Often labeled “the greatest generation,” our senior citizens have seen a lot in their time. Many of them marched for equality beside Martin Luther King Jr., fought for justice with Bobby Kennedy, or answered a timeless call to service under President John F. Kennedy.
But now, many of them need help. They’re concerned about Social Security or dealing with the maze of coverage for Medicare Part D. They’re paying too much for prescription drugs and coping with rising costs on everything. More than anything, they’re worried about the country they’re leaving behind to their children and grandchildren.
Across New Hampshire, they’re ready for new leadership. They're ready for the torch to be passed to a new generation to bring about change we can believe in.
BARACK OBAMA'S ANSWERS as found on choose your candidate washington post CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/?BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
TOP PRIORITIES:My top priority as president will be ending this warin Iraq, a war that should have never been authorizedand never been waged. In doing so, I will work to keepour country safe from terrorists and to restoreAmerican credibility around the world. Providinguniversal health care to the 47 million Americans whocurrently do not have it will be another top priorityof my administration, as will combating global warmingand putting our country on the path toward energyindependence. But all of the issues that I havefocused on in this campaign -- whether it's creating a21st century education system and fighting poverty orachieving comprehensive immigration reform andstrengthening our economy -- are vitally important andmust be prioritized by the next president. And all ofthese issues share one thing in common: in order tofully address them, we have to do more than changepolitical parties. We have to fundamentally change ourpolitics and transform the way business is done inWashington.
IRAQ WAR: 1IRAQ WAR: 2
SECURITY:
HEALTH CARE
EDUCATION:CHANGES IN EDUCATION:GAY MARRIAGE:CIVIL UNIONS:ABORTION:POOR:GUNS:GUN CONTROL:STEM CELL RESEARCH:
ENERGY: 1ENERGY: 2IMMIGRATION: 1IMMIGRATION: 2
AFFIRMIATIVE ACTION:BUDGET ISSUES: 1BUDGET ISSUES: 2ECONOMY: 1ECONOMY 2:SOCIAL SECURITY: 1SOCIAL SECURITY: 2
CLICK READ MORE TO SEE ALL THE ANSWERS BARACK HAS LISTED AT THIS WASHINGTON POST POLL SITE. I THINK IT GIVES AN EASY READ TO HIS PERSPECTIVES.
The Social Security system doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going according to many, including Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor during President Bill Clinton's Administration) but experts agree it will need "bolstering." It's one of the foundational pillars of retirement planning for the vast majority of citizens in this country, [disclosure: I'm one of them] and as such worthy of attention.
Senator Obama proposes lifting the current cap on the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, currently just under $100,000 which is highly regressive. Those in the best position to contribute by virtue of their comfortable incomes don't want to pay more, presumably, and that includes every U.S. Senator and member of Congress. An upward adjustment to the cap amount, as Reich points out, doesn't have to be "all that much to keep Social Security solvent."
Let's be clear: currently, a person earning over one million dollars annually pays the same amount into the Social Security system as somebody earning $99,000 - is that logical?
Why is there a cap in the first place? If it's not outright eliminated, then even adjusting the cap upward is a straightforward, more progressive approach to the funding, which is precisely what Senator Obama has been advocating. It can be enacted quickly, allowing the women and men elected to look after this country's interests to focus their time on more complex priorities, such as insuring that basic health care is genuinely accessible to every citizen.
In fact, there's no reason this can't be enacted well before the Presidential election, allowing the campaigns and voters to focus elsewhere, too. Spread the word!
The reason I posted is that so far Barack Obama appears to have the political will for change. He is one of the only reasons I am considering voting. I want a strong leader that will solve the most pressing issues (Global Warming, Social Security, Education, Immigration Reform) that are affecting our long-term stability as a nation. The current administration has made too many bad short term decisions that are affecting our long-term stability.
As much as they preach change there is never enough significant change for me to go out and consider participating in the political process. Why bother voting if that vote is meaningless, because the choices are limited to politicians that do not have the political will to change what needs to be change as painful as the change may be in the short term.
The “greatest generation” took on incredible short term sacrifices that no generation since, in my opinion, had to endure. However; we call them the “greatest generation”, because they improved life in the U.S. long-term more than any generation since. Our current leaders and the generation in power have a choice to make be a great generation or be known as the worst generation. Show me the political will to solve the issues of today and I will vote and I will sacrifice so that my children have a better life.
Please feel free to add your opinion on why you don't vote.
As I was packing for my week of volunteering in Iowa, I was alerted by a member of my Rapid Response group to a brilliant posting by Geekesque in dailyKos. And a very funny story at that. But when I checked the HillaryHub's facts link, I realized it was based on a real Clinton attack claiming he has been plotting to become President since kindergarten! All I can say is: politics imitates parody. So is this what Hillary meant when she said "Now the fun part starts"?
If you have not read the post, I urge you do so. It will only take a couple of minutes, but this is in my opinion the funniest story to come out of the Presidential campaign to date. And if you have a lot of time on your hands, read some of the almost 1300 comments that have been made on this story, for it has truly inspired some of the most hilarious puns and jokes I can recall.
I was in between flights to Iowa the next day when I read a far more serious blog by none other than Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary, in which he criticized the "stridency and inaccuracy" of Hillary's charges against Barack Obama. He proceeds to describe Obama's approach to Social Security as "progressive" and his proposals on healthcare as "better" than Hillary's.
I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I'm as hard-boiled as they come about what's said in campaigns, I just don't think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going -- it's in far better shape than Medicare -- but everyone who's looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund 10 years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it's indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn't have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent -- maybe to $115,00. That's a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: a commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that's what Greenspan's Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama's plan would "raise taxes" and her plan wouldn't, she's simply not telling the truth. Email Print Comment I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance -- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated -- that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so. HRC doesn't indicate how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in HRC's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it. I'm also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O's plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people. Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O's character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that." I just don't get it. If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she's been doing. All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up. This post first appeared on Robert Reich's blog.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html
