Michigan Exists!
On Meet The Press for Sunday, May 1, 2008, Tim Russert asked Harold Ickes, Senior Advisor to the Clinton campaign, about the campaign's claim that "seventeen million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton, more than for any primary candidate in history." This exchange ensued:
MR. ICKES: Well, we're going by the AP projections, and we're counting both Michigan and Florida. And, and in our...
MR. RUSSERT: You're counting Michigan when...
MR. ICKES: Yes, we're counting Michigan.
MR. RUSSERT: ...Senator Obama's name wasn't on the ballot?
MR. ICKES: We're counting Michigan. He voluntarily took his name off the ballot, Tim. There was no party rule, no exhortation from the Democratic National Committee. He, he--it was a voluntary, strategic choice that he made. He could have kept it on there.
MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Clinton said it didn't count for anything...
MR. ICKES: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: ...but now it counts for everything.
Tim is very skeptical of the idea of counting the results of Michigan's primary in calculating the total popular votes nationwide of the two candidates.
That was a legitimate, and perhaps sound, position as of May 30, the day before the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee met in a Washington hotel and decided that the delegates and superdelegates from both Florida and Michigan would be seated, with each individual granted a half-vote. Of Florida, Clinton was granted 105 (52.5) and Obama 67 (33.5) delegates. Of Michigan, based on exit poll and other data (which favored Obama), Clinton was granted 69 (34.5) and Obama 59 (29.5) delegates. Delegates won by Clinton in the two primaries were allocated to her while Obama was allocated delegates won in the Florida primary and in Michigan, the vast majority of the "uncommitted" delegates. The two primaries were held, the party has decided that the delegations will be seated and delegates will vote. And now....
The Michigan primary never happened?
Sorry, folks, but the Michigan primary occurred. The party now has acknowledged that it did and has acted accordingly. Hillary Clinton won those popular votes in Michigan. Barack Obama and John Edwards, in part to curry favor with Iowa voters, took their names off the ballot. And the ploy worked. Not only did Obama win the Iowa caucus (admittedly primarily for other reasons) but HRC came in behind Edwards. It was effective strategy in the critical first-in-the-country vote, with the only downside that Obama has no popular votes (but a lot of delegates in a state he probably wouldn't have won, anyway) to count toward his national total. All in all, a good tradeoff.
Showing posts with label Tim Russert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Russert. Show all posts
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Concession From Ickes
The bluff and bluster- or self-confidence- of Harold Ickes, Senior Advisor to the Clinton campaign, was on display on the May 1, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet The Press. When asked by host Tim Russert "Should Barack Obama offer Hillary Clinton the vice presidency to unite the party?" Ickes replied "We don't think that that's going to be necessary. Mrs. Clinton will get the nomination."
Moments later, this exchange took place:
MR. RUSSERT: When, when will this be over?
MR. ICKES: MR. RUSSERT: Could that happen Wednesday?
MR. ICKES: It could. Anything could happen.
And what will happen this week was noted, fairly casually, by Russert's next guest, former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle, now a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign. Russert asked of the Illinois senator "assuming he gets half of the delegates of Montana, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, with proportional allocation, he would need about 20 superdelegates. You've been leading the fight to secure the superdelegates. Will you have those 20 in hand by Wednesday morning?"
And Daschle responded
Well, Tim, we're not making any predictions with regard to schedule, but I think we're going to have a nominee before the end of this week. I don't think there's any question. A large number of superdelegates were holding back, waiting until the last vote was counted, and then they're going to step forward. I've had many, many conversations. I, I, I, I am quite confident that you're going to see a--an overwhelming number of superdelegates declare this week.
After Russert followed up, Daschle assured him "well, they're going to declare, and we assume that, that the vast majority of them will be for Barack Obama."
No one seriously questions Daschle's analysis. Meanwhile, a major spokesman for the Clinton campaign concedes "it'll be over when one candidate secures the number for the nomination." He seems to be conceding the nomination to Barack Obama which, as I will argue in a later post, is premature, despite Daschle's impeccable math.
The bluff and bluster- or self-confidence- of Harold Ickes, Senior Advisor to the Clinton campaign, was on display on the May 1, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet The Press. When asked by host Tim Russert "Should Barack Obama offer Hillary Clinton the vice presidency to unite the party?" Ickes replied "We don't think that that's going to be necessary. Mrs. Clinton will get the nomination."
Moments later, this exchange took place:
MR. RUSSERT: When, when will this be over?
MR. ICKES: MR. RUSSERT: Could that happen Wednesday?
MR. ICKES: It could. Anything could happen.
And what will happen this week was noted, fairly casually, by Russert's next guest, former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle, now a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign. Russert asked of the Illinois senator "assuming he gets half of the delegates of Montana, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, with proportional allocation, he would need about 20 superdelegates. You've been leading the fight to secure the superdelegates. Will you have those 20 in hand by Wednesday morning?"
And Daschle responded
Well, Tim, we're not making any predictions with regard to schedule, but I think we're going to have a nominee before the end of this week. I don't think there's any question. A large number of superdelegates were holding back, waiting until the last vote was counted, and then they're going to step forward. I've had many, many conversations. I, I, I, I am quite confident that you're going to see a--an overwhelming number of superdelegates declare this week.
After Russert followed up, Daschle assured him "well, they're going to declare, and we assume that, that the vast majority of them will be for Barack Obama."
No one seriously questions Daschle's analysis. Meanwhile, a major spokesman for the Clinton campaign concedes "it'll be over when one candidate secures the number for the nomination." He seems to be conceding the nomination to Barack Obama which, as I will argue in a later post, is premature, despite Daschle's impeccable math.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Obama On Clinton On The War
One of the major themes of the Obama campaign has been the superior judgement State Senator Obama, who spoke out against the forthcoming war in Iraq, has shown to that of United States Senator Hillary Clinton (D.- NY), who gave a floor speech in support of the resolution, then voted for it. Now, Hotline On Call reports that the Obama campaign is circulating a new video emphasizing Clinton's vote for S.J. Res 45, with the words "It's a question of judgment. It's a question of preparation. It's a question of accountability. Was it a vote for "inspectors" ... or a vote for war?" flashing on the screen. This is a point consistently emphasized by the Obama campaign- that everyone knew that war was coming and Clinton's vote authorizing force by President Bush was tantamount to a vote for war. Clinton, meanwhile, steadfastly has maintained that hers was a vote not for war, but for inspections.
So who's right? There are a few interesting, and salient, passages in the New York Senator's speech on that unfortunate day, October 10, 2002. She stated "some people are in favor of attacking Saddam Hussein now (but) this course is fraught with danger (and) a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option." She argued "I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq." She worried "if we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."
Finally, Clinton explained, "my vote is not,however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose-all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.... A vote for (the resolution) is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him- use these poweres wisely and a last resort."
Hillary Clinton, then stating "I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible" (emphasis mine) was fooled by George W. Bush. She used bad judgement, which she appears finally to have conceded when at the 2/26/08 debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Tim Russert asked "But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?" and Clinton responded "absolutely. I've said that many times." (O.K., she has not.)
This is true: Hillary Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to use military force if he found it wise; Barack Obama demonstrated wise judgement in his speech opposing military action. But the Obama campaign, aided by a lazy media, has contended all along that Clinton's vote was a vote for war. And, as the evidence demonstrates, they have been wrong, and continue to be wrong.
One of the major themes of the Obama campaign has been the superior judgement State Senator Obama, who spoke out against the forthcoming war in Iraq, has shown to that of United States Senator Hillary Clinton (D.- NY), who gave a floor speech in support of the resolution, then voted for it. Now, Hotline On Call reports that the Obama campaign is circulating a new video emphasizing Clinton's vote for S.J. Res 45, with the words "It's a question of judgment. It's a question of preparation. It's a question of accountability. Was it a vote for "inspectors" ... or a vote for war?" flashing on the screen. This is a point consistently emphasized by the Obama campaign- that everyone knew that war was coming and Clinton's vote authorizing force by President Bush was tantamount to a vote for war. Clinton, meanwhile, steadfastly has maintained that hers was a vote not for war, but for inspections.
So who's right? There are a few interesting, and salient, passages in the New York Senator's speech on that unfortunate day, October 10, 2002. She stated "some people are in favor of attacking Saddam Hussein now (but) this course is fraught with danger (and) a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option." She argued "I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq." She worried "if we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."
Finally, Clinton explained, "my vote is not,however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose-all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.... A vote for (the resolution) is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him- use these poweres wisely and a last resort."
Hillary Clinton, then stating "I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible" (emphasis mine) was fooled by George W. Bush. She used bad judgement, which she appears finally to have conceded when at the 2/26/08 debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Tim Russert asked "But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?" and Clinton responded "absolutely. I've said that many times." (O.K., she has not.)
This is true: Hillary Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to use military force if he found it wise; Barack Obama demonstrated wise judgement in his speech opposing military action. But the Obama campaign, aided by a lazy media, has contended all along that Clinton's vote was a vote for war. And, as the evidence demonstrates, they have been wrong, and continue to be wrong.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Apology Issue- Ferraro And Iraq
One of the most interesting comments, I think, about the controversial statements of former U.S. Representative and now-former Clinton finance committee member Geraldine Ferraro came tonight, March 12, 2008, from Chicago Tribune columnist and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson. Robinson, recognizing in the wake of Ferraro's resignation that Mrs. Clinton had criticized the comment(s) but not dismissed Ferraro, noted "I guess the Clinton campaign has decided that apologies are for wimps."
That it has. And in so doing, this controversy is analogous to that over Senator Clinton's vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. The following exchange took place toward the end of the Obama-Clinton debate on February 26. 2008 at Cleveland State University:
RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your
careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any
words or vote that you'd like to take back?
Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again.
(a few moments later)
RUSSERT: But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?
CLINTON: Absolutely. I've said that many times.
But surely she had not said that many times. It was the first time that Hillary Clinton had acknowledged that she should have voted against, rather than for, the resolution. Still, even at this time she did not apologize for her vote and, in fact, if it was a sincere vote, any regret would not appropriately take the form of an apology. And I think that she has calculated all through this campaign that the American people would interpret an apology, and generally interprets apologies, as for "wimps." She is right- except, of course, that she did not realize that she might not even get through the nominating process, where Democratic voters look more kindly than the electorate at large on acknowledgement, even apologies, for serious mistakes.
One of the most interesting comments, I think, about the controversial statements of former U.S. Representative and now-former Clinton finance committee member Geraldine Ferraro came tonight, March 12, 2008, from Chicago Tribune columnist and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson. Robinson, recognizing in the wake of Ferraro's resignation that Mrs. Clinton had criticized the comment(s) but not dismissed Ferraro, noted "I guess the Clinton campaign has decided that apologies are for wimps."
That it has. And in so doing, this controversy is analogous to that over Senator Clinton's vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. The following exchange took place toward the end of the Obama-Clinton debate on February 26. 2008 at Cleveland State University:
RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your
careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any
words or vote that you'd like to take back?
Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again.
(a few moments later)
RUSSERT: But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?
CLINTON: Absolutely. I've said that many times.
But surely she had not said that many times. It was the first time that Hillary Clinton had acknowledged that she should have voted against, rather than for, the resolution. Still, even at this time she did not apologize for her vote and, in fact, if it was a sincere vote, any regret would not appropriately take the form of an apology. And I think that she has calculated all through this campaign that the American people would interpret an apology, and generally interprets apologies, as for "wimps." She is right- except, of course, that she did not realize that she might not even get through the nominating process, where Democratic voters look more kindly than the electorate at large on acknowledgement, even apologies, for serious mistakes.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Maybe Too Little; Certainly Too Late
Early in the Democratic presidential race, before there were Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, and Edward Kennedy, before most of the talk of Martin Luther Kind, Jr., bipartisanship, and the politics of hope, there was Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton had voted in favor of a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq while State Senator Barack Obama, speaking from an anti-war district in Chicago, Illinois, had spoken out against the resolution. With the war the biggest issue among the American people and especially among Democrats, Obama had been on the right side, Clinton on the right side.
As a Presidential candidate, Obama emphasized the differences he had 4-5 years earlier on Iraq with the Senator from New York. Although for many months behind Clinton in national polls of Democrats, Obama early on was a highly credible candidate in part because of the stance he had taken. Later came Oprah, celebrityhood, and a commanding lead in the quest for the nomination.
At the debate on February 26, 2008 in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama highlighted this distinction while defending the approach he has taken toward Gulf War II, once he was actually able to effect the course of the war. He eloquently declared:
And the fact was this was a big strategic blunder. It was not a
matter of, "Well, here is the initial decision, but since then we've
voted the same way. Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?
Near the end of the debate, co-host Tim Russert asked the candidates "before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back?" and Clinton responded:
"Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my
vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again."
Sensing he had something, Russert followed up "But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?" and Clinton reiterated "absolutely. I've said that many times."
But of course she hadn't said that many times. Or at all. Sure, Mrs. Clinton had implied it several times, and it was clear that she had learned that her vote was wrong both in terms of policy and politics, but she hadn't so stated.
It reminded me of October, 1968. Hubert H. Humphrey was headed for defeat in the presidential race, in part because of his loyalty in supporting President Johnson's conduct of the Vietnam War, when he finally found his voice and advocated a halt in the bombing of North Vietnam. His poll numbers went up (aided by an actual halt ordered by Johnson) and Humphrey barely- by under 1%- lost an election he likely would have won had the campaign lasted one more week.
The analogy isn't perfect. Clinton was not Vice-President and she acquiesced in the policy of a Republican, not Democratic, President. And Hillary Clinton (like Barack Obama) is no Hubert Humphrey. Still, it struck me that had the New York Senator conceded a year ago that she would have liked to have taken her vote back, she might have blunted Obama's argument, and perhaps even his candidacy. Now, of course, it is too late.
Early in the Democratic presidential race, before there were Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, and Edward Kennedy, before most of the talk of Martin Luther Kind, Jr., bipartisanship, and the politics of hope, there was Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton had voted in favor of a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq while State Senator Barack Obama, speaking from an anti-war district in Chicago, Illinois, had spoken out against the resolution. With the war the biggest issue among the American people and especially among Democrats, Obama had been on the right side, Clinton on the right side.
As a Presidential candidate, Obama emphasized the differences he had 4-5 years earlier on Iraq with the Senator from New York. Although for many months behind Clinton in national polls of Democrats, Obama early on was a highly credible candidate in part because of the stance he had taken. Later came Oprah, celebrityhood, and a commanding lead in the quest for the nomination.
At the debate on February 26, 2008 in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama highlighted this distinction while defending the approach he has taken toward Gulf War II, once he was actually able to effect the course of the war. He eloquently declared:
And the fact was this was a big strategic blunder. It was not a
matter of, "Well, here is the initial decision, but since then we've
voted the same way. Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?
Near the end of the debate, co-host Tim Russert asked the candidates "before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back?" and Clinton responded:
"Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my
vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again."
Sensing he had something, Russert followed up "But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?" and Clinton reiterated "absolutely. I've said that many times."
But of course she hadn't said that many times. Or at all. Sure, Mrs. Clinton had implied it several times, and it was clear that she had learned that her vote was wrong both in terms of policy and politics, but she hadn't so stated.
It reminded me of October, 1968. Hubert H. Humphrey was headed for defeat in the presidential race, in part because of his loyalty in supporting President Johnson's conduct of the Vietnam War, when he finally found his voice and advocated a halt in the bombing of North Vietnam. His poll numbers went up (aided by an actual halt ordered by Johnson) and Humphrey barely- by under 1%- lost an election he likely would have won had the campaign lasted one more week.
The analogy isn't perfect. Clinton was not Vice-President and she acquiesced in the policy of a Republican, not Democratic, President. And Hillary Clinton (like Barack Obama) is no Hubert Humphrey. Still, it struck me that had the New York Senator conceded a year ago that she would have liked to have taken her vote back, she might have blunted Obama's argument, and perhaps even his candidacy. Now, of course, it is too late.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
"Straight Talk" about Iraq?
Asked by the editor of The St. Petersburg Times at the 1/24/08 Repub presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida, about the military and economic costs of leaving U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely (as he has said is acceptable), Senator John McCain stated "I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can't sustain our effort in Iraq. So you're wrong."
The Christian Science Monitor (at csmonitor.com) reported on December 24, 2007 "'we're deploying at unsustainable rates,' (Army Chief of Staff) General Casey said three weeks ago during remarks to an audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington."
And as for General Petraeus? In an interview with National Public Radio, Petraeus "acknowledges that the so-called troop 'surge' has placed an 'enormous strain' on U.S. combat forces. He says troop levels will have to be further reduced after mid-2008, when they are expected to return to pre-'surge' levels of about 130,000. "
It is one thing to lie (The great military expert from Arizona must have known aabout General Casey.) But asserting boldly to Tim Russert "so you're wrong"? Dishonest and arrogant- a twofer for Saint McCain.
Asked by the editor of The St. Petersburg Times at the 1/24/08 Repub presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida, about the military and economic costs of leaving U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely (as he has said is acceptable), Senator John McCain stated "I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can't sustain our effort in Iraq. So you're wrong."
The Christian Science Monitor (at csmonitor.com) reported on December 24, 2007 "'we're deploying at unsustainable rates,' (Army Chief of Staff) General Casey said three weeks ago during remarks to an audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington."
And as for General Petraeus? In an interview with National Public Radio, Petraeus "acknowledges that the so-called troop 'surge' has placed an 'enormous strain' on U.S. combat forces. He says troop levels will have to be further reduced after mid-2008, when they are expected to return to pre-'surge' levels of about 130,000. "
It is one thing to lie (The great military expert from Arizona must have known aabout General Casey.) But asserting boldly to Tim Russert "so you're wrong"? Dishonest and arrogant- a twofer for Saint McCain.
"Straight Talk" from John McCain
During the Repub presidential debate on January 24, 2008 in Boca Raton Florida, Tim Russert asked "is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you are not well versed on?Senator McCain responded, "actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics."
Unfortunately, Russert didn't have the Senator's quotes at hand then but here he is three days later during McCain's appearance on Meet the Press:
I will show you where I got the quote from. I got it from John McCain, and here it is. "McCain is refreshingly blunt when he tells me I'm going to be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Wall Street Journal, November 26th, 2005. You repeated it to the Boston Globe in December of '07. You said it.
Russert (or his producer) deserves credit for digging the quote up. However, perhaps McCain didn't actually lie in the first sentence- maybe he didn't in fact know where the NBC Washington Bureau Chief had gotten the quote. But he certainly does know he isn't very well versed in economics.
During the Repub presidential debate on January 24, 2008 in Boca Raton Florida, Tim Russert asked "is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you are not well versed on?Senator McCain responded, "actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics."
Unfortunately, Russert didn't have the Senator's quotes at hand then but here he is three days later during McCain's appearance on Meet the Press:
I will show you where I got the quote from. I got it from John McCain, and here it is. "McCain is refreshingly blunt when he tells me I'm going to be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Wall Street Journal, November 26th, 2005. You repeated it to the Boston Globe in December of '07. You said it.
Russert (or his producer) deserves credit for digging the quote up. However, perhaps McCain didn't actually lie in the first sentence- maybe he didn't in fact know where the NBC Washington Bureau Chief had gotten the quote. But he certainly does know he isn't very well versed in economics.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Quivering Before the Gun Lobby
The weak response to a question posed to the three Democratic presidential candidates present at the debate in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 15, 2008 ironically highlighted the importance of electing a Democrat as president this November. Tim Russert asked each about the national licensing and registration of handguns, which Hillary Clinton had advocated in her race for the Senate in 2000. Although Russert prefaced the question by noting "the leading cause for death among young black men is guns — death, homicide," each candidate indicated that he/she would not propose these measures.
The exchange reminded me of the murder of over 30 people on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Polytechnic Institue and State University by Seung Hui-Cho, the largest massacre by gun violence in American history. Then, reported The New York Times, several Democrats called "for measures to restrict gun sales, even as they proclaimed their support for the (largely misinterpreted, I believe) Second Amendment." But here is the statement given at the time by Saint McCain, now designated by the media as a "maverick" and the sole "adult" in the GOP race: "This brutal attack was not caused by nor should it lead to restrictions on the Second Amendment, which guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
I think it generally has been recognized that not only a traumatic event could possibly move the United States government to enact meaningful, national gun control legislation. This would be a huge price to pay. Neverheless, perhaps we should remember that if we elect as president a Repub, such as the astonishingly cavalier John McCain, there may be no set of circumstances which inspire our elected officials to end the carnage.
The weak response to a question posed to the three Democratic presidential candidates present at the debate in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 15, 2008 ironically highlighted the importance of electing a Democrat as president this November. Tim Russert asked each about the national licensing and registration of handguns, which Hillary Clinton had advocated in her race for the Senate in 2000. Although Russert prefaced the question by noting "the leading cause for death among young black men is guns — death, homicide," each candidate indicated that he/she would not propose these measures.
The exchange reminded me of the murder of over 30 people on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Polytechnic Institue and State University by Seung Hui-Cho, the largest massacre by gun violence in American history. Then, reported The New York Times, several Democrats called "for measures to restrict gun sales, even as they proclaimed their support for the (largely misinterpreted, I believe) Second Amendment." But here is the statement given at the time by Saint McCain, now designated by the media as a "maverick" and the sole "adult" in the GOP race: "This brutal attack was not caused by nor should it lead to restrictions on the Second Amendment, which guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
I think it generally has been recognized that not only a traumatic event could possibly move the United States government to enact meaningful, national gun control legislation. This would be a huge price to pay. Neverheless, perhaps we should remember that if we elect as president a Repub, such as the astonishingly cavalier John McCain, there may be no set of circumstances which inspire our elected officials to end the carnage.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sort Of Anti-Abortion
Mitt Romney has come out in defense of murder. No, he didn't put it so bluntly, but on the Sunday, December 16, 2007 edition of Meet the Press, the former Massachusetts governor condoned what he believes is murder. He was asked the following by moderator Tim Russert:
But when you say you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the country, what would--form would that take? If a woman had an abortion, would she be perceived a criminal? Would a doctor who performed it be perceived a criminal? You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure?
Before Romney explained that a doctor performing an illegal abortion would be held accountable, such as by loss of license, he commented:
They would be like the consequences associated with the bill relating to partial birth abortion, which, of course, does not punish the woman. You, you wouldn't--I don't think anyone is calling for--maybe some of them, but no one I know of is calling for punishing the, the mother, punishing the woman.
So for Mitt Romney, the seqence would be: overturning Roe v. Wade; enacting state laws banning abortion; the woman seeks an illegal abortion; the doctor procured is penalized or prosecuted (Mitt a little hazy on which); the woman initiating the search for a killer and paying the fee is exonerated.
On abortion alone, there was more hypocrisy: earlier in the exchange, responding to Russert's query whether life begins at conception, Romney curiously stated "I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception. I, I don't, I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins." What does it mean that from "a political perspective" life begins at conception? As in, if I don't agree to this, I'll get killed in the Repub primaries? It was not asked, and it was not explained.
Mitt Romney has come out in defense of murder. No, he didn't put it so bluntly, but on the Sunday, December 16, 2007 edition of Meet the Press, the former Massachusetts governor condoned what he believes is murder. He was asked the following by moderator Tim Russert:
But when you say you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the country, what would--form would that take? If a woman had an abortion, would she be perceived a criminal? Would a doctor who performed it be perceived a criminal? You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure?
Before Romney explained that a doctor performing an illegal abortion would be held accountable, such as by loss of license, he commented:
They would be like the consequences associated with the bill relating to partial birth abortion, which, of course, does not punish the woman. You, you wouldn't--I don't think anyone is calling for--maybe some of them, but no one I know of is calling for punishing the, the mother, punishing the woman.
So for Mitt Romney, the seqence would be: overturning Roe v. Wade; enacting state laws banning abortion; the woman seeks an illegal abortion; the doctor procured is penalized or prosecuted (Mitt a little hazy on which); the woman initiating the search for a killer and paying the fee is exonerated.
On abortion alone, there was more hypocrisy: earlier in the exchange, responding to Russert's query whether life begins at conception, Romney curiously stated "I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception. I, I don't, I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins." What does it mean that from "a political perspective" life begins at conception? As in, if I don't agree to this, I'll get killed in the Repub primaries? It was not asked, and it was not explained.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 4
Thanks to Tim Russert's questioning at the Democratic debate on 10/31/07 at Drexel University, we now have a fairly good idea what the three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President believe about one of the most viable options for reforming Social Security. Asked about raising the cap from $97,500, Senator Clinton stated
So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
Thus, the frontrunner's response: maybe, assuming I get political cover. Later in the same discussion, Senator Obama explained:
So what I’ve said, and I know some others on this stage have said, is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle— middle class folks— but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share—a little bit more.
Thus, the response from the guy in second place: sounds like a good idea.
We already had heard from the guy in third place. Edwards has advocated the approach Obama describes as "exempting folks in the middle- middle class folks." To be sure, individuals earning more than $97,500 annually are in most states upper middle class, but there may be some policy value exempting those earning say, $150,000 a year, aside from the obvious advantage of political viability. And of course, the idea that someone accruing a half million, or a million, dollars a year should have to pay more to help the elderly in itself is anathema to most professional Repubs, who by their support for a cap demonstrate a belief that wages earned by middle class workers are somehow tainted.
Thanks to Tim Russert's questioning at the Democratic debate on 10/31/07 at Drexel University, we now have a fairly good idea what the three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President believe about one of the most viable options for reforming Social Security. Asked about raising the cap from $97,500, Senator Clinton stated
So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
Thus, the frontrunner's response: maybe, assuming I get political cover. Later in the same discussion, Senator Obama explained:
So what I’ve said, and I know some others on this stage have said, is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle— middle class folks— but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share—a little bit more.
Thus, the response from the guy in second place: sounds like a good idea.
We already had heard from the guy in third place. Edwards has advocated the approach Obama describes as "exempting folks in the middle- middle class folks." To be sure, individuals earning more than $97,500 annually are in most states upper middle class, but there may be some policy value exempting those earning say, $150,000 a year, aside from the obvious advantage of political viability. And of course, the idea that someone accruing a half million, or a million, dollars a year should have to pay more to help the elderly in itself is anathema to most professional Repubs, who by their support for a cap demonstrate a belief that wages earned by middle class workers are somehow tainted.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 2
At the Democratic Presidential debate on 10/30/07 in Philadelphia, Senator Clinton demonstrated yet again that she has more insight than courage. Here is the exchange between Tim Russert and the contenders on Social Security (comments following):
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, “It’s a no.” I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”
Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.” You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.
Why do you have one public position and one private position?
CLINTON: Well, Tim, I don’t. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which I agree are ones that we are going to have to address.
CLINTON: We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered. But, personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors and middle-class families. That’s why I put fiscal responsibility first, because we have to change the Bush tax cuts, which I am committed to doing.
We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin once again to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus. You know, part of the idea in the ‘90s was not just so Bill would have a check mark next to his name in history, but so that we would have the resources to deal with a lot of these entitlement problems.
George Bush understood that. The Republicans understood that. They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security.
CLINTON: I am not going to be repeating Republican talking points. So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
RUSSERT: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?
CLINTON: Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it. I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.
I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We’re playing on the Republican field. And I don’t intend to do that.
RUSSERT: You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: “We are in a—heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits,” Bill Clinton, 1998.
RUSSERT: That’s recent history. Only two years to go in his term. Is that a Republican talking point?
CLINTON: No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus. And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in ‘98, ‘99, 2000, 2001.
And that would have given a president who actually believed in Social Security—which George Bush does not—the resources and the options to make decisions, but not the kind of draconian decisions, and certainly not the move toward privatization, which is what the Republicans have been advocating for as long as I can remember.
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you said in May, that, quote, “Everything is on the table when it comes to Social Security.” You now have an ad up in Iowa which says that any benefit cuts are off and raising the retirement age are off.
Why have you changed your mind?
OBAMA: Well, what I say is that that is not my plan.
OBAMA: Now, I just want to go back to what Senator Clinton said, because I think it’s important for us not to engage in business as usual on Social Security and talk straight.
Everybody on this stage is against privatization and we all fought against it—everybody. I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis; it is a fundamentally sound system, but it does have a problem, long-term.
Even if we deal with the issue of fiscal responsibility, the trust fund is no longer being rated—that’s something that all of us are in favor of.
We’ve got 78 million baby boomers who are going to be retiring over the next couple of decades. That means more retirees, fewer workers to support those retirees.
It is common sense that we are going to have to do something about it. That is not a Republican talking point. And if we don’t deal with it now, it will get harder to deal with later.
So what I’ve said, and I know some others on this stage have said, is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle—middle-class folks—but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share—a little bit more.
OBAMA: Now, it is important, if we are going to lead this country, to be clear to the American people about what our intentions are. And this is part of the politics that we have been playing, which is to try to muddle through, give convoluted answers. Ultimately, we then don’t have a mandate and we can’t bring about change, in part because we’re afraid to give Republicans talking points.
I’m not fearful, just as Joe isn’t, to have a debate about this with Rudy Giuliani because we’ve got the facts on our side. But we’ve got to be clear about those facts and not pretend that those facts don’t exist.
RUSSERT: But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.
OBAMA: What I said is that she has not been truthful and clear about this point that I just made, which is we can talk about fiscal responsibility and all of us agree with that. All of us oppose privatization.
OBAMA: But even after we deal with those issues, we are still going to have an actuarial gap that has to be dealt with. It is not going to vanish and if we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to make sure that Social Security is there, the most successful program to lift seniors out of poverty that we’ve ever devised, then we need to start acting now and having a serious conversation about it.
CLINTON: Tim, I don’t see any difference here. You know, my view is we go towards fiscal responsibility, which is hard. It’s not going to be easy inheriting what we’re going to inherit from Bush and the Republicans.
And there are some long-term challenges. I have no disagreement with that.
But I think the best way to handle them is within the context of a bipartisan commission. That’s what worked in 1983 when Social Security was on the ropes. Our colleagues in the Senate had a hearing today talking about how they could move toward a bipartisan commission.
CLINTON: And, once there’s a bipartisan commission, then we can see what we need to do. But I don’t want these decisions to be made in a vacuum. I want it to be made in the face of moving back toward fiscal responsibility, because that will influence which choices are actually better.
And I certainly don’t want to impose a trillion-dollar tax increase on middle-class families, or any kind of additional burdens on our seniors.
Note that the New York Senator not only realizes that talk of Social Security being "in crisis is a Republican trap- we're playing on the Republican field" but also "the Republicans understood that (i.e., the need for resources to avert a crisis). They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security."
Unfortunately, she still advocates a "bipartisan commission" to deal with the problem. Not only is that a way to avoid leadership, but is not likely to promote a progressive solution. A commission, like a task force, never concludes that the problem it has been asked to investigate and propose solutions for really was not as grave a problem as to warrant creation of the commission. A conclusion that the system is "in crisis" requiring "bold," "creative," or "courageous" action, such as increasing the payroll tax, raising the age of eligibility, or decreasing benefits would be likely. And a President Clinton would have clean hands and a claim to bipartisanship as the elderly are victimized.
At the Democratic Presidential debate on 10/30/07 in Philadelphia, Senator Clinton demonstrated yet again that she has more insight than courage. Here is the exchange between Tim Russert and the contenders on Social Security (comments following):
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, “It’s a no.” I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”
Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.” You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.
Why do you have one public position and one private position?
CLINTON: Well, Tim, I don’t. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which I agree are ones that we are going to have to address.
CLINTON: We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered. But, personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors and middle-class families. That’s why I put fiscal responsibility first, because we have to change the Bush tax cuts, which I am committed to doing.
We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin once again to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus. You know, part of the idea in the ‘90s was not just so Bill would have a check mark next to his name in history, but so that we would have the resources to deal with a lot of these entitlement problems.
George Bush understood that. The Republicans understood that. They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security.
CLINTON: I am not going to be repeating Republican talking points. So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
RUSSERT: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?
CLINTON: Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it. I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.
I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We’re playing on the Republican field. And I don’t intend to do that.
RUSSERT: You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: “We are in a—heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits,” Bill Clinton, 1998.
RUSSERT: That’s recent history. Only two years to go in his term. Is that a Republican talking point?
CLINTON: No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus. And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in ‘98, ‘99, 2000, 2001.
And that would have given a president who actually believed in Social Security—which George Bush does not—the resources and the options to make decisions, but not the kind of draconian decisions, and certainly not the move toward privatization, which is what the Republicans have been advocating for as long as I can remember.
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you said in May, that, quote, “Everything is on the table when it comes to Social Security.” You now have an ad up in Iowa which says that any benefit cuts are off and raising the retirement age are off.
Why have you changed your mind?
OBAMA: Well, what I say is that that is not my plan.
OBAMA: Now, I just want to go back to what Senator Clinton said, because I think it’s important for us not to engage in business as usual on Social Security and talk straight.
Everybody on this stage is against privatization and we all fought against it—everybody. I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis; it is a fundamentally sound system, but it does have a problem, long-term.
Even if we deal with the issue of fiscal responsibility, the trust fund is no longer being rated—that’s something that all of us are in favor of.
We’ve got 78 million baby boomers who are going to be retiring over the next couple of decades. That means more retirees, fewer workers to support those retirees.
It is common sense that we are going to have to do something about it. That is not a Republican talking point. And if we don’t deal with it now, it will get harder to deal with later.
So what I’ve said, and I know some others on this stage have said, is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle—middle-class folks—but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share—a little bit more.
OBAMA: Now, it is important, if we are going to lead this country, to be clear to the American people about what our intentions are. And this is part of the politics that we have been playing, which is to try to muddle through, give convoluted answers. Ultimately, we then don’t have a mandate and we can’t bring about change, in part because we’re afraid to give Republicans talking points.
I’m not fearful, just as Joe isn’t, to have a debate about this with Rudy Giuliani because we’ve got the facts on our side. But we’ve got to be clear about those facts and not pretend that those facts don’t exist.
RUSSERT: But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.
OBAMA: What I said is that she has not been truthful and clear about this point that I just made, which is we can talk about fiscal responsibility and all of us agree with that. All of us oppose privatization.
OBAMA: But even after we deal with those issues, we are still going to have an actuarial gap that has to be dealt with. It is not going to vanish and if we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to make sure that Social Security is there, the most successful program to lift seniors out of poverty that we’ve ever devised, then we need to start acting now and having a serious conversation about it.
CLINTON: Tim, I don’t see any difference here. You know, my view is we go towards fiscal responsibility, which is hard. It’s not going to be easy inheriting what we’re going to inherit from Bush and the Republicans.
And there are some long-term challenges. I have no disagreement with that.
But I think the best way to handle them is within the context of a bipartisan commission. That’s what worked in 1983 when Social Security was on the ropes. Our colleagues in the Senate had a hearing today talking about how they could move toward a bipartisan commission.
CLINTON: And, once there’s a bipartisan commission, then we can see what we need to do. But I don’t want these decisions to be made in a vacuum. I want it to be made in the face of moving back toward fiscal responsibility, because that will influence which choices are actually better.
And I certainly don’t want to impose a trillion-dollar tax increase on middle-class families, or any kind of additional burdens on our seniors.
Note that the New York Senator not only realizes that talk of Social Security being "in crisis is a Republican trap- we're playing on the Republican field" but also "the Republicans understood that (i.e., the need for resources to avert a crisis). They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security."
Unfortunately, she still advocates a "bipartisan commission" to deal with the problem. Not only is that a way to avoid leadership, but is not likely to promote a progressive solution. A commission, like a task force, never concludes that the problem it has been asked to investigate and propose solutions for really was not as grave a problem as to warrant creation of the commission. A conclusion that the system is "in crisis" requiring "bold," "creative," or "courageous" action, such as increasing the payroll tax, raising the age of eligibility, or decreasing benefits would be likely. And a President Clinton would have clean hands and a claim to bipartisanship as the elderly are victimized.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
It is common among bloggers to criticize prominent members of the mainstream media, and I periodically have joined in that. so it's only fair for me to acknowledge instances in which two television journalists have done something admirable.
The recent Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College was hosted in part by Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, who performed superbly, asking good questions and often following up on them with the candidates. And today, October 25, Wolf Blitzer, host of the Situation Room on CNN, made a laudable remark to Valerie Plame Wilson.
Mrs. Wilson, as you all know, was a covert CIA agent, whose husband, career diplomat Joseph Wilson, ran afoul of the Bush Administration for reporting that he had found no evidence during his trip in February, 2002 to Niger that Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had tried to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from the African nation. In his February, 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush infamously proclaimed "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Six months later in his New York Times op-ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Wilson wrote "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Soon afterward, after speaking to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed Joseph Wilson's "wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Hence, Mr. Novak had "outed" Mrs. Wilson by revealing her status as a (covert) CIA agent. Karl Rove, Presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, and the Vice-President's Chief of State, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby also revealed to reporters Ms. Plame's employment status, though classified information.
And now we know positively what the right wing had been vigorously denying for four years- that Valerie Plame was in fact "covert." Note this from the action brought against the government by Plame and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, in the United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York State:
Further, in connection with Mr. Libby’s sentencing, the CIA confirmed that at the time of the leak, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. As acknowledged by the government in connection with the sentencing phase of the criminal prosecution of I. Lewis Libby, in January 2002, Ms. Wilson was a CIA operations officer, assigned to the Counter Proliferation Division (“CPD”) at CIA Headquarters. In that capacity, she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. Over the years, on numerous occasions Ms. Wilson traveled overseas, always under a cover identity, using an official or non-official cover, with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer investigating the possible linkage between Saddam Hussein's government and "weapons of mass destruction," a major rationale for the war launched by President Bush. Her cover was blown by an Administration apparently unconcerned about the damage to the critical intelligence operation she was carrying out on behalf of that government and the American people. And so at the close of today's interview with Plame, Wolf Blitzer boldly uttered those words otherwise now so commonly, and appropriately, addressed to members of the Armed Services:
"Let me thank you on behalf of a lot of our viewers for your service to our country."
The recent Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College was hosted in part by Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, who performed superbly, asking good questions and often following up on them with the candidates. And today, October 25, Wolf Blitzer, host of the Situation Room on CNN, made a laudable remark to Valerie Plame Wilson.
Mrs. Wilson, as you all know, was a covert CIA agent, whose husband, career diplomat Joseph Wilson, ran afoul of the Bush Administration for reporting that he had found no evidence during his trip in February, 2002 to Niger that Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had tried to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from the African nation. In his February, 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush infamously proclaimed "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Six months later in his New York Times op-ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Wilson wrote "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Soon afterward, after speaking to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed Joseph Wilson's "wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Hence, Mr. Novak had "outed" Mrs. Wilson by revealing her status as a (covert) CIA agent. Karl Rove, Presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, and the Vice-President's Chief of State, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby also revealed to reporters Ms. Plame's employment status, though classified information.
And now we know positively what the right wing had been vigorously denying for four years- that Valerie Plame was in fact "covert." Note this from the action brought against the government by Plame and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, in the United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York State:
Further, in connection with Mr. Libby’s sentencing, the CIA confirmed that at the time of the leak, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. As acknowledged by the government in connection with the sentencing phase of the criminal prosecution of I. Lewis Libby, in January 2002, Ms. Wilson was a CIA operations officer, assigned to the Counter Proliferation Division (“CPD”) at CIA Headquarters. In that capacity, she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. Over the years, on numerous occasions Ms. Wilson traveled overseas, always under a cover identity, using an official or non-official cover, with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer investigating the possible linkage between Saddam Hussein's government and "weapons of mass destruction," a major rationale for the war launched by President Bush. Her cover was blown by an Administration apparently unconcerned about the damage to the critical intelligence operation she was carrying out on behalf of that government and the American people. And so at the close of today's interview with Plame, Wolf Blitzer boldly uttered those words otherwise now so commonly, and appropriately, addressed to members of the Armed Services:
"Let me thank you on behalf of a lot of our viewers for your service to our country."
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
"The Cackle"
Perhaps you caught Senator Hillary Clinton's bemused response to two of Chris Wallace's questions on the September 23, 2007 telecast of Fox News Sunday. Clinton responded with laughter at least twice: "Senator, talk about conservative hit jobs, right-wing conspiracies- why do you and the President have such a hyper-partisan view of politics?" and "Senator Clinton, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for joining us today. Don't be a stranger, and please send my best to the President."
Theories abound as to the reason for the Senator's unprofessional, almost bizarre, response. Perhaps Clinton was laughing at Wallace, given that GOP TV gives a decent imitation of a faux news operation. It also has been suggested that it may have been a nervous laugh or perhaps an attempt to show her lighter, more agreeable, side, so that people hesitate to describe her with a word that rhymes with "switch."
All plausible, and the valid explanation may even be a combination. But the first laugh may have been partially motivated by something else. Clinton is nothing if not thoughtful, given to considering all sides of an issue (and sometimes coming out on each). And consider this: in the last Presidential debate, host Tim Russert (who did an excellent job of probing the candidates' views) asked the Democrats a hypothetical question about torturing a terrorist with vital intelligence information. After the Senator said in part "I think it's dangerous to go down this path," Russert shot back "The guest who laid this scenario out for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year." Now (although, the transcript does not so indicate) Russert stopped a moment, while Clinton understandably was stumped. Then, unfortunately, the host inadvertently bailed her out, continuning "and he disagrees with you." Clinton then, decisively and authoritatively, replied "well, he's not standing here right now."
No one is going to accuse the New York Senator of excessive spontaneity. She responds effectively when she deliberates, as she typically does, and laughter can fill a few seconds of air time as she ponders a statement she is confident will not show up in a 30-second sound bite next autumn.
Perhaps you caught Senator Hillary Clinton's bemused response to two of Chris Wallace's questions on the September 23, 2007 telecast of Fox News Sunday. Clinton responded with laughter at least twice: "Senator, talk about conservative hit jobs, right-wing conspiracies- why do you and the President have such a hyper-partisan view of politics?" and "Senator Clinton, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for joining us today. Don't be a stranger, and please send my best to the President."
Theories abound as to the reason for the Senator's unprofessional, almost bizarre, response. Perhaps Clinton was laughing at Wallace, given that GOP TV gives a decent imitation of a faux news operation. It also has been suggested that it may have been a nervous laugh or perhaps an attempt to show her lighter, more agreeable, side, so that people hesitate to describe her with a word that rhymes with "switch."
All plausible, and the valid explanation may even be a combination. But the first laugh may have been partially motivated by something else. Clinton is nothing if not thoughtful, given to considering all sides of an issue (and sometimes coming out on each). And consider this: in the last Presidential debate, host Tim Russert (who did an excellent job of probing the candidates' views) asked the Democrats a hypothetical question about torturing a terrorist with vital intelligence information. After the Senator said in part "I think it's dangerous to go down this path," Russert shot back "The guest who laid this scenario out for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year." Now (although, the transcript does not so indicate) Russert stopped a moment, while Clinton understandably was stumped. Then, unfortunately, the host inadvertently bailed her out, continuning "and he disagrees with you." Clinton then, decisively and authoritatively, replied "well, he's not standing here right now."
No one is going to accuse the New York Senator of excessive spontaneity. She responds effectively when she deliberates, as she typically does, and laughter can fill a few seconds of air time as she ponders a statement she is confident will not show up in a 30-second sound bite next autumn.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Social Security At The Debate In New Hampshire
Here follows the text of the question(s), with all responses, regarding Social Security posed by Tim Russert at the Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College. This is long, but it provides much insight into the thinking of the favorite to be the next President of the United States.
RUSSERT: And we’re back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats. I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare.
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability Office have both said that the number of people in America on Social Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years—there are now 40 million; it’s going to go to 80 million -- and that if nothing is done, we’ll have to cut benefits in half or double the taxes. That is their testimony.
Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to consider certain steps? For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Patrick Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the retirement age. It’s going to be going up to 67 in a gradual increase.
Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income.
RUSSERT: Why not tax the entire income of every American? And if you do that, you’ll guarantee the solvency of social security farther than I can see.
BIDEN: The answer is yes. I’m probably the only one up here who’s going to say that, but the truth of the matter is, you stated it. You’re either going to cut benefits, or you’re going to go ahead and raise taxes above the first $97,000.
And, by the way, I was in that room with Pat Moynihan. It was Joe Biden, Pat Moynihan, Bob Dole—it was also George Mitchell— when we made that deal. And I’ll never forget Bob Dole turning to Pat Moynihan and saying, “We all got to jump in this boat at the same time.”
So the bottom line here is, you can’t do it by growing the economy alone. So I would raise the cap.
RUSSERT: Would you also, considering now life expectancy is 78, considering—consider gradually raising the retirement age?
BIDEN: We did that one—I supported that; that’s what got it solvent to 2041. By simply going and taking—raising the cap, you can solve the problem.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, “I’m going to tax your income; I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you are a millionaire is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”
CLINTON: Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this, because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.
First, I do think that it is important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055.
Now, because of the return to deficits, we have lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path to fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.
Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process.
CLINTON: You described what happened in ‘83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationships between the White House and Capitol Hill, to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed. And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress, he was dissing Social Security.
So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.
And, finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise—what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ‘90s, it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.
RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at $97,500 off the table?
CLINTON: Well, I’d take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.
RUSSERT: But Senator Biden said you can’t grow your way out of this. And, for the record, when the Clinton administration left office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.
CLINTON: There was a plan on the basis of the balanced budget and the surplus to take it all the way to 2055. And we know what happened: George Bush came in, went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security trust fund and borrowing from China and other countries to pay for the war.
RUSSERT: So, Senator, a simple question, a simple question:
What do you put on the table? What are you willing to look at to say, “We’re not going to double the taxes, we’re not going to cut benefits in half; I’m willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table”?
CLINTON: I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it’s a mistake to do that.
RUSSERT: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option.
OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to have a process that’s already been talked about. Joe participated back in 1983. We need another one. And I think—I’ve said before, everything should be on the table.
My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.
As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.
And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.
And we should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system to make sure that we are being true to the sake of trust of those who are already retired as well as young people in the future.
And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.
RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, tax all income?
DODD: I don’t think you have to go that far. I understand what Joe’s point is here, but you could raise that tax far less than all incomes here and achieve the same result by achieving solvency.
DODD: But beyond just the Social Security fix, Tim, there are a host of other issues related to this. Pension security is critically important for long-term security. Financial literacy is critically important to people as well. Prescription drug issues are critically important to that population. Preventive care.
We need to look at this in a wholistic way when it comes to our seniors.
Remember, it was only a few years ago, Tim, that the poorest sector of our population in this country were our elderly.
Because of Medicare, because of Social Security, because of leadership that stood up and fought for it here, we’ve been able to take the older Americans out of poverty and give them a sense of decency and a quality of life.
So, issues like privatization, as has been said here, have to be off the table. And I believe you can achieve that solvency here by doing simpler things, without the draconian measures that some have suggested.
But you need to also deal with these other issues on the table if you’re going to provide that kind of financial security and that quality of life for our older Americans.
RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, would you lift the cap and have taxes paid on income and not cap it at $97,500?
RICHARDSON: No, you don’t need to do that. That’s a 15 percent tax on small businesses, on the middle class, on family farms.
RICHARDSON: You don’t need to do that. This is what you do. One, you take privatization off the table. You don’t want Social Security in the stock market. Two, you stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, as the Congress and the president constantly do. Number three...
RUSSERT: You would then have a—excuse me. Excuse me. You would then have a deficit of over $300 billion...
RICHARDSON: No, no, Tim. No you don’t.
RUSSERT: Governor...
RICHARDSON: No, no, wait. Wait, because I know...
RUSSERT: It’s not funny money. It’s real money.
(LAUGHTER)
RICHARDSON: No, no, but what you do—I am the only candidate here who’s said I’m for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. You have to have fiscal discipline. You’ve also got to grow the economy. You’ve have to have universal pensions. Here’s—you know, this estimate that you just talked about is based on the growth of the economy 1.3 percent. If it grows to 1.8, we don’t have this.
And if we balance the budget, restore our fiscal house, there will be economic growth—if we invest in education and have a stronger workforce, if we incentivize and have a pro-growth economy where we say we’re going to make America green, renewable energy, we’re going to bring new jobs.
RUSSERT: Governor, what you are saying that there is no pain in this. You can double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare and the life expectancy can go to 78. The reason Franklin Roosevelt set the age of eligibility at 65 -- that was life expectancy. You made it on the program for a month or two and that was it.
You’re going to have double the number of people on these programs for 15 years, and you can do it by growing the economy.
RICHARDSON: Tim, I have said I am for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget within five years. That is pain. You don’t do it in a recession. You don’t do it in a war. But if you also generate economic growth, this projection that you mentioned, by the year 2041 is based on 1.3 percent economic growth. That is pathetic.
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards?
RICHARDSON: You grow the economy...
RUSSERT: Can you grow your way out of this?
EDWARDS: No, sir. You cannot. I would say it is the single most important thing for anybody running for president is to be willing to be honest with America.
EDWARDS: You cannot solve this problem just by setting up a bipartisan commission—all of us are for that. You cannot solve this problem just by growing the economy—all of us are for that. But the American people deserve to hear the truth.
They have heard so much politician double-talk on this issue. That’s the reason young people don’t believe Social Security is going to be there for them. Why would you possibly trust a bunch of politicians who say the same thing over and over and over?
“We’re going to grow our way out of this,” but nothing changes. Nothing changes. The honest truth is: There are hard choices to make be made here. The choice I would make as president of the United States is on the very issue that you’ve asked about, which is the cap.
And I have to say, I have some difference with my friend, Chris Dodd, who I agree with a lot. But I don’t understand why somebody who makes $50 million a year pays Social Security tax on the first $97,000 and somebody—and not on the rest—while somebody who makes $85,000 a year pays Social Security tax on every dime of their income.
DODD: Well, John...
EDWARDS: I’m sorry, Chris, let me just finish. I’ll let you respond.
But I want to say one last thing about this. I do have some difference with some of my colleagues who I’ve heard talk about this. I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so specifically—if I can be very specific—what I would do as president is I would create a protective zone between $97,000 up to around $200,000, because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100,000, $115,000 a year. We don’t want to raise taxes on them.
But I do believe that people who make $50, $75, $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income.
KUCINICH: I think...
RUSSERT: Real fast.
KUCINICH: ... of course, we ought to be raising the cap in order to protect Social Security, which is solid to about 2040 without any changes whatsoever.
But what everyone should realize in this country is that Wall Street is very interested in privatization. And unless we have a president who states very clearly—no privatization, believes in economic growth—and I’m talking about a new WPA, a Works Green Administration, creating technologies for a green America.
KUCINICH: We have to believe in economic growth. We should raise the ceiling. And in addition to that, Tim, we should be thinking about lowering—lowering—the retirement age to 65. People’s bodies break down. There are people who are retiring early. They don’t have the kind of economic help they should get. We should be thinking: Raise the cap, lower the retirement age to 65, stop privatization, increase economic growth. That’s what a Kucinich presidency will mean.
RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, Senator Edwards invoked your name. You have 30 seconds.
DODD: And I thank you.
What I was suggesting here—Joe, I think, said tax everybody.
(CROSSTALK)
DODD: I think clearly that you don’t have to do that.
(LAUGHTER)
DODD: But you can do this by basically readjusting that tax so you don’t have to—doesn’t have to affect everyone in society.
So, John, I’m not suggesting...
RUSSERT: But you’d raise it to $500,000?
DODD: But you’ve got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.
Now, let me also say something. Look, because all of this comes down to one other issue, Tim, clearly.
Joe made the point earlier. We can all talk about this. No one political party is going to do this. It’s going to take people who can bring people together to get the job done.
And you need to demonstrate not just the experience but the proven ability to actually get results by bringing people together to do things that were difficult to accomplish. That’s what I’ve done for 26 years. I know how to do this.
And I think the American people are looking for leadership that not just makes promises about what they’re going to do but the ability to bring elements together, as you had happen with Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill and Bob Dole and Pat Moynihan. That kind of leadership is missing today. That’s what the American people want back.
CLINTON: Tim, I just have to insert something here. You know, the Democrats are against privatization. I fought against it. We all did. But in the interest of, I think, facts, we were on a pathway at the end of the Clinton administration, in the words of Alan Greenspan, of “eliminating the debt.”
CLINTON: That was one of the excuses he gave when he voted for those horrible tax cuts in 2001, that he was so worried that he would actually eliminate the debt. So I think it’s important that you cannot give away what you’re going to be negotiating over when it comes to Social Security until you make it clear that fiscal responsibility has got to be the premise of the negotiation.
And if you don’t lead with that, and if you don’t point to the fact that the Democrats are much better stewards of our country’s budget than the Republicans are—because, once again, we’re in a mess after this President Bush leaves office—then you’re going to be negotiating with yourself, and I think that’s a mistake.
RUSSERT: But Senator Clinton...
CLINTON: But fiscal responsibility first.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton—Senator Clinton, you would acknowledge that the programs, as they are now constructed, will not exist unless significant changes are made in them for the next generation.
CLINTON: Well, I think we have to make some significant changes. And I’ve told you where I would start from and what I would do. And I think it’s a mistake to be negotiating over what you will give away before you even get to the bipartisan process, because the fiscal responsibility is key here.
Several things jump out at you about Senator Clinton's response(s) to these questions.
1) She emphasizes "bipartisanship" and "fiscal responsibility," arguing "I'd take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process."
2) She is cool to the idea of eliminating, or even increasing, the cap on the FICA tax from the current $97,500.
3) She seems to be approaching this issue defensively, stating "you know, I want to see what other people come to the table with."
There are a limited number of options for bolstering Social Security: increase the retirement age; cut benefits; increase the percentage at which income is taxed; increase the cap; privatize, at least partially, the system. Increasing the tax, given that it is a flat percentage of income, is inherently regressive; cutting benefits would reduce the income retired people, already reeling from a medicare prescription drug plan which is a boon to pharmaceutical companies, is unacceptable; increasing the retirement age is tantamount to a cut in benefits; and privatizing Social Security puts the nation on a slippery slope to destruction of the system. Clearly, progressives and main street liberals must support elimination of the cap. There is no reason that a man or woman earning just under $100,000 annually should pay as much of this tax as someone pulling down a million, five million, or twenty million, dollars.
Senator Clinton should understand this. Obviously, Senator Biden, Senator Obama, Representative Kucinich, and former Senator Edwards do. And there is one other thing the former First Lady should understand. "Fiscal responsibility" means something different to Republicans than to Democrats. To the Reagan Administration, the Bush 41 Administration, and now, presumably, the Bush 43 Administration, fiscal responsibility has meant the President spreads funding around to delighted constituencies- and cuts income taxes to delight taxpayers and run up the deficit. Then follows a "responsible" Democratic President to make the public take its medicine, the cod liver oil of increased taxes to move the budget closer to balance.
This Administration does not believe in "bipartisanship" and would erode Social Security if it could. If one of the Democratic aspirants is elected President (as assumed by the question), there will be a Democratic majority, larger than now, in both the House and the Senate. And an opportunity to do the right thing by America's elderly, present and future.
Here follows the text of the question(s), with all responses, regarding Social Security posed by Tim Russert at the Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College. This is long, but it provides much insight into the thinking of the favorite to be the next President of the United States.
RUSSERT: And we’re back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats. I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare.
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability Office have both said that the number of people in America on Social Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years—there are now 40 million; it’s going to go to 80 million -- and that if nothing is done, we’ll have to cut benefits in half or double the taxes. That is their testimony.
Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to consider certain steps? For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Patrick Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the retirement age. It’s going to be going up to 67 in a gradual increase.
Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income.
RUSSERT: Why not tax the entire income of every American? And if you do that, you’ll guarantee the solvency of social security farther than I can see.
BIDEN: The answer is yes. I’m probably the only one up here who’s going to say that, but the truth of the matter is, you stated it. You’re either going to cut benefits, or you’re going to go ahead and raise taxes above the first $97,000.
And, by the way, I was in that room with Pat Moynihan. It was Joe Biden, Pat Moynihan, Bob Dole—it was also George Mitchell— when we made that deal. And I’ll never forget Bob Dole turning to Pat Moynihan and saying, “We all got to jump in this boat at the same time.”
So the bottom line here is, you can’t do it by growing the economy alone. So I would raise the cap.
RUSSERT: Would you also, considering now life expectancy is 78, considering—consider gradually raising the retirement age?
BIDEN: We did that one—I supported that; that’s what got it solvent to 2041. By simply going and taking—raising the cap, you can solve the problem.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, “I’m going to tax your income; I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you are a millionaire is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”
CLINTON: Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this, because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.
First, I do think that it is important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055.
Now, because of the return to deficits, we have lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path to fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.
Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process.
CLINTON: You described what happened in ‘83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationships between the White House and Capitol Hill, to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed. And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress, he was dissing Social Security.
So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.
And, finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise—what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ‘90s, it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.
RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at $97,500 off the table?
CLINTON: Well, I’d take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.
RUSSERT: But Senator Biden said you can’t grow your way out of this. And, for the record, when the Clinton administration left office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.
CLINTON: There was a plan on the basis of the balanced budget and the surplus to take it all the way to 2055. And we know what happened: George Bush came in, went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security trust fund and borrowing from China and other countries to pay for the war.
RUSSERT: So, Senator, a simple question, a simple question:
What do you put on the table? What are you willing to look at to say, “We’re not going to double the taxes, we’re not going to cut benefits in half; I’m willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table”?
CLINTON: I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it’s a mistake to do that.
RUSSERT: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option.
OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to have a process that’s already been talked about. Joe participated back in 1983. We need another one. And I think—I’ve said before, everything should be on the table.
My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.
As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.
And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.
And we should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system to make sure that we are being true to the sake of trust of those who are already retired as well as young people in the future.
And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.
RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, tax all income?
DODD: I don’t think you have to go that far. I understand what Joe’s point is here, but you could raise that tax far less than all incomes here and achieve the same result by achieving solvency.
DODD: But beyond just the Social Security fix, Tim, there are a host of other issues related to this. Pension security is critically important for long-term security. Financial literacy is critically important to people as well. Prescription drug issues are critically important to that population. Preventive care.
We need to look at this in a wholistic way when it comes to our seniors.
Remember, it was only a few years ago, Tim, that the poorest sector of our population in this country were our elderly.
Because of Medicare, because of Social Security, because of leadership that stood up and fought for it here, we’ve been able to take the older Americans out of poverty and give them a sense of decency and a quality of life.
So, issues like privatization, as has been said here, have to be off the table. And I believe you can achieve that solvency here by doing simpler things, without the draconian measures that some have suggested.
But you need to also deal with these other issues on the table if you’re going to provide that kind of financial security and that quality of life for our older Americans.
RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, would you lift the cap and have taxes paid on income and not cap it at $97,500?
RICHARDSON: No, you don’t need to do that. That’s a 15 percent tax on small businesses, on the middle class, on family farms.
RICHARDSON: You don’t need to do that. This is what you do. One, you take privatization off the table. You don’t want Social Security in the stock market. Two, you stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, as the Congress and the president constantly do. Number three...
RUSSERT: You would then have a—excuse me. Excuse me. You would then have a deficit of over $300 billion...
RICHARDSON: No, no, Tim. No you don’t.
RUSSERT: Governor...
RICHARDSON: No, no, wait. Wait, because I know...
RUSSERT: It’s not funny money. It’s real money.
(LAUGHTER)
RICHARDSON: No, no, but what you do—I am the only candidate here who’s said I’m for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. You have to have fiscal discipline. You’ve also got to grow the economy. You’ve have to have universal pensions. Here’s—you know, this estimate that you just talked about is based on the growth of the economy 1.3 percent. If it grows to 1.8, we don’t have this.
And if we balance the budget, restore our fiscal house, there will be economic growth—if we invest in education and have a stronger workforce, if we incentivize and have a pro-growth economy where we say we’re going to make America green, renewable energy, we’re going to bring new jobs.
RUSSERT: Governor, what you are saying that there is no pain in this. You can double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare and the life expectancy can go to 78. The reason Franklin Roosevelt set the age of eligibility at 65 -- that was life expectancy. You made it on the program for a month or two and that was it.
You’re going to have double the number of people on these programs for 15 years, and you can do it by growing the economy.
RICHARDSON: Tim, I have said I am for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget within five years. That is pain. You don’t do it in a recession. You don’t do it in a war. But if you also generate economic growth, this projection that you mentioned, by the year 2041 is based on 1.3 percent economic growth. That is pathetic.
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards?
RICHARDSON: You grow the economy...
RUSSERT: Can you grow your way out of this?
EDWARDS: No, sir. You cannot. I would say it is the single most important thing for anybody running for president is to be willing to be honest with America.
EDWARDS: You cannot solve this problem just by setting up a bipartisan commission—all of us are for that. You cannot solve this problem just by growing the economy—all of us are for that. But the American people deserve to hear the truth.
They have heard so much politician double-talk on this issue. That’s the reason young people don’t believe Social Security is going to be there for them. Why would you possibly trust a bunch of politicians who say the same thing over and over and over?
“We’re going to grow our way out of this,” but nothing changes. Nothing changes. The honest truth is: There are hard choices to make be made here. The choice I would make as president of the United States is on the very issue that you’ve asked about, which is the cap.
And I have to say, I have some difference with my friend, Chris Dodd, who I agree with a lot. But I don’t understand why somebody who makes $50 million a year pays Social Security tax on the first $97,000 and somebody—and not on the rest—while somebody who makes $85,000 a year pays Social Security tax on every dime of their income.
DODD: Well, John...
EDWARDS: I’m sorry, Chris, let me just finish. I’ll let you respond.
But I want to say one last thing about this. I do have some difference with some of my colleagues who I’ve heard talk about this. I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so specifically—if I can be very specific—what I would do as president is I would create a protective zone between $97,000 up to around $200,000, because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100,000, $115,000 a year. We don’t want to raise taxes on them.
But I do believe that people who make $50, $75, $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income.
KUCINICH: I think...
RUSSERT: Real fast.
KUCINICH: ... of course, we ought to be raising the cap in order to protect Social Security, which is solid to about 2040 without any changes whatsoever.
But what everyone should realize in this country is that Wall Street is very interested in privatization. And unless we have a president who states very clearly—no privatization, believes in economic growth—and I’m talking about a new WPA, a Works Green Administration, creating technologies for a green America.
KUCINICH: We have to believe in economic growth. We should raise the ceiling. And in addition to that, Tim, we should be thinking about lowering—lowering—the retirement age to 65. People’s bodies break down. There are people who are retiring early. They don’t have the kind of economic help they should get. We should be thinking: Raise the cap, lower the retirement age to 65, stop privatization, increase economic growth. That’s what a Kucinich presidency will mean.
RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, Senator Edwards invoked your name. You have 30 seconds.
DODD: And I thank you.
What I was suggesting here—Joe, I think, said tax everybody.
(CROSSTALK)
DODD: I think clearly that you don’t have to do that.
(LAUGHTER)
DODD: But you can do this by basically readjusting that tax so you don’t have to—doesn’t have to affect everyone in society.
So, John, I’m not suggesting...
RUSSERT: But you’d raise it to $500,000?
DODD: But you’ve got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.
Now, let me also say something. Look, because all of this comes down to one other issue, Tim, clearly.
Joe made the point earlier. We can all talk about this. No one political party is going to do this. It’s going to take people who can bring people together to get the job done.
And you need to demonstrate not just the experience but the proven ability to actually get results by bringing people together to do things that were difficult to accomplish. That’s what I’ve done for 26 years. I know how to do this.
And I think the American people are looking for leadership that not just makes promises about what they’re going to do but the ability to bring elements together, as you had happen with Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill and Bob Dole and Pat Moynihan. That kind of leadership is missing today. That’s what the American people want back.
CLINTON: Tim, I just have to insert something here. You know, the Democrats are against privatization. I fought against it. We all did. But in the interest of, I think, facts, we were on a pathway at the end of the Clinton administration, in the words of Alan Greenspan, of “eliminating the debt.”
CLINTON: That was one of the excuses he gave when he voted for those horrible tax cuts in 2001, that he was so worried that he would actually eliminate the debt. So I think it’s important that you cannot give away what you’re going to be negotiating over when it comes to Social Security until you make it clear that fiscal responsibility has got to be the premise of the negotiation.
And if you don’t lead with that, and if you don’t point to the fact that the Democrats are much better stewards of our country’s budget than the Republicans are—because, once again, we’re in a mess after this President Bush leaves office—then you’re going to be negotiating with yourself, and I think that’s a mistake.
RUSSERT: But Senator Clinton...
CLINTON: But fiscal responsibility first.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton—Senator Clinton, you would acknowledge that the programs, as they are now constructed, will not exist unless significant changes are made in them for the next generation.
CLINTON: Well, I think we have to make some significant changes. And I’ve told you where I would start from and what I would do. And I think it’s a mistake to be negotiating over what you will give away before you even get to the bipartisan process, because the fiscal responsibility is key here.
Several things jump out at you about Senator Clinton's response(s) to these questions.
1) She emphasizes "bipartisanship" and "fiscal responsibility," arguing "I'd take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process."
2) She is cool to the idea of eliminating, or even increasing, the cap on the FICA tax from the current $97,500.
3) She seems to be approaching this issue defensively, stating "you know, I want to see what other people come to the table with."
There are a limited number of options for bolstering Social Security: increase the retirement age; cut benefits; increase the percentage at which income is taxed; increase the cap; privatize, at least partially, the system. Increasing the tax, given that it is a flat percentage of income, is inherently regressive; cutting benefits would reduce the income retired people, already reeling from a medicare prescription drug plan which is a boon to pharmaceutical companies, is unacceptable; increasing the retirement age is tantamount to a cut in benefits; and privatizing Social Security puts the nation on a slippery slope to destruction of the system. Clearly, progressives and main street liberals must support elimination of the cap. There is no reason that a man or woman earning just under $100,000 annually should pay as much of this tax as someone pulling down a million, five million, or twenty million, dollars.
Senator Clinton should understand this. Obviously, Senator Biden, Senator Obama, Representative Kucinich, and former Senator Edwards do. And there is one other thing the former First Lady should understand. "Fiscal responsibility" means something different to Republicans than to Democrats. To the Reagan Administration, the Bush 41 Administration, and now, presumably, the Bush 43 Administration, fiscal responsibility has meant the President spreads funding around to delighted constituencies- and cuts income taxes to delight taxpayers and run up the deficit. Then follows a "responsible" Democratic President to make the public take its medicine, the cod liver oil of increased taxes to move the budget closer to balance.
This Administration does not believe in "bipartisanship" and would erode Social Security if it could. If one of the Democratic aspirants is elected President (as assumed by the question), there will be a Democratic majority, larger than now, in both the House and the Senate. And an opportunity to do the right thing by America's elderly, present and future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
