FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Political Suicide

The Obama administration is committing political suicide with its debt negotiations, and it’s not entirely clear that there should be much of a protest from the American people.  Obama’s center-right attempts to “compromise” by seeking major cuts to Social Security (a program that is currently not in financial trouble, but in fact running a surplus) and Medicare (in which hundreds of billion in cuts are being sought) will inevitably harm the American middle and working classes.  Obama claims that the “sacrifices” (which he will not be forced to endure) are necessary in order to come to an agreement with Republicans over deficit reduction.  He is wrong.  If he continues to push this agenda, we should organize around an alternative, progressive candidate for 2012.

Obama’s proposed cuts concede far too much to the Republicans.  He supports ending tax loopholes for the rich and reducing the Bush tax cuts (for the wealthy) in a package that would see less than $1 trillion in total revenue savings from these sources.  Compare that to the additional $3 trillion in cuts he’s seeking over ten years ? much of which will come from popular social programs ? and one begins to see that he really is “bending over backwards” to placate Republicans’ elitist agenda, as he complained in his recent national address.  Such cuts go far beyond the compromise supported by Democrats, in which sacrifices by the masses would equal half of the total revenue increases, and the closing of tax cuts for the wealthy would include another half.  Obama’s proposed cuts even go beyond those cuts pushed by Republicans, as they had not originally mentioned Social Security payment reductions as part of their demands.

Republicans have no interest in deficit reduction, as seen in their irresponsible “spend like a drunken sailor” mentality whenever they hold political power (a la the Reagan and Bush years).  Debt and deficit reduction are merely a class war tactic to be used against the poor and middle class, and in favor of extending deficit increasing tax cuts for the rich.  By playing the Republicans’ game, Obama is risking his political future by crossing the one political constituency that disproportionately follows politics and participates regularly in national elections ? the elderly.  Resisting cuts to Social Security is a no-brainer for any Democrat interested in getting re-elected, which is why Democrats in Congress opposed them so ardently in 2005, and continue to do so today.  Reagan and Bush learned that elementary lesson when they tried to dismantle Social Security, and it’s unclear why the Obama administration is so obtuse as to have forgotten this basic political reality.  Social Security has always been the third rail of American politics.

Obama is falling victim to the propaganda theme in Washington that the deficit and debt are the cause of the current economic crisis, rather than a symptom of a much larger problem of reckless speculation on Wall Street.  In reality, it was the collapse of the Housing market and the subsequent implosion of the derivatives market that caused the massive hole in the economy, high unemployment, and rapidly expanding deficits under which we now suffer.  Contrary to Democratic and Republican propaganda today, it was the stimulus itself, and its accompanying increase in the national debt, that prevented a full-on collapse of the U.S. economy.  Debt and deficit spending (in the name of stimulus) are the reason we still have a moderately functioning economy today, rather than the cause of the problem.  A forward looking, positive agenda for Democrats must focus on pushing more stimulus and deficit spending until the economy turns around, rather than removing demand from the economy, as will happen with the $4 trillion in budget cuts Obama is supporting.

But what about debt reduction?  Isn’t this a worthy goal in the long term, lest we are to continue with the unsustainable path of mass tax cuts for the wealthy, continuously escalating military spending, and growing costs for welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare?  At some point in the future, debt levels could become so high as to impede future government borrowing, and lead to the evisceration of popular welfare programs that America’s political elites have so long sought.  There are simple answers to this question for those seriously interested in deficit and debt reduction: cut military spending, increase the payroll tax (and taxes in general) for the wealthy, and rein in the worst abuses endemic in the Medicare system.  The United States currently spends approximately $1.2 trillion a year on the “defense.”  Cutting the military budget to $800 billion a year would lead to $5 trillion in savings over the next ten years, or $1 trillion more than Obama is promising under his deficit reduction plan.  Such cuts are not as radical as they sound, as they would reduce annual military spending to about $100 billion more per year than the approximately $700 billion per year spent on “defense” during the mid-1990s Clinton years ? a time when permanent occupations of Middle Eastern countries was not considered the foundation of U.S. foreign policy.

Raising the payroll tax to cover the upper portions of the incomes of the wealthy would ensure the solvency of Social Security into the indefinite future.  Putting an end to Congress’s legal prohibition on government bargaining over pharmaceutical prices would help rein in escalating Medicare costs.  Under current law, the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals – the federal government – is not legally allowed to negotiate prices.  This prohibition is a blatant violation of “free market” assumptions that companies should be forced to compete in order to provide lower priced, more effective drugs.

A second major reform that would help reduce Medicare costs entails the introduction of comparative effectiveness measures to lower costs of care, without sacrificing quality.  We currently have a weak understanding of the effectiveness of competing and alternative procedures and medical treatments, as provided by doctors.  Many medical procedures are far more costly than others, and no more effective.  By undertaking comparative effectiveness research, we can reduce the costs of health care, while still providing superior medical services.  Republicans vehemently oppose comparative effectiveness because such a reform would cost hospitals and doctors some of their excessive profits.  Finally and most importantly, we should seek the introduction of a universal health care, Medicare-for-all system, which would dramatically reduce costs of health care for federal and local government employers, who are forced to pay exorbitant amounts for health care under private-sector run programs.  Such a change would do much to reduce escalating health care costs and growing deficit spending.

Obama is playing with political fire by promoting a “compromise” with Republicans.  Opinion polls show that Americans favor ending the Bush tax cuts over cutting social programs.  The Republican Party, however, will continue to resist termination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy ? their primary political constituency.  Obama should be appealing to the public, rather than Republicans, with a budget plan that includes military cuts and preservation of Medicare and Social Security (in addition to his attempts to end the Bush tax cuts).  Winning public support for this agenda should not be that difficult, considering the strong public opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare, and since the cutting military spending (instead of welfare programs) is the most popular choice of Americans whenever they are asked how to reduce the deficit and debt.  This alternative approach would allow Obama and the Democrats to preserve programs that are vital in reducing poverty in a time of economic crisis, while reducing the size of a bloated, wasteful, and imperialist military industrial complex.

But what of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which macro-economic data suggest have done little to nothing to promote economic growth over the last half decade?  Eliminating those cuts doesn’t need to be a part of any immediate deficit plan.  It’s true that extending these cuts won’t promote growth, as our current economic problems stem from a lack of consumer demand that is caused by growing unemployment and rising household debt, coupled with massive personal savings losses following the housing collapse.  Extending tax cuts for the rich in the name of spurring investment and growth is an absurd waste of money at a time when the corporate community is hoarding $2 trillion in cash reserves and when average Americans are suffering under high unemployment and growing poverty.

By simply doing nothing on these tax cuts this year, however, Obama could allow them to expire when they are legally scheduled to end in 2012.  Letting the cuts expire will not produce the dire consequences in which Republicans warn.  The most optimistic supporters of the cuts ? such as the reactionary Heritage Foundation ? promised they would provide a mere $4,500 over ten years to the average family, or just $450 a year.  Taking that estimate at face value, $450 represents less than one percent of the median family’s annual income of approximately $46,000.  It is entirely reasonable to expect those who already have jobs to make such a miniscule “sacrifice” in order to end the deficit-inducing, inequality increasing Bush tax cuts.  These cuts are already providing Republicans leverage in demanding major cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  Allowing the privatization of Medicare (as proposed under Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan) would cost seniors dearly.  As shown in recent empirical research by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Ryan’s Medicare-voucher-privatization plan would increase the average cost of health care for the elderly by more than 120 percent a year (or an additional $5,750 a year).  This is an unacceptable price for Middle Americans to pay as they move into retirement, in exchange for a mere $450 a year in yearly rebates under the Bush tax cuts.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the already unemployed (who aren’t paying income taxes), and a minimal effect on the employed, when compared to the deadly effects that the current deficit reduction talks will have if Social Security and Medicare are subjected to deep cuts.  The elimination of the Bush tax cuts, however, will have a dramatic effect on the richest 5%, who secured a staggering one-half of all the Bush cuts.  It is this group, rather than the other 95% of Americans, that Republicans are dedicated to protecting.  Of course, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would likely cost Democrats support from Republicans in terms of extending unemployment insurance in the future.  Obama could deal with this problem, however, by winning majority control of government for the Democrats in 2012.  Simply by taking a stand against the Republican Party’s draconian class war, the Democrats could secure impressive victories in the upcoming election, thereby eliminating the need to compromise on unemployment insurance.

Sadly, the progressive options discussed above are not defining the policies of the Obama administration.  Those on the left who care about the future of the masses should be asking a simple question: why bother supporting a president who shows no interest in fighting for your interests?  By “going public” and appealing to the American people for support against Republicans’ draconian class war, Obama could win serious victories for the American people, without having to compromise with those pushing a policy agenda far out of step with the demands of the people.  Compromise for the sake of compromise (or in order to protect one’s “legacy” as a “centrist) is no virtue.  Obama’s continuation down the “Republican-lite” path should give us pause and force a re-evaluation of public support for this president.  Democrats in Congress would do well to take heed, as a vote against Medicare and Social Security will come with deadly consequences in the 2012 elections.  It’s really a no-brainer.

Anthony DiMaggio is the co-author with Paul Street of the newly released Crashing the Tea Party (Paradigm Publishers, 2011). He is also the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008).   He has taught U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University, and can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu

 

More articles by:

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail