Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a "crisis" in Social Security - most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration's attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal's crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.
But Mr. Obama's Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you'd expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that's neither possible nor desirable.
To understand the nature of Mr. Obama's mistake, you need to know something about the special role of Social Security in American political discourse.
Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security - declaring that the program as we know it can't survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers - is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.
Consider, for example, this exchange about Social Security between Chris Matthews of MSNBC and Tim Russert of NBC, on a recent edition of Mr. Matthews's program "Hardball."
Mr. Russert: "Everyone knows Social Security, as it's constructed, is not going to be in the same place it's going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."
Mr. Matthews: "It's a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point."
Mr. Russert: "Yes."
But the "everyone" who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn't include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.
As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: "The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country's financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs."
How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it's the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security's future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program.
Thus, in 2005, the Bush administration tried to push through a combination of privatization and benefit cuts that would, over time, have reduced Social Security to nothing but a giant 401(k). The administration claimed that this was necessary to save the program, which officials insisted was "heading toward an iceberg."
But the administration's real motives were, in fact, ideological. The anti-tax activist Stephen Moore gave the game away when he described Social Security as "the soft underbelly of the welfare state," and hailed the Bush plan as a way to put a "spear" through that soft underbelly.
Fortunately, the scare tactics failed. Democrats in Congress stood their ground; progressive analysts debunked, one after another, the phony arguments of the privatizers; and the public made it clear that it wants to preserve a basic safety net for retired Americans.
That should have been that. But what Jonathan Chait of The New Republic calls "entitlement hysteria" never seems to die. In October, The Washington Post published an editorial castigating Hillary Clinton for, um, not being panicky about Social Security - and as we've seen, nonsense like the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme seems to be back in vogue.
Which brings us back to Mr. Obama. Why would he, in effect, play along with this new round of scare-mongering and devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years?
I don't believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times - and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.
Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton - and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason "we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions" is that "politics has become so bitter and partisan," joining in the attack on Senator Clinton's Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.
But Social Security isn't a big problem that demands a solution; it's a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.
We all wish that American politics weren't so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists - which is the case for many issues today - you end up being played for a fool. And that's what has just happened to Mr. Obama.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
63 Comments so far
Show AllZydeco---I am curious about the widow you mentioned who only got $350 for funeral expenses in spite of the fact that her husband paid in to the system for 30 years. I am a widow and my husband was 55 when he died. 20 of his working years were spent on a dairy farm, which seldom generated enough profit to have to pay in to Social Security. Before that he worked various odd jobs. All the same I am entitled to $625/month on HIS benefits. Something is wrong with that picture you painted.
S.S is not a perfect system but I, for one, am extremely grateful it is there for me now when I need it. We have got to stop acting like spoiled children saying "MINE" all the time. We are so worried that someone else might benefit from our hard work. Sharing and pooling resources is a good thing. Don't we try to teach our small children about sharing?
Obama is trying to champion a non existent cause. On major policy issues that affect the commoners - be it better health care, be it saving the environment, with drawing from iraq, regulating wall street & big banks, or more scrutiny over uber corporations & it exectutive, drumming the beat to a new war with iran, pulling gas guzzlers off the streets - both democrats & republicans drink out the same stream & are blood brothers. The imaginged "bipartisanship", is already bridged by the shared practices of republicans & democrats.
The real bipartisanship, if Obama has the courage to admit and work for, needs to be between the ideological twins of republican/democratic parties & the liberals/greens.
Hari
social security 'crisis' can be easily solved by tieing the payment increases to the inflation rate
BTW I agree with aminahyaquin about the Kucinich parade. Go Obama.
In all due respect to Krugman, Obama focused on the inequality of the social security system- a regressive tax- not 'the crisis'. Obama asked simply whether it is fair that some people pay into the system on the basis of 100% of their income, while those making hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars pay into the legal fiction that no one in America makes more than $80,000 some dollars. People like Bill Gates are paying into Social Security on the basis of a legal fiction that translates into them paying less than 1% of their income towards insuring Social Security's future, while the people who can least afford the Social Security payments are paying on the basis of their actual income, under $80,000 some dollars.
As Leon Trotsky once said, we should have 'a sliding scale of wages' to rectify the problems with inflation and the tendency of the exploiter class to hold down the minimum wage, [or the proportion of their income that the government can tax to help fund Social Security], for a number of years to the point where the exploited class is making as much as it used to and paying the largest proportion of Social Security, while the exploiter class pays didley squat and invests their future in hedge funds exploiting workers in third world sweatshops. Obama is merely pointing out that the process of diminishing returns is systematic and lies at the heart of how we fund the Social Security program.
The bigger question is why is the taxable income ceiling fixed at $80,000 some odd dollars? These kind of regressive taxes- including the fact that certain states over rely on sales taxes instead of income taxes- are one of the reasons that median income is falling and average income is rising in America-inequality-.
Good luck on raising the salary cap! Remember, the corporations must pay matching funds into Social Security for their employees. Ordinary Americans don't vote in sufficient numbers and don't make political contributions in sufficient amounts to defeat corporations and the wealthy. Besides, any new Social Security revenue would just get spent by the government on other stuff. We had our chance with Al Gore and his lockbox, but stupid America just laughed. Now we've got what we deserve. Sorry about that.
Obama playing nice trying to win all sides of a one sided coin....the US has money for Iraq, Afghanistan and other "acts of freedom" but none for Social Security and Child Health Care. Say that Barack and you got my support, but until then, Kucinich all the way.
Sucker is as sucker does.
I hope that a future Krugman column will elaborate on the proposition that our country's financial health will be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs. Discussants have almost entirely ignored this point. I suspect it's probably very important, and in any case it suggests that a single-payer health care plan should come right after peace on the next administration's laundry list.
starofthesea -- No, it wasn't supposed to be a joke. It is my opinion. While I can agree that it may be wrong to lump Kucinich in with the likes of Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, I feel he is part of the old guard Progressive wing of the Decmocratic party. I like a lot of what he says (I really appreciate that he addresses our monetary policies with the Fed) but I don't see him straying from a Progressive approach if necessary. For example, if he ended U.S. participation in NAFTA and untaxed outsourcing (a good thing), would he then allow U.S. companies doing business here to operate under fewer governmental regulations and taxes? I don't think he would. That, to me, is old guard. That said, I do think he is a much better choice the Clinton.
Do you really don't think people don't want to be weaned from social security? I'm not sure the working family seeing 15% of their income going to a phantom trust fund but sees no savings in their bank account feels the same way. What about the woman whose husband just died and she only gets $350 from social security to help cover funeral expenses although her husband paid into social security for over 30 years. Then there are the people who die before collecting benefits. Not only will they never see that money neither will their families.
Barak Obama vs. Ron Paul for President? Hmmmm -- I guess we'd really have a choice if that were the case. That wouldn't be so with Clinton vs. Giuliani.
I don't have any problem with the gov't working for the public good ("promote the general welfare"). I just don't think it should be done in a way that makes the public dependent on the gov't.
"We all wish that American politics weren't so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists - which is the case for many issues today - you end up being played for a fool. And that's what has just happened to Mr. Obama."
Great article. The Repugs didn't get the POTUS, the House, Senate, the SCOTUS, the city councils, mayors and most governorships by being bi-partisan. And Dems have Biden saying he would appoint Repugs to his cabinet and Obama playing the bi-partisanship losers card with a Dem majority just elected in Congress that gives Bush whatever he wants.
**********FREEDOM POEM**********
FREEDOM rings like the sound of money.
Jingling LIBERTY for sale on Monday;
For sale by license, fee and permit,
All week long if you can afford it.
FREEDOM comes and FREEDOM goes.
When you want to escape oppression's woes,
Go to the government office where
FREEDOM is sold for a price held dear;
Sold by license, fee and permit,
All week long if you can afford it.
by Thomas G. Miller
Folks talk about forming a new Progressive Peoples party and then suggest voting and joining the Greens, Socialists or others.
These are not a new progressive party!
In this system (Reality) the only thing we can do is simulate what we would expect of a better system.
That is if the other 3rd parties would realize that if they want real influence they have to begin to form coalitions and work together on common goals...just one or two would be a great start for the beginning of the basis of a "new progressive party" to become self evident.
We Progressives have not shown that we can organize effectively in the System that we have now because we all want everybody to join the tactics and agenda that has been set and we always end up with nobody elected who we support. We are divided by all the 3rd parties because we don't have a clue on how to network the political system yet.
The Gong Ho Greens say 'Have Dennis join the Greens, we are the best and only!" and the Gung Hoes of all the other 3rd parties well say basically the same and they will not join together to support the best progressive of the two major parties (I know there is only the Capital Party).
So If you want to change the two party system the Independents and 3rd party folks will first have to show that they have some ability to organize and work together like other governments do already to accomplish at least one goal... (Like treatment and solution for the causes of War). Dennis is out in front on this, but most progressives who want what he wants will not vote for him because we do not have the kind of system that the 3rd parties want. So we go in never ending circles of complaints that go nowhere.
If we want to be more effective Progressives, fight inside our Third party to begin to infiltrate the big System and then we will have both our independence and greater influence in the system that we have now.
Even if you just want to change the system, this is the way to do it.
I hope to God somebody would talk about slashing the obscene"defense" budget in addition to raising taxes on the wealthy. Instead, I hear the three "front running" democrats arguing for an increase in the size of the Army and Marine corps.For a while I was seriously supporting the Ron Paul campaign until I heard his thoughts on Social Security and other economic stances.I guess the message is that if you make it to 65 there is no more use for you to the oligarchy. When on earth did we become so vile of a society that we rationalize abandoning our elderly?
Contrary to some opinions on this blog, the democrats fought off a major assault on social security and won.
They beat off the republican attempt to eliminate this government program, which is a thorn in the side of the lets privatize everything folks.
Yes, that is correct the "do nothing" dems blocked a concerted effort by the Republican Party to dismantle this progressive idea and lost.
I like Obama a lot, I think he is untainted by past Clinton cabinet members and would make a refreshing change to the Washington scene.
KUCINICH/OBAMA 2008
Al Obama, Hellary, Edwards, Biden, Richardson are all DLC members that are for privatized war and against Social Security which makes them perfect Republicans running on a Democrat ticket. Social Security will be fine when the DLC Democrats quit helping the Republicans take all the money out of Social Security for private wars and private mercenaries to guard them from the 3/4th majority of the people that the DLC and Republicans are taking the money away from.
When you are talking about spoilers, how can you spoil something that is already spoiled?
All DLC members are spoiled.
Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are NOT members of the DLC, never have been and never would be. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the only candidates that actually represent the people of the 3/4th majority common population.
It is time for the 3/4th majority common population to show the DLC that we are fed up with their DLC duopoly rule with the Republicans against the greater majority of the people and vote in candidates that actually represent the people of the greater majority, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
It would be ridiculous, and Fraudulent, to 'cure' Social Security by further age-bumps and benefit-cuts. It will very-easily stay viable and 'everlasting' by simply 'adjusting-up' the absurdly-low 'Cap' (88k, today?) to whatever is needed for continuance, then adjust-down as populations entering 'benefit-period' dictate. [One might also consider making those with high 'independent-means' increasingly-ineligible for benefits!]
I am so sick of hearing Social Security discussed as if it were some form of 'Entitlement Program' or 'public-Welfare'. It is a PRIME and Ultimate-example of what social-democracy can 'do' for MUTUAL-benefit for its citizen-participants and an honest Governmental-Broker. It isn't any-form of a 'gift' to pay-back (and with Surety of minor-Interest and as an ABSOLUTE-obligation on the part of the Administrations long-trusted to act as 'Supremely-Non-criminal' in this Duty) this once-Sacred Trust. SocSec is the MODEL of 'efficiency' -- having a remarkably and heretofore unmatched 'low overhead and administrative-waste/corruption'.
It simply 'works' -- for those who contributed and for those who have managed-it. Killing/hurting/changing it will not only cheat all participants from the last-vestige of a vanishing/decent Past, but it will slay the goose whose golden-eggs so frequently save these Administrations from their follies...
Madness...!
[But what can one expect from Idiots who also-believe that 'single-payer' health-care is WORSE that the thrice-more-expensive and far-worse performing 'Private-Sector' -- these are the same-Selfish-Idiots who will next remove Public Education in favor of 'private-education' -- ["for those who can afford it"], replacing Libraries with Bookstores, National Parks with Resorts, Fire&Police Protections with Blackwater -- there is NO END to their greed/idiocy, or hope for changing their short-term 'thinking'...!
If WE don't 'set their Limits' soon, then no-one ever will...]
People...you had best Draw the Line at Social Security. You will NEVER have a better 'rallying-point'...(or a bigger-loss, if you don't act).
You know many folks belive that being liberal is a good thing. i am the kind of leftist who sees that liberals rarely sacrifice anything at all to play the good guy...meanwhile dehumanizing their opposition, and engaging in a useless embrace of cynical social impotence.
i am the kind of leftist who has actually LIVED my beliefs in this increasingly merciless country by working with the disenfranchised folks in some of the most left behind neighborhoods and reservations in the country, including for
I am the one who has joined the ranks of the poor and dispossessed because i whistle blew and got slam dunked by the republican lite like Billary Clinton .
i will vote for a human being who is against torture, does their best to be honest in a very hostile and dysfunctional national political, cultural and campaign setting that is basically run by "handlers" who "handle" all of US: that is we the people not just republicans not just democrats.
i don't sit home and listen to NPR, moan and fulminate about people based upon one label like their party affiliation and claim i am morally superior.
i put my life and health on the line every day for over 35 years to the best of my ability, often limited and constrained by comfortably numb pseudo-"liberals" posing as gatekeepers to "incremental change"(always moving right and up for themselves) in the war against poverty. i have done my best and sometimes succeeded in the constant struggle to make a difference for people who have no voice and no hope and little actual help and i lost all my money and my health.
so Mr. or MS speechifying Complacent sit in your comfy computer workroom with all your electric toys, just remember i cannot afford to eat vegetables or a full month's worth of food any more becasue i am on food stamps. i cannot go to a doctor or pick up medicine after my heart attack and with a severe immune disorder, because i live in the USA where health care is a rich people's perk.
So many liberals cheat like hell all the time and play partisan power games and read in the beltway mediaabout why they failed on their agenda is the other party's fault.
the fault is selfishness and insincerity. lackof real commitment to a goal. lack of respect for the diversity of others especially politically. lack of will to build across party lines to a greater good for the whole nation. willingness to belive sectarian lies.
you know what i can sleep at night knowing that i lived my life bravely to make a difference and if i lose it it won't be in the stupor of anti-deppressants and pissants' excuses.
because of all the sham posturing and the sacrifical lambs of the democrats and the republicans alike silence in the face of a nationally permeative culture of insitutional abuse is tolerated by both side s because truth might make their side "look" bad.
well the situation down her is you are all bad...and worse still paradigmatically stuck on the status quo: rich people rule ruthlessly, corporations dominate and corrupt at will, too many lawyers boonswoggle everybody and profit doing so, and the daily living of life for the increasingly desperate working and lower middle class is just hell.
it will not change until we all find ways to like ourselves, make our wants more modest, support each others' dreams and goals and capacity building, and live in mutal respect that is modeled daily berefusing to demonize anybody, and to work with everybody until or unless it becomes ACTUALLY counte-productive. that's what Obama does. and his own "liberals" scour him instead of aapplaud.
the so called greater good for the party line is mirrors lies subterfuge prettified looks dark-lighted self interest and cosmetic appearance rather than achievement sacrifice generosity COURAGE truth speaking authenticty of menas and ends and social goods shared among those most at risk in our society.
my conscience is clear i was a leftist when many on this board were pampered liberal uberclass play dated infants. and are now big talkers who don't actually DO anything except unite behind impractical instead of practical idealists who are so self righteous like they demonize the only people in the race like OBAMA who has a chnace of winning..
for example just like he did with Howard Dean, Kucinich will hold all his followers close to himself until another propped up rightwing opportuinst like BIllary gets the nomination...and he wil demonize somebody like Obama because they don't agree on all their stances but in the main because Obama has what Kucinich lacks : leadership capacity consensus building capability and charisma.
take your toys and go home you phony leftists and "liberals" who live large and fanatical Kucinich followers you are not leaders you're spoilers
What I have been saying for years is apparently true. We are in a leadership crisis in this country that shows no signs of changing. Heavy sigh!
Excerpt: "…there is only one political party in the United States, The Money Party. It has two wings, Republican and Democratic." --- Michael Collins
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11069
As I recall, the last serious dabbling with Social Security insured that it would remain in good condition at least through the year 2042.
It is a fact however, that certain hard-core anti-government idealogues want to destroy ANYTHING that is government controlled... Social Security, Medicare, Public Schools, etc. etc.
The infamous Grover Norquist quote says it all... he wants to destroy government to the point that he could "drown it in a bathtub."
The way they have chosen to destroy things lately is to NAME their activities as exactly the opposite of what they actually ARE... such as "The Clean Air Initiative", "Medicare Improvements", and "No ChIld Left Behind".
So when your congress critter says he or she wants "to SAVE Social Security"... BE AFRAID... BE VERY AFRAID!
Isn't there a website that gives the raw data and statistics on Social Security? I vaguely recall someone from the GAO being interviewed and stating that Social Security isn't in danger. Don't remember his name though.
We're all being played for suckers:
Excerpt: "...there is only one political party in the United States, The Money Party. It has two wings, Republican and Democratic. That party represents excessive concentrations of wealth in the hands of corporations, other organizations, and individuals. They put up the money and get what they pay for every time.
They make sure that the election system is rigged to rely on money like a junkie relies on heroin. The system takes care of them. They don't have to obey the same rules that we do. Why? Because they're above the law.
The Money Party owns the mainstream media entirely. NBC is really General Electric, ABC is Disney, CBS was Viacom but now it's just the name for a mega-corporation, and Fox is News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch financial empire. That's why it's called the corporate media. They're publicity shops, "corporate communications divisions," owned and controlled by Money Party members.
Their job is to emulate George Orwell's "1984" by generating meaningless concepts that bind us to false choices." --- Michael Collins
Zydeco----am having a great deal of trouble understanding exactly where you are coming from-----Kucinich part of the Democratic old guard?!? Was that supposed to be a joke? Do you know anything at all about who he is and what he has been trying to do? Not every incumbant in Congress can be painted with the same brush. Please educate yourself alittle before you make such a statement.
That said, I do not disagree with you that a good housecleaning in Washington would likely serve the country well--so would publicly financed elections, term limits, strong anti-trust laws and on and on and on...
Not too many who post here are going to agree that Social Security is a problem, and we should wean ourselves. Maybe instead of Obama you might find yourself more comfortable with someone like Ron Paul. He doesn't like govt programs either.
So do you think govt should do anything for the common good? Or is it just every man for himself for you? Just asking....
Theres no way Obama can out trianglulate the Clintons. That market place is not available. That is Hilary's M.O.. He is a good speaker and thinker, but kind of naive to political positioning in D.C..
Well im just dreaming mabey sometime it will happen??
Amen to that: "And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want."
These @ss-kissing Doormat Democrats make me sick. I don't see Rethuglicans being "bipartisan" at all, so why are the Democrats such push-overs? Democrats are forever hugging and kissing the Rethugs, and talking about their "friends across the aisle." It's quite disgusting.
scruzn ... from your list of issues, you seem to be saying that with 5% more voters the Green Party will be in power. Surely you don't believe the Democrats stand for that list of issues do you?
how about taking the trillion they are throwing at illegal occupations of foreign countries and put TAHT towards social security?
Well said, Paul Krugman. I have been very dubious of Obama as a progressive with all his warm fuzzy talk of bipartisanship and new politics; we do not need any kind of new politics, but a Congress that is willing to uphold our Constitution and act for the benefit of the American people. We need resistance! Let's face it- the Republicans aren't going to buy into this pleasant sounding bipartisanship. They are too smart and too successful at playing the game to agree to play it nicely. If Obama were really progressive, he would not be so open to compromise with people who think the Constitution doesn't apply to them.
Once again the republican party is doing its best to destroy our country, we could have health benefits for all jobs ,housing, free schooling for all but no we like war killing and making the military ind. complex richer and richer. We need 5% more voters and the gop would vanish.
Here's another Beltway myth that seems to have a lot of posters here hooked. Government is not "raiding" the Social Security fund, it is borrowing from it the way it borrows from anyone else, including Wall Street investors. The only way it becomes a raid is if the government repudiates its debts, in which case we'd have a lot more to worry about than Social Security. In the meantime, lending money to the Treasury is a low-risk, low yield investment for the SSA. Would we want the SSA investing in, say, the subprime mortgage market? Probably not. It would have been nice if SSA had invested in Exxon in 2000, but who would have thought gas prices could go so high?
Yet another myth is that if nothing is done the money will run out. It won't run out unless they stop taxing people entirely. If nothing changes, the fund will reach a point at which it will have to cut benefits to the point of equaling revenue, that's all. The real headache is Medicare/Medicaid, thanks to our wonderful corporate for-profit healthcare system.
Soc. Sec. Retirement and Disability are in danger if the fund keeps being raided; it'll just be another unpaid debt. We've a few trillion in those already. Cozy rich Krugman has no worries about it, we disabled and elderly do. Already inflation stats are manipulated to keep us from getting the cost-of-living increases we need to avoid homelessness. We barely avert malnutrition thanks to foodbanks, not food stamps, which have been disbursed at malnutrition levels for decades. Obama's plans are great: stop raiding the fund, replenish it, tax those w/over $95k, offset that for the middle class by eliminating their alternative minimum tax, reducing their health care costs, protecting them from predatory lenders that'll leave them homeless almost overnight. Krugman wants us to believe Soc Sec isn't an issue because it's Hillary's achilles' heel - she can't take a stand and make her lobbyists and PACs all happy with her.
According to Mr Krugman, we are doomed to an endless war between the Democrats and Republicans. That's sad. The truth is that the only way to end this war between the parties is to replace the old guard - which includes Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich -- and replace them with fresh untainted leaders. Obama is the only Democratic candidate who come close to this option.
It's really up to the American people. We could replace the entire House of Representatives every two years. That would send a clear message to Washington that this country is about us and not political agendas. I wonder if we have the courage to speak so clearly. It would mean Republicans voting Democrat and vice versa. At the very least, we could get to a point where the Greens or Libertarians (the only alternative parties able to get on state ballots) can get 10% to 15% of the vote rather than just 1-2 percent. Breaking partisanship will have to come from the people and not the politicians. Unfortunately for Mr. Krugman -- that would put him out of work.
As for Social Security -- it's become another burdensome tax. Since its beginning, they've raised it from 3 to 15 percent, made it mandatory as opposed to optional, and raided it to pay for other government spending programs. We need to be weaned off it. We need to get to a place where Americans can pay for their retirement and government payments will be an option. Raising the cap is not the best option. I actually agree with Clinton when she says it will be too much of a tax increase. Don't forget, employers (except in the case of the self-employed) pay half of your social security. What will happen when they have to start paying twice as much into social security for their high income employees. They will lower wages, pass on the cost to consumers or both. That will not help anybody. Why not work to create an economy where more Americans are earning higher incomes. That way more money will be going into social security. We could start with putting and end to NAFTA, our membership in the WTO and working to close the trade deficits we have with a number of nations.
The Kumbaya Uniter thing is a loser. It appears that Barack's style is conciliatory in an environment in which his colleagues in Congress cannot even agree that Vietraq is a disaster.
Barack is a good man. He just needs to see more movies.
Bringing a knife to a gunfight ... doing business with devils who believe that Greed is Good ... Enron's Smartest Guys in the Room ... Sicko answered the question it asked, 'Who Are We'? ... are illustrations of pop culture. Democratic Senators running for President may want us to believe that reconciliation is feasbile; it isn't what they experience on a daily basis in Congress.
Krugman is absolutely right:
We all wish that American politics weren't so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists - which is the case for many issues today - you end up being played for a fool. And that's what has just happened to Mr. Obama.
Obama has an opportunity to be less the fool than the nominee. It won't happen with a Kumbaya strategy.
The way they will rip out the soft underbelly of the New Deal is by acclimatizing the American people into believing "government is bad and private is good." That large government programs are inefficient, wasteful, tax and spend boondoggles burdening the worthy.
They - they being that conglomeration of all those who have opposed government regulation, labor rights, peoples rights throughout our history - have been enormously successful so far. To the point that suggesting we need a national health program (never mind the millions uninsured or the enormous healthcare costs to middleclass families) is merely "socialism." End of argument.
We live, frankly, in looney times. Times in which fantasies have almost completely taken over the national discourse. To comment in any depth on that current state would require a tome. But if Americans can remain sane enough to put simple self interest above that dream landscape our media, politicians, and captains of industry (through advertising) as well as all those who believe in a make-believe America, the world of Ozzie and Harriet, have instilled upon us, then Social Security may survive.
Why can't anyone understand that Social Security benefits are a government program. Nobody says the Iraq war, or subsidies to corporations, or (pick your program) is in 'financial crisis' because we are spending more money than is coming in.
Social Security is NOT a self-funding insurance program that can run out of money. As long as we have a solvent US government, Social Security (and Medicare, and Veterans pensions, and all entitlement programs) will continue. If the US government goes under, so will all the programs. But not until.
The "rich" are vocal about how worthless Social Security is...until about a year before they retire. Then you ought to see them scurry around trying to find a way to get their 40 quarters because Medicare pays the hospital bills for them and their spouse at about the same time as they start to need hospitals.
"People like Klugman (sic) are driving leftists like me to write in or to vot (sic) republican. I'll never vote for the lying, cheating, savings and loan conniving Billaries in a million years."
Leftists like you? What kind of leftist would possibly vote Republican? Other than the kind that aren't smart enough to operate a spellchecker? Let's not try to shit the public, impostor...
I found this item by Al Giordano of Narco News on Obama and Killery to be quite interesting, http://counterpunch.org/giordano11142007.html It's too bad it isn't published in full so we might all comment on his thesis, which I think important enogh to raise in this comment thread that others might read it.
Ramsay---You are most welcome, and I'm glad I could make anyone smile these days.
Checked out your website and if my own son weren't such a wonderful financial planner himself, working with very committed individuals, I'd be jumping ship with my extremely modest resources. You have both right aspirations and right livelihood. May you now find an abundance of blessings!
Peace
Krugman, in effect, said this, but it cannot be overstated: decrying "partisanship", and asking for "bi-partisanship", all the while doing just the opposite, is a stratagem from Karl Rove's playbook.
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, is the same as lie, lie, lie. To sociopaths, it is all the same, and all so very easy.
One cannot be "bipartisan" with sociopaths.
While I don't wish to disparage the term "radical", perhaps it would be "salable" if more liberal politicos said (over and over and over again) that they "cannot be bipartisan with radicals", and pin the term "radical" to the Bush-Cheney Republicans.
(I know, this doesn't do anything about the singular corporate Party, but it one tiny step in counteracting one of Rove's rules of rulership.)
Thanks.
The messages of Obama, Matthews, and Russert need not be repeated in the progressive press. We have to remember that too much repetition burns the capitalist propaganda into our brains.
The relevant point is that the public cares about Social Security, but only because the capitalists have instructed the public to spend every penny they make before they make it so that interest may be charged and garbage may be shipped.
Social Security gives the liberal capitalists license to keep their bloody hierarchies intact. Things will be much better when the progressive movement reaches critical mass and local self-sufficiency and mass self-determination trump concentrated capital and hierarchial control.
The best leaders in our country and in its history are bi-partisan consensus-builders. It shocks and saddens me that Paul Klugman would attack such a fine candidate, Senator Obama, in this way.
We need to have a leader who is an authentic poulist, who gets his support from the madding crowd and not the corporate plutocrats and oligarchs. Barack Obama is fresh and competant, courageous and intelligent, and he just happens to be the best and most authentic LEADER in the race.
I for one am tired of the Clinton's sleazy, ruthless, sell-out politics as usual. the first Billary destroyed our nation's safety net and so now people who ahev become too ill to work, like me, are dying on workfare or starving and losing their shelter and dignity without it. For all you comfortably numb plutocrats that si teh real world out here, no income at all while you wait yeasr for social security disability you ar entitled to but don't get until the lawyers appeal your case several times to get their cut.
Billary I was a despicable act. Lies, spin, sexaholism, excuses, polarization and highly rewarding opportunism, making the Biallries in excess of a ten million dollar household.
The pundits have shown they are piss poor at picking candidates, the media as a whole plays king and queen maker instead of informing us,so we the people not can choose our President. No more democracy. Plutocracy ...in all its ugliness of social darwinism and winners who stomp on the vulnerable members of our society..instead of all special interest corporations we eus, just like Obama did, and stop bashing them for every percieved variation from the polarized party lines.
This si a tragic article today by Klugman. What a jaded guy, and what a write off of the best candidate in the race for ALL THE PEOPLE.
Unless Biallry vheats i don't belive she can win. People like Klugman are driving leftists like me to write in or to vot republican. I'll never vote for the lying, cheating, savings and loan conniving Billaries in a million years.
and here' s link to a UK article that gives a really good reason why:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3160616...
it's called "why do we ignore the abuse of women?" and it spells out some concerns about adulating the Norman Mailers and Billary Clintons
That's Senator Obama to you.
"If you don't like this, don't vote Democrat."
This is not directed at you COMarc, just that your statement triggered a thought...
I see this statement quite often in the comments section on CD, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, as long as the Democratic and Republican party (yes, singular) control the national agenda, we don't have much of a choice. I voted for Nader in 2000, to no effect. Vote for Obama, vote for Romney , vote for Clinton, vote for Giuliani, the difference is negligible.
The only way we can get rid of this party (and party is a very descriptive term since they're living high on the hog with the people's money) is to work at the grassroots level, voting in city councils, state legislators, etc, and build a New Progressive Peoples Party from the ground up. Choose the Greens, the Socialists, anything but what is in charge now.
starofthesea: That was a beautiful line. It made me smile - thanks.
Ramsay
There will be no security, social or otherwise, without peace.
If you cannot afford the Social Security as some sort of effective program, then the United States of Israel is no longer a first world country, its becoming a third world country. Third world countries cannot afford massive nuclear arsenals, maintenance of world wide military bases and forces, wasted spending on star wars programs,and in general, cannot afford to feed, clothe and provide water to their own people. The USI cannot afford its nation wide fleet of oil thirsty Hummers, and as climate change and drought grip the country, cannot afford the massive coal burning energy consumption. Any realistic view of the future says everyone is drowning at the deep end.
Obama has been placed - by whom? as a candidate only to enforce and secure clinton's march towards the white house.
He is obviously too young however good loocking. Hillary under her sheep clothes
is roaring for more diamonds. Be aware!
Or, it could be the Democrats have basically the same agenda as the Republicans. I know that hard truth would come as a shock to someone like Mr. Krugman who's professional life is dedicated to trying to make it seem like there's a difference.
Remember what was happening when Bush was trying to privatise Social Security a few years ago. The Democrats were all lining up to help it pass. Of course they were speaking as if they were opposed, but even before the fight began they were talking about 'compromise' with Bush, and their plans all led to privatising Soc. Sec.
Since the Democrats get lots of their money from Wall Street, and since its Wall Street that wants to get its hands on our Soc. Sec. money, then why is it a surprise that the Democrats are just trying another variation of the same privatization scheme.
Obama wasn't played for a sucker. He's doing exactly what his backers want him to do. Steal our Soc. Sec. money by 'privatising' it.
If you don't like this, don't vote Democrat.
Had enough yet?
Lift the cap on Social Security!!! Just do it!
Oh, I forgot....The rich don't need the benefits, so they don't want to pay their fair share....
Social Security can be fixed.
Eliminate the upper limit on the withholdings, and pay back the debt owed to our society by everyone who benfitted from all the borrowing (and let's be honest with ourselves, we all borrowed this money after it was paid)against what was supposed to be (according to Reagan) put aside for ...now!
I can't believe the extremely high level of ignorance of my fellow countrypersons (not those commondreamers though!)
it's all about the need of the financial system to suck cash from wherever it can, or collapse. any candidate who does not recocognize this fact is either a moron or dishonest.
How could the "conventional wisdom" get this so wrong? Exactly because the ruling class is not going to give up until they get their hands on the trillions of dollars that lower income people pay into Social Security.
Obama is trying to prove that he can rule in the interests of the rich. That is how you become a "viable candidate" in the eyes of the corporate media. And even Commondreamers fall for the corporate propaganda, when they dis Dennis Kucinich as unelectable because he isn't corporate backed.
That should be his biggest strong point!
"... if you try to find common ground where none exists - which is the case for many issues today - you end up being played for a fool."
THAT, is precisely why Hillary Clinton must not be the Democratic nominee, and though he offers some hope of "getting it", Obama neither.
Who the hell thinks bipartisanship is a good thing? I'll be damned if I ever want to see a reactionary anywhere but in opposition.
The whole country is being played for a sucker.
Hoa binh
cyberbrook - I was going to say all that, but you said it first! I wonder where the government will go to syphon funds if they get rid of social security.
The cap on social security makes it one of the most regressive taxes in this country. Low income workers have a far, far greater percentage of their wages taken out for this program than the wealthy do. Nearly 1/2 of my salary is eaten up with insurance and taxes.
In reference to health costs, the burden of supplemental insurance (medicare is not enough for most of the elderly), pharmaceuticals, in-home care or nursing homes and other needs far outweighs the problem of how to pay for social security. Universal health care would cost less per capita and go a long way toward ensuring that families don't endure financial hardships in caring for their aging members.
Even if petercschmid is correct about the $400 billion dollar swing in revenues for the U.S. government, the money can easily come from the defense budget and by taxing the wealthy at a reasonable rate. And what is wrong with the government paying back the money that it has stolen from the Social Security Trust Fund? With interest!
Social security is underfunded because they steal from the "trust" fund, starting with the Vietnam War, to help balance the budget thereby making the wars seem less costly and fiscally disruptive.
war funding ---> social security
pentagon budget ---> social security
foreign military bases ---> social security
corporate welfare ---> social security
We can also get rid of the salary cap on which people pay social security taxes. Presently, billionaires don't pay any more social security taxes than those who earn $100,000 per year. That would be more fair and raise more money for this very successful program with widespread coverage and low admin costs.
Obama's nonsense claims about the alleged Social Security "crisis" would seem to suggest that he has some economic policy advisers who are innumerate. Who are these advisers?
Paul is right. Obama is playing this one for politial reasons.
However, it is important to be aware that under current circumstances the surpluses will dry up by around 2017 and the government will be called upon to return several trillion dollars in the trust fund - actually a piece of paper for money spent a long time ago. Instead of pocketing $200 billion annual surpluses the government will have to pay out that amount of money on average until the fund is theoretically exhausted about 20 years later. This represents an annual net swing of $400 billion for the governemnt. Where will that money come from?
The social security system can be saved, as it was before, by increasing the tax again, delaying and/or reducing the benefits or a combination thereof. But something will have to be done, and the earlier we get going the better.