Preparing for the Let Down

 Excellent commentary in the London Times.  Here's how it begins:

When half of mankind seems lifted by hope, nothing looks meaner than to disparage the dream. But what is this Obama mania? The world did not change for ever on Tuesday. No messiah has come among us. Miracles have not become possible. There is no new dawn. Calm down dear, it's only a US presidential election.

Perhaps we'll all be better off in four years, and there won't have been that much of a letdown, but I have my doubts.  Here is what I expect, on the economic front, which is a large part of why I didn't vote for Obama, but not the main reason:

1.  Due to the increase in spending required with his programs, and in order to address the bailout (you know, the bailout in response to the mess the Democrats made), taxes will increase far beyond the $250,000/year cutoff.

2.  Taxes on Capital gains will rise to levels not seen in nearly a century.  The resulting loss of investment capital within the U.S. will mean that people's 401K's will not recover from the Market crash of 2008.  Average retirement age will move significantly toward that of the early 20th century (when it was about 74).

3.  Increased government regulation in an effort to stop anthropogenic global warming (that is, human caused), establish universal healthcare, and support other big government programs will force a significant rise in layoffs.  This will exacerbate an employment situation made bad by the reduced availability of disposable income because of the rising taxes (remember if people don't buy Acme's products, then Acme's earnings go down.  The way most companies raise earnings in the short term is by lowering expenses.  The easiest target is payroll).

4.  The Obama proposal of allowing all Americans to enter into a single Insurance program, like what Federal employees do, will result in the elimination of healthcare benefits for all employees in the U.S.  The motivation will be the reduction of overhead.  The single healthcare program will either be another GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) like Fannie Mae was, or entirely owned by Big Bro... um... the Government.  This will make us another country with nationalized healthcare.  Michael Moore will be spotted flying to Switzerland to see his doctor.

Of course, the biggest reason I didn't vote for Obama, as if you couldn't guess by reading this blog, is his stance on abortion.  For me, the problem is that abortion isn't merely wrong, it is really, really wrong.  Beyond the moral dimension, though, what can we expect from someone who feels that babies are a punishment and if they survive an abortion, should be left to die at the discretion of the doctor performing the abortion?  How does that set of views square with someone who claims to care about the weakest members of our society?  Honestly, I think he only cares about the weakest members that can register to vote.

His campaign, as the election approached, adopted the theme of some pro-choice groups by claiming that the proper way to lower abortion rates is through changing the culture.  In this case, by establishing comprehensive family planning, reducing poverty, enhanced pre-natal care, etc.  I'll agree that in an ideal world, the only way to completely eliminate abortion is by everyone becoming a devout Christian (I believe that Orthodox Jews and Muslims would also be fully against abortion, too).  That isn't going to happen, so will prosperity help?  I'm not so sure that it will.  Of course, I don't think prosperity is going to be something that will come in the next 4 years.  What about birth control?  Well, its pretty much widely available now, universally so in this country.  Girls can get it in school, and in some places, without Mom and Dad's knowledge.  However, it doesn't seem to help.  

Remember that abortion was supposed to reduce the number of single parent households, many years ago.  That would result in a reduction in poverty overall.  It didn't happen.  Quite the opposite did.  Basically, the availability of an apparent solution to an unwanted pregnancy, or the availability of an apparent preventative measure, promotes the behavior that results in the pregnancy.  Oops.

Similarly, I don't think pre-natal care or the lack of availability of it, has much to do with abortion.  Neither does adoption.  Given the prices people are willing to pay, there are plenty of adoption opportunities out there.  No, the underlying issue is that abortion is quick.  For women who can go through with it (many, thankfully, will not when faced with the choice), it is a much more efficient approach than going through an entire pregnancy with the knowledge that the baby will be leaving when its over.  That is why one hears frequently of women in the old USSR that had 5 or more abortions.  Very efficient.

In fact, the only actual analysis I've seen, indicates that pro-life legislation is the only thing that has been effective in lowering abortion rates.

So, I think in four years, we'll be poorer, less well cared for, with the blood of many millions of more babies on our hands.  I hope not, I pray not, but I don't see how it will work out otherwise.