Obama Wrong to Prioritize Deficit Reduction
I’m worried that President Obama is going to focus too much on the deficit in his State of the Union speech this week and in his actions throughout this year.
I’m worried because such a focus will make it less likely that he’ll be able, or even inclined to, pass the kind of massive jobs bill we need to bring down unemployment.
Not to push such a bill through would be a moral failing of the highest order: We can’t let 15 million people languish on the unemployment lines. And it would also be a political failing: He’s setting a trap for himself here because if he doesn’t solve the jobs problem, Democrats will face a debacle in November.
I’m also worried because the obsession with the deficit will give ammunition to those who want to shoot holes in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—the programs that largely make up what remains of our safety net, especially for the aged and the disabled.
Obama himself is in favor of a Congressional bill establishing a bipartisan commission to study—and all but order--ways to cut costs in these so-called entitlement programs.
But I can’t stand that word “entitlement.” It makes us sound like we’re spoiled little brats to want the retirement funds we’ve already paid for, and the health care that should be our right to have.
There’s always trillions for war and bank bailouts, but when we come to claim what is ours, all of a sudden the cupboards are bare. If you’re concerned about the budget deficit, stop averting your eyes at the pricetags dangling from the Pentagon and Wall Street.
Also, the idea that Obama is still tilting at the bipartisan windmill is not a good sign at all.
Nor is it a good sign that the Democratic bill would fast-track any recommendations that this commission comes up with—providing no ability to amend or filibuster it. (See Dean Baker’s excellent commentary here: www.huffingtonpost.com.)
During his presidential campaign, Obama accused his opponent, John McCain, of wanting to cut Social Security.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats empower such a commission to justify that cut and then ram it through, this would be a huge double cross.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine. To subscribe for just $14.97 a year, just click here.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
| We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
| The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
| March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Comments
"it may be that big changes cannot be made now but attending to what is within our power to affect is useful and most important. that is where true leadership lies at this time."
It's important to fight for things that seem within reach. But it's also important to fight for what seems beyond our reach today.
There was a time when everything from the abolition of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the eight-hour workday, to clean food product regulation, to environmental regulation, to Social Security, to Medicare, to public schools seemed impossible. But we have them today because people were determined to fight for the impossible.
Often what appears impossible is actally inevitable. The only question is how long it will take to happen. Just as abolition was inevitable two centuries ago, so too public healthcare is inevitable today. The question is whether we shall fight to make it happen for our own generation, or leave the battle for our children.