The Republican plan or the 2012 election was so simple that I predicted it before the 2008 election. They would do everything in their power to sabotage America and keep Obama from guiding America out of the collapse they had caused. Then they would make the 2012 election a referendum on Obama’s failure to completely undo all that damage in four years. The strategy worked for the 2010 elections, but too well for their own good. Wherever they had power, they acted so much like Republicans that people could easily tell that what they said they would do had little in common with what they actually did. Thus the election has become a referendum on their intentions versus Obama’s intentions, as this editorial by Paul Krugman explains.
Republicans came into this campaign believing that it would be a referendum on President Obama, and that still-high unemployment would hand them victory on a silver platter. But given the usual caveats — a month can be a long time in politics, it’s not over until the votes are actually counted, and so on — it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.
Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?
If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?
I ask that question because we already know what Mr. Obama will face if re-elected: a clamor from Beltway insiders demanding that he immediately return to his failed political strategy of 2011, in which he made a Grand Bargain over the budget deficit his overriding priority. Now is the time, he’ll be told, to fix America’s entitlement problem once and for all. There will be calls — as there were at the time of the Democratic National Convention — for him to officially endorse Simpson-Bowles, the budget proposal issued by the co-chairmen of his deficit commission (although never accepted by the commission as a whole).
And Mr. Obama should just say no, for three reasons… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
I fully agree with Krugman on this and strongly suggest that you click through to examine his three reasons. They are excellent.
The problem with Social Security can be solved permanently in three words. Raise the cap! I completely reject calls to apply an income test to benefits. This may seem egalitarian to Republicans, who suggest it, and they may be able to dupe some Democrats because of that. However, Republicans suggest this only to change Social Security from an earned entitlement for all into a welfare program, thus making it more vulnerable to their attacks.
Medicare and Medicaid are more complex. The solution, however, is not to restrict benefits, but to control the overall cost of medical care. The culprit, as I see it, is the fee for service model. It provides an incentive for doctors/hospitals to over test and over treat. My own doctor convinced me long ago that we would far better off with a fee for patient/result model, where doctors/hospitals are best compensated when they provide the care needed for their patients good health with minimum waste. Of course the best way to implement such a change is through national health care.
Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, while drastically cutting Medicaid. They must be stopped.
16 Responses to “Decision on Decency”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Could not agree more–
Thanks, Phyllis.
I think the right were counting chickens in 2010. I think they missed the boat. Yes money played a big part in the out come but with one reality they missed. The American people believed Obama when he said we all must work together to make America the best. So they gave the republian/tea party one more chance. So they were hoping but as fate would have it it was not to be. They not pushed Obama to the side showed disrespect. The main goal in mind To make Obama a one term President at the expense of all of and America. Now the same greedy people are counting again. They have blown it. They may be lucky enough to just be a third party come 2016
They certainly have two choices. Either they can return to the respectability they once deserved, or they will go the way of the Whig Party. personally, I think they are too far gone to redeem themselves.
Spot on!
Thanks Lee.
Paul Krugman is spot on as usual. He really needs to be in Mr Obama's next cabinet along with Robert Reich.
Jobs — get jobs moving so that middle and working classes are earning a decent living and paying taxes, That increases the government income stream and gets unemployment numbers dropping.
Healthcare — Of course in a for-profit system, executive bonuses etc are all built into the cost of services. But when is the cost of a human life built into that same model? It isn't. In fact, it is clearly factored out by denying or limiting coverage, usually when you need it most. I like the Obamacare model that sets efficiency rates — ie no more than X% of premiums spent on administrative costs, the remainder going to patient care, where X= 8-15% I believe (I can't remember the number). But better still would be a single payer system.
Social Security — I was reading recently in the New York Times that the life expectancy for poor white American women has dropped between 1990 and 2008 by 5 years and poor white males 3 years for the same period. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all
With the lack of proper income support as promised by the Republican/Teabaggers, that will slip further. By chipping away at the social safety net, the actual population will decrease pre-maturely.
You know, the more that I read and participate in these discussions, the more I realise just how much I love my country and its systems, providing Harper and harlots don't dismantle it and sell it off to the highest bidder. It has its quirks and flaws, no doubt. And there is nothing wrong with making a profit. But when making a profit, and then an even bigger profit is at the expense of the rights and the lives of a country's citizens, mostly citizens that have no influence and small voices, then that is just plain wrong! It is obscene.
Get out the vote!!!!! Four more years!!!!!
Vote Democratic 2012!!!!! Vote Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!
I'm with you in re: Krugman and Reich being appointed to the Cabinet.
Raise the age for SS? How are the working stiffs who actually perform physical labor supposed to work even longer than they do now? It's well and good for those fat cats with the desk jobs who really don't need SS but not for the average person.
They are nuts. Don't you think, Lynn?
Absolutely Patty! My stepfather worked in a paper mill until he was 64 and finally retired because he was just too tired physically. Add shift work to the physical demands of a job, any job — nurses, factory workers, firefighters, police and on and on — and the toll is even higher.
To me, raising the age is NUTS!!! Harper announced he was raising the age on some pensions to 67. There was a backlash so now it is only on persons I believe who are now 50. So now, when those people retire, they will have to wait until 67 to receive their Old Age Security benefits. People like me who are over 50 will still get them at 65.
Here we have
Canada Pension — a payroll deduction that you can claim at any time after 60 but it is reduced if you claim before 65 ie at 65 you might get $1,000 but at 60 you 'd get about $650;
Old Age Security — government pension that is now changed by the new rules;
Income Supplement which I believe is provincial and applies to those at the poverty level.
And of course retirement savings and employer pensions if you were lucky enough to have one.
And TC, you're right as far as I am concerned. Harper is trying to change things by stealth — change things to resemble the US — after all, he worships at the altar of Baby Bush! You aught read 'Rogue in Power' by Christian Nadeau a university professor. It's only 150 pages but it sure does give a glimpse into the mind and machinations of Harper. Harper and his harlots — slime balls all. Look how they are moving towards outlawing abortion now (that Rona Ambrose petition I sent you). I think Harper is working towards making Canada the 51st state, and I think Rmoney would help him! When I say your politics, American politics, affects more than just the US, this is part of that example.
I have to agree. I worry for your nation, because Harper and his Harlots art trying to turn your Canada into a Reublican Reich.
To me, it's amazing the race is even this close, but then we elected Bush twice. I expect (want) Obama to win, but half the country is backing those who want to take us back to a time before safety net programs. Think hard about that, and read a little History before thinking that's a good idea.
Seems to be a false absolute, that raising taxes is out and even Obama's main economic plan, is a tax cut. 16 trillion in debt and everyone is talking tax cuts? During our greatest economic growth, we paid twice the tax rate we pay now.
I read only 45% have anything other than Social Security to live on after retirement. And Republicans want to eliminate that program? Don't count on SS. Have other investments.
The sacrifice we need to make now, is a financial one, not a military one. IMO we have been greedy and taking a free ride for decades. We will be the first generation to leave an America worse off, than it was left to us.
The austerity program Romney/Ryan are talking about, is causing riots in Europe. One of the reasons for safety net programs, is to stable society during hard times.
I read, in 1970 the 1% owned 7% of America. Today the 1% own 25% of America. That's not only wealth redistribution, but the slow death of a strong middle class. A strong middle class, is the only way out of our financial problems.
The last time wealth inequity was this bad, the result was the Great Depression.
Paul Krugman has hit the nail on the head once again.
He usually does. 🙂
I love Paul Krugman. He sees it as it is! You are right, Tom, raise the cap on Social Security payments, let the wealthy pay their share of taxes as the rest of us do. I hope Obama wins, but this election seems so close so far, I am afraid we will have another situation where the Supreme Court will decide and we all know how that will go.
It's necessary to win by a margin too wide for Republicans to steal it.