Ryan Newcomb
Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is calling for the United States to become independent of foreign energy in ten years. Across the nation there are numerous lobbyist and activist groups, such as Environment America, that are already conducting grassroots campaigns in many states to build as much support and funding for this plan as possible.
If elected President, Obama and the Democratic Congress will likely provide tax incentives, credits, and/or direct funding to make Obama’s dream a reality. At a time when aging American factories are closing and jobs are being outsourced to foreign soil, Obama’s plan offers hope to working class America. Many towns are reliant on factories and plants, but as American industry moves overseas in favor of new facilities and cheaper labor, millions of Americans are left unemployed.
It seems only logical that Obama’s plan will revolve around these small towns. New manufacturing plants will be constructed to produce the materials necessary for Obama’s energy plan. Producing enough wind turbines, solar panels, and hydro-electric generators to power the entire nation will create millions of new manufacturing jobs. New power plants using modern technology will need to be manned, operated, and maintained, creating technical and service jobs. Of course, the facilities for these brand new factories and power plants will need to be built: more jobs in construction and labor.
Along with the energy plan, Obama will likely push Democratic Party agendas. America’s aging infrastructure, such as bridges and highways, need to be repaired or rebuilt. Social programs will be instituted to truly fight crime and poverty, education will be expounded into the American people, and a national health care program will bring comfort to millions of Americans who can’t afford it in the current system. After ten years, the United States will re-emerge stronger than ever.
But at what cost? The United States will no longer be able to afford its expensive (over 60% national budget) foreign affairs and defense programs. It’s a good thing President Bush heavily invested in Defense spending. At the onset of the War on Terror, the American Armed Forces was largely equipped with late Cold War and Persian Gulf weapons. For example, many are unaware that the F-117 Stealth Fighter was actually designed at the tail end of the Vietnam War.
When compared to the technology of Iraq or Afghanistan, the American military is of course more advanced; however, nations such as Russia and China have been developing and producing new weapons that can often outperform mainstay U.S. technology. During the War on Terror, the United States made an expensive yet necessary step to stay ahead of the technological curve. From digital fatigues to robotic attack drones to the F-22 Raptor, the American conventional military defines Twenty First Century warfare. Of course, the crown jewel and achievement of the Bush Administration is now fully operational: the Missile Defense Shield. The United States won’t need much military spending for the next decade… if the world remains peaceful.
That being said, if there is one recurring theme in history it is that peace doesn’t last. The United States doesn’t even have peace now. With two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia’s invasion of Georgia, a worldwide food shortage and fuel crisis, a possible Cold War re-emergence between Russia and the West, and the re-awakening of the Chinese dragon, can the United States really afford to write off its current foreign policy?
