Once upon a time I mostly favored Obama, although all along I have hoped that Gore would get in the race. But this is it. I call it "the Ghoulsbee effect." Bah!

It's too bad that candidates like Obama (perhaps all the candidates) seem to be running for the approval of some imaginary constituency--one that people inside the Beltway tells them exists in the US, or perhaps a few of his advisors. Or maybe a few of the donors who'd benefit if SS were privatized. Hard to know. It seems like the information regarding SSA's solvency into 2046 is easy to locate, easy to verify, so why isn't it a useful part of his campaign (or any other candidate for the Dem Prez nomination) to say, I'm going to keep SS retirement benefits just the way they are because FDR and his Congress did things right as did those who later tweaked the system in constructive ways so let's move on and . . here are my plans for fixing the delays in the disability program and expected Medicare/Medicare shortfalls.

Would that be too sensible an approach for a US politician? Seems to me like today's Dems might like to recall FDR's presidency--he managed to pass social programs and pretty much successfully bring the US into a world war (i.e., not "soft on terrorists").

Barkley Rosser wrote, I call it "the Ghoulsbee effect."

I think you've alluded to this before.

What is it about G. that has you pissed off?

azurite wrote, seems like the information regarding SSA's solvency into 2046 is easy to locate, easy to verify, so why isn't it a useful part of his campaign (or any other candidate for the Dem Prez nomination) to say...

Because politicians often seem incapable of dealing with factual aspects of things.

Barack Obama has already shown which side his bread is buttered on. He voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill overhaul.

I don't know if Obama sold out, he may have just hired the wrong economics team. For example Jeffrey Liebman is on board so I suspect Obama's plan will have a strong resemblence to the LMS: Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Social Security Plan.

This is creating kind of a stir at the more political sites. Obama supporters are being thrown on the defensive by this and are tending to lash back with Social Security 'facts' that aren't at all. All in all an excellent opportunity for some outreach. I had a spirited encounter with an Obama supporter at Ezra Klein and dropped any number of links in a front page post at MyDD, along with a plug or two for Phony Crisis and at least one deployment of Rosser's Equation.

I have to say that the Front Pagers at MyDD and dKos are pretty sound on Social Security generally and one post by Jonathan Singer will draw a heck of a lot more page views than me trying to put up a diary or a post on my blog.

Obama may have done Social Security supporters a huge favor here. People are talking and that in turn gives openings for education and dialog. I am kind of optimistic about the outcome here. Though Obama might not like the end result. When the knock on you is 'inexperience' it helps to have the details right, something unlikely to happen in you hire ardent privatizers to give you economic advice.

Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill.

He wasn't great on all the amendments, but, in the end he was (voted) against the bill.

All the "candidates" are making deals with devil after devil, and delivering on their part of the bargain.

liberal,

Maybe I am picking on the wrong adviser. But Austan Goulsbee of the University of Chicago has been widely trumpeted as his top economics adviser, or one of them, but maybe this is the fault of this guy Liebman.

How sad, Bold and Wrong.

He's wrong and probably finished. The repub's finally got their ass thrown out of Congress trying to fiddle with SS.

Barack, what are you thinking ?

Remember how tough Clinton sounded on the campaign trail against The Butchers of Beijing? A few years later he announced what an important strategic partner China was.

Obama is striking out at everything to gain on Hillary and instead he's hitting the middle class. This is a bad character flaw.

Here's the entire passage on SS in the Post article:

On Social Security, Obama had previously said that everything would be on the table for discussion as part of negotiations to secure the system's future solvency, including raising the retirement age and reducing benefits. Now he says he prefers raising the cap on the portion of a worker's wages subject to payroll taxes.

"When I said all things are on the table . . . that doesn't mean I don't have clear opinions about how I think we should best proceed," Obama said.

In contrast to Clinton, Obama said he would offer his own Social Security proposal as president and that he would hope to have gained a mandate for changing the system through the campaign.

That's hardly "making plans for raising SS taxes and/or cutting benefits". SS actuaries annually do 3 future projections based on best, middle and worst case economic scenarios. Historically the best case scenario has been most accurate. Those scenarios in 2005 showed the SS Trust Fund depleting completely by never, 2071, and 2041 based on those best, middle and worst case assumptions. Even if the Trust Fund gets depleted in 2041 then current SS tax revenues will cover 73% of then current payouts.

Of course Bush has politicized SS management just he has every other gov agency and in 2005 they were pitting the worst case economic projections (decades of poor economic conditions and SS FICA taxes collected) for SS as it's constituted now against rosy economic projections (skyrocketing stock and bond markets) with his privatization scheme.

We killed Bush's attempt in 2005. It's dead and it's not coming back. Even Republicans like Chuck Grassley know that.
SS isn't a welfare program. It's an insurance program against poverty in old age for everybody. Pretending Obama's mention of raising the cap on taxable earnings is opening the door to an all powerful Republican party (hah!) and big business lobby to do away with the program is disingenuous. It's a regressive tax right now and as it becomes more regressive in decades to come the fatcats
will view it more and more as a welfare program for the poor. We all know how well programs for the poor get protected in this country. Unless we make the tax burden more progressive by making wealthier people pay into it on an equal basis we're actually weakening the system and making it more susceptible to cuts by the moneyed elite.

I have no doubt that if Obama gets elected he'll be much more of a real Democrat than Hillary with her Wall St. lobbyist millions in contributions. We'll also have a much stronger Dem majority.

Anybody who screams bloody murder about Obama even mentioning SS is either a Hillary supporter or has very little faith in Democratic prospects to win and maintain a majority by doing what's right to fix our problems. And if I was a Hillary backer I'd probably feel the same way.

The ruling class and their media huckster employees are going to be laughing all the way to the Cote d'Azur, if they're able to convince the workers of the USA that Social Security cannot be funded and that they may as well give up. Tax the wealth which the workers create to fund the program. The solution to this "problem" of 2046 bankruptcy is obvious.

I don't get it. With health care expenditures at about 2.1 trillion/year, 47 million uninsured, mediocre health care outcomes, and Medicare solvent for only about 10 more years, Obama chooses to solve a problem that won't be a problem for 30 years.

Is this vision or myopia? --and I'm a supporter