OBAMA AND SOCIAL SECURITY: NO DEFENSE

Good reading at Guardian from Dean Baker on Obama's failure to defend Social Security.

The story here is a simple one: while social security may enjoy overwhelming support across the political spectrum, it does not poll nearly as well among the wealthy people – who finance political campaigns and own major news outlets. The predominant philosophy among this group is that a dollar in a worker['s] pocket is a dollar that could be in a rich person's pocket – and these people see social security putting lots of dollars in the pockets of people who are not rich.
...

There is also the flip side to this story. Politicians, especially Democrats, who speak up for cuts to social security can count on lavish praise from the media. Political figures of no obvious stature, like former Louisiana Senator John Breaux or former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, were lionized in the media for their willingness to cut social security benefits. After leaving the Senate, both took lobbying positions where they were almost certainly earning well over $1m a year.

This is the fundamental economics of social security that explains why it has not figured more prominently in the presidential race. If President Obama were to rise in defense of the program, he could count on losing the financial backing of many supporters. He would also get beaten up by the Washington Post and other major news outlets for challenging their agenda.

That about sums it up, but it does not go far enough. Obama, for reasons he has never explained, has been trying to cut Social Security from the beginning of his presidency. He called for what are euphemistically called "entitlement reforms" from the word jump. He tried to make the Simpson-Bowles slash-and-burn pirates into a fast-track committee. He tried to cut Social Security in his "grand bargain," which was a bargain for nobody who ever shopped for a bargain.

I think Dean Baker fails to see that Obama is just mildly less horrifying than, say, Paul Ryan on Social Security. His heart is truly in the business of cutting if not gutting the program. I'll say it right out: he's that awful on the program, and he has been all along. Out loud, for all to hear.

He's not appeasing anyone.

OBAMA'S (AND DEMS') BAD MESSAGING. INTENTIONAL OR STUPID?

Okay, hurricane Irene and Obama's Huge Speech have now blown over. Let's examine the wreckage and damage caused by the latter.

I realized in a phone conversation that the Dems in general, and Prez O in particular, have a gigantic problem with messaging. Take this snippet from the New York Times:

Mr. Obama went before Congress in September to push for a $447 billion package of tax cuts and new government spending.

The centerpiece of the bill, known as the American Jobs Act, is an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes, worth $240 billion, under which the tax paid by employees would be cut in half through 2012.

Opinesters are opining away over whether these tax cuts will create any jobs at all. Consumer confidence is extremely low. So, the misnamed payroll tax cut (really a cut to contributions to Social Security) might not stimulate much.

But a point is being missed by anyone I can see: When Pres. G.W. Bush eased the heavy burden on the pitiable and downtrodden wealthy, he and his amen-chorus Repubs called it a TAX CUT. When Prez O and the Dems put forth the same plan, albeit for greedy and overprivileged working people, they happily call it SPENDING which has to be PAID FOR. That's not a subtle distinction, that's an encapsulation of the last 30 years of conservative framing of the argument! The Democrats spend. Spend, spend, spend. Even when they cut taxes, that's spending. And you wonder why it's a no-win every time. The Dems are playing uphill with this brainless messaging.

Worse, in this case, it could be intentionally put that way in order to puff up a jobs bill that really spends far less than half of its total on putting anyone to work. At the center of the bill is a vacuum that must be now filled with other CUTS. Cut, cut cut. Is this a never-ending rerun?

Obama Steps on Third Rail Without a Parachute

Oh yes he did! Unless there's a denial of the plain wording of the Washington Post article by Lori Montgomery:

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”

Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade . . .

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts.

Stephen Ohlemacher via AP seems to confirm this:

One option includes a new inflation measure for Social Security that could produce savings close to $200 billion through a combination of reduced benefits and higher taxes, White House officials said Thursday.

 Low- and middle-income families could be hit.

The proposal would represent a reversal for Obama. In contrast to his pledge to target tax increases at the wealthy, high-income families would largely be spared from tax increases that would result from changing the way inflation is measured.

Looks like it's time for some magic book-cooking to will away that pesky inflation. Reversal? I've seen milder reversals in skateboard championships.

At which Nancy Pelosi goes mildly ballistic:

“You want to take a look at Social Security then look at it on its own table, but do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country.”

I don't know what else you'd call what's described above but that! But we've had clues for a year and a half that this has been Obama's intention all along, all the while saying the opposite over and over again. I don't know if this outrage is truly outrage, or just a bit of a dust-up so we'll think the Dems give a damn. Why is there a Democratic Party at all at this point, when all they can seem to accomplish is Stealth Republicanism(TM)?