whether or not there is one, the economy is definitely not great now). Many people are finding themselves victim of pink slips as companies just can't find profitability. Obama plans to pile on to that strain by requiring companies to fund even more money towards healthcare, more money for leave of absences, and offering pensions where they previously didn't have one. Here's the deal. If I don't like my benefits and what I'm being offered, I can go somewhere else. That is part of a free market. That is part of competition. If companies want to attract and retain the best and brightest, they will offer these benefits. If we force businesses to provide all of these great programs, here’s the ugly side effect, even more pink slips or lower salaries. I’d personally rather have more money and let the decision on where to spend it reside with me.

When it comes to welfare programs, there seems to be no end to the outreach of what the government should provide in Obama's mind. Don't get me wrong, I think there are people in this society that need to be taken care of and given a hand. But there are far too many that put themselves in that category because they have a sense of entitlement or just plain don't want to work. Surely we don't want to continue to perpetuate and even increase a society of people who are lazy and want to be taken care of?

In my opinion, we should continue to allow the private sector and places like churches to provide these welfare programs, not the government. And they should be a limited time during a rough period, not a lifetime sustainment. Programs that teach job skills, interview skills, provide clothing and residence to get established are all well and good. But of you've been given these things and two years later you've still gotten nowhere, one has to start to believe the problem is your lack of will and desire rather than opportunity. Then the programs need to start to be cut for that person. Obama has stated that he would want to model Marian Wright Edelman's prioritization in welfare programs. Funny thing is, even she believes that these programs should be privately funded and has largely dedicated her life to the collection and distribution of private funds for these types of programs.

The fact is, Obama's plan nurtures the lazy and punishes the hard working. That certainly isn't the intention, but a nasty side effect. Just look at our own Pilgrims. They started out in a Socialized society. Everyone pitched in and shared what they earned or grew. Their first Thanksgiving wasn't the pretty picture we paint it to be in the kids school plays each year on Turkey day. They nearly starved to death. In fact, many did. But when they decided to give everyone their own little plot of land to tend to and own and when they told them keep what you grow and trade your excess, they flourished.

If there is any question we would raise a generation of children feeling entitlement (some say we are already there-- just wait), just look at France's problems two years ago. Chirac signed a bill intended to help them be more capitalist and to compete in a global society. The bill gave a one year trial period to anyone under the age of 26 and allowed an employer to fire him/her within that year provided they provide reason. Sounds reasonable, right? That's no different than most right to work states. Well, France's youth didn't think it was so reasonable. That labor law resulted in strikes, riots, cars being upturned and set on fire, businesses being pillaged. All for the sake of stating that the country was removing protections entitled to them that had been in place for generations. Is this really where we want to be headed?

Obama also staunchly supports anti-discrimination laws. I understand the intent. I too want everyone to be treated fairly. However, does anyone not understand that by enforcing anti-discrimination laws you are ironically causing discrimination? An employer should be able to hire the best person for the job regardless of the color of their skin, what their sex is, or who they have sex with. Conversely, they should be able to fire anyone regardless of the color of their skin, what their sex is, or who they have sex with. Anti-discrimination laws lend themselves to preventing companies or schools from choosing the overall best and brightest and prevent them from losing those that are not up to standards. This creates a myriad of problems from decreased productivity and efficiency and increased costs.

I also oppose Obama’s plan for reducing costs for medicine. He wants to force pharmaceutical companies to cap their costs and provide more affordable medicine for everyone. Sure, they could do that easily. The actual cost of the pill is usually pennies, if that. But again, there’s nasty side effects. For starters, that means companies would have far fewer dollars for research. This means fewer new drugs being available and smaller hopes for finding cures to diseases that continue to elude us. We would also force their hand in removing many of the programs they already offer to the poor and third world countries. We would see a huge decline in worldwide vaccinations and increase in disease. This just adds more risk to us as we continue to be a global society and travel to these places.

I could go on and on and talk about gun control, Social Security, the war in Iraq, Foreign Policy, and Homeland Security, but I’ve already written a novel and I think you’ve gotten where I’m going with these things. In the end, my biggest concern is not for me, it is for my children and my children’s children. I don't want to leave my grandchildren holding the bill for my retirement and standard of living because I failed to plan for it. Obama is creating a plan that is not sustainable long term. If you look at many European countries, with each passing generation they amass more debt and tax to continue to sustain their lofty programs. Some countries are already turning more towards Capitalism and away from Socialism because it just doesn’t work in a pluralistic society long term.

Obama wants to eliminate the poor altogether. It’s a good goal to have, as is world peace, but does the end justify the means? Will these means even get us to that end? I don’t think so. I think Obama is too much an idealist and not enough realist. He’s got a good heart and good intentions, but ill directed solutions that will impact generations to come.

John McCain, President
Sarah Palin Vice, President
November 4, 2008