Campaign for America's Future

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.

Show Peter Peterson We Reject His Elite Austerity Consensus

Roger Hickey — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:25:20 -0400

On Tuesday, May 15, one of America's wealthiest men, Peter G. Peterson, will use his foundation's money to lecture the rest of us about why the federal deficit is the most serious problem facing our country.

Since poll after poll demonstrates that strong majorities of Americans care far more about high unemployment and slow growth, Peterson's major strategy is to put on a show aimed at demonstrating that all the "serious people" – the elite of both political parties – have already agreed that the deficit is such a threat to America that we must slash public spending and "reform" entitlements. (That's a fancy way of saying cut benefits, raise the retirement age for Gen Xers and Millenials, and dismantle Medicare for these future seniors, as Cong. Paul Ryan and just about all Republicans have proposed.)

I'll be outside Peterson's Fiscal Summit, with Senator Bernie Sanders, and lots of friends who don't agree with Peterson's elite consensus – including leaders of the Campaign for America's Future, Health Care for America Now, CREDO, Social Security Works, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare, and NOW - and lots of other folks concerned about our country. If you don't believe Peterson speaks for the American majority, come on out. We start at 1 p.m.

To repeat, Pete Peterson knows most Americans want action to create jobs, not spending cuts, so in search of an inside-the-Beltway consensus, he tries to find a few important Democrats who will come and pretend that the kind of budget austerity that has wreaked European economies – and is being rejected by voters around the world – should still be the priority for the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, one of the key Democrats Peterson has lined up is Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner – and there is no telling what Geithner is likely to say. What every Obama Administration spokesperson should be saying is, "We need to invest more in jobs creation – and aid to states to prevent layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters. And if we can get more Americans back to work, the deficit will come down because we'll all be paying taxes."

But Geithner might just easily say something that undercuts that clear, winning Democratic message. He could do what many budget hawks have been urging and call a post-election "grand bargain" that would prioritize deficit reduction by embracing the proposals of former Sen. Alan Simpson and investment banker Erskine Bowles, whose ideas were rejected by the members of the commission that bore their names.

Simpson and Bowles proposed raising the retirement age for young people now in the workforce - and weakening the cost-of-living index for everyone. That means a big Social Security and Medicare benefit cut for people who will have few other retirement and health security plans for their senior years. If Tim Geithner embraces these kinds of big cuts to these crucial programs, the political impact will be to undermine Democratic chances to take back the House and keep the Senate in 2012.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is also speaking at the Summit, should certainly care about Democrats like Geithner rejecting this kind of "bipartisan" consensus as a guide to what they should do in the lame duck session after the election. If he wants to be helping Nancy Pelosi to lead a strong Democratic majority after the election, he should be urging his fellow House candidates to reject this kind of deal – and to campaign like the successful Democratic special election candidate in New York, Kathy Hochul, who won by promising, "We will not cut Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires."

Speaking of tax cuts for millionaires and corporations, Simpson and Bowles are praised by Peterson and others for daring to increase taxes to reduce deficits, breaking with the quasi-religious conservative oppositions to raising any taxes at all. Actually, they propose the same counterintuitive approach as the Ryan budget plan: lowering tax rates, particularly those on the top. What my CAF partner, Robert Borosage, said at the time applies equally to the Ryan plan: "They promise the lower rates will be accompanied by cleansing the tax code of various tax deductions and expenditures that mostly benefit the rich ... Only we've played this game before. In the 1980s, bipartisan reforms lowered tax rates across the board, particularly those on the top, and cleansed a tax code riddled with corporate and fat cat deductions. And then Lucy pulled the football. They eliminated the deductions but not the corporate lobbyists." The rates stayed low but the deductions came back.

Democrats should join the voters and call for raising taxes on the rich and the big corporations - not cutting them in the name of deficit reduction.

I've been to Peter Peterson's fiscal summits in the past – and I can imagine what the reaction of his public relations team will be to our gathering outside:

1) They will allege that we oppose all deficit reduction plans – especially those that tackle the "entitlements crisis." Our answer is clear: We do oppose cutting Social Security benefits because that system is not in crisis and can be solved by raising the cap on the Social Security taxes rich people pay. We do oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid, because a civilized society should cover the costs of health care for seniors and the poor. However, our approach to deficit reduction involves a.) steps to spur growth and jobs; b.) real tax increases for the rich and the corporations; and c.) support for stronger health care reform aimed at getting the America's overall health care costs in line with other advanced countries. If we did that, our long term deficit problem would disappear. And I will bet that nobody speaking at Peterson's "Summit" will argue that crucial and clear approach to deficit reduction – because it means tax justice and taking on the drug and health care monopolies.

2) They will patronize us, pretending that Pete Peterson himself agrees there are times when job growth and economic stimulus must come before deficit reduction. But this is meaningless lip service. How many of Peterson's hand-picked Summit speakers will call for vigorous political action to pass a new round of stimulus and job creation measures? No, the real purpose of this Summit is to convince the media that – after a long period of slow growth, growing inequality, and polarized politics – leaders of both parties will come together after the election around a plan that kills the economic recovery through drastic spending cuts and undermines the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs that actually help most Americans survive in bad times. This meeting will not issue a rallying cry for bold growth policies to put America to work. And we should try to make sure that Democrats do not buy into what the organizers are selling – because the voters certainly won't.

One more thing Peterson has been selling: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Even many deficit hawks have attacked Ryan's budget plan – supported by almost all Congressional Republicans – because its tax cuts and unspecified and unlikely loophole closings would make the deficit much worse. Democrats claim they will run against the Ryan budget as the epitome of everything wrong with the Republican party, as it is. Yet at the last Peterson Summit, a year ago, former president Bill Clinton came to the defense of Paul Ryan and his plans for Medicare.

At this Summit, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a progressive Democratic leader (and ranking Member of the Budget Committee), is scheduled to engage in a "dialog" with Ryan. Van Hollen has so far done a good job at exposing the way the Republican budget slashes spending for the poor and middle class. Those of us outside the Summit will be hoping he stands up to Ryan by opposing job-killing austerity – and cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We'll see.

Note: It is wonderfully fitting that the Peterson Fiscal Summit will take place at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium, named after one of the wealthiest Americans of the 1920s and '30s, who, as Secretary of the Treasury, advised President Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system." He advocated spending cuts to keep the federal budget balanced, and opposed fiscal stimulus measures. The result was the downward spiral known as the Great Depression.

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.

What Should Progressives Do About the President?

Richard Eskow — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:11:33 -0400

Progressives may sometimes feel like they're in a backdoor high-school affair with the President. You know the kind: The popular kid will make out with someone from the wrong side of the tracks. But he'll only take a rich kid from "the right kind of family" to the school dance.

The President often courts the left when he needs it, only to pitch his actions to the right at clinch time. Right-wing ideology is often mistakenly called the "center" today, despite holding views that are so conservative they're often rejected by Republicans as well as Democrats. But it's the right all the same.

Lately the President has made some significant moves toward the left, but the response has been cool in some progressive corners. The skepticism's understandable. His 2008 platform was progressive too, but after he was elected he tacked sharply right without even bothering to explain the shift. Progressives don't want to keep feeling like the kid who 'puts out' in the backseat of a convertible and then is all alone on prom night.

But if you believe (as I do) that the progressive movement should be independent of Barack Obama and the Democrats, then the decision to work with them should be made strategically. There are times to oppose them, but there are also times to support, encourage, and persuade them.

The President's new progressive moves aren't enough, and they're still watered down with unproductive and unpopular rightwing notions. But they are a move in the right direction. He deserves some credit for that. The progressive movement does too. So what's next?

The Right Left, the Wrong Right

There's no need to rehash all the mistakes of the last three years. The President and his advisors still cling to the mistaken idea that, as one of them told the Washington Post, "Fighting might make liberal groups feel good, but it isn't reasonable."

This "reasonableness" has led to Congressional gridlock, the appearance of weakness, and ongoing economic misery after inadequate steps were taken. The result is plunging approval numbers for the President, a disaffected base, and a surprisingly vulnerable re-election campaign. The White House has mistakenly assumed that we're still in the nineties, where you could win elections by rejecting the "Sistah Souljah left" and appealing to the "center."

That was two recessions, one financial crisis, two wars, and several million jobs ago. What the White House is hopefuly beginning to realize is that the 'left' is the new center. The President's proposed jobs act contains progressive ideas like closing corporate loopholes that are actually popular with a majority of Republicans. (So was the public option in healthcare.) And large majorities of Americans support his proposed millionaire's tax, another 'progressive' idea.

Fighting for these ideas won't just please 'liberal groups' - who seem to be a particular source of White House resentment. They'll please most Americans. In some cases, they'll please a majority of Republicans too . Hopefully the White House has begun to read the polls and reports that these 'liberal groups' (including our own, the Campaign for America's Future) has been giving them for years.

Perhaps the White House has come to understand that today's GOP, and the cynically compromised corporate mavens who compromise the so-called "bipartisan center," are unscrupulous and untrustworthy. The Administration has spent three years trying to please the wrong right, an intractable group of self-promoting radicals, while ignoring the right "left" - a progressive movement that has come to speak for the American majority on jobs, taxes, Social Security, and Medicare.

The Wrong Right

Case in point: The President appointed two right-wingers to run his Deficit Commission, a misguided effort that focused on spending cuts while the nation continued to struggle with lost jobs and frozen wages. Democrat Erskine Bowles is a Director of Morgan Stanley, the Wall Street firm whose brokers like to brag that "I ripped his face off" after taking advantage of one of their own clients.

That's right: The Democratic co-chair helps direct a firm whose brokers brag violently about taking advantage of its own clients.

The other co-chair was radical Social Security hater Alan Simpson, who yesterday turned on the President with an angry tirade about 'an abrogation of leadership, a vacancy of leadership."

"You can't get this done without hits across the board," said Simpson, who has adamantly opposed tax increases for millionaires or corporations as part of the "hits across the board." Simpson's also pushed for Social Security benefit cuts from seniors who have already taken "hits" like the eligibility age, which is already increasing as scheduled, and cost of living adjustments that don't keep pace with living expenses for seniors and the disabled.

The President has also learned that Congressional Republicans are dedicated to nothing so much as his own failure, even if that failure means extended economic misery for millions of Americans. The handful of GOP representatives who might work with them are hostages to the Tea Party and the radical right. That makes the President's rightward moves futile.

Prom Night

Now Barack Obama has begun taking some steps toward the progressive positions that define the new American center. His American Jobs Act balances some ineffective cuts with some excellent moves toward direct spending on infrastructure, the millionaire's tax, and other popular measures. He has backed off his offers to cut Social Security and Medicare, and has even started to use progressive economic analyses that explain what's really going on with those programs.

He told a Latino voters' meeting, for example, that "The way social security is set up, the (cost of living adjustment) is made automatically but over the last two years, because of the recession, it hasn't happened. We tried to provide an extra check to those receiving social security checks to make up for the loss but it didn't pass through Congress."

That's a welcome break from recent statements that those cost-of-living adjustments could be adjusted downward without serious harm to seniors or the disabled. And it's sweet talk, for sure. But "prom night" happens when the President and other Democrats act, not when they speak. How can progressives make sure we get better actions, and better election results?

Press On

The President hit a lot of progressive talking points in his recent speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. Then he seemed to lecture his audience: "I am going to press on for jobs. I'm going to press on for equality. I'm going to press on for the sake of our children. I'm going to press on for the sake of all those families who are struggling right now. I don't have time to feel sorry for myself. I don't have time to complain. I am going to press on.

"I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on."

Many of those in his audience had been "pressing on" without recognition or reward for more years than the President has been alive, and some of them found these remarks condescending and inappropriate. But they'll work with him anyway. All he has to do is "shake off" his 90's-era obsession with right-wing "centrist" ideas, put on his job-creating shoes, and press on.

How can he and his party be guided in that effort? We need an independent movement to push for better (and more popular) policies. It should be centered around the kinds of positions reflected in the Contract for the American Dream - positions that end Wall Street recklessness, end two expensive and unproductive wars, create jobs, encourage growth, and rebuild the middle class.

This movement can help encourage genuinely progressive politicians at the local, state, and national levels. Because it's independent, it can also keep the pressure up to make sure they carry out their promises. The President and his staff seem to resent pressure from the left, but they're responding - and his new left-leaning approach could help him, too.

That still leaves a lot of questions unanswered: How should this independent movement be organized? How much of its efforts should be "inside the Beltway" and how much should focus on the rest of the country? Is there a role for a third party? How can the labor movement help - and be helped - by sucha a movement? How can grassroots actions like the Wisconsin sit-ins and #OccupyWallStreet be supported and expanded? Do we need primary challenges in 2012 or later?

Those questions and others are the reason why we're gathering next week in Washington for the "Take Back the American Dream" conference to have a series of in-depth conversations.

But a little self-congratulation is in order, along with the soul-searching. Four years ago the country elected a different kind of President - one with some explicitly progressive positions - and gave him both houses of Congress. That's a pretty huge accomplishment, whatever's happened since.

Since then we've seen the uprisings in Wisconsin, the failure of austerity economics in Europe, and the sudden appearance of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Like the old saying goes, this could be the start of something big. In other words, it's almost prom night. Once the dancing starts, will progressives follow ... or lead?

3 Simple Things to Do Today Instead of Saying "Eff You Washington!"

Richard Eskow — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:09:23 -0400

People in the capital were thrilled by Twitter's role in 2009's Iranian uprisings. They probably weren't as excited this weekend when a new "hashtag" (topic) suddenly climbed toward the top of Twitter's trend list. It's not printable here, but the first word began with a "F." After that came the words "you" and "Washington."

The frustration's understandable, given Washington's bizarre monomania with applying the wrong solutions to the wrong problems. But there are more constructive ways to spend your day than tweeting four-letter words in the general direction of the Potomac River.

Tweet Dreams

The Twitter trend was started by the seemingly mild-manner media analyst Jeff Jarvis, who explains (warning: not work safe): "I listened to the latest from Washington about negotiations over the debt ceiling ...After dinner, I tweeted: "Hey, Washington *****, it's our country, our economy, our money. Stop f**ing with it."

Somebody responded by tweeting, "Hashtag it: #F***YOUWASHINGTON." Says Jarvis: "So I did ... And then it exploded as I never could have predicted."

It's easy to make too much out of this sort of thing. Twitter users aren't a cross-section of America. Too much can be made of its top trends -- which as of this writing include #Dear Taylor Swift, #Fantasy Football, and #Russell Brand. If hashtags alone can predict our political future, comedians will rule a nation of make-believe athletes who write love letters to teenaged country singers. (Somebody's probably muttering, 'You mean, like right now?')

The revolution will not be twitterized.

Genuine and Widespread Discontent

But there may be a larger phenomenon here, once that can be seen in polling numbers too. People are in despair for their future. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe we're still in a recession (which, for many people, we are). Consumer confidence has plunged. Almost 40 percent of Americans believe we've entered a state of permanent decline, while nearly half expect another major recession in the next year.

And they don't believe anything's being done to stop it, since unemployment is still high and the views of the American Majority aren't being represented in this week's deficit discussions. More than 60 percent now say that the country's on the wrong track and unfavorable opinions of both parties are nearing record highs.

In other words, "F**k you, Washington."

Deal or No Deal?

Harry Reid's "grand bargain" won't include cuts to Medicare and Social Security. If he's successful (the president now supports him) that will mean that public outcries have once again thwarted attempts to cut these programs.

But Reid's proposal has problems, too. Like Boehner's plan, it would create a "supercommission" empowered to recommend drastic cuts, which would be submitted for an up-or-down vote with no modifications. (It's not clear if entitlements would be excluded from Reid's version.) There would be no tax increases under the Reid plan, either, which means the wealthy would continue their easy ride while other Americans bear the brunt of spending cuts. You can't fix our economic problems without increasing taxes, as this chart from economist Menzie Chinn shows:

It's all there. Spending rose sharply and tax revenues declined dramatically when George W. Bush took office. Both trends spiked again after the Great Recession. Why? First came the cost of two major wars, along with the Bush tax cuts. Then came the cost of (partially) repairing the damage left by a deregulated and unsupervised Wall Street, along with lost tax revenue as millions of people lost their jobs.

In the face of all this, here's Washington's plan: Continue the wars, preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, and fight Wall Street regulations. Hey, what was that hashtag called again?

Into Action

But despair not, ye infuriated Americans. As promised, here are three things you can do today (unless it's not Tuesday, July 26, in which case you can only do two of them):

1. Use this link to tell your Senators and Representatives that you oppose any deal that would cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, and ask them to raise the debt limit without any conditions attached.

2. Call your Senators and/or Members of Congress to tell them the same thing. (The link above should give you their contact information when you're done. It will ask you for a donation, too -- which, if you decide to give, would make four things you can do today.) If the phone numbers don't appear, they're publicly available.

3. If it's before noon on Tuesday, you still have time to find your Representative's local office and go there for a noon demonstration sponsored by a number of groups, including MoveOn and the Campaign for America's Future. You can find the nearest office here and then, as MoveOn says, "tell your Representative that they need to protect the programs working families rely on, and make the richest few pay their share."

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee summarizes the goals of these actions as 1) thanking the 81 Democrats in Congress who signed the Progressive Caucus letter opposing cuts to Social Secial, Medicare, and Medicaid, 2) urging other Democrats to oppose any plans that includes these cuts, and 3) telling Republicans to stop pushing for cuts to these programs. (They could add a few Democrats to that list, too.)

These actions could make a difference. And if these actions continue and grow, we may someday live in a country where the biggest trending hashtag on Twitter is "#thankyouWashington."

Taylor Swift might be disappointed, but the rest of us would be pretty happy.

(Abbreviated from an earlier version that was published in The Huffington Post)

Social Security: Are You Ready For A Congressional “Video Staycation”?

fake consultant — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:16:41 -0400

Diligent reporter that I am, I got up yesterday morning to do a bit of fishing for a story, and as so often happens, I’ve caught something a bit unexpected.

Now what I have for you today starts out as a bit of insider information that came to me on background—but it turns into a chance for those of us who support Social Security to very much get in the faces of our members of Congress, for two whole weeks.

And to make it even better, I’m going to throw out a few direct action ideas “for your consideration” (as they say in Hollywood during Awards Season) that would absolutely make good street actions and YouTube videos, both at the same time…and even more importantly, we’ll absolutely make some great Spring Break fun.

“I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those moneys as their sole source of income. So we've got to protect today's seniors. But for the rest of us? For - you know, listen. We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be…

…We're going to have to accept some changes as far as the rest of us. And what we're saying is for those 55 and older do not have to worry about changes in benefits. But for the rest of us we will. We will have to do that."

--House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, speaking at the Hoover Institution, March 21, 2011

OK, so like I said, I have bit of “inside baseball” that sets this whole thing up.

I got a piece of information “on background” yesterday from An Actual Well-Informed Source who seems to be about two or three “degrees of separation” away from actually being in the room while this news is occurring; because of that I’m willing to ascribe to it a reasonably good chance of proving to be entirely accurate.

What I was told was that Paul Ryan, who is the “manager” of the House Republicans’ budget-cutting effort, has decided not to push to include cuts in Social Security as part of the current fight over a Continuing Resolution…because Spring Break is coming up.

Check this out: according to the House Schedule, April 18-29 is Spring Recess, and I was told there’s a lot of concern on the Republican side about what would happen if anyone made any crazy Social Security proposals right now…when they have to go home and face you and me and the rest of the Angry Nation in just about two weeks.

(There’s some evidence to back this up: it is now possible that Cantor “misspoke” in that quote a couple of paragraphs up the page; as of this moment I can’t confirm if a "full backpedal" is officially underway or not.)

We can discern two things from that little nugget: for starters, we are having an impact on this fight—but beyond that, we also now know that we have two weeks to publicly torment those Members of Congress who are looking to cut Social Security…and we have two weeks to get ready.

Since hunger strikes are already underway, here are a few other ideas you’re welcome to steal to make your statement:

Is your Member going to be appearing at a community center or a friendly church?

Well how about arriving a few hours early and setting up a cardboard “Social Security Tahrir Square”?

You could have a box that’s the local “Catfood Grocery”, you could paint one of the boxes to look like “Grandma’s Gingerbread Box”, and you could even have a “Long-Term Care Facility” and hand out fliers of your own—and make sure you catch the reaction of the Congressional Staff on video to set up the bigger video of you interacting with the crowd…or y’all being ejected by the suddenly fearful Representative…or y’all “making happy” with a supportive Member.

Now you’re going to love this one, and there are two ways you can make it work.

What we’ll be playing on are the proposals to increase the retirement age and how we’ll be asking old people to do jobs that, obviously, they just can’t; what I basically want you to do is either go to an event…or outside one of the Members’ District Offices…and create a “job training center” for senior citizens.

Get a wheelbarrow and load it with a nice load of bricks, maybe fill some oval trays with a mess of plates and beverageware (safety first on this one; beware of glass and ceramic—and don’t forget the jackstands), and then rustle up a transfer belt and a heavy volunteer and simulate what nurses and their aides do all day long, and all night, too: lifting and transferring those who can’t do it for themselves.

Take it all to the venue, and you can either “train” your own 70+ year-old students…who might not be old enough to retire, under the new proposals…on how to do these types of jobs while the crowd watches—or you can invite older members of the crowd to try their hand at moving the bricks, or lifting the tray. Bring a medical worker and you can show them what lifting looks like, too—although I would be unlikely to invite the crowd to do that one without some kind of training.

(Do I have to warn you that this could get someone hurt, and you’ll have to use a reasonable amount of caution when you do this? I didn’t think so.)

Again, get it all on video—and then get that video right up on the Web.

Our final idea for today might be my favorite—but that might be because I used to be a caterer, and this really fits my sense of humor.

You know those “Top Chef” and “Iron Chef” shows?

And you know how we refer to that Deficit Commission as the Catfood Commission?

Well…why not sponsor a “Catfood Contest” at your Congresscritter’s event?

Again, you could go two ways: invite “contestants” in chef’s whites to create delightful dishes with the Commission’s Catfood, or you could judge competing sculptures; they do both at the Spam Jam in Waikiki, and if it was me I’d steal the ambiance of this kind of an event from Hawai’i, especially since it’s Spring Break season anyway.

An alternative way to do this: performance art of an elderly couple having a Catfood Commission BBQ, cooking Catfood patties on portable grills to make a point.

So there you go:

We have two weeks to get ready to have two great weeks of fun just really tightening the screws on those Members of Congress who are looking to jack America out of Social Security, and we have ideas on the table that you are entirely welcome to borrow, or adapt, or outright steal—and with any luck, other readers will toss in some ideas of their own—so get your art on, gather your props, and bring extra video batteries and a blank tape to give the police…just in case.

And here’s one last thing to remember: this isn’t just about turning back a disastrous plan to break the backs of Americans for decades to come—it’s also about having a good time.

Well-executed comedy makes people agree with you, and to like your message, and that’s a powerful thing; the more fun you’re having, the better the whole thing is going to work.

Now go forth, make some mischief, and watch the magic happen.

FULL DISCLOSURE: This post was written with the support of the CAF State Blogger's Network Project.

Social Security: If You Can’t Kill The Program, Screw The People

fake consultant — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:53:44 -0500

There’s a lot of ways to be petty and cheap and stupid, and a lot of ways to stick it to a program you don’t like, and by extension, the clients of that program…and this week the House Republicans have embarked on an effort to combine the two into one petty, cheap, and stupid way to stick it to the clients of Social Security and the workers who administer the program.

They’re going to sell it to you, if they can, as a way to “lower the deficit”, or words similar…but what this is really about is making the actual Social Security program work less well—because, after all, if a program is popular today, the best way to make it less so is to apply a bit of “treat ‘em like their cars were impounded” to every interaction customers have with the system.

And what better way to make sure that happens…then to aggressively demoralize everyone who works down at the ol’ Social Security office?

The foot less prompt to seek the morning dew,
The heart less bounding at emotion new,
And hope, once crushed, less quick to spring again.

--From “Thyrsis”, by Matthew Arnold

So here’s the deal, short and sweet: Social Security is amazingly efficient at running an annuity and income support program, both at the same time; in fact, in 2009 the Social Security Administration Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefit Program took in not quite $700 billion and disbursed $564 billion, writing checks to and serving millions of customers at the same time…and they did this with administrative expenses of about $3.4 billion—and that’s just about .6% of the distributions, all of this according to the Report of the Social Security Trustees for 2009.

In the private sector, companies who provide annuities have administrative costs that range from 50% to 500% higher. (Of course, Social Security doesn’t have to pay sales commissions.)

The Social Security folks are similarly frugal with the Disability Insurance Program (expenses run 2.3% of distributions), and if you combine the two the total is .9%.

Nonetheless, the plan from the House Republicans, who want to return to balanced budgets right now, if they are to be believed, is to cut $1.7 billion of those administrative costs from a budget of just under $12 billion in the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, and, according to the involved union, that means in those next 7 months workers will have to take three weeks worth of furlough days to make that work.

If my quick math is correct it means they hope to close the office about 10% of the time while expecting the same amount of work to be done, which is probably not going to happen.

The likely end result will be callers who can’t get through without more of a struggle, checks that may or may not get out on time, an angry workforce, and a general result that equals more and more people saying “Social Security sucks”—and if you ask me, that’s the real goal of this effort: to make Social Security unpopular, thus setting the stage for more cuts to come later.

And just to put all this in perspective, we today give subsidies totaling about $4 billion a year to oil companies, apparently because gold-plated caviar is really, really, expensive, and the same budget-conscious House Republicans…every single one of ‘em…voted to protect that subsidy just a couple of days ago.

Social Security workers were out yesterday handing out leaflets to describe what’s going on, although as far as I know the leaflets didn’t say that this is just one more part of a giant plan that’s already raising its ugly head in places like Wisconsin and Indiana and Ohio and New Jersey: start a war against one group of American workers by claiming they’re not “real” workers or that they’re “special, extra-privileged” workers…and try to drag down all workers in the process.

A cut like this is a shot at these workers, and, by extension, all workers who might, you know, like a raise some day—and it’s also a shot at you, or your parents, or your grandparents, who will eventually have to deal with the results of all the cutting.

But in the end, it’s important to look at the bright side: the gold-plated caviar market will still be protected, thanks to that $4 billion a year in cash we’re donating to oil companies—and if I had to guess, BP’s senior management will not be looking at longer wait times the next time they call Louie Gohmert or Joe Barton or any one of a few dozen other Members who evidently represent Big Oil first…and Americans last.

FULL DISCLOSURE: This post was written with the support of the CAF State Blogger's Network Project.

If Obama Moves Right He Loses Everybody - And Everybody Loses

Richard Eskow — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:22:20 -0500

The latest Democracy Corps/Campaign For America's Future poll on jobs and the economy has a clear message for the President and his party: Stand up for jobs, and protect Social Security and Medicare. The results couldn't be clearer. Yet it's still rumored that the President's State of the Union will emphasize deficit reduction over job creation, and the White House has refused to assure worried Democrats that the President won't also propose cuts to Social Security.

How many polls will it take to convince the White House that this is political suicide? How many expert analyses will it take to persuade them that its premature to make deficits the priority when the country desperately needs jobs and economic growth?

The latest poll is based on interviews with 1,480 people who voted in 2008, and was conducted January 9 - 12. It strongly reinforces the findings of earlier polls: Voters overwhelmingly want their government to emphasize job creation and economic growth over deficit reduction, and they are opposed to cutting Social Security or Medicare. The bottom line? The President's in danger of moving in a direction that will lose everybody he needs. Literally every demographic group he and his party needs will be alienated by a right-leaning set of policies.

Voters Today

Here's how the picture looks today, by demographic group:

Young voters will be considerably less eager to support Barack Obama in 3012, except in the unlikely event that his opponent is Sarah Palin. While he wins 64% to 29% of the youth vote in a matchup against Palin (which tellingly isn't even as great as his poll showing against McCain), he only wins 54% of the youth vote against Mitt Romney, who hasn't even begun to campaign.

Support for Congressional Dems among young voters is plunging, as the 63-18% difference drops to 50-39% in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. And these numbers don't capture the lost intensity of support, either.

After the 2008 election, the Obama team boasted that it had built an independent, youth-based team around its Internet lists that it could mobilize to win future elections. But the number of young voters plunged by more than half in 2010. 51 percent of voters aged 18-29 showed up in 2008, and that number plummeted to 20.4% last November. That's even fewer than voted in 2006. The party's lead in union households, another Democratic stronghold, has dropped from 37 points to 18 points.

The President and the party still have some very strong relationships: suburban voters, unmarried women, and African Americans are still very solid. And the President's negatives have dropped sharply since the election. But two core constituencies, the young and union members, are crumbling.

The picture's even bleaker among key groups of swing voters. Congressional Democrats are trailing by 23 points among white non-college voters, and Obama's losing them to Sarah Palin by 22 points (and to Romney by 21). Obama's losing white seniors to Palin by 8 points, to Romney by 25 points, and other Democrats are losing them by 16 points. Congressional Democrats are losing rural non-South white voters by 31 points, and Obama trails both Palin and Romney (losing to Romney by 26 points).

So the question becomes, what should the President and Congressional Democrats do - and what shouldn't they do - to improve their electoral chances?

The Way Out

The answer, as it turns out, is: The right thing. The rumored priorities for the State of the Union are exactly the opposite of voters' priorities. When asked to name the two biggest problems right now, the overwhelming answer was "jobs and the economy." Unemployment and outsourcing ranked first and second, with a total of 74% of respondents placing them in the top two. "Deficits" were included by only 18%, 18% said "wages have not kept up with the cost of living," and 17% said "the economy is not growing." The total blend of answers paints the picture of a country devastated by job loss and economic setbacks.

In a similarly-structured question, 46% said Congress' top priority should be "economic recovery and jobs," 34% said "protecting Social Security and Medicare," and only 15% said "reducing the size of the budget deficit." Another 14% included "investing in new infrastructure and new industries" as one of their two top priorities.

Should Social Security benefits be cut? White seniors said no, by 48% to 36%, and the "don't cut" voters felt much more strongly about their position. White non-college voters said "don't cut" by 55% to 35%. Voters in districts that turned Republican in 2010 opposed cuts by 57% to 34%. Even suburban voters were oppoed, 60%-34%.

The voters were strongly in favor (57 percent) of "a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years." By contrast, only 52 percent approved of "a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit over the next five years," and with less intensity of support than expressed by those who wanted investment.

Other ideas sound good to voters until they're told what's involved: They liked the idea of adopting the recommendations of a "bipartisan deficit commission," supporting it 56% to 19%. But when they were told what the recommendations were, they opposed them by 54% to 34%. 55% were opposed to raising the retirement age and 57% were opposed to reducing benefits for people now entering the workforce.

Would this be a "move to the middle"? 52% of independents and 55% of Republicans oppose raising the retirement age. People under 50 oppose it by a 22-point margin, women oppose it by a 19-point margin, suburbanites oppose it by a 14-point margin, and people in districts the GOP picked up last year opposed it by 14 points. For other benefit cuts the opposition was even greater. The margins were 25 for under-50's, 27 points for women, 26 points for suburban voters, and 23 points in GOP pick-up districts.

So why are we still talking about this?

Warning Signs

These poll results show that a rightward move at the State of the Union would be disastrous, yet the signs are ominous. Robert Gibbs has indicated several times that deficit reduction will be a major theme of the speech. Now Christina Romer, a former Administration economics official, is pushing the deficit line. In a New York Times op-ed called "What Obama Should Say About the Deficit," Dr. Romer writes today that "My hope is that the centerpiece of the speech will be a comprehensive plan for dealing with the long-run budget deficit."

Romer continues: "The recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that the president created are a very good place to start." That's wrong on two counts: The bipartisan Commission never issued recommendations - it couldn't reach the required majority - and the recommendations of its' two co-chairs are harmful, anti-growth, and (as the polling has showed) extremely unpopular.

This is the same Christina Romer who wrote another op-ed only ten weeks ago, also in the Times, called "Now Isn't the Time to Cut the Deficit." Is this reversal the sign of some internal Administration shift? Now Dr. Romer says that "the need for such a bold plan is urgent -- both politically and economically. Voters made it clear last November that they were fed up with red ink." (No, they didn't, as this and many other polls have shown. This was a protest vote, more than anything else.)

Why are deficits "urgent" economically? Dr. Romer explains: "At some point -- likely well before 2035 -- investors would revolt and the United States would be unable to borrow."

Jobless Americans might be stunned to learned that a possible investor revolt sometime within the next quarter-century, based on hypothetical scenarios, is more "urgent" than they are. Many economists would be equally surprised to learn that Dr. Romer doesn't consider economic growth an effective way to cut the deficit.

Many of the President's advisors will argue that there's a new political calculus and that he no longer has the horsepower to get spending measures through Congress. They'll also point out that voters say they want cooperation and civility. Okay. But why can't you explain what you believe will work? And since when did articulating an economic policy or defending Social Security become "uncooperative"?

The Moment Before

If the President moves to the right in this way, it would be a deeply cynical strategy - one that sacrifices his party and everything it's represented for 75 years in order to win on celebrity likeability and post-partisan "branding." Worse, from his point of view, we now know it probably wouldn't work. The numbers aren't there. He would be proposing the wrong policies, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

And if the President's advisors think that a deal on Social Security or deficits would give him the same boost that the tax deal did, they'd be sadly mistaken. The tax deal, whatever its flaws, put money in everybody's pockets. Social Security cuts and austerity economics would take money out of those pockets. Sure, Republicans would cut a deal. Then they'd use it against him in 2012. Large segments of his base would turn away from him, or just stay home. Swing voters would register their disapproval of the deal by turning on him, as the public face of the "grand compromise."

We're in a strange historical moment. The President's about to give a speech that will define the future of his Presidency - and our own personal futures - yet nobody knows what he will say. That's odd and disturbing. For those who want to see the Administration defend Social Security and strive to rebuild the economy, Washington seems to be moving in slow-motion. It's like the scene in a science-fiction movie right before a world-changing event. You know the scene I mean, the one where the sky grows dark and the wind rises and everything becomes silent.

You don't know exactly what's coming. But you know that afterwards nothing will ever be the same.

___________________________________

This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Before He Cuts Social Security, I Hope the President Listens To This "Obama" Guy

Richard Eskow — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:13:47 -0500

In an open letter to the President this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders mentioned "worriesome reports" that the President is planning to cut Social Security. These reports don't come out of the blue. They're the culmination of a months-long campaign. The White House has been privately signalling for months that it was leaning in that direction, and now the sky over Washington is darkening with trial balloons floating up from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Before you make such a disastrous and unwarranted move, Mr. President, there's someone I think you should meet. Actually, you may have run into him before: He's a skinny guy with an keen analytical mind and a gift for brilliant oratory. Sound familiar? He ran for President last time around, and he had some very sensible things to say about Social Security:

As you can see in this video, Presidential candidate Barack Obama opposed exactly the kind of cuts that are being discussed now by the White House. Candidate Obama pointed out that John McCain had indicated he would cut retirement benefits, either by raising the retirement age or slowing down the cost of living (COLA) adjustments, and responded unequivocally. "Let me be clear," the Candidate said. "I will not do either." That statement is admirable for its clarity and forthrightness - so much so, in fact, that it bears repeating:

"Let me be clear. I will not do either."

The Candidate showed a genuine command of the topic, and clearly understood what actuaries and others with specialized knowledge of the topic had been saying for years: that raising the cap on payroll tax deductions - or perhaps applying it to income above $250,000 - would remove any long-term concerns about the program's solvency.

In 2008 the public has just weathered a nerve-rattling attempt by Republicans to 'privatize' and cut Social Security, and it had survived an Administration that was openly run by lobbyists and special interests. Recently their trust in government has been shaken by the appointment of a series of right-leaning business figures to this Administration. Candidate Obama promised a different kind of government - and he pledged to defend Social Security.

Lobbyists have been hard at work trying to destroy Social Security ever since that election, and now they see their opportunity. The Chamber of Commerce, which the President is scheduled to address on February 5, continues to press for Social Security cuts and privatization. And the President's own Deficit Commission was stacked with a number of people in the past or present employ of Pete Peterson, a billionaire who has made Social Security cuts a lifelong passion. Peterson has quite a few people in Washington lobbying for his point of view (some of them have economics degrees).

But that's not who Barack Obama was elected to represent. The President was elected to represent the New Silent Majority, that vast number of Americans who have seen nobody in Washington fighting for them. Three out of four Americans want the government to do more to crack down on Wall Street, so the President's recent appointments won't please them. Are they about to discover that the President's pledge to protect their old-age financial security is being broken?

Our latest polls show that eight out of ten Americans oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit. That includes 78% of independents, 82% of Republicans, and 74% of Tea Party supporters. That's worth repeating: The President may be on the verge of adopting a position that's too right wing for the Tea Party.

Our polling page also details the Democratic Party's plunging support among seniors. That's a fifteen-year trend that has accelerated under President Obama (the gap has widened from 8% to 21%). Wonder how candidate Barack Obama would have performed with this age group, with his straightforward position on this issue?

It would have seemed unthinkable in 2008 that Democrats could lose their lead over Republicans on the question, "Which party do you trust on Social Security?" Yet the figures are clear: The President and his party have lost the public's trust on this issue. "Trust" is a profound and delicate relationship. If you make an unequivocal promise, and then start equivocating as soon as you're in a position to meet your commitment, trust will fade away like dew on the White House lawn.

But it's not too late. The President can still stand up for Social Security in his State of the Union address, repeating the sensible (and financially accurate) comments of Harry Reid. Reid was absolutely right when he said that the "arithmetic" for Social Security was sound. There are reams of actuarial and economic studies to confirm that comment. Reid was eqully correct to say that Social Security cuts are "something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government." (The President may feel that such a comment isn't "civil discourse," but I don't feel it's very civil to frighten people needlessly for political reasons.)

The Candidate was right: We can protect Social Security benefits - which are too low, if anything - and fix future financial problems (scheduled to occur in 2037) by raising the cap. That would be smart policy and smart politics. It would also send the message that Candidate Obama and President Obama are one and the same person - a person who keeps his promises.

I'm sure his advisors are telling him that he must cut Social Security, even though it's politically unwise and fiscally unnecessary. Before he does, I hope the President will take the time to listen to Candidate Obama. I think he'll find that he's a pretty impressive guy. We certainly thought so; we elected him.

The President might want to give special attention to the words spoken by that candidate when he declared his intention to run for President, on a winter's day in Springfield just three years ago:

"Too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own."

The President we elected will stand up and defend Social Security in his State of the Union address. We're hoping to see him there.

________________________________________________

This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Negotiating Against America: Why Obama Shouldn't Listen to David Brooks

Richard Eskow — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:08:34 -0500

Uh-oh. David Brooks is offering the President advice again. Since we're told that Brooks is one of President Obama's favorite columnists, there's always the chance that his latest idea will gain traction in the White House. Brooks is smart, and he's a good salesman, so his ideas may resonate with a lot of other powerful Democrats, too.

That would be a very, very bad thing indeed. He's using new catchphrases to dress up some very bad, very old, and very unpopular ideas.

Two old paradigms ain't worth forty cents.

The Brooks proposal may sound fresh, but it's really only a mash-up of two stale notions: That "bipartisanship" happens whenever well-heeled Democratic and Republican politicians cut a deal, and that "transformation" is always exciting and positive - no matter what you're transforming from or to.

Brooks is still thinking in clichéd, outmoded "left" vs. "right" terms. Like so many others in Washington, he doesn't realize that the world has changed. The Grand Compromise he's offering isn't between "liberals" and "conservatives," but between most Americans - Republicans and independents as well as Democrats, Tea Partiers as well as progressives - and the tiny band of Washington insiders that have hijacked that city's thinking with ideas they continue to peddle as "bipartisan."

He has Washington intellectual fashion on his side, and that's no accident: This new style was developed by well-funded intellectual couturiers and then sold wholesale to receptive journalists, with Brooks among their most reliable retailers. This fashion will be wildly unpopular with the electorate, and we have the numbers to prove it.

Something Ripe

The "moment is ripe for fundamental change," says Brooks. "The popular longing for change is at its strongest." He's a couple of years too late. There was a yearning for fundamental change, and a belief that the 2008 election might bring it about. That moment's passed. I don't know anybody who's looking for some unnamed, exciting "change" anymore. Do you? Since he offers no polling information to back up these sweeping statements, it's hard to give them much credibility.

Brooks sees a nation longing for excitement, but the rest of us live in a world where hope is a barely affordable luxury. A lot of Americans are fearful for the future. 80% believe, for example, that the American middle class is in decline [1]. Change for change's sake is a meaningless novelty for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to survive. They're struggling to hold on to what they've got.

Big "transformative" ideas can backfire. Remember "New Coke"? This proposal is political New Coke.

A lopsided deal

What kind of "grand bargain" is Mr. Brooks proposing? "Offer the left something it really craves," he says, like a short-term stimulus plan for the economy. "Then offer the right something it really craves," he says - before launching into laundry list as long as your arm: Corporate tax "reform" (he means tax cuts for corporations). Individual tax reform (he means tax cuts for the wealthy). Social Security "reform" (he means slashing your retirement benefits). Medicare "reform" (he means cutting medical benefits and giving out funny-money vouchers instead).

And, just in case that isn't enough to satisfy the cravings of "the right," he adds: "And other things." In business negotiations we used to call this sort of phrase a "placeholder," a receptacle to be filled later with every item on our wish list.

See what he just did there? He used the outdated "left/right" paradigm to sell us a whole lot of massively unpopular policies, leavened with a few short-term dollars for a very popular one. He's good.

Working without a net

"It should be possible to strengthen the social safety net," writes Brooks, "while modernizing some of the Great Society structures." That makes it a three-fer of Washington clichés: We're already seen bipartisan and transformative, and now we're modernizing too. What would this "modern," "transformed" social safety net look like?

First up is a "Medicare reform plan in which new enrollees would received a fixed contribution from the government, growing a bit faster than inflation." Did you catch that? He tried to slip the real deal right past you. What he calls "reform" is really "demolition." Medicare as we know it would be dismantled and replaced a "fixed contribution" - that is, a voucher - which would be used to buy health coverage on the open market.

This plan wouldn't just eliminate the safety net for senior health care. It would double down on a broken health care system, leaving elderly Americans unable to provide the most basic coverage for themselves. It would grow "a bit faster than inflation" - while health care costs have been growing three and four times faster than inflation! What's more, the elderly would have to purchase that insurance from slick, doubletalking sales types - you know, the kind who try to slip the real deal right past you.

But it's bipartisan, says Brooks. It's endorsed by "Paul Ryan, a Republican, and Alice Rivlin, a Democrat." That's like saying the British attack on New York during the Revolutionary War was supported by "King George III, a Briton, and Benedict Arnold, a American." Besides, as the poll figures show, this isn't about what Alice Rivlin or any other Beltway Democrat wants. It's about what the public wants ... and what's in their best interests.

The Medicare voucher idea may appeal to Brooks, but the electorate hates it. It's opposed by 69% of Democrats, 67% of independents, and 62% of Republicans. [1] His reply might be, "but we're not cutting them to lower the deficit. We're just 'modernizing,' remember?" Even a great salesman like Brooks won't be able to pull that one off. That line plays well with the DC crowd, but nobody else.

Brooks is deliberately vague about Social Security, saying only that the President can "build momentum" for its "reform." Now that we know that "reform" is a euphemism for "annihilation" in his lexicon, we know where this is headed. Eight out of ten voters in another poll oppose cutting the program to reduce the deficit [3]. while six out of ten "would feel unfavorably toward an elected official who says we cannot reduce the deficit without cutting Social Security benefits."

Six out of ten Americans would look unfavorably on a politician who even suggests cutting Social Security? That figure could prove "transformative," all right - on Election Day.

I'm gonna make you a star ...

Brooks summarizes his ideas this way: The "left" gets "an activist job growth agenda" and "industrial policy." The "right" gets "fundamental welfare state reform." Do you catch that? "Fundamental welfare state reform" - that is, the dismantling of the social safety net - is a profound and permanent change. Combine that with Brooks' proposed tax "reforms," and we've now irrevocably dismantled government's social functions in order to provide big tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations.

But that "activist job growth agenda" offered in return is a temporary measure. Even if the "right" honored this deal, it amounts to a few bucks today in return for trillions of dollars ... forever.

And let's have a show of hands: Who believes they'd honor even that lopsided deal?

Back in the fifties record producers would bring kids into the studio to record a song they'd written, and they'd give them $50 in cash for songwriters' rights. That seemed like big money to kids who were hungry and poor, but that fifty bucks sometimes cost singers like Frankie Lymon millions of dollars. This deal's like that. The middle class is being offered a few bucks in upfront money in return for its future rights to retirement security and healthcare. We're all Frankie Lymon now ... except that I doubt we'd even get the fifty bucks.

By the way, Frankie Lymon's big hit was "Why Do Fools Fall In Love?"

They've got the pundits, but we've got the numbers

Brooks says there's an "inchoate longing for change," and the Oxford English Dictionary tells us that "inchoate" means "just begun and so not fully formed or developed; rudimentary." What he really means is that he has no poll numbers to back up his claim. Actually the public mood on these policies is very, uh, choate. Here are more numbers to prove it:

Do Americans want us to invest more in infrastructure? Yes. According to a Campaign for America's Future post-election poll [2], most Americans support that position, including a large majority of swing voters (58% to 35%) and a near-majority of independents (50% to 43%). 80% of those polled supported a five-year strategy to revive American manufacturing.

That means, contra Brooks, that these are hardly "left" ideas. One is an everybody-but-Republicans position, and others are everybody-including-Republicans positions. So the "gimme" in the Brooks proposal isn't for the "left." It's for the American majority - especially the swing voters the President and his party need so desperately.

Brooks' proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security are so unpopular that they're essentially "everybody but people like David Brooks" positions (and Alice Rivlin too, of course). 68% of all Americans opposed cutting Social Security or Medicare to lower the deficit, including 61% of all Republicans.[1]

So his proposed trade-off is between a short-term idea that most Americans want and long-term ideas most Americans reject. Such a deal ...

Negotiating Against America

Brooks is merely continuing a game that's been played in Washington for months now, frequently with the President's assent and sometimes with his active participation: People pretend there's bartering between the "left" and the "right," with most people somewhere in the middle. But what they're really doing is negotiating against America. They're placing the public's interests and needs on one side of the scale, while the other side holds unpopular ideas supported only by the far right and the wealthy vested interests.

And occasionally, when they think nobody's looking, somebody puts their thumb on the scale.

Apparently the only thing that isn't popular in Washington is popular opinion.

If I were the President, I'd run as fast I can from David Brooks and his ideas. On the other hand, if I were David Brooks - that is, if I wanted to cut Social Security and end Medicare, but I knew that whoever does those things is committing political suicide - I'd do exactly what David Brooks has done. I'd come up with a really "transformative" idea:

Let Obama do it!
_______________________________

You can send a message to the White House, too. More information here: "Tell The President: Stand Up To The Hostage-Takers! Defend Social Security And Medicare"

[1] August Greenberg Quinlan poll for the Democracy Corps and the Campaign for America's Future

[2] Post-election poll for the Democracy Corps and the Campaign for America's Future

[3] Celinda Lake poll for Social Security Works

Bipartisanship vs. Democracy: The President and the Third Way Fallacy
The New Silent Majority
... the Wisdom of the American People ...

This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.