Is the election basically sewn up, with the House gone and the Senate hanging in the balance? If things continue as they have been going, almost surely.
Voters are still seeking some signs that the Democrats are on their side. Here are two speeches Obama should give, and probably won't. One concerns Social Security, the other the incipient Banking Crisis II.
My fellow Americans, Social Security is one of the bedrock programs that Democrats have always fought for. In a deep recession, protecting Social Security is more important than ever. Two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for more than half their income.
Thanks to the banking collapse produced under my predecessor's administration, older Americans have lost a lot the equity in their homes, much of their savings, and retirement plans such as 401k's. But Social Security is the one part of retirement income that your government guarantees because you have prepaid it with your taxes all of your working life.
Now, with Americans reeling from the costs of recession, many Republicans are calling for a human sacrifice. They want to raise the retirement age, or privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut benefits.
Some leading Republican congressmen who will assume leadership positions if the Republicans take control of Congress are on record favoring Social Security cuts. Some Republican candidates even say Social Security is unconstitutional.
Even in my own party, a few people think Social Security needs to be cut in order to demonstrate that Washington is serious about reducing the federal deficit. Yes, the deficit needs to be brought under control - but Social Security is in surplus for the next 27 years!
We can reduce the deficit without balancing the budget on the backs of seniors. I am happy to have this argument with Republicans and with the few Democrats who would tamper with Social Security out of sincere but misguided concern for fiscal balance.
So as long as I am president, there will be no cuts, no privatization, and no raising of the retirement age. Social Security will be there not only for today's retirees, but for their children and grandchildren. If we want to put Social Security in the black forever, the best way to do it is to put Americans back to work and raise their wages, since Social Security is financed by payroll taxes.
Whatever your partisan preference, I hope you will vote on November 2. And before you vote, you might want to ask your favorite candidate whether he or she has taken the pledge that I have taken--never to support cuts in Social Security.
This should be as natural to Democrats as breathing. Conservatives will say it is "demagoguery" to fail to join the chorus calling for deep cuts in entitlements. But the real demagoguery is trying to blame Social Security for a financial meltdown in which Social Security played no role, or to make Social Security take a hit for the sins of others.
Here is speech Number Two:
Friends, I have had it with the big banks. When the whole banking system was about to collapse in 2008 and take the economy down with it, I reluctantly supported relief to the banks. The banks have now paid back nearly all the money under the so-called TARP program. They are profitable again.
I coupled that relief with a call for stringent reform of banking practices, so that no bank would ever again be "too big to fail." Congress, in passing the Dodd-Frank Act last July, provided most of what I requested, including the power to shut down and reorganize large financial institutions that pose systemic risks.
But now we learn that the banks that created the monster of sub-prime loans were not just taking advantage of borrowers with deceptive terms, and of innocent investors who bought bonds backed by sub-prime loans. The banks also put the whole system on automatic pilot, and hired people to sign false affidavits that the mortgages were properly documented.
A great many of the mortgages, and the bonds backed by the mortgages, turn out to have false documentation. In plain English, that means houses can't be sold, because it's not clear who owns them. And if a property has been foreclosed, the bank can't take it back.
This is a needless catastrophe for homeowners, for the banking system, and for pension funds or mutual funds that bought these bonds. The bonds, backed by dubious loans, were already worth less than their face value because of the low quality of the underlying mortgages. Now, many of them may be worth nothing.
All of this was the result of greed, pure and simple. Banks were making so much money, so fast, that they couldn't even slow down long enough to properly document the mortgage loans.
Their greed has undercut one of the most fundamental pillars of our economic system, ownership of private property -- the ability to know for certain when you own something, and to be confident that when you buy something as important as your house, that the person who is selling it actually owns it. The bankers created a doomsday machine.
The people who created this legal mess on top of an economic mess have been lobbying my administration to come up with some kind of quick fix, so that all of these improper mortgages will somehow be okay. And I have told them that there will be no quick fixes at the expense of the tens of millions of ordinary homeowners who have been the victims of these scams. The fact that they were perpetrated by some of the biggest banks in our country makes them all the more shameful.
So today, I am instructing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, as authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act, to call an emergency meeting of the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council that he chairs. I have asked him to declare that a systemic emergency exists, and to come back with a three-part program.
Part one will investigate just how many of the nation's mortgages and bonds backed by the mortgages are not legally valid. We will devise a way of turning these into proper loans, but only as part of a broader program of relief to homeowners.
Part two will provide a more effective system of refinancing mortgages than the present HAMP program, so that people who took out mortgage loans in good faith and then found themselves under water, can keep their homes. This is not a handout, this is justice. Ordinary people will get no more than bankers got -- and no less.
Part three will determine which banks are insolvent as a result of this latest banking mess. Those banks will be restructured, under the new authority of the Dodd-Frank Act, and will be returned to sound operation so that they can serve the credit needs of Americans. No taxpayer money will be required.
My friends, banks are here to serve us, not to take advantage of us. I will not let the short-sightedness of a few people on Wall Street take down the economy for the second time in three years.
Wait, you say this doesn't sound much like Barack Obama? No, it doesn't. His loss -- and probably ours.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a Senior Fellow at Demos. His new book is A Presidency in Peril.
Why is that the Poor and Middle Class Americans ALWAYS have to suffer and be the ones to right the wrongs of the rich, big business and our government? So the Rethuglicans want to cut all benefits of the poor and middle class, yet give huge tax cuts to the rich and big business. Something sure stinks in Denmark! When are we as a Nation of People who have been enslaved by these very people going to stand up for whats decent and right and do something about this mess?
Make no mistake, this issue is not about anything more than more conservative and corporate greed!
Unfortunately, that is just not true. You have always been paying for other's social security needs, in the hope that working people will do it for you when you retire.
But since the 1930's there has been a steady erosion in the ratio of workers to benefit recipients. When the program first started, there were 33 workers covering each recipient's benefits. Now it is in the neighborhood of 3 workers covering benefits for one recipient.
Social security solvency is solvable. Defense spending and medicare are much bigger worries. But we won't solve these problems if people misunderstand how the programs even work
And yet today’s loudest voices—the bankrolled campaigns and virulent ads—seek reversals of such initiatives, make “liberal” a loathsome word, cast even moderate progressive measures as communism, socialism, incredibly, even Nazism. Government itself, as anything but a willing accessory to corporate ambition is suspect.
The country is in need of repair: the offices of government, the engines of economy and never more so, its spirit of good conscience. In good conscience, can finance and industry claim they were abandoned in their hour of need? In good conscience, can they use American taxpayer money— and money from foreign interests to distort the political discourse— to denigrate those enacting reform and accountability for the errors that caused our near collapse?
Those who reject government as public service see only its power to influence markets and advance wealth. Wealth without conscience impoverishes our spirit. It afflicts with dire exaggerations and claims, it appeals to anger and contempt.
With the allowance of unchecked corporate spending, an extravagance of spending defines this political season as no other. Individual conscience still defines us, if allow it to.”
Mr. Kutter, sorry Kuttner, took a lot of time to write in flowing language two speeches the President should have made. Now I would like for Mr. Kuttner to tell his readers what can the President say to a people, 85% of whom were convinced Obama raised their taxes when they had checks in their hands showing they were getting more money? What can he say to seniors like me to convince them not to vote Republican because Republicans plan on cutting Social Security, and privatizing it, when the Republicans, for whom they are going to vote, are saying it openly? Mr. Obama should make a speech, alright - at the official start of the political season leading up to 11/02/12.
We truly deserve a President Sarah Palin, and a VP Jim DiMint.
I was not impressed with Kuttner either.
I get so tired of the know-it-alls that know nothing. At least I will admit that I am still trying to learn.
These are the questions that these so-called progressives have refused to acknowledge let alone answer:
1. What have progressives alone (without dems) ever accomplished? ended wars? civil rights? woman's rights? any HCR? any FR? fair trade? EPA? what?
2. What have so-called progressives ever gotten with repubs?
3. Why do you think Bernie Saunders caucus with the dems and not the repubs?
4. Why do you think Dennis Kusenich (mispelled) is a dem and not a repub or an Independent?
5. Why do you think that very wealthy dems vote against the very wealthy?
6.Why would any wealthy dem be a dem? They get more money and a hell of alot less headaches as repubs.
No one seems to want to answer these. Another thing that needs to be pointed out, it is not whether a politician takes donations, it's how they vote. i.e. changing their vote.
I don't recall any president in history who so demonized a large segment of the American people.
I thought the President should be above those sorts of things. Very disappointing.
President of "all the people". Pardon me if I scoff when you say that to me in the future.
"...Immigration reform is one of those issues we're gonna get it done, but I'm gonna continue to need some help from the other side.
EPS: When is it going to happen? You will tell me after this.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
POTUS: Well, here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna see how well we do in this election and I think a lot of it is gonna depend on whether we still have some support not only from Democrats, but also Republicans, but they're gonna be paying attention to this election. And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/transcript-of-president-barack-obama-with-univision.html
Social Security had better be a question, not an answer, since it's the world biggest bankrupt, whether now or in 27 years. A CPA elected to Congress glanced at the books and said, Guys, if we ran a business this way, we'd all be in jail. As long as more money is going out than is coming in, every three months raise the retirement age by one month until the losses stop. Age 65 in the days of Prince Otto von Bismark differs from 65 today in health and life expectancy and financial effect.
"Prepaid" is bunk; what comes in goes out; it's pay-as-you-go; promises may have been prepaid, but not substantial assets. And I've read the Constitution, and it authorizes many things, e.g. Congressional regulation of privately owned warships, but not Social Security. And if we're paying attention to foreign laws, haven't some other countries privatized their SS systems?
2. you could put 2-4% (they haven't decided yet) into a gov approved 'safe' fund.
3. you would not have any insurance against early disability or death
4. you could not take it out until retirement age
5. you could not take it in a lump sum
6. you would pay back the 2-4% that you kept out of SS
Heck of a deal(:
The fact is that our esteemed government leaders have spent the total of the Social Security Trust Fund years ago. All that's in that account are IOUs in the form of T-Bills that the government pays back to the account every month to the fund those collecting benefits.
The fact also is that the average Social Security recipient collects five times the amount that he pays into the fund during his working years. What that means, of course, is that when those 5 people that are supporting each retiree retire, it will take 5 people to pay for each of them ( a total of 25 people.) And when those 25 retire it will take 125 people to pay for each of them. Each Generation has to increase by a factor of 5 in order for the system to sustain itself. Therefore Social Security is mathematically assured to go bankrupt.
The answer, of course, is to privatize the system (keep the gov'ts hands off of it) into an individual retirement account that pays a guaranteed minimum interest rate. I figured out that if the money I paid into SS was in a private account at an average annual interest rate of 4%, (lower than the average over the 42 years I paid into it, I would receive double what I currently collect under the current system.
How will you ever get a guaranteed minimum interest rate? Right now I have IRAs and MM accts that are paying only about 1% - it's like going backwards.
But I agree with the concept - I worked for 30 years and certainly would be feeling better about my future right now if the $200K + I put into SS had been in an IRA - at least I could better depend on it.
Like most Americans today, I have zero confidence in this Federal Government - it has become as one blogger put it "a bipartisan cesspool of corruption", it's not to be trusted at all - not only can it not manage the affairs of country in any sane, responsible way, we know that as it is - it will always be a money hog that can only operate by extreme increases in spending - it is set up to fail all Americans and as can see - it never fails to fail - at everything that matters - in this case managing SS.
If it doesn't come naturally to him, it isn't in him naturally. The guy is a post turtle, period. You didn't run so, you can't be president vicariously through your choice. Though it obviously pains you to watch what was predictable based on any credible evidence of qualifications, you just can't stop this train wreck happening right in front of you. You can always "hope" he can "change".
He wanted America to believe that we could have 'guns and butter'. So, the true costs of the Vietnam War were disguised inside the federal budget because the excellent condition of the Social Security budget when added to the awful condition of the federal war budget made things look good.
Here's a suggestion: Unhitch the Social Security Budget from the Federal Budget just like before President Johnson deceived the nation.
What will we see? Trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund. Collections greater than disbursements in all but a few of the last sixty years.
What will we see in the Federal Budget (without the Social Security Budget included)? It is much worse than with the Social Security positive collections and balances included.
Beware America. This current Obama Administration is just as reprehensible as prior administrations regarding Social Security.
Good post.
Totally agree. Dismantling SS or cutting it in any way is just the Federal Government at it's most dishonest MO. They are determined to have this money for their 200 million other progarms that benefit all sorts of special interests - bank bailouts, wars for profit, corporate tax breaks - pork barrel spending and let's not forget old Hilary flying aorund the world handing out 100s of billions in "foreign aid" to buy "loyalty" or whatever - those are our SS dollars going in most cases into the private hands of little tyrants all over the world - with positively no accounting for its use.
3 billion for China - WTF and 4 billion for Israel, on and on it goes.
The only answer is to unfund this monster of a government that treats public tax dollars as if it is a never ending bottomless amount that they can spend with wreckless abandon and never, ever be made to account for it. And no, I don't believe for one minute that teabaggers will cut spending - they just want to gain control it for the use of their special self serving interests. Most all baggers running indulge in gaming the system for subsidies - like Bachman & Miller taking $250K in family "farm" subsidies...
For you and Debbie: that was done way back in 1986. Still is.
We are about to see the coup de grace in the pyramid scheme that is SSI. It is the fiscal responsibility crowd that used SSI funding to finance their name recognition projects, and left us w/this mess, yet they get pay and perks for life and we are going to get screwed.
Also, funds are deducted from YOUR pay, and put in an account under YOUR name, so YES, you ARE entitled to it. So please, stop acting like it is alms, this has been earned.
Reducing Social Security in any way is a slap in the face of all the workers who built this country. My mother worked hard for 40 years; she deserves to be able to live a decent life in her old age. Without Social Security and me, she'd have been homeless years ago.
You are right, of course! But it is more than just a slap in the face - if they reduce SS it is nothing short of a crime - a government swindle of old people - it's the breaking of trust and honesty - it proves our government has and will betray us...
Last time I looked I had over $200K paid into it - if they want to cut me a check today for just the actual amount they took from me and my emplyers for my retirement - even without interest - then I could live with it.
How is it this government feels they have the right to steal our money like that and then say what - sorry, we spent absolutely everything and then a great deal more - and now, well too bad, too sad, making the US GOV the equivalent of Bernie Madoff.
Never doubt the gullibility of the misinformed. Wrap your brain around this: Social Security is a handout because retirees have NEVER paid ENOUGH taxes to support what they will receive. The average-income worker exhausts the value of his contributions, his employer contributions and interest in about five years, After that, every penny is a welfare entitlement.
When Social Security was founded, most workers were DEAD before they could collect. The average mortality was 62. If the retirement age had kept up with mortality, Social Security benefits would start at age 79.
I'm 68 myself, but my generation has no right to suck at the teats of our own children and grandchildren for 20 years or more.
Do the math. Assume an average of 40 years working and 20 years of Social Security. Doesn't work,does it? Never has. Never will.
If the tax is 15%, and the retirement years are 50% of the working years, then the only pension you're entitled to is roughly 1/3 of your average gross income going back to your first job. Why is that so hard to grasp?