Hillary And Obama Trade Blows Over Social Security

Comments (29)

kjoe wrote on November 19, 2007 3:13 PM:

Obama's response was better in the debate.

Hillary is protecting the 6 percent.

I am disappointed in his operative's mild response.

Dave wrote on November 19, 2007 3:17 PM:

I think her comments regarding "Republican scare tactics" would hold more water on this issue if she hadn't been repeatedly describing a tax increase on the top 6% of US earners as a tax increase on the middle class.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 19, 2007 3:20 PM:

I cannot believe that any Democrat would not agree that raising the income cap on the incredibly regressive Social Security tax is very much on the table. Despite Senator Clinton's too cutesy by half mention of firefighters and teachers who make over $100,000, she seems to live in a parallel universe from most of us. Her daughter, for example, works for a hedge fund and most likely makes well in excess of $200,000. All Senators make in excess of $100,000 also. This is a policy debate worth having. Let's not see a Democratic candidate like Clinton actually demogogue it as a tax issue affecting most of the middle class..

MM wrote on November 19, 2007 3:39 PM:

It's kind of amusing that Clinton would decry "Republican scare tactics" and then in the next sentence raise the specter of a "trillion dollar tax increase."

bg wrote on November 19, 2007 3:47 PM:

Krugman broke out his econ wonk and did a bit of a hatchet job on Obama on this issue while Dowd squawked,"Obambi". Now he's parroting Sargent's Gerth piece. Meanwhile, Josh Marshall can't come up with any good reason to select Obama over Clinton other than the fact that he seems cool, and the good senator from Illinois is now being equated with Adlai Stevenson. With Iowa so close, I can't figure out why everyone is so eager to push Obama off the cliff.

chaunceyatrest wrote on November 19, 2007 4:10 PM:

This argument in favor of experience might be more persuasive if Clinton actually had more than her opponents. Whatever role she played in her husband's administration was unofficial & ambiguous, and she's helping to keep it that way by shielding reams & reams of documents. Her experience in the Senate eclipses Obama by less than one term, so any claim of superior experience reads mighty thin. She may win the presidency, and she may turn out to be a very good president, but it won't be because of any formal experience she brings to the office.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 19, 2007 4:17 PM:

Actually, it is easy to restore the middle class:

1. Roll back the tax rates to those existing during the Eisenhower Administration.

2. Re-initiate the tariff systems.

3. Enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Acts

4. Reinforce conservation and the National Park System

5. Make the Federal government the employer of last resort

6. Remove the words 'under 65' from the Medicare Act.

Andrew Jackson showed us how.

Teddy Roosevelt showed us how.

FDR showed us how.

JFK showed us how.

It is only hard for Clinton becuase of her corporate overlords would be displeased.

RWN wrote on November 19, 2007 4:29 PM:

This is the problem with a campaign strategy that was based on an incumbant strategy instead of open seat competitive candidancy. The second problem was that after building a huge virtual lead the Clinton campaign thought eye-balls equaled votes, little different when the dotcom companies thought eyeballs equaled dollars. In both cases suddenly reality has come face first. The worst place to be in a campaign 40 some days out is to be in a lead that keeps getting smaller. The reality actually is that the lead is less since the reporting and soft support is less than reported.

Clinton is losing on the credibility issue. The latest game with Novak appears to be a BLOWBACK torpedo and before the Chrismas specials will be televised Clinton will be trying to hold onto 3rd place.

JT wrote on November 19, 2007 4:34 PM:

Sen. Clinton’s attack on lifting the cap on payroll taxes as "a trillion tax increase on the middle class” is Republican talking point #1 in taxes. It's also false.

After last Thursday’s Nevada debate, it is clear that Sen. Obama is the more loyal protector of traditional Social Security and stronger opponent of privatization.

To the vast majority of Americans, certainly in Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada, $97,500 is a lot of income and they simply don’t make it, so it makes sense to them to ensure that the more affluent folks are paying the same percent of their income as they are to help keep Social Security solvent for future generations.

The point here is that Democrats have always supported equitable tax policy that ensures the tax burden is not disproportionately shouldered by middle and lower income Americans.

Capping payroll taxes at $97,500 flys in the face of that philosophy and by attacking Obama’s traditional Democratic commitment to equitable tax policy, Hillary has not only abandoned core Democratic principles, she has gone so far as to spout Republican talking points that favor the few at the expense of the many.

This was a big mistake both on policy and politics and no Democrat should ever say what she said, certainly not one who seeks the highest office in the land.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 19, 2007 4:35 PM:

Bush-Lite and her K Street allies think that millionaires are part of the middle class.

hadenough wrote on November 19, 2007 4:35 PM:

You know who is not trading blows on SS? josh marshal. He runs a site called tpm. He put tons of time and effort in smacking down the last 'social security crisis.' He seems to be leaving this one alone. I'm sure it's not because his most favored candidate is pimping the 'crisis.' I'm betting he has just been too busy thinking up good ways obama can attack Hillary.

ARG in Chicago wrote on November 19, 2007 4:47 PM:

Obviously Clinton thinks this issue is a winner for her. Probably because all the blogosphere reaction to Obama's bringing it up in the first place -- how he was playing into the Repub talking points, blah-blah-blah.

But I think Clinton (and the bloggers, Josh included) are wrong.

I think the average Joe DOES believe there's something wrong with Social Security. Particularly, young people believe they'll never get a dime out of the system. (Oh yeah, and Iowa isn't chock full of oh-so-sophisticated bloggers who read the NY Times.)

And clearly the tax is regressive, so it ought to be made more fair. Let's put it this way -- who among you is arguing to REDUCE the cap? Who'll say $95,000? How 'bout $90,000?? Heck, let's go for $80,000! If we're in such good shape, why not give a tax break to the "middle class" by lowering the cap?? (If you can't argue that position, then you can't defend the "do-nothing" stand.)

I don't have a dog in this massive Clinton vs. Obama debate, raging on multiple threads here (and elsewhere).

I support Dennis Kucinich for President.

But I don't see this issue as everyone else seems to, as a big winner for Clinton. I think Obama has something here.

-- ARG

CalD wrote on November 19, 2007 5:12 PM:

Not for nothing but Senator Obama truly does deserve himself a righteous, down-home butt-kicking for buying into the Republican frame of a social security "crisis." The good guys just never seem to win when they let the bad guys make all the rules and define the playing field. Funny how that works. Democrats need to stop doing that.

Someone might also want to mention to Obama spokesguy Bill Burton, et al, that according to pollster.com, Senator Obama's campaign employs at least four full-time pollsters, including one guy who was the internal manager of Clinton-Gore polling in 1996 for Penn & Schoen, and Obama seems to spend just about as much on polling and public opinion research as Hillary Clinton. Not surprising really, since he'd have to be an idiot not to (this being a US presidential campaign and all). Apparently, Mr. Obama has just been getting less for his money. Anyway, quite frankly, that whole hypocritical, Hillary-Clinton-is-a-slave-to-polls meme is getting just a little threadbare. They really need to get themselves some new material.

LJ wrote on November 19, 2007 6:01 PM:

Hadenough wrote:

He seems to be leaving this one alone...

Um, actually, it would be tough for you to be more wrong, although I wouldn't put it past you. You apparently missed this post:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057584.php

terry hallinan wrote on November 19, 2007 6:03 PM:

CalD

Obama truly does deserve himself a righteous, down-home butt-kicking

Heh heh.

Looks the Day of the Body Snatchers isn't going so well. :-)

Glory be. We could get an actual Democrat nominated.

No wonder Hillary was panicking.

Best, Terry

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 6:03 PM:

In my view this is more a generational dispute than anything else. Basically, the longer we wait to close the future gap, the more the burden of doing so will fall on future generations. In particular, if the Boomers can freeze their entitlement schedules in place and retire before paying any additional taxes, then they will get away with a massive generational wealth transfer.

And by the way, the Bush plan would have accomplished that as well.

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 6:14 PM:

Just b/c you have pollsters and opinion researchers doesn't mean that you are a slave to the polls.

It the difference between leading and following, and it makes all the difference in the world.

Helter wrote on November 19, 2007 6:29 PM:

President Bill Clinton told me all about a crisis in social security back in the late 1990s. Did we fix it, or was he lying about it all along?

Jeremy wrote on November 19, 2007 6:52 PM:

JT wrote on November 19, 2007 4:34 PM:

What he said.

Desider wrote on November 19, 2007 7:09 PM:

DTM,

Count the years. The little bit boomers would pay before they retire with a raised cap is relatively insignificant. It will hit post-Boomers much much harder.

The big issue for me is simply that any extra money paid in to "save Social Security" would be spent on Iraq or agriculture subsidies for Iowa anyway, and no, there is no crisis.

If you want something to fix, think Medicare or Prescription Benefit or War in Iraq.

CalD wrote on November 19, 2007 7:11 PM:

President Bill Clinton told me all about a crisis in social security back in the late 1990s. Did we fix it, or was he lying about it all along?

We fixed it once, we can fix it again. Of course then, the Republics will probably just come along and break it again. They're the reason we can't have nice things.

votenic wrote on November 19, 2007 7:42 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Coonsey wrote on November 19, 2007 7:52 PM:

What we need Hillary is more HONESTY. We need to be told the TRUTH, not some political talking point.

Coonsey's View
Political Blog
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 8:00 PM:

Desider,

There is no doubt that the Boomers have already pulled off a mass wealth transfer to themselves, and part of the mechanism is indeed to run up huge deficits and then underreport them by offsetting the Social Security account balances.

But every year that passes under those conditions, the Boomers are taking even more from future generations. So while we cannot undo the damage, or even stop it from getting worse, we can at least slow it down a little.

hadenough wrote on November 19, 2007 8:48 PM:

"LJ wrote on November 19, 2007 6:01 PM:
Hadenough wrote:

He seems to be leaving this one alone...

Um, actually, it would be tough for you to be more wrong, although I wouldn't put it past you. You apparently missed this post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057584.php"

Um, actually, it be tough to be any more right. From your link:
"I got to thinking that it's not just not necessary to do right now but that it actually might be a bad idea altogether."

marshall has to think it over. Maybe messing with SS "actually might be a bad idea altogether." Ha! What a joke. This from the guy that poured tons of time and effort in stopping the last 'SS crisis.' What a joke. Call you congress poeple! Report back to tpm! Now, today, when his most favored candidated is pimping the lie marshsal has to think it over. What couple of hacks, you and him.

brewmn wrote on November 19, 2007 9:11 PM:

"This from the guy that poured tons of time and effort in stopping the last 'SS crisis."

The difference is that the Republicans want to "save" SS by destroying it. Obama wants to save SS by making it fully funded when it starts to run a shortfall. Kind of a big difference.

savvy wrote on November 19, 2007 9:47 PM:

I believe what we are about to see is that Obama is going to morph into a movment in terms of the politics he is representing. Americans are sick and tired of diviseness that doesn't allow us to govern, they are tired of the war and the entire corporate lobbyist corruptive influence over our democracy when it comes to the citizens having representation.

The America public believes our system of government is broken and that HRClinton represents the status quo and more of the same...her remarks about 'lobbyists are Americans, too' is going to haunt her long after she is not the nominee.

Obama has tapped into a powerful discontent and the masses are yearning for leadership out of the muck and mire of DC politics as usually as well as the cynicism and morass that keeps our democracy from functioning.

Obama coming out and identifying how Hillary did not renounce Novaks attack on her just adds to the growing sense of how HRClinton is 'politics as usual' 'textbook campaigning' and 'more of the same'. He tied her to the backbiting and negativity Americans are sick of.

Iowans at the Jeff/Jack dinner heard when Barack said that America has made progress when their leaders stood for something and took a stand to lead on the issues and tell them what they need to hear not what they want to hear. Obama helped Iowans to visualize greatness and reminded them of how much the American dream meant to them and tapped into their American spirit to have each generation build on the last generation.

Obam is becoming a movement...and he would have been one before now had all of his rallys and forums been covered with the same attention to detail that polls are given on our nightly news casts. If the people had seen the masses clamoring to hear this man speak and turning out in droves...Hillary would have fell from the polls long time ago..because it is a sight to behold the diversity of the crowd. America has been waiting 40 years for this type of leader after all the promise of JFK, RFK and MLK were ripped from our national conscious. Their dreams are like smoldering embers simply waiting for the right leader to set ablaze...and Obama is creating glowing embers...Clinton wanted to turn up the heat and she is going to get ran over by the blaze that Obama's movement becomes.

This poll today will be remembered as the beginning of Obama's landslide as the dream of what America can be and the love Americans have for their country began to be a possibility instead of impossibility in Americans minds.

Obama touches all that is good in the hearts of Americans, he inspires Americans to do better, and to beleive that we as Americans CAN have better and we need not settle for the corruption and corporate control of our government.

Go Obama!
Fired up.
Ready to go.

Mike Bakunin wrote on November 20, 2007 1:16 AM:

First it was not being for universal health coverage, now its SS. He is starting to sound more and more like a Republican shill.

And "Savvy", if Obama is a movement its a BM.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 20, 2007 11:17 AM:

The simple fact is that there is no social security crisis, and the odds are that there won't be one in the future.

For instance, the projections for economic growth that the "crisis" is based upon are much lower than historical averages -- and you don't have to increase projected economic growth to see the future "bankruptcy" of the trust fund disappear.

Secondly, the projections are based on assumptions regarding wage levels and distribution that may not (and should not) hold. One way to "fix" social security is to increase the minimum wage each year somewhat above the inflation rate. Every increase in the minimum waqe increases the amount of money going into the social security trust -- and a program that raises the minimum wage a little bit over the inflation rate every year would go a long way toward a "fix" while increasing economic fairness at a rate easily absorbed by the US economy.

Finally, social security isn't the problem, our national debt is the problem. Right now, interest on the debt is around 3.2% of GDP -- and unless we start running surpluses, that percentage will only go up -- and will be going up faster than social security costs as a percentage of GDP (which is now 4.2% but will rise to 6.2%, then remain virtually flat for the next 50 years.)

If we get the debt under control, the combined "social security plus interest payments" will be less of a burden on future generations than we are paying right now.

Obama, by buying into the GOP framing of the issue, is not merely wrong. By increasing social security revenues now, it becomes far easier to hide the devastating impact that continued budget deficits will have on future generations. Obama is playing right into the GOP's "fat cat tax cuts" strategy, because a huge chunk of the income of the wealthy is not from wages that would be subject to social security under Obama's plan.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)