In January 2008, I had been persistently critical of Obama for what I perceived as a variety of shortcomings--including an incredible vagueness and lack of clear direction, while not being enthused enough by any other candidates to support them instead. People objected that it was too easy just to criticize (critics always get, of course), and so I offered a couple of positive suggestions about things I thought Obama could do that were in keeping with his main campaign themes. One was for him to embrace Robert Fuller's concept of dignitarianism. The other was laid out in a diary, I wrote on January 27, which is reproduced in full below. I have something brief to say about it afterwards.
The Great Risk Shift-A Substantive Fight That Obama COULD Make His Own
In keeping with my point that I'm NOT involved in candidate advocacy, I want to point out a major substantive initiative that I think Obama could take on quite readily, even though it might at first seem a more natural fit for Edwards. The issue is laid out in a recent book by Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and Retirement--And How You Can Fight Back. In it, Hacker argues that the greatest economic challenge facing Americans today is not economic inequality-though he doesn't seek to downplay that-but rather the shifting burden of economic risk. And that what's most needed in the 21st Century is a new orientation to bringing risk back under reasonable control.
It's not simply a matter of protecting folks at the bottom, Hacker argues-effective dealing with risk is vital for creating an environment in which people feel secure enough to take on the sort of voluntary risk that helps drive the economy forward-what's often called "entrepreneurial risk," but that includes a wide range of choices to invest resources of time, money and effort in future possibilities that by their very nature cannot be certain. These include investments in eduction, training, changing careers, starting a new business, etc. In short, Hacker argues, a security orientation is not the polar opposite to an opportunity orientation-it is a vital aspect of an opportunity orientation. And it's this latter argument that gives Hacker's point about countering the Great Risk Shift a potential bipartisan cross-over appeal that fits perfectly with Obama's articulated intentions.
John Sununu is trying to subsidize Wall Street - with your Social Security dollars! Not only has he supported the risky privatization of social security in the past, given the recent turmoil in the market, he is still behind this terrible idea.
What Sununu fails to realize is that markets go through cycles of ups and down. This guarantees that every few years, senior citizens will start to draw benefits during a market down-turn, and will receive lower benefits, simply due to the nature of the market.
Does it make sense to arbitrarily risk peoples Social Security benefits just at the point in their lives when risky investments are least recommended?
No.
John Sununu needs to think more about the well-being of senior citizens, instead of the well-being of Wall Street.
Bob Schaffer wants to gamble with your Social Security benefits. His fractured logic says that risking your Social Security contributions on Wall Street will be the right thing to do to insure future benefit levels.
Bob Schaffer is not risking his retirement. He's risking yours. Markets can rise, but they can also drop, precipitously. That's a risk that our senior citizens can ill afford.
Bob Schaffer - not dedicated to keeping Social Security safe.
In keeping with my point that I'm NOT involved in candidate advocacy, I want to point out a major substantive initiative that I think Obama could take on quite readily, even though it might at first seem a more natural fit for Edwards. The issue is laid out in a recent book by Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and Retirement--And How You Can Fight Back. In it, Hacker argues that the greatest economic challenge facing Americans today is not economic inequality-though he doesn't seek to downplay that-but rather the shifting burden of economic risk. And that what's most needed in the 21st Century is a new orientation to bringing risk back under reasonable control.
It's not simply a matter of protecting folks at the bottom, Hacker argues-effective dealing with risk is vital for creating an environment in which people feel secure enough to take on the sort of voluntary risk that helps drive the economy forward-what's often called "entrepreneurial risk," but that includes a wide range of choices to invest resources of time, money and effort in future possibilities that by their very nature cannot be certain. These include investments in eduction, training, changing careers, starting a new business, etc. In short, Hacker argues, a security orientation is not the polar opposite to an opportunity orientation-it is a vital aspect of an opportunity orientation. And it's this latter argument that gives Hacker's point about countering the Great Risk Shift a potential bipartisan cross-over appeal that fits perfectly with Obama's articulated intentions.
