|
1. Healthcare Reform
Remember in March when the candidates attended the SEIU Healthcare forum in Nevada? According to some observers, Senator Obama stumbled a bit. He seemed overwhelmed and unprepared in his presentation. In response to questioners' demand for more specifics, Senator Obama pleaded sensibly for more time. He spoke in principles in lieu of a plan: "Number one, we are going to have to make sure that everyone is in." Well, when Senator Obama released his plan, he did not make sure that everyone was in.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton, who at the time of the forum, had not released a detailed plan, so few at the event were looking to Senator Clinton for details, as her public record was so well-known, and her policy commitments so lengthily expressed. Now released, Senator Clinton's healthcare reform plan makes sure that everyone is covered and she provides the mechanisms to address the affordability issue for individuals and small businesses.
Senator Obama's healthcare proposal clearly fails the universality test. At least 15 million Americans will not be covered by his plan.
Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark. If people aren't required by law to buy insurance, many won't. There are millions of children, for instance, who remain uninsured, even though they qualify for free or subsidized government programs.
Senator Obama argues affordability should come first before universality. But his argument doesn't hold up.
Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all.
Both plans cost the same. But Senator Obama attempts to lower the cost of insurance overall through a reinsurance plan, whereby the federal government would cover some expenses of some of the most costly patients. That initiative will cost tens of billions of dollars. While it may help lower premiums across the board, there will be less money available for direct subsidies.
The reason almost all of the progressive health reform community supports an individual mandate found in Senator Clinton's health reform plan and not in Senator Obama's plan is that it is crucial to reforming the insurance industry. You have to do something to solve the selection problems that are screwing up the system. You create a mandate so everyone will have coverage. The insurers then cannot risk select the healthiest applicants and the applicants cannot game the system by waiting to buy coverage when they need it.
Ezra Klein, a nationally noted blogger and an acknowledged health care reform expert, states it succinctly:
It's worth noting that the need for universality -- either through an employer mandate, a government mandate, or an individual one -- wasn't a controversial point among liberals until Obama brought out a plan without a mandate of any sort. Indeed, his plan is, in some ways, the worst of both worlds: It eschews single payer and its close relatives for the more moderate, less expansive, less disruptive structural design that mandates were created to complete, but also doesn't have a mandate. So the mechanism for building on and reforming the system is broken, but he doesn't construct something new to replace it.
2. Energy / Environment
David Roberts of the blog Grist has a great summary of all the candidates' positions regarding energy and climate change issues. The Clinton and Obama's proposals received very complimentary remarks.
The review says that Clinton's plan was "one of the most comprehensive and well researched energy plans of the campaign season" and "in typical Clinton fashion with all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed." The two biggest areas of focus in her plan are efficiency and investment.
Senator Obama's plan is described as "thoughtful, detailed, expansive and ambitious." "If the white paper accurately reflects Obama's head and heart, he's in the (now crowded) top tier of this issue, along with Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Clinton."
It is great that both the candidates have first class plans for the future in the areas of energy and climate control, but you really have to look to the candidates' voting records to understand the real difference between the two in this area.
In the first place, Senator Obama voted for the 2005 Bush pork-riddled, Earth-hating Energy Bill while Senator Clinton joined 26 other Senators in voting against it.
That bill was widely criticized at the time as a boondoggle to the oil and ethanol industries. This article in Salon highlighted the disappointment many environmentalists felt about Senator Obama's support for the legislation:
Harder for progressives and enviros to swallow was the support it got from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who expressed disappointment that the bill wasn't more bold but still went so far as to call the legislation "a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil." It could more credibly be described as yet another step toward subsidizing Illinois corn farmers for ethanol production that will be of dubious environmental benefit.
Senator Obama has also been a leading advocate for liquefied coal. Earlier this year, Senator Obama joined with Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning to introduce the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007." Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology uses a highly energy-intensive process to convert coal into diesel fuel for cars or jet fuel for airplanes -- an appealing prospect to the coal industry in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, but not to environmentalists and others concerned about global warming.
Frank O'Donnell, president of the D.C.-based nonprofit group Clean Air Watch. "It's not the best use of the coal and it's one that's almost certain to exacerbate the global warming problem." Obama's advocacy of coal liquefaction, he said, might have to do with his getting "hammered" by Illinois coal interests.
Senator Obama may be a climate crusader, but in this case he is marching in the wrong direction.
Senator Obama is responding to the criticism by stressing the national-security advantages of using homegrown coal to power the nation's transportation sector, and talking hopefully about the possibility of making the technology greener. Environmental activists are not so optimistic.
Problem is, none of the current CTL (coal to liquid) projects actually involve carbon capture. Without that step, the climate impacts of CTL fuel are far worse than those of gasoline. According to an NRDC analysis, a 35-mpg car powered by the CTL fuel that's currently available would generate as much carbon dioxide pollution as a far less efficient 19-mpg car that runs on conventional gasoline.
3. Social Security
Senator Obama has already completely bought into the Republican frame on social security. He has called it a system in crisis when it isn't. Of course, the Republican intent is to kill the program, while supposedly Senator Obama's intent is to save it. Senator Obama has already proposed increasing the amount of income that is taxed as a way of solving the "crisis."
Senator Obama argues that Senator Clinton "is not willing to say" how she would address the long-term challenges of Social Security:
You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her.
In fact she has. Here is an excerpt from an October 9 speech by Senator Clinton:
Don't you believe all these people running around crying wolf about Social Security. That is exactly what they're doing. They're trying to get people confused and upset and agree to a bad deal.
When I am president, we'll have our priorities in order. We will return to fiscal responsibility and fair tax policies first, and then we will address the long-term challenges facing Social Security.
When my husband left office, because we had a balanced budget and a surplus, there was a plan in place to extend the solvency of Social Security until 2055. That gives us plenty of time to figure out what else we need to do.
Once the country is on the path to fiscal responsibility, Senator Clinton will create a bi-partisan commission to meet the challenge, an approach that has worked before:
"But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."
Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says she has exactly the right approach. From his appearance October 28 on ABC This Week:
KRUGMAN: Yeah, Social Security, if you go through the federal government, piece-by-piece, and ask which programs are seriously under-funded and which are close to being completely funded, Social Security is one of the best. It's not even for certain that Social Security has a problem. Why on earth - and, of course, it's something that the right has always wanted to kill, not because it doesn't work, but because it does. And for Obama to go after this program, at this time, you just have to wonder. All of my progressive friends are saying what on Earth is going through his mind to raise this issue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think basically the Hillary Clinton position, which we take care of it by fiscal responsibility, and basically it'll take care of itself, we can look at some small fixes is the right one?
KRUGMAN: Yeah. She is.
Funny thing, Senator Obama suggested the same solution, a bi-partisan commission, for social security not too long ago. Here are Senator Obama's comments on May 14, 2007:
Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.
Last year, Senator Obama published The Audacity of Hope, a superbly written compilation of his political views. Here is what he wrote in that book concerning Social Security:
(page 182): The problems with the Social Security trust fund are real but manageable. In 1983, when facing a similar problem, Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill got together and shaped a bipartisan plan that established the system for the next sixty years. There's no reason we can't do the same today.
In that passage in his book and with his comments in May this year, Senator Obama seems to be proposing what Senator Clinton is proposing now and for what he is criticizing her. What has gotten less attention is that Senator Obama seems to have changed his mind on how to approach the issue of social security solvency and how his proposal to raise taxes on income is way too premature.
4. Bonus issue - Reproductive Rights
No one is arguing that Senator Obama is anti-reproductive rights. Yet, he has a strange way of showing his support on the issue. While a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted "present" on key legislation dealing with abortion rights. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no").
This article outlines Senator Obama's voting record in the Illinois state senate and his propensity to vote "present" on controversial legislation.
For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion.
In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."
In response to the criticism of his voting "present," Senator Obama has argued that at the time he was merely providing cover to other Democrats who were shaky on the issue and who were considering voting "yes" on the legislation.
Bonnie Grabenhofer, the President of Illinois NOW, an organization that has endorsed Senator Clinton, feels otherwise.
"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer, criticizing him for voting 'present' on many key votes. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."
Senator Clinton has an exceptional record in this area and it is one of the reasons why the national organizations of NOW and Emily's List are strongly supporting her candidacy, including contributing money and bodies on the ground in Iowa.
Here are the endorsement press releases for NOW and Emily's List.
Read more about Senator Clinton's thirty-five year strong record of supporting reproductive rights here.
|
