To What (not whom) I Vote For
26 September, 2008 @ 1:09 pmFactoid | No comments so far
The election season often clouds over important issues as politicians must spend considerable time and money attacking one another. The vast majority of this empty rhetoric is unfortunately tied to dollars received through contribution and not necessarily sound policy and forward thinking for our country. Therefore, it has now become our responsibility as voters to make this distinction for our politicians and vote accordingly.
It is my belief that there is no more an important issue for Americans in this election than the growth of the economy. The stymied growth of the U.S. economy has become a catalyst for a number of other problems we face such as health care coverage, education reform, social security, and housing. We are currently in a position where the lack of savings coupled with overspending have created an accelerating problem evidenced by both the housing and credit crisis. Governments, presidents, agencies, companies, politicians, lobbyists, Democrats, Republicans, and Americans; we are all to blame. The question now becomes what do we do? Do we sit passive as politicians harp on the foreshadowed obvious? Or instead should we shift our attention to what needs to be accomplished?
The answer I believe is growth without bust. Every economic boom of late appears to hit a growth constraint and falls apart. The Internet boom at the turn of the century while occasionally speculative also hit such a constraint. There were many great business plans such as downloading movies to your home computer, but poor infrastructure and connectivity speeds did not warrant the money needed to bring such companies to fruition. But why was the infrastructure behind the Internet so poor? Oil prices. The global ingredients that make up a computer not only depend on oil for distribution but also in producing many of the plastics and metals for wires and circuitry. If it is too costly for enough computer companies to compete with one another or even enter the market, then technological advances will slow down and sustainable growth will not occur.
The price of oil appears to stunt growth not only in the U.S but all around the globe. Even in a city like Dubai, where growth over the last decade exploded with their ability to pay less for oil, has hit an unexpected barrier as oil dependant companies around the world can’t supply them enough cranes for building development. One could even argue that high oil prices assisted in the recent housing crash in the United States. It is true some unwisely bought into mortgages they could not afford, but as the economy suffered through multiple boom and bust cycles Americans desperately had to rely more on the equity in their homes to pay for health care, automobiles, education, and bills.
The solution for sustainable growth would be an alternative energy boom that will not only create jobs but will act as an accelerant and not a deterrent for the other previously stunted sectors in our economy. Alternative energy reform has begun in the U.S. but there is still a lot to be done before we are completely energy independent. Both government policy and public attitude must align to make this goal possible. Similar to Dubai, we too suffer a similar irony where the development of energy independence is slowed by the oil related costs to produce electric cars, wind farms, and solar panels.
So which candidate will make this happen? Both Barack Obama and John McCain call for energy solutions, but like most politicians there is actual support and the appearance of support. Barack Obama’s energy policies are “goal oriented” whereas John McCain’s policies are merely “hole oriented”. And by “hole oriented” I mean McCain is simply throwing a lot of empty solutions to our oil dependence. For example, McCain calls for a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles. However, there is already great incentive for U.S. companies to develop better batteries, not to mention that $300 million is really not that much money. Obama on the other hand calls for 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. McCain doesn’t share this clear cut of a goal because he understands that he would actually be expected to fulfill it.
The rest of Obama’s goals are to create 5 million new clean energy jobs through a $150 billion investment in the private sector, save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years, and ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2015 and 25% by 2025. In my opinion these are all “real” goals that will move us away from oil dependence.
The rest of McCain’s energy solutions actually appear to continue our dependence on oil. McCain wants to expand domestic oil exploration, but the expansion of drilling won’t produce new oil until 2017, not to mention that gas prices would never go down as a result. It is a fools plan to give the appearance that something will be done in the near term, while simultaneously prolonging oil dependence. Another example of this is McCain’s $5,000 tax credit for Americans who purchase a zero emissions car. It sounds great at first, but what if I told you I would pay you $5,000 today if you bought a flying car? It may sound like I support flying cars (which I do), but it avoids putting money towards the actual technology that produces them. And I think that is the most important thing to understand with McCain and his energy policies. He “supports” energy independence but wants to prolong it as much as possible.
It is my belief that Barack Obama will move the United States away from oil dependence. With cheap and renewable energy, the U.S. will see unprecedented growth in both jobs and the overall economy. It will take many years to correct the damage we have caused over the last few decades, but there is no better time to begin than now. I vote Barack Obama for President.






