I am stunned that the Obama administration has the nerve to refuse to give senior and disabled citizens a cost-of-living increase for the first time in a generation.

This, coupled with the $500 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obama’s proposed health care plan, confirms my suspicions that Obama is creating his debt-riddled programs by squeezing the pittances given to seniors and disabled people.

I am a die-hard Democrat who votes a near-straight Democratic ticket, but I will not vote for Democrats any more if they do not stand up to Obama’s destructive measures to steal from those of us who’ve worked the longest and hardest to support this nation.

WHY — WHY??? — ISN’T THIS THE TOP STORY IN THE NEWS?

The woman who answered the phone at my friend’s representative’s office told him that they’d been inundated all day by calls from seniors who are frantic about the cancellation of the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) that every Social Security check recipient depends on, every January, in order to keep up with increasing costs for groceries, drugs, insurance, and more.

By the time he’s done paying his rent, utilities, and car repairs/insurance, my friend can’t afford to buy anything else but groceries and laundry soap. Forget about buying new clothes! Forget about subscribing to magazines or buying books! Forget about going to the movies or even renting a movie! Forget about doing anything the least bit unconnected with his survival, literally. Every spare penny has to be used to buy items like Benadryl, which is one of many, many drugs not covered by Medicare Part D.

Then there are drugs like Nexium, which Roger must have because he has GERD (Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease) due to his hiatal hernia, and Roger “upchucks” for hours after every meal, no matter how small the meal. The cheaper drugs for GERD, like Prilosec, do not work for Roger. Nexium is the one drug that works perfectly, but Nexium’s co-pay cost is nearly $70 per month.

Roger also has severe anxiety attacks and not one single Plan D insurance plan — Roger checked every plan available — covers the medicines he must take to treat his anxiety. There’s not even a co-pay. Roger has to pay the full price for the two anxiety drugs, which cost him $40-65 per month, depending on the dosage and number prescribed.

Because of the costs of his anxiety medications and the many other medication co-pays for additional conditions which include high blood pressure and arthritis — plus his $45 monthly premium to the Plan D insurance company — Roger cannot afford to take Nexium at all. So Roger endures constant “upchucking” and heartburn all day, every day, and he faces the danger that his GERD will lead to esophageal cancer.

Then there’s what Roger pays for Medicare. He pays $95+ for Part B. He pays $149/month for Part C. He pays $140-200 for Part D (drugs), which includes the monthly premium and co-pays and the drugs that not one drug insurance plan covers.

Let’s be clear about one thing for all of the folks who keep equating Medicare with Universal Health Care: Medicare is NOT free. Roger pays at least $400 per month for the supplemental policies, procedures and drugs to make up for everything that basic Medicare does not cover. It is not the perfect coverage everyone is now depicting it to be. There are many problems with it, not the least of which is the issue that spurred Roger’s calls and emails.

My friend remembers his younger years, when he used to dread the month of January since it’s one of the coldest months of the year and it’s a time of post-holiday letdown.

But the last few years, he has waited with great excitement for January to arrive because it meant that his check from Social Security would arrive with a small increase that would let him buy 4 apples per month instead of 2 apples per month. And January’s check meant that he could buy a chicken breast once a month instead of just chicken backs and wings.

But January 2010 will be the most depressing month he’s suffered. He won’t buy those 2 extra apples, and he will buy beans instead of chicken.

Those precious treats — those 2 apples and that piece of chicken — won’t brighten his meals.

He’ll add more water to the bean soup to make it last longer — he’d like to add a can of broth but that’s too expensive, so the extra water will have to do.

And he’ll wonder why there’s any point in going on when he won’t even be able to afford the most modest treats.

It is hard to fathom having to watch one’s pennies so closely - not in a metaphorical sense, but in an honest-to-goodness reality of not being able to buy but the barest necessities.

My friend used to joke with me about the “death panels” and he suspected that Sarah Palin was exaggerating the problem. He doesn’t laugh anymore. He is certain that Barack Obama does not care about people his age and that Obama wishes that people as old as he would just die sooner because keeping them alive costs too much.

I wish you could see his face like I can. His mouth is tight, his lips fixed in a grim downturn. His cheeks are pale and drawn. His eyes have lost their sparkle. His forehead is wrinkled more than ever before. He is too young to look like that.

Worst of all, his spirit is broken. He knows that Obama’s plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare means that everyone who depends on Medicare will get less care and will wait much longer for appointments and tests.

He expects that his Medicare supplemental insurance premiums will go up, even though he will get no more money from his Social Security check. And he has no idea how he will pay for those necessary supplemental premiums, so he has plans to cancel them all. Which means that he is gambling that he will not need hospitalization, let alone blood tests, for the next year. A dangerous game of roulette, to be sure.

And he knows that January 2011 will be just as bad since the Obama administration has announced that there will be no cost-of-living increase in 2011 either.

He’ll have to add more and more water to his bean soup. It won’t nourish him but he hopes it will make him feel full and that the hunger pangs won’t be too painful. He has no choice.

I don’t know what to say to him. When going to the food bank is mentioned, he has his pride, but even more than that, he knows the food banks in his area have less food to give out now and are all overwhelmed by mothers with children to feed. Those children, he believes, have more right to that dwindling amount of food than he does. And he believes that Obama feels that way too.

Roger confessed to me that he hopes that the “Death Panels” are indeed part of Obama’s health care legislation because he expects that death will be a welcome relief from a life that doesn’t permit him the simplest joys like an apple or a piece of meat.

He knows that his president considers him the unworthy, and he wonders if the president is right, this president whose stepfather was an oil man, who went to the most exclusive private school in all of Hawaii, and who went to an Ivy League university. Is that man right? If so, he hopes that the least the president can do is to provide him with an “exit plan.”

I still don’t know what to say to him. But I do know that this president promised him hope. Instead, he has given him despair…

Postscript: I bet some of you think that Roger should swallow his pride and apply for Medicaid. He can’t. He gets $50 too much per month from Social Security to qualify for Medicaid. Fifty dollars. Even though his medical costs make quick work of that additional money, it doesn’t matter. Once again, this is not a perfect system, no matter how much the new party line wants to push that it is. Reading the fine print — reading the print at ALL — exposes a lot of those lines to be just that, lines.

As with so many of his positions, Obama’s stance on Social Security has ‘evolved.’ In September of 2008, Slate’s Peter Bray asked, why did Obama delete the following from his on-line position paper on Social Security:

“[Obama] does not believe it is necessary or fair to hard working seniors to raise the retirement age.”

POOF. Gone from his website. The astute readers here at No Quarter know that was not an anomaly. Things were always mysteriously disappearing from his website.

And it doesn’t make any difference what he says anyway. What he says and what he does are two different things. FISA anyone???

Many of Obama’s economic advisors are not strong proponents of Social Security or even health care, for that matter.

Single-payer health insurance violates Austin Goolsbee’ free market philosophy. David Cutter believes high health costs are good for the economy. And Jeffrey Liebman favors privatization of social security.

If you wnat to make sure an on-going Social Security benefit will be there for you when you retire, you need to read this, because Social Security is not broke.

I am going to make a caveat right from the start. I am writing this post from the perspective that a fairly healthy economy exists. We have competent economists saying we are in a recession, or a depression, or a complete meltdown, and that hyper inflation is just days away. I do not have a degree in economics, so I do not know for sure what we are in. I do know that the economy is on very shaky ground and that a deepening recession or outright depression, even hyper-inflation may be on the horizon.

If any of these dire predictions occur then certainly they will affect the Social Security system, as it would affect every government and every private entity and every citizen in America. I have not found any articles or research that deals with how a worsening economy will affect Social Security. Maybe some of the economic gurus who write for NQ can help us out there.

Good economy or bad, I would affirm that Social Security has survived for 74 years through wars, through ups and downs in the economy, and through other recessions. The Social Security program was born in the Great Depression yet it managed to grow and help hundreds of thousand of retired people in the last years of that depression stay out of the poorhouse and live with dignity.

The system also managed to stay afloat and grow both during and in the years right after World War II when the deficit in this country was at the highest level ever in our history. (Obama’s current hysteria and fear mongering not withstanding.)

Take a look at the chart below.

National Debt Graph

Source: Zfacts.com

As you can see from this chart, our national debt after WW II was 90% of GDP. That is the highest it has EVER been. During the administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Carter that percentage decreased nearly every year. We paid off that WW II debt. Under Reagan and Bush I our national debt as a percentage of GDP began a precipitous rise. It came down some what in Clinton’s administration, but rose again during Bush II’s term of office.

Debt today is 70% of GDP. That is 20% lower than right after WW II.

I point this out only to say that Social Security managed to successfully do its job when we had a larger debt than we do right now. And Social Security did not go bankrupt then. Today is certainly a challenge. But we as a nation we have met and exceeded other challenges far worse. I believe we can do so again now.

Having said that – is Social Security broke?

In a word, NO.

Let’s examine this by looking at some basic facts. Below is a Social Security clock from zFacts website:

Source: Zfacts.com.

From this clock you can see that the Social Security Trust Fund is very healthy. In fact, it is healthier than the U.S. Treasury. If this is true than why are so many politicians telling us otherwise? Because in Washington D.C.today the Social Security system is where the money is.

According to History News Network (HNN) in an article titled, “How Historians Can Help Frame the Next Social Security Debate,” by Larry De Witt:

“The Social Security program is the largest single function in the federal government’s budget (accounting for about one-quarter of all expenditures.) “Indeed, the annual budget of the Social Security system is larger than the gross domestic product of all but about the dozen richest nations of the world.”

Economists and Other Groups Agree - Social Security is Not Broke

1. Renowned economist Dr. Irwin Keller, chief economist for Capital One Bank and at the leading financial website MarketWatch.com, and Distinguished Scholar of Economics at Dowling College, stated in an article titled:

“Why Social Security Isn’t Going broke,” April, 2008,“ Reports that the Social Security system will soon run out of money have been greatly exaggerated.”

“Although flush with cash now and over at least the next 10 years, the Social Security system is expected to gradually begin paying out more in benefits than it takes in from payroll taxes with the result that by 2041 its assets, in the words of the trustees, will be exhausted……..”

“……… Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which makes these projections as well, recently thought the system will remain solvent until at least 2052.”

The long and the short of his analysis and arguments are that the Social Security trustees make not just one, but three separate predictions. There is a low cost, an intermediate cost, and a high cost. Each of these projections reflect the “trustees’ consensus views regarding such inputs as economic growth, productivity, inflation, earnings, employment and interest rates.”

The alarms are raised by the intermediate projection and that projection, and only that projection, is what is reported by the press.

Quoting Dr. Keller again,

“Guess what? Under the actuaries’ low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money!”

You can read the rest of Dr. Keller’s article here:

2. Mark Weisbrot, and Dean Baker, co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C., wrote a book entitled Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000.) About their book Weisbrot states on his website:

“We showed that there was no financial, economic, actuarial, or other reason to be worried about the future of Social Security. The whole idea that Social Security would run into trouble when the baby boomers retire was an urban legend — and still is.

“Among others, The Economist — a conservative British magazine — reviewed the book and agreed. In fact no one dared challenge what we wrote. How could they? The numbers we used were the same that everyone — including the current campaign of President George W. Bush — uses. They are straight from the Social Security Trustees’ annual report.”

You can read the rest of his article here.

3. The American Association of Retired People (AARP) agrees that Social Security is not broke. Their website clearly states:

“Social Security is not going broke. It can pay 100% of promised benefits until 2040. After that, without any changes, incoming revenues will be enough to pay more than 70% of benefits for decades to come. This isn’t good enough — getting 70% wouldn’t be fair for today’s retirees and it certainly isn’t fair for tomorrow’s. AARP is in favor of strengthening Social Security so that it continues to pay full benefits to our children and grandchildren. “ [Emphasis mine]

You can see the entire statement here.

4. Over at The Economists Voice, a website published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, Barbara R. Bergmann, of the University of Maryland and American University answers the question, could social security go broke this way:

“The public is anxious because it has often been told that Social Security will “run out of money around 2042″, that it “won’t be there for our young people,” that it will “go bankrupt.” In truth, our Social Security system will never “go bankrupt.” Businesses or individuals can go bankrupt when they are legally obligated to make payments, but don’t have enough money coming in to make them, and no way to increase that inflow of money. A U.S. government program like Social Security is in an entirely different situation. Social Security gets the money it needs to make benefit payments from taxes. If Social Security taxes and benefits get out of balance, either or both can be adjusted by our democratic processes.”

You can view the entire article here.

5. AFSCME answers the question is Social Security Going Broke with a resounding, “No.”

“Reports of Social Security’s imminent demise have been vastly overstated. Even if no changes are made, Social Security will continue to pay full benefits, on time, until 2040. After that, the system will have a 25 percent shortfall, not empty coffers. In fact, as long as the Social Security payroll tax continues (6.2 percent of wages, paid by both the employer and employee), the system can never go broke. The challenge for Social Security is to ensure that 100 percent of benefit obligations are paid far into the future.”

You can see their entire article here.

6. The Los Angeles Times, Robert Scheer, and Paul Krugman have all weighed in and said that Social Security is not broke.

Well if all of these eminent economists, thinkers, scholars and editorialists think the system is not broke, why do I keep hearing so much about Social Security being broke? And why do I keep reading about privatization?

Good questions.

The answer lies in something I wrote a few paragraphs back: The Social Security system is where the money is. $$$$$$$$$$$$

And we will answer those questions in Part 2 of is Social Security Broke?

In the first post on our nation’s Social Security system I tried to give a brief history of how the program came about and the immediate needs of people suffering from the Depression that caused FDR to propose and the Congress to enact the 1935 Social Security Act.

In this the second installment of the series I want to deal with two things. One, what were the provisions of the 1935 Social Security Act, and two, how has the 1935 Social Security Act program been changed or altered over the years.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created several different, wide-ranging, and separate programs. The Act created unemployment insurance, old-age assistance (essentially welfare), old-age benefits (we now call this Social Security), aid to dependent children, and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

Below is a description of all of those programs, or Titles, the 1935 Social Security Act created with a brief description of each program.

Title I – Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance was designed to provide “financial assistance” to “aged needy individuals” immediately. In other words, this program was a welfare program for the aged and was to be administered by the individual states following federal guidelines and paid for out of the General Fund.

Title II - Federal Old Age Benefits.” Title II of the 1935 Social Security Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement beginning in 1942. (First contributions had to be collected and a fund built up before being able to pay benefits.)

The Title II program would be paid for by contributions from both the individual and the employer and put into a Trust Fund (created in 1939) separate from the General Fund and for the express purpose of funding old age benefits. This is the program most of us mean when we say, “Social Security.”

Title III - This was also a grant program that provided financial assistance to the states for Unemployment Compensation and Administration and paid for out of the General Fund.

Title IV – Grants to States for Aid to Dependent Children paid for through the General Fund. In effect this was another welfare program.

Title V - Grants to the States for Maternal and Child Welfare, again paid for through the General Fund.

Title VI – Public Health Work, again paid for through the General Fund.

Title X – Grants to States for Aid to the Blind again paid for through the general Fund.

Titles VII, VIII, IX, and XI are administrative in nature and set up the Social Security Board and detailed how contributions/taxes would be collected especially for Title II.

As you can see, The 1935 Social Security Act was a very broad and all-encompassing program extending a social safety net far and wide for those suffering during the Depression and beyond. And except for Title II, all of these programs would be paid for through the General Fund.

[I can’t help but make a snarky remark here. Look at the specifics of this program and how it is targeted to help people in need and compare it to the Christmas tree approach of the current stimulus package.]

Over the years each of these programs has been referred to as “Social Security” since they were all created by the 1935 Social Security Act. But as you see, they are really separate and distinct programs funded in different ways. I tell you this now because I want you to know this and keep this in mind because the unscrupulous among us have sometimes deliberately misled people regarding some of these programs to try and achieve their own selfish agendas, especially as regards wanting to change the old age insurance benefits, or Title II of the Social Security program.

The Title II program is funded by FICA taxes. In short, the individual contributes into the system and the employer is taxed an equal amount. The self-employed must make both contributions. All of this money goes into a separate account, or Trust Fund, to be used expressly for and exclusively for those who contribute into Title II. None of this money ever goes into the General Fund. NOT EVER. Furthermore, no one can receive benefits under Title II unless they paid into the system for at least 40 quarters. If you did not pay into the system you are not eligible to receive any benefits. Therefore, no illegal alien can, and more importantly does not receive any monies from Title II, the Social Security old age insurance program – not one dime! (This is true even if they paid into the system under a phony or even stolen Social Security number, as some do.)

It is a different matter with the other programs that the 1935 Social Security Act created, as you will read a bit later.

Changes Made to 1935 Social Security Act
Now let’s look at how The 1935 Social Security Act has changed over the years. As I researched this I was amazed at how stable the program has been since its inception. It has occasionally been slightly tinkered with here and there, but by and large it is remarkable how few changes there have been. The main changes have tended to be in one of two categories. The first category increases benefits going to recipients, and the second is continually making the program more financially sound.

I am not going to list each and every minute change to this act. If you are interested in minutia you can go to Social Security History and the Social Security Administration has listed them all. I will only hit the highlights.

1935-1939

The original Social Security Act was mostly a white male program. According to Wikipedia most women and minorities were excluded from receiving benefits from all of the various programs through how employment was defined and through specific listing of the job categories that were or were not covered. Certain jobs were just plain and explicitly excluded from the program. For example, most agricultural workers were excluded, as well as nurses, teachers, hospital workers, librarians, and domestic workers to name just a few.

Since many of the programs were also administered by the states, even more discrimination crept into the programs at that level. Fortunately, the practice of discrimination began to change in the late 1930’s as shifting gender roles and positions of minorities in society began to change. By the 1950’s the debate changed from which occupations should be covered by Social Security to achieving universal coverage.

1939

Before Title II even paid out any benefits retirees there were changes made to the program in 1939. Originally benefits were to be paid only to the worker. The 1939 Amendments added two new categories of benefits. Payments could now be made to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker, and second, in the event of a premature death a survivor’s benefit was added.

The 1939 Amendments also increased Title II benefit amounts and moved up the start of the program from 1942 to 1940.

The taxing provisions of Title VIII [see above] were also removed in 1939 (would not have been constitutional) and authority to tax was placed with the IRS (constitutional) and renamed Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or as we affectionately know it today, FICA.

However, the most significant change in 1939 was the creation of a Trust Fund managed by the Secretary of the Treasury for any surplus monies collected. These excess funds could be invested in both marketable and non-marketable securities. I could do an entire post on the Trust Fund and how it operates; it is that all-encompassing. There is not enough room in this post to detail its inner workings.

1940-1950

For ten years between 1940 and 1950 only one significant change was made to any of the programs. The Social Security Board was abolished in 1946 and replaced by the Social Security Administration (SSA) headed by a single Commissioner. The SSA still exists today.

Benefit levels however, remained very low. According to the official Social Security History web pages, “……. until 1951, the average value of the welfare benefits received under the old-age assistance provisions of the Act [Title I] were higher than the retirement benefits received under Social Security [Title II] provision. And there were more elderly Americans receiving old-age assistance than were receiving Social Security.”

So several amendments to the Act were made in 1950. Again, from the official history page of the Social Security website, “These amendments increased benefits for existing beneficiaries for the first time …….and they dramatically increased the value of the program to future beneficiaries. By February 1951 there were more Social Security retirees than welfare pensioners, and by August of that year, the average Social Security retirement benefit exceeded the average old-age welfare assistance grant for the first time.”

Today most people know that the Title II program has an annual cost-of-living (COLA) clause. This was not always the case. The first retirees received the same monthly benefit for the remainder of their life. But that also changed in 1950 when a COLA was enacted by Congress. At that time these increases were not automatic and were enacted by Congress periodically as necessary. It was not until 1972 that Congress enacted legislation providing for an annual automatic COLA based on the average increase in consumer prices.

Also in the 1950’sthe disability provisions were strengthened.

1960’s and 1970’s

The decade of the 60’s brought several significant and major changes to the Social Security Act. Retirees were given a choice of early retirement with a reduced annual benefit.

But by far the biggest change in the decade of the 1960’s was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 30, 1965. The Medicare program extended health coverage to retirees by helping them pay for hospital and medical expenses.

Like Title II of the 1935 Act, Medicare is a social insurance plan for people aged 65 or older. It operates as a single-payer heath care plan. This program consists of two parts. Part A is for hospital insurance, and Part B is for medical insurance. The 1965 amendment did not provide for prescriptions in most instances. It would be 30 more years before prescription drugs would be added to the program. Medicare is paid for by additional FICA taxes and is administered by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [Snarky comment #2, for those keeping count- which thankfully Tom Daschle will not be heading.]

Above is video of President Johnson signing the Medicare Bill and Former President Harry Truman signing up for Medicare.

As mentioned earlier, another major change in the 1970’s was the introduction of the permanent COLA.

There were a series of Amendments made in 1977 to deal with projected shortfalls due to the bad economy of the 70’s. And for the first time the issue of a projected shortfall due to the baby boom is mentioned and a slight FICA increase was made.

Supplemental Security Income
If you remember, The 1935 Social Security Act created several different programs. Except for title II, the other programs were administered by the states with partial funding from the federal government.

Over the years the programs varied tremendously from state to state with payments to recipients varying by as much as 300% between the states. There were also over 1000 agencies administering these programs. It was a bureaucratic nightmare rife with confusion and inequalities.

In 1969 President Richard Nixon changed that. He initiated reforms that would “bring reason, order, and purpose into a tangle of overlapping programs.” At Nixon’s instance Congress federalized Title I, Title X, and the disabled category (created in the fifties) by creating the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) in the Social Security Amendments of 1972.

The Social Security Administration, created in 1946 to administer Title II, was chosen to administer this new SSI program because of its reputation for successful administration of the Title II program and because of its nationwide field offices and data-processing and record keeping skills.

However, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues, not with Social Security or FICA taxes.

In keeping with the original Titles and the disability amendment SSI is designed to help the aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income, and provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

I am going to include this next part here, even though it is out of chronological order because it deals with SSI benefits to illegal aliens. This is often the source of the misunderstanding, urban legends, myths, or downright lies about illegals getting Social Security Title II benefits.

During President Clinton’s administration a balanced budget bill was passed and a Welfare Reform bill was passed. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 among other provisions restored SSI eligibility to some non-citizens whose eligibility would have been terminated under the Welfare Reform Act.

Now here is where it can sometimes get dicey. Some politicians and some activist who do not like Social Security (Title II) and want to totally get rid of it, and/or who would like to make some money off of the pool of money in the Title II Trust Fund sometimes play fast and loose with the truth.

When people sometimes will say that immigrants and/or illegals are receiving Social Security what is most likely happening is that eligible aliens are receiving SSI monies. Some folks do not distinguish between Title II monies and SSI monies. And because many people do not know the difference between the two programs, and because both programs are run by the same Social Security Administration, many people believe that illegals are dipping into their retirement pot and that they will bankrupt the Title II system. They are not. They are getting SSI monies.

Beware and ask questions when someone tells you illegals are raiding the Social Security system. Ask those who are telling you these things if the immigrants or illegals are getting Title II monies or SSI monies. Now you know the difference between the two and hopefully you won’t be fooled by the games some folks like to play with your emotions.

The 1980’s

Major changes were made to Title II by President Ronald Reagan upon the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in the 1983 Amendments. These changes were in response to both short term and long term projected shortfalls in the system.

Contributions amounts went up for both individuals and employers, retirement age went up, some benefits were lowered, more federal employees were added into the system, taxed Social Security benefits, among many other provisions.

The original Title II program was a pay-as-you-go program. In other words, current workers paid for benefits for current retirees. This was great for the WW II retirees as 78.2 million baby boom workers could afford to pay to fund increased benefits for many years. The 1983 Amendments changed this formula. For the first time in Social Security’s Title II history the baby boom generation was funding a part of their own retirement simply because there were not enough citizens behind them to afford to continue the same benefit level for them unless they helped to pay for it up front.

1990’s and 2000’s

In addition to the changes already mentioned under SSI President Bill Clinton also made some changes to the disability portions of the act.

However it was left to President George W. Bush to make the biggest and most controversial change to the Medicare portion of Title II in 38 years. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was enacted in 2003. During hearings on the bill the projected cost of the Prescription Bill was estimated to be $400 billion.

I will let Wikipedia take up the story from here: “The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.

“One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during
Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.

“Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this “…probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s… because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.”

One of the strongest organizations lobbying for the bill was AARP. It was during the Prescription drug debacle that I first learned, realized, or finally understood that AARP is not an advocate organization. It is an insurance company first and foremost. It will look out for its corporate interests first. And making money was clearly more important than helping poor people afford life-saving prescription drugs. To this day I refuse to join AARP for that reason alone.

President George W. Bush also attempted to privatize Social Security, but that did not fly. I think W learned an important lesson. Don’t rile up the senior set. One, they are vocal. And two, they vote!!! However, that issue is not dead and there are still many individuals and organizations who would like to privatize Title II.

We will deal with the issue of privatization in the next installment in this series entitled, “Is Social Security Really Broke?”

CAPTION: On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54.

Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Until my next installment, please keep these figures in mind:

In 1940 when the first benefits were paid 222,488 people received benefits totaling $35,000,000.

By 2006 there were 7,235,565 people receiving benefits totaling $41,312,000,000.

Since 1935 – for 74 years -The Social Security Act has literally kept millions of retired and disabled Americans from the poor house during the ups and downs, good and bad times, and the recessions and depressions our country has faced. Not bad for a government program!!!!

Editor’s Note: Yes! This essay is written by “bert,” who you all know from her regular comments here. She submitted this superb article for publication, and we are so pleased to share this fine writing and excellent research with you. Below, you’ll see that “bert” also found a shocking historic photograph and a video of Franklin Roosevelt signing the bill into law. Thank you, bert!

This post is a follow-up to Susan’s excellent post last Friday regarding Social Security remaining this country’s core safety net, for that is truly what it is.  

During the Bush administration there was a move afoot to privatize Social Security. There are rumors and signals from the Obama administration that politicians will again try to “save” Social Security by privatizing it. 

It is amazing that while most, if not all of us, pay into the system and will some day be eligible to receive benefits, most of us know very little about how the program came about and how it operates. There is a lot of misinformation out there and many people labor under some pretty big myths about the program. 

When I was a child I loved Friday nights. Since it was not a school night I could stay up late and watch one of my favorite TV shows, Dragnet, a classic police drama. The lead character, Sergeant Joe Friday, was played by actor Jack Webb as a serious, no-nonsense, slightly droll officer. When interviewing victims or witnesses all he wanted was “the facts,” no emotional fluff for this detective. 

In fact, the phrase, “Just the facts, ma’am,” became his trademark line. (Piece of trivia – Sergeant Friday never uttered those exact words. That phrase was uttered by Stan Freberg in a parody of Dragnet. But that is a different story all together.) 

However, a “just the facts, ma’am” mentality is exactly what we will need if we are to save this vital core social safety net from politicians who for some reason want to do away with this program. That is the purpose of this post and future ones if necessary. I want to give you, I want to arm you with facts about our – your - Social Security program. 

I had initially hoped to write one comprehensive post. But when I began to do the research I found out there was just so much great information out there I could not get it all into one post. So I have decided to break it down into more manageable pieces. In this post I will deal with how and why Social Security came into existence. In subsequent posts I will deal with the changes that have been made to the program over the years, and last of all try to answer the question: is the Social Security program bankrupt? 

So let’s start at the beginning. How and why did Social Security begin? 

Everyone knows that Social Security was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. But why? What were the conditions that made helping senior citizens and children so imperative? 

We all tend to think Social Security was only in response to the Great Depression. But the Great depression had roots in many places, not the least of which was the Industrial Revolution. 

If you remember your American history classes you know that there was a shift from an agricultural society to an industrialized society in the mid to late 1800’s. The Industrial Revolution and the resulting urbanization of America led to the disappearance of the "extended" family and the safety net it provided young and old alike. 

This also meant that more people were dependent on wages to buy food. Prior to the Industrial Revolution most families could at least grow enough food to feed their immediate family.  

All of that changed in the decades before the Great Depression. When economic income is primarily from wages then your economic security can be threatened by factors outside of your control. Recessions, bank failures, layoffs, failed business can all adversely affect you. And none of those things are your fault. You can still work hard but that will not protect you from the vagaries of the market. 

The upshot of all this is that the old ways of providing for economic security for children and the elderly were crumbling prior to and during the depression. Keep that in the back of your minds as you read about the Great Depression and what happened to ordinary folks like yourselves.   

Most historians agree that the Great Depression began on Black Friday, the day the Stock market crashed, October 27, 1929.  Herbert Hoover was President. Most people believed the economy would correct itself as the nation had survived worse recessions. But this belief soon proved untrue. 

According to the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, by the time FDR took the oath of office in January, 1933 unemployment had grown from 8 million at the start of the recession to 15 million people. This was roughly one-third of the non-farmer work force. The GNP had fallen from $103.8 billion to 55.7 billion.  

When the depression began about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children lived at bare subsistence levels. [Emphasis mine] By 1933 another 13 million Americans had lost their jobs. States, which had been caring for the elderly, disabled, and mothers with children, were over-whelmed and could no longer provide even minimum help. Poorhouses and orphanages were created to help, but often conditions in these institutions were extremely harsh and only the most destitute would apply. 

Food riots broke out, men deserting their families began to rise, and the homeless were living in public parks and in shanty towns. The effect of the Depression on poor children was devastating. 

Most of the elderly did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to even provide for bare minimum support during good economic times, let alone during an economic crisis. For those that did those savings and investments were wiped out by the crash.  

Americans had always taken pride in their rugged individualism and self-reliance. But these kinds of harsh realities and conditions made many Americans begin to question that assumption.  

From the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers: 

“…… Although the depression was world wide, no other country except Germany reached so high a percentage of unemployed. The poor were hit the hardest. By 1932, Harlem had an unemployment rate of 50 percent and property owned or managed by blacks fell from 30 percent to 5 percent in 1935. Farmers in the Midwest were doubly hit by economic downturns and the Dust Bowl. Schools, with budgets shrinking, shortened both the school day and the school year. 

The breadth and depth of the crisis made it the Great Depression. 

No one knew how best to respond to the crisis. President Hoover believed the dole would do more harm than good and that local governments and private charities should provide relief to the unemployed and homeless. By 1931, some states began to offer aid to local communities. FDR, then governor of New York, worked with Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins to begin a direct work relief program. This helped only a very few. By 1932, only 1/4 of unemployed families received any relief. In 1932, only 1.5 percent of all government funds were spent on relief and averaged about $1.67 per citizen. [Emphasis mine]  

Cities, which had to bear the brunt of the relief efforts, teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. By 1932, Cook County (Chicago) was firing firemen, police, and teachers (who had not been paid in 8 months). Breadlines and Hoovervilles (homeless encampments) appeared across the nation.”   [See photo below] 

Citation: The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers."The Great Depression." Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt, ed. by Allida Black, June Hopkins, et. al. (Hyde Park, New York: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, 2003). http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm 

This picture haunts my heart and my soul. This is America circa 1932. It looks like a third world country.  

For more depression era photos click link below: 

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm 

In America prior to Social Security there were Civil War veteran’s pensions and some company pensions. I will not delve into that history except to note there is some precedent to Social Security in America 

Some states provided aid for the elderly and retirees. But these state programs were basically just welfare programs and eligibility was based on financial need. Then, as now, most Americans opposed welfare type programs. Furthermore, these plans were woefully inadequate, most providing less than $1 a day. And when the depression came there were just too many in need for them to be effective. 

Throughout 1934 Roosevelt talked about ‘national economic insecurity’ and a ‘social insurance’ plan during many of his fireside chats. On June 8, 1934, Roosevelt announced his intention to provide for a Social Security program. By executive order he initiated a commission composed of five of his top cabinet-level officials to find a way to achieve this goal. The committee was instructed to study the entire problem and to make recommendations that would serve as the basis for legislation. 

What Roosevelt did that was so innovative was to introduce an alternative to welfare and called it “social insurance.” He changed the debate. He created a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through personal and company paid contributions, or taxes, paid while they are still employed. 

“Security,” Roosevelt said, “was attained in the earlier days through the interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other. The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security. Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it . . . This seeking for a greater measure of welfare and happiness does not indicate a change in values. It is rather a return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion . . .”  [All emphasis mine] 

In January 1935 the commission made its report to the President and on January 17, 1935 Roosevelt sent the report to both houses of Congress for simultaneous consideration.  

The final bill was passed into law by voice vote on August 8, 1935 in the House (372 Yes, 33 no, 25 not voting) and on August 9th in the Senate (77 yes, 6 no, 12 not voting). 
 
On August 14, 1935 President Roosevelt signed the bill into law at a ceremony in the White House Cabinet Room. 

President Roosevelt’s remarks on this video, posted by politicalhack28, say it all:  

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." 

From the Social Security – History website: “The two major provisions relating to the elderly were Title I- Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance, which supported state welfare programs for the aged, and Title II-Federal Old-Age Benefits. It was Title II that was the new social insurance program we now think of as Social Security. The new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.” 

The original bill provided benefits only to the worker. In 1939 an amendment added two new categories of benefits – payment to a spouse and minor children of a retired worker (dependents benefit) and survivors benefits in case of a premature death of a covered worker. This changed Social Security from a workers only retirement program to a family based economic security program. 

From the Report of the Social Security Board which recommended those changes: 

"It is impossible under any social insurance system to provide ideal security for every individual. The practical objective is to pay benefits that provide a minimum degree of social security—as a basis upon which the worker, through his own efforts, will have a better chance to provide adequately for his individual security."  

Now how does all of this affect me here and now?  

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis that is really quite simple. 

“SOCIAL SECURITY IMPORTANT FOR RETIREMENT OF POOR AND RICH” 

“Even the wealthy depend upon Social Security for much of their consumption after they quit working, according to a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). 

Consider:

Social Security accounts for virtually all of the discretionary consumption of households with pre-retirement incomes of less than $50,000 a year or $25,000 for singles.  

Social Security accounts for about one-third of all discretionary consumption for the highest-income households — couples earning $500,000 or singles earning $250,000 prior to retirement.   

A primary goal of financial planning is to maintain a consistent standard of living during a person's lifetime.  If Social Security were abolished tomorrow, all retirees would experience an immediate reduction in their consumption.   

If younger workers were notified in advance, they could adjust their saving and spending habits today to avoid abrupt changes in their standard of living upon retirement.   

Yet only the highest income workers have the ability to adjust so as to completely smooth their consumption across their lifetime.  Because low- and middle-income workers are constrained by current obligations they cannot completely adjust.  

For example, if Social Security benefits were eliminated for workers age 35 or younger:

A couple with an annual income of $500,000 could level their consumption across their lifetime by reducing their current consumption by almost 18 percent in each succeeding year.  

Yet a couple with an annual income of $200,000 that reduced their current consumption by almost 24 percent, would experience approximately another 15 percentage point reduction in consumption upon retirement.  

A couple with an annual income of $50,000 that reduced their current consumption by more than 21 percent would experience another 26 percentage point reduction upon retirement.” 

Source: Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Ben Marx and Pietro Rizza, "How Much Do Americans Depend on Social Security?" National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 301, August 2007. 

So on Friday last, Susan was one-hundred percent correct: Social Security is this nation’s CORE safety net in good and bad times; but especially in the bad times.  

Don’t let anyone, especially politicians take your safety net away and give it to Wall Street types.  

To the Editor:

“From Here to Retirement” correctly assesses the failure of the 401(k) revolution to help workers accumulate adequate funds for their retirements. Your recommended solutions to the Obama administration, however, miss the target.

As one who has long been involved with retirement plans as a consultant to large employers, I have seen 401(k)’s morph from their intended role as supplements to traditional pension plans to become the primary retirement vehicle for most American workers.

Your reference to the need for 401(k) improvements and new savings accounts with shared risks overlooks the more pressing need for a retirement plan that will provide guaranteed lifelong income that keeps pace with inflation.

Such a retirement plan has existed for over 70 years: Social Security. As 401(k)’s have tanked and private pensions vanished, Social Security remains the only reliable plan for future retirees and their families. Federal dollars will be much better spent enhancing Social Security, especially for lower-income Americans, than subsidizing new forms of individual savings that have proved ineffective.

William J. Arnone
New York, Jan. 26, 2009

The once highly popular diarist at Daily Kos, RonK Seattle, wrote some great pieces about the kinds of economic advisers that Barack Obama has, and most of them are pro privatization of Social Security — in other words throwing our money to the wolves of Wall Street. (And we’ve seen lately how that all turned out, with people’s 401Ks turning into worthless junk.)

Check out “The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics 102″ to learn more about what RonK Seattle discovered clear back in February 2008. Sadly, the Kossacks were too gaga over Obama to pay any attention to one of Daily Kos’s top contributors and best writers. If only they’d listened to him.

UPDATE #3 (uh, did Obama know this when he decided on Gregg?): “Gregg Voted to Kill Commerce Before He Agreed to Lead It”, CQ Politics, February 2, 2009:

President Obama’s new candidate to run the Commerce Department voted in favor of abolishing the agency as a member of the Budget Committee and on the Senate floor in 1995.

Sen. Judd Gregg , R-N.H., whose nomination was expected to be announced Tuesday, also worked in the Senate to trim the department’s budget as head of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee.

Gregg’s 1995 votes were cast for the fiscal 1996 budget resolution, a nonbinding blueprint that outlined the GOP’s fiscal priorities after Republicans won full control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

The Senate version of the controversial measure envisioned spending cuts of more than $960 billion, almost half of it from Medicare and Medicaid. [MORE INDICATIONS that health care will not be reformed, but may be cut back? Just asking! - Susan] Democratic efforts to amend it were uniformly rebuked by a united GOP majority on the Budget Committee.

Ultimately, the Commerce Department survived, and Gregg has since shown more interest than most of his Republican colleagues in funding some of its agencies, particularly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Gregg also fought President Bill Clinton’s efforts to increase funding for the Commerce Department to administer the 2000 census. Indeed, Gregg’s commitment to basic functions of the department has been questioned at times.

“He was generally pretty harsh on them and not really interested in their programs, especially the commerce side of things,” said a Democratic appropriations aide. … Read all.

Update #1: Social Security and Medicare do require some adjustments, but aren’t we all grateful that the Republicans never managed to turn over Social Security monies to private account investments in the stock markets and mutual funds?!?!?! Social Security especially offers some future protection for the many people in our country who are stuck in dead-end, minimum-wage jobs and who will never be able to save enough to be able to provide income in their old age. And many of these minimum wage workers do the most physically taxing kinds of jobs, which are very hard on the body, and age them sooner than those who get white-collar jobs. As one Democratic senator said on an old West Wing I watched the other night, “What do we do about sheet metal workers whose knees and backs are shot by the time they’re 55?” We can’t bump up the age much more.

If we do anything at all, I’d advise we exclude those who are wealthy and have enough annual income in retirement that that SS monthly check is not a loss. And Medicare? It is so efficiently managed that its administrative costs run around 1.5-3% annually — amazing for a huge government-run enterprise. But it is far from free. The necessary supplementals can cost seniors at least $350 per month. And god help those who hit the “donut holes” in the Plan D prescription drug plans — they’re left with hundreds of dollars of expenses until the end of the year.

What scares me most is that President Obama doesn’t give a damn about any of this. During the campaigns, we TRIED to tell people this Obama’s economic advisers are in favor of privatizing Social Security but those who dared, like RonK Seattle, were summarily kicked out of true-believer blogs like Daily Kos. And what also frightens me is that we’ve lost Senator Daschle over a tax problem when he was one of the best-informed people anywhere on health care plans. It’s a tragic loss that may ruin our chance to improve health care in this nation. Yes, he screwed up. Damn, he wasn’t perfect, and yes he’d taken advantage of his Senate experience to make big bucks.

BUT, think about this? Who among any of us hasn’t got “skeletons” in OUR closets that would prevent us from confirmation, if the requirement is nothing short of sainthood? This is getting ridiculous. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone …. (Probably not accurate, but we heathens can’t quote the Bible perfectly.) But god we needed Daschle’s expertise. Obama should have FOUGHT for Daschle, but instead he did the easiest thing politically — he threw Daschle under the bus, just like he does most everyone who causes him any problems. [Update 2: The adage about "throwing the first stone" works if we consider the totality of what a man or woman has done, but Obama is the one who falls WAY too far for me. Not only has he never accomplished anything substantive that truly helped citizens, he's rarely if ever tried, and has only busted his ass when he wanted to win a campaign.]

The PREVAILING VIEW is that Daschle still had the votes to win confirmation, so what happened? I’ll bet you anything that Obama chickened out, and forced him to withdraw because he CAN’T TAKE THE HEAT of standing up for the best nominee! Daschle will never say that, but I’m nearly sure of it.

NOW back to the original story I wrote late last night: I recall being impressed with Senator Gregg’s coherent, detailed explanations of negotiations last fall at the height of the presidential election race to forge a negotiated agreement for Bush’s economic rescue plan. And I’ve heard that he’s a “budget wonk,” which is an asset. But I just ran across this article, and am bringing it to your attention solely because you have to ask yourselves what kind of a real Democrat is Barack Obama? Or is he one? Or does he care?

Is he a fool? Or a callous deal-maker, the kind who consorted for years with Tony Rezko who stole millions of dollars of the hard-earned money of taxpayers and failed to keep his bond with the people, to improve heretofore public housing and left it to rot, to be foreclosed, to be uninhabitable while his friend, the ever-ambitious Barack Obama glanced away?

Is Barack Obama a fool, I ask again? Who else would appoint a man to be Secretary of Commerce who was planning to vote against Obama’s stimulus package, as was Gregg?

Or is Obama — as I feared throughout the contests because what little of a record the man does have suggests it strongly — a callous deal-maker who is manifestly untouched by the real lives of real American citizens and who only looks for the adulation and the next campaign dollar?

Would he really appoint a Secretary of Commerce in a Democratic party administration whose idea of improving the economy is to create “a commission of center-right insiders operating in secret and circumventing Congress in order to destroy Social Security and Medicare”?

Say what you want about the Democratic party but, at its finest, it has been about creating a harbor to protect our nation’s citizens.

Good men and women of the Democratic party fought the toughest battles against both giants of industry and hard-right conservatives to give Americans the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare.

I am reading a book about one such man, who served in the House from 1936 to 1944 and in the Senate from 1944 to 1981. Warren Magnuson, my representative and senator from the State of Washington, long before I was even born, looked out for me and you. He not only helped Franklin D. Roosevelt pass his great bills but he went on to create and pass bills that forever have changed all of our lives for the better, from the Consumer Protection Act to numerous environmental protection measures. Here are some of his words, in 1936, when he first ran for the House, and through a lingering Depression:

“Roosevelt has brought order from chaos,” he said. “The Democratic policy is water power without profit, schools for all children, programs to cure unemployment. … (page 56, “New Deal, New World,” from the book, “Warren G. Magnuson and The Shaping of Twentieth Century America.”)

Water power without profit? Yes, that had to be fought for. Schools for all children? Yes, that too had to be fought for.

The Washington state Democratic party platform, at its convention over which he presided, called for:

a social security program, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, public health programs, collective bargaining and labor arbitration, and federal aid for dams and irrigation.

Unemployment compensation? Yes that too had to be fought for. Public health programs? That too. Federal aid for dams and irrigation (which has made possible the great farming lands of the west)? Yes, those too had to be fought for.

And then there is social security. The “third rail” of politics, as it is sometimes called.

We know that Obama is a novice who skimmed the surface of the U.S. Senate fleetingly, never bothered even to learn all the rules, and who used his office solely as a springboard to the presidency. We know that such a man, with the ego to run with so little to show for his life, save a couple political victories and a best-selling biography, had to have the most exceptional nerve to run for the most powerful office in the world.

Obama touts his “bipartisan” approach to politics as if it makes him fly with the angels, above the blood sport that is really politics. There’s something naive about his approach. He played his “bipartisan” hand so overtly that the House Republicans were only too eager to show him how that works in their town, with nary a “bipartisan” vote from their side of the aisle.

It was almost as if he thought he could win over the Republicans the same way he had made women faint at his rallies and once-sensible people fall for his promises as if he were the next messiah.

Only those grizzled, cynical GOP veterans know the system in D.C., and they are not that easily won over, nor will they ever be won over by his supposed charm and charisma.

And now he’s bringing in another Republican, whose true allegiances are to his party and his GOP comrades in the Senate and House to oversee the nation’s commerce. But he’s doing so without the requisite experience and knowledge, himself, to see if Judd Gregg is on the up-and-up with him, or will be leading him down a path to the destruction of all that those courageous men and women fought for back in the 1930s and 1940s.

And Franklin Roosevelt was so much more than Barack Obama. Roosevelt truly did “change” Washington, D.C. From the book again (Magnuson’s nickname was “Maggie”), in 1936:

Maggie would sit alongside another freshman, Texas Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson was twenty-eight; Magnuson, thirty-two. …

This was Franklin Roosevelt’s Washington, not Herbert Hoover’s — a city in fundamental change from the center of a laissez-faire capitalist federation to a seat of government suddenly concerned about every aspect of American society from Wall Street to Main Street. It was more the Washington, D.C. we know today, a strong central government–…

This was the Neal Deal government, a consequence of its rescue of capitalism. …

Years later, when asked to explain his and Johnson’s devotion to the New Deal, Magnuson said, “All of us are creatures of our times. We needed to do something [in the 1930s] no matter what it was called. It was a modest approach.

A modest approach. What an understatement. He and Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt changed our nation forever, and for the better.

Nowhere in the Obama “stimulus package” do we see any great programs such as we saw in what Magnuson mentioned.

And nowhere in Obama’s haphazard piling on of experts do we see even a glimmer of a coherent plan that will not only lift the recession/depression but will also reinvigorate this nation and the rest of the world.

It’s late. I’m done writing. There’s more to say. Another time.

It took nearly two years with an army of indomitable hunters determined to trap a POTUS* at any cost using any means, but Obama did it.

Now that the biggest, most hazardous, acutely stressful, and toughest job on the planet has been captured, what is Obama going to do with it? I get the feeling that the next steps haven’t been quite thought through.

On the one hand, as recently as in the last few days Obama declared, “We can’t afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, healthcare, education and tax relief for middle-class families.”

Wow—these changes would be just great. Not quite sure how we will pay for any of them though because the first three seem to contradict the fourth.

On the other hand, this POTUS has been very hard to pin down. It jumps around a lot. For example, I thought we were all going to be allowed to feed it. Obama said he needs us all, that he can’t care for the POTUS without us. But Jardin at Boing Boing notes that a promise that technology would be used to involve us all in government has now been removed from Obama’s Change.gov website. That’s disappointing, especially because all the working Joes I know raised their eyebrows years ago regarding selling folks houses they could not afford. We knew this would eventually cause them (and us) considerable agony. We “little people” have also long understood the dangers of Middle East dependence on oil while our car makers merrily continued to roll out gas guzzlers. We knew these dumb decisions would come back and bite us in our collective asses. We deserve to be heard because we are apparently much smarter than our leaders and CEOs.

So, welcome to the New Zoo. Visit it often. I do hope this POTUS stays much healthier for us than the last one. I also hope it doesn’t get hidden away somewhere so we can’t see what it is up to.

*POTUS= President Of The United States

The McCain health-care insurance tax credit may well be one of the most misunderstood proposals of this presidential election. Barack Obama has been ruthless in his attacks. But the tax credit is highly progressive and will provide a powerful incentive for people to purchase health insurance. These features under normal circumstances should endear Democrats to the proposal.

Mr. Carroll served as deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury. He is now vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, and an executive-in-residence with American University’s School of Public Affairs:

[McCain] would replace the current income tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance with a refundable tax credit — $5,000 for those who purchase family coverage and $2,500 for individual coverage. Mr. McCain would also reform insurance markets to stem the growth in health insurance premiums.

Further, the rather liberal Tax Policy Center stated the McCain proposals will result in a “net tax benefit” of more than $1,200 for an average tax payer. A recent Lewin Group study estimated savings upwards of $1,400 per family, almost three times the savings a family would get under the Obama plan.

What many may not realize is that the federal government already “spends” roughly $300 billion to $400 billion through the tax code to encourage people to pay for their health care through employer-sponsored health insurance. This subsidy takes the form of the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance from both income and payroll taxes.

Still, some 45 million Americans are uninsured; and the growth in health-care spending continues to outpace the growth in incomes and the economy, which portends further increases in the number of uninsured. The employer-based system itself is eroding. Voters should be wondering whether there is a better approach than this subsidy.

Consider the current exclusion. Its value rises with how much someone spends on health care, and how much of this spending is funneled through employer-sponsored health-care coverage. This creates an incentive for people to purchase policies with low deductibles, or which cover routine spending. These policies look a lot less like insurance and more like prefunded spending accounts purchased through employers and managed by insurance companies. Consider homeowners and auto insurance policies. Do these cover routine spending on cleaning the gutters or tuning up a car?

The subsidy encourages people to buy bigger policies that cover more, and leads to greater health-care spending. Moreover, lower deductibles and coverage of routine spending dulls consumers’ sensitivity to price. Reducing the tax bias should result in insurance that is more focused on catastrophic coverage and less on routine spending.

By replacing the income tax exclusion with a fixed, refundable credit, the McCain proposal reduces the tax bias for large insurance policies. Because the credit is for a fixed amount, regardless of how much you spend on health care, it helps break the link between the existing tax subsidy and how much is spent on health care. This improves incentives in the health-care market by reducing the bias that has contributed to such a high level of health-care spending.

Moreover, the credit provides a powerful incentive for people to purchase insurance. The two tax provisions — the new credit and the repeal of the income tax exclusion — on net provide a substantial tax cut of $1.4 trillion over 10 years. Not only do most Americans receive a tax cut under the McCain proposal, but the tax cut is directed toward low and moderate income taxpayers.

Consumer Reports also offers this description:

Senator McCain, would create a deregulated national insurance market, expand individual coverage, and rely on competition to drive costs down. People with serious health problems could join government-subsidized high-risk pools like those that many states run today.

Both candidates agree on a few issues: both want to speed up adoption of electronic record-keeping systems; they also agree on the need for safety and transparency, speeding up the introduction of generic drugs, making it easier to buy drugs from overseas and on coordination of care for those seeing a variety of specialists.

Otherwise, Senator McCain and Senator Obama have radically different health care proposals, which offer “dramatic reforms for people not on Medicare.” Consumer Reports also offered a review of both:

CR analyzed what could happen to five American households under McCain and under Obama. ‘The cases aren’t statistically representative but do highlight the stark contrasts between the plans.’ The review is pretty well balanced and McCain’s plan seems to closely edge out Obama’s in their scenarios.

Mr. Carroll’s article also includes a chart depicting a family of four which is ‘assumed to purchase a $14,000 health insurance policy.’ The picture is striking in that it contradicts Obama’s public comments about McCain’s proposal:

[The] McCain tax credit for the purchase of health insurance exceeds the value of the current exclusion for all income levels shown. Indeed, it generally provides more resources to purchase health insurance than the existing exclusion. The total subsidy for health care would rise from about $3.6 trillion over 10 years today to roughly $5 trillion under his proposal.

Some of the nation’s top economists in the Treasury Dept.’s Office of Analysis and The Lewin Group, a respected private health-care research outfit, estimated that the McCain credit would increase the number of new insureds by as much as 15 to 21 million people.

It is true that many may no longer get their insurance through their employer, but they will be given the resources to purchase insurance on their own.

Will the insurance that is purchased be a generous plan with first dollar coverage or low deductibles? It is much more likely to be a plan with higher deductibles that is more focused on providing true insurance against catastrophic losses rather than a more generous plan that includes a lot of prepayment for routine and predictable medical expenses. But this is precisely one of the objectives of the policy: to reduce the current tax bias that encourages people to funnel routine health expenses through insurance policies.

Mr. Carroll also address the implications of this proposal on the future of entitlement programs and notes ‘this is perhaps the most important aspect of the proposal.’

There is an enormous unfunded liability associated with … Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If left unchecked, the growth in these programs will nearly double the size of the federal government by 2040, consuming roughly 40% of the nation’s output rather than the 20% today. While the growth in Social Security is largely the result of demographics, the growth in Medicare and Medicaid is also driven by the rapid growth in health-care spending. This is where a proposal like Sen. McCain’s can be so important.

The elimination of the income-tax exclusion should reduce private health-care spending; to the extent this reduces the cost of health care, it should also put downward pressure on the growth of Medicare and Medicaid costs. Thus, by removing the tax bias for more generous health coverage, the McCain health credit also has the potential to provide important dividends to the entitlement problem down the road.

Certainly, Social Security and Medicare are programs that need to be addressed (and protected) sooner rather than later. It is interesting to note that Mr. Carroll feels Senator McCain has a better inroad into solving that problem.

Aren’t I BENEVOLENT???” Woohoo!!! Where do I sign up? Well, I suppose I could vote for the Authoritarian Socialist in the election and have these dreams (cough, choke) come true! Yes, you, too could have your hard earned dollars go to spread the wealth around, apparently something the Civil Rights Activists didn’t work hard enough to do, according to Obama.

Oh, yeah - surely by now you have seen the video of Obama from 2001. A whole bunch of intrepid writers at No Quarter have dealt with this video and story in a most awesome fashion(Uppity Woman, LisaB, Matthew Weaver, Ani, to name a few), but someone else has weighed in, too. And I don’t mean me.

Well, except to bring you this, someone of whom you have surely heard - Johnny Mac. Yep, there’s a brand new Mac Attack on Obama’s long-held ideology of “spreading the wealth.” I might add, Obama can just feel FREE to share his millions of dollars any ol’ time he wants, though judging from the donations on his released tax returns, like so many other issues, he is ALL TALK and NO ACTION. What the hell else is new?

Anywho, Senator McCain was speaking in Ohio, land of the fraudulent votes by Obama staff (oh, McCain wasn’t talking about the fraudulent votes and ACORN, though I reckon he could have thrown that in there - maybe another day), and focused on the whole “lemme have your money and I’ll dole it out the way I see fit” mindset of Obama:

It’s been a long campaign and we’ve heard a lot of words, and great campaign trail eloquence. The amazing thing is that we’ve learned more about Senator Obama’s real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years. It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. He told Joe the plumber right here in Ohio he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.” It’s always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments, and today we heard another moment like this from Senator Obama.

In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote — “tragedies” of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. He said, and I quote, “One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Good googly moogly. Did Obama REALLY say that? OUT LOUD?? Whew - “coalitions of power” has GOTTA mean ACORN, right? I mean, really, who else could it mean but the organization for whom he worked, to whom he has given almost a cool million from his own funds, and tons more from all of us. The one working overtime to amass so many voter registrations, legit and not, that they overwhelm election boards so they can’t POSSIBLY find all of the fraudulent ones…Just a guess on my part, though, since he didn’t SAY, “ACORN, the political and community organizers on the ground who can put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” Ahem. Nothing like that. Right.

But since Obama has been a bit unclear on what he actually MEANT by his whole Hope/Change thing, McCain can clear that up for you:

That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Pretty much! Hey! Guess who else holds these kinds of beliefs? Are you thinking who I’m thinking? Yes! Bill Ayers!!! The Marxist/Anarchist!

McCain then raises the Obama tax plan:

We’ve all heard his campaign trail promise: he says he only wants to tax the rich. But these unscripted moments and his record tell a different story. He supported the Democratic budget plan passed just this year that called for raising taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars per year. And Senator Obama has voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts.

Senator Obama may say he’s trying to soak the rich, but it’s the middle class who are going to get put through the wringer, because even the tax increase he admits to misses the target. To pay for nearly a trillion dollars in new government spending, his tax increase would impact 50 percent of small business income in this country, and the jobs of 16 million middle class Americans who work for those small businesses.

Whether it’s Joe the Plumber here in Ohio or the working men and women across this country, we shouldn’t be taxing our small businesses more as Senator Obama wants to do, we need to be helping them expand their businesses and create jobs. America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by giving our money to the government to “redistribute.” In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

According to the Wall Street Journal, when Obama says $250,000, he REALLY means more like $164,500, since that is when the tax hikes will kick in. There’s more:

Mr. Obama’s most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he’d raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points — though it’s unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.

In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program — which pays out based on how much you paid in — into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

Huh - that seems to be a theme with Obama. Sharing the wealth. Oh, no, wait - sharing YOUR wealth however he sees fit. There is much more about his tax policy in the WSJ article (h/t to a No Quarter reader - sorry - can’t find your name now!). McCain adds:

My opponent’s massive new tax increase is exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can’t let that happen. We need pro-growth and pro-jobs economic policies, not pro-government spending programs paid for with higher taxes…

I’m not going to spend $750 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I’m going to make sure we take care of the working people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home. We’re going to double the child deduction for working families. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America. Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

Exactly. There is more in Senator McCain’s address to Ohio today, including more on the economy:

If I’m elected President, I won’t spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will. And he can’t do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I’m going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren’t working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

I’m all for keeping an eye on the $700 BILLION bailout, especially with reports coming out today that bankers are planning billions - yes, I said BILLIONS - in bonuses to the very people who helped to get us into this position, as well as raises to employees, and maybe buying some more banks - with YOUR MONEY!!!! Maybe that whole oversight wasn’t such a bad idea after all…

McCain continued, saying:

Let me give you the state of the race today. There’s eight days to go. We’re a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they’ve done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He’s measuring the drapes, and he’s planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I’m old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.

What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap … someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.

Obama has been claiming victory almost from the day he got into this race, if you ask me. For some reason, he refused to be held to the same standard as any other potential nominee EVER, refusing even to be properly vetted (see Larry Johnson’s excellent presentation by a former FBI agent on this very issue). What was more amazing is that he was allowed to get away with it, so we are just now - a WEEK before the election - getting some information that has been available for SEVEN YEARS. Wow.

We do know John McCain, though, and we know he is telling the truth when he says:

I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.

As a lifelong yellow dog Democrat until 5/31/08 (when the RBC/DNC took votes cast, and certified, from Clinton and GAVE them to Obama making it clear the fix was in, and the DNC was no longer democratic), I knew all about Senator McCain. One may disagree with his policies, but one cannot, with any credibility, challenge his patriotism or his dedication to the country he serves. He concludes:

I know you’re worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Will we continue to lead the world’s economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren’s future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let’s go win this election and get this country moving again.

Could you please add, “Fight for free speech” while you are at it, Senator? That seems to be something the Obama camp would like to curtail. I, for one, think it’s mighty important. Just sayin’. Ahem.

Don’t you feel like McCain is channeling Hillary Clinton? Seems that way to me, anyway. I don’t agree with all of his policies, but I do think he is a man of honor, of integrity, a public servant burning with a passion for this country and her well-being, thus OUR well-being. Obama? Not so much. Obama seems in it for him and him alone, with an eye to imposing his true ideology and beliefs on this country once he has bamboozled and hoodwinked enough people to get him in (one way or the other - see comment regarding ACORN above) for HIM, not us, HIM. McCain seems to see Obama for who he is, and is fighting for this country to not fall into the hands of one who wishes to “redistribute the wealth” of the citizens any more than it already is (think Social Security), or to put our economy at greater risk.

Like I said, Obama - redistribute your OWN wealth, if you want (hey, maybe your buddy Warren Buffet will let you spread HIS around), but leave mine the hell alone.

Then Ostertag warns his readers away from the “PUMA movement” because it “may indeed be a Republican troll operation.” No, Mr. Ostertag. Granted, there are a few groups out of HUNDREDS in the Just Say No Deal coalition that are pro-McCain, but that occurs with any large coalition and we here at No Quarter, as do most, strongly disagree with the few’s emphasis solely on McCain. We are pro-Hillary.

However, some of us are “sticking it to” the Democratic party at the moment for its ill-advised recent behavior, just as YOU are doing to Obama by withholding donations. You’re employing a tactic. So are we.

Frankly, I think you know that too, Mr. Ostertag, and perhaps you are worried that Obama’s supporters may take a look at JustSayNoDeal.com.

We support Hillary Clinton, who voted to protect MoveOn’s right to speech against Sen. John Cornyn’s amendment while Obama, although he was on site, hid away and didn’t vote. The irony: MoveOn has never been a friend to Sen. Clinton and has embraced Obama, who didn’t have Sen. Clinton’s courage to stand up for his own benefactors.

We support Hillary Clinton who has the endorsement of over 30 flag officers who want to get out of Iraq just as badly as you, but who know Hillary has the REAL knowledge of military and foreign affairs to carry it off, and who can speak coherently without having to hold two press conferences within two hours to clarify a clarification.

We support Hillary Clinton because she is for truly universal health care, the protection of Social Security, and saving Medicare (currently under frightening assault), while Mr. Obama’s advisers are pro-partial privatization. And Mr. Obama?

Mr. Obama seems more interested in wooing the religious right with an expansion of Bush’s faith-based initiatives rather than strengthening our existing, essential federal safety nets. I found a passionate statement at Sen. Clinton’s senate site on the pending cuts to Medicare — which have alarmed every health care provider across our nation — but not one word at Mr. Obama’s senate or campaign sites. We support Hillary because she knows much more, but also because she shows her convictions. Update: I note that Sen. McCain is being pressured by physicians’ groups to break the Republican minority stranglehold on the Medicare cuts, which will dramatically affect health care for senior citizens, who are reliable voters. (The Hill has a detailed article.)

Below, a video clip from last night’s CNN AC360 on “Hillary’s Holdouts”:

Transcript:

So, beyond those poll numbers, there’s the cash factor. Clinton supporters, from rank-and-file Democrats to major donors, don’t seem to be ponying up the money that the Obama campaign had hoped to see.

Up close tonight, why they’re holding out. Here’s 360’s Joe Johns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the picture of Democratic unity, they are scheduled for three fund-raisers together in New York this week. But when it comes to campaign cash, this political kumbaya might have its limits.

Some fund-raisers for Hillary Clinton are pressuring the Obama campaign to honor her policy positions and her campaign debt. They want her name placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention. And they are balking at writing checks for Obama.

LYNN FORESTER, MAJOR CLINTON DONOR: I certainly know there are lots of people who are withholding their money.

JOHNS: Businesswoman Lynn Forester launched a Web site bringing Clinton supporters together to pressure Obama. She is one of the so- called HillRaisers, who brought in at least $100,000 each to Clinton. She hasn’t given money to Obama, and hasn’t decided whether she will.

FORESTER: This is a hard decision for me personally, because, frankly, I don’t like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.

JOHNS (on camera): It’s hard to say how many big donors might balk when it comes to Obama. Some political observers expect gushers of money by Election Day. But, if you were looking for early leading indicators that most of Clinton’s deep-pocketed supporters are throwing open their wallets for the presumptive nominee, we’re not seeing them.

(voice-over): The Center for Responsive Politics and “The Wall Street Journal” crunched the numbers from May, when Obama was wrapping up the primary. About 115 people who donated at least $1,000 to Senator Clinton were making their first big donations to Obama.

But here’s the twist. Roughly the same number of former Clinton donors were making large donations to John McCain.

(on camera): So, what’s the problem? Some say Obama is shifting positions. Some say Hillary Clinton should get a large role in both the convention and the fall campaign. And some of those die-hard Clinton supporters say they are angry because of the perceived sexism in the coverage of their candidate.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: So we need to address that issue, but we need to not take it out on Barack Obama, because it was not his fault.

JOHNS (voice-over): Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida spent the last two days in New York, talking to disaffected Clinton supporters. She says the answer is simple.

SCHULTZ: It’s not unexpected that they count just automatically shift over to Obama, because they’re not the typical Democratic supporters that just automatically shift over. They need to be wooed. They need to be, you know — they need to be, um, won over.

JOHNS (on camera): Barack Obama needs to show them some love?

SCHULTZ: He does.

JOHNS (voice-over): The Obama campaign says it fully expects the Hill-raisers to come around and won’t comment on the charges of sexism in the primary race. Needless to say, John McCain isn’t exactly cooling his heels here. He’s trying to lure Clinton supporters into his camp. He needs all the help he can get.

Joe Johns, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOW, the statement from Sen. Clinton’s senate Web site on the Medicare cloture vote. There is no statement from Sen. Obama’s senate or campaign site.

June 27, 2008

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Vote on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act

WASHINGTON, DC—Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today issued the following statement on the failure of the Senate to pass a Medicare bill that would have stopped a cut in payments to physicians and provided other improvements to Medicare:

“Once again, Senate Republicans have stood in the way of improving health care for some of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. The bill blocked last night would not only have prevented a 10.6 percent cut in payments to physicians who care for the 44 million seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare, but also would have made improvements in preventive care and for low-income beneficiaries. The bill also contained important provisions that I have long championed to advance electronic prescribing and our ability to measure the quality of care that patients receive. As the Senate begins its efforts to ensure that every American has access to high quality, affordable health care, it is critical that Republicans put politics aside to make the necessary improvements in the healthcare system. Passage of this Medicare legislation is an important first step and one that I hope my colleagues will support in the future.”

###

On July 3, Barack Obama revealed once and for all that he has run a fraudulent campaign in his attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for President. The foundation of Obama’s campaign had been his claim that he was the anti-war alternative in his opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq.
 
Now, in a North Dakota campaign event, Obama has declared that he will consult with the generals and “refine his position” on the Iraq war. The Washington Post headlined: “Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal.” But the real message is clear: Obama is moving rapidly away from his earlier 11-month or 16-month timetables for withdrawal and towards full support for endless war, conflict, violence, and bankruptcy in Iraq.
 
Samantha Power had confessed Obama’s doubletalk on Iraq months ago. The handwriting is now on the wall: Obama will soon go to Iraq, meet with General Petraeus, and then announce his Baghdad road conversion to a policy of open-ended military occupation, oblivious to the immense human costs.
 
Soon there will be no difference at all between Obama and McCain on the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party will have missed yet another historic opportunity to help the American people end Bush’s and Cheney’s failed Neo-Conservative policies. McCain is exploiting Obama’s radical shifts in position as examples that Obama has no principles, but only opportunism and expediency, and that his much-touted soaring words mean absolutely nothing.

We Democrats now have our last chance to reflect: do we really want to give our nomination to this little-known newcomer who solicited support as a peace advocate, but has now unmasked himself as being a candidate with positions closer to McCain on Iraq?

OBAMA BETRAYS DEMOCRATS ON FISA, NAFTA, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THE DEATH PENALTY, AND MUCH MORE

From the instant that he felt that the Democratic nomination was in his hands, Obama has moved relentlessly to the right in a breathtaking, stunning exhibition of cynicism, duplicity, and fraudulent campaigning. Everything he stood for has been thrown overboard, and Obama has broken his verbal contract with his own core voters and donors.
 
Obama promised to stop Bush’s assault on the Constitution and civil liberties, and end illegal wiretapping. Now, Obama will vote for the Republican leaning compromise on the FISA bill, including immunity for the telecoms – something only yesterday he promised the Democrats who supported him he would filibuster.
 
Obama raised money from grassroots Democrats on the premise that their small donations would allow him to be free of the corrupting influence of big money, big business, and special interests, but he has now broken his promise by opting out of public financing for his fall campaign, junking the cause of political reform he claimed to champion.
 
In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama posed as a critic of free trade sellouts like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO, specifically telling voters that voting for Hillary Clinton would be voting to support NAFTA. Now Obama has told Fortune magazine that he is a great friend of free trade and the “market.”
 
Obama now openly supports the death penalty, more of Bush’s faith-based theocratic subsidies, and the “merit pay” assault on teachers. He wants to cut the corporate income tax, and he now opposes attempts to curb hand gun violence.
 
In a most glaring betrayal to his contract with the Democratic base, Obama’s current team of economic advisers suggests that he will soon come out for the partial privatization of Social Security, camouflaged as “entitlement reform.”
 
In short, Obama intends to betray not just his own basic commitments, but the historical foundations of the Democratic Party going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The modern Democratic Party was built on the New Deal Democrats, a party of shared responsibility, and a contract to be the voice and champion of working class Americans.
 
Obama’s “new coalition” dismantles the REAL Democratic Party and replaces it with an elite party of Neo-Liberals, stealing the mantle of FDR.

SENATOR CLINTON MUST BE OUR NOMINEE

DEMOCRATS DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OBAMA WHO HAS BEEN

RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AFTER JUNE 3RD

If Obama imitates McCain on so many issues, the November election will come down to a choice between two individuals, and a fraudulent Obama will not fare well against war hero McCain, who is seen by voters as a straight shooter.
 
McCain will point out that voters cannot trust the disingenuous Obama, and on that, McCain will be correct. Fortunately, Obama has tipped his hand by dropping his mask too soon: there is no Democratic nominee until the Roll Call of the States on August 27, 2008 in Denver.
 
We are not calling for some futile and self-defeating gesture – we are pointing to the path that leads to victory.
 
With Senator Clinton, we have a superior, battle-tested, and winning candidate who is waiting in the wings, ready, and willing to take over. Clinton would be a reliable leader on the issues that have built the Democratic Party.  She has stood firm on her positions — past and present — even when it is not politically expedient. 

The lesson is clear: the Democratic Party cannot win back the White House without the support of the New Deal Democratic base and their ideals.
 
The Democratic Convention in Denver must put forth a candidate that represents the values of the Party of FDR and that will win the hearts, minds, and votes of Democrats in November.
 
The Barack Obama running after June 3rd is not that candidate.
 
We must have an open convention in Denver — not a thoughtless coronation — so that we can seriously deliberate the far-reaching choices the party must make in this time of war and economic depression.

175 PATRIOTS CAN SAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
BY NOMINATING THE TRUER DEMOCRAT

The fate of the United States — and the future of the Democratic Party – now rests with a minimum of 175 Democratic delegates who must now exercise their mature political judgment in the service of their country, and turn away from Obama to support Senator Clinton.
 
As of now, Obama has about 2229.5 delegate votes, with 1766.5 pledged delegates and 463 super delegates.
 
Clinton has 1896.5 delegate votes, with 1639.5 pledged and 257 super delegates.
 
Shift just 175 delegates from Obama to Clinton, and Obama’s power grab comes to a halt.
 
There must be no nomination of Obama on the first ballot. Once Obama has failed to secure the nomination on the first ballot, the party will be able to reflect on who the nominee ought to be, based on the experiences of June, July, and August.
 
Senator Clinton is pledged to an orderly, sane, and secure pullout. Clinton wants mandatory universal health care and a freeze on foreclosures.  She wants to shift the federal gasoline tax away from motorists, truckers, and farmers and towards the Oil Industry.

Obama is on the wrong side of all of these issues.
 
Hillary Clinton is and has always been on the side of traditional Democratic Party values.

We want a president from the Democratic Party, not from a small group of elite, libertarian Neo-Liberals. Lexington and Concord were started by a few dozen farmers.
 
Does the Democratic Party still have 175 patriots with the courage to take a stand?

PUMAS URGE YOU TO BRING TO AND END WHAT HAS BEEN A MOST FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGN

We are PUMAs — Democrats who reject an automatic proxy vote.
 
Instead, we are fighting for real Democratic Party values and the future of the party we love and still claim as our own.
 
We call on the delegates to the Denver convention to search their consciences, their experiences in past elections, and their own common sense. 

Our party has had enough of defeat and retreat. We must not allow the DNC to impose on us yet another losing General Election candidate.
 
Obama’s anemic poll numbers already foreshadow defeat in November, and his continuing sellout on the issues is only making matters worse.
 
We urge you to reconsider your vote for Obama, and to instead vote for Senator Clinton — the strongest candidate, the people’s choice in the popular vote, and the candidate who has and will continue steadfastly to represent the core pillars of the Democratic Party. 

Vote to seat Michigan and Florida at full strength as elected in the January primary. Organize your fellow delegates to block Obama.
 
Vote for Clinton, for victory in November, and for an end to the long nightmare of the Iraq war. 

Will Bower (in cooperation with other PUMAs)
PUMA / Just Say NO DEAL
PUMA08.com

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Donald L. Luskin reports the following:

Would it help Social Security’s financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn’t there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?

Ya think? Nah, not for The One. He just knows. Trust him.

In a nutshell, Obama says he’ll fix Social Security’s projected deficit by “taxing The Rich”, those rascally, mythical rich (who are looking a lot more like YOU and ME by the minute). In another one of his pretzel proposals, Obama wants to have his payroll cap and eat it, too.

Here’s the deal. If you earn a living, you pay payroll taxes. Your employer matches your taxes dollar for dollar so any increase in payroll taxes is also a business tax. That translates into lost jobs and higher prices. (Yo, Senator Obama, we’re in a recession, so this won’t help.)

The government uses the money to pay for Social Security. Well, that’s the theory. It’s actually a government Ponzi scheme, but that’s beside the point. In general, you pay in during your working life and you draw a check after you retire. That was FDR’s plan.

Now, we Americans are skeptical of The Rich. So, we only pay them Social Security benefits up to a certain amount, no matter how much a person actually earned. Benefits are capped. And, in return, being the fair people we are, we cap Social Security taxes. Whether you make $102,000 or $120 million, you pay the same amount in taxes – because your retirement check will be the same amount.

Here’s an example using this year’s earnings cap of $102,000 in annual wages:

Keep in mind that The Rich won’t get bigger Social Security checks. That’s why their taxes are capped.

But, this is too simple for Obama. Without doing any research, any financial modeling, any economic impact studies, by fiat he has come up with A Plan to Tax The Rich. He wants to leave the cap, currently at $102,000, not tax earnings between $102,001 and $250,000, and tax earnings over $250,000. Got that? That thunderclap was the collective head slap of payroll managers and CPAs across the country.

Why is Obama taxing wages over $250,000? Well, why not? If you’re going to pull numbers out of your ass, it’s as good as any. The problem is this. He’s not going to pay additional benefits to The Rich. Nope. Uh uh. Nosiree.

Now, I’m not arguing that The Rich can’t afford the extra taxes. They probably can. But, we Americans fought a little war over arbitrary taxes being levied for the sake of it. And, that’s the problem. The Rich won’t get an extra dime. As Luskin explains:

Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn’t uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.

And for all that, Mr. Obama’s proposal won’t help Social Security’s long-run solvency problems.

According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn’t make much difference to the system’s long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system’s 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.

Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama’s plan – even with his household definition of $250,000 income – would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama’s economic advisers aren’t interested in doing any detailed analysis.

NO DETAILED ANALYSIS? AND, IT WON”T EVEN WORK?

Change You Can Believe In. What’s left of your paycheck. If you still have one.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On June 21, I published “Why the Polls Are Skewed Towards Obama” here at No Quarter.

WOE IS ME!
WOE IS ME!
ABC IS MEAN!

Well, yeah.  ABC was mean to Obama.  They treated him like, dare I say it, the frontrunner.  They treated him like they are going to treat him every day from now until November.  You saw him, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, get the same sort of treatment Clinton has been getting from day one, and your feelings are hurt.  Why?  Because it’s not fair?  Hell no.  Not a darned one of you cared a whit about “fair” when the shoe was on the other foot.  No.  You’re offended because you thought, for what reason I can not even imagine, that the media would continue to give Obama the same ride they always give McCain.  And under it all, in the backs of your heads, you are finally acknowledging the echoes of what Clinton supporters have told you all along - that the media would turn on Obama once Clinton was out of the way, and the free ride would be over.

What do I mean?  Why don’t you take the jump and find out.

Did you hate Stephanopolous and ABC last August, when they warmed Obama up and threw HIM, not Clinton the first question about her negative, and premised the whole thing with a Karl Rove quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn now to the second question I raised, the topic question about Senator Clinton. And outgoing White House counsel Karl Rove opined on that this week. He was on Rush Limbaugh. Here’s what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE: There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She’s going into the general election with, depending on what poll you’re looking at, in the high forties on the negative side and just below that on the positive side.

And there’s nobody who’s ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, Senator Obama, I know you’re loathe to agree with Karl Rove on just about anything.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I am.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Associated Press this week wrote an article. They talked to 40 Democratic activists and officeholders across the country. It led to the series of headlines across the country: “Democrats worry Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates”; “Democrats worry Clinton may hurt the rest of the ticket.”

Are they right to be worried?

Did Clinton at least get the follow up?  Nope, the next question was also to Obama:

But when you say that, are you saying that Senator Clinton is part of the failed politics of Washington, or not?

after he answered it, Stephanopolous let Edwards chime in:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?

OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.

EDWARDS: Well, let me just say — I have a slightly different view. Here’s what I believe. I think we were out of power in the Congress for 13 years. In November of 2006, the Democrats took over the Congress again. I think there was a reason for that. Because the Democrats in November of 2006 stood for change.

America wants change in the most serious way. And if we become the party of status quo in 2008, that’s a loser.

followed by more follow-up, TO EDWARDS:

And you’re seeing that Senator Clinton is not?

Clinton was never asked to address the question.  Instead, the next question to her was a shift, based on something Edwards said, and clearly another shot at her:

EDWARDS: Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I’ve said: Why don’t we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we’re the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?

And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve asked the other candidates to join me in that.

(APPLAUSE)

And at least, until now, Senator Clinton’s not done it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, will you do it?

and he stayed on the attack:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton…

CLINTON: So I’m looking forward to going up against whoever the Republicans nominate.

(APPLAUSE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this point, though, that Senator Edwards raises? He says the fact that you’re taking money from lobbyists symbolizes that you’re part of the status quo, part of the failed politics of Washington.

and the follow-up?  Senator Edwards, please keep attacking Senator Clinton:

Back to you, Senator. She says the distinction is artificial.

But wait, you might say, the real problem last night was trivial questions.  Newsflash, folks, that is nothing new:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on now. We’ve got a question — we’ve got an e-mail question from Seth Ford of South Jordan, Utah.

And he said, “My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

I’d like each of you to answer it. Let me start with you, Senator Clinton.

Now look at this exchange, then find a SINGLE DEBATE where any other candidate was asked this sort of follow-up question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused. It was a very difficult decision, and I tried to weigh it as carefully as possible, talking to a lot of different people and being assured, both publicly and privately, by President Bush and the people close to him that they would use the authority to go in and get inspectors and try to find out if there were weapons of mass destruction and pursue diplomacy.

So, you know, looking back on it, I wouldn’t have voted that way again, certainly, because obviously President Bush had no intention of doing what he said he was going to do. And obviously for me that is a great regret.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did you tell the whole truth when discussing it?

CLINTON: Well, as I saw it, yes, you know, similar to John. You know, when the president of the United States says, as he said publicly, and then as people around him said privately over and over again, “We’re going to use this authority to get inspectors back in, “We’re going to go to the United Nations,” you know, at some point, you do have to make that evaluation.

How many people here griped about ABC or Stephanopolous then? Did we start a boycott then?  

It wasn’t over, there, by the way.  All the debates until the last one have been huge pile-ons, and the candidates and moderators have been in it together.

In the October 30, 2007, debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams went after Clinton, and invited the other candidates to do it too (and by the way, introduced the first use of the “Rocky” theme to the race by Obama, not Clinton, for those who piled on with the ridicule lately):

You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.

To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues.

WILLIAMS:  And that was, quote, “bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats.”  That is a strong charge, as you’re aware.  Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?

OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over-hyped.  In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is, I’m Rocky in this situation.    

The next question invited Edwards to attack Clinton:

Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people deserve the truth, not more double-talk on Iran.”What double-talk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?

Here is a later question from Russert.  On its face it looks innocuous. Too bad the whole thing is a sham:

Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let’s talk

about Iraq.  One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General

Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was

recently quoted saying, quote, “I don’t oppose the war.  I have never

heard Senator Clinton say `I oppose the war.’”

Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

Why do I say it’s a sham?  I’ll let Bob Sommersby tell you:

As it turns out, Russert was working extra hard to frame that insinuative question. Kennedy’s “recent” statement was made on October 6, and it was instantly disavowed, that same day, by Clinton and her campaign. (Spokesman Blake Zeff, in the October 7 New York Daily News: “Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn’t end it, she will, She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.’”) But so what? Twenty-four days later, Russert could be found on stage, calling this a “recent” statement and pretending there was something troubling here–something slippery that needed to be resolved.

So what did Kennedy actually say that led to the question?  I’m glad you asked, because it was most definitely NOT what Russert insinuated:

KATZ (10/7/07): A top military supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid says she doesn’t “oppose” the Iraq war–and neither does Clinton.

Oh yes, she does, Team Clinton said yesterday, rushing to overrule its own backer.

“I have not ever heard [Clinton] say, ‘I oppose the war,’ ” retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the first woman promoted to three-star Army general, told the Manchester, N.H., Union-Leader newspaper as she visited the early-voting state to stump for the New York senator.

“I’ve heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal…I’ve heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq,” Kennedy continued.

“That’s a much more sophisticated thing than saying, ‘I oppose the war.’”

Kennedy’s statements could be seen as a marked break in the tightly scripted campaign helmed by Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq but later said the Bush administration had deceived Congress and the public about the conflict.

“Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn’t end it, she will,” spokesman Blake Zeff said. “She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.’”

And how did Russert and Williams follow it up?  By inviting Obama and Edwards to pile on to his lie:

Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton’s answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?

Senator Edwards, same question.

After that debacle, a commercial break.  Where did they pick up after the break? Again, on attack against Clinton.  Here was the first post-commercial question:

And we’re going to start with another subject at the top of this segment.

Senator Clinton, it will go to you.  It speaks to electability.

Earlier this month, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudolph Giuliani, said this about you, quote, “I don’t know Hillary’s experience.  She’s never run a city.  She’s never run a state.  She’s never run a business.  She’s never met a payroll.  She’s never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less, even hundreds of people.

“So I’m trying to figure out where the experience is here,”  end of quote.

Senator, how do you respond to the former mayor of New York?

Then Russert followed it up with another question to Clinton, one he knew was disingenuous, since he knew Clinton could not control release of National Archives documents:

Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Was this a continuous attack on Clinton, and an invitation to all the other candidates to pile on?  Let’s look at some more questions to find out.  How about this one?

Senator Biden, you said recently, “While Mrs. Clinton was meeting socially with the prime minister of a country, I was sitting down and negotiating with them.  I know my experience is considerably deeper and more relevant.”

Do you stand by that quote, and is your inference that she is less qualified than you to be president?

But wait, it gets worse.  From here Russert switched the debate to Social Security, and premised the entire segment on a lie about Clinton:

Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility.  You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security.  You said, quote, “It’s a no.”  I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.”  You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Let’s follow Bob Sommersby back to the New Hampshire debate to see if Russert’s question had any basis in fact, shall we?

At that gruesome New Hampshire debate, Clinton didn’t “say no” to raising the Social Security cap; she said she wouldn’t endorse any option until a bipartisan commission was formed. Sorry, but Russert was being baldly disingenuous here (as always). Here’s the question His Greatness had asked at that earlier debate:

   RUSSERT (9/26/07): Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people? “I’m going to tax your income. I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you’re a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”

According to Russert’s question this past Tuesday night, Clinton “said no” to this proposal. But here’s what actually had transpired, though Russert had seemed to forget:

   CLINTON (9/26/07, continuing directly): Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.

   First, I do think that it’s important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits, we’ve lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.

   Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You described what happened in ‘83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.

   And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress he was dissing Social Security. So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.

   And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ’90s it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

   RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97-5 off the table?
    CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

Did Clinton “say no” to raising the cap? What she said was: I’m going to move toward fiscal responsibility, then I’m going to form a commission. At that time, “you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done.” Maybe you like that answer and maybe you don’t; for our part, we’d prefer to see Democratic candidates explaining that it isn’t clear that anything needs to be done about this matter. (Though that may not be winning politics, given the insistence of people like Russert that we’re in a crisis.) But she didn’t “say no” to raising the cap–unless you want to embellish a bit, so you can imply she’s dishonest. And that’s what Russert did this night, as he’s done to Big Dems in the past.

Clinton said the same thing in response to Russert’s new question.  But he could not let the canard go.  He attacked again, and she responded again:

RUSSERT:  But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

CLINTON:  Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim.  Everybody knows that.  But I do not advocate it.  I do not support it.  I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.

I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap.  We’re playing on the Republican field.  And I don’t intend to do that.

Russert wasn’t done:

RUSSERT:  You call it a Republican talking point.  Georgetown University, February 9, 1998:  ”We are in a–heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.  If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits,” Bill Clinton, 1998.

RUSSERT:  That’s recent history.  Only two years to go in his term.  Is that a Republican talking point?

CLINTON:  No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus.  And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in `98, `99, 2000, 2001.

If you look at the debate transcript you will see that Russert’s follow was ALWAYS about Clinton - either AT her, or TO other candidates inviting them to attack her.  After letting Obama also answer the SS question, here was his follow up:

But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.

We already saw how Clinton was asked a question based upon what Giuiliani said.  Was Obama asked a question premised by another Republican candidate?  Yup.  Let’s see if it was a fastball or a floater:

Senator Obama, we’re going to transfer into a new area here.  A question specifically for you because you’re in a rather unique position.  It’s about religion and misinformation.  Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.

Then they went to the second break, and only after that did they start asking questions of Dodd, Kucinich, and others.  What a farce.

So here’s my question - should I dig into the Daily Kos archives to see if the people so preoccupied with moaning and wailing about ABC had any of the same gripes on October 30, 2007?  No?  I didn’t think so.

Let’s go to the

February 26 debate in Cleveland, shall we?  How did that one start?  With two questions aimed directly at Clinton:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since — in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let’s begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest — and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your — (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we’re here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

and, quoting DRUDGE of all people:

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours — a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

Later in the same debate Tim Russert went on the attack:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

Do you remember this exchange, before the break?  They gave Obama a long opportunity to talk about invading Iraq, and cut Clinton’s response off because they needed to go to a commercial break.  They did it with a promise to return to her on the return:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

So, what was the first question on the return, and who got it?

Senator Obama, we started tonight talking about what could be construed as a little hyperbole. Happens from time to time on the campaign trail. You have recently been called out on some yourself. I urge you to look at your monitor and we’ll take a look.

Something else funny happened there, too.  When they played Clinton videotape, they asked Obama about it.  When they played Obama videotape, they asked Obama about it.  Ain’t that grand?

Russert raised the FRAUDULENT National Archives argument again in this debate:

MR. RUSSERT: One other issue. You talked about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It’s now in the custody of former President Clinton. Will you release that — again, during this primary season that you claim that eight years of experience, let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?

Look folks, the point is not that you’re all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are.  The point is that this is how frontrunners get treated, and how Democratic nominees get treated.  If you had the absurd fantasy that it would be different for Obama you were foolish.  All that happened in the last year was that the media had Clinton in the cross-hairs, and Obama was their weapon of choice.  Once she’s gone, he’s next, and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  That, in a nutshell, is why the BELIEF that Obama is somehow transcendent, that he will lead us to a 50-state promised land, is nothing but a set-up for grotesque failure.

If you think what happened last night wasn’t fair, well, I agree with you.  But if you think it was any different from what has been happening for a year, well, you are kidding yourselves.

The civil war now being waged in the Democratic Party gives us an opportunity to redefine liberalism and the Party itself. The sexism and elitism by the blogger boyz is one part of this civil war. It’s largely a class war:

The Democratic primaries have been skewed for decades by the presence of large numbers of upper-middle class elitists concerned about environmentalism, race and gender quotas, balanced budgets, good government, corruption, gridlock, excessive partisanship, and related issues. They are not interested in the minimum wage, trade union rights, stopping home foreclosures, and other kitchen table concerns of the less well off.

The blogger Anglachel has written brilliantly on the class divide in the party. She captures perfectly the attitude of the Typical Chardonnay People Obama confided to last weekend:

the “wine track” cadre of the Democratic party has no clue about working class America except for their own strange blend of bitter, bible-thumping rubes who just can’t grasp the big picture, the poor things, and keep voting against their own interests.

Snob-gate has made me think about why I’m a proud American and Democrat and the direction we should move our party. Here’s a few reasons:

We are the heirs of the world’s most enlightened revolution.
We believe the United States is a force for good in the world.
We believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are sacred documents.
We believe brave men and women gave their lives so others can have liberty.

We despise prejudice towards any group; there is no historical context which makes any form of racism acceptable.
We reject sexism or stereotypes of both men and women, gays or lesbians, blacks or whites, city dwellers or farmers.
We respect all faiths and forms of belief or non-belief.

We have been entrusted to continue the legacy of the New Deal.
The mission of the Democratic Party is to expand opportunity for all.
We believe an expanding and prosperous middle-class is good for
both business and labor.
We believe poor Americans should be given the opportunity and
responsibility to improve their own lives, and we will help them do it.

We believe that all work has dignity and that everyone deserves to be paid a living wage.
We believe a smart environmental policy can save the planet and create jobs.
We believe a farmer or a housewife can have as much or more wisdom than a famous journalist.
We believe in safe working conditions, fair pay, health care for all, a dignified retirement, and respect for our veterans.
We should have military strength sufficient to defend our nation and our allies.
We believe in our country and our flag and all who serve it.

That was via Hot Air. And now U.S. News & World Report has added its own video:

And check out the Black Agenda Report, Obama’s privatizin’ Social Security adviser, and Hillary Clinton’s endorsement by Sen. John Glenn for her progressive space exploration policy:

• “blackagendareport.com - Holding Barack Obama Accountable“: “The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation.” (BlackAgendaReport, another truthteller group, has been trying to hold Obama’s “feet to the fire” since 2003. The image alone is worth a click.)

• “Audiology of Hope 360: Special Topics in Health Care Reform,” by RonK Seattle: “[Obama's] Social Security wingman is an avid privatizer” — Harvard’s Jeffrey Liebman. “Liebman’s reputation: centrist alarmist and moderate privatizer.” (Yup, that’ll “unite the country” alright.)
• “HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM“: The diarist discusses Clinton’s detailed space policy plan, and Sen. John Glenn explains why he’s for Hillary Clinton: “Hillary released a science policy a month ago that includes a section on space policy. She is the first major presidential candidate that I am aware of to articulate in any detail what the government’s role in space should be…”

You know things are getting weird when you read Karl Rove’s op-ed in today’s WSJ and find your head nodding affirmatively! (I know that Rove is a rat, but he’s not stupid, and he’s a longtime observer of the political scene.) Rove believes that Obama “pivoted” on Tuesday night because he’s facing more effective accusations from both John McCain and Hillary Clinton on his readiness and his experience. Rove adds:

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama’s promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn’t worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the “Gang of 14″ that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama’s lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama’s statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration — and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama’s declaration he won’t be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama’s laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. …

[...]

These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama’s credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people.

[...]

In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama’s rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes — establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world. …

Susan’s Sunday Plea: Whatever else you do today — drink too much beer, yell in the streets, wish you hadn’t eaten so many ribs, hook up with someone whose name you can’t remember — send this on to everyone you know! Yes, it’s POLICY stuff. But it shows where Obama’s head is REALLY at.

The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics 102
by RonK Seattle

Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:15:47 PM PST

Our first installment began the task of decoding Barack Obama’s curious appeal to our right-of-center friends and relatives. (His point man on domestic policy is also the DLC’s Senior Economist — a deregulatin’, free tradin’, globalizin’, sharp-shootin’ son-of-a-centrist-gun from Waco, Texas, Milton Academy, Yale’s Skull and Bones society and the Chicago school.)

The second member of Obama’s policy advisor triad is Harvard’s Jeffrey Liebman. Specialty: “pensions and poverty”, i.e., “entitlements”, i.e., “Social Security“.

Liebman’s reputation: centrist alarmist and moderate privatizer.

He has supported partial privatization of the government-run retirement system, an idea that’s anathema to many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for personal investment accounts that Bush promoted, then dropped in 2005.

“Liebman has been to open to private accounts and most people in town would say he’s a moderate supporter of them,” said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute

Read all of part two — it’s not long. But it’s devastating.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

AND, here’s the beginning of part one:

The Audiology of Hope: DLC Dogwhistle Economics
by RonK Seattle

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:23:55 PM PST

Something about Obama attracts New D’s, GOP’s, Broderites, Indies, Perotistas, Reagan D’s and Libertarians alike. Is it his big table? His promise to turn the page? His post-racial posture? Is it his cologne?

Or is it Austan Goolsbee?

Who??? Goolsbee. Economic wunderkind, forensics champ, MIT PhD, Yale Bonesman out of Waco via Milton Academy, Obama’s chief / top / senior economic spokesman and senior policy advisor.

Oh, and DLC senior economist. …

Read all of part one.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

I can’t find RonK’s e-mail to get his permission to reprint this in full. His e-mail address is on my old computer.

In a nutshell, with a tip to Campskunk’s post: Both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (see a pro-Edwards diary) have received considerable support from unions. Obama has not gotten that support, or that money, so he’s pissed. His response? He attacks John Edwards, and the messages the unions are sending out. Which does not — I repeat, not — endear him to unions that regularly support Democrats.

Obama has not gotten support, writes Krugman in today’s NYTimes, “in part, perhaps, because his message of ‘a new kind of politics’ that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.”

[UPDATE: Time's Mark Halperin at The Page has this: "Edwards Campaign Charges Obama 'Wearing Rose-Colored Glasses'." I think that's a fair assessment: Obama's too green for a national race, especially a general election race. In time, perhaps. In time. He's young.]

Further, Krugman says, Obama may be preaching GOP talking points again — “carelessly and cynically” — just as Obama did on Social Security, which I’ve written about here before:

O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”

The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.

First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?

Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.

Read all.

:::::::::::

From my Nov. 15 post, links to more on Obama’s borrowing of GOP talking points on Social Security:

• “Obama clueless on Social Security — Mark Weisbrot: Memo to Obama: No Rush to “Fix” Social Security” (”The right has created powerful and lasting myths about the state of the program’s finances.”)
• “Why, Barack, why?” — columnist and economics professor Paul Krugman at his New York Times blog

There’s more in the Nov. 15 post, including a rant against Tim Russert’s “expertise” on Social Security.