The Liberal Entitlement Conference
There are plenty of reasons liberals should like today's entitlement summit. My colleague, Elana Schor, notes them here and TAP's Ezra Klein here. Bob Greenstein, head of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, made the liberal case for alarm in his remarks. He notes that the problem is primarily a health care problem If health care costs could just be brought in line with economic growth we'd be largely okay. "We will need to act before mounting debt and interest payments make this problem worse than it already is. The mere fact that Greenstein has such a prominent role addressing the conference ought to be of comfort to liberals. If that wasn't enough, OMB Director Peter Orszag made it clear that "health care reform is entitlement reform."
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
This is a perfect example of why pushback from progressives is politically helpful to Obama, in the FDR "Now make me do it" sense.
The end result is much better than what was originally mooted.
February 23, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's a difference between organizing people to support a certain position and then taking that to the government, and "pushback," which I see largely as making a lot of noise so that we get labeled the "angry left," and things just keep on keeping on.
I like the way MoveOn decided to organize its membership to support green legislation. That to me is a positive move for the internet - instead of just being a vehicle for constant complaint, it becomes a tool to organize.
I think both sides need to find new ways of approaching old problems because both sides are insane to the extent that they continue to do the same things and expect different results. That's why I think "progressive pressure" should take the form of organizing people in support of issues and taking that support to the government because that's where you can begin bargaining for what you want. Instead of insisting, yelling, complaining - that's all I did for the last 8 years -I'm ready to build things. I think new ways of solving problems and getting progressive agendas passed are needed.
February 23, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please re-read Matthew's post. This was NOT "making a lot of noise so that we get labeled the "angry left," and things just keep on keeping on." Things didn't just keep on; meaningful improvement was attained as a result of the pressure.
February 23, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the post - and I didn't mean to sound accusatory and I didn't mean to imply anything. I'm talking in general about the way I see the landscape.
And I agree that there was a good result. I want to see nothing but good results.
didn't mean to evoke hostility.
February 23, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No hostility intended, but I may be a bit sensitive after past bashing from the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd around here (in which I certainly don't include you).
February 23, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Elana Schor.
C'mon! Be a bit more professional!
February 23, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh. How successfully Republicans have brainwashed the media into thinking health care is an "entitlement". That Social Security is an "entitlement".
Matt? Do you realize how thoroughly Republican your writing sounds?
"Entitlement". The average citizen is "entitled" to healthcare the same way Wall Streeters are "entitled" to their bonuses?
For shame.
February 23, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Entitlement" may be a bad choice of words, but it's also the word used for such programs, not Matthew's conceit. It means that if you qualify for benefits, you get them, where discretionary programs stop paying when the funding runs out. I certainly do understand how the headline "Liberal entitlements" causes an immediate negative gut response, so I suggest suggesting a different word. Maybe instead of entitlements, we say "social insurance," since that's what Social Security and Medicare really are.
February 23, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problems with "social insurance".
February 23, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with CT Voter, can we find a different word choice besides "entitlement". It's the height of irony to have the entitled ones in Washington with their multiple houses talking about what is an "entitlement" for the rest of us, to say nothing of the fact that too many look upon these "entitlements" as something we don't deserve.
February 23, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic, and very Marie Antoinettish. . .we wealthy individuals will tell you poor schmucks who have been working your entire adult lives that Social Security is an "entitlement".
February 23, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. People are not entitled to Social Security benefits?
February 23, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the negative connotation associated with the word "entitlement" that is offensive when it comes to Social Security.
February 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, assholes like Peterson use the word to try to make SS recipients sound like ancien regime nobles enjoying their privileges.
February 23, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Playing word games is what people do when they can't get the public to accept their agenda. Can't get people to buy into eliminating inheritance taxes? No problem. Call it something else.
SS and Medicare are entitlements - people are entitled to them because they've paid into the plan all their working life. Running away from the word entitlements by calling it something else just makes it sound like you're hiding something.
February 23, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Entitlement" has a negative connotation. Your interpretation is how it should be, but that's not how Republicans use it.
It's, in the Republican/media sense, a dirty word. Those no goodniks out there who think they're "entitled" to a government "handout" that they haven't really "earned".
February 24, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not optimistic.
Health care reform is entitlement reform? What exactly is that going to mean? I fear it may eventually mean that we get "entitled" to be mandated to buy a crummy health insurance policy that we can't afford and doesn't cover the care we need and such "reform" will lead to "entitlements" like Medicare being phased out and replaced with a mandate that granny buy her own crummy health insurance policy.
Do not trust the "centrists". They will "reform" you into bankruptcy and write a bankruptcy bill to suit your creditors.
February 23, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink