In this blog entry, I aim to compare Obama's senatorial legislative record versus Clinton's senatorial record. In it, I will counter the argument that the hundreds of legislative acts that Obama supposedly authored during his 3 years in the Senate actually show that Obama's legislative record is more substantial than Clinton's. Through the following blog entry, I will show that the opposite is actually the case.
It appears as though Obama was an author of quite a few acts, however many of these, were never passed. I, personally, am most impressed with the alternative fuel acts that Obama co-authored or sponsored. However, none of these were ever implemented, such as:
American Fuels Act
Biofuels Security Act
Alternative Diesel Standard
When you look at the acts that Obama co-authored or sponsored that did end up passing, these acts were much less substantive in nature, and actually don't follow much of a direction or theme...
Obama's "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" ended up passing. This act does sound very impressive, but what it actually means is that the US government will be forced to post their budget online so that everyday Americans can search through it (thus transparency). Okay, so it means post the budget online... this is much less impressive and substantial than it sounds. The same inconsequentiality applies to Obama's "Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act".
Another current in Obama's legislative acts is lead-poisoning and mercury poisoning. This has also been a strong theme behind his senatorialship. Again, this sort of legislature is easy, palatable, bubble-gum fare (who's going to say no against restricting lead content?). And once again, his legislature doesn't really follow a cohesive direction. No wonder Obama hasn't been specific about what he stands for... because his legistation doesn't stand for anything specific either.
Hillary Clinton on the other hand, although she hasn't authored as many acts as Obama has, has been pivotal in passing substantive law that does get implemented. Also, these laws are consistent with issues (healthcare, women and children's issues, education) she has always championed as a young lawyer, as a first lady, and is championing now as the central message of her campaign. I have quoted her website:
Healthcare:
*Hillary passed legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed.
Economy:
*She helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program
Education:
*She has passed legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools.
In this argument, I have not included all of the legislature that Clinton authored, but which did NOT pass, something which Obama supporters are so willing to tout for their own candidate. Nor have I included national legislature that she authored and implemented as first lady, such as the "State Children's Health Insurance Program", which has provided millions of children with health insurance, and the "Vaccines for Children Program", both of which she designed and championed. Finally, I have not included the disastrous health-care reform program that she chaired as first lady, which, although a failure, was a much more substantive effort than any Obama has ever launched.
All in all, there is something to be said about Clinton being more substantive than Obama, an opinion that is echoed in the official New York Times endorsement of Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president.
No comments:
Post a Comment