Sounding Like The DLC
Jan 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am by Susie
Gee, he really does sound like a Republican, doesn’t he? All Social Security needs is for them to remove the earnings cap (you know, so people like Bernie Madoff pay more) or better still, swap it out with a reasonable public pension plan. As for Medicare spending, well, nothing wrong with that that single-payer healthcare wouldn’t fix!
The netroots mobilized and finally got Social Security off the table. Now Obama’s put it back on. Why?
For more, Avedon puts it all into the proper perspective. So does Lambert.
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.
As the Congressional Budget Office projected a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year even before the costs of the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep the government’s finances from deteriorating further.
Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
We been had.
I didn’t see that coming. Is he nuts? He’s never mentioned such a strategy in the past.
I told you from the very beginning: Who were his earliest backers? The financial services industry, who have been dying to get their hands on the Social Security funds.
Tell me again how Mrs. Clinton would have been worse on this, won’t you?
Tell me that her HOLC program was a damn sight better than the pigs-at-trough feed we have now, with no protections for actual homeowners?
Sure, I can be a dead-ender about this, but as you can see now, I’m gonna have *lots* of company — those who actually thought change would be (X) of some positive value. It’s sad to, yes, hope, that by his inauguration he’d actually turn it around….
Susie:
It’s all about the fees, baby!
Nothing in that story seems to be anything to do with what he actually said.
I think it is the Times that has put Social Security back on the table in order to drive the discussion in the direction they want.
The corporate media really ought to be fact checked ever day. Especially when an item that significant has no quotes.
Lambert says Obama said would be a lot more believable with a few quotes.
Bob Somerby compared the NY Times story that Susie quotes to the Washington Post story on the same speech and found the Post had almost nothing on what’s supposed to be the hook for the Times story. Looks like another case of institutional bias masquerading as reporting.
why is everyone assuming obama wants to privatize social security? during the campaign he did talk about social security reform/ but his proposal was to lift the earnings cap (as susie seems to be in favor of). he’s never made any statement in favor of privatization, in fact, he came out strongly against bush’s privatization scheme in 2005. i read about a dozen of his speeches during the campaign when he mentioned social security reform, in ever single one he specifically stated that he opposed privatization.
that doesn’t rule out the possibility that obama could flip-flop on the privatization issue, but there’s absolutely no reason to think that from what he said today. the issues page on the campaign transition site still says “Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security” which has been obama’s position pretty consistently since he first ran for the senate.
The main point, though, is that even the notion that Obama is now inferring that “entitlement reform” would be a part of his agenda says that once the “stimulus package” is passed, he will make a push to “reform” Social Security and Medicare…probably as a means of paying for the “stimulus package”. And some form of “privatization” has already been proposed previously by Democrats in the past…including Bill Clinton (though, that was ultimately eclipsed by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal).
Given Obama’s recent pandering to (now looking more like open tacking to) the Right, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him embrace some form of “reform” as a cost of getting the “stimulus package” passed.
Once again, DLC politics rules, and the liberals get punked.
And once again, Hillary would have made no difference….she was as much for “reform” and “privatization” as Obama was, and said not a thing when Bubba promoted his scheme during his presidency.
Congrats, liberals, for giving us another “lesser evil”. Sure will work well when Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin and the Repubs retake the White House in 2012, or when the Repubs retake Congress in 2010.
Anthony
Clinton was at least in favor of single payer health care. I think this is why she was offered Sec. of State - so she wouldn’t be able to drive domestic policy.
Clinton was at least in favor of single payer health care. I think this is why she was offered Sec. of State - so she wouldn’t be able to drive domestic policy.
Really??? Funny, but she sure didn’t favor single payer when she was pushing her health care policy during her husband’s reign at the Presidency…her health care plan back then was basically designed by the HMO’s and Big Pharma, with “universal health care” pinned on as an attachment. When the Repubs and the “Harry and Louise” dog-and-pony show defeated her proposal, she basically went under and deferred to Bubba’s “slow privatization” proposals.
The problem really isn’t Hillary versus Obama….it’s institutional neoliberalism represented by the Democrats as a whole.
Anthony
yeah, i don’t get K’s comments. clinton was not in favor of single payer. her plan was basically the same as the obama plan, only with individual mandates. the sad thing is that none of the major dem. candidates were for single payer.