I think Obama’s policies likely will be different from those of Bush and I think we have a good idea what Obama’s presidential policies will be if elected. If you examine Obama's voting record in the Senate you find he is one of the most liberal in that legislative body. I’m sure Obama would nominate liberal judges cut from the same cloth as Ruth Bader Ginsberg who would legislate a leftist agenda from the bench.  I’m sure Obama would increase federal spending even faster than W did regardless of the fiscal consequences. I’m sure Obama would open a dialogue with the madman from Tehran, Ahmadinejad, who would be all too happy to get favorable world press by talking with the President of the United States, all the while making his nuclear bombs and laughing at the gullibility of the west. I’m sure Obama would take drastic action against the right to keep and bear arms, perhaps resurrecting the Clinton assault weapon ban for starters. I’m sure Obama would busy himself promoting universal health care. In fact, from his address last Thursday, I’m sure Obama would increase the role of the federal government in our lives across the board. 

On Obama's acceptance speech, I thought the evening was a well produced show, but nothing more.  I have been avidly following politics since the 1988 presidential election and I don't recall anything like the spectacle we saw last night at any other convention.  As all the talking heads were pointing out, Obama is the only candidate who could draw a crowd of 85,000, actually filling a sports stadium.  The film was well done and I have to admit, after watching it, I even thought it was a great story and I am pretty cynical when it comes to politicians.  True, he seems to have a nice family and his kids are cute. That being said, I thought the speech itself was flat and permeated by an irreconcilable incongruity.  The candidate of change, a self-proclaimed product of the opportunity represented only in the United States, gave a speech that simply recycled the same Democrat party line of more government and higher spending. This is a party line I have heard for the last 20 years and left Sen. Obama with no distinguishing characteristics from Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat.

The story of Obama’s life is totally incongruous with the policy positions he staked out in the body of his speech. In the film we heard about the hardworking, self-reliant family in which the Senator was raised. We heard about his grandmother working her way up to middle management. We heard about his mom putting herself through school. We heard about Barack, himself, getting through school on scholarships and student loans. I don’t recall any mention of he or his family receiving government largess as a significant contributing factor to his undeniable success, but rather something they overcame. In fact, Obama was presented as a self-made man and a product of the American Dream. Immediately following this, Obama presented an updated version of the same old Democratic positions comprised of more government programs to do for the people what they supposedly cannot do for themselves. This incongruity, more than anything else, is what struck me about Sen. Obama’s speech. Are we supposed to conclude that he could do it, but only because he is so smart and capable, whereas the rest of us morons have to depend on the government? 

Looking at specific positions Obama took, I heard the standard Democrat rhetoric about healthcare, immigration, education, taxes, abortion, gun control, and welfare. Focusing on a few of these positions, on healthcare Obama called for universal coverage so no one is left without access to healthcare. This used to be called socialized medicine, but that brand name didn’t sell so it was cleverly repackaged as universal coverage. I work in hospital administration and let me tell you the practical implications of universal health coverage will be government rationing of care. Obama, nor anyone else, can deliver on the promises he made. Health care is a finite resource. There are only so many doctors available in any given year to do a finite number of visits and procedures. There are a finite number of hospital beds, X-ray machines, MRIs, operating rooms, etc. Because healthcare is a finite resource with high demand it is currently allocated on the basis of ability to pay. If the Federal government took over healthcare administration they cannot simply increase supply, that is create additional healthcare resources, so necessarily they will have to control demand. It already happens and more than people realize. A government agency, now called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formally the Health Care Financing Administration), sets treatment guidelines, through what are called National Coverage Determinations, which tell doctors the services for which they will or will not be paid. Paid is not even the correct term, it is called reimbursement. The way the system is designed, the government tells us (the healthcare provider) what they will reimburse for services rendered. It is called a prospective payment system, and it is totally set in advance and based on the patient’s diagnosis and treatment codes. In other words, we do not bill for our services and receive payment on that bill. We are told we will be reimbursed a set amount based on the patient’s diagnosis code and treatment code as reported by the physician and hospital. Without going into all the boring, technical details, allow me to summarize by stating the government is already rationing healthcare. Now this applies directly to patients with Medicare or Medicaid, but sadly, now the commercial insurers are often following suit with the government coverage determinations. This is not to say we do not need reform in the healthcare system, but based on what I have seen we need less government involvement, not more.

Next, let’s consider Obama’s position on education. He decried the lack of opportunities while having just been portrayed as the product of America’s opportunity. First, on higher education, Obama made it through college and law school on his own. That is very commendable. I went through college and graduate school on my own a decade after Obama. I left my parent’s (rented) house with a couple hundred dollars in my pocket and an old car I bought with my own money. Both of us relied on scholarships, grants, student loans, and hard work. Those opportunities are the same now as a decade ago when I was in school. I would say from experience any student in the United States with enough motivation and commitment can go to college. Now, as for primary and secondary education, we all know our grade schools are bad and getting worse. However, the liberal agenda is as much to blame for this as anything else. Teachers became more focused on their student’s self-esteem and how they feel than how they perform academically. In the face of a failing student body, curricula were watered down, so more students would pass. Schools also became places of social indoctrination, teachers leading the vanguard of the PC, rather than institutions focused on teaching students the basics necessary for success after graduation. All the while education expenditures have been increasing while performance falls. At least Sen. Obama paid lip service to the role of parental responsibility in educating  our children, but as for his policies I just saw promises of more money and government programs. As Sen. Obama well knows from his own life experience, we don’t need any government programs beyond what already exist to get an education in this country. Again, schools are in need of reform, but not by more Federal control, but rather more local control. 

Then there were his statement on gun control. Sen. Obama said we can uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. Of course we can. We already do. There is nothing new from the candidate of change on that one. I assume the Senator was referring to reviving the assault weapons ban a la the Clinton era. I would first point out that less than 2% of gun crimes are committed with assault weapons according to the Dept. of Justice and second that laws already exist to prevent criminals from purchasing guns. According to the Dept. of Justice the vast majority of criminals who use guns in their crimes obtained their guns illegally. You can pass all the gun bans you want, but criminals will still get guns. Criminals, by definition, are those who violate the law. So why does anyone think passing yet another gun law will suddenly dissuade a criminal from illegally buying a gun? The good Senator also has connections to extremely anti-gun politicians like Richard Daly in Chicago. I doubt Obama has any respect for the Second Amendment.   In this position, Sen. Obama is just parroting the Democrat party line not representing change. 

The Senator tried to bridge this incongruity, representing himself as a self-made man who would bring change to Washington while simply repeating the standard party line, by at least paying lip service to self-reliance, self-discipline, and hard work. However, I found no substance supporting those words, only promises of more government and entitlements. I am a self-proclaimed conservative independent who is registered to vote as, “declines to state party affiliation.” I am the true independent not tied to the Republican Party, which I dislike only slightly less then the Democrat party. In my opinion (and this is my blog so I get to voice my opinion) both major political parties are corrupt and more interested in power than the good of the country.  If Obama was what he claimed to be, a force for change, with new ideas I could consider voting for him. From what I saw last night, he is not. That would be too much to expect from the Democrats.  From what I saw he is a liberal Democrat trying to represent a new image after the failed Kerry campaign in 2004. Thus, I found the entire spectacle as rather narcissistic and disingenuous. In other words, it was Obamaclese at the Barackopolis.