Can Hillary Save Us From a "Grand Bargain?"
Photo Credit: Grand Bargain Watch--Save Social Security, DonkeyHotey's photostream, flickr, http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6997920407/
I don't know. Obviously, I don't have a "crystal ball."
Look, I have quite a bit of respect for Secretary Clinton, personally. But as a potential Presidential candidate, I have always been concerned about her DLC ties. (Not just hers, but those of almost all of the Democratic Party candidates.)
Last week, as I was researching a couple of issues for a blog comment, I ran across, and subsequently posted a "blurb" similar to the one below. That one regarded NJ Democrat Rush Holt, who apparently also furnished some DLC material to the "OnTheIssues" website as part of his policy stances
As I see it, the Democratic Party is likely to attempt to nominate a corporatist Dem as the Party's Presidential candidate. IMO, it's our place to make sure that whoever the nominee is, he/she understands that "business as usual" is no longer acceptable.
Frankly, I'm wondering--after another three plus years of this Administration--will there be anything left of a safety net to worry about preserving?
Certainly, as a nation, we cannot stand anymore chipping away at Medicare or Social Security.
I hope that the various progressive activist and blogging communities will unite behind this basic premise in 2016.
Clinton adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade." Here's a very brief excerpt.
An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees.
Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does.
We can’t just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs.
The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today’s workers and future generations.
In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s.
Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs.
Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.
Goals for 2010
• Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
• Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
• Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.
[Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC7 on Aug 1, 2000]
The "stronger basic benefit" is straight out of the Bowles-Simpson proposal, "The Moment Of Truth."
This is very deceptive, really, since only a relatively small number of the poorest Social Security beneficiaries will meet the criteria to qualify for this benefit, according to CBO. I'm not on my computer with the "bookmarks," but this information can be pretty easily "DuckedDucked, Binged or Googled." And here's a link to the Bowles-Simpson proposal, The Moment Of Truth.