home

What Obama Should Be Saying

It's really distressing not to hear our Democratic President point out that social security and Medicare are not government welfare programs. The Government forcibly took our money with a promise we would get it back after we reached retirement age. And retirement age shouldn't be the age we need to move to assisted living facilities and nursing homes.

Millions of us have paid these taxes for forty plus years. Obama should flat out refuse to shift the goalposts. Raising the eligibility age by two years will force those of us without employer paid insurance to stick with our private plans at a cost of $1,000 a month or more during that period. Even those who responsibly planned for retirement didn't count on another $20,000 in private health care premiums foisted on them at the last minute (And yes, three years before reaching 65 is the last minute considering most people are having trouble paying their existing bills and can't just decide to put aside another $12,000 a year.) [More...]

Those who will really get screwed are the self-employed, even though we are business owners too. We double pay not only medicare and social security (since we are both the employer and the employee) but we also pay for our own health insurance premiums.

What Obama should insist on is preserving Americans' forced contributions and their return to before we're so old it all ends up in the pockets of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. (And if Congress is going to cut or delay our benefits, it needs to either proportionately return the money we paid in or at least exempt us from future payments.)

Obama should get over his debt ceiling limit fixation and concentrate on blocking the spending cuts. So what if the ceiling lift is temporary and they have to raise it again? Who cares? No one in Congress is going to let the country default on its major obligations or shut down. The markets won't self-destruct if a temporary ceiling lift occurs without contemporaneous budget cuts.

But you want cuts? Fine. Cut the war funding. Stay out of other countries' local affairs. Stop spending our money to train other country's military, police and prosecutors. Reduce the size of our own military and the number of top brass. Stop the massive equipment contracts.

Cut the war on drugs funding. Disband the DEA and Organized Crime Drug Task Forces. Stop prosecuting and incarcerating people for non-violent crimes and crimes with no victims besides the perpetrators. Let the states handle all crime without a strong federal nexus.

With fewer federal prosecutions, we need fewer federal judges and can make substantial cuts to the Department of Justice, the federal judiciary and the Bureau of Prisons. Increase the use of "time served" over probation as a sentence, so we need fewer probation officers. Even if the person only spent one day in jail before making bond, time served is a legal sentence. Repeal the federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences for drug and non-violent crimes. (The prosecutors, judges, probation officers and drug agents laid off can go work for the states, if the states aren't smart enough to make similar changes.)

The more people we put in federal prison, the more money it costs us for their health care while incarcerated. We should especially let the elderly, non-violent inmates out of prison, so we can stop paying for their health needs in prison. Even the fraudsters. All these effective life sentences on the Bernie Madoffs of the world accomplish (other than feel-good retribution) is to ensure that when they hit 75 and 80 in prison, we end up footing the bill for their cancer treatments and other ailments. If they were out, we'd save buckets of money.

Stop building intelligence systems that spy on Americans. Ban expensive wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance except for national security. The vast majority of this funding is going to drug cases. Defund state and federal law enforcement task forces and stop the obsessive data-sharing. It's too expensive.

One way to get rid of this Congress? Make Congress a volunteer position, no pay. Almost every one of them will bolt. The rich already run our Government, so what difference does it make if we make it official so only the rich can afford to run for office? (Ok, that one's snark.)

I could go on and on, but if we need budget cuts, let's not do it on the backs of Americans who have paid their fair share and more for decades, trusting the promise of their Government that it would be returned on the terms that existed when they paid in.

One last thing to make clear. No one should take my criticism of Obama and the Democrats as support for Republicans, or a suggestion to vote for a Republican. Republicans are far worse than Democrats on every issue imaginable. The problem with Obama is he isn't embracing Democratic principles. He's moved too far to the center/right.

The point of this exercise is to change Obama's mind and stop him from going down this Republican engendered path, at the risk of a voter revolt against him and Democrats in 2012. We don't want that to happen, we want Obama and the Democrats to realize the error of their ways and change course before it's too late.

I will never vote for a Republican. Ever. They are the one causing the current crisis and cutting Medicare and Social Security is their idea. As was the war on drugs, war on crime, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan and war on terror. The problem with Obama and the Dems is they are capitulating, when they should be fighting back.

< Home Alone? | Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Hotel Maid Accuser Goes Public >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Allow me to volunteer my (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    (already free) time to work on your primary from the sane area of the party.

    Seems like that ship has sailed re (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    Obama and Medicare/SS, as it's his idea to "reform," i.e., make more difficult for beneficiaries.  

    Obama WANTS to cut the safety nets--he WANTS to (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    outdo St. Ronnie. He said he admired Reagan as the most "transformational" president, and he wants to as or more transformational as Reagan.

    He sees cuts to SocSec, Medicare, and Medicaid as his ticket to his historical status.

    He told the WaPo just before his inauguration he would take on entitlements, and he'd been saying it since before he announced for the presidency.  

    When called on it during the primaries, he stopped mentioning it until after he'd won -- except at private fundraisers for well-heeled donors; there he would mention it.

    Obama is not an FDR Dem, he is not a JFK Dem, he is not and LBJ Dem.  He's barely a Dem except in using the party to get elected.

    Thanks for your essay.  I will never vote for a Republican for president and probably not for anything else either. But I will not automatically vote for the kind of Dems we have nowadays.

    Lets start working on "entitlements" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Amiss on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 11:21:12 PM EST
    by forcing government employees to join SS or give ALL Americans the choice of fed retirement or SS. Just the retirement benefits for all of the legislators alone would go a long way. Then stop the "double dipping" that goes on with retirement from gov't then go get SS too, it is utterly ridiculous.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Romberry on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    You've either been misinformed or are otherwise not up to date. Federal government employees have been under Social Security since 1984.

    That's more than a quarter of a century since the change was made. Unfortunately, based on how often I see or hear comments that are a variation on your basic theme, more than a few people don't seem aware of it

    Just the retirement benefits for all of the legislators alone would go a long way.

    A long way towards what? I won't argue that the pensions elected officials receive are not perhaps too generous, but I won't argue that they are either, or to be clear, I wouldn't argue against them if we were able to get the big money out of politics and start electing citizen legislators as opposed to wealthy legislators.

    I believe that the idea of the average person sacrificing years of their career and a chance at wealth is why those pensions were designed to be generous in the first place. But with a congress filled with multi-millionaires, the reality doesn't match the reason. I'd keep the pensions and set about changing the reality.

    I think if we had a congress with more average citizens in elected positions, we'd have a congress that was not so damned out of touch and therefore more responsive to the concerns of average citizens. The wealthy tend to look after the interests of the wealthy and confuse those interests with the interests of the masses. (In other words, they are out of touch.)

    Parent

    You need to realize... (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:08:35 PM EST
    ...that Obama's desire to cut Social Security and Medicare are not new developments. He repeatedly referred to "reforming" these programs and making "painful" decisions where they are concerned both before and during the Democratic primaries. And before he was inaugurated, he was saying things like this:

    WaPo, Jan 15, 2009: Obama To Hold Fiscal Responsibility Summit

    President-elect Barack Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

    "We need to send a signal that we are serious," said Obama of the summit.

    [snip]

    Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices -- particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare -- should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.

    This is not a Republican engendered path. This is an Obama engendered path.

    I wish more people had paid closer attention to what Obama was actually saying in the primaries. Some of us who weren't caught up in the mania parsed his words carefully and knew this was coming. Krugman sure seemed to know.

    This is who Obama is. This is what he believes in. He told you and everyone else who voted for him.

    From the
    ChiTrib in May of 2007 (via Dem Underground):

    On the politically tricky dilemma of bolstering the Social Security system, Obama said "everything should be on the table," including politically painful choices such as higher taxes, a reduction in benefits and an increase in the retirement age at which Americans become eligible to collect their Social Security pension.

    But Obama said even a partial privatization of Social Security "is not something that I would consider."

    The only thing Obama ever ruled out was privatization. And the second a "Democrat" declared themselves open to "a reduction in benefits and an increase in the retirement age", you should have understood that in political terms, they were telling you that was what they intended to do...because that's exactly the signal that was being sent to the Republicans.

    Republicans are far worse than Democrats on every issue imaginable.

    You mean like warrantless wiretapping? Like starting more wars? Like invoking the state secrets doctrine to close off access to the courts? Black-site prisons? Budget cuts? Putting Social Security on the chopping block? Ignoring unemployment and railing on the deficit?

    No, Republicans aren't always far worse. On many issues, they are exactly the same as Obama. And on many issues, Obama is exactly the same as Bush, or worse.

    He's moved too far to the center/right.

    Obama has not moved at all. He's right where he was all along.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    The sad part is that Obama told (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:32:01 PM EST
    us who he was. People chose not to listen and people with a certain amount of influence chose to parse his words to give them a completely different meaning. They did it then and do it still.

    Now we are also being lead to believe by many of the same people that it is an elaborate plan to out fox the Republicans or that the Republicans are forcing him into cutting these programs when it was Obama who chose to put these programs at risk. Whatever it takes to relieve Obama from the responsibility of his actions.

    Parent

    Doncha just love (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    the constant use of "painful choices," "tough choices," as if the people making those choices are the ones who suffer the pain?

    No, it's us, who get no say whatsoever, on whom the pain is to be inflicted.  Not a choice at all.

    "Painful" and "choice" need to be decoupled because they apply to two entirely different sets of people.

    Their choice, my pain.

    Parent

    I sometimes wonder... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:24:53 PM EST
    ...if our elite elected leaders who claim to be Christian have ever heard Jesus' parable of The Widow's Mite:

    And He said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:

    Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

    And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

    And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

    And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

    For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

    Asking the wealthy to give up a small portion of their abundance is not visiting them with any hardship that might really be called sacrifice. Asking the elderly, the infirm and the poverty stricken to give up so much as one thin dime from scarcity, is.

    Obama has no clue. The vast majority of our politicians and financiers have no clue. For most of them, vacationing domestically rather than in the Caribbean or Europe would be a sacrifice too big to bear. But for a widow or a retired janitor or a disabled person to have to make the choice between medicine and food? That's a sacrifice that's just right. If I were a Christian, I'd say those pols could all go to hell.

    Parent

    Jesus knew his stuff (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    Too many Christians, not so much.  Very much including the pious Mr. Obama.

    Parent
    We have a (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    "Democratic" President?  Since when?  He's not my idea of what a Democrat should be, and I won't be voting for him again.  Not that I'll vote Republican.  I'll either vote third party or leave it blank, probably the former.  I'm tired of being told that I have no choice because "OMG, the alternative is so much worse!"  I have come to the conclusion that it may well have to get so much worse (worse than even under Bush II), and totally collapse, before people wake the phuck up and try to work toward a government that is for the average American, instead of the wealthy and the big corporations.  If we cannot move in this direction, I'm prepared to start looking for another country to move to.

    Agree with all the points (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    Jeralyn makes here.  Well said, and it puts a previous diary into a little clearer perspective, thank you.  No Republicans for me, either, ever.

    "Cut war funding" (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cymro on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    As you say, Jeralyn, war funding is the obvious place to start. It amazes me how often spending cuts are discussed in the media without any mention of military spending.

    It's not as if there is no support in congress for this logical idea:

    Antiwar Republican Is No Longer Party's Pariah

    Late last month, an amendment intended to accelerate the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan sponsored by [Walter B.] Jones [Republican of North Carolina] and Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, nearly passed -- in part because 26 Republicans broke with their leadership to support it, triple the number who voted for a similar measure last year. Their ranks included at least three freshmen elected with Tea Party support. -- NY Times, June 6, 2011

    According to Rep Jones, although it was defeated this time, the same amendment may pass in the fall:

    On Mr. Jones's amendment, 207 Republicans voted no, while 178 Democrats voted in favor. But the amendment failed by just 11 votes, and Mr. Jones believes that by fall, it will pass.

    For many of the Republicans who are questioning the war, cost is clearly the driving factor. Mr. Jones makes that case in his district, telling voters that spending $8 billion a month to prop up what he calls a corrupt government is a waste of money.

    "If we're going to cut programs for children who need milk in the morning, if we're going to cut programs for seniors who need a sandwich at lunch, if we're going to cut veterans benefits, then, for God's sake, let's bring back our troops from Afghanistan," he said in Beaufort, to loud applause.

    Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize, why isn't he getting on the right side of this obvious issue?  Is he really going to let Republicans win the next election by -- like Nixon --  getting the credit for being "the peace candidates"?!


    I agree with every word in this essay (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by sj on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 06:05:19 PM EST
    But would expand on this:

    Republican[s] ... are the one[s] causing the current crisis and cutting Medicare and Social Security is their idea.

    It is also Obama's idea and has been from the beginning.  He even said so during the primaries.  It wasn't even in much code.

    I completely agree with this:

    I will never vote for a Republican. Ever.

    But not because of partisan politics.  It is because I viscerally disagree with their goals and their positions.  So I will say again, as I have before, I will never vote for anyone who holds those positions.  Ever.  No matter what party they belong to.

    That leaves me without a candidate in the upcoming General Election.  Although I will look carefully at the various alternative party candidates, I expect that, if my polling place will be able to accommodate a write-in candidate*, Senator Bernie Sanders will have a vote he will likely never hear about.

    -----
    * I don't know if my polling place can accommodate write-in candidates.  I've never wanted to do it before.

    The dems won't get my vote either. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 06:57:54 PM EST
    I will never vote for a Republican. Ever. They are the one causing the current crisis and cutting Medicare and Social Security is their idea. As was the war on drugs, war on crime, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan and war on terror. The problem with Obama and the Dems is they are capitulating, when they should be fighting back.

    I will never vote for a Republican either.
    Unless they become what the Democratic party once was.
    Sometimes, historically, these parties trade ideologies.

    At present, the democrats are behaving as republicans.
    Whether it is true or not that the wars on drugs, crime, Iraq and Afghanistan were republican ideas... the democrats are, as you said, not fighting back. Indeed, in the case of Obama, he has vociferously embraced and publicly endorsed these discredited crusades.

    When does capitulation become enabling?  When does enabling simply become outright support? And, in its effect on our lives and on our country, what's the difference?

    When does being the main driver (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    behind cutting safety net benefits make Obama the one responsible for the current crisis.

    The Republicans were not pushing for cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid in 2007 when Obama put them on the table. In fact, they were burned badly in 2005 when Bush tried unsuccessfully to privatize SS and were in no hurry to touch the 3rd rail again.. The Tea Party did not exist in 2007. They were not screaming for changes to SS and Medicare. The Republican Party not was screaming for changes to SS and Medicare in 2007. The general public were not screaming for changes to SS and Medicare in 2007.  

    The Tea Party did not exist in January 2009 when

    President-elect Barack Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

    "We need to send a signal that we are serious," said Obama of the summit.

    [snip]

    Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices -- particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare -- should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.

    Once again, it was Obama who was driving force in using the safety net programs for deficit reduction. The Tea Party did not exist in January 2009. The Republican Party was not screaming for changes to SS and Medicare in January 2009. The general public were not screaming for changes to SS and Medicare in January 2009.

    Parent

    Obama is what he is (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:08:11 PM EST
    He has had a vision to remake America and any institutions are fair game.  He has no problem changing SS and any other part of government because he didn't invent them.  No program, agency or government work is safe from his intervention because in his mind we are all just part of his grand vision.

    Look at the fit he is throwing right now.  In his mind this shouldn't be happening. Republicans and dems should adhere to his wisdom and get out of the way.  

    Why the media continues to apologize for him I'll never know.  He has no position other then his reelection.  I guess they are to personally invested in the idea of Obama rather then reporting on the reality.

    I know why the media ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:46:00 PM EST
    ... continues to apologize for him.  

    They're owned by the same people.

    Parent

    Hello, they were enamored (none / 0) (#24)
    by suzieg on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 12:45:50 AM EST
    with the idea of electing the first black president as opposed to the first woman president - they made him and they will do anything to make us believe his presidency is a success.

    We'll hear in the months ahead how brave he was for "reforming" the safety net when Bush and republicans couldn't!

    Hurrah, hurrah for Obama!

    Parent

    "assisted living and nursing homes" (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 12:48:13 AM EST
    Can't do that on social security and medicare won't pay for it either.

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 01:52:42 AM EST
    Medicare doesn't cover them so we'll have to pay for them ourselves, with our social security benefits (which of course would only be a fraction of the cost.) Social Security was meant for us, not as a bailout for the nursing home industry.

    Plus, I don't plan on going to either one.  I've spent enough time in both to know it's a miserable existence. Which is why I want my money returned before I get to that point. We should be allowed to use our money while we are healthy enough to enjoy it,  rather than  being forced to wait until we go somewhere to die.

    Parent

    "If nominated I will not run, and if elected (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by observed on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    I will not serve" sounds about right to me.

    That's the abbreviated (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    Shermanesque statement.  What Johnson said was:

    I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

    An English teacher once said that it was by far best use of "shall" and "will" she'd ever seen in one sentence.

    In any case, I agree with your sentiment.

    Parent

    Thanks J (none / 0) (#1)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    For this very well written post.

    Ponzi scheme (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:58:36 PM EST
    "The Government forcibly took our money with a promise we would get it back after we reached retirement age."

    Actually, Social Security is pay as you go.  It's some Republicans who want to take your money and put it into preselected retirement accounts which will be returned to you when you retire (as is done in Chile).  The Democrats are the ones who opposed putting money into individually designated investment accounts.
    Time to be honest and say that Social Security and Medicare ARE government welfare programs and say why that is a GOOD thing.

    I vote for my country (none / 0) (#13)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    Republican are americans to.
     The media is always pushing the most radical candidates. Their stance on the issues is not important.
     With Bachman it's her headaches,over how will she balance the budget.
     Romney his flip flopping, over how he will create jobs.

     If your only choice is a democrat,you will be voting for Obama,case closed.
     It's painful watching this administration.They have no plan for anything. This administration is so weak the republican are walking all over them. Destroying S.S and medicare from a democratic president is unbelievable and he brags about it.
     I can't see this country surviving another 4yrs. under Obama. His lack of experience has made a bad situation worse.

     I truly hope the republicans or independent will put forth a candidate worthy of the office.
     My finger are still crossed for Huntsman.