Obama Wrong to Prioritize Deficit Reduction
I'm worried that President Obama is going to focus too much on the
deficit in his State of the Union speech this week and in his actions
throughout this year.
I'm worried because such a focus will make it less likely that he'll
be able, or even inclined to, pass the kind of massive jobs bill we
need to bring down unemployment.
Not to push such a bill through would be a moral failing of the
highest order: We can't let 15 million people languish on the
unemployment lines. And it would also be a political failing: He's
setting a trap for himself here because if he doesn't solve the jobs
problem, Democrats will face a debacle in November.
I'm also worried because the obsession with the deficit will give
ammunition to those who want to shoot holes in Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security-the programs that largely make up what remains of our
safety net, especially for the aged and the disabled.
Obama himself is in favor of a Congressional bill establishing a
bipartisan commission to study-and all but order--ways to cut costs in
these so-called entitlement programs.
But I can't stand that word "entitlement." It makes us sound like
we're spoiled little brats to want the retirement funds we've already
paid for, and the health care that should be our right to have.
There's always trillions for war and bank bailouts, but when we come
to claim what is ours, all of a sudden the cupboards are bare. If
you're concerned about the budget deficit, stop averting your eyes at
the pricetags dangling from the Pentagon and Wall Street.
Also, the idea that Obama is still tilting at the bipartisan windmill is not a good sign at all.
Nor is it a good sign that the Democratic bill would fast-track any
recommendations that this commission comes up with-providing no ability
to amend or filibuster it. (See Dean Baker's excellent commentary here:
www.huffingtonpost.com.)
During his presidential campaign, Obama accused his opponent, John McCain, of wanting to cut Social Security.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats empower such a commission to
justify that cut and then ram it through, this would be a huge double
cross.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
I'm worried that President Obama is going to focus too much on the
deficit in his State of the Union speech this week and in his actions
throughout this year.
I'm worried because such a focus will make it less likely that he'll
be able, or even inclined to, pass the kind of massive jobs bill we
need to bring down unemployment.
Not to push such a bill through would be a moral failing of the
highest order: We can't let 15 million people languish on the
unemployment lines. And it would also be a political failing: He's
setting a trap for himself here because if he doesn't solve the jobs
problem, Democrats will face a debacle in November.
I'm also worried because the obsession with the deficit will give
ammunition to those who want to shoot holes in Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security-the programs that largely make up what remains of our
safety net, especially for the aged and the disabled.
Obama himself is in favor of a Congressional bill establishing a
bipartisan commission to study-and all but order--ways to cut costs in
these so-called entitlement programs.
But I can't stand that word "entitlement." It makes us sound like
we're spoiled little brats to want the retirement funds we've already
paid for, and the health care that should be our right to have.
There's always trillions for war and bank bailouts, but when we come
to claim what is ours, all of a sudden the cupboards are bare. If
you're concerned about the budget deficit, stop averting your eyes at
the pricetags dangling from the Pentagon and Wall Street.
Also, the idea that Obama is still tilting at the bipartisan windmill is not a good sign at all.
Nor is it a good sign that the Democratic bill would fast-track any
recommendations that this commission comes up with-providing no ability
to amend or filibuster it. (See Dean Baker's excellent commentary here:
www.huffingtonpost.com.)
During his presidential campaign, Obama accused his opponent, John McCain, of wanting to cut Social Security.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats empower such a commission to
justify that cut and then ram it through, this would be a huge double
cross.
I'm worried that President Obama is going to focus too much on the
deficit in his State of the Union speech this week and in his actions
throughout this year.
I'm worried because such a focus will make it less likely that he'll
be able, or even inclined to, pass the kind of massive jobs bill we
need to bring down unemployment.
Not to push such a bill through would be a moral failing of the
highest order: We can't let 15 million people languish on the
unemployment lines. And it would also be a political failing: He's
setting a trap for himself here because if he doesn't solve the jobs
problem, Democrats will face a debacle in November.
I'm also worried because the obsession with the deficit will give
ammunition to those who want to shoot holes in Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security-the programs that largely make up what remains of our
safety net, especially for the aged and the disabled.
Obama himself is in favor of a Congressional bill establishing a
bipartisan commission to study-and all but order--ways to cut costs in
these so-called entitlement programs.
But I can't stand that word "entitlement." It makes us sound like
we're spoiled little brats to want the retirement funds we've already
paid for, and the health care that should be our right to have.
There's always trillions for war and bank bailouts, but when we come
to claim what is ours, all of a sudden the cupboards are bare. If
you're concerned about the budget deficit, stop averting your eyes at
the pricetags dangling from the Pentagon and Wall Street.
Also, the idea that Obama is still tilting at the bipartisan windmill is not a good sign at all.
Nor is it a good sign that the Democratic bill would fast-track any
recommendations that this commission comes up with-providing no ability
to amend or filibuster it. (See Dean Baker's excellent commentary here:
www.huffingtonpost.com.)
During his presidential campaign, Obama accused his opponent, John McCain, of wanting to cut Social Security.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats empower such a commission to
justify that cut and then ram it through, this would be a huge double
cross.