![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Obama... Destroyer of Social Security?
Sep. 1st, 2010 02:06 pmFirst: this article. Long story short: of the special commission set up to reform federal entitlement programs, fourteen out of eighteen members favor partial or total reduction, privatization or abolition of existing entitlements such as Social Security. It's not just Alan Simpson, who believes old people should be yanked from the government teat and that veterans betray their country by demanding promised VA benefits.
But my point is this: look carefully at the six members Barack Obama hand-picked for this commission.
First, Obama picked both chairmen of the commission, the aforementioned Simpson and Erskine Bowles, a conservative Democrat who flirted with partial privatization of Social Security as a Clinton White House aide.
Then the lesser picks:
Alice Rivlin, advocate for Social Security cuts.
Andy Stern, former union boss, advocate for partial privatization through investment in stocks of the Social Security trust fund.
David Cote, CEO of a major defense contractor, who advocates the cutting of veterans' benefit entitlements.
And Ann Fudge, a CEO with no public sector experience whatever and no stated position on entitlements, whose sole qualification for the commission is that she is a major Obama campaign donor.
Not a single advocate of retention or expansion of benefits in the list. Of the six, four leaning towards cutting or privatizing various entitlements, and one (Simpson) on the record as wanting to abolish all of them (though he currently claims that he only seeks to "stabilize" them).
We can be assured that Obama did not select these people by accident or through neglect. These people were picked, quite deliberately, to ensure that Obama's personal preference held a strong weight in the commission's final results. The commission rules require a majority of fourteen of the eighteen members to recommend any course of action...
... which means that the five cut-privatize-or-abolish members Obama named have effective veto power, should Obama wish that power to be used.
The conclusion is obvious: Obama wants Social Security and other entitlements cut or privatized, at the very least.
And why? Republicans claim that we can't afford entitlements- and I personally agree that entitlements should be limited so as not to destroy the economy, but I believe we're a long way from that tipping point. Consider GDP- the total sum of wealth produced each year by the United States. In 1965, the year Medicare was enacted, the GDP was a little less than $13 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars- adjusted for inflation). In 2009, even during a terrible recession... $51.3 trillion. Even when you adjust for the doubling of the population from then to now, the per capita wealth of the United States has doubled... so if we have twice as much money now as then, why can we not afford now what we could afford then?
Answer: because half the Democrats (probably including Obama) have bought into the lie which has dominated national economic policy since 1980- trickle-down economics- and the other half are too cowardly and too eager to be re-elected to propose even modest hikes in taxes on the people who have taken virtually all of that increase in wealth- the top 0.5% of American earners.
Obama has decided that, rather than raise taxes, he will cut spending and balance the budget on the backs of the poor and disabled. In other words, he's governing like a Republican president.
And only flaming racism, bigotry and paranoia prevents the Republican Party from recognizing him as one of their own- that and the growing extremism ginned up by the talking heads which more and more stand out as the leading lights of modern conservatism.
There is no longer a liberal party and a conservative party. There are two conservative parties, one extreme to the point of anarchism, the other carrying along liberal and moderate support solely by threatening the evils of the extremist party should they win.
Which means, if we want to actually reverse the course of the past ten- indeed, the last THIRTY years- we desperately need a viable, sane third choice.
But my point is this: look carefully at the six members Barack Obama hand-picked for this commission.
First, Obama picked both chairmen of the commission, the aforementioned Simpson and Erskine Bowles, a conservative Democrat who flirted with partial privatization of Social Security as a Clinton White House aide.
Then the lesser picks:
Alice Rivlin, advocate for Social Security cuts.
Andy Stern, former union boss, advocate for partial privatization through investment in stocks of the Social Security trust fund.
David Cote, CEO of a major defense contractor, who advocates the cutting of veterans' benefit entitlements.
And Ann Fudge, a CEO with no public sector experience whatever and no stated position on entitlements, whose sole qualification for the commission is that she is a major Obama campaign donor.
Not a single advocate of retention or expansion of benefits in the list. Of the six, four leaning towards cutting or privatizing various entitlements, and one (Simpson) on the record as wanting to abolish all of them (though he currently claims that he only seeks to "stabilize" them).
We can be assured that Obama did not select these people by accident or through neglect. These people were picked, quite deliberately, to ensure that Obama's personal preference held a strong weight in the commission's final results. The commission rules require a majority of fourteen of the eighteen members to recommend any course of action...
... which means that the five cut-privatize-or-abolish members Obama named have effective veto power, should Obama wish that power to be used.
The conclusion is obvious: Obama wants Social Security and other entitlements cut or privatized, at the very least.
And why? Republicans claim that we can't afford entitlements- and I personally agree that entitlements should be limited so as not to destroy the economy, but I believe we're a long way from that tipping point. Consider GDP- the total sum of wealth produced each year by the United States. In 1965, the year Medicare was enacted, the GDP was a little less than $13 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars- adjusted for inflation). In 2009, even during a terrible recession... $51.3 trillion. Even when you adjust for the doubling of the population from then to now, the per capita wealth of the United States has doubled... so if we have twice as much money now as then, why can we not afford now what we could afford then?
Answer: because half the Democrats (probably including Obama) have bought into the lie which has dominated national economic policy since 1980- trickle-down economics- and the other half are too cowardly and too eager to be re-elected to propose even modest hikes in taxes on the people who have taken virtually all of that increase in wealth- the top 0.5% of American earners.
Obama has decided that, rather than raise taxes, he will cut spending and balance the budget on the backs of the poor and disabled. In other words, he's governing like a Republican president.
And only flaming racism, bigotry and paranoia prevents the Republican Party from recognizing him as one of their own- that and the growing extremism ginned up by the talking heads which more and more stand out as the leading lights of modern conservatism.
There is no longer a liberal party and a conservative party. There are two conservative parties, one extreme to the point of anarchism, the other carrying along liberal and moderate support solely by threatening the evils of the extremist party should they win.
Which means, if we want to actually reverse the course of the past ten- indeed, the last THIRTY years- we desperately need a viable, sane third choice.
