Discussing the candidates

This post simply continues my thoughts from the last post. They are presented in reverse order, but I trust that you, my two readers, can figure it out. :)

If I felt that there were reasons to criticize Obama's character, I would. I believe that you cannot predict all the situations that will arise in an office like the presidency, and the character of a leader affects how he or she will respond to certain crises. However, I don't find very much to criticize in Obama's character. As far as politicians go, he seems pretty clean.

Yet I would criticize Obama for his political views. I hear him talking about giving 95% of Americans a tax cut without cutting much government spending. He said in the last debate that people like himself and Warren Buffet should be willing to give a little bit more. Is that what kind of country we want to live in? Where only the very rich contribute generously to the government? If my church were financially supported by only five people, wouldn't those five people have a large say in what is done? And if you are very rich, there is a chance that money is not your main goal--you might be more interested in control & power. Yet even with larger contributions from the very rich, does his plan seem like it will balance the budget? I really believe that fiscal irresponsibility, from Wall Street to ordinary Americans overusing credit cards, have led to the financial mess we are in. Our government needs to cut back, and begin spending responsibly. So do you and I.

He wants to increase the government's responsibility over people's lives. He wants the federal government more involved in education. By and large, I don't agree with federal controls. There is a homeschool group in my town that I cannot join because they do not support parents who choose to place their children in public school. One of my daughters goes to public school; two are schooled at home. When I explain to friends who are members why I cannot join this organization, it pains them--they want to support me as a member of their community. Yet they cannot choose to let me join because the organization is governed by national guidelines. National rules break down community and remove the individual's sense of responsibility. Instead of this local group deciding to change their bylaws, they are faced with a large national platform that they cannot easily dialogue with, so they are left helpless.

I disagree with Obama because he leans towards socialism. I think his motives are good, and I like a few of his ideas. I am watching his campaign closely because if he becomes president, there is some legislation he will advocate that I want my representatives to oppose. With a Democratically controlled legislative branch, however, there may be little we can do to stop these policies from becoming law. Such is majority rule.

As for McCain, I agree that he often has a rather painful public presentation. (Obama looks so presidential.) But do presentation skills always coincide with leadership skills? I was impressed in the final debate when Bob Schieffer asked McCain specifically, what government spending would you cut, and he began rattling off item after item. We know McCain--he has served intelligently and faithfully in the Senate for decades. His plan to veto any bill that comes across his desk with pork built in, to name names & stop this practice, is the first plan of action (not just policy) that has excited me in a presidential candidate since the Reagan era. And I think McCain is gutsy enough to do it. This action would be political suicide, unless Americans rallied around him and said thank you for finally controlling the run-away government. I wonder if we would? Do we want a responsible, limited government, or do we the people just want to be taken care of by a large parent?

Almost every politician I have ever heard is willing to have the government come to your aid if you clamber for it. Politicians are elected by making us, the constituents, happy, and the place you see this at work the most is in the tax code. Today's "tax break for small business" that gets someone re-elected becomes tomorrow's "loophole for big business" or "tax break for the very wealthy." They spend all their time playing around with very complex tax law to manipulate us so that they (and a few savvy people and organizations) benefit--sometimes financially, but also in terms of power. Power is addictive, and the founding fathers wanted to limit its intake by those who wielded it. We have moved very far from the limited government our constitution intended us to have.

No one proposes what I would like to see: a flat income tax. Let every American pay 2%, from the wealthiest to the poorest. You get a postcard in March showing the amount you owe; you pay it. Everyone has ownership in the government, so that the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy are concerned with how our money is spent. We the constituents are diligent, instead of demanding. We are not manipulated by the language of class warfare that is so often tossed about in campaigns because we all play a part. Think of the government savings we could net by cutting down the IRS. That reduction alone might create a skyrocketing unemployment, until we could find some way for these former government employees to support their families.