Let history record that while this generation of Americans was going broke and was even spending its children's and grandchildren's money, our presidential candidates were arguing over putting lipstick on a pig.
Just when you thought the American presidential campaign couldn't go any lower, or produce less light with which to guide voters, comes this: the McCain campaign's assertion that Barack Obama was actually referring to GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin when he talked about John McCain's "putting lipstick on a pig" by claiming his policies represent change.
The McCain camp was righteously indignant, claiming Obama had slyly disparaged Palin, who recently talked about "lipstick" being the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.
What a bunch of gibberish. Shame on the McCain camp for being so disingenuous -- or, at best, for being so thin-skinned.
Can we act like grownups, please?
Obama was absolutely right to point out that we've got some serious issues that require serious discussion.
The most serious? It's not energy. It's not global warming. It's not the economy. It's not terrorism. It's not Russia, Iran or even North Korea.
It's our debt.
That little four-letter word by itself doesn't sound as ominous as terrorism or as vexing as the economy. But the national debt -- and our future indebtedness -- has become the No. 1 threat to the United States and its future.
The national debt was already over $9 trillion. Now, in the budget year that ends this month, the federal government will record an annual operating deficit of $407 billion. And congressional budget analysts estimate the deficit next fiscal year could surpass a record $500 billion.
And believe it or not, that's the least of our problems.
Added to all that is the fact that we have promised current and future retirees nearly $60 trillion -- that's "trillion" with a "T" -- in Social Security and Medicare benefits. And no one in Washington can tell you where the money is going to come from.
In plain language, unless something changes and fast -- Social Security begins running a deficit in about 10 years, and Medicare will be an even bigger problem -- the federal government will either have to cut benefits or raise taxes to astronomical levels. And as the years go by, there will be more and more retirees and fewer and fewer workers to support them.
Experts on both sides of the ideological divide, liberal and conservative, agree on this. Yet, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama, are talking about this in any significant way.
Instead, they're giving us lipstick. And we're letting them.
How on Earth will our descendants ever forgive us?
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010. All Rights Reserved.
Write in your vote!! "none of the above"
Congress, both parties, has used the SSI surplus for years to "balance" the budget. If any private or public corporation had done that, they would be charged with fraud and theft by conversion. Americans pay a large amount of money into this plan and should have been outraged and revolting for years. But as usual, we are sheep, and argue whether or not McCain, Obama and others are telling the truth or any other moot point. The fact is that the whole political process has been corrupted by dishonest, self-serving politicians, while we all sit back and ignore it. Congress should be vacated, entirely, in order to establish trust in our government again. The low approval rating refers to ALL of Congress, not one party. I say kill the parties, make candidates run on their platforms without the backing of Big Politics, which are as bad as big oil, banks, big ANYTHING. Other countries have done it regularly without ill effect. Our government is a prime example that even Democracy can be corrupted to the point that it no longer represents what it's founders intend. Our government is only a shadow of what our Founders intended.
Man and wife. Both teachers. Two children. Fifteen year mortgage. Happy middle class. Well-planned retirement. So few of us. So many of THEM. Any elected official who attempts to put a choke hold on Social Security is commiting political suicide. THEM will not stand for it. And even if by some miracle the upcoming debacle is dealt with in a business-like manner, the low income population will still be receiving benefits -- the money that the disenfranchised worked so hard for. Concerning Social Security, the glass really is half empty.
Just...who are THEM? I probably am one of them. I've worked and paid into SSI for 30+ years only to see the prospect of the return dwindle. If I hadn't been FORCED into paying into SSI, and had instead had the money to put into private investment, even just into a regular savings account, I could have retired years ago. Instead, I must look forward to working until I can't, or die. The only blame to be laid is directly at the feet of the politicians. Our government officials are a disgrace, every one of them.
Well I have to give the Chronicle credit for calling a pig a pig. Now if all the parrots will admit to their party leaders being less than honest about this whole pig incident, I will have respect for them. I will not hold my breath.
Yet we have spent $550,000,000,000 on the war in Iraq (not Afghanistan).
Iraq -- which had ZERO to do with the attacks on September 11. All you people who voted for Bush/Cheney and who will vote for McCain/Palin will bear the guilt but not the costs of these decisions. Do tell us how you will explain yourselves to your ill-educated, jobless, starving great-grandchildren.
Absolutely Copperhead. The endless attacks Bush received (from both parties), when he suggested making improvements in SS management and savings, represents the apparently hopeless mess the system is in. Social Security needs a MAJOR overhaul and congress needs to be prevented from accessing the money. What are the odds of that happening?
bagham, there's some "ill-education" in your comment about national defense. Good left wing spin, but weak on truth.
This editorial starts on one subject and moves to another. First, Obama knew what he was doing when he made his witty comment about the lipstick on a pig. He, and his audience, knew it was in response to Palins one liner. His judgment wasn't as good as it could have been. He should have known he'd precipitate a tremendous amount of negative backlash with the comment. Equally common in Illinois are the comments "...put a silk dress on a pig..."and "...put earrings on a pig...". His lack of experience led him to make the poor choice. Even though he left himself an out, Obama precipitated this gaff. He'll do better as the campaign progresses.
Today's editorial cartoon is spot on.
It's not that we are sheep. We have no way of directing our taxes nor our Social security in our pay checks. That's why it's taken out before you get it. Because if it wasn't you would never pay it. What congress does today with our SS is the same thing they put the teamsters in federal prison for in the 60's. I guess it was criminal because they came up with the idea first.
Silly liberals - checks are for workers!
Pat, if you do the math, 10 BILLION a month for 12 moths, time 5 years, you get 600,000,000,000 dollars. Bush's privatization ideas are more robbery, and the only people to take offense to Obama's response are those who are disparately looking to turn the debate from McCain's bad platform and VP choice. Palin's statement that she knows about Russia because she can see it from Alaska is idiotic, and anyone who thinks it's a qualification is extremely naive or just right wing prejudiced. McCain is not a good choice and Palin is not the type of person (vindictive, petty and ignorant of foreign policy, as shown on ABC's interview last night) that should possibly inherit the White House should something happen to McCain. The Republican party has, at best, misrepresented her "achievements". Also, do we want a first lady who has been severely addicted to pain-killers and while those supplying her suffered legal consequences, she didn't. Could that be because of her husband and the Billions she's worth? Addicts can and do relapse due to incredible pressures, as, certainly, her potential situation will provide.
Don't, SSI is NOT an entitlement, those receiving it have worked and paid into it. Get real.
Are they not workers? Read the post the last word is "workers".
Since 1982, the Social Security program has had surpluses ranging between 89 million and 153 billion dollars per year. [62]
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be loaned to the federal government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64] This is from justfacts.com. SSI should be in a lockbox, prohibiting the use of it's funds for anything but what it is intended: paying benefits to those who have paid into it.
Then why the reference to liberals? THey work too.
Not only are the candidates focused on ridiculous "issues," but the press have completely abandoned their responsibility. Look at Biden's last few days on the trail. To quote the IHT, "Chuck, stand up, let the people see you," Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Graham uses a wheelchair. "Oh, God love ya," Biden said. "What am I talking about?" "The guy who has said he is running for president (not vice president) and who confused army brigades with battalions. Who referred to his Republican vice-presidential opponent as the lieutenant governor of Alaska." Just to make the same point that has been made before: had if it were McCain who "misspoke" the way Biden has on multiple occasions in the last few days, we would be treated to the endless cavalcade of suits on TV and in the NYT, Time, Newsweek, you name it, expressing their "concern" about McCain's age, and his obvious forgetfulness... These sorts of tactics by a blatantly biased press (not the commentators--they are SUPPOSED to be biased--; I'm talking about the hard news people) are what distract our attention from the important issues that these candidates refuse to address
The SSI situation is insignificant compared to the gathering Hurricane Ike of the financial mess: Medicare and drug committments.
Copperhead, you don't know what the word "entitlement" means. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have paid into whatever program is being discussed. An entitlement, as opposed to a benefit, is something that you do not opt into or out of, and for which you do not "qualify." As the term implies, you are "entitled" to it because of who you are. The term is used to define the difference between a defined contribution plan, and a defined benefit. For example, in the former case, the government might say: "SS will collect 13% of all wage and salary income up to the cap, and divide that amount of money by the number of eligible retirees over the age of 67." That would be defined contribution. What we have is an entitlement, which says that, as long as you worked a certain number of quarters (or met some other criteria), you will receive X amt of dollars per month, plus COLA, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FUNDING AVAILABLE. In other words, it becomes a govt obligation that must be met no matter what. This is bad, because you do not control the number of retirees, the number of workers, or the rate of inflation.
Uhhh, John Smith, I think YOU just distracted us from the important issues yourself, but thanks. lol
Cuz liberals like to give checks to people who don't work.
All of that is secondary to your comment, Copperhead, in any case, because SSI income IS an "entitlement" as it is frequently (mis)understood. SS income is theoretically a return on one's "investment" (ha!), but SSI benefits are frequently paid to people who have never paid a dime into SS. I'm not saying that they should or should not receive those benefits--that's a different conversation--but rather that you are misstating the case. fd is correct on this issue, in any case: it is the Medicare entitlement that is going to bury us. You can talk all you want about justice and compassion. There simply is not enough money in the economy to pay for every possible medical treatment that every possible senior citizen will ever need. That obligation will simply grow too big to meet, at which point something will have to change. Then again, the feds just nationalized effectively the entire US home mortgage industry, and nobody said a word about it, so it could be that your public schools have finally achieved the level of general ignorance required to let fascism take hold. It's been a long time coming since Wilson's presidency, but they may have made it at last...
Copperhead, finally a post i can agree with, re your 0611!
Someone help me. First Copperhead says he wished he didn't have to pay into SS and could pay into a individual retirement account and then Bush's proposal to do just that is "just more robbery". Maybe I misunderstood.
GaCopperhead, if you look at the reality, making people more responsible for their retirement can be a good idea(you made that point yourself). Bush recommendations were a starting point that could have led to an intelligent discussion toward reworking ss to make it work. Instead it led to endless attacks. Your 8:12 response is just more mindless spin like those that prevents any chance of improvement.
fd, that wasn't my intention, but you may be right :) I'm trying to point out an attribute of the press coverage of this campaign. When McCain comes out with an ad, we hear that it is "The McCain campaign's newest attack on Barack Obama," and we invariably get treated to a "response" from somebody in Obama's campaign HQ, or The Anointed One himself, if they can get him down of Sinai for a comment or two. When Obama makes fun of McCain for not using a computer, we hear the ad referred to as "A new, sharper tone," and no response from McCain's camp. We saw the DNC spend four days calling McCain "Bush 3," with no real coverage of the republican's response to that, but McCain's nomination of Palin brought IMMEDIATE, WIDESPREAD coverage of Obama's staff reaction, that they were "nominating the mayor of a town of 9,000." What I am pointing out is the difference in the coverage in the hard news arena. Never mind the embarrassing, partisan coverage by commentators "John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN just now slipped and said "we" when asking how Democrats should respond to Republican attacks."
This says it all, really: http://townhall.com/funnies/2008/09/11/4
I'm in complete agreement with your comments, johnsmith. Yesterday I maintained that our country no longer has a functioning press, a press where the newspapers and TV channels should be DEMANDING discussions of "Katrina, four dollar gas, a trillion dollar war, rising unemployment, deregulated housing market, massive debt, global warming, and alternative energy prospects." Meanwhile, money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency becomes worthless, and all we're talking about are the facts that Palin shoots foxes from an airplane, that McCain is a veteran, and that Obama wants to ignore his way to the election. Unless we wake up, we'll all be losing more than just an election.
The government has gotten away with operating in debt for many years now, so I guess they figure they can keep on doing it.