Three Major Issues The Presidential Candidates Are Ignoring

 

 What if they held an election but didn’t discuss the most important economic issues?

That’s what’s happening here in 2012.

Yes, taxes and the deficit are significant. But there are even more crucial issues that will determine whether the country continues to slide into wider income inequality and destroys what’s left of the middle class.

And these three crucial issues have been barely mentioned during a campaign obsessed with who pays what in taxes and who doesn’t.

Dean Baker, of the Center on Economic Policy Research, neatly summed up several of the left-out issues recently.

On one of the most critical economic issues, the so-called free trade pacts such as NAFTA and the more recent Korean trade agreement, both parties agree: they favor them.

The media cooperates in keeping this issue off the table by repeating the misleading claims of proponents of the agreements while omitting or marginalizing critics.

“Free trade” is really the big lie of our economy and our politics. As the critics point out, these agreements should be accurately labeled “corporate rights agreements” since they are much more concerned with that issue than with trade. Not only do they result in lower wages in the U.S. and devastated small farming in other countries, these agreements allow corporations to challenge environmental and labor protections in special courts in which the public has no voice.

Both parties crank up the rhetoric to promote the notion that the  “free trade” is the road to economic prosperity for everybody. But as Baker points out, the reality of “free trade” is far grimmer for those that work for wages to earn a living because it puts “downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-wage workers in the developing world.”

The absence of any discussion of these agreements in the political debate exposes a major fraud on the part of both parties. While the Democrats tout themselves as the party of the little guy, their support for “free trade” shows how closely they hew to the corporate agenda on issues that matter most. For the Republicans, their support for “free trade” agreements which, in the real world, prop up some corporations while punishing others shows they’re less interested in picking economic winners and losers than their free market rhetoric lets on.

And there’s a huge trade deal being secretly negotiated right now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which I previously wrote about here, calling it a Free Trade Frankenstein. Others have called it “NAFTA on steroids.” As with other trade negotiations, the public has been kept out while the corporate lobbyists have full access.

The only TPP issue on which the president and his challenger disagree is who could whip out his pen faster and sign the TPP once the secret negotiations are concluded.

The second major economic issue left out of this election is the deeply unpopular 2008 bailout of the financial sector and corporate America, including the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $16 trillion in cheap or free loans the Federal Reserve provided to corporate America in the wake of the financial collapse.

All this financial assistance was provided with little public debate and without any conditions imposed on the recipients.

The Obama administration dismisses all questions about the bailout by insisting that all the TARP money has been paid back. Case closed, the administration contends.

But could a different kind of bailout, one which imposed specific conditions on banks and corporations, helped more struggling Americans than the one we got, which propped up bank and corporate executives? Why did those portions of TARP that were targeted at ordinary Americans facing foreclosure fail so badly?

And how does this bailout, which picked winners and losers, jibe with the Republicans’ free market rhetoric? What about a belated bailout for the rest of us? Plenty of fodder for tough questions for the president and his challenger, if anybody cared to ask.

The third issue is one that the two parties have disagreed on: increasing the minimum wage.

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama promised to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 by 2011 but has taken no action to do so. For his part, Republican challenger Mitt Romney has said he favors tying the minimum wage to inflation, until the right wing of his party objected.

According to a recent paper by the Economic Policy Institute, phasing in the $9.80 minimum wage would raise the wages for 28 million workers, who would earn an additional $40 billion during the phase-in, while gross domestic product would increase by $25 billion and 100,000 new jobs would be created.

We need a robust debate on these issues in the remaining weeks of the presidential campaign that challenges the president and Mr. Romney on where they stand and what actions they’ll take, not just a stale rehash of the same old arguments on taxes. But we won’t get that debate unless we demand it.

 

Federal Reserve / Income inequality / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / TARP / TPP - 09/25/2012

The Health Care Games

Like the Hunger Games, in which leaders of the 1% connive to rig a contest so that a charismatic representative of the 99% is defeated, there’s lots of intrigue behind the US Supreme Court hearings on the federal health care law that begin today.

The ostensible issue before the high court is whether the universal health care system established by Congress in 2010 is constitutional. Like the systems in most other developed nations, that law requires all Americans to be covered – whether through their employer or by purchasing it directly. Now this is just plain arithmetic: you can’t have a solvent universal care program if participation is voluntary, because the young and healthy won’t bother to pitch in until they get sick, leaving the older and less healthy to cover most of the cost. Universal means everyone has to be part of it – both getting the medical benefits and paying for its cost.  Today, taxpayers end up bailing out people who don’t buy insurance and then get sick or in an accident.

But the corporate funded US Chamber of Commerce and other right wing entities, plus anti-government foes (including most of the Republicans candidates who want to run the government), argue it was unconstitutional for Congress to order everyone to pay for health insurance. My problem with that part of the law – known as the "individual mandate" – is that you have to buy the insurance from private insurance companies, and there is no limit on what they can charge you. That’s gotta be fixed, and a campaign is underway to do that in California. As everyone knows, however, Obama lifted his health care proposal from the law that Mitt Romney, then Governor of Massachusetts, enacted there in 2006. So its obvious that a big part of why the corporate Republican establishment opposes the law is that it was backed by a Democrat – Obama – and they don’t want him or any other elected Democrat to be able to claim any political victories.

There’s much more to the Supreme Court case than crass party politics, in any case. Many on the corporate right are hoping the US Supreme Court will issue a sweeping decision like they did in Citizens United, this time ratcheting back Congress’s regulatory authority across the board and therefore bolstering the power of big corporations – just as Citizens United did, in the guise of granting corporations a new right to corrupt elections under the First Amendment.

A decision limiting Congress’s power to regulate pollution would be a huge win for chemical manufacturers; drug and tobacco companies want to escape the Food and Drug Administration’s safety requirements; Wall Street wants taxpayer bailouts with no strings attached.  As I wrote a few weeks ago, the powerful elites in this nation think that the health care case is the Supreme Court’s best opportunity in decades to roll back constitutional rights to the deregulated era of excess that led to the First Great Depression eighty years ago. This will be done in the name of protecting Americans against the intrusion of government in their lives.

In the Hunger Games, the hundred thousand wealthiest people in “Panem” gather in their Capitol to watch as twenty-four randomly selected citizens fight each other to death. This is a yearly penance, we are told, imposed by the wealthy in response to an earlier, unsuccessful revolt by the 99%. The Games provide an excuse for a non-stop party for the powerful – like Mardi Gras only with unimaginable excess.  The citizens – known as “Tributes” – come two each from all twelve “Districts” in the country. Those Districts looked a lot like many parts of the United States. People trudge to poor-paying jobs and live in flimsy structures one step up from homelessness. They shop at flea markets where barter is common. They catch their own food. They help each other out because the Capitol has long since abandoned them.

There are other eerie similarities and ironies. In the Hunger Games, the entire game area is wired with cameras and the contest is continuously broadcast to the nation on enormous screens. This quickly turns to the disadvantage of the 1% in the Capitol, because the 99% become inspired by watching the heroine’s courage and humanity and start to rebel anew.  This is a lesson our Supreme Court has already learned: you can forget about seeing any of its hearings on the health care law on a screen of any size. Watching the Justices and corporate lawyers rework the Constitution into a weapon of the mighty might anger some Americans. So the Supreme Court has banned any video… but says it will release audio at the end of each day’s hearing.

It’s clear from the movie that the elites have powerful medicines that can instantly eliminate infections and heal wounds, but residents of the Districts have never seen that kind of health care. I guess the Panem Chamber of Commerce would argue that these citizens are fortunate to be “free from government interference in their lives.”

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/25/2012

Etch-a-Sketch Politicians in a PAC Man world

Every once in a while a jaded political operative utters a profound truth, cutting through all the baloney and phony punditry.

That’s what Mitt Romney’s adviser did when he suggested that his boss could just hit “reset” and adopt more moderate positions once he locked up the Republican nomination and didn’t have to cater to the far right of his party. “It’s almost like an Etch-a-Sketch,” the aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, said. “You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”

Sure, all of Romney’s foes will now clobber him with his aide’s comments and try to score political points off the “gaffe.”

But Fehrnstrom was offering a truth that rarely gets told in big media about how our politicians operate.

Romney and his fellow candidates count on voters not to pay attention, to leave them plenty of room to gloss over earlier statements.

Politicians count on the media’s cynicism and its craven need for access to power to blunt any remaining watchdog instincts. The media ignore commitments the candidates make and contradictions between what they do and what they said, shrugging it off because “everybody does it.”

Romney has had to shake the Etch-a-Sketch hard to erase the image of himself as the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts whose own health care plan provided the template for President Obama’s health care plan, while candidate Romney now falls over himself to oppose the plan.

But the president has his own image shifts to answer for.

For example, candidate Obama portrayed himself as a strong advocate for the 99 percent, promising to change bankruptcy laws to help homeowners facing foreclosure keep their homes.

That shift, known as “judicial cram-downs,” would have provided a powerful incentive for banks to work out loan modifications with homeowners.

But when bankers fought cram-downs, President Obama quietly folded and judicial cram-downs died in Congress. Since then, the president and his administration have offered a series of limp anti-foreclosure measures that rely on voluntary bank cooperation, with paltry results.

But the Etch-a-Sketch is a pretty old toy. The current political season reminds me more of a slightly less retro game that gripped the public imagination – Pacman. In this wildly popular video game, a pizza-shaped icon gobbles up everything else on the screen.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling unleashes unlimited, anonymous contributions to political action committees, or PACs, aligned, but not formally tied, to specific candidates.

Unfortunately, when it comes to using the PACs to bolster their campaigns, the Republicans and Democrats are on the same page.

Both are eager to gobble up the gazillions of dollars available through the PACs, thoroughly undermining the spirit and practice of democracy, in which the majority, not the super-rich minority, are supposed to win.

The best way for us to shake up the political establishment, and the billionaires and big corporations who control it, is to fight for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Here’s our version of such an amendment, written in language that’s easy to understand and will withstand any legal challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens United / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 03/23/2012

The President Aims For the Skyboxes

I keep telling myself I’m going to stop picking on President Obama and his administration because I don’t want to sound like a broken record.

One reader even suggested I might even be giving comfort to the Republicans.

Which, believe me, is not my intention.

But then the president and his people do something so clueless it seems to demand attention.

The latest example is the news that his campaign is contemplating moving the final extravaganza of the Democratic Party convention this summer in Charlotte, Bank of America’s corporate headquarters, to a stadium named for the country’s largest too big to fail bailed out bank.

You know, the one that wanted to charge its customers to use their debit cards, before the huge public outcry stopped them. Even the president slammed the bank’s debit card debacle. I wrote about some of the bank’s numerous other fiascoes here.

Now, the president and his campaign need to switch to the B of A stadium, according to the president’s people, because they need more luxury skyboxes for their big-money donors.

Remember when President Obama stirred the nation on election night in 2008? Speaking before a crowd of 240,000 in a public park in Chicago as well as a huge televised audience, Obama assured the country that “change had come to America.”

In 2008, the president spoke in Grant Park, which has been public space since the 1840s. Bank of America Park is an NFL stadium, home of the Carolina Panthers. They sell the naming rights for millions of dollars a year.  Local residents call it the BofA, or the Vault. Before the name belonged to Bank of America it belonged to the cell phone company Ericsson.

Imagine what a different impression the speech would have made if the president gave it surrounded by advertisements for the country’s banks.

We might have been better prepared for his economic policies if he had. The president has gone from shooting for the stars that night in Grant Park to aiming for the skyboxes.

I’m sure the president’s people will make sure that there are no actual advertisements on display while he speaks. But the symbolism, or optics, couldn’t be more powerful.

If the president and his party want to perform a public service, they should arrange to have the amount Bank of America, has contributed to each of the presidential candidates and their parties up on the scoreboard, along with the amount of bailout money, low-interest loans and loan buyouts the bank received from taxpayers.

If there was room, the party could display the names of its top donors.

If the BofA donations were displayed today, you might wonder why the president didn’t find somebody else’s stadium to give his speech from.

So far, the bank has forked over $126,500 to Romney and a measly $39,024 to the president.

But don’t cry for the president and his party. I’m sure they’ll more than make up the difference in the skyboxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/13/2012

Occupy the Supercommittee

Well they can’t ignore income inequality anymore.

Thank you Occupy Wall Street.

But despite the faux populist tone and understanding emanating from the White House, I’m not convinced President Obama or the rest of our politicians are getting the message.

If they were getting it, they wouldn’t be continuing to pursue policies that place the costs of our continuing economic crisis squarely on the backs of the 99 percent, while the 1 percent uses their political clout to avoid any inconvenience.

For example, the Obama administration has allowed California to cut hundreds of millions of dollars to Medi-Cal, which provides health care to the state’s poorest residents.

If the president’s party was getting it, the Democrats on the so-called Super Committee wouldn’t be pursuing a host of draconian cuts including $3 trillion in cuts to federal health care programs as part of a so-called “grand bargain,” along with some modest tax increases for the country’s wealthiest, you know “job creators,” who are just chomping at the bit to stop outsourcing jobs as soon as they cut yet another tax cut.

As for the Republicans, they’re maintaining the position that their corporate and Wall Street benefactors should have to pay fewer taxes, while the rest of us should get along with less.

I don’t know who these politicians think this bargaining is so grand for, certainly not the 99 percent.

They talk gamely about having “skin in the game” as though they’d be doing the suffering as a result of their proposed cuts. Meanwhile, the House members of the supercommittee did exceptionally well in their service during the third quarter, raking in nearly $372,000 in fundraising from the nation’s financial sector.

This disreputable bunch have turned what is supposed to be a serious democratic process into a demonstration of what our legislature has become – an auction where the government is for sale to the highest bidder, behind closed doors.

As the weather gets frostier in the nation’s capital, the Occupy movement might want to consider the supercommittee’s digs as someplace to get in out from out of the cold.

Martin Column / Occupy / Supercommittee - 10/31/2011

The Real "Entitlements"

For most of us, the Wall Street housing bubble popped in 2008, with painful consequences.

But for those at the top of the nation’s too big to fail banks, the party keeps rocking, even though their institutions are still in trouble and wouldn’t even exist without taxpayers’ generosity.

Take for example that wild and crazy region known as Bank of Americaland, where dwells one of the country’s biggest and sickest banks.

It’s basically never recovered from the financial collapse, which, in Bank of America’s case included a nasty hangover induced by swallowing up the king of sleazy subprime lending, Countrywide, as well as fallen investment banking titan Merrill Lynch (labeled in 2009 by the Wall Street Journal the “$50 billion deal from Hell – no link).

Here’s how Bank of America has squandered its share of the bailout: engaging in a pattern of improper foreclosures on military families and spending millions in campaign contributions and lobbying to fight regulation of its business. Most recently, the bank imposed a new $60 annual debit card on its customers.

After all, the bank’s president, Brian Moynihan, insisted, Bank of America “has a right make a profit,” which occasionally will have to be guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers.

The company is doing so poorly that it’s going to have lay off 30,000 of its employees, some of whom will spend their waning days training their lower paid, outsourced replacements. But the company isn't doing so poorly that it didn’t manage to tuck away $11 million to the ease of parting for two of its top executives.

After all, they’re executives of a floundering bank that’s made a series of poor business decisions. So they’re “entitled” to get even more money on top of their fat salaries.

Across the political spectrum, it’s become fashionable to belittle programs like Social Security and Medicaid as “entitlements,” turning that into a dirty word. But like so much about our current, out of touch with reality political debate, it’s completely upside down.

The way the debate has been framed by our political leaders and media, they’re only “entitlements” if they’re claimed by the 99 percent of Americans who have suffered in the collapse of the middle-class and economic meltdown.

We need a crackdown on “entitlements” all right, but on the real  entitlements, the ones claimed by the top 1 percent, like those Bank of America lays claim to, scooping up millions for its executives while gouging its customers and buying our political system through lobbying and campaign contributions.

But Bank of America won’t give up these entitlements without a fight, because the bankers believe that these are the benefits they’ have a right to, along with their profits.

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 10/13/2011

3 Steps Toward Real Economic Recovery

Democrats should be less worried less about Sarah Palin’s mangling of American history and more concerned about the Obama administration’s consistent underestimation of the recession since the financial collapse.

The president and his team has been downplaying the seriousness of the jobs and housing crises since they took office, repeatedly taking inadequate steps to address the twin fiascoes of foreclosure and unemployment, while wrongly conceding to Republicans that the political focus should be the short-term deficit.

This is not only bad for the country but bad politics for the Democrats, increasing the chances that voters will blame them for not fighting harder for programs to create jobs and straighten out the housing mess. Never mind that Republican efforts to address these issues amount to less than zero.

Nobody expects the president and his party to win every fight. But we do expect him not to wave the white flag before the fight starts.

Circumstances still offer the president opportunities to show that he finally gets it – and to signal a more aggressive approach.

First, the president can launch a fight for Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Warren is popular, articulate and sensible, and the agency was her idea in the first place. Of course the Republicans hate her, in fact they don’t want a single head of the agency. Republicans favor a committee to run the agency, the more easily for the banks to bamboozle it.

Second, he can replace his outgoing economic adviser, Austan  Goolsbee with somebody more tuned in to the jobs and housing crises. How bad was Goolsbee (and the administration’s economic policies he defended)?

Here’s how economist Firedoglake blogger Scarecrow put it after listening to Goolsbee Sunday, saying it was up to the private sector to create jobs now because government could do nothing: “If I’d been asleep for the last decade and woke up to ABC This Week’s interview of Presidential economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, I would assume that Mitt Romney won the 2008 election, that he was predictably following Republican dogma about how to recover from a severe financial collapse and recession...” Scarecrow wrote.

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Third, Obama can fire his Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who has shamelessly pandered to his banker cronies while ignoring Main Street’s woes since he helped engineer the bailout as head of the New York Fed prior to the Obama administration.

Of course it will take more than gestures and a few appointments for the president to tackle the continuing severe economic challenges we face. But he can still saddle up and take a brave ride on the right side of history, if he chooses.

 

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 06/06/2011

Obama Visits the Nasty Neighbor

President Obama paid a call on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a few days ago. No organization has done more to obstruct and derail the president's policy agenda: on behalf of the massive industries that fund its $200 million budget, the Chamber fiercely opposed health care reform, financial reform, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, environmental protection, and consumer access to the courts, often at the expense of small businesses.  Last year, it killed a bill in the Senate that would have stripped big business of tax breaks when they outsource American jobs to other countries. Its litigation shop, lavishly supported by a who's who of corporate defendants in civil and criminal matters, has been remarkably successful in protecting big business in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Chamber is a highly partisan operation that will never cede an inch of ground to the President or his party.

Still, it wasn’t so much that Obama went to Chamber, or what he said when he got there, that bothered me. It was that he walked there from the White House.

The Chamber's headquarters is only three tenths of a mile from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a five minute stroll across Lafayette Park. Most Americans would never consider taking the car (except maybe Angelenos).

But when the President rolls, dozens of vehicles, from ambulances and TV trucks to communications and heavily armed Secret Service vans, go with him. It's spectacle, but, as President Reagan understood, the motorcade is a potent symbol of the power and majesty of the presidency.

Going on foot to the headquarters of corporate America, Obama surrendered not merely the trappings of power but, inescapably, a measure of the dignity of his office.

A year ago, Obama hoofed it back to the White House from a speech at the Chamber. That was right after his annual physical, and Obama joked that he needed to walk off some of his cholesterol. More importantly, that was before the mid-term elections, when the President’s party got walloped, thanks in no small part to the $31.7 million the Chamber spent around the nation, 93% of which went to elect Republicans.

His latest visit wasn't exactly "hat in hand," but by the President's own reckoning it was pretty close: “I'm here in the interest of being more neighborly," Obama told his hosts. "Maybe if we had brought over a fruitcake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off to a better start.”

"I'm going to make up for it," the President promised. Some of us think he's already done plenty for big business, and not quite so much for average Americans, most of whom are struggling to survive the aftermath of the debacle on Wall Street.

Mr. Obama was careful not to completely prostrate himself before the Chamber's bigwigs. But every remark that could be considered a point of disagreement was tempered with a nod to the Chamber’s ideology. The President defended health care reform, but instead of discussing the human toll of the private insurance mess, explained that it “made our entire economy less competitive.” He warned that “the perils of too much regulation are matched by the dangers of too little,” referring to the financial crisis, but did not discuss lost jobs or homes. Instead he said, “the absence of sound rules of the road was hardly good for business.” Invoking one of John F. Kennedy’s most memorable speeches, Obama said, “as we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America.” But the man who appeared before the Chamber conceived of his job far differently than he did when he asked Americans for it in 2008:  “the final responsibility of government,” President Obama told the Chamber audience, is “breaking down barriers that stand in the way of your success.”

This week’s stroll was part of the President’s Chamber charm campaign, which began in earnest with the State of the Union speech in January, when the President seemed to declare the recession over because  “the stock market has come roaring back” and “corporate profits are up.”

For one in five Americans still out of work, for the one in four homeowners whose homes are worth less than the amount they owe on their mortgages, that was a painful moment reminiscent of George Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech back in 2003 about the Iraq War. Obama spent the rest of the State of the Union on a combination of platitudes and pandering to his opponents, pledging among other things to get rid of unnecessary government regulations - one of the Chamber's perennial priorities.

There are plenty of other places the president could have gone if he was in the mood for an outing. The national headquarters of the AFL-CIO is only a few steps away from the Chamber, but he has never made that trip, as the California Nurses Association pointed out. Sadly, that would not be as controversial a venue as the President might fear: the AFL issued a joint press release with the Chamber praising the president’s State of the Union speech. Still, a visit from the president would have made a statement to the nation about the role working women and men play in what is known as the "real" economy (as opposed to Wall Street and the Money Industry). A fairly straightforward jog down Pennsylvania Avenue would have taken Mr. Obama to Consumer Watchdog's office on Capitol Hill.

We'll be watching where the President wanders to next. If you know what you are doing, and are clear about where you want to go, navigating the nation's capital isn't hard. But for newcomers who don't, it's very easy to get lost in D.C.

Harvey Column / Outrage / Uncategorized - 02/11/2011

Night on Fantasy Island

As a snapshot of the wildly dysfunctional state of our political union, last night’s festivities were a smashing success. All sides were serving up plenty of mom, apple pie and platitudes while ignoring what’s actually left on plates of millions of Americans –nothing.

I did find at least something to agree with in what each of the speakers said. Who can quarrel with President Obama when he calls on us to “win the future?” And I want my government as lean and mean as Paul Ryan and the Republicans do, without any wasteful subsidies that boost corporate tycoons and their overseas expansion rather than creating decent-paying jobs here at home.

It’s true that the tea party’s spokeswoman, Rep. Michele Bachman of Minnesota, looked like aliens had captured her brain and were speaking through her. Maybe we would have been better off if the aliens had captured Obama and Ryan too. At least Bachman briefly took note of the high unemployment rate before she went off to into her own rhetorical fantasyland.

That’s more than you can say for President Obama, who was pitching us his hallucination that his new pals from the Chamber of Commerce are going to beat their corporate profits into ploughshares in partnership with government, in an effort to foster new technologies and growth that we all share. Forgive me if I can’t get too worked up about this. Didn’t we try this government-corporate partnership recently? Wasn’t that what the bailout was?

Back here on Planet Earth, that didn’t work out so well for a lot of us, though it does seem to have worked well for the president’s friends at General Electric and JPMorgan Chase.

Both Ryan and Bachman aren’t interested in any partnerships; they want to dismantle government altogether so that GE, JPMorgan and the rest of the corporatariat can run the show without any interference at all. The only difference is that Bachman would like to do it faster, with less nice talk, than Ryan.

Neither the president, Ryan, or Bachman could focus on reality long enough to mention the long, steep decline of the middle class or the on-going foreclosure crisis, or offer any specific ideas on addressing those very real issues.

Back here on Planet Earth, we’re going to have to harness all of our ingenuity, strength and diversity just to wrestle our political system back from these leaders and their corporate backers before they plunder what’s left of it.

Congress / Financial Crisis / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/26/2011

Stand Up Against Fear, Mr. President

Dear Mr. President:

I'm glad to see reports that you don’t intend to call for cuts to Social Security, as your hand-picked so-called deficit commission recommended.

But turning over the Social Security debate to Congress and standing back to see what they come up with is not good enough, Mr. President.

It’s time for you to take on those who want to undermine Social Security protections under the guise of concern over the deficit, rather than enable them, as you have been doing by stacking your deficit commission with members who had previously supported cuts to Social Security.

Now it’s time for you to fight back against the fear-mongering propaganda campaign that’s been trying to whip up a phony crisis around Social Security, not to stand on the sidelines, Mr. President.

Yes, it will be a tough fight. The pundits, Republicans, many in your own party and a gang of Wall Street tycoons are lined up against you.

But the good news for you politically, Mr. President, is that a majority of the people in the country are lined up with you, should you choose to lead them in this fight.

This is a fight we can win, Mr. President. It’s good politics and it’s good sense.

Yes, it means you’ll have to go up against some of the bankers you’ve been trying to get cozy with. You’ll have to stand up and speak out against the fear that the Social Security cutters are peddling. But if you choose to lead this fight, you may remember that’s why we elected you.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Social Security - 01/25/2011