Jack & Jill Politics

Uncle Sam wants you … to cough up a half-million dollars to fund current entitlement obligations. That would cover the lifetime benefits of all currently eligible participants in federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security — and that number will keep growing. Don’t expect to hear those figures from Capitol Hill, though, because Congress does not require the federal government to follow the same reporting rules that they have applied to businesses:

The federal government’s long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits as more baby boomers reach retirement.

That’s double the red ink of a year earlier.

Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That’s nearly $500,000 per household.

When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.

Corporations and most state governments have to declare long-term liabilities when created. The federal government, however, only declares the annual cost of entitlement programs, using the flimsy excuse that future Congresses could adjust or eliminate the programs in the future. That sleight of hand keeps the federal deficit numbers ridiculously low, and it keeps pressure for entitlement reform almost as low.

President Bush tried to address this in 2005, starting with the much more moderate problem of Social Security. Democrats insisted that no problem existed at all, and that the fiscal stability of Social Security was guaranteed for decades. Instead of acting to correct the ballooning deficit in this one program, the Democrats demagogued, claiming that Bush wanted to steal Social Security benefits from seniors — a charge Barack Obama echoed yesterday against John McCain.

McCain voted against adding Medicare Part D, opposing George Bush during the first term, and one can understand why in looking at these numbers. Just in the last year, Medicare took on $1.27 trillion in new liabilities, Social Security $900 billion, and civil-service retirement $106 billion. That comes to almost $2.3 trillion in new liabilities, which outstrips the entire federal budget of 2003. At some point, those bills have to get paid, and that’s assuming we stop adding liabilities from this point forward.

We don’t need demagoguery. We need real entitlement reform that acknowledges reality before American workers become nothing more than serfs providing funding for a massive nanny state.

Barack Obama, with a huge assist from the American media, accused George Bush of playing electoral politics with his otherwise unremarkable and rather general condemnation of appeasement in the Israeli Knesset. Bush never mentioned anyone by name and only made one reference to a specific person in the speech, a Republican Senator in 1939, but he did frame the remarks by referring to those who had suggested that we cut ties to Israel and engage with their enemies in terrorist groups like Hamas. Now the country whose ambassador to Britain once called Israel a “s****y little country” reveals that they have indeed engaged Hamas, at least informally:

France has had informal contacts with Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that rules Gaza, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Monday.

Kouchner, speaking on Europe-1 radio, was confirming a report in the daily Le Figaro that quoted a retired diplomat as saying he met with Hamas leaders a month ago.

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States. Fatah had dominated Palestinian politics for decades, but was trounced by Hamas in 2006 parliamentary elections. In June 2007, the militant Islamic group took Gaza by force, triggering a crisis among Palestinians.

France has had contacts with Hamas leaders “for several months,” Kouchner said, adding that France was not in formal negotiations. “These are not relations, they are contacts. We must be able to talk if we want to play a role,” the minister said.

A series of contacts constitutes relations, regardless of whatever sophistry Kouchner utilizes. It’s a distinction without a difference, and it flies in the face of the West’s stated policy of non-negotiation with terrorist groups. The more outrageous aspect of it is that Hamas doesn’t target France. How would France react if Israel began a series of “contacts” with ETA in order to “play a role” in resolving the standoff with Basque separatists?

Whatever the international community rewards, it will encourage to increase. If Hamas gets diplomatic engagement without forswearing terrorism and Israel’s destruction, what would motivate them to abandon those positions? Regardless of what Kouchner claims, Hamas isn’t engaged in a border dispute with Israel, they have an existential struggle against the Israelis, and they prove it every time a missile lands in Sderot and Ashkelon.

At least ETA recognizes France’s right to exist.

Given this revelation, and the likelihood that the US already knew about these diplomatic engagements between France and Hamas, the Bush speech appears to quite obviously reference this without explicitly embarrassing France. Let’s go back to the speech (via The Anchoress):

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

With Kouchner’s statement, the French seem the most likely reference for this disputed section of Bush’s rejection of appeasement, not Barack Obama and the Democrats. Unless they have changed positions lately, the Democrats have never publicly suggested that the US cut ties with Israel, but we certainly have heard voices in Europe suggesting that over the year, before and after Oslo. The appeasers are the ones talking with terrorists to see how moderate they can get while still demanding the destruction of Israel and using terrorism against civilians to strengthen their political hand.

If Obama wants to volunteer that he should be cast into the same lot as Kouchner, then that’s his decision — but it looks pretty obvious that neither he nor the media paid attention to the speech or the situation with Hamas. Obama threw himself under a bus that wasn’t rolling in his direction at all.

Anon 8:55,
That’s because Obama openly advocates surrender in Iraq. It’s essentially his platform when asked about the War on Terror.

setare,
What purpose does the name calling serve?

Anon 9:02,
Statistics like this-unfortunately-don’t matter.

As far as his positions on Iraq and the War on Terror, Obama is running the ’06 election strategy: it’s popular to be against the war. The only problem is that now-admittedly, unlike then-the facts on the ground clearly show that, given time, we can win there.

And I guess openly pursuing nuclear weapons to use against us and our allies doesn’t constitute a “serious threat.” Wonder what does….

What ms.martin said.

Also, d., all the intelligence reports that merit attention have concluded that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons right now. You tell me not to name-call. Fine. But you should inform yourself of the facts.

Ms. Martin,
I’m sure we do. To some countries-Iran being one-it’s good that we do.

Setare,
Right now. And I’m sure they want a reactor for strictly peaceful purposes.

But if you believe that, hey….whatever works.

Obama video, Lay Off My Wife. Put it up!!!

Setare,
Then we agree to disagree. And there was nothing troll-like in that discussion. :)

D

It seems to me we’re always on the offensive – this country was established on the offensive.

Fucking war mongers – suited up gangsters and thieves. And, dictators of their non-white patriots.

We have nuclear weapons and so do our allies – do you think maybe we pose a serious threat to anyone?

I’ve always wondered who made the US the final authority on who should and shouldn’t have nuclear weapons. IMO it’s the height of arrogance to say we can be armed with nukes up the wazoo to defend ourselves but no one else can, unless you’re our ally (Israel, Pakistan). And as far as the argument that Iran wants the technology for nefarious purposes maybe, maybe not, but I’m not so sure our intentions are so pure on this end as the last 8 years have borne out.

Just an observation.

d.,

I get what you’re saying, and if you noticed I didn’t list China and N. Korea in the parentheses.

As far as Iran, how is their threatening Israel’s existence any different from Bush’s saber rattling or Hillary’s “obliterate” comment? Aren’t we threatening Iran’s existence? I’m not trying to be a smartass, I’m just trying to understand the difference.

From: Cafe, Election Central
POOR HILLARY.

By Bserious – May 19, 2008, 1:31AM
After reading this BS in the nytimes about Hillary losing because of sexism, I had to repost this. Had to.

The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums and her claims that the media is pro-Obama. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).

Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success? Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” defends McCain. The list goes on and on. I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast. Senator Obama is a grown man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, (check their senate records) yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie?

She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had. It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 70,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states, have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that he’s just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.

It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that. This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it’s still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right? Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to fear black men.

Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done ? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?” Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama the second he steps out of line. Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media.

There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it. You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004.

He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white people uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman. Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it. But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black ass. All I’m saying is that it’s more complicated than the media would like to suggest. So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.

Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!

I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown woman who knows exactly what she’s doing.

She conveniently plays off of gender oppression every chance she gets. Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”

@ Anonymous 10:51am

PLEASE give me a link to that post.

I HAVE NEVER posted on Talking Points Memo. That “Bserious” guy is NOT me.

Don’t get me wrong, I DID write that particular post “Poor Hillary,” a couple of months ago. But I never put it on TPM.

That “Poor Hillary” post was written in the comments section on this (JJP) website. I re-posted it on my blog and encouraged others to pass it around (as some did).

But I have a problem with someone using my screen name and posting as though they are me.

I just had this conversation with “Big Man” from the blog, Raving Black Lunatic. That other Bserious guy posted one of Big Man’s posts and he thought I did it.

Once again, I didn’t have a problem with people re-posting that “Poor Hillary” comment. But that “Bserious” guy over at TPM is NOT me, and I’d hope that he’s not trying to assume my blogging identity.

Please give me the link if you can.

OK. . . who is this other “Bserious” guy over at TPM Cafe???

He’s got my post, a post from Big Man and a recent post from Field Negro under his name.

He lists Field Negro’s and Big Man’s websites for attribution (at the tale end).

He doesn’t attribute me whatsoever.

Once again. I AM NOT the “Bserious” over at TPM.

Does anyone know who this person is? It would help to avoid further confusion in the future.

d.,

Iran did not threaten the existence of Israel. This is one of those right-wing memes that people such as yourself repeat without actually assessing its veracity. If you know any Farsi (i.e. the Persian language), you would know that this meme is a purposeful, manipulative mistranslation of what was actually said.

Also this: the one country that *has* been a real threat to the existence of its neighbours in the Middle East is Israel. (In case you’ve conveniently forgotten, Israel pretty much destroyed Lebanon almost two years ago.)

Setare,
That’s why I didn’t take the “wipe Israel off the map” statement, and just reduced it to a generic threat.

I read the details, on occasion. :)

Oregon rally was awesome.
___

IMO Feminist movement plus Civil Rights achieved their main and necessary goals 20+ years ago. At present, both groups don’t know of a purposely useful next agenda. These groups have devolved into who’s-the-most-victimized competitions. I ignore both.
___

After this nomination battle, I bet DNC will change superdelegate rules and primary schedule. Will they establish a shorter per region primary voting cycle?

A shorter cycle assists a more established, or well-known candidate. A long cycle sometimes helps a challenger. A long cycle also shakes out weaknesses that could cripple a candidate during the GE.

I stand corrected D and will take that back. I thought you said we did not threaten Iraq

I just had to say, that I really love this Marvin Gaye photo. It’s one of his best.

Have a great afternoon and evening, everyone! See ya tomorrow for the Primary.

Setare, thanks for that link — it is pretty good!

Craig, I can’t wait to read what you have to say when you open up that lockbox. Between you and rikyrah and anyone else from the JJP crowd saving up — something to hang onto when I read the crap in the mainstream about “women” voters and all.