Maybe you feel, on days like this, the same way I do--that you live in an alternate universe. In my alternate universe, I wouldn't consider cutting education, health care, or aid to the poor before asking the richest people in our society to pay their fair share in dues. In my alternate universe, I would tax the rich before even talking about "reforming" (read: cutting) Social Security and Medicare--which are sacred compacts we have with people who have paid their dues for many years in society. And in my alternate universe I would be surrounded by millions of people filled with outrage that we are even discussing imposing more burden on the least able in our society, while letting the rich skate by.
Yesterday, I argued that we need not worry about deficits nor consider cutting domestic programs because we could easily fund our needs if we demanded from the richest people in society to pay their fair share in dues to live in our society--to the tune of several hundreds billion dollars.
Today, I read that the new Administration is looking at cutting entitlement costs. This from The Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Obama pledged Wednesday to attack surging spending on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and he promised to lay out specific federal programs to cut when he unveils his first budget blueprint next month.
Or The New York Times:
President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.
Actually, the headline I've used for this post is not accurate. Even if we don't tax the rich, THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. I pointed this out more than a year ago in response to then-candidate Barack Obama's statement about a crisis in Social Security.
Let me repeat this: THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. If you want to read an entire book about the phony Social Security crisis, pick up Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker's "Social Security: The Phony Crisis". For a shorter version, see this.
As for Medicare, the crisis in that program is about one thing--our insane health care system. If "reforming" means cutting benefits, that is a cause for outrage. If "reforming" means putting in place a single-payer health care plan--which would save the system hundreds of billions of dollars and provide more efficient care--I'm all for it.
But, the real question is: where is the outrage?
Where is the labor movement, the seniors' movement, the citizens' movements of all stripes who should be marching in front of the country clubs and mansions of the rich, demanding that the richest one percent cough up some of the massive fortunes they have amassed in the past decade so that kids can get schooled, people can get decent health care, and we can build roads and bridges that won't collapse--the very roadways that the rich use.
Where is the outrage?
Where are the mass protests when the governor of New York talks about cutting education and health care, yet refuses to significantly raise taxes on the rich which would mean that those cuts would be unnecessary?
Where is the outrage?
UPDATE: Let me quickly add something here based on the comments (before I have to run to meetings--will try to respond later). Some comments have basically taken the position: let's wait and see. Respectfully, I don't agree. If you examine the full arc of the president-elect's comments about Social Security going back two years to the time he began running, he describes the Social Security challenge as a "crisis". This is just false--and it opens the door to people would want to "reform" the program, which has always meant cuts. I am not trying to suggest the president-elect is hostile to Social Security. Rather, he fits right into the mainstream of political thinking which paints a "crisis" in Social Security--which is false.
UPDATE II: Friends, I was stuck in meeting til now. Let me try to respond in a general fashion right now (before I get sucked back in)--and this might be longer than the original diary.
First, "a Dem aide close to the Transition", as this person would like to be called, contacted me (I can attest to the person being from the transition given the email address). This person (who wanted to remain unnamed because s/he is not authorized to speak for the Transition) provided the following information, which I am passing on:
First to point you to our current and heavily vetted agenda page on this:
http://change.gov/...
"They will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike, and they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound."
Second to note what Obama said when asked about this question by Jonathan Singer:
http://www.mydd.com/...
Jonathan Singer: "Yeah. And why use the term "crisis"?"
Obama: "It is a long-term problem. I know that people, including you, are very sensitive to the concern that we repeat anything that sounds like George Bush. But I have been very clear in fighting privatization. I have been adamant about the fact that I am opposed to it. What I believe is that it is a long-term problem that we should deal with now. And the sooner the deal with it then the better off it's going to be.
"So the notion that somehow because George Bush was trying to drum up fear in order to execute [his] agenda means that Democrats shouldn't talk about it at all I think is a mistake. This is part of what I meant when I said we're constantly reacting to the other side instead of setting our own terms for the debate, but also making sure we are honest and straight forward about the issues that we're concerned about."
Point being I think there's middle ground between Bush (and others') "It's a huge crisis and we have to scrap the whole thing and privatize and cut benefits" and the idea that everything is 100% perfectly fine forever, which I don't think is actually the position of most folks even who fougth tooth and nail against privatization (I did myself). And I think "we will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound" is in that middle ground -- I'll concede it's still debatable, but it's not so alarmist. Indeed even Al "lockbox" Gore was in that middle ground, if not further towards Bush's position:
"We will balance the budget every year, and dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security. Putting both Social Security and Medicare in an iron-clad lock box..."
-- Al Gore, Democratic National Convention Aug 18, 2000
On a final note, consider that if Obama passed what is on his agenda page the rationale for privatization would completely evaporate for good, because there'd be no shortfall at all ever.
Second, a number of people pointed out--correctly--that the president-elect has suggested raising the cap on the wages on which people pay into the Social Security system. I support that proposal. I did not mention that in the original version of the diary--and I should have.
Third, a number of people have tried to blame the traditional press. Trust me, those folks do suck. But, it would be simple enough for the president-elect to clarify his comments by saying "there is no Social Security crisis, there will be not cuts--ever--in the program, I now understand that single-payer is the only method to solve the Medicare funding problems and, finally, we're going to raise the taxes on the richest Americans to levels seen back in the 1950s and 1960s when our country's wealth grew dramatically".
Finally, I want to just respond globally to remarks that recurred below (and I truly appreciate your passion and positions).
1. Over the long haul of the fight to preserve Social Security, the word "reform" has been a strong code word for cuts. I do not believe, as I said in some responses below, that the president-elect wants to cut Social Security--I simply have too much faith in where he comes from that he would want to that.
But, the reality is that politics is politics. Once you put the issue of "reform" on the table, there are a whole set of interests--including people in the Democratic Party--that are quite happy to "reform" Social Security by CUTTING benefits or forcing people to work longer before they qualify for the full Social Security benefit. Once the ball gets rolling, we would risk "reforms" that we could not stop. I am not prepared to make that gamble.
2. I never said Obama won't tax the rich. My point is that the rates won't be high enough. As I argued yesterday, we should:
raise the top income tax rates to 40 percent and 45 percent (the top rate is now 35 percent for married taxable income above $351,000), add a top rate of 50 percent for those people with taxable income higher than $1 million and—this is crucial—tax investment income as ordinary income (the proposal also assumes that Congress will fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which costs the Treasury money).
That's a modest start, in my opinion. And we certainly shouldn't be talking about tax cuts. That is madness.
3. Regarding Medicare. I will reiterate that the solution to the Medicare funding problems--which are significant--is about enacting single-payer health care. Every other "national health care" solution that is put forth is inadequate and will not stem the Medicare funding problems. The president-elect, as of now, does not support single-payer and is proposing keeping the private insurance industry in the game--which guarantees long-term Medicare funding problems, not to mention inadequate care for millions of Americans. That is just a fact.
4. Many of the comments boil down to "what are you carping for now? Wait until he gets into office". To which I say: I am unwilling to take that risk. I accept, and understand, the view that Obama has shown himself to be a wily tactician (after all, he took down what was once thought of as the most powerful Democratic political machine in the country...ha!) and the view that he has a deep plan to enact progressive change, if you will, through the back door. As they say in the Middle East, "Enshallah" (God willing).
But, I want the support for progressive change to be so strong that there is no room for the bastards to undercut that chance. And, in my humble opinion, based on way too many years of experience, the only way to build that support is to start NOW (actually, yesterday). And that means speaking up now and not accepting the frames that we are offered.