Previous story:
«
Next story:
»
PAT LAMARCHE

The faces of those Obama is betraying

By Pat LaMarche
Posted July 12, 2011, at 8:33 p.m.
Last modified July 13, 2011, at 4:53 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

President Barack Obama lost a vote the hard way this past week. My Uncle Paul died. It might not have been Obama’s vote to lose if my uncle had just lived a few days longer — long enough to see Obama turn his back on Social Security.

I have to admit I’ve been a little busy this week, what with all the chaos that accompanies losing someone you love. And my uncle was the perfect guy. I kid you not. There was a little something for everybody in that guy.

Paul Judge was the child of Irish immigrants and my mom’s younger brother. He served on the USS Midway as an enlisted seaman, went on to Boston College undergrad and then to Harvard grad school. Paul loved his country, believed in her vigilant defense and once educated, went to work at the Pentagon. After his retirement he settled into the life he’d built for himself as a world class-husband, father, grandfather and, you guessed it, uncle.

And Paul Judge was politically engaged. He had strong opinions about equal rights for all regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. He believed that a government that was strong enough to protect the free world was only worthwhile if it protected folks back home. He believed that social welfare programs were worth paying for because the children of the poor needed education and opportunity to rise out of poverty much the way he himself had.

Lastly, Paul liked people. He would especially have liked a gentleman who lives on the fourth floor of the shelter where I work. Tall and skinny, the man I’ll call Edgar went to work at a scrapyard the year he quit school to help provide for his family. Edgar was 15; it was 1955.

I asked Edgar to come to my office — I work in a homeless shelter that provides emergency, transitional and permanent housing — so that I could ask him a few questions about his life. He lives in our permanent housing program which caters mostly to very poor elderly folks in the area. While we house a number of families, the vast majority of our permanent residents are older folks who worked all their lives but whose benefits aren’t enough to provide decent housing.

Edgar can’t remember not working. He does remember his favorite job. When he was about 24 he got a job working for U.S. Steel in Kansas City, Mo. It was a union job and the pay was the best he can ever remember getting. Eventually the plant was closed and with his limited education he never had a job that good again.

Now at age 71, Edgar receives a Social Security check each month for $573 and $200 a month in food stamps. His Medicare benefit allows him to get many of his prescription drugs for a low co-pay of about $3 per scrip and because of the generosity of folks in the area he can live here at our shelter for about $180 a month. The going rate for a one-room efficiency not connected to our homeless shelter is $500 a month: an amount he could never afford.

Perhaps now you can understand why a man who spent his entire life working, serving his country, paying his taxes and being a vital part of our national defense might have walked away from a president who has suddenly turned his back on a man who likewise spent the last 55 years struggling to do the thankless menial tasks that keep our nation running. Uncle Paul would never have approved of President Obama bailing on Edgar.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his article “Hands off Social Security,” summed up the frustration so many on the Left feel with President Obama’s abandonment of his ideals: “Let us be clear, Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt … I am especially disturbed that President Obama is considering cuts in Social Security after he campaigned against cuts in 2008.”

President Obama has forgotten who got him elected in 2008 — people like Uncle Paul. And while there’s no winning Paul’s vote back, by being untrue to his word he’s losing the rest of our votes the old-fashioned way.

Pat LaMarche of Yarmouth is the author of “Left Out In America: The State of Homelessness in the United States.” She may be reached at PatLaMarche@hotmail.com.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    He’s losing your vote?  Who are you going to vote for then?   No one?

  • Anonymous

                 Pat You do understand that even if Obama proposes and agree to specific Social Security cuts they would not have effected your Edgar don’t you? In fact they would not have effected anyone within 7 years of retirement age.
                  If that isn’t enough something indeed has to be done with Social Security as it will run out in 2025. (millions of Edgars in far worse shape to come) The economic darling of the left Robert Reich has suggested raising the retirement age to 70 (we live longer now) Raise the SS tax from 6.2% to 7.5% are among his suggestions. Other folks have suggested means testing as a way to cut cost. (Does someone who makes $100k per year in retirement need another $20k in SS)
                    Pat your whole premise is based on a lie.

  • http://twitter.com/BlaqkPhoenix777 BlaqkPhoenix777

    It’s really hard to care about Obama cutting Social Security benefits when I know that when I retire, there will not be any money left for me and my generation, even though my tax dollars are paying into Social Security as we speak. The system is broken, as it was never designed in a way that accounted for the influx of baby boomers post WW2, and the advances in technology/medicine that allow people to live well beyond their retirement age.

  • http://twitter.com/BlaqkPhoenix777 BlaqkPhoenix777

    It’s really hard to care about Obama cutting Social Security benefits when I know that when I retire, there will not be any money left for me and my generation, even though my tax dollars are paying into Social Security as we speak. The system is broken, as it was never designed in a way that accounted for the influx of baby boomers post WW2, and the advances in technology/medicine that allow people to live well beyond their retirement age.

  • http://twitter.com/MaineOwl MaineOwl

    I find fascinating these common, but false, notions–Social Security will “run out in 2025″, “there will not be any money left for me and my generation” and Social Security “is broken.” In fact the design of the program has allowed it to run a large surplus that has persisted for decades and will allow it to pay 100% of promised benefits for at least 25 more years. Afterward, if nothing is done, the worst-case scenario is that benefit level would be on a slow decrease to 75% of those promised, bottoming out around 2070. The “influx” of boomers has been accounted for–by the rather nasty Greenspan Commission, resulting in the benefit cuts of 1983.  Knowing these facts, and given the incredible value every working person receives from the defined benefits of Social Security, the fatalistic attitude–”why should I care because what I pay in now is wasted”–is highly destructive. A more proper response is the one Pat LaMarche suggests. That is, we should reject the betrayal by Obama and the wholesale Republican attack against Social Security in the strongest possible terms.

  • http://twitter.com/MaineOwl MaineOwl

    I find fascinating these common, but false, notions–Social Security will “run out in 2025″, “there will not be any money left for me and my generation” and Social Security “is broken.” In fact the design of the program has allowed it to run a large surplus that has persisted for decades and will allow it to pay 100% of promised benefits for at least 25 more years. Afterward, if nothing is done, the worst-case scenario is that benefit level would be on a slow decrease to 75% of those promised, bottoming out around 2070. The “influx” of boomers has been accounted for–by the rather nasty Greenspan Commission, resulting in the benefit cuts of 1983.  Knowing these facts, and given the incredible value every working person receives from the defined benefits of Social Security, the fatalistic attitude–”why should I care because what I pay in now is wasted”–is highly destructive. A more proper response is the one Pat LaMarche suggests. That is, we should reject the betrayal by Obama and the wholesale Republican attack against Social Security in the strongest possible terms.

  • http://twitter.com/MaineOwl MaineOwl

    I find fascinating these common, but false, notions–Social Security will “run out in 2025″, “there will not be any money left for me and my generation” and Social Security “is broken.” In fact the design of the program has allowed it to run a large surplus that has persisted for decades and will allow it to pay 100% of promised benefits for at least 25 more years. Afterward, if nothing is done, the worst-case scenario is that benefit level would be on a slow decrease to 75% of those promised, bottoming out around 2070. The “influx” of boomers has been accounted for–by the rather nasty Greenspan Commission, resulting in the benefit cuts of 1983.  Knowing these facts, and given the incredible value every working person receives from the defined benefits of Social Security, the fatalistic attitude–”why should I care because what I pay in now is wasted”–is highly destructive. A more proper response is the one Pat LaMarche suggests. That is, we should reject the betrayal by Obama and the wholesale Republican attack against Social Security in the strongest possible terms.

  • http://twitter.com/MaineOwl MaineOwl

    I find fascinating these common, but false, notions–Social Security will “run out in 2025″, “there will not be any money left for me and my generation” and Social Security “is broken.” In fact the design of the program has allowed it to run a large surplus that has persisted for decades and will allow it to pay 100% of promised benefits for at least 25 more years. Afterward, if nothing is done, the worst-case scenario is that benefit level would be on a slow decrease to 75% of those promised, bottoming out around 2070. The “influx” of boomers has been accounted for–by the rather nasty Greenspan Commission, resulting in the benefit cuts of 1983.  Knowing these facts, and given the incredible value every working person receives from the defined benefits of Social Security, the fatalistic attitude–”why should I care because what I pay in now is wasted”–is highly destructive. A more proper response is the one Pat LaMarche suggests. That is, we should reject the betrayal by Obama and the wholesale Republican attack against Social Security in the strongest possible terms.

  • http://twitter.com/MaineOwl MaineOwl

    I find fascinating these common, but false, notions–Social Security will “run out in 2025″, “there will not be any money left for me and my generation” and Social Security “is broken.” In fact the design of the program has allowed it to run a large surplus that has persisted for decades and will allow it to pay 100% of promised benefits for at least 25 more years. Afterward, if nothing is done, the worst-case scenario is that benefit level would be on a slow decrease to 75% of those promised, bottoming out around 2070. The “influx” of boomers has been accounted for–by the rather nasty Greenspan Commission, resulting in the benefit cuts of 1983.  Knowing these facts, and given the incredible value every working person receives from the defined benefits of Social Security, the fatalistic attitude–”why should I care because what I pay in now is wasted”–is highly destructive. A more proper response is the one Pat LaMarche suggests. That is, we should reject the betrayal by Obama and the wholesale Republican attack against Social Security in the strongest possible terms.

  • Anonymous

    Gosh if  Social security is not going to run out in 2025 you are not taking the words of the Social Security administrations.
    From Todays New York Times

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

  • Anonymous

    Gosh if  Social security is not going to run out in 2025 you are not taking the words of the Social Security administrations.
    From Todays New York Times

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

  • Anonymous

    Gosh if  Social security is not going to run out in 2025 you are not taking the words of the Social Security administrations.
    From Todays New York Times

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

  • Anonymous

    Probably 2008 Green Party Presidential nominee Cynthia Mckinney  You know the woman who claimed that Bush had 5,000 convicted black felons shot in the head and dumped into the swollen Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina.

  • Anonymous

    Probably 2008 Green Party Presidential nominee Cynthia Mckinney  You know the woman who claimed that Bush had 5,000 convicted black felons shot in the head and dumped into the swollen Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina.

  • http://twitter.com/MaineOwl MaineOwl

    The information at the link cited says nothing of the sort. It does underline the uncertainty behind macroeconomic projections. Over time, it’s just as likely that there will be a period when Social Security is more flush than projected. It does not take much of an increment in growth rate for that to happen. However, with both the Obama Administration and the Republicans dead set on neoliberal austerity, it seems it will be a while before the number of workers contributing payroll tax increases substantially.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    He(Obama) has lost my vote.  I will rather vote for Michelle Bachman and or Sarah Palin…………afterall, “the devil you know is better than the angel you don’t know”.  I should have considered that in ’08 when I voted for Obama.  He fooled me then with his “pretty speeches”, but now?….no more.  The guy is cowardly, hypocritical, selfish and a narcissist. He won’t stand up to anything ! He has no principles; with him ”anything goes”.  He didn’t run for president because he genuinely wanted to help the middle class; he run because he wanted to be the first “black president”…..nothing else mattered.  Fool me once shame on me; fool me twice……..hell no

  • Anonymous

    The basic theme of the article is pretty close to the truth for a lot of people. However the lack the insight to see that Obama has very little control over what kind of cuts are coming down, is a real American problem. Obama isn’t the one calling for cuts. Obama ( and most presidents) take the heat for the people that are really responsible for these cuts and you’ll very rarely see their names in print. The sole reason for the cuts is because we fail to see that capitalism is so out of balance that almost all gains go to the upper 1%, and they won’t let go of it. They won’t pay their share but they will pay enough  to insure politicians for the most part vote for the upper 1% ‘s benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Cut the defense budget by 2/3. Raise taxes on people making over a million a year. eliminate all tax loopholes, dodges, and offshore banking and we’d have all the resources we need to take care of our people very well.

  • Anonymous

    Over time… there may be a recovery and things will be all ok?  hmmmmm.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t agree .

  • Anonymous

    I don’t agree .

  • Anonymous

    The idea that SS will be solvent until 2036 is based on the idea that the trust fund will be used to pay benefits.   But there is NO trust fund.

    Let me give you an analogy that might help you understand this concept.

    You, (taxpayers), work for a living and know you are going to have some big bills coming up later in the year.   You decide to put money away every week in a savings account, (trust fund), so it will be there when the bills come in.  Every week right after you put the money in the savings account your wife, (congress),  goes in and takes the money out to spend on clothes and jewelry and trips to the spa.

    Tell me what happens when the big bill comes in and you go to the savings account to get the money to pay for it?

  • Anonymous

    Damn if that doesn’t sound good.
    But what does it mean? I mean really.

    Which loopholes yours or mine?  What qualifies as a loophole and what as a legitimate deduction?

    Are you going to really block offshore assets for corporations and people formally?  Really?? They are having trouble enough bringing money onshore for fear of being taxed twice on the same money as it is and you plan on blocking transaction completely.

    Do you know even if you taxed the top 5% of  taxpayers in the country at 100% you would still not have enough money to cover the budget.

    Very nice sounding “like” receiving statement and not one word grounded in reality.

  • Anonymous

    Damn if that doesn’t sound good.
    But what does it mean? I mean really.

    Which loopholes yours or mine?  What qualifies as a loophole and what as a legitimate deduction?

    Are you going to really block offshore assets for corporations and people formally?  Really?? They are having trouble enough bringing money onshore for fear of being taxed twice on the same money as it is and you plan on blocking transaction completely.

    Do you know even if you taxed the top 5% of  taxpayers in the country at 100% you would still not have enough money to cover the budget.

    Very nice sounding “like” receiving statement and not one word grounded in reality.

  • Anonymous

    Damn if that doesn’t sound good.
    But what does it mean? I mean really.

    Which loopholes yours or mine?  What qualifies as a loophole and what as a legitimate deduction?

    Are you going to really block offshore assets for corporations and people formally?  Really?? They are having trouble enough bringing money onshore for fear of being taxed twice on the same money as it is and you plan on blocking transaction completely.

    Do you know even if you taxed the top 5% of  taxpayers in the country at 100% you would still not have enough money to cover the budget.

    Very nice sounding “like” receiving statement and not one word grounded in reality.

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Your “facts” are incorrect: the off-shore repatriated profits are taxed at a 15% tax rate vs the normal 35% corporate…and they are NOT “having trouble enough bringing onshore money for fear of being taxed twice”…nice try…for a Big Lie: KochBros sign you checks?

    farang:1955

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps I should have said anywhere from 15 to 35% depending on the country they were earned in. That better.

  • Anonymous

    Even if you were to tax it at 35%  the $700 billion wouldn’t cover the deficit.

  • Anonymous

    Even if you were to tax it at 35%  the $700 billion wouldn’t cover the deficit.

  • Anonymous

    Even if you were to tax it at 35%  the $700 billion wouldn’t cover the deficit.

  • http://welcome-to-pottersville2.blogspot.com Suzan

    The untruths cited here by people like Cheesecake1955 (cannot tell whether male or female sources) are mind boggling.

    My guess is that these people are paid trolls as everything they say is not only a lie, they respond to the facts with lightning-quick insouciance and more blatant lies.

    Makes one wonder about the educational level of your audience whom they must think will believe almost anything with a link (without reading the verbiage therefrom).

    Shades of Murdoch, Faux Snooze and the Koch Brothers.

    Nice company for a cheesecake.

  • Anonymous

    You say I cite untruths yet you provide no data to refute me.    Hmmmm.

    Obviously my sources in the Bloomberg news and The New York Times coupled with quotes from the Social Security administration are lies as well.

    As for being paid. I wish. I read. Everything.  Always.  My opinions are my own.

  • Anonymous

    You say I cite untruths yet you provide no data to refute me.    Hmmmm.

    Obviously my sources in the Bloomberg news and The New York Times coupled with quotes from the Social Security administration are lies as well.

    As for being paid. I wish. I read. Everything.  Always.  My opinions are my own.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business
  1. Glenburn art teacher killed in Friday morning collision in BangorGlenburn art teacher killed in Friday morning collision in Bangor
  2. Accidents involving 7 vehicles tie up Bangor traffic on Interstate 95
  3. Oregon police say mystery woman may have ties to Fort KentOregon police say mystery woman may have ties to Fort Kent
  4. Police say co-sleeping likely a factor in 6-week-old infant’s death in Bath
  5. Rockland woman on trial accused of assaulting woman having affair with her husband

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business