Just got the press release: Robert Reich defends Obama on the sacred cow of Social Security:
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.
Now, this strikes me as about right. Obama has caught a lot of hell for "reinforcing Republican talking points" about Social Security — you know, calling it a crisis, and so forth. But progressives should not be sanguine about Social Security's future: If the budget is in trouble, then Social Security is at risk: We don't have Al Gore's "lockbox", where SS is completely shielded from whatever fiscal tomfoolery Congress and the President might indulge in. And we certainly are in budget trouble going forward, especially from the strain of Medicare/Medicaid and stupid tax cuts. So criticize Obama's language if you must, but his actual proposal is indeed perfectly sane and appropriate.
Reich goes on to talk about the health care mandate, the biggest one of the big distinctions in their plans:
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.
Well, maybe they're both right. I think no matter how much you subsidize, there's going to be the "F-U" crowd — guys in Montana with, like, sixty guns — that doesn't buy, and then has to go to the hospital and have the rest of us pay. 15 million might even be a conservative estimate. But look, that subsidy is going to have to be generous, because health insurance/health care are so damn expensive, and increasingly unaffordable for the middle class.
In a better world, Robert Reich would be in his second term as Governor of Massachusetts. (And Mitt Romney would only be remembered for his unsuccessful ’94 Senate run).
<
p>It’s true both Clinton’s and Obama’s plans are better than the status quo. But I am sick of hearing Clinton attacking Obama over this subject. It’s clear she’s desperate and must find some way to distinguish herself from Obama.
<
p>My candidate – Chris Dodd – has not made it above 0-1% anywhere. By the time the MA primary rolls around – I might have to join the Stop Hillary movement and cast my vote for Obama.
You said that both plans are better, so why then do you want to stop it? I’m not supporting Clinton but I do like what she has to offer as a total package. I don’t have a candidate that I am fully in agreement with but what does she need to be stopped?
There are several reasons I think Hillary Clinton should be stopped:
<
p>1.) I do not want two families leading our nation from 1981 (Bush VP) to potentially 2017. I believe that is anti-democratic and I do not support political dynasties. Our presidential lineup would be Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
<
p>2.) I do not buy the whole “experience” card that the Clinton campaign has been playing – she’s only been a Senator for six years. That’s her only elective office. Being First Lady does not count. This portrayal of experience has been annoying to me.
<
p>3.) I do not like the DLC, centrist, pro-corporate policies that Clinton has espoused over the years – especially that Iraq vote.
<
p>4.) Finally – the right wing despises the Clintons so much that we’d be in for another rehash of the 1990s – investigations, accusations of scandal, etc. It’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault, but it’s the reality. I think it would be divisive for the country.
<
p>I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I just think her nomination would be negative for the Democratic Party and the country.
<
p>If she’s the nominee would I vote for her? Well I certainly am not voting for any of the Republicans…
<
p>Oh…and more thing…whatever happened to her wanting to be known as Hillary Rodham Clinton?? My guess is that didn’t poll well so everything associated with her campaign is “Hillary!” That also annoys me…
<
p>2. Hillary Clinton may have been First Lady, but she’s always been first-rate policy wonk, not just some smiling socialite with a few heart-warming charities to support. Your argument might work for Laura Bush or Barbara Bush, but Hillary Clinton is a different person entirely, especially given her long career in the law and in policy, before she went to the Senate.
<
p>3. Okay, I don’t like that Iraq vote either.
<
p>4. “Finally – the right wing despises the Clintons so much that we’d be in for another rehash of the 1990s – investigations, accusations of scandal, etc. It’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault, but it’s the reality. I think it would be divisive for the country.” Puh-leeeze! John Kerry is not at all related to the Clintons, but the Right Wing went after him with a vengeance (and still are at it, for Pete’s sake!) Gore got the same treatment. If the Democrats nominated Jesus Christ, the Republicans (and Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson and Tim Russert) would call him a sex fiend for sympathizing with that tramp Mary Magdalene and a liberal who wants to tax all your money away to give to welfare queens. So, NathanielB, pray tell, what Democrat could be nominated who would not get the Right Wing Noise Machine treatment?
<
p>You don’t want her to win the nod because of her votes in Congress and association with the DLC–that’s reasonable. But don’t buy into the bad logic that Republicans sell on those other points–they put that nonsense out to get an edge in the election. We’ve got a better chance if we don’t let our thinking stray onto their terms.
<
p>Franklin Roosevelt came from Teddy Roosevelt’s family
<
p>They were fifth cousins. Not exactly close relatives.
<
p>Hillary Clinton may have been First Lady, but she’s always been first-rate policy wonk
<
p>Being a supposed “wonk” at something does not preclude one from being an incompetent wonk. As I’ve related here many times before, sHillary’s mishandling of the health care issue in 1993 and 1994 was disastrous, and probably led to bringing the Republicans to power in both houses of Congress in 1995. And her incompetence has pretty much ensured that there will be no health care reform at the federal level for at least a generation.
<
p>Regarding her vote for the war on Iraq, she has still never sufficiently explained it. So, she was incompetent in her management of the health care issue–a domestic issue–and she was incompetent at her Iraq vote–a foreign policy issue.
<
p>Now, tell us again, just what has she shown competence at?
shows that a determined bloc of Senators (i.e. the Republicans) can use the traditions of the Senate to stop popular legislation (like, say, ending the war). It also shows that egotistical Senators such as Robert Byrd, Bob Kerrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan are perfectly happy to use our taxes to pay for their insurance, but aren’t willing to pay taxes so ordinary people can get insurance. The failure of that legislation didn’t happen in a vacuum, and Hillary Clinton deserves less of the blame than the people who actually opposed expanding coverage.
<
p>Hillary’s actually show a fair degree of competence at winning elections and looking good in debates–these things are necessary for enacting progressive reforms. If you want to argue about the winning of elections, well, Obama beats Alan Keyes, who was a nutty carpetbagger with 27% of the vote, and Rick Lazio was someone who actually had an established political base in NY and got 43%. Clinton beat the next opponent in 2006 by an even bigger margin.
<
p>She helped establish S-CHIP, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act. So there, raj, are two good, competent pieces of legislation Hillary helped create in the face of a Congress that was not only controlled by the Republicans, but was run by men who were abusing the “oversight and investigation” powers of Congress to push Whitewater B.S. onto the airwaves and frontpages of the NYT.
<
p>A number of Hillary’s policy proposals would be great boons to ordinary people, for instance her plan to spend $700 million on autism (200 mil to research, 500 mil to services for families), so if she won, there would be progress for the country.
<
p>She might not be progressive enough for some voters, but she has managed to foster progressive legislation despite adversity.
Like someone else has mentioned, TR and FDR were distant cousins and 24 years separated their administrations. This Bush-Clinton thing is a lot different, father/son and husband/wife within a much shorter period of time. Again I think it would be a bad symbol for democracy if she were to win.
<
p>Just because Hillary Clinton was a lawyer and liked policy does not give her the experience to be president. Or else all these people I go to law school with are presidential caliber.
<
p>As for my 4th reason: yes Republicans will go after any Democrat running for president, and Democrats will go after any Republican. That is the nature of American politics. But I’d be intrigued to hear someone claim that the Right hated John Kerry, Al Gore, and other Dems as much as they do the Clintons. I don’t think that claim can be made. It’s certainly an undeserving hatred, but it’s there.
<
p>I think my points are valid. If you don’t, that’s cool. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
<
p>I just want to make sure the Democrats have success in 2008.
Every Daily Howler about Gore.Every Daily Howler about John Kerry.
<
p>While you may have heard more nasty stuff from the Right, repeated by the major news institutions of America, about the Clintons, consider that Bill Clinton actually took office and worked to enact his proposals. He and Hillary were just in the spotlight longer than Gore or Kerry. Those froth-at-the-mouth Freepers get themselves in a feedback loop. If the first nasty thing they say doesn’t drag down a Democrat, they take it to the next level. Bill Clinton’s greatest sin, in their eyes, was serving two terms, and finishing with good approval ratings. If Gore had been inaugurated, or Kerry had convinced an extra hundred thousand voters in Ohio, they would have received comparable treatment.
<
p>Now, as for the Roosevelts–Franklin Roosevelt’s name helped him win, same as with George W. Bush, same as with John Quincy Adams. I don’t know enough history to pass judgment on whether JQA was good or not (though he opposed Slavery, so that’s a positive you don’t always get from 19th Century Presidents). It’s not a bad symbol for democracy if Hillary wins–people voting for her will not be voting with guns to their heads. (Now a Supreme Court forbidding a state to count its votes, that is a bad symbol for democracy.)
<
p>”Just because Hillary Clinton was a lawyer and liked policy does not give her the experience to be president. Or else all these people I go to law school with are presidential caliber.” Now that’s just silly talk–you’re digging yourself into a hole here by asserting her knowledge & experience are equivalent to your law school peers. She’s got more years in the Senate than Obama, and as First Lady of Arkansas and America, she’s been a partner to Bill Clinton in making policy decisions. That’s why Bill used say that if you voted for him, you’d get Hillary, too, so it was “two for the price of one.” She’s a formidable candidate, and if Obama or Edwards beat her, they’ll have to work like hell to do it. There’s a case to be made that her judgment has proven bad or she compromises too quickly. But her experience is an asset.
She did vote wrong for the war. She acknowledged it and said it was a mistake, but did blame Bush for pushing faulty information. I don’t believe that she is for a complete pull out of troops, but rather a gradual reduction, some might have issue with that as well. But it’s nothing that makes me think she needs to be “stopped” in any kind of way.
Perhaps my use of the term “Stop Hillary” in capital letters turned people off. I think there is actually a GOP group with that name that was active with her Senate run or now with her White House run. I do not want to associate myself with that.
<
p>Poor choice of words and capitalization on my part. My apologies…
The excuses made for Hillary’s vote on Iraq that I’ve seen here and on other Democratic web sites have been nothing short of nonsense.
<
p>”She was relying on “intelligence” provided by the Bush administration.” That excuse was stupid in 2002 and it’s stupid today. The US was already involved in a war in Afghanistan. The US didn’t finish that war, did it? Instead, it diverted resources that might have allowed a reasonable conclusion to that war to be sent to Iraq. Intelligent? No, it was stupid. And now we are seeing a resurgenge of the Taliban in Afghanistan and a destabilization of Pakistan. Not exactly a smart move. But I predicted it five years ago, and I didn’t even have the Bushies’ “intelligence” to guide me.
<
p>Two, the Bushies’ “intelligence” showed something of a threat from Iraq. Where? The US, via its “no fly” zones, controlled two-thirds of the air space over Iraq, the northern third being governed by the Kurds, and the southern third being governed by the Shi’ites. The only part of Iraq that Saddam controlled was the central part, largely Sunni. Two points. One, if Saddam really did have weapons of mass destraction, they should have been easily visible to US spy satellites and surveillance planes. There weren’t any, were there?
<
p>Two, if the US really wanted to do an on-the-ground surveillance, all it really needed to do was to waltz into the center of Iraq (the US already controlled the north and the south) and surveille. It truly wasn’t a mystery.
<
p>No, sHillary’s vote on Iraq showed her incompetence in foreign policy matters, just as her management of health care financing showed her incompetence in domestic policy matters. So, tell me again, what is she competent at? She admitted that she can’t bake cookies, and I can do that, too.
Is there a link to where Robert Reich’s statement is? I’m glad to see him weighing on this.
http://robertreich.blogspot.co…
Raising the cap on what is subject to SS taxes would help balance the books. That is because the benefit formula is “progressive” in a reverse sort of way, as the lower average income is paid at 90%, and above a minimum threshold the benefit drops to 32%, and for the higher incomes 15%. A payback ratio of 15% should actually make money for the trust fund, and therefore keep it in the black. However, look for the higher income payers (and their employers) to squeal at that proposal.
<
p>But the larger problem is all the prior surpluses (about $2T) have been used to pay the general fund. One reason for that is the massive tax breaks that this administration has granted to the rich, effectively the largest wealth transfer (the rich enjoy the largesse now, while Bush cries poormouth for our future benefits) in the history of the world.
But the larger problem is all the prior surpluses (about $2T) have been used to pay the general fund.
<
p>…and been replaced with general obligation treasury bonds. You don’t really believe that the Social Security Administration would actually be placing SS tax payments in a vault somewhere, do you? If it had, the resulting reduction in liquidity would probably have been disastrous.
<
p>The problem is that the SS bonds are special bonds at ridiculously low interest rates. If they had been at market rates, the SS system would probably be far better off.
the criticism of Obama I have seen centers around his “crisis” rhetoric, not his moderate and appropriate proposal to adjust the cap.
<
p>there’s going to be the “F-U” crowd — guys in Montana with, like, sixty guns — that doesn’t buy, and then has to go to the hospital and have the rest of us pay.
<
p>…and if a hospital fails to establish financial responsibility, via insurance or otherwise, before it admits a patient, it eats the bill. The rest of us–other than the particular hospital’s other customers–don’t pay.