No time to experiment

Every Monday through Friday, I habitually bolt out of my morning lectures pick up the day's copy of the Chronicle. As a freshman, I am proud to say that I have grown a passion and a love for our student newspaper in only a short number of months. Although the articles are written with a magnificent prose that any undergraduate writer should pride themselves in, I have grown slightly uncomfortable with a rather cohesive theme among many student articles: change.

Sen. Barack Obama promises change. I've heard this too many times before, but what does this change mean? Are Obama-pushers claiming an obvious change in the fact that there will no longer be a Republican in the White House? Perhaps, but I just don't understand how any change can enhance the well-being of the United States. I've been told over and over again to examine the size of the national debt during the presidency of George W. Bush, a man I still support as my current president. So let's look at the national debt: it has increased significantly to approximately $10 trillion! Yet, before we point the finger toward the Oval Office, take into consideration that, as learned in any high school government class, all appropriation bills start in Congress. Last time I checked, the majority in Congress belongs to the Democratic party. I just can't seem to visualize a major change in government spending if we promote Obama from his position on Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The truth is, although Obama promises to the American people that he will cut redundant government spending if elected to the presidency, his voting record shows no evidence for this proposal; he has voted yes on almost every spending bill during his tenure in the senate. Another point I feel compelled to bring up is that Obama must share some of the blame in the failure of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose bankruptcies sparked this financial crisis. While Obama claims to have warned against the collapse of Freddie and Fannie, his senate voting record gives no evidence that he took action against their collapse, whereas Sen. John McCain pushed for regulation of Fannie and Freddie.

Do yourself a favor, fellow Dukies, and take advantage of the Gothic Wonderland's wireless internet. While you are reading this over a bagel in Alpine or God-knows-what-they're-serving-in-the-Marketplace, google the Community Reinvestment Act. If you can explain to me why Jimmy Carter would have passed this bill into legislation 31 years ago, and how this act could in any way benefit our economy today, I just might let you use my guest-swipe into the Marketplace sometime this semester. What is the incentive in coercing financial institutions into sub-prime mortgages and loans? Obama must have the answer, he stood against changes to the CRA that would prevent these financial giants from entering into these sub-prime agreements. I ask you now, do we still blame Bush for our economic turmoil in these last couple of months? I don't. I blame Obama and every other Democratic hooligan on Capitol Hill.

Back to this notion of "change" (the same notion I could not avoid while abroad this summer in Spain. Somehow, this idea that "Obama va a cambiar el mundo" had been easily adapted by the Spanish people-I fear for the young Spanish children that will grow up under the regime of Zapatero and the PSOE, but that's another complaint all together). Whatever this change is, I cannot bring myself to subscribe to it. Any reasonable person would realize, given the status of our economy and national deficit, right now is not the time to experiment with ultra-liberal, ambiguous tax plans and government spending proposals. The only "change" I would be able to support under Obama would in fact be a change in his own voting practices. Maybe I have it all wrong, and that is what he has been promising to us for the last 22 months-to "change" himself-but I highly doubt it.

I still have faith in my choice, and vote for president of the United States of America: Sen. John McCain. He has served America faithfully in Washington for the last 22 years, and I am certain he will continue to do the same in the Oval Office.

Tim Light

Trinity '12