It was trulybizarre to view media coverage of the Democratic debate last Thursday in Las Vegas.
It was as if the storyline, "Clinton rebounds forcefully" had been written weeks in advance by the press corps, without regard to what actually happened that night in Las Vegas.
Clinton, confronted with John Edwards' argument that the nation needs more than a choice between "Corporate Republicans" and "Corporate Democrats," tried to avoid confronting the issue by accusing Edwards of "mud-slingining" and using talking points from the Republican playbook (as if any Republican could be insufficiently slavish to corporate interests!).
Clinton was clearly unwilling to brand herself as a Democrat with a "people first" orientation (as her husband did so effectively--and deceptively--in his 1992 campaign before he fought all-out for NAFTA).
All she could so was spew out an accusation.
Nonetheless, Edwards' clean but cutting comment was interpreted by the mainstream media as yet another sign that the once-sunny Edwards has become "too angry."
And while Barack Obama's performance was widely reported as shaky, his proposal that Social Security cuts be headed off by tax income above $97,500 (currently untaxed for Social Security) came off very solidly. When Hillary Clinton attacked with a truly Republican-style charge that it would mean a trillion-dollar tax increase, Obama responded with a set of powerful jabs that really rocked Clinton and scored a devastating knockout, in my observation. He drove home that only the wealthiest 6% earn more than $97,500.
Yet this dramatic moment passed without comment in most of the media, and it was like the knockout punch never happened.
However, Clinton was trying to make an important point, however weakly expressed, that $97,500 means very different things in different parts of the country. If you are living in New York City or San Francisco, the insanely high housing prices and overall cost of living may require some adjustment. But this doesn't undermine Obama's basic point.)
Still, Clinton and Obama have very misleadingly spread the notion that Social Security is in deep trouble. This simply isn't the case.
The vastly-expanding productivity of the economy will allow the government to keep paying out benefits even as the ratio of wageearner to Social Security recipient shrinks. While a Social Security shortfall is predicted many decades from now, minor fixes like the one suggested by Sen. Obama or a small 1% payroll tax increase would provide the needed repair. (See Paul Krugman's recent NY Times column on this subject or go to the Center on Economic and Policy Research website www.cepr.net where my friends Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker, academically-trained economists, refute the Bush-promoted panic over Social Security in clear and understandable language.)
There is absolutely no need for a "bi-partisan commission"--traditionally the means by which the ruling class uses both parties at once to make the public swallow castor-oil public policies--on Social Security as suggested by Clinton.
CLINTON'S POSITIONS VS. THOSE OF HER BASE
Once more, the debate revealed the gaping canyon between the issue positions of Hillary Clinton and those of the moderate-inccome women who are her most loyal base became clear once again. Her hawkish stance on the war, her insurer-centered health plan, and her role as the biggest recipient of medical, insurance, and Wall St. cash would all make her base mighty nervous. But media coverage has done a poor job of conveying her basic viewpoints.
|
There are no comments.