President Barack Obama swept into office with a Steve Nash assist from my generation. The 2 to 1 advantage that the President enjoyed over Senator John McCain among 18 to 29 year-old voters sent the pundits a-chatter with memories of Ronald Reagan’s similar margin in 1984. Reagan’s young voters served as the backbone for a quarter-century of conservative dominance in America, and those in the White House remain convinced that the group of Americans they’ve labelled “Generation Obama” will do the same for liberalism.
This cumulonimbus cloud of demographics contained a silver lining for conservatives. One out of every five votes under-35s cast was for Barack Obama, but nobody else down-ticket. In order to transform youth support for the President into a rabble-rousing crowd of determined Democrats, the administration would have to work assiduously to keep young voters engaged and supportive.
That’s why it is so surprising how quickly the President turned on the base of a hypothetical permanent Democratic majority. In the past year, the Administration has constantly supported efforts to redistribute money from younger Americans to older Americans; all the while exploding deficits to practically insure that “Generation Obama” will become “Generation No Benefits for Us”.
Rather than slashing payroll taxes in the stimulus package (a boon to lower-income Americans, particularly the young), the administration shepherded through a bill which will ultimately end up bulking up the states’ Medicaid rolls in a temporary-but-actually-permanent way, and charged it on a credit card billed to my generation. Now Medicaid is ostensibly a healthcare plan for those who are financially among the least of these, but the reality is much more… well, grayer. According to former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich, half of all nursing home costs in America are paid for by Medicaid. Middle-class seniors sell off their assets to others and become poor on paper in order to qualify for Medicaid’s generous nursing home care subsidy.
Then the President anted up on the $250 in stimulus checks already shipped out to seniors as part of the deficit-busting stimulus. Since 2009 was a deflationary year, Social Security recipients were not scheduled to get any increases in their payments. Eager to court seniors for their support in his Medicare-slashing health reform, the President asked for another $250 check to be sent out to seniors at a total expense of $13 billion.
And on his signature initiative of the year, healthcare, the President has paid little heed to the realities of younger Americans. The House version of healthcare reform would actually increase premiums for younger Americans using the health exchange system to between $600-$1,100 more. In his effort to please the elderly, the President has run up young America’s credit card bill and garnished our wages. (And let’s not forget that the actual cost of healthcare reform looks more like $1.8 trillion, not $800 billion.)
Meanwhile, youth unemployment is 19 percent, double the national average.
It seems like the Iranian 18 to 29 demographic isn’t the only group of young folks with cause to be weary about this President.
19 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 4:23 pm
This is correct.
Young people voted for Obama on the strength of their disgust with the Bush war policies–after all, it was their generation who was fighting those wars.
But the Bush war policies are about to be officially replaced by the Obama war policies. And from now on, the bloodshed will be Obama’s responsibility.
Plus, when unemployment is high as it appears it will be throughout 2010, it hurts penniless young people just starting their careers more than it does older Americans who have jobs and have already accumulated some savings. Obama can’t be blamed for starting it–but he can sure be blamed for failing to fix it after promising he would.
Youth is one part of the Obama coalition that is ripe for the plucking on economic issues and perhaps even foreign policy issues–but only if the GOP stops its gay-bashing and anti-sex attitudes. The young always have a libertarian rationalization for youthful rebellion; and the GOP’s social conservatism is a real turn-off to them.
2 DFL // Nov 24, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I’m 49 and will make do. But I have six children, 3 through 13 years of age, and I am worried about their futures. The “Greatest Generation”, the “Silent Generation” and the “Boomers” have loaded the country with unfunded programs and wasted resources on thoughtless wars, the Great Society, space ships to the moon, highway systems ten times more vast than Eisenhower envisioned and hundreds of other stupid programs. To you youngsters, I wish to apologize for failing you. You will be the first generation that will live the bulk of your lives less affluent than your grandparents and parents.
3 Kevin B // Nov 24, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Sinz: Agreed.
4 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Agree with Sinz as well, but I’m not sure that “youthful rebellion” is all that’s at work here.
This generation has been raised in a culture where EVERYTHING- even bad grades- has been presented to them with a positive spin. They have been shielded from anything negative, and when they enter the realm of political awareness it is very difficult for them to relate to the largely negative content they hear from the GOP. That’s in large part why Obama was so attractive to them- he sounded just like their moms and dads and teachers and coaches, all who have conditioned this generation with positive reinforcement even when it is not warranted.
And the social issues? The 18-20 year olds that I know think the slippery-slope, bogeyman approach to (for example) gay marriage is hilarious, given that nearly half of them and their peers have been raised in homes where the institution of marriage has been shattered not by gay people but by their heterosexual parents with “irreconcilable differences”. They are embarrassed for and about a Party chairman who says things like “getting jiggy with it” and attempts to be “down” with a blog titled Whatup. And when one of the old folks starts to wax poetic about Ronald Reagan, they roll their eyes as if being talked to by their great grandfather about the good old days when he walked to school and only heard music when the local band played at the hootenanny.
And yet- they are concerned about deficits and health care and jobs and all the real issues facing us all. And, in the face of it all in their short political awareness, only one party has ever spoken to them about solutions. Whatever the long term consequences of those solutions, the other party has done nothing but scream at them about what they should fear and who’s to blame for it…Party of No, meet the Yes, Honey! Generation. And start talking their language, or lose them for good.
5 hormelmeatco // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Sinz: I’ve mentioned this in other threads: just losing the social conservatism isn’t enough. Economic issues and healthcare aren’t going to win any kids over. Why? Medicare part D and the position many Republicans took against Medicare spending cuts in the current healthcare bills so they could use the Grandma-euthanization schtick in the short-term to gain some leverage in the debate.
Iraq and Afghanistaon aren’t winners either.
6 hormelmeatco // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“To you youngsters, I wish to apologize for failing you.
No apologies needed. Social Security and Medicare will be the first things to go when no foreign creditor shows up to a US government bond sale.
7 balconesfault // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Iraq and Afghanistaon aren’t winners either.
Speaking of which – what do people think about David Obey’s proposed “War Tax”?
In short – if we’re worried about the budget busting aspects of healthcare, etc … what about the budget busting aspects that are in play if we make the decision to no longer keep engaging in this fantasy that we can “surge” for some short period of time and achieve lasting stability in either of these countries?
We all know that deciding up the ante again in Afghanistan is pretty much making a decade long committment to substantial troop forces there, at the minimum. So is Obey right – if we’re going to make this committment, we should budget for it, and require a tax increase to pay for it?
8 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 8:06 pm
balconesfault,
Obey is spot on, and I only wish he had been there at the start of the Iraq war to force this point. Somehow, I don’t think the American people- nor any politician who wants to get reelected- would be so quick to support dragging our country into the sort of indirect wars we’ve been fighting if they knew (shock! surprise!) that they’d have to pay for it.
Yet another fiscal “duh” moment brought to us by the Democrats.
9 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Agreed, we cant continue to fight wars on credit. If a surge means a war tax I am all for it. Maybe then the American people will get an idea of the monetary cost of war even if they have been shielded from the horror of it.
As I have said elsewhere I am not in favor of a never ending commitment in Afghanistan. I am pleased that Obama has been considering an exit strategy, and how we will ever know when we have “won”
10 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Sinz,
I don’t believe you can just push these wars off onto the Democrats. They did not plan them, did not really want them and were duped like the rest of us in large part. Obama has got to make the best of a terrible mess. He has no good options. I actually feel pretty sorry for the guy. I can’t imagine he thought that his presidency would start with 2 wars and a financial melt down and all the other distractions that are being thrown at him. I know a President has to take it and get on with it which I think he is doing, but hey pretty sure it seems tough sometimes.
11 maf97 // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:13 am
“I can’t imagine he thought that his presidency would start with 2 wars and a financial melt down and all the other distractions that are being thrown at him. ” YAWN.
This is perhaps one of the most tiresome liberal lines there is.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ongoing long before the election. And long before Barry was selected to run for President. The economic meltdown was in full swing during his campaign as well. So it wouldn’t take too much imagination to have an inkling that these events would likely still be in play even after taking the oath of office. Of course he knew his presidency would start with 2 wars and a financial meltdown. If he didn’t want to deal with these events, if he didn’t have solutions for these events, then he should have stayed home.
12 DFL // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:14 am
I think Rep. Obey was trying to encourage Obama to show better judgment regarding the expansion of American forces in Afghanistan. Obey was right but he seems to have failed.
13 mrdon // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:10 am
Three simple questions for young people who are offended by the notion of subsidizing the healthcare costs of seniors:
1. Who do you think subsidized the cost of getting you to the point where you could vote and complain? I have seen estimates that parenting a child from birth thru college costs in excess of $250,000. Perhaps an equitable solution to the current problem would be a quit claim by seniors on the promises (Medicare) made to them in exchange for a full refund of the money they paid to raise you.
2. Do you think you are going to maintain your current level of health for your entire life? Guess again, jogging and macrobiotic diets will NOT stave off the afflictions of age — no matter what you may think.
3. How do you plan to pay the immense cost of healthcare you will incur when you get older? Your generation has not paid any more (proportionately) in payroll taxes than the geezers you want to cut off and you have saved (proportionately) far less. Please don’t delude yourself into believing that you would be any more inclined to save the money you are seeking to have carved out of care for your parents than you have demonstrated you can save to date. Of all the generations who could be FORCED to save for your old age, none has demonstrated a greater need for coercion than yours. We were forced to pay for our parents care with the promise that those who succeed us that we would be similarly funded.
14 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:13 am
BarryS:
Oh, brother.
When Obama made his famous speech at the 2004 Dem National Convention, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both hot issues. (“I’m John Kerry–reporting for duty!”) And on the day in 2007 that Obama announced his candidacy, the wars were still hot issues. In fact, Obama characterized the Iraq War as “dumb.” He knew damn well what he would be getting into.
And I reject your characterization of the financial meltdown and the wars as “distractions.” Distractions from what? Health care reform?
In case you hadn’t noticed, the Constitution gives the President the job of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. And the Constitution talks a whole lot about commerce too. But it doesn’t say anything about health care reform.
I argue that health care reform is the REAL “distraction.” While unemployment rose over the last 6 months (and our troops have continued to die in Afghanistan), Congress has been dickering about health care reform. Don’t think the voters haven’t noticed.
Being Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces isn’t a “distraction.” It’s the President’s main Constitutional duty.
15 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:14 am
BarryS:
Obama is planning a major address to the nation next week, on his war strategy for Afghanistan.
As of next week, the Democrats own the wars.
16 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:17 am
BarryS:
Oh, one more thing.
You Democrats had no trouble denouncing Nixon over Vietnam. You called him a war criminal, etc.
You didn’t cut him any slack over the fact that it was LBJ who put the 500,000 American troops in Vietnam in the first place.
As far as you were concerned, Nixon owned Vietnam from the day he was inaugurated as President. To the degree that when you talk about Vietnam, you never mention the roles played by JFK and LBJ in escalating the war. In the liberal fictional history of Vietnam, the only culprits were Eisenhower and Nixon. Right?
So don’t complain now that Obama owns the Afghanistan War. It goes with the territory. He’s Commander-in-Chief now, not some nondescript community organizer in Chicago.
17 balconesfault // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:50 am
You Democrats had no trouble denouncing Nixon over Vietnam. You called him a war criminal, etc.
Well, I think he was denounced as a war criminal for certain things that were … well, criminal – and not simply for continuing the war. When Obama has his own Operation Menu, you can call him a war criminal as well. We certainly will be.
To the degree that when you talk about Vietnam, you never mention the roles played by JFK and LBJ in escalating the war.
I don’t know any Democrats who don’t talk about LBJ’s role, in particular, in escalating the war. Hell, it’s the primary reason he wasn’t a 2-term President.
18 Kevin B // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:59 am
“Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?”
How could you forget that iconic chant of the anti-war movement?
19 hormelmeatco // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Balconesfault: I’d be in complete favor a war tax.
You must log in to post a comment.