Friday, December 10, 2010

The S.S. Social Security takes a shot below the waterline

The brilliant political strategist Barack Obama took the first step this week in the sinking of Social Security. Instead of shoring up the system by increasing the amount on which payroll taxes are paid – one laughably easy way to ease the problems of the system long term – he agreed with the gimlet-eyed Mitch McConnell to decrease the payroll tax rate for a time, a so called “tax holiday.”

Of course, the fool will never get it back, and he’ll be tagged for “raising taxes” in the next election if he tries. Paul Krugman called it Obama’s Hostage Deal:

One big concern: Republicans may try using the prospect of a rise in the payroll tax to undermine Social Security finances.

Which brings me back to Mr. Obama’s press conference, where — showing much more passion than he seems able to muster against Republicans — he denounced purists on the left, who supposedly refuse to accept compromises in the national interest.

Well, concerns about the tax deal reflect realism, not purism: Mr. Obama is setting up another hostage situation a year down the road. And given that fact, the last thing we need is the kind of self-indulgent behavior he showed by lashing out at progressives who he feels aren’t giving him enough credit.

The point is that by seeming angrier at worried supporters than he is at the hostage-takers, Mr. Obama is already signaling weakness, giving Republicans every reason to believe that they can extract another ransom.

And they can be counted on to act accordingly.

I’ve used the analogy before, but consider Barack Obama as your divorce lawyer. You’d lose the house, the kids, the car, the savings, the retirement accounts, and the fillings in your teeth, and he’d tell you what a great deal he’d gotten you.

When the U.S. history books are written – in China – there will be a chapter devoted to the New Deal period; the two bookends will be Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama.

10 comments:

Adam Smith said...

When your contributors name-call (“education deformers”) it’s bad enough, but when you call the President who is probably smarter than anyone reading this post and who proved himself as more politically-savvy than the Clinton family, who arranged for health care reform, credit card reform, supervision of the financial business, had the balls to back up TARP when the easy way would have been to let the economy go into a depression and to pin the (rightful) blame on the Republicans, and help restore (though not perfectly, by any means) American prestige outside the U.S., a fool, you encourage the ignorant and weaken the resolve of those who dare to think that Obama has done a far better job these last two years any Republican would have done. Would Ms. Clinton have done better? I don’t know and don’t care, because a time-machine has not yet been invented to permit a do-over. <span> </span>Criticize, but don’t insult.<span>  </span>Insults help them and hurt not-them. I think you are Tea-Party vote suppressor. OK, I don’t, but for God’s sake think a bit.

blogspotdog said...

Sorry, A.S., we calls 'em as we sees 'em.

Your comment about how smart Obama is echos something I said during the campaign: he was exhibit A in how you had to be smarter to be the president of the Harvard Law Review than the president of the United States (the then resident of the White House being Exhibit B). I said it to, inter alia, a friend who's spent time on the Hill and who told me that Obama would come a cropper for the reasons that he has: political fecklessness.

Obama seems a political naif, lacking in the understanding of the use of political power.

In the legislation you mention, there isn't a really strong bill in the lot. Moreover, Obama improved our standing abroad by simply not being George Bush. Truly, damnation with faint praise. And now, of course, he's acting more like Bush all the time.

It has been interesting to watch the "progress" of the Obama administration among my political friends. Early on in the President's term, if one criticized Obama, the rest would jump on you for it. With time, the ration of supporters vs. detractors declined, and now Obama has few, if any, friends left.

In trying to reach out across the aisle, he's forgotten something very important: you have to first dance with the one what brung you.

blogspotdog said...

Obama has alienated Democratic constituency after constituency (organized labor, the GLBT community, given the economic populism argument to the Republicans by siding with the big banks), and has gotten zip, zilch, zero, bupkis in support from the Republicans in return.

A.S. is oddly named for somebody who thinks that TARP was necessary. I happen to think some kind of a bailout was necessary, too, but what he got was all about Wall Street, and not about Main Street (credit is still pretty dried up for small business), or distressed homeowners.

Adam Smith said...

Right, you call them as you see them, and with a nasty tone that does what?  Warm the cockles the right's hearts?  More likely, and perhaps this is your goal, you say outrageous things to generate web traffic.  

So your Hill contact was right, Obama needs to be more  sophisticated.  Excuse him for not having been a three-term senator. So he has fewer friends - who said being President is about being friends?  Obama seems to me to be putting himself in the middle of the spectrum, and in my opinion that's far to the left of any potential Republican candidate for President. You go ahead and support John Dean or Bernie Sanders, and while you're doing that please explain the risk/reward scenario of one of them running against Pawlenty or Huckabee.

Rob Levine said...

What would be the difference between Bush and Obama re: Afghanistan? Or government spying on its own citizens? Or torture and rendition? Same old same old. The health care bill is a gift to the insurance companies; the "defense" posture a gift to weapons manufacturers and mercenaries; The truth is that on big issues there is very little difference between Obama and the Republicans.

Aaron Klemz said...

Even better: the public widely supports RAISING the payroll tax to shore up SS! Even Rasmussen says so! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/november_2010/most_favor_hike_in_social_security_tax_level

Aaron Klemz said...

It is, indeed, starting to feel like 1995 all over again.

Adam Smith said...

I agree re the Afghan mess, and the spying is shameful.  But re torture, Obama has largely undone Gitmo.  

But to say there is very little difference between Obama and the Republican - come on now.  Think of this last event - with a Republican president, would there be a continuation of assistance for the long-term unenployed?  I bet you have a job, so that little detail slipped under your radar. What would the count of liberals/conservatives on the Supreme Court, were McCain/Palin in power, hmmm? Subtract Sotamayor and Kagan, and add  . . . really, the thought is too terrible to state, but here's where we would be: 2 liberals, one no-longer-swing-vote Kennedy, and 6 conservatives.

Rob Levine said...

Well - they're still torturing people in Afghanistan, and Obama has steadfastly refused to prosecute the torturers. We just convicted a person who was a child in Afghanistan when he was picked up; he spent years in a Guantanamo. He was finally granted a civilian trial, but Obama said beforehand that if somehow he was ruled not guilty they would hold him indefinitely anyways. This for fighting foreign invaders on his own soil while a teenager.

Yes - the Supreme Court is better, but the current tax bill, while giving some help to the unemployed, is a poison pill for Social Security and grants huge tax breaks to millionaries, while actually representing a tax INCREASE for some low income people.

On the whole, Obama usually takes one step forward and two back. In the words of Sun Tsu, he sometimes appears to be winning battles, but he seems to lose every war. Only a so-called "liberal" could do some damage, ala Nixon goes to China.

Rob Levine said...

<span>Well - they're still torturing people in Afghanistan, and Obama has steadfastly refused to prosecute the torturers. We just convicted a person who was a child in Afghanistan when he was picked up; he spent years in a Guantanamo. He was finally granted a civilian trial, but Obama said beforehand that if somehow he was ruled not guilty they would hold him indefinitely anyways. This for fighting foreign invaders on his own soil while a teenager.  
 
Yes - the Supreme Court is better, but the current tax bill, while giving some help to the unemployed, is a poison pill for Social Security and grants huge tax breaks to millionaries, while actually representing a tax INCREASE for some low income people.  
 
On the whole, Obama usually takes one step forward and two back. In the words of Sun Tsu, he sometimes appears to be winning battles, but he seems to lose every war. Only a so-called "liberal" could do so much damage, ala Nixon goes to China.</span>