Within days of Christmas and the good cheer of the holiday season, two of the Washington Post's conservative columnists offered almost identical advice to President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Dare to Cut Social Security, said Michael Gerson, former adviser to George W. Bush. (Washington Post, December 28) And Robert Samuelson urged the president to "Be unfair to the boomers" by cutting Medicare and Social Security. (Washington Post, December 26)
With friends and advisers like these, the president doesn't need enemies.
Like other Beltway types, Gerson and Samuelson claim to be concerned with the burden that deficits and debt could place on the US economy. Yet very few deficit hawks led an outcry when, after the Clinton surpluses, George W. Bush cut taxes irresponsibly and started two expensive wars. Did they warn the country that deregulation of Wall Street would encourage disastrous speculation, creating the need for massively expensive taxpayer bailouts? And these guardians of fiscal virtue, who preach sacrifice by others to control deficits, offered little resistance to the $800 billion in tax cuts passed in the final days of 2010.
Now, on the heels of massive tax giveaways to America's billionaires, what is their advice to President Obama and Democrats? Impose pain on the middle class and especially the Baby Boomers by cutting Social Security and Medicare.
American family holiday gatherings are occasions for giving thanks -- and for checking how relatives are doing in these difficult times. For adults lucky enough to have living parents, Social Security and Medicare represent crucial lifelines, far more reliable than private insurance, disappearing pensions, or uncertain savings. Polls find strong majorities (old, young and in-between) opposing all proposals to cut Social Security or Medicare. Most of us return from holidays grateful that these programs have given our relatives a certain measure of independence and security, and hoping they will be there for us and our children.
Inside-the-beltway conservatives, like Gerson and Samuelson, insulated from the harsh realities that face most Americans, return determined to cut those crucial programs. While they advise sweet compromise, other conservatives in the Congress are ready to take hostages again, threatening to destabilize the US financial system by refusing to raise the debt ceiling -- unless Obama agrees to their demands.
President Obama has another choice. He can stand up and fight. He should follow the example of Bill Clinton, who faced similar threats from Newt Gingrich and Congressional Republicans. If President Obama stands up to them next year, he'll find what President Clinton found: That the country -- and his base --has rallied to his side.
The politics of capitulation would be disastrous, but fighting to protect Social Security and Medicare would send the American people an unmistakable signal that President Obama is on their side. And while the political argument for that fight is strong, the policy argument is even stronger.
The president can start by reminding the public that Social Security is funded by dedicated taxes and doesn't contribute a dime to the deficit (as even Gerson admits). He might appoint a new commission to strengthen Social Security, made up of people who actually know and support the program. It could propose ways to head off future shortfalls, including the popular option of raising the cap that limits what wealthy people pay in payroll taxes. The president could also put forward a new jobs plan, reminding the country how important growth and job creation are to reducing the budget deficit -- and to improving Social Security's finances.
The president should also remind Americans that Medicare costs are rising because overall health costs are rising. If we spent the same portion of our GDP on health care as other developed countries, Medicare spending would also stabilize. This argument, which the president has made repeatedly, has the virtue of being true. It would strengthen his hand in the fight against Republicans trying to repeal his health care legislation. Cutting Medicare or turning it into a voucher would do enormous harm to millions of Americans. And it would not solve our deficit problem.
President Obama should take the high road and ignore the advice of false friends like Gerson and Samuelson. If he refuses to capitulate to conservative blackmail, the nation will rally behind him. And if he needs another reason to fight, he should take note that Newt Gingrich and other "populist" Tea Party presidential candidates have refused to embrace Social Security and Medicare cuts proposed by "elitists" like Gerson and Samuelson. The same people who won votes in 2010 by (falsely) accusing Democrats of tampering with Medicare would love to run in 2012 claiming that Obama and his party are the ones who cut Social Security and Medicare. The president and his party should reject advice that leads them into policies that are bad for the country -- and bad for their own survival.
Follow Roger Hickey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rogerhickey
those commentators are only supporting obama
If you (a Dem) don't like him , you can say he is into surrender and capitulation.
The problem with Obama is that he is NOT the slightly left of center (or even center) Democrat that we THOUGHT we were electing.
Obama is a right of center (wannabee) Republican and that is exactly how he governs and makes deals. He serves the rich and powerful just like the more moderate Republicans.
The problem is we (the people leaning left) got shafted. We did not get what we thought we voted for and we do NOT like it. Well, many of us don't like it.
As a right leaning (wannabee) Republican, Obama is NOT going to change course. We are stuck with him.
If Obama, ... or any politician reaches toward reducing SS, it should be a sign that they are doing it to drive the Middle Class down even further, ... to subjugate working people, and at a time when there are no alternatives and too little time left in their working lifetimes to course correct, ... let alone recover the devastating losses in 401k, 403b and IRA accounts that the Banksters ravaged at the onset of this Great Recession.
If Obama makes a move toward SS, ... he should pack his bags for he will not see a second term.
He made the backroom deal with republican that is going to WEAKEN SS with the payroll tax holiday, then came out and crammed down the House's throat.
He PUT SS on the chopping block.
Look what happened with his HAMP program. He'd even said he'd rather people got thrown out of their homes than let "somebody who doesn't deserve it" get relief. HAMP made the whole thing worse for anybody who fell for it.
It's all part of the 1976 UN agenda 21... Google it.
He's not going to fight for the American people, he's a corporatist. Wait 'til he tells US we must "sacrifice" in his SOTU becasue, well, we don't have any jobs paying into revenues.
Both parties are cutting the rug out from under the American people, right and left.
~Social Security was a mandate, not a voluntary program
~It was sold, not as taxes, but as the floor retirement program of America (full faith and credit of US)
~Social Security is/will continue to be solvent.
~Obama approved tax breaks for the rich which are then paid for with the social security of the middle class.
~If Social Security is cut, then it WAS a TAX, not a retirement plan. If Social Security WAS a tax, then it was a tax THE RICH DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY above $90,000/year in income...the rich stealing from the middleclass.
~Its called "entitlement," but it's real money I have paid into the government for 25 years...3rd or 4th largest expense every year.
~Millions of elderly will starve or become dependent on their kids.
~Needs testing is wealth expropriation. Very slippery slope.
~If Social Security is cut, America is defaulting on its people...who paid the taxes, fought the wars, endured corporate and government ignorance, tolerated the beligerent/greedy rich, and then sent their sons and daughters to do the same.
~Cut BEFORE wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, before closing 739 offshore bases, before shutting down a single new weapon system for the Pentagon.
New meaning for American "exceptionalism." How should one feel about politicians who steal their family's retirement?
The Bush tax cuts were targeted primarily at those making twice the "median" income, $100,000 per year or more.
Interestingly, immediately after the Bush tax cuts were enacted the "median" US income dropped by 7%, and has not recovered to pre-Bush tax cut levels.
If you earned MORE than the "median" income, you got a tax cut from Bush.
If you earned exactly the "median" income, your taxes did not change from Bush.
If you earned LESS than the "median" income, your taxes INCREASED.
And "median" income is a CON; it's a way to hide the reality of income disparity and how the tax system unfairly punishes wage earners.
Take 5 people and put them in the same room. Record their annual incomes:
McDonalds Crewmember: $17,000
Target/Wallmart associate: $20,000
Contract Software Tester: $44,000
Non-union Carpenter: $48,000
Bill Gates, Jr.: $3,710,000,000
The MEDIAN income for the group: $44,000
The MEAN income for the group: $742,025,800
100% of the other 4 incomes in the room are subject to full Social Security taxation. Less than 0.00000003% of Mr. Gates income is subject to Social Security taxation.
In fact, because of the structure of the U.S. Tax code, Bill will pay less in taxes than the other four despite an income 5 orders of magnitude higher than the next highest earner.
The numbers work substantially the same with 99 ordinary people in the room.
"President Obama should take the high road and ignore the advice of false friends like Gerson and Samuelson. If he refuses to capitulate to conservative blackmail, the nation will rally behind him. "
Correct! Thanks for the article!
They are parasites, and they are bringing America to its knees!
Social Security is the only program that is in the black. The government don't want to pay it back because they would have to raise the taxes on the rich to pay it.
Medicare's problem is being overcharged by the drug companies and hospitals.
The President himself appointed the catfood commission and appointed corporatists to his administration to run the economy.
The ones we need to be lobbying are Congressional Democrats to fight any cuts in Congress.
Only after the cap is lifted on FICA tax and after corporate welfare has been cut out of the Pentagon budget should we even be discussing this.
That said, Obama - despite his party affiliation - is a moderate, old-style Republican in everything but name, who occasionally makes progressive noises to pacify those perceived to be his base. I can only assume the m.o. was to achieve success by appealing to both parties through his much-vaunted pragmatism. To progressives: "Listen to what I say...I'm one of you!" To conservatives: "Look at what I do...I'm one of you!"
Instead, he turns progressives off with policies that get Republicans exactly what they want while still having a Dem to bash publicly. A win-win for them.