SOCIAL SECURITY is not a contract guaranteeing anything but what CONGRESS in it's generousity ALLOWS to give out. If one reads the Social Securtiy Act one finds NO guarantees anywhere. It's a TAX and most assuredly, due to mass sale of 5 and 10 year Treasury Bills, by this Administration, TAXES WILL BE GOING UP.( they don't lend money for free, folks)

OR WE could bomb Iran and use the oil WE get to pay off the note.(1-202-225-0100 IMPEACH)

"I'm happy to explain the numerous different ways Obama is being a moron here, "

That's great, cause I'd sure love to here them. Was it because he was speaking the ugly truth instead of handing out platitudes or even worse "solutions" (which reduced benefits and increased retirement age certainly are)?

Was it because he's committing political suicide by advocating a small tax increase instead of the tried and true formula of buying votes by offering cuts the nation cannot afford?

Could it be because he's hurting the Democrats chances of winning the next election -- which his the real goal in and of itself, not actually coming up with ways of fixing a broken system? He's put a hex on your chances of feeling good about yourself by getting a Dem in the Whitehouse for it's own sake?

Because that's what I think it is...

"I'm happy to explain the numerous different ways Obama is being a moron here, "

That's great, cause I'd sure love to here them. Was it because he was speaking the ugly truth instead of handing out platitudes or even worse "solutions" (which reduced benefits and increased retirement age certainly are)?

Was it because he's committing political suicide by advocating a small tax increase instead of the tried and true formula of buying votes by offering cuts the nation cannot afford?

Could it be because he's hurting the Democrats chances of winning the next election -- which his the real goal in and of itself, not actually coming up with ways of fixing a broken system? He's put a hex on your chances of feeling good about yourself by getting a Dem in the Whitehouse for it's own sake?

Because that's what I think it is...

Ok, I'll bite. Obama is not my idea of the perfect candidate, nor is he my first choice among the running pack. But, why should a person making 30K a year have his whole income taxed (for SS), and a person making 200K only have part of his income taxed? And, in the same vein, it's true that the repugnicans cry "Raising taxes", and have made everyone think that their taxes will be increased when the dems talk about evening the burden. Why don't the dems emphasize WAY OUT LOUD that they mean closing loopholes and dropping Bush's tax cuts for the rich and NOT increasing taxes for the middle and lower classes? Maybe I'm just not listening close enough. Or is that NOT what they mean?

That's great, cause I'd sure love to here them. Was it because he was speaking the ugly truth instead of handing out platitudes or even worse "solutions" (which reduced benefits and increased retirement age certainly are)?

The ugly truth is the truth, in this instance, isn't ugly. Obama is doing the domestic equivalent of demanding circa 2002 that his rival Democrats explain how they're going to deal with Saddam's terrifying WMD. And this will end up being just as much of a political boon to him as that was to do those who did it

Obama is not my idea of the perfect candidate, nor is he my first choice among the running pack. But, why should a person making 30K a year have his whole income taxed (for SS), and a person making 200K only have part of his income taxed?

Certainly the tax system should be simpler and more progressive. But the way to achieve this is not by saying we need to fix Social Security. We don't, because it's not broken.

Well, at least now we understand that Obama was serious about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.

Both the policy and the politics during the primary run are moronic. He's toast.

Between this and his repeated insinuations that Democrats hate god he is so toast. It'd be funny but for Hillary's enormous lead.

Given that not killing social security was pretty much the one 'victory' Democrats can really lay claim to in the past 7 years you'd almost have to believe Obama was throwing the fight on purpose to see any sense in it.

What an idiot. If you're going to talk about raising more FICA taxes, why not talk about raising the cap? Instead he wants to shaft those of us who don't make jack sh*t to begin with. Thanks, but no thanks.

And to those who didn't understand the post, you should probably read up on SS. A) There is no danger for the foreseeable future of not being able to meet current levels of payouts. B) Even if that were a problem, you can always raise the cap or get rid of it all together. Rich people get get just as much in SS payouts as those of us who put in a larger portion of our income.

Is he talking about raising the cap or about raising the FICA taxes on those below the cap?

I believe he advocates raising the cap, in which case I do not consider him a moron whatsoever, as this would be an excellent idea.

If he is talking about leaving the cap as it is and raising FICA taxes on incomes below the cap, then I strongly dispute this policy, but still fail to see how it would make him a "moron". However, it is my current impression that he favors raising the cap - please correct me with links, citations, or quotes if I am wrong.

In addition, although I agree that Social Security is not "broken", I fail to see how gathering more revenue for it, especially by making FICA more progressive, can be construed as "ending" or "destroying" it.

Also, Bob wrote -

"He's put a hex on your chances of feeling good about yourself by getting a Dem in the Whitehouse for it's own sake?"

Well, first of all, I'll feel fine about myself no matter which party is elected - it's the way the COUNTRY IS GOVERNED that motivates my vote.

Nice try at denying to yourself that there are strong, logical reasons to vote against the Republican candidate (whoever it turns out to be). When you're trying to reinforce your own denial, you should just talk to yourself - then you won't have to worry about being contradicted.

Some people may have to double their viagra and oxycodone dosage if a Democrat is elected, but it doesn't work that way for me.

Second of all, Obama has most certainly not "put a hex" on Democrat chances with this announcement.

I don't think Obama's idea is a bad one, per se, but based on your description I'd say his presentation is all wrong. I've noticed than even though a lot of people regard him as being dynamic and charismatic, etc., he really isn't.

Once he tries to venture outside the narrow realm of vaguely uplifting speeches that aren't actually about anything, his presentational style seems to come apart, like when he threatened to attack Pakistan. (And wasn't that a smooth move...)

Planet B:

What an idiot. If you're going to talk about raising more FICA taxes, why not talk about raising the cap?

harold:

Is he talking about raising the cap or about raising the FICA taxes on those below the cap?

I believe he advocates raising the cap, in which case I do not consider him a moron whatsoever, as this would be an excellent idea.

I'm pleased to say he's not talking about raising FICA rates. It's unclear what specifically he's proposing, but it might not be as simple as raising the cap -- he seems as though he might want to create a doughnut hole so the cap isn't raised but some range of income is taxed above the cap.

But here's the point: he's letting conservatives define the terms of the debate, which is a giant mistake if you're a progressive presidential candidate. (I take no position on whether he counts as one.)

The fact is Social Security would not make an honest list of the top 100 problems facing this country, just as the "threat" from Saddam Hussein would not have made the list in 2002. The most important thing leaders can do is put real issues on the table, and take unreal ones off. Obama is now putting back on the table something we spent an enormous amount of effort taking off it. This is moronic, even if the only standard is his own personal ambition.

Also, Harold -- keep in mind we exist in an environment where conservatives won't even accept the trust fund is real. Until we can make them do at least that, increasing the revenue of a system in surplus makes no sense.

There are a dozen big fiscal crises that need to be fixed before worrying about Social Security, which would be just fine for another forty years if the bastards in Congress stopped borrowing from it.

Obama's solution, which from what I gather is removing the cap for social security taxes, is not a bad way to fix the problem.

The unfortunate truth is that you can either have "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend," which is what we have now. The best way for a functioning society to provide funds to govern (you know, build and repair roads, provide law enforcement, wage wars, etc.) is to pay for as much as you can as you go instead of borrowing.

People who keep freaking out about taxes need to grow up. Go for a week without using public streets and highways, without drinking water from a municipal system, don't accept any mail and don't accept any checks if you happen to work for a public institution of learning. The countries with the most progressive tax systems (that is, taxing the rich more) are the ones with the best standards of living. It's not that hard to figure out.

There are a dozen big fiscal crises that need to be fixed before worrying about Social Security, which would be just fine for another forty years if the bastards in Congress stopped borrowing from it.

Obama's solution, which from what I gather is removing the cap for social security taxes, is not a bad way to fix the problem.

The unfortunate truth is that you can either have "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend," which is what we have now. The best way for a functioning society to provide funds to govern (you know, build and repair roads, provide law enforcement, wage wars, etc.) is to pay for as much as you can as you go instead of borrowing.

People who keep freaking out about taxes need to grow up. Go for a week without using public streets and highways, without drinking water from a municipal system, don't accept any mail and don't accept any checks if you happen to work for a public institution of learning. The countries with the most progressive tax systems (that is, taxing the rich more) are the ones with the best standards of living. It's not that hard to figure out.

Jonathan, your posting button screws up all the time.

I appreciate Obama's concerns about social security but I am dismayed by his cavalier attitude toward falling asteroids. I do believe that a small tax increase, say just double the current rate, would allow Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers to build a chewing-gum based shield that would trap any incoming asteroid.

Seriously, can anyone explain to me how Obama's tone deafness is not downright suicidal?
What's going on? Is he spending too much time with Tim Russert?

He may need to ask Bob Shrum to write his concession speech sooner than he might think.

How soon they forget.

Recall Walter Mondales's acceptance speech in '84?

In short: "I will raise your taxes".

There and then the man from Minnesota lost what slim chance he ever had to defeat Ronald Reagan.

How soon they forget.

Recall Walter Mondales's acceptance speech in '84?

In short: "I will raise your taxes".

There and then the man from Minnesota lost what slim chance he ever had to defeat Ronald Reagan.

I don't see what's moronic about this. Certainly he needs to be careful to avoid the possible misconception that he plans to raise FICA rates for everyone, and make it clear that he just plans to raise the cap.

Why not recouch this in a sense of tax fairness? Social Security, as it stands now, is a regressive tax. Were one to remove the cap, the system would garner more income AND let us lower the tax. This is actually a good idea for a number of reasons because it lets the Democrats be tax cutters (and take over a traditional Republican issue) AND put all this Social Security crap behind them.

The Republicans haven't been the only folks harping on this issue, granted, but now it's their issue and this lets the Democrats shove it right back in their faces.

I guess what Diamond LeG was saying is what I was getting at-- it sounds like Obama just wants to raise the flatline point, not the actual tax rate, but is muffing his explanation and making it sound like he means to do the opposite.

Despite your claim that there are 100 bigger issues facing the country(I'd love to see that list), social security is important and action will be required sooner or later.

The system is underfunded, and there are only two ways to deal with this: more contributions or less benefits. Reasonable people can differ can differ about the mix of the two solutions, but one thing is clear: the sooner action is taken, the more impact the solution will have.

obama and edwards eating each other -- i wish one would drop and force hillary to fight, reduce the influence of the RWNM

barack: john hits harder -- YOU MUST CHOOSE

*You're* a moron and you have an ass face.

A final word (from me) here.

I disagree with the diagnosis of Obama as a "moron" on two grounds.

First, although I don't see it as a super-pressing short term issue, I strongly support his general plan to make FICA taxes more progressive. What Sparky is talking to Greenspan about in the cartoon is the opposite of Obama's approach; a regressive raise of the tax level, rather than a progressive raise of its reach.

Second of all, and here's the weird part, I'm a cold-blooded wingnut-hating pragmatist who believes that incremental progress is the only possible kind, and worth fighting hard for. I'm used to disagreeing with arguments about how progressives should vote for an ostensibly perfect spoiler and let the wingnut candidate win, because of some imperfection in the Democrat. I was far more than old enough to vote in 2000, and I spent a surprising amount of time trying to convince people that Al Gore wasn't "exactly the same" as GWB.

But now all of a sudden Jonathan Schwartz readers are all over Obama on the grounds that his honest discussion of an issue is going to favor conservatives (and that he should, implicitly, disguise his views on the issue until after the election). An embracring of pragmatic, strategic thinking, it would seem.

But, grateful as I am to see a little strategic thinking, I disagree with the analysis. This announcement by Obama will have little or no ill effect on anything. He is not allowing "conservatives to define the issue", he is hamstringing them. They want to campaign on decreased SS benefits (implied), he is saying "if it's such a big issue, why don't you raise the cap". Very few people will vote against a Democrat for this (high income Democrats will certainly not switch to Republican over it) and it may well gain votes.

Incidentally, my dream candidate on issues would be Kucinich, UFOs and all, and the realistic candidate I currently support is Edwards, but I think Obama is an astonishingly strong candidate given his experience, and I will whole-heartedly fight for him in the general election if he wins the nomination.

(On the other, bigger anti-Obama thing - an Obama administration would produce legislation and appointments that would be favorable to gays, massively so relative to a Republican administration, and that is overwhelmingly what really counts.)

Social Security is a TAX. As long as it's collected then the system is NOT broken.

What is Obama's position on falling asteroids?

savage:

*You're* a moron and you have an ass face.

I have never denied this.

harold:

although I don't see it as a super-pressing short term issue, I strongly support his general plan to make FICA taxes more progressive.

See above. Making the tax code generally simpler and more progressive is an important goal. But there's no reason to bring Social Security into it.

This announcement by Obama will have little or no ill effect on anything. He is not allowing "conservatives to define the issue", he is hamstringing them. They want to campaign on decreased SS benefits (implied), he is saying "if it's such a big issue, why don't you raise the cap".

We'll have to agree to strongly disagree. Fooling people into believing Social Security is in such trouble that we have to make "tough decisions" about it is one of the premiere achievements of America's right in the past 25 years. It's extremely important to dispel this illusion, because as long as it survives it sets the stage for what's going to happen in the next big economic crunch: an all-out campaign to blame the crunch on Social Security and social programs generally. If you want something to invest in, bet on THAT, because there is no surer money on earth.

The people who run the US would like nothing better than to subject us to the kind of structural adjustment that the IMF has long specialized in for the third world. Read The Shock Doctrine. That's what they're preparing for us, and the Social Security campaign is the centerpiece of this. When unemployment's 12% and inflation's running at 20% and people's homes are being repossessed, Obama's position of "there's a giant problem with Social Security, so let's raise the FICA cap" will not get us a raised FICA cap (something which 90% of Americans don't even know the meaning of). Instead, all he will have done is contributed to getting the whole thing washed away in the flood.

This may be hard to recognize if you're not familiar with the way they've run this playbook all over the world. But I guarantee you, this is what they're up to, and that's why this matter so much.

I think you missed what he was saying actually Jonathan. He is talking about raising the cap!! As it is income OVER $90,000 isn't taxed for social security. Obama wants to raise THAT figure! Do you understand this??? What the hell is wrong with that for you??? What you make maore then that and don't want to pay a fair share????? I never realised 'till today that you were that wealthy and greedy to boot.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD PEOPLE HE SAID HE WANTS TO RAISE THE CAP!!! THE CAP PEOPLE!!!!! ARE YOU PEOPLE BRAIN DEAD?

Terrible:

I think you missed what he was saying actually Jonathan. He is talking about raising the cap!! As it is income OVER $90,000 isn't taxed for social security. Obama wants to raise THAT figure! Do you understand this??? What the hell is wrong with that for you??? What you make maore then that and don't want to pay a fair share????? I never realised 'till today that you were that wealthy and greedy to boot.

Terrible, I can't tell whether you're joking here or not. But if you're not, all I can do is repeat myself: there is nothing wrong with Social Security. As of today, there is no reason to propose changing the structure of it. What Obama is doing is like someone vociferously calling for the return of inspectors to Iraq in fall, 2002 in order to deal with the terrifying threat posed by Saddam's WMD.

In a completely imaginary, completely rational world that wouldn't be a problem. In the one in which we live, it was.

I read what Obama said as saying he would raise the cap (a cap,incidentally,that many,probably most,lower and middle income Americans don't know exists).It's the first time in my memory a major candidate has even brought the issue up,which is the most obvious solution for 'fixing' Social Security.While I agree that accepting the premise that the SS is 'broken' is allowing the Republicans to define the debate (and I don't entirely trust Obama or his Clinton like trust in the neoliberal agenda),using it as a platform to discuss the need for progressivity in the tax system could be helpful.

While I agree that accepting the premise that the SS is 'broken' is allowing the Republicans to define the debate (and I don't entirely trust Obama or his Clinton like trust in the neoliberal agenda),using it as a platform to discuss the need for progressivity in the tax system could be helpful.

No, it really couldn't be. As you say, most people have no idea how Social Security works. If you want to create a grassroots education project on that, I'm all for it. But that's not what presidential campaigns can do, at least if the grassroots education projects don't already exist. All Obama will accomplish with his current line on Social Security is to confuse people about what's going on.

Note also, as I mentioned above, that raising taxes for a system in surplus makes no sense whatsoever when we can't even get conservatives to acknowledge the trust fund is real.

Unfortunately,presidential campaigns are the only time most Americans are even pretending to pay attention.You want to educate the public,that's your shot.
There's nothing confusing about saying rich people pay less taxes than poor people and there is no better example than the Social Security cap.Virtually all of the people saying the system is in perile paid their last FICA tax well before December.If the system they profess to care so much about is truly endangered,challenge them to pay their fair(that's a word Americans seem to like)share.Democrats always blow the opportunity to make class an issue in elections.

He is not allowing "conservatives to define the issue", he is hamstringing them. They want to campaign on decreased SS benefits (implied), he is saying "if it's such a big issue, why don't you raise the cap".

Yes, elected Demnocrats are always being "clever" and "hamstringing" the Republicans in exactly this way. Witness Charlie Rangel's effort to "hamstring" the Republicans by saying: "If the war's such a big issue, why don't you reinstate the draft?" or Dave Obey's recent brilliant idea of "hamstringing" the Republicans by saying, "If the war's such a big issue, why don't you support a tax increase to pay for it?"

Ask yourself: have any of these clever efforts to "hamstring" the Republicans actually worked?

Not that I can see. The Republicans simply say, "No thanks, we'll keep the war and take a pass on the draft (or a tax increase)."

And, in the end, all that the average voter gets out of this exchange is that the Democrats want to raise their taxes, or draft their kids into the military. Chalk another one up for those "clever" Democrats.

Note to elected Democrats: STOP TRYING TO BE CLEVER. You're not smart enough for it.

Jonathon -

As usual, there is substantial overlap in our views, even when there is a point of disagreement.

I agree entirely with your post above about the efforts of conservatives to essentially destroy all social programs, in the style you describe. In fact, reading that part of your post is like listening to myself talking.

Hell, I'd go one step further and speculate that they deliberately soured relations with Western Europe to try to keep Americans from noticing the benefits of strong, rational social safety nets, and even that one of the (many) goals of Iraq was to set up a puppet nation with a mandated laissez-faire economy, and then later claim that Iraq was "experiencing rapid growth because of its free market approach to social programs".

Where we differ is in our interpretation of Barrack Obama's response to all this, in particular on the social security issue.

At this point, trying to argue that social security isn't in some kind of "crisis" is like arguing that Iran is not a serious threat to the United States - it's true, but it's so heretical that it's dangerous to say it.

What Obama is saying is that even if the premise that there's some kind of crisis is accepted, there are still clearly better approaches than the conservative one of cutting benefits.

The worst case scenario under his approach would be to collect more FICA taxes than needed, with the surplus coming from the affluent.

I read through the comments to see if you actually mentioned any of the "numerous different ways Obama is being a moron," but have discovered only one: He's implicitly agreeing that SS has a problem.

Well, based on current projections, in the longer term (35-40 years down the road) the program does have some problems in terms of meeting currently promised (i.e., projected for that time) benefits. But no, there is no need to change the "structure" of Social Security - nor is Obama proposing to do so.

What he has done in enable himself to say when the subject is brought up, "If there's a problem, there is a straightforward fix -raising the cap - that does not involve cutting benefits and does not involve tax increases on the poor or middle class. You got a problem with that?"

The comparison with 2002 is strained at best since the other candidates, if they choose, can challenge Obama by citing data showing that the "problem" is possibly illusory (because it's based on conservative growth projections) and even if real can be dealt with through the same sort of minor tinkering the program has experienced throughout its existence - that is, the "inspectors" have already "been back" and have published their conclusions.

The bottom line here is I remain utterly mystified as to how Obama is being a "moron."

harold:

What Obama is saying is that even if the premise that there's some kind of crisis is accepted, there are still clearly better approaches than the conservative one of cutting benefits.

No, what he said is this, in response to a question not about Social Security but about "On which issues has Hillary Clinton not been truthful?":

OBAMA: So on Social Security, of course, [Clinton] has maintained it appears that if we just get our fiscal house in order that we can solve the problem of Social Security. Now, we've got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says there's going to be a gap, and we're going to have more money going out than coming in unless we make some adjustments now...we need to fix it now...

Obama is specifically trying to make Social Security an issue. And his position is: this is a real problem, but Hillary won't deal with it and is lying when she says not to worry about it.

In other words, he's running to Hillary Clinton's right. Thanks, Obama.

At this point, trying to argue that social security isn't in some kind of "crisis" is like arguing that Iran is not a serious threat to the United States - it's true, but it's so heretical that it's dangerous to say it.

It's like if progressives had just spent two years shutting down Bush administration attempts to take the US to war with Iran and finally succeeded. And when asked about what issues Hillary Clinton was not being honest about, Obama started talking about the threat from Iran and how she won't tell America the truth about it.

Of course, all he's saying is we need diplomacy to deal with the terrible threat posed by Iran (which Hillary won't tell you the truth about). What's wrong with that?

LarryE:

What he has done in enable himself to say when the subject is brought up, "If there's a problem, there is a straightforward fix -raising the cap - that does not involve cutting benefits and does not involve tax increases on the poor or middle class. You got a problem with that?"

See above. He's bringing it up himself, and he's not saying "if there's a problem."

Beyond being a moron for doing this, he's also a moron for thinking it's going to help him politically.

Beyond that, he's a moron for proposing a "solution" that accomplishes nothing when the system is in surplus and would be throughout the entire time he could be president. The only thing he actually could do while president that would have a real effect on Social Security is exactly what Clinton has talked about: improving the general fiscal position of the government. That is in fact a good idea, because redeeming the trust fund will involving reselling the debt the trust fund holds in private markets.

I'll say first that I have been in favor of removing the cap on income subject to SS taxes since I first knew of its existence. The idea of a regressive tax for the rich (repressive because beyond a certain income level, the percentage of income taken in SS taxes declines) struck me as just fundamentally wrong. It still does. Perhaps part of my reaction here is resentment at seeing advocacy of that position described as being "a moron." Be that as it may, I expect this will be my last on this.

He's bringing it up himself ... a moron for doing this

If you think there's not already a perception that there is a Social Security "problem" or even "crisis," you need to get out more. I deal with young adults on an almost-daily basis and it's astonishing how many of them take for granted the idea that SS "won't be there" when they retire. Even when we were successfully trashing Bush's disguised privatization scheme, polls said that people thought SS had a long-term problem - they just thought Bush's answer was stupid.

a moron for thinking it's going to help him politically

There are two ways to deal with that perception of a problem with the system's finances: One, give a ringing endorsement to SS and lay out an argument for the claims of the fear-mongers being bogus. Two, say "There's a straightforward fix to any possible problems that doesn't affect benefits or middle-class taxes." The latter may not be the ideal position, but to call it politically moronic is, well, moronic.

a "solution" that accomplishes nothing when the system is in surplus

Oh, now, that's just nonsense. What raising (or better yet, lifting) the cap would do is increase that surplus, shoving the day when the surplus is exhausted decades further into the future, very likely beyond the 75-year reach that is as far as the SS trustees will project.

Considering that a) the entire basis for the SS scare stories is the projections that the surplus will at some point be exhausted and b) Obama's statement enables him to say down the road "This will protect SS for you, your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren," I have to say that you have made no progress toward convincing me that this makes him "a moron."

the rest of the retirement system's where the weakness is — business contributions are in fairy dust — individual saving's a forgotten dream, eaten by debt — home equity's falling apart

social security, like medicare, is the system that's working — and that's embarrassing — so we diss

>>>Note also, as I mentioned above, that raising taxes for a system in surplus makes no sense whatsoever when we can't even get conservatives to acknowledge the trust fund is real.

Mr. Schwarz,
People can disagree about the severity of the "crisis" or if there is a crisis at all, but the notion that it never 'makes sense to increase funding for a system in surplus' is just untrue. In fact, this flies in the face of the entire concept of reserve funding and any fair minded valuation of assets and liabilities. A simple example: This is akin to refusing to save money in your house fixing fund because despite the fact that you know you're going to need money to fix the roof at some point, you've got $100 in the fund now and nothing currently needs fixed.

Look, I agree with you that "crisis" is a scare tactic, and there is no emergency -- However -- this does not mean that changes are not appropriate. Spending down the reserve as the boomers retire and switching to a pay-as-you-go funding method will cause huge generational transfer and put another nail in the coffin of planning for the future. (Although every time I see the personal savings rate statistics, I think the funeral has already happened.)

No one will ever ask me, but my motto for this country is-
America: Land of short sighted decisions

Cheers