Barack Obama says bailout would put his spending plans on hold
(snip)
By Bob Drogin and Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
11:36 AM PDT, September 23, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said today that the massive bailout package being negotiated to rescue Wall Street will likely force him, if elected, to delay some of the spending programs he has advocated on the campaign trail.
Noting that the Treasury Department would not disperse all the funds immediately from a proposed $700-billion bailout package, Obama acknowledged that some of his proposals for healthcare and education reform, improvement to the nation's infrastructure and investment in a new "green" energy sector might have to be phased in.
Does that mean I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign right away? Probably not," he said on NBC's "Today." "I think we're going to have to phase it in. And a lot of it's going to depend on what our tax revenues look like."
read the rest here ~
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign24-2008sep24,0,7980532.storyHere are my thoughts on
healthcare - from previous communications, I seem to recall that the current system in the U.S. has been described as expensive, inefficient, doesn't cover everyone, and puts the U.S. is at the bottom of citizen health rankings. Third world countries score better.
Why not make every dollar do the work of two or three dollars? Why not start by consolidating all the existing government programs into one basic program? Save administrative costs. Put everyone into the same pool? Same benefits?
Why isn't the goal to keep spending the same or less, provide quality benefits, and insure everyone has access to healthcare? Why would changes/enhancements to the system depend on tax revenues?
If money is needed, why not tap the email list? "If everyone chipped in $5, we could XXX." "For the price of a latte..." It would allow those with a little extra to contribute, and benefit those without. Why not make the contributions tax deductible?
Green Energy - Why does energy have to be green? Why not start an energy saving revolution without waiting to see how tax revenues look?
I remember talking to people last year about the price to heat the home. My house is well below 70 degrees and I felt the increase. There are people who heat at 76 plus and don't feel the need to cut back. Why not ask every American to dial down this winter? Put on a sweater?
How about community service to insulate homes? I recall an episode of "Absolutely Fabulous" where the main characters (Eddy & Patsy) were give community service. Their assignment? To insulate the homes of the less fortunate. Why not community service commitments from the executives/board of those that benefit from the bailout (in addition to the cash)?
Why does green need to wait for revenue? Why not promote existing programs and products?
Cars already getting 50 plus / miles per gallon? I read that Ford has a diesel vehicle that gets over 70/mpg, and doesn't plan to sell it in the U.S. With all the people buying Smart Cars, etc., I think 70/mpg would give quite a few a reason to use diesel. I can also see this being a boost for the biodiesel fuels already on the market. It's just a little different from what people do now.
Why noy encourage people (who are able) to walk their children to school instead of driving them in the family car?
Some ideas are simple and can be grass roots in nature, they just need a little nudge.
I think the goal should be to make every dollar do the work of two or three dollars.
jmho
