Obama Bitten By The Beltway

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:44:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Senator Barack Obama's attempt to woo the Beltway Elite is a fool's errand. He is their darling now as Hillary Clinton's main opponent. But if he wins, they will turn on him on a dime. Heck, Fred Hiatt did not even wait:

It's also true that, more responsibly than Clinton, he acknowledges a fiscal challenge for Social Security. But where he used to accept that all possible remedies must be on the table to achieve a political compromise, he now opposes benefit cuts and proposes to solve the problem with, yes, a tax hike on the rich.

Of course, Obama's attempt to woo the Beltway Elite by speaking irresponsibly about Social Security will NEVER be enough for the Hiatts and Russerts of the world. But Hiatt's attack on Obama should be a lesson - the Beltway Elite and the GOP believe "bipartisanship" and "compromise" means Democrats doing what they say.

Will Obama ever learn this? For his campaign, it remains the key question - can Obama ignore the Beltway Elite? So far he has not been able to.

< The Failure of the War on Drugs | Comparing Hillary and Obama on Health Care >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Bitten By The Beltway | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Other Problem (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by BDB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:50:21 AM EST

Is that we're probably already looking at tax increases (or at least roll backs of the Bush tax cuts) to deal with deficit issues, which as Paul Krugman and others have pointed out would do a lot in and of itself to "save" Social Security. We have real problems that might require tax increases, we do not need additional tax increases to solve a problem that isn't one and won't be for decades. And even then, we should be doing it as part of a Bipartisan Commission so that Dems don't take the blame for the entire thing. Ugh!

But, as Taylor Marsh points out, the Social Security issue could actually point to a bigger problem with Obama - a lack of clear beliefs (http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26605). I've been trying to put my finger on why I don't like him more and I think it's because I'm not sure he won't be taken in and then taken to the cleaners by the GOP. At first I thought he was just using the talk of getting along as a sword he was going to use against the GOP, but the more I see him, the more I think it's who he is. Which, ironically, makes me like him less. I have problems with all of the candidates, but he seems to understand the least just how the other side works.

Why bring it up at all? (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by Joe Bob on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:39:57 PM EST

In terms of political framing I don't see why the Democratic candidates are talking about Social Security at all. It's not an eminent problem and bringing up the issue just opens the door for Republicans to float more crackpot privatization schemes.

Aside from Social Security and Medicare the two biggest federal budget line items are The Pentagon and interest payments on the national debt. As much as I would love to see an end to the $8 billion/month expenditure in Iraq and a 50% budget cut for the Pentagon, the former may not happen for a couple more years and the latter may not happen in my lifetime.

That gets us back to ol' whatsisname with the Nobel and the so-called 'lockbox.' The whole rationale behind the lockbox was to pay down the debt, reduce outlays for interest payments, and use that freed revenue to bolster programs like Social Security. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

stop wasting valuable time, (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:28:46 PM EST

time we'll never get back, on social security, it just isn't a material fiscal issue, now or in the foreseeable future.

huge budget deficits, the sub-prime mortgage disaster, expanded health coverage and the war in iraq are immediate issues, requiring immediate attention. the debt service on the 9 trillion dollar national debt could, all by itself, fund full health insurance coverage for everyone in the US. but it can't, as long as it's going to pay for mr. bush's (and mr. reagan's) follies.

these are the issues that should be attended to. do that, and social security takes care of itself.

So true (none / 0) (#1)
by MarkL on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:42:19 AM EST

Let's see how Obama responds to this.
You can't fully judge him without hearing his response.

Wealthy? (none / 0) (#2)
by NYMARJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:13:19 AM EST

On Daily Kos the Obama people writing in the diaries about social security have fallen into equating $97,000 = millionaire. HELP - in many places in the United States mid level managers are earning that and are definately in the middle class and also dealing with the AMT. If we are going to HAVE to discuss this issue we have to get a better definition of WEALTHY - one that protects the entire middle class (lower, mid and upper).

$97,000 = $97,000 = 6% of working adults (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 12:46:47 PM EST

Nobody is saying $97,000 equals millionaire. 6% of the population make more than the SS cap cut-off. The cop in New York who ends up making $120,000 after 15 years on the job would pay a whopping $1,674 in taxes on $23,000 in income in income over 97K. Or the same $1,674 dollars that a young NYC cop pays on the difference between his or her starting pay of $36,878 and the $59,878 they would expect to make after a few years on the job. The same 6.2% tax that 94% of workers pay on every dollar they earn each and every year. Raising the SS tax cap is an extension of a flat tax that benefits everyone, not class warfare. Raising the cap on taxes isn't adding a new tax, it's closing a loophole in the tax code.

Also, the $97,000 is not household income, it's personal income. A working couple could combine for income upwards of $190K and still never hit the cap. Are you saying a household income of $190,000 is middle class? It's not.

It's just silly to maintain that individuals earning more than $97,000 are middle class or that paying the same 6.2% tax on the 98th thousand dollar of income is soaking the rich in a way that paying a 6.2% tax on the 96th thousand dollar of income is not.

The examples Hillary Clinton gave of police making more than $97K come almost exclusively from Nassau and Suffolk county. The police pay in Nassau almost bankrupted the county, left city services gutted to pay cops, and was panned by the current Democratic Nassau County executive in an NYT op-ed titled Our Pampered Police. Is that the benchmark that a responsible candidate should use for middle class - a pay package negotiated by a corrupt Republican county government that almost bankrupted a county?

Very few Obama critics are saying the policy proposal is bad -- they're saying the politics of bringing up Social Security funding at all are bad. Far from pandering to DC elites, Obama is using the $97K cap to beat on the elites as out of touch with most Americans. Most in this case equals 94% of Americans. Other than Republicans and a few preening bloggers who, like Britney Spears, still believe their '05 style is all the rage I'm not seeing many people who disagree with Obama on this issue.

Note - I sympathize with the AMT problems and it's a somewhat related issue because Social Security IS interrelated to general budget fiscal responsibility (no matter what Paul Krugman says). Obama supports addressing the AMT problems. The AMT hits people for the same reason the SS tax cap misses people - both policies have suffered from neglect which caused them to distort from their original purpose.


Middle Class (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:16:13 PM EST

In NYC is way different than middle class in the mid west. Whether you like it or not middle class is a relative term, hardly absolute.

Between healthcare, mortgage/rent and living expenses that $97,000. does not go very far.

And cops in NYC are making that, not to mention that their year of retirement sets their lifetime benefits. Many work double and triple overtime in that year earning well over $100,000.


False, false, heh, true, true (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:30:55 PM EST

In NYC is way different than middle class in the mid west.

False - Metro NY is 12th in the nation in median household income, not "way different" than the mid west Minneapolis and Chicago are ranked 4th and 11th respectively.

Whether you like it or not middle class is a relative term, hardly absolute.

False - Whether you like it or not 'middle' means "Equally distant from extremes or limits". We can use any definition you like for middle class that centers around the the mid-point of distibution for a given set of data. Want to include the middle 3 quintiles of income for Manhattan? By that definition of "middle" an individual making $10,488 per year is middle class. Do you include people making $10,488 per year in your definition of "middle-class"? You should if you're going to use $97,000 as "middle-class" because 97K is about the 90th percentile of income and 10K is about 20th percentile. Any definition of "middle class" that includes 97K as middle would have to include incomes 8 percetnage points BELOW $10,488 (18th percentile) to include middle as you define it.

Heh - Do you hear that sound? It's me playing the world's smallest violin.

Cops in NYC are making that (97K+)

True - They are making it, mostly in Nassau and Suffolk County, but only if you include overtime. According to the PBA of NYC no line officer makes more than $97K as base pay. Top base pay for various cops as follows: NYC $59K, MTA $68K, Port Authority $80K, Nassau County $92K, Suffolk County $94K.

not to mention that their year of retirement sets their lifetime benefits. Many work double and triple overtime in that year earning well over $100,000.

True - This is a bug, not a feature of police union contracts in Nassau and Suffolk County. It's terrible public policy to allow employees to run up big overtime in order to pad their retirement packages. Smart fiscal policy would dictate you hire more police and pay straight time to a larger force. That's better for public safety and a better bargain for taxpayers. It's folly to constrain the Social Security policy debate based on a ridiculously bloated contract negotiated by a corrupt Republican government in Nassau County. An NYC cop could increase his top base pay by a whopping 64% by working 15 hours of overtime per week and still fall below the $97,000 cap.

I'm not saying that people in the 90th percentile of income aren't average joes or that they don't have the same hopes and dreams as people who make less money. I'm just saying they're not in the middle of income distribution.


: OK (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:03:59 PM EST

I was thrown off by your substituting the word "class" for income.
From your NYT link:

"It is clear that low and middle-income New Yorkers are being priced out of Manhattan and that poor people are being driven to the outer boroughs and the suburbs," said Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger.
From Wikipedia:

Politically more active than other demographics, college educated middle class professionals are split.[7] Income varies considerably from near the national median to well in excess of $100,000.[5][2] Household income figures, however, do not always reflect class status and standard of living, as they are largely influenced by the number of income earners and fail to recognize household size. It is therefore possible for a large, dual-earner, lower middle class household to out-earn a small, one-earner, upper middle class household

Social Security (none / 0) (#13)
by oldpro on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:27:01 PM EST

No. Stop. We do NOT 'have to discuss' this and open the door to the R game...scaring everyone about a non-issue.

Wasting time and energy and playing right into the hands of the right wing. It infuriates me that Obama is doing this. It can't be ignorance so it must be....

Politics. What else? And not the good kind.


I read something that Sirota wrote (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:52:23 AM EST

recently about seeing Obama surrounded by the beltway interests and by doing so not meeting his full potential that Sirota sometimes feels he possesses.

And? (none / 0) (#6)
by LarryE on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:02:06 PM EST

a tax hike on the rich

And the problem with this is...?

Such an increase would affect only those making more than the current limit on SS taxes (to be $101,000 next year, if I recall). While such folks are certainly not millionaires, since they do represent the richest 20% of households and control more than 3/4 of all US discretionary income, I do have to question if they can properly be called "middle class."

: Not Bad if It Goes for the Right Things (none / 0) (#11)
by BDB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:34:39 PM EST

A tax hike of some sort is inevitable and it will most likely land on the wealthier among us, which I totally suppport. I think that's the right way to get us out of our current fiscal mess and start funding infrastructure and other priorities that need to be invested in now (energy, education, etc). But to add another tax hike to solve a problem that doesn't exist and for which, under Obama's plan, the Democrats would be solely responsible for passing is taking on a political battle that doesn't need to be fought for no significant gain. And he's done it using Republican framing.

hey, hey (none / 0) (#14)
by diogenes on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:50:36 PM EST

What we really need to do is eliminate the payroll tax entirely and fund Social Security out of general income taxes. The payroll tax is regressive and is a disincentive to hire workers (because employers pay it too).
I thought liberals lived here, not people who are so scared by the ghost of Dukakis that they can't think straight. The only way the dems lose in 2008 is if they pick an UNLIKABLE (as Dukakis in 1988 or Neil Kinnock versus John Major in England) candidate.