Why President Obama is NOT an Advocate for Social Security

He is a fiscal hawk, first and foremost. I think some of us here really want to believe a Democrat would never cut Social Security, but we cannot ignore the signs that it could happen.

The other day Sam Seder interviewed progressive blogger Digby, who mentioned a very important meeting she and other progressive activists and writers had with President Obama and his staff shortly before his inauguration. This interview is incredibly important to fully understand where the White House stands on Social Security. The part starts around 2:45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryp3nIQdytc

The subject of this meeting? A "Grand Bargain" with the Republicans. They planned to fix "entitlements" and cut the deficit. At this meeting, Gene Sperling, who will take over Larry Summers' position and will be one of Obama's economic advisors on Social Security said he thought it would be great to "fix Social Security" as far as the eye could see and it would be a great achievement. Sperling is supposedly a "Liberal" who wrote this piece in 2005 about "fixing" Social Security in the form of "private add on 401(k)" accounts and other questionable reforms: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/01/b289151.html

Then we have fiscal summits featuring anti-Social Security crusaders like Pete Peterson. The fact that this guys is given any credence to talk about Social Security is highly concerning: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/pete-petersons-anti-entitlement-juggernaut-gets-fueled-obama

Then we have the Fiscal Commission. Set up by our President, who appointed to extremely vocal anti-Social Security deficit hawks Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. Erskine Bowles sits on the board of Morgan Stanley. Simpson is the guy who said Social Security was like a "giant milk cow with 310,000,000 million tits." This Fiscal Commission also partnered with the Peterson Foundation (Pete Peterson is the Social Security hater who has spent billions on fake news services pushing stores that ss is "broke" and "unsustainable.")

Now we are in a position where the Fiscal Commission failed to reach consensus, yet Gibbs and others have said the President will use their recommendations to cut the deficit in his budget and to work with the Republicans. Here is analysis how the Fiscal Commission Bowles Simpson proposal will cut Social Security: http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/Analysis_of_Commission_Co_Chairs_Proposal/

As we speak, a group of 20 "bipartisan" Senators are coming up with a reduction plan, which will examine those Social Security proposals. Why is this group flying under the radar with no televised committee hearings? Because they know people will flip a shit. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026338-503544.html

What is so frightening about all of this, is that they already have some progressive Dems on board i.e. Dick Durbin http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Debt-Panel-Plan-Fails-to-Pass-But-Wins-Bipartisan-Support--111286499.html

Now we have Lindsey Graham and other Republican Senators threatening they will not vote on the debt ceiling increase without cuts to Social Security. Just as an aside this is an asinine threat. A default on our debt would collapse our economy and would be unprecedented. Since the president and other Democratic Senators have signalled a willingness to "reform" Social Security, it is not hard to imagine that this debt ceiling debate will yield some Social Security cuts. Let's not forget, even President Obama voted against a debt ceiling increase when he was a Senator because he wanted a symbolic vote for fiscal responsibility: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/136207-gibbs-defends-obama-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling


This is probably the most serious threat to Social Security since its inception. With President Bush's privatization scheme, he had a unified Democratic opposition, barely any support in his own party and he went on a whirlwind tour out in the open trying to sell his steaming pile of poo of an idea. Guess what? People hated it. Things are different now. We have Dems, including a president, who are willing to accept these changes and a recession coupled with a high deficit.

Please shout this issue from the rooftops. Call the White House. Write letters to the editor. We cannot allow any major changes or cuts to Social Security to happen behind closed doors.

and bipartisanship will prevail.

He is farther to the right than most previous Republican presidents. This just goes to show how drastically far to the right the entire political spectrum has shifted. :(

What I see is a man who wants to be a two-term President. I think Obama made the decision that his base doesn't matter and that liberal values don't matter. All he needs to do is to appease the rich and powerful and he can be a two-term President, or so he seems to believe.

As I argued here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2010/12/kissing-butt-and-taking-names-obamas.html

-Laelth

his deficit hawkery. I absolutely believe he is a corporatist who kisses ass to stay in the presidency. Unfortunately, I fear his abandonement of liberal values may cost him some turnout in 2012

I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply un-aware that he had previously done that.

His stimulus bill (which was much needed and ought to have been bigger) was the first hint I got that Obama was not a deficit hawk. Perhaps his position on that issue was an anomaly?

-Laelth

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/136207-gibbs-defends-obama-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling

I'm sure we both can agree that voting against a debt ceiling increase (even if it's "symbolic") is pretty scary. A debt ceiling increase is vital to our economy functioning. Obama has stated many times that he wants to halve the deficit. That's a pretty tall order considering we have a jobs crisis, not a deficit crisis.

In response to the suggestion that the stimulus was not deficit hawkish, I'm not sure I agree. The stimulus was way too small and cut back while favoring useless tax cuts instead of direct stimulus. Deficit hawks usually are hypocritical in that sense. Meaning, they have no problem increasing the deficit by ways of tax cuts but make a huge stink over spending on critical programs that are pretty popular. I think Obama's economic leanings are more similar to fiscal hawks in that he wants to decrease the size of gov't spending, yet continue tax cuts.

I agree that the stimulus was too small. In context, one might then come to believe that Obama is a deficit hawk. Perhaps he's just trying to be like Clinton (who balanced the budget by the end of his second term).

It's hard for me to figure out Barack Obama, other than to say I am certain he's an opportunist.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

and I was pretty surprised. He is an enigma. I guess we'll find out soon where his sentiments are.

Feingold lost because turnout of his supporters in his district sucked. Turns out not voting has consequences.

Huh?

He was a staunch advocate for the common people, yet I can't wrap my head around the fact that he was rejected for another term. I keep thinking about those pictures I had of the OCEAN of Wisconsinites hungry for a change when Kerry campaigned there.

Yet they rejected Russ?

...I'll bet you and I could find better ways to be more fiscally responsible than Obama.

Capisce?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The other night when Howard was on Keith's show pitching Daley, he briefly mentioned "entitlements" and he said we should be willing to cut military spending and something else, TOO. In other words, he sounded as if it was a foregone conclusion that Social Security and Medicare will be cut.

It was very quick because this wasn't the topic of the interview but iirc, the video is in the video forum.

...Commission was headed by two with the last name initials B and S.

From what I understand (admittedly, the memory may be fuzzy), Social Security wasn't even within their purview, yet they weighed in on it anyway. This is certainly odd because Social Security has nothing to do with debt and deficits.

Social Security and the debt/deficits are being coupled for a reason. I fear the fix is in.

nt.

He's a fucking poser who will sell us all out for big business.

http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

309 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
9 am to 6 pm
(202) 224-2152 - ph
(202) 228-0400 - fx

CHICAGO
230 S Dearborn St.
Suite 3892
Chicago, IL 60604
8:30 am to 5 pm
(312) 353-4952 - ph
(312) 353-0150 - fx

SPRINGFIELD
525 South 8th St.
Springfield, IL 62703
8:30 am to 5 pm
(217) 492-4062 - ph
(217) 492-4382 - fx

CARBONDALE
250 W. Cherry Street
Suite 115-D
Carbondale, IL 62901
8:30 am to 5 pm
(618) 351-1122 - ph
(618) 351-1124 – fx

look into this organization: http://www.ncpssm.org/

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has been around for many years and is a strong, effective group.

Please investigate at the link- thank you.

I am NOT a big joiner, and I just joined this group last week.

mark

group of 20 "bipartisan" Senators before your post. Thanks for bring it to our attention. Great post btw.

Since its inception Americans have put 2.5 trillion more dollars into SS than they have received in benefits.

Those motherfuckers are using our SS payments to finance wars and tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

he is there to implement the continued plan of the rich to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, irrespective of the misery and social degradation it causes.

in addition, the govt. has long since established that public opinion from the left will go unheeded.

when you get that, you will have a clue as to what to do.