Obama has now revealed what his legacy is to be – the destruction of Social Security.
Ignore the flowery words, Obama is planning a great treachery. Expect PINOs to be silent.
Obama today mouthed another “big speech” on the economy. Ignore it. Obama is doing the ol’ Razzle Dazzle to distract from his real plans.
The Obama economic plan, the so-called “stimulus” – all are stalking horses for the destruction of Social Security.
PINO Big Blogs? We’ve checked – silence. Not a word about the great Obama treachery. [Even the “Hillary supporting” blogs have been strangely silent or more likely unaware or distracted by sideshows such as Roland Burris.]
* * *
Yesterday, Obama spoke about Social Security but he made sure his references would be buried by complicit Big Media when he additionally discussed fluff and nonsense such as the appointment of Nancy Killefer to some silly new fake initiative. Obama also attended a silly luncheon at the White House as part of the Razzle Dazzle ’em treachery.
Having watched Obama closely for so long we are aware to watch out for bamboozlement on the eve of a “big speech”. Obama performed in typical modus operandi. Republicans and conservatives will help Obama by focusing on the “stimulus” proposals (ignoring the Social Security proposals which they like very much) while PINO Big Blogs protect Obama by ignoring what he has said about Social Security. The economic discussion is a charade, a staged play, while Obama off-stage backstabs Social Security.
Here is what happened yesterday which foreshadows the great Obama treachery on Social Security:
Pointing with concern to “red ink as far as the eye can see,” President-elect Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to tackle out-of-control Social Security and Medicare spending and named a special watchdog to clamp down on other federal programs – even as he campaigned anew to spend the largest pile of taxpayer money in history to revive the sinking economy. [snip]
He said Wednesday, without details, that his initial budget proposal next month will include “some very specific outlines” of how he plans to tackle spending. That extends to the ballooning and so-far unsolvable fiscal problem presented by the Social Security and Medicare programs, which Obama promised would be “a central part” of his deficit-reduction plan.
The New York Times was more specific about the planned Obama treachery on Social Security:
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. [snip]
Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
* * *
This Big Pink website will not remain silent on the Obama Social Security treachery. We’ve discussed the potential Obama treachery on Social Security for a long time. Yesterday confirmed our suspicions on the Obama Social Security Treachery.
On September 20, 2007 in Barack Obama’s Social Insecurity we explained:
The attempt to destroy Social Security was THE big Bush agenda item for his second term. The failure to pass schemes which were Trojan horses meant to destroy Social Security effectively destroyed the Bush government immediately after it had supposedly won re-election. Karl Rove pushed for the privatization schemes and the other ploys such as “personal” accounts (which were politically meant to shift resources from public program Social Security into “personal” accounts, none of which actually did what they were advertised to do – because the real aim was the destruction of the Democratic and successful New Deal and Social Security). Democrats understood the real purpose behind the Bush proposals and opposed them effectively and in unity.
Back in late 2007 we were not alone (as we are now) in exposing Obama’s potential Social Security Treachery on Social Security. Paul Krugman wrote one month later on October 30, 2007:
As a policy matter, I don’t understand why Obama would choose to make a big deal of the small Social Security funding shortfall — which may not even exist.
As a political matter, I don’t understand why he would essentially try to undermine the first big victory progressives won against the Bush administration and the rightward tilt of the Beltway consensus.
This isn’t 1992. The DLC isn’t the Democratic party’s leading edge. The center isn’t somewhere between Joe Lieberman and John McCain. I can’t understand how Obama can be this out of touch.
Hopefully Paul Krugman will find the cojones to join us on in exposing Obama’s Treachery on Social Security once again.
Paul Krugman on November 16, 2007 on the Barack Obama’s Social Security Treachery when it was a-borning:
Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.
But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.
To understand the nature of Mr. Obama’s mistake, you need to know something about the special role of Social Security in American political discourse.
Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security — declaring that the program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers — is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.
In that 2007 column Paul Krugman excoriated Tim Russert and Chris Matthews for this exchange on “Hardball”:
Mr. Russert: “Everyone knows Social Security, as it’s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it’s going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives.”
Mr. Matthews: “It’s a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point.”
Mr. Russert: “Yes.”
Russert has no need to worry about Social Security now that he has departed from this earth. But the enemies of Social Security are now about to move into the White House.
Back in 2007 Paul Krugman had the cojones to call Barack Obama out on Obama’s Treachery on Social Security and explain why Obama is wrong:
How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it’s the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program. [snip]
Fortunately, the scare tactics failed. Democrats in Congress stood their ground; progressive analysts debunked, one after another, the phony arguments of the privatizers; and the public made it clear that it wants to preserve a basic safety net for retired Americans.
That should have been that. But what Jonathan Chait of The New Republic calls “entitlement hysteria” never seems to die. In October, The Washington Post published an editorial castigating Hillary Clinton for, um, not being panicky about Social Security — and as we’ve seen, nonsense like the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme seems to be back in vogue.
Paul Krugman, like other sensible progressives, made too many excuses for Obama back in 2007. Progressives and true Democrats find it hard to believe that treachery on such a massive scale cannot be anything but a “mistake”. We know better. Obama can’t be trusted.
Which brings us back to Mr. Obama. Why would he, in effect, play along with this new round of scare-mongering and devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years?
I don’t believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.
Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton — and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions” is that “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” joining in the attack on Senator Clinton’s Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.
But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.
We all wish that American politics weren’t so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.
At the time, back in 2007, we denounced Obama and his potential Social Security Treachery and suggested Obama was a Closeted Ripublican. We wrote then, Enter Obama with a satchel full of Ripublican propaganda and scare tactics aimed at young voters. Barack Obama wants everything “on the table” when it comes to negotiating away Social Security. Barack Obama is not to be trusted….
Krugman is wrong – Obama is no fool. Obama is treacherous. Obama can’t be trusted. He simply can’t be trusted…