[08.9 FP]The List: Obama’s 10 Worst Ideas

渔音谦谦

很早的一篇文章。我觉得还蛮有意思的。
图片很多。我就先不转帖过来了。

原帖地址：http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4461

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have many smart policy proposals, but not all of them are ready for prime time. This week, FP looks at 10 Obama ideas that should have never seen the light of day. Next week? McCain on the hot seat.

Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement
What he said: “I will make sure that we renegotiate. …I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage toensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that areenforced.” —Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Feb. 26, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: Trade agreements take years to negotiate, and Mexico and Canada would almost certainly seek new concessions of their own in a new round. Obama is right to argue that more economic development in Mexicowill lower illegal immigration; he’s wrong to think that bashing NAFTAis the right way to address the Rust Belt’s economic woes. Happily,since the Ohio primary, Obama has backed off his harshest criticisms ofthe agreement.


Opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
What he said: “And I’ll also oppose the Colombia FreeTrade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congressbecause the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery ofthe very labor protections that we have insisted be included in thesekinds of agreements.” —Speech to Philadelphia AFL-CIO, April 2, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: Although Obama cited antilabor violence, the murder rate for union members in Colombia last year was 4 per 100,000,well below the rate for the general population. The deal carries littleto no cost for the United States; economists actually predict modestincreases in U.S. exports. The upshot for an important ally in the waron drugs, however, is high, and consolidating Colombia’s commitment toopen trade with the United States is a worthy goal.



Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan
What he said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” —Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007
Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging in military strikes in Pakistan happens to be established policy. But, as none other than Joe Biden pointed outlast August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing youwant to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about toviolate their sovereignty.”



Sitting Down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
What he said: Asked if he’d be “willing to meetseparately, without precondition, during the first year of youradministration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” Obama replied: “Iwould.” —Democratic primary debate, Charleston, S.C., July 23, 2007
Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging rogue states can be asavvy move, and even the Bush administration has negotiated withPyongyang and sent envoys to meetings with Iran. But sitting down withheads of state without precondition? That’s another thing entirely,especially when it comes to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. AsCarnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour told the Wall Street Journal,“Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iranor major efforts to engage.” No wonder Obama’s foreign-policy team haswalked back its candidate’s off-the-cuff remarks.



Pushing the Patriot Employer Act
What he said: “When I am president … I’ll pass thePatriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran forthe Senate—we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobsoverseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create goodjobs with decent wages right here in America.” —Speech in Janesville, Wis., Feb. 13, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: British economists Willem Buiter and Anne Sibert slam the billas, “reactionary, populist, xenophobic and just plain silly.” That’s abit much. A little populist pandering is hardly a threat to the globaleconomic order—the bill offers employers a small tax credit if theymeet six conditions, including the probably unworkable provision thatthey keep their headquarters in the United States. It’s never smarteconomic policy to reward companies for placing limitations on theirown profitable activities, but as The Economist put it, “Obama deserves a slap on the wrist” for this one, not a full-throated indictment.



Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels
What he said: “The people I meet in town hall meetingsback home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coalreserves in Southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reservesin Saudi Arabia. We already have the technology to do this in a waythat’s both clean and efficient. What we’ve been lacking is thepolitical will.” —Statement introducing the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006, June 7, 2006

Why it’s a bad idea: Obama’s energy policy has much tocommend it. But borrowing an idea from World War II Germany andapartheid South Africa? Bad move. Coal-to-liquid fuels produce nearly twicethe greenhouse gases of ordinary petroleum, experts say, and it’sfoolish to subsidize an industry that easily could go under if oilprices fall. Under withering fire from environmentalists, the Obamacamp clarified his positionin June 2007 as, “[U]nless and until this technology is perfected,Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquidfuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon thanconventional fuels.” It’s since been dropped from campaign materials.


Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Under $50,000
What he said: “I’ll make retirement more secure forAmerica’s seniors by eliminating income taxes for any retiree makingless than $50,000 per year.” —Speech on Nov. 7, 2007, in Bettendorf, Iowa
Why it’s a bad idea: Most seniors already payno income taxes. That’s because they already get preferential treatmentin the tax code. Plus, why are seniors more deserving of tax reliefthan struggling young families? The Tax Policy Center—run by theBrookings Institution and the Urban Institute—criticized the idea in arecent report,saying that because government spending on seniors is already set toballoon due to retiring baby boomers, “it seems inappropriate to targetspecial income tax breaks to this group.”



Boosting Ethanol Subsidies
What he said: “[Ethanol] ultimately helps our nationalsecurity, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to someof the most hostile nations on earth.” —Statement at the opening of a VeraSun Energy ethanol processing plant in Charles City, Iowa, August 2007
Why it’s a bad idea: As economist Paul Krugman has written,corn-based ethanol is “bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad forthe planet—what’s not to love?” World Bank economist Donald Mitchellblames biofuels, including ethanol, for a 75 percent increasein global food prices since 2002 that has led to economic distress andrioting in such countries as Haiti, Egypt, and Somalia. There’s alsolittle evidence that they do much to prevent global warming. A recentstudy published in Science demonstrated that the farmlandneeded to grow corn for ethanol results in deforestation on a massivescale, negating any benefit the reduction in carbon emissions mighthave. So why does the senator support such a wasteful and damagingsubsidy, even voting for the recent farm bill’s billions in pork forethanol producers? “[B]ecause Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said in April. At least he’s honest.




Taxing Oil Companies Extra
What he said: “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon paya tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to helpfamilies pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.” —Speech in Raleigh, N.C., June 9, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: He’s attacking the symptom, notthe disease. It’s certainly hard to defend oil companies making recordprofits while consumers are struggling to fill their tanks, but Big Oilhas very little control over day-to-day gas prices, which are set byglobal supply and demand and, of course, OPEC. By discouraging oilcompanies from making big profits, such a tax could potentiallydiscourage them from making investments in new refineries and findingnew oil sources, resulting in fewer jobs and even higher prices at thepump. Jimmy Carter tried this in 1980, and it only increased U.S.dependence on foreign oil. Singling out one particular industry forpunishment because it is politically unpopular doesn’t make mucheconomic sense, either.



Opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
What he said: “We should sell 70 million barrels ofoil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less-expensive crude,which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.” —Speech in Lansing, Mich., Aug. 4, 2008
Why it’s a bad idea: Obama was right in July when he saidthat the strategic oil reserve “has to be reserved for a genuineemergency.” Selling oil from the 700 million barrel reserve wouldincrease domestic supply and could drive down prices in the short term,but encouraging consumers to use more oil isn’t going to fix anything.And depleting the reserve would leave the United States vulnerable to asupply disruption caused by a natural disaster or further unrest in theMiddle East. Obama swapped common sense for this dangerous boondogglein August after McCain started to hammer him on offshore drilling. Somuch for tough truths

渔音谦谦

这篇文章的作者还写了一篇麦凯恩的。嘲讽的意味就更那个拉。
有兴趣的筒子可以去FP搜索一下。

渔音谦谦

深入挖掘长文。。可以让我慢慢磨的文。。

这文我拿走了。。都米人领。。我自己领了吧。。

magicboy

谦谦，谦谦，我爱你

渔音谦谦

谦谦，谦谦，我爱你
magicboy 发表于 2009-9-15 18:31

你这么热情。。小心有人看到了打我。。。

trsita

谦谦 多领点吧！就让MM多爱爱你爱哈