Obama’s New Plan?

By Daniel Miessler on November 8th, 2008: Tagged as America | Politics

Our friend Shane pointed me to an interesting piece that gives insight into what we’re probably about to see from the Obama administration. Emmanual, the new Chief of Staff wrote a book a while back called The Plan: Big Ideas for America [Amazon].

Below is some content from this book, and based on the fact that Obama’s been talking like this during his campaign, I’d say we should expect to see type of thing coming from our new President very soon.

–

A new social contract — universal citizen service, universal college access, universal retirement savings, and universal children’s health care — that makes clear what you can do for your country and what your country can do for you.
A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it.
Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth.
A new strategy to use all America’s strengths to win the war on terror.
A Hybrid Economy that cuts America’s gasoline consumption in half over the next decade.

Universal Citizen Service

If you forget everything else you read in these pages, please remember this: The Plan starts with you. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing, for the first time, an ethic of universal citizen service.

Universal College Access

We must make a college degree as universal as a high school diploma. More than ever, America’s success depends on what we can learn. We have an education system built in the last century, with a school year left over from the century before that. In this new era, college will be the greatest engine of opportunity for our society and our economy. Just as Abraham Lincoln gave land grants to endow our great public universities, we will give the states tuition grants to make college free for those willing to work, serve, and excel.

Universal Retirement Savings

From now on, every job ought to come with a 401(k). An aging society cannot afford to keep saving less and risking more. We need new means to create wealth, based on the needs and responsibilities of twenty-first-century employees and employers. Employers should be required to offer 401(k)s, and workers will be enrolled unless they choose otherwise. If they switch jobs, they can take these accounts with them. When their paycheck goes up, so will their savings. Instead of a work force in which only half the workers have retirement savings plans, every American will have one.

Universal Children’s Health Care . . .

A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it . . .

Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth . . .

A new strategy to win the war on terror . . .

A hybrid economy that cuts America’s gasoline use in half . . .

Ask what you can do for your country: the premier component of the new social contract.

John Kennedy was right: A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing for the first time an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service.

This is not a draft, nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose.

–

So, in showing me this, Shane was asking me, from a libertarian to an Obama supporter, what I thought of this type of program. It’s a good question.

My first reaction is that I both love it and hate it. I pretty much feel like I’m being asked if someone can pump 5 pints of someone else’s blood (life force) into my veins. My initial answer is no, due to my libertarian leanings, but when I realize that I’m in a hospital, and that I’m dying for lack of blood (soul), then I realize it might actually be what I need.

In other words, the fact that this kind of thing might be necessary represents a complete failure of the American system. This kind of soul and sense of civics is supposed to be innate in America, not infused from the outside. That’s the libertarian ideal.

Where the libertarian ideal breaks down is that it fails to recognize the severity of the fact that it DOES NOT exist. We are not the country that feels and does these things innately, and to pretend to be that, and to resist the external help to reinvigorate these things within us, is a grave mistake.

So yes, I do think this can be a good thing if done properly. And more importantly I think something like this is needed right now. I don’t like the idea of a degree being mandatory for people, however; I think that should be degree (or vocational training), i.e. some method of becoming productive. And I wince at hearing a few other bits of the plan, but I’ve been doing a lot of wincing anyway. I am in a hospital bed, after all.

So it goes back to my comments on Socialism, Libertarianism, and ideal government. This type of program is necessary to get to where we need to be, i.e. more libertarian. Libertarian structure requires educated people who respect the rights of others. We don’t have that right now, and we’re not going to get it by letting people fend for themselves. In fact we’ll get the opposite.

This type of social uplifting, to get everyone on a similar and positive wavelength, is the way to grow the sense of individual responsibility and the ability to succeed within our country.

In short, you don’t teach a child to tie shoes as a means of control or in order to remove their ability to do it for themselves. **You do it so that you’ll never have to show them again.**

This touches on the heart of my disagreement with some libertarians. The socialism I’m advocating (and I’m now convinced that “socialism” is the wrong word) is not about transferring responsibility from the individual to the government. It’s about nurturing responsibility, and compassion, and self-sufficiency within individuals through liberal education and social policy.

It’s about promoting intelligent decisions when it comes to reproduction, i.e. not having a bunch of kids that you can’t afford and will annoy you as you try to live your adolescent life. This leads to broken families and grandparents raising their grandchildren. It’s a fucking epidemic in this country.

And every single issue like this comes back to education. The most non-libertarian concept I harbor is the notion that you don’t let your fellow humans fall. You don’t let giant swaths of your neighborhood NOT get educated. You don’t allow it. Allowing it is literally genocidal. You can’t sit and watch because you don’t want to be judgmental (a major liberal problem). That kind of feel-good “I won’t judge another person” garbage kills more kids than anyone would like to discuss, and it’s caused by the cowardly unwillingness to say to failing parents that, “You’re doing it wrong.”

I digress.

The point is that we need to lift the bottom. And it’s not by giving them a bunch of money from the rich. They’ll just go buy lottery tickets and televisions with it. That’s not helping anyone. The solution is to say, “Yes, there is such a thing as raising a kid poorly, and we won’t stand for it in this country.” Get your fucking kids in school. Demand that they learn. Turn off the TV. Turn off the video games. Read a book. Go to the museum. Build something with them.

We’ll know we’ve made progress when you can go into a full bookstore on Saturday, with over a hundred people in it, in a 50% black and 50% white city, and see more than one or two black people per hour. That’s change we can believe in.

This country needs to re-intellectualize. It needs to be cool to read. It needs to be cool to study and learn. And we need to make social pariahs of those who don’t promote such a direction for their children. Don’t prosecute them–ridicule them. Look down on those who have children who don’t like to read, and who aren’t curious, and who don’t enjoy learning. That’s their fault as parents. They are the break in the education chain.

Yes, sometimes it’ll be unfair because ultimately the parent didn’t know any better either, but at some point you have to take responsibility. Now is that time. Call it what you will, but it’s our only way out of this void of intellectual interest, education and personal responsibility. And only once we’re dealing with an educated population can we get where we need to be, which is more libertarian.:

Viewing 7 Comments

shane 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

You mentioned that you don't think this is socialism or at least socialism is the wrong word for it. Maybe you are right. I feel like I should stop using the word socialism because it is an accusation with too much emotion attached. Calling some one a socialist just begs the accused to refute the name, not the policy that provoked the name calling. But I suppose that is the problem with any name calling.

I like the idea of new President with powerful reforming ideas, remove old outdated laws and enact new leaner ones that better represent the 21st century. And I think Obama and Rahm and their congress majority are definitely going to have the muscle to do that. And maybe America does need a quick injection of progressive policies in order to revitalize it. I think Rahm is going to be the puppet master for this presidency as Karl Rove is for the current. Democrats will love him and Republicans and Libertarians will hate him.

Universal Citizen Service - Encouraging these young people to participate in their community is great but mandates are way too far. I suppose it is better than a military draft where lives are risked but the philosophy is still questionable. The federal government should have the power to force all 18-25 year olds (legal adults) to ... do... anything is something that totalitarian governments do, not free countries. "A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs." I really can not wait for more bureaucrats telling us how to live our lives and how we can sacrifice more for them. No chance of corruption here.

Universal College Access - Great, lets make our colleges as uniform, drab, and unproductive as public schools. I am all for giving poor but ambitious people a chance to get a degree when they couldn't previously afford it. I am all for public schools to become more specialized like colleges where your education helps you to dive into a field you are passionate about. But if everyone had a college degree (especially if everyone had the same college degree) then how horribly easy, meaningless and useless will it be? Why do janitors, construction workers need college degrees? Wouldn't this be a complete waste of time if they didn't really want one? In the IT world I know, there are plenty of intelligent workers (young and old) without degrees that accomplish great things and are promoted based on productivity and merit. Did they need degrees to be successful? How many successful entrepreneurs make the news without degrees? What's wrong with scholarships, grants, and student loans? Or even a quick 4 years in the military to set you up for nearly a lifetime of free schooling?

Universal Retirement Savings - Better than Social Security I guess. But horrible for small businesses. If I want to work for neighbor's lawn mowing business, he has to offer me a 401k plan? Okay, but I am pretty sure that money is coming straight out of my own pay check. Hopefully I was making well over minimum wage, otherwise my neighbor may not be able to afford to hire me at all.

A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it . . .

Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth . . .

A new strategy to win the war on terror . . . Excellent, can't argue with those.

I would like to see how they are able to innovate this alternative energy economy where the market place hasn't been able to. I foresee tons of subsidies for corn farmers soon.

It’s about promoting intelligent decisions when it comes to reproduction, i.e. not having a bunch of kids that you can’t afford and will annoy you as you try to live your adolescent life. This leads to broken families and grandparents raising their grandchildren.

So, I don't get this. I don't see the epidemic. I acknowledge that it is bad when stupid people reproduce like crazy and smart people have one or two kids if any. But it seems like the exact situation you imply (young pregnant mother, father who skips out, child ends up raised by the grandparents) just produced the next President of the United States. He is obviously only one case, but I don't think broken marriages and young couples are the epidemic in themselves. Stupid parents, abusive fathers, shallow mothers are to blame.

But all of the above pretty much misses the point. This is the crux of your argument, I think:
This touches on the heart of my disagreement with some libertarians. The [policiy] I’m advocating [...] is not about transferring responsibility from the individual to the government. It’s about nurturing responsibility, and compassion, and self-sufficiency within individuals through liberal education and social policy. [...] This country needs to re-intellectualize. It needs to be cool to read. It needs to be cool to study and learn. [...] Call it what you will, but it’s our only way out of this void of intellectual interest, education and personal responsibility. And only once we’re dealing with an educated population can we get where we need to be, which is more libertarian.:

One of the few places I dare to break from my libertarian POV is education. Because I agree, everybody benefits when everybody is smarter. But "public school" type thinking is NOT working. Use vouchers, home schooling, private schools, technical schools and a copyright/patent policy where knowledge is more free so kids can tinker and learn.

If you want real improvement in society don't look for President to do it for you. He may inspire you, but it is you that changes society. It is you that makes your life better. You want a political agenda that creates personal responsibility, progressive politics is not the answer. Again, I like Obama the man, and I do believe that he may inspire America and the world to do great things, but don't have so much faith in Rahm and the Progressive PACs, I beg you as an atheist to have has just as much faith in politicians as you do in God.

reply edit reblog flag

Daniel Miessler 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Great comments, Shane.

I like your final point; it's worth a discussion by itself.

You are making a connection between my atheistic outlook that says, "you don't need religion when we have ourselves to forge our own morality." and the libertarian cry of "you don't need government, you have yourselves to rely on."

Interesting. So I suppose I owe you an explanation as to the difference.

I would say that the difference is that the government is still us, and we are real. This is in stark contrast to a fantasy-based construct of religion. I feel that regardless of the sting, reality is almost always better than fantasy when it comes to facing problems.

So again, you're talking about faith in politicians. Remember that I'm not asking that they take responsibility for us. I am asking that we incorporate responsibility into society, as a joint effort of us as individuals.

That's the key piece I think you're missing.

This is us as people saying, "These are the things WE AS SOCIETY should provide to US AS SOCIETY." --not "These are the things GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE THAT INDIVIDUALS SHOULD RELAX ABOUT."

There's a big difference. This is where government transparency and individual involvement comes in. It's about being integrated with government and having a direct say in it. This is NOT mutually exclusive with providing core services such as health care and education.

Thoughts?

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/danielrm26/ /people/danielrm26/following/ http://dmiessler.com/ danielrm26

shane 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I have faith in people I know, and I keep a critical eye on people I don't know. My distrust for politicians is different, I guess. I would trust them with my car, my baby girl, and usually my life. I know they (Obama's forthcoming administration, Progressive PACs) have good intentions; I believe they are doing what all politicians are paid to do: look at historical data, listen to the people's wishes, listen to the advisers and write the best possible legislation to fix the problem. That sounds pretty flawless. But I haven't been convinced there is a problem. I don't see the crisis. I think the best insult to a libertarian is to accuse them of burying their head in ground like an ostrich as the world crumbles around them. We advocate letting the market do its thing like some invisible hand with spontaneous order creating powers. I acknowledge that the economy is taking a downward turn but economics tell me that is normal. People will lose jobs and they will find new ones. People lose their homes and they will find new ones. Barring a great plague or nuclear attack, I feel pretty comfortable. As long as the market remains mostly free, economics tells me it will find its own equilibrium. A politician didn't tell me that, charts, studies and historical analysis told me that.

Getting back to the point, though; I think politicians are only their to make us feel better. Don't worry we have the solution, it will work shortly. Like religious figures, we give them money and power and in return they give us hope that our problems will go away. And maybe people really do need those delusions, but every time some ambitious politician comes around with a grand plan to fix our country I just sigh. These plans aren't going to steal all of our money or bankrupt our economy. They are going to let worriers stop worrying and get back to work where the real efforts are being made to improve society.

reply edit reblog flag

shane 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I forgot about my one of main points: Just to underscore the futility of intervention in economics, what is Obama's very first push to fix the economy? How is the democratic party setting the course to fix our fiscal crisis? A $100 billion dollar economic stimulus package program. Giving us our own money back evenly distributed (with a little bit off the top to cover some expenses). Thanks guys, I was wondering where my money went, how grateful I am that you plan on returning it! And we know how well it will kick-start the economy as the populace continues to spend it paying off loans and buying crap made in foreign countries right before Christmas. All things that have shown to be completely useless in creating new jobs and putting more money into the American economy. But people will be happy and politicians will be satisfied.

(Oh, and the other push is to bail out US automakers. Because God forbid companies that make crappy, un-innovative cars should have to be forced to drastically rethink their business plans. Who knew that all of that money spent on marketing instead of R&D and efficiency wouldn't pay off. Of course, it's not like they could have made too many changes, the Auto unions prevent them from shutting down plants, cutting projects, taking risks and any other things companies need to do to remain flexible in a volatile economy.)

reply edit reblog flag

shane 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Ok, one more and I swear I'll quit. I mentioned new plans for education besides more money for public schools. What about this? If you didn't know who wrote it, wouldn't you think it would be pretty good idea? http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/cont... (Oh, and skip the first two meaningless paragraphs.)

reply edit reblog flag

Daniel Miessler 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Shane,

On giving back tax money you're not going to find an argument here for the beauty of bailouts or stimulus packages. I think both are sub-optimal. The overall structure should be strong enough for individual companies--or even groups of them--to fail without impacting us too much.

But once again you've fallen into the trap.

The fact that this is NOT the case doesn't mean we don't apply the fix for our current situation. Stimulus is about perception. And bailouts are about reality. The fact of the matter is that most of the top economists, regardless of political leanings, agree that something must be done because doing nothing is much worse.

This isn't an endorsement of the situation, or of the political approach that caused it. It's simply a means of addressing reality as it is today.

As for the Gigrich piece, I happen to like a lot of what Gingrich says, including that piece. I don't judge people by where they supposedly sit on the left-right balance. I'm starting to think people are pretty wrong about where they actually are on that scale given their views of the world. I prefer to judge by the strength of the individual argument and then see how it fits into the parent models of social structure.

I like what he said here about education. But keep something in mind.

"And experiments such as the one my daughter, Jackie Cushman, is running in Atlanta—where poor children are paid the equivalent of working in a fast-food restaurant to study and do their homework—are examples of a more dynamic future."

What does that sound like to you, Shane? Does that sound libertarian? No. That sounds liberal. It sounds like a program designed to bolster the bottom for the greater good of the country.

That's what I'm about, regardless of the name we assign it. And I do believe the government can implement this type of program in a New Deal type of approach, but the waste needs to be monitored, and the people need to be watching closely from an in-tune perspective. This is where the transparency and civics-minded emphasis comes in.

Bottom line: I'm not sure we're disagreeing much anymore. I think most of our disconnects are being caused by charged words that mean different things to each of us. Let's try approaching our arguments without using left, right, liberal, socialist, republican, democrat, etc. as key parts of the argument in order to see if that helps.

I enjoy this discussion very much, Shane. Thanks.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/danielrm26/ /people/danielrm26/following/ http://dmiessler.com/ danielrm26

shane 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I agree, and I enjoyed the conversation too. I just want to make one comment on the following at the risk of looking like I just want to get the last word in...

"What does that sound like to you, Shane? Does that sound libertarian? No. That sounds liberal. It sounds like a program designed to bolster the bottom for the greater good of the country."

I am not against "redistribution of wealth". I am against forced redistribution of wealth. And not because it is "unfair" or "unconstitutional". But because of the detrimental effects and hidden consequences to the economy. I am all for charities (even federal charities like the Combined Federal Campaign) and churches that find a worthy cause and put together a program of volunteers to raise funds. It is libertarian when some other organization besides the federal gov doing it.

reply edit reblog flag