Roger Hickey

GOP Threat: Cut Social Security and Medicare or we'll kill the economy. Americans say NO to both.

Roger Hickey — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:25:51 -0500

Here we go again. Republicans are very clear about their latest extortion threat to the American people: Unless you cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, within the next two months we will throw the US economy back into recession - by refusing to allow the US raise the debt ceiling and pay our bills - or by pushing the economy over another fiscal cliff of deep spending cuts and tax increases - or by shutting down the government by refusing to pass a continuing budget resolution.

But it is very important for progressives and politicians to remember that most Americans hate what the Republicans are doing here. Who but Right Wing terrorists could support pushing the economy back into recession, throwing millions of Americans out of work? That's what Republicans are threatening. And huge majorities also hate the price Republicans are demanding to prevent their threat of manufactured chaos: the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Republicans can get their way only if Democrats fail to realize they have the American people on our side. And once Republicans are clear about their proposals, Americans turn against them.

During the election, Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher was so unpopular that candidate Mitt Romney ran away from his Vice Presidential nominee's proposal. Democrats won the election.

Now, Tennessee Republican Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander have dared to unveil a proposal (called their "dollar-for-dollar plan") that would only allow the debt ceiling to be raised by the amount we allow them to cut what they term "entitlements." How many Americans would embrace these changes?:

They would privatize Medicare by creating competing private options giving seniors greater choice of healthcare plans. Shades of the plan Mitt Romney endorsed and then ran from.
They would also give states more flexibility to cut Medicaid programs.
And they would gradually raise the Social Security retirement age and immediately impose the "chained CPI" formula to cost-of-living adjustments - a cut to retirement benefits of today's seniors.

"Unfortunately for America, the next line in the sand is going to be the debt ceiling," Corker told The Hill, laying out his leverage strategy for negotiations with Democrats. These guys couldn't be more explicit

Over the next two months, everyone who loves our country must rise up and say NO to this Republican nihilistic extortion. We must isolate them, ridicule and shame them. And we must force the Democrats to have the backbone to stand with us and reject Republican extortion and economic terrorism.

President Obama campaigned for reelection on his pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000, but he backed down and agreed to raise taxes only on people making more than $400,000. In return, he got an extension of unemployment benefits and important low income tax provisions. But he could only get Republicans to postpone for two months the Fiscal Cliff tax increases and spending cuts known as "sequestration." And he failed to get them to give up the threat to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States that their refusal to raise the debt limit ceiling would bring on. Their refusal to support the once-routine legislation insuring we can pay our debts is already causing the Treasury Department to juggle accounts and will reach crisis stage by the end of February.

President Obama has pledged that he will not bow to Republican extortion over the debt limit:

"I will not compromise over ... whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they've already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again."

But remember that President Obama did negotiate the last time Republicans threatened to crash the economy by refusing to raise the debt limit, in September 2011. Obama was willing to offer up Social Security benefit cuts (in the form of a new "chained CPI") and a change in the Medicare eligibility age (from 65, when many people are forcibly retired, to 67). It was only because Republicans refused to accept tax increases that Obama's dangerous offer was not accepted. Instead, in return for Republican votes to lift that last debt ceiling, the draconian fiscal cliff sequestration budget cuts scheme was created (now postponed until early March).

So while President Obama may refuse to negotiate with Republicans over their latest manufactured debt limit crisis, he could end up negotiating to avoid the threat of sequestration. And Social Security and Medicare cuts could be on that table.

A Powerful Coalition Reminding Democrats What Americans Want - And Don't Want.

President Obama and other Democrats need to listen to the voices of the groups who helped get them elected in 2012 - unions, community organizations, groups representing women, African Americans and Hispanics, and online activist groups like MoveOn and the Campaign for America's Future.

On November 8, many of these groups placed an ad in the Washington Post making a set of demands on the President and Congress. These demands have served as unifying principles for a powerful organizing and outreach coalition. Signed by organizations including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the Campaign for America's Future, the ad was accompanied by an open letter to the White House and Congress signed by 146 national organizations.

If the President and the Democrats in Congress listen to these principles - and to these groups who have been communicating with them before and after the election - they will refuse to cut Medicare and Social Security in response to the Republicans' threat reject the debt ceiling and tank the economy. And they will discover they have the vast majority of Americans on their side.

Here what the ad said, in part:

To the President and The Congress.

As you face urgent budget decisions, you must keep the election results in mind and resist budget cuts that slow our economy and hurt families. The best way to reduce the deficit is to put people back to work and get our economy going again. That's why we are calling on national leaders from both parties to stand up for the middle class and demand that any budget agreement:

Asks all Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

Prioritizes job creation first. It's time to grow--not slow--the economy.

Does not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits and does not shift costs to beneficiaries or the states. Voters loudly and clearly spoke up for these programs.

Protects the safety net and vital services for low-income people.

Stops the sequester. The scheduled automatic budget cuts threaten our fragile recovery and put huge numbers of people out of work while cutting education, child care, job training and dozens of vital services people and communities need.

The groups involved have helped the American Majority of working families communicate these demands to the President and the Congress. So far, we have kept Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid off the chopping block. We are redoubling our efforts to prevent Democrats from capitulating to Republican hostage-taking and extortion. And we are turning our campaign to opposing conservative austerity - and fighting for jobs and robust economic growth.

Obama, Yes. And Win the House Too.

Roger Hickey — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:37:57 -0400

President Obama is enjoying a post-convention bump in job approval (Gallup says 7 percentage points – from 45 to 52 percent) after the negative and divisive Republican convention, followed by the energetic populism of the Democrats in Charlotte. With large leads among women and people of color, and the stark contrast on economic issues building movement toward Obama even among white males in key states, the prospects for Obama winning a second term are starting to look pretty good.

But what about the House? Prospects for Democrats keeping the Senate are looking better, but if the House of Representatives stays in Republican hands, even if President Obama is re-elected his second term will be crippled. Obama can still name good Supreme Court justices, and he can veto terrible legislation – both good reasons to vote for him – but, in the face of Republican obstructionism, he will be virtually powerless to pass economic recovery laws aimed at creating jobs and getting the economy growing and not shrinking.

Obama has repeatedly told voters they have the opportunity to "break the current stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different ideas on how to create strong, sustained economic growth," – as he said in Cleveland on June 14. A few days later he told a campaign crowd, "What's holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different visions on which direction we should go, and this election is your chance to break that stalemate."

Obama is right, of course, but only if the voters reelect him AND sweep into office at least 25 Democrats to seats now held by Republicans. You didn't hear much about taking back the House as a goal of Democrats at the Charlotte convention – an indication that they don't want to look like failures if they fall short. But for the same reasons Obama now looks like a winner, Democrats and independent activists now have the possibility of "nationalizing" contests for the House and turning this election into an historic wave election that can truly "break the stalemate" and put the nation on a course of decisive change. How do we do that?

1. Tell voters Republican economics won't just fail--they will kill jobs and plunge us back into recession.
Too many Democrats describe the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan-Republican economic plans as taking us back to "the failed Bush policies." But they are much worse than that – because they would not only cut taxes for the rich, THEY WOULD KILL JOBS AND PUSH AMERICA BACK INTO RECESSION. Republican candidates Romney and Ryan (and every House member who voted for the Ryan budget) would cut public spending so drastically they would destroy our struggling recovery and throw millions more Americans onto the unemployment rolls. Republicans have voted repeatedly for this kind of European-style austerity. Democratic challengers should call them what they are: job killers. And challenge incumbent Republican Members of Congress to repudiate their votes for the Ryan budget.

2. Oppose outrageously unfair tax cuts for the wealthy.
House Republicans think making the Bush tax cuts for millionaires permanent is very popular with voters – but they are very wrong. All but four House Republicans voted for the Ryan budget containing these tax provisions. Many of them were committing political suicide – if Democrats take them on. Every tax provision in the Ryan budget is wildly unpopular in the minds of the majority of voters who reject the idea of more tax cuts for the super-rich. A June 2012 Peter Hart and Associates poll of likely voters for Americans for Tax Fairness found:

72 percent favor increasing tax rates on household income above $250,000 (rolling back the Bush tax cuts).
68 percent favor ending tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas.
64 percent want to ensure large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
And 46 percent want to end the low (capital gains) tax rate on income from stocks and bonds.

The take-away: Americans hate the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy – on fairness grounds alone. But Republicans claim tax cuts for the rich are the best way they will create jobs, so the unpopularity of their tax plan (if we expose it) undercuts the entire GOP (so-called) jobs and growth plan as well.

3. Stand up for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – and expose all GOP incumbents who have voted to destroy those popular programs.
A large number of House Republicans are on record calling for cuts to Social Security benefits or increases in the retirement age. And many support the kind of privatization of Social Security that Ryan called for in his 2010 Roadmap for America's Future, embraced by most of the House Republican caucus. If Democratic challengers are bold enough to declare opposition to Social Security benefit cuts and attack the idea of privatization, they will find they can put their Republican opponents on the defensive, as these damaging changes to America's most important retirement program are unpopular, even to members of the Tea Party.

All but four House Republican incumbents voted for the 2012 Ryan budget, which passed the House only to be defeated in the Senate. Denounced by the U.S. Catholic bishops for its very large cuts to programs aimed at reducing poverty, including Medicaid, the Ryan budget was described by the bishops as "failing to meet the moral test." And the "Nuns on the Bus" have been touring the country, rallying voters against Medicaid cuts.

The Ryan budget would also turn Medicare into a voucher system, which would cost seniors a larger and larger portion of their incomes, as the value of vouchers fail to keep up with the cost of health care. And it would force older Americans to deal with a confusing array of private insurance plans in their retirement years. This Medicare voucher plan, embraced by Romney, is very, very unpopular with seniors and Americans of all ages. Aggressive defense of Medicare by Democratic challengers can turn many a contest into an upset.

For those who doubt Dems can win in tough races, consider the 2011 special election victory of Rep Kathy Hochul, a Democrat running in Jack Kemp's old upstate district, New York 26 – which hadn't elected a Democrat in four decades. A Washington Post article attributed her victory to her opposition to the "House Republicans' budget plan authored by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan – and, in particular, his proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program." Hochul's winning message could win almost anywhere this year: "I won't to let them cut Social Security benefits and end Medicare as we know it while giving more tax cuts to the rich." That was, and is, a winning message. Add a plan for jobs, and your opponent is on the ropes by Election Day.

4. Fight for JOBS FIRST--and go after every incumbent who opposed Obama's American Jobs Act.
Republicans won the House in 2010 by pointing to high unemployment and charging the Democratic economic program had failed. At that point Democrats had no new jobs plan to run on. A year ago, President Obama stopped talking about deficit reduction and put the American Jobs Act on the table. Every Democrat running for a House seat this year can accuse the Republican incumbent of blocking that jobs plan, which independent experts have estimated would have produced 1.9 million jobs by rebuilding America's infrastructure and schools and helping states hire, not lay off, teachers and cops and firefighters. Democrats need to campaign as a party with a popular plan to put people to work, grow the economy, and get the private sector growing faster. And it would be great if President Obama would campaign a little bit more like Harry Truman, denouncing Republicans in the House (what Truman called the "do nothing Republicans") for their obstructionism in blocking passage of his jobs bill.

Democratic candidates for the House also need remind voters that the (Romney-Ryan) Republican plan to slash public spending will kill jobs and throw the US back into recession – just as similar radical austerity regimes in Britain and Ireland and Spain and other European countries have caused recession to sweep the continent. We have to expose the Republicans' post-election plans to cut taxes for the wealthy (which won't stimulate the economy) and their plans to slash public investment, which will kill economic growth and increase joblessness.
While acknowledging that we have to get deficits under control in the long term, Democrats must insist that America's first priority must be to get unemployment down and economic growth up. And that means getting voters educated and alerted to Republican plans to impose draconian austerity if they manage to keep the House. In the next 60 days, Democrats must be the champions of full-employment, and get the voters to see Republicans as the job killers that they are.

5. Charge up the Democratic base voters--and give them a reason to get out and vote.
The spectacle of Republicans in Tampa attacking women, welfare-baiting minorities, and doubling-down on tax cuts for the rich has fired up Democratic base voters – even among progressives, who may have problems with Obama, but who know letting Romney and a Republican Congress run the country would be a disaster. The Charlotte convention helped as well: showing off Democrats as both diverse and united – and fighting for a much more progressive vision of our economic future.

President Obama is right when he says this election offers us the opportunity to "break the current stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different ideas on how to create strong, sustained economic growth." But we all have to work to get him to go beyond a pitch for his own re-election. He should ask voters to "send to Washington a new group of Congressional leaders who will work with me to break that stalemate." As he gets more confident in his own re-election, I hope we can get him to call for throwing out the obstructionists.

However, as we've learned, we can't wait for Obama. It's our country, and we need to save it. So it's our job to get to work in every Congressional district that might produce that swing of 25 seats. We've got to teach the Democratic candidates how to campaign – against the Romney-Ryan job-killing plan, for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, against unfair tax cuts for the wealthy, and for the Democratic plan for jobs.

As I write this, MoveOn is sending around Nate Silver's new analysis in the NY Times that finds "Obama's chance of victory would be an amazing 91% if everyone who's registered actually votes this year." MoveOn asks for your contribution to raise $600,000 this week to create (with the AFL-CIO's Workers' Voice) the largest independent get-out-the-vote operation in the country. This kind of thing is doable, and you can contribute here, because getting out the Democratic base vote – and giving them good reasons to vote – is going to be crucial in the next two months.

Here's another encouraging sign: Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil recently published a paper that summarizes in accessible (and non-political) language, the first four points above. After a blogger conference call to discuss A New Strategy for Prosperity, the legendary Digby and colleagues got the document to progressive House candidates they are supporting, and 16 of them have endorsed the ideas and are running under the banner of Americans for Real Prosperity.

The old optimism from 2008 is coming back – tempered by the realities of the last four years. We should all work for the re-election of Barack Obama, but we should also work to make sure he has a Congress that can help him carry out the big changes that America needs. And we've got to make sure that after the election there is a powerful progressive movement pushing President Obama and the new Congress to do what needs to be done.

Ryan, GOP Unveil Suicide Pact Today, Rejecting American Majority

Roger Hickey — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:49:05 -0400

On Tuesday House Republicans, led by Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan, will unveil a suicide pact in the form of a new budget that ignores the clear views of the majority of Americans – and which, if they embrace it almost unanimously, as they did last year’s similar Ryan Budget, will put a gun to the head of Republican attempts to keep control of the House – and then pull the trigger.

The only thing that could save Republicans would be if Democrats, like Oregon Senator Ron Wyden or House Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer persuade their party to ignore American public opinion and join with the GOP in destroying Medicare, cutting Social Security, and slashing public spending in a way that cripples the economy and rewards the wealthy. That’s what the Ryan Republican budget would do, and Democrats – and Americans who believe in majority rule -- need to explain the extreme nature of this budget to the American people.

According to Politico, “Despite getting hammered by Democrats last year, the GOP is gambling that going big and bold on their fiscal blueprint — think major changes to Medicare and Medicaid — will convince voters the GOP is the nation’s responsible party, comprised of lawmakers attuned to the nation’s fiscal woes.”

Do Americans Prioritize Cutting Deficits Over Creating Jobs? No.

But there is a reason Democrats hammered them last year: poll after poll assembled by CAF’s American Majority Project, show definitively that, while the deficit may be a big issue inside the beltway, being perceived as creating jobs is a far better public image than budget cutter.

The March 7-11 CBS News/New York Times Poll asked simply “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Fifty-one percent of respondents said the most important problem is the economy and jobs, the second answer was other with 22% -- with “Budget deficit/National debt” coming in at only 5% (although it was the third most common answer after jobs and “other”).

Voucherizing Medicare?

Just like last year the new Ryan Republican budget will first cut taxes for the very wealthy, and then, having blown a bigger hole in the revenue side of the budget, achieves much of its long-term spending savings by turning Medicare into a voucher to buy private health insurance. Will the American majority buy it?

The February 2012 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that a whopping 70 percent of Americans say “Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government guaranteeing seniors health insurance and making sure that everyone gets the same defined set of benefits,” while only 25 percent say “Medicare should be changed to a system in which the government would guarantee each senior a fixed amount of money to put toward health insurance.”

Their question actually models the option that Democratic Senator Ron Wyden put into the mix: “Seniors would purchase that coverage either from traditional Medicare or from a list of private health plan.” But that Medicare option did not help. Kaiser reported, “There is currently no wholehearted support among Americans for making major reductions to Medicare in service of deficit reduction.”

Social Security

The last Ryan budget does not propose specific cuts in Social Security benefits. (But Daniel Marans of Social Security Works reminds us that “For some insight into where Ryan's heart lies, however, we have his privatization scheme in his 2010 Roadmap for America's Future, aka the Highway to Hell.”) But the last Ryan budget does create an unprecedented new fast-track procedure to ram through Social Security cuts on any year Security is not in 75-year balance (even if that arises due to short term changes in costs or revenues (like the current recession).
This “expedited process” might result in the following draconian changes:

Raise the full retirement age to 69, and the earliest eligibility age to 64 (13% cut);
Cut the cost of living allowance by adopting the Chained CPI, cutting $108 billion in benefits over 10 years.

What do Americans think of messing with Social Security? They are against cutting Social Security benefits. They are against raising the retirement age. And they know that Social Security has its own revenue source (the Social Security taxes we pay) and therefore doesn’t contribute to the deficit.

And what does the American Majority think of the Ryan Republican plans for slashing spending?

According to calculations from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities two-thirds the spending cuts in the last Ryan budget are for programs that serve low-income Americans. A February 6-13, 2012 nationwide poll by Harris Interactive found that:

“Only 12% of the public want to see a cut in Social Security payments, 21% want to cut federal aid to education and 22% want to cut federal health care programs. The only programs of the 20 listed in the poll that majorities of Americans want to cut are foreign economic aid (79%), foreign military aid (74%), subsidies to business (57%), and the space program (52%).

So what about cutting taxes for the wealthy in a budget focused on deficit reduction?

The Ryan budget would actually cut taxes on the wealthy, while slashing public spending. But strong majorities of Americans actually favor INCREASING, not cutting, taxes on the wealthy. A September 2011 Gallup Poll finds that 66% of Americans are in favor of increasing income taxes on individuals earning at least $200,000 and families earning at least $250,000. And the same poll showed 70% of Americans approve of increasing taxes on some corporations.

So, the brand new Ryan Republican budget, so very like last year’s Ryan budget, is ALREADY unpopular with the American majority, in all of its major elements. Progressives and Democrats should immediately publicize its many unpopular pieces so the public knows about them all. We should immediately demand to know whether the Republican candidates for President embrace it. And we should keep a wary eye out for Democrats who are willing to give the Republicans cover.

When the Paul Ryan Republicans -- enemies of everything the American majority believe in -- are putting a gun to their heads and are about to pull the trigger, progressives should get out of the way and publicize the results -- from now until the November elections.

No Super Committee Deal. Good. Now Focus on Jobs—Best Way to Lower Deficit

Roger Hickey — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:50:51 -0500

The reason members of the Super Committee didn’t reach an agreement is that Republican members insisted on damaging cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare – AND they wouldn’t budge from their refusal to roll back tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans.

If the so-called “Super Committee” had made a bipartisan deal based on the announced negotiating positions of the Republicans and Democrats on that panel, the result would have been higher unemployment, serious damage to the social safety net -- and worsening deficits.

Super Committee Democrats, concerned about being seen as blocking a deal, clearly offered Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts in return for a pitifully small increase in taxes and large and damaging spending cuts in the middle of a struggling economy.

The deal on the table – whose failure is much lamented by beltway pundits – would have seriously harmed the economy, without significantly reducing deficits. In fact, it might have made it worse.
Luckily, the progressive base – and the Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate – convinced those negotiators that a bad deal is worse than no deal.

Democrats should have been guided by the message of the September 6th press conference at which Super Committee appointee Rep. Chris Van Hollen, standing with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, declared “Job growth will contribute to deficit reduction,” according to the Washington Post coverage:

Van Hollen, who made the remarks at a news conference with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other members of the Democratic leadership, argued that the most recent Congressional Budget Office report states that for every 1/10 of one percentage point increase in the U.S. gross domestic product, the deficit is reduced by $310 billion.

“Now, they project over the next 10 years that average GDP, average growth of the economy will be about 2.9 percent,” he said. “What those numbers tell you is that if you got that growth rate up by half of one percent, you would actually reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion, which is the target laid out in the legislation before us.”

Clearly, this is what all progressives believe: the weak economy should not be allowed to fall backward into another recession – which could happen if we cut spending too fast or too deeply. And action to get the economy growing robustly would be the most effective thing we could do to bring down the Federal deficit.

Progressives will therefore push for public investment to create jobs and create consumer demand, which is the missing factor preventing American business from investing in expanded production and growing employment. All of the elements of President Obama’s American Jobs Act should now be taken up by everyone in Congress who professes to be concerned about the deficit. As progressives, we will work with our allies and partners in the American Dream movement to push for extended unemployment benefits and other stimulus spending programs that both Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past.

In this post-Super Committee period, you can be sure that the Campaign for America’s Future will be fighting for policies that will spur growth and create enough jobs to bring down our chronically high unemployment. We will fight to get Congress to let the Bush tax cuts for the 1% expire. We will fight for reductions in the military budget. And we will remind all Americans that job creation (and long term health reform to control health costs) are the most effective things we can do to reduce the deficit.

AARP Tells Members They Won't Fight Social Security Benefit Cuts

Roger Hickey — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:46:46 -0400

The front page of today's Wall Street Journal features an article [Key Seniors Association Pivots on Benefit Cut] reporting that AARP "is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits." The piece is based on a conversation with AARP policy director John Rother. This is a big deal - not because AARP was ever such a strong force against proposed benefit cuts (other groups are doing that much more effectively), but because the mainstream media is now full of headlines like this from ABC News: AARP Appears to Switch Stance on Social Security Cuts and this column by David Von Drehle, from Time Online: Victory! The Grey Goliath Gives Way on Social Security.

AARP members across the country are outraged. Some are burning their membership cards. The timing of this front page story couldn't be worse. Conservatives have fixated Congress and the White House on deficits and spending cuts that will kill jobs -- even though most Americans care more about jobs than deficits. Most Americans were heartened when Paul Ryan's plan for dismantling Medicare was decisively rejected by the very Republican voters of New York's 26th Congressional District - after Ryan got almost every Republican in the Congress to vote for it. Democrats were starting to re-learn how to campaign as defenders of Medicare and Social Security. And now this - from a top level AARP leader - a real momentum killer.

Now, this obviously well-planned article in the Wall Street Journal, timed just as Joe Biden's deficit reduction talks are moving to "the difficult stuff," gives aid and comfort to conservatives and New Democrats who are on a jihad to make Social Security cuts a focus of deficit reduction - even though America's largest retirement program has its own source of funding and can't contribute to the deficit.

It is well-known that Obama administration officials would like to have a deal on Social Security which changes the index by which benefits are raised each year (a big benefit cut) and which raises the retirement age (another big benefit cut) and also the lifts the cap which limits the percentage of their income that richer people pay in Social Security taxes (a revenue increase). So far, that's been a non-starter with Republicans, who can't support tax increases on the wealthy. But with the press now trumpeting AARP's dramatic move toward benefit cuts, Republicans might come under pressure to make a deal. The irony here would be the White House using the AARP to leverage a deal that cuts benefits - while doing nothing to reduce the federal deficit! Their answer if they could pull this off: It will reassure the bond markets.

This just in: The AARP has just issued a statement by their CEO, A. Barry Rand, entitled AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security. In it, Rand calls the WSJ piece inaccurate and misleading, but doesn't clarify what they think was inaccurate.

In the Journal article, John Rother was clear that he's willing to support SS benefit cuts. AARP in its statement just reiterates its commitment to "solvency" of the program. I believe SS can be made solvent without benefit cuts. John Rother disagrees. Where does the AARP as the largest organization claiming to represent seniors stand? They are not clear.

The AARP statement claims to oppose including Social Security in the deficit discussions. If they really mean that, the group that promotes itself as the most powerful defender of seniors in America should get their vaunted citizen's lobby in gear - to make sure Social Security doesn't become the sacrificial lamb of this dangerous season of budget cutting blood on the floor.

Baby boomers are now beginning to retire - and we have many fewer retirement assets (no pensions, devastated savings, unconventional work histories) - and we are going to depend on Social Security even more than previous generations. We know we didn't join for the movie discounts. If we can't depend on AARP to fight for decent Social Security benefits, maybe we need a more activist organization that will.

Click Here and Send The Vice-President A Message: Stand With The American Majority. Reject Republican Cuts To Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Reject Bad Advice and Bad Policy. Defend Medicare, Social Security.

Roger Hickey — Mon, 30 May 2011 22:48:40 -0400

Last week’s special election in New York’s 26th Congressional district was a political earthquake, demonstrating that the American majority, even in the most Republican of districts, will reject a candidate who embraces cuts to Medicare benefits or major changes to that most popular program. And, since almost every Republican in the House – and now the Senate – has voted for such drastic changes, Democrats across the country are happily learning how they can campaign to win back the House and keep the Senate.

But we can’t let Democrats undercut themselves again. Even as most of them practice their talking points about the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare, prominent beltway Democrats and Washington pundits are advising candidates that pressing their advantage on Medicare would not be the right thing to do. And others are urging Democrats to embrace policies – like cutting Social Security benefits – which would just as unpopular as dismantling Medicare and would confuse voters and undermine a winning message.

On May 25th, the day after Cong. Paul Ryan’s budget was soundly trounced in NY-26, when all around the country progressives were celebrating, Ryan was warmly received at a Washington conference on the deficit, sponsored by Wall Street mogul, Peter Peterson. At that event, former President Bill Clinton declared from the stage that, while he opposed Ryan’s plan for dismantling Medicare, he hoped that the NY-26 election didn’t mean that Medicare would be untouchable this year – a message he then delivered offstage directly to Rep. Ryan, the leader of the GOP plot to kill Medicare. And at that same Peterson event, Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling publicly declared the Administration’s strong interest in cutting Social Security benefits – either by raising the retirement age or by messing with Social Security’s cost-of-living formula.

So here we go again. Democrats start to unite around a winning economic issue, but major leaders of their party, repeating the case made by Washington Post editorialists and many beltway think tankers, warn them not to go there – that serious “adjustments” to Medicare (and Social Security) are inevitably necessary – and that campaigning as the champions of these programs is irresponsible, because, while it might help Democrats win the next election, it would be bad for the country. Reducing America’s deficits must be our priority, they solemnly declare, and these entitlement program must be cut.

This is horrible political advice that would deprive Democrats of a winning message.

But it is also bad policy advice. If Democrats side with the huge American majority who want a party that will protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, they shouldn’t campaign with their fingers crossed behind their back. A new Democratic majority in the House can come back to Washington in 2013 and join a strengthened Senate majority in pursuing good public policy that can revive the economy and bring down the deficit – while keeping their promise to protect the social contract.

There are plenty of serious economic proposals that accomplish those goals, without cutting or undermining Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, starting with CAF’s Citizen Commission on Jobs and the Deficit and Representative Jan Schakowsky’s Deficit Reduction Plan. And, while they didn’t get the prominent visibility in an event designed to drum up panic on the deficit, the Peterson Deficit Summit actually featured plans from the progressive Economic Policy Institute and the Roosevelt Campus Network, both of which achieve reasonable budget balance while investing in growth and without doing stupid damage to our increasingly popular social safety net. (The Progressive Caucus Budget Plan also accomplishes the same goals.)

Apparently Bill Clinton agrees with Republicans that Medicare benefits have to be cut. What the various progressive plans have in common is the recognition of a simple fact: the growing costs of entitlements are driven by spiraling health care inflation in the larger economy. Medicare and Medicaid actually have a better cost control track record than the health care system as a whole. And all these “progressive“ deficit reduction plans repeat the truth that seemingly eludes Gene Sperling: Social Security has its own source of revenue and does not contribute a dime to the deficit. Now the policy implications of these insights are not easy, but they can be politically popular. In addition to attacking the immediate causes of deficits by reversing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, ending at least two wars, cutting obsolete military spending , and regulating the banks – all popular with the American majority – we are going to have to go after the driving forces in the American health care system: the complex of insurance companies, drug cartels, hospital and doctor syndicates, and the food-chemical industrial complex, all of which make Americans unhealthier, while driving up the cost of health care far above the Medicare trend line.

So Democrats have a choice: they can follow the advice of Bill Clinton, Alice Rivlin, and the Washington Post editorial board and give up on making the 2012 election a referendum on the very popular idea that we should protect and strengthen Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Or we they can fight like hell for these programs the American majority strongly supports, win that election, and come back to Washington ready to create jobs, stimulate healthy economic growth, and bring down deficits through healthy growth, new revenues, and good public policy designed to control overall health care costs. There is no doubt which is the best political strategy. It also happens to be better policy.

NOTE: One of the things that encouraged Democrats like Kathy Hochul to fight and win on Medicare is the strong speech President Obama made on April 13 declaring he would fight to protect Medicare. Because of that speech, the protests at Republican town meetings during Congressional recesses allowed Dems to stand up and fight. But we didn’t know what Obama was going to say until he gave the speech. So BEFORE the speech, we mobilized: we and other groups like MoveOn generated thousands of emails and phone calls to the White House. As you can see from this pdf of press coverage, even Nancy Pelosi was moved to call Obama by our email alert. The President should give us advance warning, especially when he’s going to do something progressive. But we have to work together to push the President – and his party – in the right direction.

American Majority Rejects Washington Austerity Consensus – And We Demand Media Coverage

Roger Hickey — Mon, 09 May 2011 21:01:53 -0400

Out in America, unemployment is back up to 9 percent, but inside the Washington Beltway bubble the consensus, driven by conservatives, seems to be for austerity. An unholy alliance of pundits, politicians and even reporters— who differ only in degree—is insisting on the need to slash federal spending over the next few months.

As we approach the deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling, not a hour goes by in the 24-hour cycle without the media interviewing some expert who declares that the deficit is the most important threat facing the country, that tax increases are off the table, and that a severe crisis awaits if the Congress doesn’t cut and radically restructure Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

But one voice is missing from this discussion: that of the American Majority.

Occasionally some talking head on TV will acknowledge the almost daily public opinion polling showing conclusively that strong majorities of Americans:

oppose cutting benefits for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients;
reject the idea of raising the age of eligibility for these popular programs;
hate the proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher or privatize Social Security;
support taxing the rich and corporations to close the deficit and fund needed investment;
favor cutting military spending for both obsolete weapons systems and current wars;
and, while acknowledging the need to reduce deficits, place a higher priority on creating jobs and getting the sputtering economy growing.

Rarely in the public discussion are the views of the American majority presented in such a comprehensive way. Instead, some budget expert from a think-tank like Brookings or an honest reporter will nervously interject that “recent polls show Americans may resist taking the medicine,” and then the discussion moves on to why austerity is absolutely necessary. Rarely on talk shows or even in serious print news article does anyone challenge the predictable Republican mantra that “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” And, given the consensus that we face a “debt and deficit crisis” that could soon hurt the economy, rarely is anyone allowed to warn that a strong dose of spending cuts might hurt America’s faltering recovery.

And so the inside-the-bubble discussion moves on to how much to cut which programs—and whether automatic spending caps might work to appease the bond markets.

No more silent majority. Today the Campaign for America’s Future is sending letters to all the major media demanding that the views of the American Majority be represented in the news programs, print articles and opinion pages, and in the non-stop daily and Sunday talk shows in which the debate about America’s future is being conducted as we move toward the showdown over the budget.

We are demanding representation in the media proportional to the size of the American Majority. And we are making the point that the views of the majority are not irrational—and that in a democracy the majority deserves to be heard, not patronized. We are also supplying the media with an extensive list of economists, experts and advocates who share the majority view that deficits are not now the major threat to U.S. prosperity, and that getting revenue back into the budget is far less damaging (and more just) than cutting spending and crippling important programs for the poor and the elderly. And we are telling them that occasionally featuring the great Paul Krugman, as though his views represent a lonely majority, is not enough.

Out in the real world, despite being excluded from the Beltway discussion, the real people who represent the American Majority are finding their voice, as Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Paul Ryan, discovered when they went home last month to defend the Ryan/GOP budget they all voted for. They encountered well-informed and angry constituents protesting the plan to turn Medicare into a voucher and demanding to know why unemployment is still so high and why the rich are still enjoying the Bush tax cuts. It didn’t make any difference to these voters that columnists at The Washington Post thought Ryan’s plan was “bold and brave.” They were just angry that all the Republicans in the House voted to dismantle Medicare.

You can also see the American Majority stirring powerfully in the huge populist rebellion against the attempt to cripple workers’ rights in Wisconsin, Indiana, Maine and around the country. The right-wing governors in these states thought they could isolate what they see as a small unionized minority and pit other working people against them. Instead, citizens of all kinds are seeing the assault on union workers as an extension of the war on the battered middle class—a war in which conservatives preach austerity to the rest of us while demanding tax cuts and bailouts for themselves.

In the dangerous looming showdown over the budget and the debt ceiling, those of us who share the views of the American Majority must demand to be heard. We have to get over our self-image as an embattled, if righteous, minority.

In recent weeks millions of our fellow Americans who voted in 2010 for conservative candidates who promised jobs have begun to realize what an extreme and destructive that their real agenda poses for our country. Even most rank-and-file Tea Party supporters reject dismantling Medicare and cutting Social Security. In April, when the polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner read a list of the programs likely to be cut by across-the-board spending caps (which Republicans and some Democrats are demanding as the price of raising the debt limit), 72 percent said they would rather raise taxes on those earning more than one million dollars. In March, Bloomberg asked Americans to choose a priority—creating jobs or cutting spending—and 56 percent said creating jobs, rather than spending cuts, is the more important priority for the federal government right now. See all the polling that we have compiled at ourfuture.org/americanmajority.

So it is time for all of us to ask, if we are the American Majority, why aren’t 72 percent of the pundits on television talking about raising taxes on the rich? Why don’t we read about—and hear from—the 56 percent of Americans (and experts) who think that jobs and economic recovery is more important than austerity. We don’t need to demand quotas—but equal time would seem to be justified.

The Campaign for America’s Future is joining with the Center for Economic and Policy Research (whose Co-Director, Dean Baker blogs regularly about economic bias in the media) and with FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) to monitor the media’s coverage and representation of the American Majority views as they go into covering the big deficit fight. But we want to enlist YOU too. Send us accounts of unbalanced coverage in the national media and in your local newspapers and television. Call up reporters, editors, assignment people and tell them when they are under-representing the views of the American Majority. We should have at least half the experts, pundits, quotes and real people represented in their coverage. In a debate as important as the one we are going into, we can’t allow the media to ignore the American Majority.

And while we challenge the media to present the views of the American people on the economy, let’s get to work on the politicians as well. (More on that soon.)

Sen. Conrad Unifies Dems Against Ryan. Yes, Kent Conrad!

Roger Hickey — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:03:19 -0400

House Budget chairman Paul Ryan’s budget resolution has been rightly condemned by anyone who cares about economic recovery, Medicare, Medicaid, public investment, programs for the poor and disadvantaged, tax justice, and just plain honesty in budgeting. The Huffington Post has been full of good analysis – see this great piece by R.J. Eskow. The House Progressive Caucus even put out this video taking apart what will undoubtedly be the lock-step Republican approach to long austerity budgeting.

The House Democrats, even most Blue Dogs, will vote together against this monstrosity.
There is a real chance for a clear contrast between the parties.

But what about the Senate Democrats? Far too many, like the famous gang of three (Senators Conrad, Durbin and Warner), have been negotiating a “compromise” that might take the Democrats over to the dark side.

That’s why a new statement by Senate Budget chair Kent Conrad is surprisingly encouraging. Released today (April 5), here is the heart of what he had to say about the Ryan plan:

“Representative Ryan’s proposal is partisan and ideological. He provides dramatic tax cuts for the wealthiest, financed by draconian reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. His proposals are unreasonable and unsustainable.

“His plan is most troubling because it lacks balance. A balanced long-term deficit reduction plan would include discretionary spending cuts, including defense; entitlement changes; and tax reform that simplifies the tax code, lowers rates, and raises revenue. That is what the President’s bipartisan Fiscal Commission proposed. Representative Ryan’s plan, on the other hand, fails to include savings in defense and actually reduces revenue. The result is that his plan relies on deep cuts in the safety net for seniors, children, and other vulnerable populations, as well as deep cuts in critical areas like education, which are needed to promote long-term economic growth.

“I am also concerned about his proposals to replace Medicare with a voucher program and to block grant Medicaid. These steps would simply shift costs and increase the number of uninsured. The President’s Fiscal Commission rejected both of these measures and chose instead to build on the savings proposals and delivery system changes in last year’s health reform.

The rest of Conrad’s statement goes on to praise the deficit commission as a model for budget balancing, not a sentiment most Democrats would echo. But the basic gift that Conrad may be giving Democrats is the opportunity for unity against draconian austerity and for a rousing defense of Medicare and Medicaid.

Every group imaginable is working to make sure the whole country knows what the House plan for next year’s budget (and the decade after that) would do to our economy, to our social contract (Medicare, Medicaid, education and more). And, thanks to Ryan’s rigid and extreme ideological vision, now publicly embraced by the Republican party, the 2012 elections are shaping up to give the country reason to repudiate extreme conservatism and embrace a progressive vision of investment in job creation and robust defense of those public programs that most Americans (even tea party rank and file) want Democrats to defend.

I never thought I’d have the opportunity to thank Senator Kent Conrad for helping to unify his fellow Democrats against Republican excess. Ryan gets some of the credit, but I’m happy to praise Senator Conrad, whose finest hour before retirement could be to help rally his party to fight Ryan’s frontal attack on the American middle class. Now, let’s get to work and urge his Senate colleagues to be even tougher. And let's urge Sen. Conrad to incorporate his criticisms of Ryan into a Senate budget resolution we can all support.

Tell the President: Stand Up to the Hostage-Takers! Defend Social Security and Medicare.

Roger Hickey — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:00:11 -0500

Republican hostage-takers got President Obama to go along with their tax cuts for the wealthy by threatening to raise taxes on the middle class and blocking even modest stimulus funds for our struggling economy.

Now the Republicans have identified their next hostage: They're going to threaten to destroy the international financial stability of the United States by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. What are they demanding for ransom? They want President Obama to slash Social Security and Medicare before this next hostage crisis comes to a head in March or April.

Who can stop this next hostage crisis? We can. We is everyone who cares about our country. We have to start by sending a message to the President here: No more surrendering to hostage takers' demands. Pledge to defend Social Security and Medicare. Click here to take action.

Here are two scenarios. Which one will you work to make happen?

Scenario One: In his State of the Union speech (around January 27), Obama declares that he is willing to "meet the Republicans half way". In fact, he will preempt the hostage-taking crisis altogether, by accepting some of the harshest recommendations of his deficit commission. He announces his support for legislation to cut Social Security benefits for today's retirees, by changing the cost of living index. He pledges to cut Social Security benefits for future middle-class retirees even more and declares his intention to raise the retirement age. What's more, he says he will cap Medicare benefits for each retiree, and they will either have to pay for the rest of their medical care out of pocket or do without the care they need.

This is looking like an increasing likely scenario. What would happen then? Let's play it out a little further:

In response to the President's statements, several senior Democrats announce their plans to quit public service, Republicans, flush with their latest victory, start issuing their NEWEST set of demands. If these new demands aren't met, they say, they'll refuse to pass the debt ceiling - which would crash the US economy. Soon the Democrats and Obama are attacked by Newt Gingrich and other Republican presidential candidates as the party and the President who cut Social Security. Republican prospects for 2012 improve greatly as the public recoils at this attack on a popular program, Democratic activists erupt in fury, and the true Democratic base of working families and independents becomes even more disillusioned.

Scenario Two: The White House and the Democrats in Congress are flooded with emails, faxes and phone calls that say: "We elected you to protect Social Security and Medicare." "Stand up and Fight against hostage takers." Over 200 Members of Congress join together to declare: "Social Security and Medicare are our 'line in the sand." In his State of the Union, the President reminds the country that Social Security doesn't contribute a single dime to the deficit, and says unequivocally that he will defend it against any attempt to cut benefits or raid its trust fund to pay down the Federal Deficit. He might even announce a new commission charged with strengthening and improving Social Security, composed of well-informed people who care about the program. He vows additional reforms to cut health care costs and improve the quality of care, and pledges not to harm or cut Medicare. And, channeling Bill Clinton from 1994, he declares he will refuse to give in to extortionists who would harm the US economic system in an attempt to force him to dismantle America's social contract. In response, nervous Wall Street financiers denounce the extremist politicians who would crash the world financial system in order to win their political goals. Chastened, the Republicans back down and agree to support extension of the debt limit.

Working Americans rally to the President, filled with newfound respect for his willingness to stand up and fight for them. 2012 starts looking much better for Obama - and for Democrats in the Congress.

Which scenario will become reality? That's up to you. Progressive activists - the kind of people who are reading these words - need to become even more active if we want to make Scenario Two our future.

Many people are disappointed and disillusioned by the outcome of the first hostage confrontation with Republicans in the new post-majority era - a confrontation that ended before it began. As a result, too many are succumbing to cynicism, assuming that all is hopeless and that the first Scenario is inevitable. We all know that if Scenario One happens, it will trigger a firestorm of protest and we will be part of that firestorm. Why not channel that energy into changing history instead, by using it to get President Obama on the road toward revival and real economic change?

If we get off our asses before a tragic mistake is made, we'll discover the American people are with us in this next fight. Poll after poll shows that, despite the coordinated conservative deficit scare campaign, strong majorities reject cuts to Social Security benefits or messing with Medicare. And people hate the idea of raising the retirement age - that includes already-retired people and baby-boomers, and younger workers who would have to work two more years - no matter how bad the economy is or how badly their bodies have been battered. Americans are strongly supportive of our modest but fair social insurance system - and, especially in these bad economic times, they'll fight any politician who tries to damage it. Let's fight a fight that unites all Americans - even the majority of Tea Partiers.

In the few weeks before the President's late January State of the Union speech, we need to clearly and forcefully tell him and the Democratic party what we think: Capitulating to hostage takers on Social Security and Medicare would be a disaster and politically and the wrong thing to do morally.

You can take your first action right here.

And then, if we succeed at getting the President to hold off, we can mount a massive campaign that would bring unions, citizens' organizations, grass roots groups of all kinds together. It would speak directly to the voters - blue collar and white collar, independents and partisans, middle class and working class - attacking those Republicans who would threaten to crash the US economy in order to cut popular programs. We can flood conservatives in Congress with angry protests and end this next hostage crisis with the first defeat of the new right wing Congress - and the first victory of America's progressive majority.

We can suffer through the first scenario, or make a better reality. It's up to you.

In Deficit "Town Meetings," People Reject America Speaks Stacked Deck

Roger Hickey — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:40:11 -0400

On Saturday, the group known as America Speaks (funded by Wall Street mogul Peter G. Peterson and two other foundations) brought together several thousand people in meetings in 60 cities. They gave participants misleading background information about the Federal deficit and economic options to achieve fiscal "balance" and future prosperity.

But Peterson cannot be pleased with the participants' mainly progressive policy choices, which will be presented on June 30 to the Deficit Commission that Peterson encouraged President Obama to create.

According to America Speaks own press release, when a scientifically selected group of participants picked up their electronic voting devices, they overwhelmingly supported proposals to

Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than1 million.
Reduce military spending by 10 to 15 percent,
Create a carbon tax AND a securities-transaction tax.

This pretty progressive set of solutions emerged from the process many feared would be skewed to the solutions of conservative deficit hawks.

America Speaks was certainly not pushing the discussion in a progressive direction. The background materials - and policy options -- provided to participants were anything but fair and balanced, as analysis by economist Dean Baker demonstrated. Most egregious were the following:

Social Security. America Speaks gave participants no explanation of the fact that Social Security has its own source of funding, and thus does not contribute a dime to the deficit. Americans actually have been paying extra payroll taxes to create a trust fund that will make sure full benefits can be paid for decades into the future - and thus there is no rational reason to cut Social Security benefits (or raise the retirement age) in order to reduce the Federal deficit. But you wouldn't know that from the America Speaks materials or explanations. The Social Security program is simply presented as another big spending program and participants were presented with various ways to cut benefits. Given all this, a majority endorsed raising the retirement age for full benefits to 69 - a benefit cut for future retirees. But they also chose the progressive plan to raise the cap on taxable earnings subject to Social Security taxes, thus producing income for the system from greater portion of higher income peoples' wages.

Medicare and Medicaid. The America Speaks background materials actually did acknowledge that the rising budgetary costs of Medicare and Medicaid are driven by the fact that our whole health care system is broken - and costing both the private sector and government programs much more per person than in countries that have much better health outcomes. They even acknowledged that thoroughgoing reform - like single-payer health care system - is the only way to control those rising costs. However, when it came to options the participants were allowed to vote on, they were all variations on how much people wanted to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits. At this point in the proceedings, the America Speaks founder and President, Carolyn Lukensmeyer had to acknowledge a rebellion in the ranks. People were demanding to have the option of voting for "single-payer" reform instead of cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and when she announced a complicated process of writing in that alternative, a roar of approval went up from the crowd in several locations. Their press release doesn't report how many people chose this difficult to select option, but the organization clearly had had to scramble to quell a revolt by participants. (Note: their press release states that people chose to "cut health care spending by at least 5 percent," but the choice was really to cut government health programs 5 percent - and my reading of the charts online was that only 21 percent of participants chose that option, with 71 percent choosing "no change.")

Austerity vs Growth. Finally, the organizers had heard enough protests from the Economic Policy Institute and the AFL-CIO that they felt they had to assure the audience that they were not prioritizing deficit reduction over the need for economic stimulus to get the economy to start producing jobs. But after that ritual disclaimer, they went on to devote the vast majority of the day to deficits as our defining economic program.

David Dyen, an LA participant, wrote in a post on firedoglake,

"While the cumulative effect of all this tends towards social safety net cuts rather than tax fairness, the crowd in Los Angeles, at least, wasn't biting at first. In surveying the discussion groups, most people seemed more concerned about the desperate need for more stimulus spending to move the economic recovery forward. They feared a double dip recession without job creation, and fretted about the lack of unemployment insurance extensions to help the less fortunate. "No one is talking about the long-term unemployed," said one participant. In the nationwide instant survey, taken by participants through electronic devices at all 19 America Speaks sites, 61% said the government needed to do more to strengthen the recovery, with only 25% opposed. Even with a push poll question asking if participants supported government programs to increase growth "if it increases the deficit," got a majority, 51%, of the nation-wide group of participants.

My next day posting here - claiming participants mostly rejected conservative nostrums - is based on watching the process online, from reports from people who attended events around the country - and on a fairly sketchy press release put out by America Speaks on Thursday, just after the town meetings. But America Speaks billed these events as a nation-wide scientific experiment in finding out what the "American people" think about the economic way forward. They are thus duty bound to publish a full report on the details of every single question - and voting results - that participants were asked to make decisions about. It is especially important that they put out this comprehensive report because they are also scheduled to summarize their findings before a special public meeting of the White House Deficit Commission on June 30. Only then can the people who participated in the process judge whether their surprisingly progressive decisions are being accurately presented to the Commission.

Note: Click here for a blog post on the Augusta, Maine America Speaks event by participant Barbara Burt, director of the Frances Perkins Center.