Foreign Policy's website recently released a web-exclusive article listing Barack Obama's top 10 worst ideas. Take a look.
For the uninformed, Foreign Policy is a bimonthly magazine which mainly focuses on global politics and economics. It is actually one of the more respected publications out there and has an enviable reputation in many countries. This time, however, like the characteristic title of one of their sections, they might really need to think again about their accusations.
Well, here is the list: (And my responses)
#2: Opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
What he said: “And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.” —Speech to Philadelphia AFL-CIO, April 2, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: Although Obama citied antilabor violence, the murder rate for union members in Colombia last year was 4 per 100,000, well below the rate for the general population. The deal carries little to no cost for the United States; economists actually predict modest increases in U.S. exports. The upshot for an important ally in the war on drugs, however, is high, and consolidating Colombia’s commitment to open trade with the United States is a worthy goal.
#2: Wrong . Murder rates are, at best, a very limited reflection of Colombia's violence against unions. Most violent acts are understandably non-lethal and focuses heavily on intimidation - it makes no sense to kill your own workers.
Obama's stand also isn't based on economics, so pointing out the economic justifications really proves nothing. The phrase Obama used was "...would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted..." - it's a moral standpoint. By allowing violence against unions despite specifically agreeing not to, Columbia is showing signs that it isn't going to abide by agreements made with the US. Turning a blind eye will only exacerbate the very real issues of abuse and may also weaken US influence.
#3: Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan
What he said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” —Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007
Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging in military strikes in Pakistan happens to be established policy. But, as none other than Joe Biden pointed out last August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.”
#3: Arguable. It's an open secret that the US uses unmanned aircraft to bomb terrorist targets in Pakistan. However, by making the statement, Obama makes clear his stance on the War on Terror and silences critics who often accuse him of being soft on terrorists. While slightly ambitious, Obama is offering to Americans the ideal solution to terrorism: Bring home the troops, but continue shooting from afar.
#4: Sitting Down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
What he said: Asked if he’d be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” Obama replied: “I would.”—Democratic primary debate, Charleston, S.C., July 23, 2007
Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging rogue states can be a savvy move, and even the Bush administration has negotiated with Pyongyang and sent envoys to meetings with Iran. But sitting down with heads of state without precondition? That’s another thing entirely, especially when it comes to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Carnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour told the Wall Street Journal, “Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage.” No wonder Obama’s foreign-policy team has walked back its candidate’s off-the-cuff remarks.
#5: Pushing the Patriot Employer Act
What he said: “When I am president … I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate—we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America.”—Speech in Janesville, Wis., Feb. 13, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: British economists Willem Buiter and Anne Sibert slam the bill as, “reactionary, populist, xenophobic and just plain silly.” That’s a bit much. A little populist pandering is hardly a threat to the global economic order—the bill offers employers a small tax credit if they meet six conditions, including the probably unworkable provision that they keep their headquarters in the United States. It’s never smart economic policy to reward companies for placing limitations on their own profitable activities, but as The Economist put it, “Obama deserves a slap on the wrist” for this one, not a full-throated indictment.
#5: Wrong again. Once again, Obama's focus isn't on economics. And while economical protectionism might be flawed from an international viewpoint, by doing so Obama will keep domestic jobs available and temporarily surpress the unemployment rate. Significantly, by placing more restrictions on companies outsourcing jobs overseas, he ensures that the average middle-income family has a higher chance of surviving through the current recession. Xenophobic perhaps, but well-intentioned.
#7: Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors
What he said: “I’ll make retirement more secure for America’s seniors by eliminating income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year.” —Speech on Nov. 7, 2007, in Bettendorf, Iowa
Why it’s a bad idea: Most seniors already pay no income taxes. That’s because they already get preferential treatment in the tax code. Plus, why are seniors more deserving of tax relief than struggling young families? The Tax Policy Center—run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute—criticized the idea in a recent report, saying that because government spending on seniors is already set to balloon due to retiring baby boomers, “it seems inappropriate to target special income tax breaks to this group.”
#7: Don't twist the facts. It is precisely because of the growing number of retirees that this bill will be especially important. And while government spending will rise, it won't be unjustified either: Soaring inflation rates means that retirees living on savings or fixed pensions are going to experience very real drops in the value of their money. To further complicate the issue, seniors will also probably lack the capacity to find proper jobs again due to age or health problems. If anything, such a policy will only serve to protect yet another needy portion of society and further increase Obama's popularity.
#8: Boosting Ethanol Subsidies
What he said: “[Ethanol] ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” —Statement at the opening of a VeraSun Energy ethanol processing plant in Charles City, Iowa, August 2007
Why it’s a bad idea: As economist Paul Krugman has written, corn-based ethanol is “bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet—what’s not to love?” World Bank economist Daniel Mitchell blames biofuels, including ethanol, for a 75 percent increase in global food prices since 2002 that has led to economic distress and rioting in such countries as Haiti, Egypt, and Somalia. There’s also little evidence that they do much to prevent global warming. A recent study published in Sciencedemonstrated that the farmland needed to grow corn for ethanol results in deforestation on a massive scale, negating any benefit the reduction in carbon emissions might have. So why does the senator support such a wasteful and damaging subsidy, even voting for the recent farm bill’s billions in pork for ethanol producers? “[B]ecause Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said in April. At least he’s honest.
#8: Too early to say. There certainly can be no denial that the growing trend of using ethanol as an alternative fuel has led to global food shortages and soaring prices. But while that may be true, it's presumptious to attempt blaming international conflicts on it: Gang violence in Haiti was already ubiquitous and Somalia is also certainly no stranger to ethnic cleansing.
On the issue of climate change, there actually IS scientific evidence that ethanol prevents global warming: Global warming is caused by CO2. Fossil fuels give off CO2. Ethanol... doesn't. Simple.
There is, however, no real statistical evidence of ethanol preventing global warming because it still barely makes up 10% of global fuels which, in this context, is far too negliable. And while deforestation is undeniably bad for the environment, it is also a one-time-off event which will ultimately pay off in the long run.
* * *
Was the Foreign Policy team grasping at straws when they wanted to make an Anti-Obama top 10 list? Perhaps. I have tried to point out the multiple flaws in the list, but in the end it's really up to you to decide in November who's right and who's wrong.
John Mccain's top 10 list is next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment