What a weird night.
Twenty-one Democratic debates ago the weirdness was Mike Gravel, a cranky octogenarian former senator from Alaska, who advocated national referendums for everything. Now we're down to two serious, impressive candidates but the weirdness remains.
You have to attribute a lot of that to ABC News, which ran last night's debate. Charlie Gibson, who is often avuncular and charming, was unctuous and petty and wrong. There was the constant harping on all the small symbolic issues of the campaign: why Barack Obama doesn't usually wear an American flag lapel pin, his comments about small town Pennsylvanians, his association with a former member of the Weather Underground, and his infamous minister, Jeremiah Wright. They should have just thrown in a "when-did-you-leave-Al-Qaeda" question, too.
It's not that these symbolic issues aren't without import. I've written before that Obama had a Dukakis problem -- cultural vulnerabilities where Republicans could rip him up. But that's different than making those the focus of a presidential debate.
If Americans needed more proof that the media elite are rich and out of touch, Gibson gave them more. In the St. Anselm's College debate in New Hampshire, Gibson asserted that average professors at the college, using them as a proxy for average Americans, make $100,000. They don't. The median household income is around $46,000. For families with married couples it's closer to $68,000. Last night in Philadelphia, he blithely repeated the canard that cutting capital gains taxes yields more revenue. The short answer is that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. The rooster crows and the sun rises. Just because revenue has risen following some capital gains cuts doesn't mean it automatically yields a cut. Gibson stated it as fact.
I thought Obama did better than most commentators did. He took a lot of crap and answered it pretty sensibly, saying that the issues were distractions. I wish he could have used Bill Maher's line about the flag pin being "costume jewelry." He made the point that sometimes candidates make misstatements and noted Hillary Clinton's famous line about baking cookies from the 1992 campaign.
He could have been tougher. Recall that Clinton, for whom my spouse works now and back then, was answering in response to a question about her representation of a failed Arkansas savings and loan. What Obama didn't say is that she could have, of course, chosen to represent other clients. But she chose that one as a partner in the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock. She blew off a legitimate question in 1992 by making it a question of feminism. Her answer backfired on her. Yet Obama was gracious enough to note that the 1992 attack on her as attacking stay-at-home moms was unfair. Clinton could have acknowledged the graciousness, especially since she was herself apologizing about her Bosnia-under-sniper-fire canard. But she kept attacking, which scored points last night with pundits. I'm not sure it's going to translate into more votes next week in Pennsylvania.
On Social Security, Clinton has wisely not committed to raising the cap on income that falls under the FICA tax. Obama has, either courageously or foolishly, depending on how you look at it, brought up this option repeatedly. I've been surprised that this hasn't been an issue for many months when I wrote a piece called "Is $97,000 Rich?" Obama is essentially calling for a huge tax increase. Last night he seemed to suggest again that he might not tax income between $97,000 and $250,000, which is odd to say the least. As I understand it, President Obama would be smitten with the idea of applying the F.I.C.A. tax on wages from zero to $97,000 and then exempting income from $97,000 to $250,000, and then start taxing it again. That's both illogical and regressive. There may be a case for raising the cap but there's no intellectual argument for taxation followed by a pause in taxation followed by more taxation. Clinton's wisely called for kicking the whole thing to a commission, which is what John McCain has done. Beleaguered, Obama noted that the sainted 1983 Reagan-O'Neill commission on Social Security, headed by Alan Greenspan, raised the retirement age and raised the Social Security tax. Fair enough. But tossing out policy proposals on the fly doesn't make any sense.
For more see portfolio.com
First it is insurance and will pay benefits to your dependents, children till age 18, if you die. No matter how long you've paid into it.
Second it guarantees a retirement benefit if you have paid into the fund for forty quarters.
The US government offers this as a minimum, it is not an investment money manager.
At some point, $97,000.00 in this case, we should be able to plan for our own retirement.
Do not plan on SSI being your only income during your retirement, its purpose is to provide a minimum, especially if you live on more than $97K now.
HRC was standing right beside Obama WITH NO FLAG PIN ON!
She didn't wear one for Ladies Crown-shot night
-or her hot pink outfit in a press conference the day before....
Yet Charlie & George NEVER questioned HER on it.
Sorry ABC........your bias is showing.
If you raised the income cap on the SSI tax then you could lower the rate of taxation substantially and actually provide tax relief for those who make less than 97,000 which would help the struggling middle class and shore up SSI. It's so simple it's annoying that nobody brings it up.
ABC botched this "debate" (ambush) and should never be allowed to hold another. George S. should be canned immediately. Charlie is just fluff, and should be relegated to the morning shows forever.
The bias was so thick - what's up with all those spotlighted closeups of Chelsea, Rendell and Nutter? Didn't Obama have ANY supporters in the audience to highlight? YEEEEEEEESH.
I live in PA and can't wait to vote next week. If this ridiculous mess last night didn't prove once and for all we need real change in this country, nothing will.
I think you're mistaken on Obama's stance on SSI/FICA. He was proposing asking those who are currently not asked to pay SSI/FICA because they make above $97,000 per year to contribute, and when it was suggested that may be damaging to that set of people, he conceded that he would consider moving the lift of the cap to a higher amount but that the cap would definetely be lifted before the $250,000/yr range, that's as I understood it. I could be wrong.
The larger point as he made clear is that commissions haven't solved the problem before and they won't now. The only way to save Social Security and other programs vital to the country's infrastucture is to pay our government's bills like we pay our own bills every month.
Whether is awards him the presidency or kills his candidacy, he's going to continue to make the point that this country is failing due to a long floated idea that you can have what you want without paying for it and the rising debt created doesn't matter.
Today's economy is proving very clearly it does, and returning to responsible tax code AND responsible spending it the 800 lb solution in the room that few appear willing to talk about.