Home > The Economy > Obama is scared

Obama is scared

from Peter Radford

Dean Baker goes overboard. Well he suggests that Obama is failing to defend Social Security because of his fear of retribution from the policy elite.

Baker is right.

This is an issue that extends beyond Social Security. Many of us have been saying for a while that Obama is too beholden to an elite whose view of the world is vastly different from that of the average voter. As a result he fails to provide a narrative for the majority. Instead he constantly trims to avoid conflict with the elite.  

In the rarified air of the elite – which includes the media, big business, and academia as well as Washington policy circles – it is commonly understood that our entitlement programs need fixing. For decades the Republicans have hammered away at the imminent ‘bankruptcy’ of those programs is a thinly veiled attempt to get rid of them. It is also common for them to conflate Social Security and Medicare, two programs that have very different problems.

Also inside the bubble the Federal deficit looms as a massive problem – the talk is constantly of a ‘need’ to cut spending and thus reduce the debt. Inflation also seems to exert a terrible pull on elitist thought. Deficit hawks often cite imminent rampant inflation as a reason we have to rein in our debt and raise interest rates. Oh, and according to these same folks we need to get the Fed to behave responsibly and end its support of the economy.

Outside the bubble none of these things matter.

Indeed shoring up entitlements matters much more than reducing them. Average folks have ben slammed by the steady erosion of their earning power. They are steadily sinking beneath debt taken on in a false attempt to keep living standards rising. Recent students are swamped by student loans and will have to postpone home ownership for years if not decades. Health care and education costs cripple most middle class families. And the relentless pursuit of profit has siphoned off most of our productivity gains for capitalists who pay a reduced rate of tax on their gains because of the privileges bestowed on them.

The simple fact is that outside of the elitist bubble America’s decline is a very real phenomenon. It is not an arcane topic for Sunday morning talk shows or for long and unnecessary academic discussion.

It is palpable. It is obvious. And it is painful.

Yet it is ignored.

The reasons seem clear.

Inside the bubble, which consists of our highest paid citizenry, wages have risen. The stock market has recovered. Employers give more generous benefits in order to attract ‘talent’. Savings are more substantial. And prospects are decent if not downright rosy. These are the folks who brought us the financial crisis. They are the ones who abolished defined benefit retirement plans and gave us the defined contribution plans that are hopelessly inadequate, much more risky and expensive. These are the people who bemoan the common folk who don’t save enough and who berate those poor savings habits as being self-destructive. Yet they are also the ones who squeeze wages at every opportunity in order to meet reckless stock market profit targets and to meet bonus thresholds that support their own conspicuous consumption. They are the ones who ship jobs abroad in search of lower costs and then who complain about the inadequacy of our worker’s skills.

The delusion inside the bubble is that those outside are somehow dependent, and lazy. They see a person not paying income tax and complain, not about the lack of income on which to pay that tax, but about the lack of tax. They fret about the lack of incentives for themselves were tax rates to be raised, but not about the block on opportunity that the oppression of poverty brings.

In short they have no idea about how America has been driven off the cliff by the policies from which they benefit. Why would they? They simply focus on the issues that affect them.

Like inflation and it corrosion of credit. Like taxes that intrude on their capital accumulation. Like entitlements that are merely afterthoughts to them as they plan for retirement. Like welfare that transfers cash from their pockets into those of the poor and the ‘underserving’. Like the low interest rates that prevent them earning a ‘healthy’ return on their many investments. Like the tax laws that ‘force’ them to ship their savings abroad to tax havens. Like the regulations that prevent them from selling products for profit that have no social value. Like laws that prevent them from dumping pollution into the environment where taxpayers not shareholders carry the cost for clean up. And like the Federal budget that looms over the credit markets as what they perceive as a threat to the allocation of capital.

It is this group that leeches not the rest of us. They profit from rigging the rules. They pervert our democracy by swamping our elections with money. They divert and suborn legislation for their own advantage. And they resist any attempt to push back as being an attack on the manifest – to them – benefits of capitalism. They laud the American Dream while they crush it. And then they have the temerity to pretend to be concerned.

This is what Dean Baker meant to say.

It is this that makes Obama a disappointment. Instead of leading the people he indulges the paranoia of the wealthy. He dances to their tune and addresses their issues. This is why he can agree with Romney – as he did – that Social Security needs ‘fixing’, and that unless we do something to ‘fix’ it it will go bankrupt.

This is preposterous and untrue. Yet he perpetuates the Republican narrative.

Why?

I think it’s because he is scared of the power of the plutocracy. Or, perhaps, it’s just that he lives inside the bubble.

Which do you think?

About these ads
Categories: The Economy
  1. Chris, that’s it.
    October 31, 2012 at 1:38 pm | #1

    “For decades the Republicans have hammered away at the imminent ‘bankruptcy’ of those programs is a thinly veiled attempt to get rid of them.” Hopefully you see why this is a terribly written sentence and a poorly articulated thought altogether.

    Moreover, I’m not sure I understand the theme of this piece. How, when, and under what circumstances could you possibly believe that “America’s decline” has been ignored by anyone, especially Mr. Obama? All we see on the news, all we hear on the radio, and all we argue with one another is who brought us into and who is to blame for this abysmal state we are in. I cant fathom that decline [It] being ignored by virtually anyone as you have asserted in this article.

    And lastly, can you shed light on who this ‘elite’ is that Obama seemingly plays to? All i have is the record he has accomplished and lack thereof which shows that of all the people he has given an ear to, elites are toward the bottom of that list, lest we forget the plethora of CEOs complaining in droves on weekday bloomberg LP mediums. Hopefully you dont blame Mr. Obama for the private sector decision to change their retirement plans. I find it hard to believe that he would have anything to do with that.

    Awful connections in your article, but ya gotta blame somebody, right?

  2. Mike Meeropol
    October 31, 2012 at 1:41 pm | #2

    I think he’s scared of the power of the plutocracy. He does not “live” inside the bubble. He has seen the outside of the bubble and he feels it. He just is very cautious about “negotiating” with the elite. That’s the way I see his 100% embrace of militarism — from retaining Bob Gates to doing nothing to interfere with the American empire abroad.

    But I think he is not OF the elite and would like to make things better for the average citizen — including the poor. His approach is that of a compromising Law Professor –

    FDR — who grew up within the elite, knew all about them — and he wasn’t afraid to call them out (and win!). Eisenhower — who spent his life in the military climbing the ladder of success knew all about them — he encouraged service rivalry and kept their budgets lean.
    He also ended the Korean War without victory and refused to go into Vietnam.

    If Romney were a real reformer, his “place” inside the elite would work for our benefit — but he’s an empty suit who just wants to be President and hasn’t a thoughtful bone in his body.

    I’ll take my chances with an Obama second term — he might do some interesting things.

  3. robert r locke
    October 31, 2012 at 1:45 pm | #3

    I don’t think Obama is a coward; otherwise he would not have risked losing votes by backing gay marriage and abortion. But he s not an economic liberal; they disappeared on the American Left during the 1960s; when issues of unionism and income distribution were replaced by those of homosexuality, civil rights, and woman liberation. His mentality is implanted in this post-1960s Left. They stood by and watched the growing maldistribution of wealth in American life after Reagan came to power, without putting u ,icj pf a resostamce/

  4. robert r locke
    October 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm | #4

    without putting up much resistance.

  5. ezra abrams
    October 31, 2012 at 5:29 pm | #5

    I really dislike this fact free psycho babble
    Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the idea that President Obama is scared of the elite ?
    Until we have some scintilla of evidence as to President Obama’s state of mind, let us simply observe that he is doing a bad thing,
    and
    the practical steps to take (why don’t you econ pundits ever do this)
    are to support house and senate members who are ant soc sec cuts, and to get together with 10 or 100 of your neighbors, and tell your representatives that in no uncertain terms, soc sec cuts of any sort are off the table
    See – it isn’t hard, if 50 words or so I’ve done more practical good then D Bake did in several hundred.

  6. Podargus
    October 31, 2012 at 6:32 pm | #6

    Chris,that’s it, In a few days you will get the government you deserve, right?

  7. November 1, 2012 at 11:00 am | #7

    Chris, the blame goes back to David Hume’s version of Occam’s Razor.

    Try relating all this to Stephen Jay Gould’s THE MISMEASURE OF MAN:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

    • November 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm | #8

      Wonderful thing, this internet. As a Brit I’ve always been presented with British philosophy, but I’ve just discovered Hume wrote the first volume of his treatise in France, when Voltaire’s apparently somewhat similar misrepresentation of Newton’s creationist views were all the rage. The blame, then, may go a little further back than Hume – to Voltaire; perhaps even indirectly to Occam (1285-1349) or Machiavelli (1469-1527) and “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct”. Dampier’s chapter in my 1940 ‘Background to Modern Science’ says Voltaire and the French Encyclopedaedists regarded Newton’s work as “giving a complete mechanical explanation of the Universe, and transferring the results from science to metaphysics, concluded that ultimate reality was mechanical too”. It then has historian E A Burt saying “Newton’s authority was squarely behind that view of the cosmos which saw in man a puny irrelevant spectator (so far as a being wholly imprisoned in a dark room can be called such) of the vast mathematical system whose regular motions according to mechanical principles constituted the world of nature”.

      So as well as the darkened room of Hume’s brains into which mechanical reality cannot enter, we have Humean social scientists and Peter’s 1% inside the darkened room of their class bubble, deluded into thinking “those outside are somehow dependent, and lazy”, but not bothering to look where real humans cannot enter. (Good point, Mike: FDR and Ike did bother to look and were able to see).

      As a Brit I have more detached disappointment in Obama, but I would like to point out that we don’t know what he thinks, for once inside the bubble he can’t hear us and we outsiders only hear what insiders want us to think that he thinks.

  8. Rhonda Kovac
    November 1, 2012 at 11:07 am | #9

    I think you put your finger precisely on the problem—corrupt domination by the wealthy few over the election campaign process. So long as that persists, it matters little the beliefs or ideas of the President or the Legislators, or which of the two parties is in power. Political office-holders can do only what their political survival permits, and that is now under very tight control. At present we get only brief glimpses of the good that could happen (e.g., Obama’s initial short-lived advocacy of “Medicare for all”) were this not the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,296 other followers