The Obama Aftermath: America in 2012 ...
By scotchex Posted in Policy — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Assuming Obama wins in November, what will America look like in 2012? What actual legislative achievements will he accomplish?
I'm not a fan of the man, I think he's a liar, a racist, a reflexive America-hater, and an all around scumbag -- but I'm trying get a realistic estimate of what changes are likely to take place by 2012. I also know that unpredictable future events could easily change everything.
I'm assuming the first two years will be solid Dem control in the House and Senate (but not filibuster proof margins.) I think he'll likely have four years of Dem control.
Here are my guesses:
1. Taxes up significantly. Marginal rates raised maybe 10% points on top earners. The capital gains tax up 10% points as well. The payroll exemption eliminated.
2. Some form of national health care.
3. US troops 100% out of Iraq by 2012. It's what he's campaigned on.
4. Sizable US troop presence in Afghanistan. More than in 2008.
5. Climate Change laws passed. Cap and trade system in place. New Kyoto agreement signed. EPA regulates CO2 as a pollutant.
6. Several new, very liberal, Supreme Court justices.
7. Across the board spending increases, except for defense cutbacks.
Also there would be several significant non-changes, slowdowns, and various dogs that won't bark.
1. NAFTA will not be renegotiated.
2. No new trade deals. No WTO deal.
3. No change in farm policy.
4. No new domestic drilling for oil.
5. Slowdown in new domestic nuke and coal plant construction.
6. No change in affirmative action.
7. Many future weapons systems canceled or reduced.
8. Iran and North Korea continue nuke development.
9. No Immigration Reform/Amnesty. Status quo works for Dems, why change?
.....
I'm very interested in what other people think 2012 will look like. I don't have high confidence in my own guesses. I'm just trying to think in specifics what will and won't happen.
I'll admit I'm also partly trying to steel myself to a grim near future. The country survived Carter, it can survive Obama. Many, hopefully most, of the mistakes Obama will make will be reversible, but many won't. Surrendering in Iraq being particularly non-reversible.
Anyway, I appreciate any thoughts.
1. Possibly some form of the fairness doctrine if the Dem margins are big enough.
2. There might be some attempt to roll back or repeal certain provisions of Taft-Hartley - in particular the part that bans closed shops.
3. Net neutrality
4. More federal agencies, and more unionization of those federal agencies
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Any ideas of specific new federal agencies?
And what are the limits of public sector unions?
Private sector unions are inherently self-limiting since they tend to make their host companies uncompetitive. Especially with our system of federalism. Obama won't be able to change state right-to-work laws.
Public sector unions face drastically less competitive pressure. But even they have limits. Plus the existing union members will favor higher salaries for themselves over expanding the union ranks. The Dem party leadership wants as many public sector union members as possible -- but the individual members will try to capture any funding increase in the form of higher benefits and salaries for themselves.
In the long run public schools face pressure from the incredible resources online for learning.
I agree expanding union membership is clearly a tactical goal of the Dems. Pretty much guarantees future Dem voters.
....perhaps a new federal agency that is dedicated to "climate change" and the environment. Perhaps Obama would merge the EPA into a new cabinet-level position with greater unilateral power to regulate business and energy. Lefties in the Democrat party have been pushing for a "Department of Peace" too, however I don't know if that one would happen.
Private sector unions are dying off, and don't wield near as much power as they used to, nor do they have as many members. However, they do still have a lot of money to throw around, and they do seem to still have the DNC by the balls. Public sector unions are attractive because they don't have to worry about the health of the business, as private unions do. Private unions have to face the harsh realities that domestic car makers are dealing with. They have killed the golden goose. Public sector unions simply lobby congress for more money, which is pretty easy to do. That money goes to their members, then to the union, and eventually back into Democrat campaign coffers and into left-wing 527s. It's an unholy alliance.
Mark my words, the union card check bill eliminating the secret ballot is the top priority for the Dems if they win the White House.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I agree Obama will push that. Couldn't the Senate Repubs block it, though? I think secret ballots are popular with Americans. Repubs shouldn't have to worry about a backlash.
Climate Change laws, on the other hand, seem destined for a Repub cave. The public believes the insane apocalyptic fantasies and will be angry at Repubs if they don't "save the Earth".
It's too bad. If we can hold out a few more years against this Climate Change nonsense, the new cooling data might kill public support.
Well. What did Jimmy Carter's 1980 look like?
If Obama wins in November, and D's control both houses, you will see the biggest expansion of Government since the New Deal.
This is especially frightening since we have been fighting the New Deal legacy for the last 70 years. And only with real gusto since 1980.
Once the liberals control the Supreme Court, it will be impossible to turn back these policies. They will institute socialism, anti-God policies through the law. We will embark on socialism the likes of which this country has never seen.
The goals of the Democrats will be to create more middle class entitlements to forever preserve their power.
If this happens, it will be fair to say George Bush destroyed everything Ronald Reagan created.
Yes, that will be key. The Dems will definitely want to expand entitlements as far up the chain as possible, and make the income tax more progressive. This way they are doling out more benefits, and fewer and fewer people are paying for them. This way they can create more dependents (i.e. Democrat voters) and they can set up the system so that they can raise taxes with impunity, because the actual taxpayers' votes will be less and less. They can pander purely to the takers, and demonize the "makers".
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
It's interesting that the tax-payers are, increasingly, the Dem base. Democrats are doing extremely well among white upper-middle class voters.
I talked to a lawyer colleague the other day. Big Obama supporter. He's a rich, white Catholic patent attorney (over $200k salary). He's happy to pay more in taxes (or so he says).
I think it's because he feels secure in his economic future. For example, he sends his 10 year old daughter to private school (10-15k/year). He and his wife are super progressives -- so they feel guilty about the private all-white school. They sent her to two different public schools first, but their daughter hated it. Their local public schools are dominated by working class minorities (hispanics and Brazilians) ... and their precocious, rich daughter didn't get along with them. So they shell $15k/year for an all-white private school, which their daughter loves.
If his taxes got so high that he was uncertain about being able to pay for his daughters private school ... then he would rebel. Until then he's happy to pay.
The people who pay taxes -- the professional class -- are Obama's base. I think they are confident their high IQs and degrees will maintain their high income and social status, even with higher taxes.
I think the traditional Republican anti-tax message is struggling because:
a) Middle and lower-middle class Americans pay very little in income tax now.
b) Upper and upper-middle class Americans are doing so well economically that they don't feel threatened by higher taxes.
I'm moving to Mexico and sneaking back in the country illegally. California has great weather and I won't be paying taxes either. My plan for coming back after the country comes to it's senses will have a few years to ferment.
Seriously, I think you are probably correct about most of your points. The only one I think probably won't happen is CO2 regulation. I mean, we all exhale it 24/7. There has to be atleast SOME people at the EPA who have some sense.
Pride is a Fool's Fortress.
No way they'll give up on that! That would give liberals and environmentalist wackos their ultimate wet-dream: they can regulate PEOPLE.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
So I am an optimist, haha.
Pride is a Fool's Fortress.
Within the first year, the terrorists attacks will begin. They will attack the US around the world. As they attack the US at different parts of the globe, Obama will retreat from base after base in the middle east....he will cut the military, and pull them out of the entire middle east.
A regional war will then erupt, followed by a destruction of much of the oil in the middle east.
This is minor, however, compared to the chaos in Pakastan, where the US will be kicked out and nuclear weapons will not longer be well secured....
With Gas prices at $5-7.00 a gallon, free nuclear weapons, and completely unsecured boarders ...
I imagine that if that scenario plays out, we will look fondly back on the days of cheap, $7.00/gallon gasoline.
And I would hope that if there are numerous or large scale attacks prior to the 2010 midterms, that Republicans would regain control of Congress to stop the Obama idiocy.
Federal funding for abortions.
And very likely either legislative or judicial overturning of the PBA ban.
Well, if you put this in a historical content. An Obama presidency is probably inevitable. I long suspected America probably was in an inevitable decline with the rising powers such as China and India since George W. Bush took office.
Historically, it's fairly common for irrational voters to swing the election from one extreme to another extreme. It's going to be the continuing declining of American prestigate. Only after America reached a real nadir, a real conservative leader can emerge. Think about Britain, think about Lady Thatcher.
Obama himself is a big fan of Reagan, he believes Reagan had sold him 'right wing agenda'(his words) to an entire generation of American electorate by using charm. Obama believes he has the power to do the same from the left.
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
is that thought things will be worse all around, most people will be convinced that the problems stemmed from the Bush administration. That all these big government programs are responsible for the decrease in prosperity will not be realized. This is how powerful the Democrat/Media/general leftist message is, and how impotent the Republicans/Conservatives messengers are. Sure, those that listen to Rush or read conservative websites or blogs will know what is really happening, but lets face it, we are a minority of the population.
The media is powerful, to be sure, but it was far more powerful in the past. It's a wonder that people like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich engineered landslides before the new media.
The new media is smashing the MSM media monopoly. They no longer can "manage the news" to fit their agenda. I think the drive-by media's swan song was sung when Dan Rather attempted to sink Bush with forged documents, only to be busted out by bloggers. If this was 10 or 15 years ago, that story would have never been challenged.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
As the new media becomes more influential, the old media becomes more biased toward the left.
The result is not a populace has a whole that has access to correct information, it is the creation of a subculture(us, the conservative movement)that exists that is in the know. Most of the public is not any better informed because of the existence of the new media.(notwithstanding that the new media has prevented a few particularly important scams, such as the Bush National Guard docs)
But suppose there is a malaise from an Obama presidency. You try telling blue collar workers here in the rust belt that things would have been better if we had not engaged in protectionism. What they are going to believe is that George Bush already shipped all the good jobs overseas, and they could not be saved.
Try explaining to people that there lives would actually be better if tax rates on the wealthy were lower. These are just two examples.
In this case, what you will have is a segment of the American public, those that read conservative news and listen to talk radio who understand the situation and realize the damage done by liberal policies. The rest of the population will believe whatever line is fed to them by the Democrats and the media.
The media savaged Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan too. The MSM is powerful, but its influence is waning.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Words just aren't coming to me today.
What concerns me is the proliferation of absolute myth today. For 8 years, Democrats have had free reign to create and ingrain fallacies with nobody offering ANY resistance, let alone effective resistence. Sure, as I said, the educated conservative community hasn't fallen for any of their nonsense, but as I have pointed out, we are a small segment of the population.
I intend to write a blog on this issue in the near future.(Now that finals are almost over I will have time. Hooray!)
Hopefully I will be better able to word my concerns then.
What's most galling about Obama is this: as long as he is even remotely competent as President -- he'll be hailed as one of our all time greats.
If Obama wins then I predict 20 years from now we'll be having schools, parks, and roads named after him. He'll be compared to Lincoln and Washington and Jefferson. The media/academia will immediately vault him into the pantheon of American heroes, unless he precipitates a new Great Depression. He'll be graded on the world's easiest curve by our media and academic powers.
If Obama wins, then, for the rest of our lives, we'll have to listen to him extolled as one of the greatest men in history. And all the people who voted against him will be branded racist and backwards. Many who voted for McCain will claim later that they supported Obama.
The history of America will be told as a march of progress from Washington to Lincoln to MLK to Obama. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers will be erased from history and 30 years from now there'll be a new Obama monument on the National Mall. Sad, but very plausible if he wins.
But I bet you are exactly right. He will be lauded and anyone who dared vote against him will be labeled as a racist.
The best way to prevent this is to do everything we can to support McCain and stop the insanity before it gets started. I have a bad feeling that if he gets in, 2012 is a given for him, short of Obama starting a nuclear world war or driving us into a deep, deep depression.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I wish we could be that confident.
What if he turned out to actually *be* a good president? Would you be willing to admit as much? Yes, it's a hypothetical question, but this whole thread is based on hypotheticals.
Personally?
- Significant shift from Iraq to Afghanistan, limited presence left in Iraq (if any).
- Some form of UHC, less than what many liberals want, but more than most conservatives are happy with.
- One liberal justice replaced with another (Stevens), with Scalia holding on as long as he can.
- More emphasis on mass transit, fuel efficiency, and alternative sources of energy.
- Net neutrality.
- A Republican or two in his cabinet. Possibly Hagel.
- Significantly better benefits and healthcare of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
- Cap and trade system. Personally, I'd prefer a carbon tax (easier to calibrate as needed).
...to be good Presidential material.
Roosevelt. The man who insisted on unconditional surrender from the Axis.
Truman. Nuked two Japanese cities to get the surrender that we required. Started the Cold War. Chose the Berlin Airlift over accommodation. Started the Korean War to prevent the spread of Communism.
Kennedy. Bay of Pigs. Created the Vietnam War. Held a gun to the Soviet Union's head and dared them to put missiles in Cuba.
There are two things about this that are important: one, if we actually thought that Obama was going to be like FDR, Truman and/or (to a much lesser extent) Kennedy [in foreign policy] we'd be the ones reassured, not his progressive acolytes. Two, if he wanted to bring up detente and reaching out to our enemies he should have picked the three Presidents in the last 50 years who actually did something useful along those lines.
Of course, that would have confused the living Hell out of his audience, as their names were Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Han!
Your first four items require an expansion of an already large, oversized, intrusive government bureaucracy!
How could that possibly be any good?
-Net neutrality - that will happen with anybody. Too big a fight, not worth the political capital.
-A Rep in his cabinet? He's never reached out across the aisle in the Senate, why would he start as POTUS???
-Democratically controlled Congress's r*p*d and pillaged the military and the VA. Now they'll build them back up???
-AGW is a crock and will be relegated to the ash heap of history along with its proponents. (hint: follow the money)
McCain '08 - Failure is not an option!
Would I admit it if Obama was a good president? Of course.
I mean, t's possible that Obama -- despite being a racist, lying, anti-American socialist -- magically morphs into a decent human being and governs well. If so then that'd be wonderful. There's nothing in his background, associations, or campaign so far to give me that hope, but who knows.
Maybe Obama will say, "Hey, Michelle and I have benefited so much form state-sponsored racism (aka affirmative action) that I will end racial preferences and minority set-asides."
Maybe Obama will say, "You know, all the serious economic analyses shows a carbon tax to be monumentally stupid, if not downright evil. I won't impose a cure worse than the disease to appease the apocalyptic doom-mongering of crazed, humanity-hating nature cultists."
(A carbon tax is better than cap and trade ... but only if you buy into the assumed apocalyptic scenarios. Otherwise both are a harmful tax on progress and growth and an unnecessary cause of human pain and suffering. One advantage of cap and trade is it's easier for the whole thing to be a fraud if you pick a high enough cap -- see Europe.)
Universal health care is something which, I fully admit might turn out to be a better idea than I realize. It will be decades before we know though. I want health insurance to be more portable and not tied to a person's job. Increased labor market flexibility is a good thing. I don't think UHC is a wise idea, but maybe I'm wrong.
see this in play in Michigan. After thoroughly destroying the industrial base here, and letting jobs leave for other states by the thousands, if anyone dares to mention that J. Granholm(D-Incompetentstan) is the governor, we are quickly reminded that this is all John Engler's fault. Or the state senate, which is the chamber controlled by Republicans. The dems have game-planned this whole thing, and it works. It's pathetic to read the letters to the editors in the papers, those folks are either brain-dead or brain-washed. According to the common theme, if only the evile R's would do what Jen wanted, things would be rosy.
I tried to use the "Reply to this" button to respond to Aetius' comment up thread, "What scares me the most" but it apparently did not work. Sorry for any confusion
1. US leaves Iraq, Iran rushes in, Oil goes to $250+ per bbl. US loses all creditibility in region, rise Islamic rage against the west.
2. Israel is attacked, retaliates against Iran & Syria nuclear material is released in Iran/Syria, oil goes to $500 per bbl. Food prices to the moon...
3. US/NATO forces now forced back into Iraq/Iran/Middle east to cleanup massive mess.
4. US/Western countries economies begin to fail, support to countries in need is stopped which generates further outrage.
This country needs a "Statemen" not politicians other wise we will and are going to pay the price.
Afuel
NorCal
The two biggies that a theoretical President Obama would get that would be irreversible would be national health care and an Iraq withdrawal.
Once we put in ANY kind of national health care system, no matter how small and limited it may be, it will grow into a money-sucking, wasteful, inefficient behemoth inside of 10 years. And you will never, ever be able to get rid of it. Generations to come will have to deal with the problem of how to fund this thing.
Second, once we are out of Iraq, I doubt we would go back under any circumstances. The Giant Middle Finger that withdrawal would give them would do more harm to our national reputation than staying there. It would send a signal that we really aren't all that concerned about the rise of a militant Islamic state in that region and before the dust clears from our withdrawal, Iran's puppets will be firmly in place.