Why is HRC stooping So Low?- By: Robert Reich

Monday, December 03, 2007
Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.


more at:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

This has already been posted.

:yourock:

Thanks kpete.


Hillary would rather PLANT questions than answer them!

:eyes:

that's all I'm saying.


looks like the Obama people are the desperate ones.

Anyone who posts anyone that doesn't portray Hillary Clinton positively is an "Obama" person? What kind of pretzel logic is that?

That's why.

Mon dieu!

And, as usual, such accusations are -NOT- accompanied by
acknowledgment of the actual points raised by the article.

Ignore the message and attack the messenger. A lot of that going around.

I wasn't aware that it was an insult to call somebody an Obama supporter.

He's a good candidate, nothing to be ashamed over.

and even pulling up stuff about Hillary when she was six years old. Can you believe it..over and over and over...they think they are impressing people..but they made a believer out of me...I believe Obama must be as bad as his supporters so I surely hope he doesn't even get a nod.

This "everyone does it" is getting old.

Essentially, there is no such thing as an "impartial observer" since our side seems to have adopted the Republican stance of assuming anyone who criticses you is not impartial because they're criticising you. This is otherwise known as only listening to people who agree with you.

unfairly targeted, but I think Reich is making a good point about Obama's plan for Social Security vs Hillary's.

do all of you HRC supporters know who Mr. Reich is? (or was?) if you do, you'll understand the significance!

He worked under BILL Clinton.

Doesn't mean he has to support Hillary's campaign.

I think it's a good piece, and I agree with Reich about Social Security and raising the cap, but I guarantee you this is no more than a small blip on the screen of the race. There are actually quite a few ex-Clintonians who don't support HRC.

for a change. I wasn't sure there was a difference between them on issues, now I see there is.

This is not a Hillary hit piece by any stretch - please read it before you post.

:shrug:

and because he is so familiar with her, well, the conclusion is obvious.

I am still known around the water-cooler as the "Hillary Clinton" guy.
There was no bigger supporter in 2000.
She has been a fucking disappointment, imho (of course).

Peace and low stress...

This seems uncomfortably personal.

Which is why he addresses them in personal terms. If you're arguing that he's resorting to personal attacks though, you'd be talking crap. He limits himself to discussion of policies throughout.

This is not someone whose opinions I trust. On anything.

If his credibility is lacking, that's a fair reason to dismiss what he says.

for making a career out of bashing Clinton while he failed. he's been attacking for years - and not for the right reasons either.

Talk about getting personal!

One thing I've learned in recent months is that not actively supporting someone makes you a hater.

I think he makes some good points but I don't think he goes far enough with regard to HRC's healthcare plan. Her plan channels yet more money to the insurance companies who will profiteer with it as they always do. It doesn't address the basic fact that if someone lacks insurance, it is almost always because they can't afford insurance. In short, I think her plan would do more harm than good.

Barack/Kucinich 08 the ideal ticket.

Thanks for posting!:thumbsup: :kick:

Hillary gives a lot of good reasons to be criticized. But when assholes with an axe to grind - like Reich or Huffington attack - I have to yell "Boo"

... and thank you for all the beautiful art - of many types - that you share with us.

- Dave

Exactly. I've had more than enough of people who can't tell the truth.

DOWN.

Raising the top level does not at all address the regressiveness.