What Obama Should Have Said

by on

The Cato Institute’s David Boaz on what he would have liked to have heard from the president: big spending cuts and repeal of DOMA.

14 Comments for “What Obama Should Have Said”

  1. posted by BobN on

    I noticed the clip ended pretty abruptly there. What? No interesting audience reaction? Did Stossel cough up a kidney or something?

  2. posted by Tom on

    If President Obama were a Libertarian, of course that’s what he should have said. He’s not, and he didn’t.

    BTW, it is possible to specify frame width and height attributes — something in the range of 400 by 245 would probably work well with IGF’s style sheets — so that YouTube videos don’t splatch all over the page.
    [Webmaster replies: done; thanks.]

  3. posted by Jorge on

    So he didn’t address DOMA, eh?

    He did, after all, promise at least a partial repeal. Okay, let’s see who holds him accountable.

  4. posted by Tom on

    I intend to hold him accountable on DOMA, although I think that the courts are likely to rule Section 3 unconstitutional before a political solution can be achieved, given the limited range of political options open to him at this point.

    Section 3 repeal is a rational political goal, given the longstanding concern of Republicans for states’ rights stance of the Republican Party.

    I expect the Democrats, at a minimum, to introduce a bill seeking repeal of Section 3 of DOMA in this Congress, and I expect the President, at a minimum, to sit down withRepublicans, seeking their cooperation. If he does that, and if Republicans are willing to cooperate, Section 3 can be repealed.

  5. posted by Jerry on

    If the repeal of Section 3 is brought up and passes the House without a lot of screaming and caterwauling this year I think it will go down. Otherwise I think the President will try to quietly deep six it until after 2012. He still seems to think that he can massage those very right wing religious ideologues.

    Everyone keeps talking about deep cuts in the budget and how important it is to reduce the deficits and balance the budget. Yet all we ever hear from both the executive and the hill is that we can’t shortchange our seniors(I am one by the way) so Social Security and Medicare are off the table. We can’t touch veterans benefits( raises hand again…get my health care there.) Medicaid. Can’t blame folks for being poor when there are no jobs. Defense and Homeland security, and everyone know you can’t shortchange Lockheed Martin, Electric Boat and all of the other defense contractors so I guess NASA, the Performing Arts and people with AIDS will just have to suck it up because we sure as hell can’t demoralize the rich.

    • posted by Tom on

      Jerry, like you, I’m both a senior and a veteran.

      I realize that Social Security, Medicare and Veterans’ Benefits are political third rails, but I’d like to see some political courage on the part of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

      I recognize that for many seniors, any reduction in Social Security benefits, or an increase in the Medicare deductible would be catastrophic, as would any serious reductions in Veterans’ pensions or VA care for many veterans.

      But that isn’t true for all of us. Many of us are wealthy in our own right, or have high pensions or other sources of income to see us through retirement.

      It seems to me that it would be reasonable to reduce the benefits enjoyed by those of us who are fortunate enough to be in that position.

      We do that to a limited extent now. We return a lesser percentage of Social Security contributions to those in the higher contribution brackets already, and Social Security benefits are taxed on a sliding scale based on our other income, and routine VA care is limited to lifers and limited income veterans.

      I understand that Social Security and Medicare are, in theory, earned benefits, but we all know that the theory doesn’t hold up in practice, because the government has, over the years, extended Social Security for purposes not originally intended. We also all know that the system is in financial danger.

      I have never had a problem with being excluded from routine VA medical care because I’ve been financially fortunate. Similarly, I would not have a problem with seeing my Social Security benefits reduced or even eliminated for the same reason. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to ask the relatively wealthy to help out, so that the less wealthy can live decent lives in their old age.

      I imagine that your post will start the dogs howling, but we’ve got to do something to protect the seniors who most need protection. I’m glad you posted.

      I don’t know about you, but it seems like I get a daily e-mail from AARP telling me that the end of the world is going to come if anyone has the political courage to take a hard look at Social Security. The AARP is beginning to sound as alarmist as the NRA, from whom I also seem to get a daily e-mail. I’ve gotten so that I tune them both out, to be blunt about it.

      What the hell ever happened to the ideas of “fair share” and “sacrifice for the common good” in this country?

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Feel free to do so, Tom.

        No one’s stopping you from mailing back your Social Security check, not going to the VA, and paying more taxes. Feel free to go right ahead and do it and convince others to do it.

        Or how about since you want to “help” others so much, starting to hand over your own money to the people who need it, since you claim you don’t?

        That’s what makes liberals like you entertaining, Tom. You talk a great game about “sacrifice” and whatnot — but you never bother to spend your own money to do it.

        • posted by Doug on

          You got yours. . . to hell with everyone else. Way to go NDT.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Why do you say that, Doug?

            Is it because the only way people like yourself would ever give anything to anyone else is if the government forced you to do it?

            You’re just mooching, trying to get other people to pay your bills for you. Typical liberalism.

          • posted by Doug on

            Wrong on all counts, NDT, but if it helps you keep order in your world go for it.

          • posted by BobN on

            You’re just mooching

            Ah, irony…

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Sorry, Doug, but given the example of Charlie Rangel, it’s pretty obvious that minority Obama Party members like you and Tom don’t pay your taxes.

            Meanwhile, I repeat. No one’s stopping you from mailing back your Social Security check, not going to the VA, and paying more taxes. Feel free to go right ahead and do it and convince others to do it.

  6. posted by Jimmy on

    “What the hell ever happened to the ideas of “fair share” and “sacrifice for the common good” in this country?”

    The resurgence of Randian Objectivism (or some facsimile of it) among the right is one reason for those ideas going out of favor, right along with The Golden Rule. The Tea Party has given us a dumbed down version of it, though they didn’t have far to go.

  7. posted by Jorge on

    I don’t mind the Golden Rule or fair play, but “sacrifice for the common good” seems to me to be code, depending on who’s saying it, for rape with consent. I have to agree with North Dallas Thirty here.

Comments are closed.