As you've probably figured out by now, I'm pretty biased to the left and there is hardly any love for me to lose for the Republicans. I've supported Senator Obama since the early primary season for president and continue to do so through election day. However, I have some disagreements with two of Obama's policies which I find troubling.
The first, and foremost, is the protection of the free market economy. Although that sentence used "protection" and "free market" in the span of a few words, it actually makes sense. Senator Obama, and McCain for that matter, have both spit the words of populism from the pulpit this entire election season. Its all about the middle class, protecting domestic jobs, and doing what is best for main street. Its one way of getting elected, but not the method of governance that I'd agree with.
With respect to the markets, I'm very confident that an Obama presidency will not create protectionist barriers on its own accord. If the rest of the world, reeling from the global financial crisis, were to engage in protectionism, he may have no choice but to do so as well. However, many developing nations and the EU make a living off the globalized economy and wouldn't dare think about protecting domestic markets at the cost of export sales. The only economic policy I worry about from the Obama administration is providing tax incentives to keep jobs in the United States. In other words, create a tax penalty for outsourcing jobs.
Outsourcing gets a bad name around these parts because we view it as stealing domestic jobs. However, what we don't see is the decrease in prices that outsourcing brings to the consumer. Now, I'm no proponent of trickle down, but when a company finds cheaper labor, they will reduce prices and still make a hefty profit. This is fact. Every industry that has outsourced its product has seen a fall in real prices over the past 8 years. Those that are forced to remain domestic (college tuition, movie tickets, etc.) have gone up in real cost. If we are to advance as an economy we must create jobs that former laborers could perform and high tech jobs that pay better wages.
Senator Obama is completely correct in asserting that government needs to take a role in job creation over the next few years. With recession looming large, it is imperative to run a small budget deficit to institute Keynsian adjustments. The private industry isn't going to fix roads, build schools, or redesign the power grid to send renewable power to population centers. Infrastructure and education have always been charges of the state. The government needs to start programs that rebuild roads and the power grid. These require the type of skills that former auto and factory workers have. We can employ the currently unemployed.
As we provide jobs for the industrial generation that preceded us, we should also foster the service industry that follows. The government needs to take a better role in educating the youth of this country. Senator Obama has placed education at the forefront of his political agenda. He plans to invest in early childhood education so that no child enters elementary schools with deficient skills. He wants to give teachers better pay and hold them to higher standards. This is all very good but Senator Obama also prescribes to the culture of poverty. This is something that needs to fundamentally change in our country's view of education.
The culture of poverty states that people from low income backgrounds don't care about education because there is no value placed on it. Parents don't care because they fail to show up to conferences and students don't care because parents don't show an interest. As a result, teachers stop caring about the educational welfare of their students because they feel helpless. Why should I try to teach these kids when they come to class already not caring? The culture of poverty has been proven as a statistical myth.
Senator Obama wants to be paternalistic and impress upon the families of poor students the value of education. Although this is estimable, it isn't very practical. Most of the time parents in low income neighborhoods don't go to conferences or "don't show interest" in their kid's education because they just don't have the time. These people are usually single parents who work multiple jobs in order to make a living wage. They cannot risk getting fired to attend school functions because the jobs they have are in demand in their neighborhood. If they miss work, there is always someone else to take their spot. The just cannot afford to care.
The government should place stricter guidelines on teachers to meet so that they simply don't give up on teaching children. When low income students are asked what their biggest gripe about school is, they overwhelmingly say that they aren't challenged enough . The teachers just don't teach them anything worth learning. When the teachers take that away, then there is no point in coming to school anymore. If the students think they are wasting 8 hours of their day at school, then they simply won't show up and can end up on the street or in jail. So unless we can enact some sort of overarching socioeconomic reform, the government needs to focus more on teaching and less on values.
No comments:
Post a Comment