• Home
• Personal Finance
• Economy
• New School
• Asked & Answered

• ABOUT
• FAQ
• RESOURCES
• ADVERTISE
• CONTACT

Drawing a Line in the Sand

I campaigned for, contributed money to and voted for Barack Obama.  Yes, I believed in his message of change.  I wasn’t naive - I had no reason NOT to believe what he was saying.  But something happened after that glorious day on November 4, 2008.

On November 4, 2008, I was an attorney/poll watcher for the Obama campaign in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Turnout was great.  I witnessed the most incredible sight - an older African-American woman (I didn’t ask her age) needed directions to the polling place.  I obliged but during our very brief encounter she shared with me that nothing - not even her aching body - was going to stop her from voting in that historic election.  Later that evening, when it had became clear that Barack Obama was going to win, I admit, I broke down and cried tears of joy.  Boy, a lot has changed from that glorious day.  Sadly, not for the better.

TEAM OBAMA

Disturbing signs started to emerge shortly after November 4.  Rumors and later confirmation that now President-elect Obama was choosing Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff.  I rationalized this appointment - maybe its good to have a ‘veteran’ of congress and White House for the huge battles ahead.  But the disturbing signs continued with the appointment of Larry Summers as his chief economic adviser and Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary (what a fiasco that was - remember the tax issue). 

Now his brain trust regarding economic and political issues consisted of Clinton retreads.  Emanuel, Summers and Geithner were part of an administration and philosophy that contributed to the financial crisis and the Great Recession.  I rationalized some more - Obama was not going to be like Clinton.

WALL STREET BAILOUT

Obama Administration, despite its tough rhetoric, decided not to hold Wall Street and financial oligarchy accountable for its actions that contributed to the financial crisis. It did not attach any ‘strings’ to the $700 billion+ bailout (passed under Bush) nor did it push for transparency on how Wall Street firms used the money.  Its response to the mortgage crisis with its alphabet soup of new programs has been weak to down right cruel to homeowners.  I continued to rationalize.

2009 ECONOMIC STIMULUS

Obama Administration decided to first compromise with itself and then compromise further to get votes in congress for its 2009 economic stimulus.  The result was a weak and poorly structured stimulus.  A New Yorker Magazine article later reported on the internal debate of Obama’s economic team regarding the stimulus.  The article reported that Christina Romer, another chief economic adviser, was advocating a much bigger stimulus but she was voted down by Summers and Emanuel.  I thought - if they knew they had one shot at the stimulus why not go big - heck, Obama had most of the country behind him.  I became nervous but rationalized some more.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

After spending months cutting backroom deals with Big Pharma and its wishy washy support for the public option, I knew the Clinton retreads were winning the internal battles in the White House and there was NOT going to be any change.  In the end what we got was a mandate (which Candidate Obama campaigned against) to an inferior product - health insurance policy - with NO public option (remember when Candidate Obama said public option was needed “to keep insurance companies honest”).  Sure, insurance companies will be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions but at what cost?  There was no cap on insurance premium increases.

FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM

Let me say upfront that I don’t believe President Obama provided the necessary leadership, at least publicly, on financial regulatory reform.  This lack of leadership provided pro-Wall Street Democrats and Repuglicans an opportunity to weaken the final bill.  Obama Administration did offer a comprehensive proposal regarding financial regulatory reform but was this for show and how much did it really fight for it?  Sure it proposed the Volcker Rule but again, how hard did it fight for its passage?  The only redeeming provision of financial regulatory reform was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Financial regulatory reform failed to address the problems that caused the financial crisis including preserving ‘too big to fail’ financial conglomerates.

CATFOOD COMMISSION

President Obama decided, after Democratic Congressional leadership rejected the idea, to create the ‘bipartisan’ National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  This commission was “charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run”.  To date, it appears from its public statements and public hearing (at least the ones that are public) that it’s focusing on cutting Social Security - hence the name “Catfood Commision” because of the commission’s intent on cutting Social Security and forcing Social Security recipients to eat catfood.  Early indications are that the Catfood Commission will propose increasing the full retirement age to 70.  This is clearly a benefit cut.

There is nothing wrong with Social Security - it is NOT broken.  And it definitely did not contribute to the budget deficit nor will it be a problem in the future.  But the Obama Administration and Democrats are weak and feel compelled to do ‘something’ about the deficit so they pick Social Security.  The deficit will still be with us for many generations, regardless of any proposed cuts to Social Security, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

LINE IN THE SAND

I am just one person but this one person is taking a stand:

If the Obama Administration proposes any cuts to Social Security, I will work hard to make sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president

At some point we have to draw a line in the sand and say no more!

Good luck.