Michael Maiello's picture

    In the SOTU, did Obama promise to preserve Social Security's currently promised benefits for all workers?

    By Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:25am |
    Yes. A plain language reading of his words implies a direct promise.
    20% (4 votes)
    No. He left wiggle room to, for example, change inflation calculations so that benefits aren't technically "cut."
    80% (16 votes)
    Total votes: 20

    Comments

    It was close enough to a promise to me to regard it as a promise and hold him to it.  He said we shouldn't slash future benefits.  I assume by future benefits he means future real benefits, not nominal one.  So no COLA gimmicks.   And to me, "slash" is just a synonym for "cut".


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:52am

    I'm with you. That said, politicians don't always stick to their promises, even when the promises are crystal clear.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:28am

    Destor, great question. I think there was enough wiggle room to put a size forty pant on a thirty eight guy, or the other way round. (?)

    Anyway, I have a recurring suspicion of a deal. A five or ten year experiment on taking 10% or so out of a certain demographic's contribution and allowing it to be individually directed toward an alternative but narrowly defined range of investments. The trade off would be a package cast in stone, like expiration of the Bush tax cuts and elimination of oil depletion allowances, etc.. Just a hunch.

    By the way, did anyone else sense general acquiescence on the part about the depletion allowance statement? I did, but things were so subdued it was hard to tell.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:10am

    Just so you all know, I'm not asking an agenda-laden question here.  I have my guess, but I honestly don't know the answer here, so I'll be curious to see what the final tally is.  When I first read the text I read it as a hard promise.  Josh Marshall actually made me question that.  What the President ultimately does on this issue is going to have a huge impact on how I vote in 2012.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:14am

    Without checking the written text, my recollection is that he stressed protection for current retirees and those soon to retire in a way that left out future retirees.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:45am

    What had me optimistic was this:

    "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)"'

    I also think it's funny that they put "applause" in the pre-release transcript...


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:50pm

    Thanks for fleshing out my poor memory. I might have just heard what I was afraid I would hear. I plan to readit sometime before long and then maybe listen at least to some parts. I don't know if inflection means the same with an accomplished speaker reading a well practiced speech but I like often take alot from it, right or wrong. I watched with a couple friends and we turned it into a parody of Mystery Science Theatre, lots of interuptions.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:05pm

    Inflation can be used for the rich--which is usually the case or for the middle class.

    The tool is in the hands of the masters of industry and war anyway.

    Freezes are implemented on wages and the investment bankers run amok.

    But all the SS programs have been frozen for two years anyway. Basic necessities have gone up in value so those caught in the freeze suffer.

    Conservatives take the housing market deflation, add it to the real inflation and it balances to zero on the books.

    It is all slight of hand.

    I feel that Federal Workers are doing pretty well and a little balancing should take place with regard to that group except for those on the lowest rungs receiving government checks.

    But those on SS are screwed, they have to give up gasoline and heat in order to procure their daily bread or get a part time job at the liquor store.

    I would answer your question as yes to both alternative interpretations.

    I know that the repubs would straight out fire a fifth of all Federal Workers, lower taxes even further for the rich and the corps, cut SS, cut medical reimbursement, drop regs on insurance industry and oil industry....

    What choices are there? I certainly would not ever go to the repubs.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:04pm

    In what passes for discourse these days, most of the wonky types from both sides accept uncritically that our current measures of inflation overstate the case, even though the experience of working people is that it's undoubtedly understated.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:51pm

    Personally, I am hoping the TeaBaggers put a third candidate out there.  The only downside of that is that disaffected Progressives could use that as an excuse to stay home.


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 2:05pm

    I think the smartest thing to do is not fixate on one word in one speech but to judge what a politician says and does on an issue over time , like this:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_social_security.htm

    And also in doing so to realize that no president working with the Congress and the economy he is given is going to end up doing things exactly like you would do even if his principles on the issue seem to match yours well. They will always weasel out of one single promise if they feel it is necessary. I.E. read my lips, no new taxes. Tha'ts the way our system works; after all, sometimes you're happy whn they are flexible. I'm sure Bush hated having to break that promise.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 2:30pm

    What I do know is that this guy is pretty good at reading polling numbers. And he's very good at crafting a speech. And the numbers in strong support of SS were remarkably high going into the SOTU.

    Given all that, it is troubling to consider why he allowed any ambiguity to infuse his statement of "support" for SS at all.

    Of course, I don't need to remind you that this guy ain't so keen on keeping promises, anyway.

    Close Gitmo? Check!

    End Human Rights abuses? Check! 

    Put an end to Bush Tax Cuts? Check!

    Reduce unemployment? Check!

    Destor, this guy created the Catfood Commission in the midst of the geatest recession in our generation. He lives on Republican Talking Points, calculating his reelection strategy as an effort to steal the GOP ground and push them to the margins. Do you really think he's going to go to the mat for anything like SS? Or will he instead work out a compromise that allows him to explain "Well, these cuts in SS would have been a worse disaster if the Republicans had their way!"? 

    I think the answer to that last question is self-evident, and should give anyone pause who might otherwise be inclined to support this asshat in hopes of actually gaining "Change You Can Believe In."

    More like "All the GOP Change they seek, only less of it." Feh!

    Meanwhile, we stay stuck at nearly ten percent unemployment (in OFFICIAL numbers!), and we were just presented with the case for moving on with WTF, now that the recovery has happened.

    Ultimately, I think you're looking for credibility in all the wrong places.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:41pm

    Really, he doesn't even have to go to the mat.  He just has to do nothing.  The Republicans can't make law without him!

    But I'm skeptical, too.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:50pm

    Don't forget. We got an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and that's when we were in the majority in BOTH Houses. Don't underestimate the power of the GOP to push the issue, especially when Obama so neatly leaves the door open for them in his less-than-definitive use of rhetoric in supposed defense of SS.

    At some point, you gotta see the trends that are created by past performance, even if you really don't like the way the trends are going. And we've seen this "GOP-Lite" strategic move to the center too many times in the past to fail recognizing it as it now develops. It's a maneuver that burnishes his "bi-partisan" credentials, after all! What's not to like, eh?


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 5:24pm

    Latest Comments