Change You Can Believe In

The economy is weak because of inflation and the ever-growing national debt. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drain money and blood from Americans. As President-elect Barack Obama delivered his election night victory speech, reiterating a campaign message of "change you can believe in," the television showed close-ups of many in an audience filled with true believers in the Eric Hoffer-sense.

What kind of change should we expect?

Both Obama and McCain voted for the October $700 billion bailout of investment bankers. Obama's chief of staff-to-be, Rahm Emanuel, also supported the bailout bill, was on the board of directors for Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, supported the Iraq invasion, and advocates mandatory government service for American youths. Early in his campaign, Obama solicited advice from Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae fame.

Obama's Vice President, Joe Biden, has been in the US Senate for 36 years. He also voted "yea" for the $700 billion bailout for the wealthy.

Obama favors increasing U.S. military forces in Afghanistan; McCain favored the increase of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Both McCain and Obama advocate control of Iranian access to nuclear weapons. Mark Brzezinski was a campaign foreign policy advisor of Barack Obama and is the son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a founder of the Trilateral Commission and architect of the Carter era policy of funding the mujahadeen of Afghanistan that started the latest blowback mess in America. The foreign policy advisor to John McCain was Mark's brother, Ian Brzezinski.

In their pamphlet, Blueprint for Change, Obama and Biden give more details of the change we can expect:

• On page 9: a $1000 emergency energy rebate to help pay energy bills. This rebate is different from rebates offered by businesses--the US government would take it from oil companies and give it to families.
• On pages 17-21: "shine the light on Federal lobbying and free the Executive branch from special interest influence." Page 21 states that "Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees" which is casuistry at best.
• On page 25: guarantee affordable health coverage for every American. Guarantees paid for by whom?
• On page 34: help states move to voluntary, universal pre-school. Paid for voluntarily by whom?
• On page 37: "Obama and Biden will reduce oil consumption so that we will eliminate our current imports from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela within 10 years." Either Obama and Biden use a lot of oil themselves and plan on cutting back, or they are planning on telling others how much oil they can use.
• On page 49: "Obama and Biden will tackle diseases and illnesses that disproportionately affect women." Perhaps only equal opportunity diseases are allowed, or diseases that disproportionately affect men?
• On pages 55-57: increase the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2009 and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC is an income redistribution scheme. Politicians who advocate increasing the minimum wage are apparently unaware that it causes unemployment. This would seem to work against the new administration when they strive to "tackle concentrated poverty" as planned on page 57.
• On page 65: end deceptive voting practices. This "establishes harsh penalties for for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote." I predict that neither Obama or Biden will ever be prosecuted under this proposed legislation.
• On pages 67-69: plans (in Orwellian doublespeak) to keep a residual military force in Iraq and also remove troops by the summer of 2010. "Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began." Does this sound similar to the Vietnamization program of the Nixon administration? The repeated use of the word "would" means it isn't a definite withdrawal plan and leaves plenty of wiggle room for the new administration.
  
• On page 71: refocus the military on fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since the military is fighting in Afghanistan now, this would be an escalation. Moving into Pakistan would be a new front--like Laos or Cambodia in the Vietnam era.
• On page 75: continue foreign aid to Israel. Business as usual?

Was the change from the frying pan into the fire?