Third Way

How "Centrist" Democrats Are Helping Conservatives - and Failing America's Moms

Richard Eskow — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:35:45 -0400

So a corporate Democratic lobbyist named Hillary Rosen made a gaffe about Ann Romney's resumé. So what? The reality is that Moms of all ages have been wounded by an obsolete and misguided consensus among Washington elites - a consensus that is too often mislabeled as 'centrism.'

This false centrism is based on an utterly discredited ideology of deregulation and government austerity - an ideology that has the GOP in its iron grip and controls much of the Democratic Party apparatus. The Republicans have become too radical to save, but the Democrats need to see the light - and soon - because the results are in and they're indisputable.

The Clintonite economic fantasy of "corporate-friendly Democrats" has failed. From Wall Street deregulation to welfare 'reform,' from Social Security "bargains" to jobs cuts for poor mothers, the record is undeniable: "Bipartisan" Washington's economic agenda doesn't work.

Sorry, corporate Democrats: The dream is over. Wake up and smell the GDP. If you won't do it for yourselves, do it for your mothers.

GOP Gone Wild

It's true that Mitt Romney has said stunningly insensitive things about lower-income mothers. And his "bromance" partner Paul Ryan has cooked up a second round of welfare cuts which would decimate lower-income mothers and their children - even though we now know the first "reform" was a cruel failure.

But Romney's comments aren't all that different from what Bill Clinton said about welfare cuts back in the nineties. And leading Democrats from the White House on down still seem determined to pursue an austerity deal with Republicans that would take the country down the same road of blood and horror that Europe is walking.

(Maybe they should call it a "Grand Guignol Bargain?)

When will Democrats learn that repeating right-wing talking points only accomplishes three things? It helps turn right-wing ideas into right-wing realities, it legitimizes bad ideas - and it elects Republicans.

Nostalgia Trip

Right-leaning - excuse me, centrist Democrats - love to lecture others about living in the past. They argue that their party's traditional ideals and themes - fighting poverty, ensuring a secure old age, and providing work at fair wages - went out with bell bottoms and Nehru jackets.

The group that used to be known as "DLC Democrats" and is now sometimes called the "Third Way" contingent still controls the party, and it quickly secured leadership positions for itself in the Obama Administration after the 2008 election. As soon as the insurgent candidate won office the White House nomination process rang with an unspoken but undeniable theme: Out with the new, in with the old.

But the nation quickly learned, even if they did not, that they were the ones living in the past. From the Presidential Deficit Commission to the Administration's ill-timed embrace of austerity, the centrism that worked so well in the nineties began tanking in the 21st Century. It even allowed Republicans to run to Democrats' left on Social Security in 2010 - and recapture the House.

Why won't they change? Maybe because it's hard to let go of a beautiful dream.

That Nineties Show

High-profile Dems in the 1990s must have thought that you can have it all: They could bask in the admiration and acclaim enjoyed by their more liberal forebears while enjoying the largesse and security (personal and political) that comes when you win the backing of corporations and very-high-net-worth individuals.

And during the go-go Clinton years it almost seemed as if it worked: The economy was booming as they cut regulations, forced new rules and restrictions onto key antipoverty programs, and very nearly agreed to cut Social Security.

Leading the charge was Bill Clinton himself. He signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" on August 22, 1996, saying it would "end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and families."

And when he signed the bill repealing Glass-Steagall, Bill Clinton said that ''This legislation is truly historic" - a statement that's indisputable in hindsight: It's helped contribute to historic levels of unemployment, lost wealth for the middle class, and ongoing economic insecurity. His next sentence - ''We have done right by the American people" - is more dubious.

Clintonian economic centrism was nothing but a fantasy -- a bubble-driven fantasy. the go-no nineties were fueled by an Internet bubble, and then a housing bubble sent the economy into manic overdrive.

Moms and Jobs

That nineties-era deregulation led to the financial crisis of 2008. Much has been made of the fact that unemployment statistics look slightly better for women than for men - but compared to what? And for which women?

As of March 2012 official unemployment rate for women in the United States was 7.7 percent. In the twenty years fefore the crisis that figure was only reached for all workers in the final months of the first President Bush's term -just before he lost his re-election bid over dissatisfaction with the economy.

In other words, it's a very bad number. Remember "It's the economy, stupid?"

SIngle mothers have been disproportionately hurt by the ongoing American recession. So have minority women, as well as mothers from all backgrounds who must contend with un- or underemployed spouses as well as young-adult children who are still living at home or accepting money from their parents during a period of record joblessness for the young.

And the "golden years" won't provide any comfort, much less gold, for America's mothers. Women over the age of 55 actually face higher unemployment rates than men do.

Poor Moms

We now know that welfare reform everybody was bragging about the nineties - that decade's "Grand Bargain," its "bipartisan" triumph - was a failure. It may have slightly helped single mothers find jobs in the 1990s, but nearly ninety percent of the job gains among single mothers during that period were due to other factors.

Even those meager gains were soon wiped out. Deregulation shattered the economy and led to mass unemployment, while conservative state legislators slashed the programs meant to help mothers who need jobs. And then the Federal programs were cut too.

But the cuts for mothers and their children? They didn't go away when the jobs did.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was ended, and we now know that its successor (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - TANF) only helps 27 out of every 100 impoverished families. That's less than half the families that were getting help before all of this bipartisan "reform" kicked in.

The New York Times tells the story of real "welfare reform", describing the "desperate and sometimes illegal ways" mothers without assistance make ends meet: "They have sold food stamps, sold blood, skipped meals, shoplifted, doubled up with friends, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans and returned to relationships with violent partners -- all with children in tow."

Grand-Moms

We now know that Bill Clinton was working on a "grand bargain" with Newt Gingrich to cut Social Security and Medicare when his plans were derailed by scandal. Today his successor insists on putting Social Security and Medicare benefits back "on the table" for a similar deal.

How would that affect the country's mothers and grandmothers? A new Kaiser Family Foundation brief confirms that seniors rely on Social Security for most of their income, that medical costs are a large and already-growing part of their budgets, and that women face much greater financial insecurity than men.

Cuts to Social Security or benefit cuts (as opposed to other cost reduction measures) to Medicare would devastate America's moms and grand-moms.

Choosy Mothers

This election year the choice has never been clearer - except when it isn't.

It's clear that today's Republicans are certainly extremists, and that they're pushing an anti-woman, anti-family agenda. The GOP's push for anti-union, anti-employee laws - marketed under the name "Right to Work" - disproportionately hurts working women as well as minorities.

The phony outrage over Ann Romney hides the fact that Mrs. Romney could make a choice whether to work or stay with her children - a choice that her supposedly "pro-family" husband wants to deny to less wealthy women: ""Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said in January. "I want individuals to have the dignity of work."

Elections have been won and lost on such callous statements. But if the Democrats want to win they're going to have to repudiate their own party's similar rhetoric - rhetoric that candidate Obama embraced in 2008 when he rad an ad called "Dignity" which used many of the same stock phrases. State Senator Barack Obama was much closer to the mark in 1997 when he called the legislation "disturbing" and said ""I probably would not have supported the federal legislation."

Mother Knows Best

The Third Way types can throw around all the massaged, tweaked, and sliced-and-diced polling data they want (Mike Lux has the details), but their agenda doesn't work any better politically than it does economically. The more populist the President's rhetoric becomes, the better he does in the polls.

A wishy-washy pseudo-centrist message will disenchant the Democrats' core voters - the young, minorities, and yes, women - just enough to suppress their turnout in November and give the race to the Republicans. So the Democrats have a choice: They can be the party of corporate lobbyists like - well, like Hillary Rosen - or they can fight for the country's mothers.

It's all very well and good to repeat Romney's cruel words about poor mothers and their kids, or to mock right-wingers like Gary Bauer for calling that now-discredited welfare reform "one of the great bipartisan triumphs of the last two decades." But if Democrats don't repudiate the reckless errors of conservative pseudo-centrism they'll be throwing away an electoral opportunity - and they'll be letting down America's moms.

All of them, that is, except the new First Lady of the United States: Ann Romney.

Today's Visionary: An Illustrated Guide to Dr. King's 21st Century Insights

Richard Eskow — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:37:33 -0500

Here it comes again. This holiday weekend we'll see a lot of media coverage of Martin Luther King, Jr. But we'll hear very little about what he really was - a brave and visionary leader whose vision is as relevant today as ever.

One year ago I listed ten quotes by Dr. King, and mourned the lack of a movement that would advance his kind of vision. Then came the uprising in Madison and the Occupy movement, which began a long-overdue national debate about economic, as well as racial inequality.

Once again, Dr. King's insights provide offer insight and vision for today's movement activists - and tomorrow's.

1. "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." Where Do We Go From Here? August 1967 speech.

"Bain Capitalism" - aka "vulture capitalism" - didn't happen out of nowhere. It was made by politicians. It should be un-made by politicians. The system is the problem and it needs to change.

A long list of corporations and banks enriched itself by triggering the events that led to the Great Recession, and many of them took Federal bailout money when it happened. Each of them has a Corporate Social Responsibility policy, designed to show they're good citizens who give back to the community. And each of them has a fleet of lobbyists working to protect their privileged status and tax benefits.

Meanwhile the poverty rate, which had been declining, started to rise again in 2000. That year it stood at 11.3%, but by 2009 the Census Bureau reported that it had climbed back to 14.3%. At last count, 46 million Americans lived in poverty, more than 15 percent of the population. More than 16 million of them are children, which means that nearly one in four American kids (22 percent) is living in poverty.

Is that okay with you?

The situation has become so grave that The Nation responded by allocating an entire page to poverty, which is managed by Greg Kaufman. Sadly, it is now essential reading if we're to understand the real state of our union. As Kaufman points out, one study suggests that 340,000 children joined the ranks of the impoverished last year.

As the New York Times reported last September, another 2.6 million people slipped below the official poverty line in 2010. The official total of impoverished Americans was the highest it's been in the 52 years that it has been reported. For white Americans, the figure was 9.9 percent. The poverty rate for African Americans surged to 27.4 percent. For Hispanics the figure was 26.6 percent. For African American children the figure was 39 percent.

Is that okay with you?

(photo by Jeff Schrier, Saginaw News)

2. "We must develop a federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all - so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened ... There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum and livable income for every American family." Where Do We Go From Here?

Many economists agree that the unemployment rate will remain tragically high unless there is a concentrated program of government-funded, short-term job creation. Instead, budget cutbacks are forcing layoffs of government employees, especially at the state level. Republicans are refusing to back any extension of unemployment benefits. Among their Presidential candidates, only Mitt Romney appears to support increasing the minimum wage.

President Obama's pre-compromised and therefore overly mild jobs proposal was weakened with ineffective tax breaks for businesses, but it would have provided some jobs. Yet even that proposal was rejected by the Republicans. Of the political groups in Washington, only the House Progressive Caucus is willing to propose an effective ob creation bill - one that would also reduce the nation's deficit. But mainstream media have stigmatized it as "extreme" and no major politician is willing to back it.

What did Dr. King say about jobs?

"The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all."

Today it seems that the only bills that even get proposed are those that disguise tax breaks for corporations as "stimulus" spending, even though there is widespread agreement they're an ineffective way of creating jobs when there's not enough consumer demand.

With 24 million people out of work or under-employed, demand is hard to come by. ALong-term unemployment is a portrait of human loss, of human beings cast out of productive, wage-earning lives and into an existence of hopelessness and deprivation.

How bad is unemployment today? There are a number of ways to illustrate it. Here's one:

Pundits and politicians get excited about short-term blips in unemployment figures. But nobody's addressing this long-term catastrophe..

3. "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.

(Daimler Maybach sedan, manufacturer's suggested retail price $366,000 - plus delivery and other charges)

Hello, Occupy!

The gap between the wealthy and the rest of society is greater now than it was when Dr. King spoke those words in April, 1967. The progress we made toward reducing poverty is being eroded as the result of increasingly maldistributed wealth, Wall Street's reckless gambling, and the cost of the Great Recession that followed. Wall Street's doing fine, now that it has been rescued by the American public. But the American public isn't doing so well. We threw a life preserver to the drowning bankers, and now they're sitting on the shore as millions of their rescuers go down for the third time.

Income inequality in this country is worse than it is in Egypt. As economist Edward Wolff explains, wealth inequality has more than doubled in this country since the mid 1970s. The GINI coefficient, which measures economic inequality, has risen nearly 20% since it was first measured in this country (coincidentally, the same year Dr. King's speech was given.)

Where are the trends headed?

The increasing disparity in wealth has been greatest for the top 0.5% of earners - the wealthiest of the wealthy - yet their tax burden has dropped from 70% in 1967 to 35% today (it was scheduled to "soar" to 39.6% until the Obama/McConnell tax deal of December 2010). And hedge fund managers - including the billionaires - continue to pay 15% instead of the 28% commonly paid by teachers, nurses, and police officers. (One hedge fund manager likened the possibility of a change to Hitler's invasion of Poland.)

The Federal minimum wage, however, has dropped from $6.58 in fixed-dollar terms (1996 equivalent) to $5.29 since this speech was given. When Dr. King gave his speech, it was possible to support a family of three on this wage and stay out of poverty, but that's no longer possible.

4. "The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that encourages men to be I-centered rather than thou-centered." Where do we go from here?

The I-centeredness of American business leaders has reached a level Dr. King could not have dreamed of. Two short years after Wall Street ruined the economy and was rescued by the American people, the depth of its self-absorption and self-pity was a miracle of human indulgence. It reflects a self-centeredness so profound that its leaders are in danger of morally imploding, spiritual black holes in an amoral universe.

Case in point: Steven Schwartzman, the hedge fund manager we mentioned earlier, who felt that paying taxes on his billions' at a laborers' rate was the moral equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

Or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who said "We're very important ... we do God's work." (Reverend King might beg to differ.)

Or erstwhile Democrat Daniel S. Loeb comparing himself and his fellow investors to an oppressed minority, victims of tyranny (a "tyranny" that rescued them and asked nothing in return), and even underpaid workers.

Or John Coulson, head of the Mortgage Bankers Association, lecturing underwater homeowners not to walk out on their mortgages - even as his organization was walking away from a headquarters building they lost nearly forty million dollars on in two short years.

Or the King of the Emo Executives, Jamie Dimon, pouring out his hurt feelings to the New York Times - "My Achilles heel?" Jay-Z rapped, "Love! I don't get enough of it!" - even as his bank was on its way to earning record profits in a time of record unemployment (and as it continued to engage in unscrupulous business practices).

Dimon, who has also contributed to the Democratic Party, is stridently resisting regulations that would remove the existential threat his bank (and others like it) pose to the economy. And he won't stop whining.

I'm tired of going after the guy, so this time we'll let Josh Brown tell him what time it is. All these greedy, rapacious, whiny CEOs help to remind us that shame performs a useful social function.

We need better laws and regulations - and they should be ashamed of themselves.

5. "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." Letter From a Birmingham Jail, April 1963 open letter.

Tea Party supporters may have populist impulses. But the movement itself was created with an outburst by an investor-turned-television commentator who was cheered on in his rantings by traders on the Chicago Board of Mercantile Exchange. And the movement's been funded by wealthy interests ever since.

After it was bailed out, Wall Street immediately redoubled its lobbying efforts. Banks were able to blunt the most effective and urgently needed financial reforms, like breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Now they're hard at work eliminating the reforms that were passed, with the help of the Republican Congress they helped get elected. Big-bank CEOs have spent more than $170 million to influence politicians in the last ten years.

The situation has gotten so bad that the International Monetary Fund - hardly a leftist organization - issued a report showing a strong correlation between bank lobbying and risky bank behavior in the United States.

That's why the Occupy movement is so important, and why it must grow and evolve in 2012.

6. "An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal." Letter From a Birmingham Jail

Recent court cases have revealed widespread lawbreaking on the part of United States banks - a "power majority group" - as they foreclosed on homes that in some cases they don't even own.

Members of both parties have indicated an eagerness to rescue banks from the consequences of their own disregard for state and local laws, which has led to numerous and egregious violations (like foreclosing on a home that is fully paid for). But the criminality goes further: In many cases, mortgages changed ownership without proper notification to the borrower. The new holder of the note often changed the rules - about due dates for payment, late penalties, and other contractually agreed-upon terms - without informing the homeowner, then began imposing steep fees and penalties retroactively. (The banks own servicing companies that benefit from these fees.)

Many homeowners are now delinquent because of these wrongfully-imposed fees. Many of the solutions now being proposed would allow them to seize the homes anyway. The Administration's HAMP program, ostensibly designed to help homeowners, has too often become an "extend and pretend" program that allows banks to take another year or two's worth of mortgage payments before seizing the home anyway.

That's why the Obama Administration's cushy settlement deal - which would immunize bankers from criminal prosecution, or even investigation - must be stopped. (You can help by making your voice heard here.)

7. "When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." A Testament of Hope (posthumously published essay).

Banking has become divorced from reality. When the financial sector can enrich itself with speculation alone, it no longer needs to fund concrete business activities. That's why statements like "Main Street and Wall Street rise and fall together" are 100% incorrect: Those two geographies have never been more distant from one another.

Robo-trading. Flash crashes. Databases where mortgages are traded like gambling chips. Incentives to lie, and to hide the truth. Banks are "automated greed factories." The most human thing about banking in the 21st Century is its greed.

Is racism conquered? When infant mortality for African Americans in 2.5 times that of whites? With these disparities in poverty and employment?

Militarism? The Cold War is over and the Defense budget continues to expand. We didn't shift military spending when the world changed—we added to it. The Homeland Security Complex is enormous, growing—and looking for targets of surveillance.

And as Tom Engelhardt points out, President Obama's much-touted "defense cuts" are really just a slight reduction in the rate of spending increase. That's like an alcoholic boasting that he's solved his drinking problem by only having three more drinks a day next month, instead of his original plan to have four more.

As for conquering materialism, how many people even want to anymore? Dr. King's "three triplets" still walk the earth.

8. "There is also the violence of (African Americans) having to live in a community and pay higher consumer prices for goods or higher rents for equivalent housing than are charged in white parts of the city." A Testament of Hope

Payday lenders disproportionately exploit minorities and lower-income communities. Big banks (like Jamie Dimon's) make it harder for working minorities to get credit through normal channels. Then they help finance usurious payday lenders who step in and offer credit at outrageous rates designed to trap the borrower in a cycle of debt, so that a "one-time" fee for borrowing against next week's paycheck turns into a revolving loan that costs the borrower 300-400% in interest per year.

As a theologian and scholar, Dr. King would recognize a practice that was condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

Big banks also back auto loans, which have been shown to charge more to African Americans than whites. HSBC Bank settled when it was found to have been charging minority customers more than others.

When it comes to banks, Dr. King would recognize the United States of the 21st Century. And he wouldn't be surprised to learn that the government is still more inclined to rescue banks than force them to change. He would probably be encouraging citizens to take action - action that would change things. The CFPB is now up and running with a full-time Director. We wish Richard Cordray and his staff the best.

9. "Congress appropriates military funds with alacrity and generosity. It appropriates poverty funds with miserliness and grudging reluctance. The government is emotionally committed to the war. It is emotionally hostile to the needs of the poor." Domestic impact of the war in America, November 1967 speech..

Today's politics would look all too familiar to Dr. King. In the matter of poverty, as in so many things, the Washington consensus of "centrist" Democrats and Republicans fails to reflect the opinions of the American people.

He would be pleased to learn that the American people are dedicated to eliminating poverty - and to protecting Social Security, defending Medicare, and asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.

He would be disappointed, however, to find that there aren't more national leaders speaking up for the public's values in Washington.

10. "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." Domestic impact of the war.

Dr. King was discussing a critic who told him that taking a controversial position on Vietnam might diminish his authority as a civil rights leader and weaken his political influence in Washington. Here's the full quote:

And I had to answer by looking that person into the eye, and say 'I'm sorry sir but you don't know me. I'm not a consensus leader.' I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of my organization or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

We're speculating now, but we can't help imagining that Dr. King might have challenged today's leaders to try harder at molding consensus before seeking to achieve it. That was his idea of genuine leadership.

Lately the President of the United States has been taking a tougher rhetorical stance on behalf of the American majority. We hope that his words will be followed by a year of aggressive action. But we won't be waiting to find out. We'll be acting for ourselves and encouraging others to do the same.

See you at the demonstrations.

Today's Visionary: 10 Things Martin Luther King, Jr. Taught Us About Today's Struggles

Richard Eskow — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:17:18 -0400

A lot of people in the media are so afraid of offending anyone that they can't even tell the truth about the man whose memorial is being unveiled this weekend in Washington. Their coverage could give you the impression that the purpose of Martin Luther King, Jr's life was simply to make everybody in this country feel good about themselves. So once again we're presenting ten quotes that represent Dr. King as he truly was -- the kind of brave and visionary leader we so badly need today.

You might be forgiven for thinking that everybody liked and admired Dr. King while he was alive except maybe for a few angry old white people down South (who later realized the errors of their ways and were very sorry.) The media have been so reluctant to convey Dr. King's true message that Glenn Beck can claim to have inherited his mantle and millions of people believe him. They're so afraid of telling his truth that a Pentagon official can claim that the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the spiritual heir to Gandhi's mantle of nonviolence, would have supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this fame-addicted age, this activist and challenger of comfortable ideals has been presented as just another celebrity. And these days "celebrity" is another word for "commodity." Dr. King: Didn't they use his picture for one of those Apple ads (or was it Nike?) Didn't he have his picture taken with movie stars and singers? Future generations may come to believe he was famous just for being famous - like a Kardashian.

This weekend Dr. King's name will be spoken by politicians and business leaders who would probably despise what he would have had to say about 21st Century America. They'll try to appropriate his name and memory to ensure their own well-being. They hope to domesticate his moral challenge in order to protect their own ambition.

Fortunately, Martin Luther King left his words behind. In his honor, here are ten quotes from Dr. King, illustrated with images from today's events to show their continued meaning. If they don't manage to comfort the afflicted on this national holiday—and at least unsettle the comfortable—they're followed by a slide show with even more quotes.

A long chain of corporations and banks enriched itself by triggering the events that led to the Great Recession, and many of them took Federal bailout money when it happened. Each of them has a Corporate Social Responsibility policy, designed to show they're good citizens who give back to the community. And each of them has a fleet of lobbyists working to protect their privileged status and tax benefits.

The poverty rate, which had been declining, started to rise again in 2000. That year it stood at 11.3%, but by 2009 the Census Bureau reported that it had climbed back to 14.3%. At last count, 43.6 million Americans lived in poverty. In raw numbers, that's the highest number since these statistics were first collected more than fifty years ago (although it's been higher as a percentage of the population).

We're moving in the wrong direction. Children are being hit the hardest, and their rate of poverty is growing the fastest. More than 20% of children in the United States - one child in five - lived in poverty in 2009. The poverty rate for African Americans was 25.8%, a considerably higher percentage than possess a college degree. A college education is still the best ticket out of poverty - but there's considerable pressure to cut funding for education, too.

Poverty rates would have been even higher if not for unemployment insurance, which was not extended for the long-term unemployed. That means they're likely to jump again. The "99ers" have exhausted their ninety-nine weeks of special unemployment, and the agreement that extended tax cuts for the wealthy and the middle class included nothing for them.

(photo by Jeff Schrier, Saginaw News)

Had Dr. King's vision become reality, it wouldn't have been necessary to extend unemployment for the 99ers. As he said:

"The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all."

Today the idea of Federal support for jobs is considered so politically unfeasible that President Obama didn't even bother asking Congress for the full stimulus package economists felt was needed - and that was in a national emergency. The only bills that can passed are those that disguise tax breaks for corporations as "stimulus" spending, even though there is widespread agreement they're an ineffective way of creating jobs when there's not enough consumer demand.

With 25 million people out of work or under-employed, demand is harder to come by. And the rapid rise in long-term unemployment is a portrait of human loss, the outline of human beings cast out of productive, wage-earning lives into an existence of hopelessness and deprivation:

In the mid-sixties there was vigorous protest at the idea that 5% might be an acceptable unemployment level. The racial disparities of Dr. King's day haven't changed much, at least as far as employment is concerned: The African American rate that month was 15.8%, as opposed to 8.5% for Caucasians. Official figures reflect the fact that unemployment in the black community is twice that of whites - and the true difference is probably even greater, once figures are adjusted for those who have given up seeking employment. Underemployment is also considerably higher among African Americans.

But Caucasians aren't winning this game, either. 8.5% is a devastating figure. Increased employment for some people means more jobs for all, as newly-employed workers spend their earnings and stimulate economic growth. Dr. King's words are as true today as they were when he spoke them: A unified movement to demand more jobs would benefit all races and communities in the United States.

Income support for lower-income Americans was cut during the Clinton years, in the name of welfare reform. Dr. King's dream of an annual minimum income for all Americans, working or unemployed, may sound hopelessly radical today. But Richard Nixon proposed a guaranteed national income (he called it a "negative income tax") and it almost made it through Congress while he was President.

Could a President as economically progressive as Richard Nixon get elected today? It's hard to tell, because nobody's tried lately.

3. "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.

(Daimler Maybach sedan, manufacturer's suggested retail price $366,000 - plus delivery and other charges)

As economist Edward Wolff explains, wealth inequality has more than doubled in this country since the mid 1970s. The GINI coefficient, which measures economic inequality, has risen nearly 20% since it was first measured in this country (coincidentally, the same year Dr. King's speech was given.)

This increasing disparity in wealth has been greatest for the top 0.5% of earners - the wealthiest of the wealthy - yet their tax burden has dropped from 70% in 1967 to 35% today (it was scheduled to "soar" to 39.6% until the Obama/McConnell tax deal of December 2010). And hedge fund managers - including the billionaires - continue to pay 15% instead of the 28% commonly paid by teachers, nurses, and police officers. (One hedge fund manager likened the possibility of a change to Hitler's invasion of Poland.)

Case in point: Steven Schwartzman, the hedge fund manager we mentioned earlier, who felt that paying taxes on his billions' at a laborers' rate was the moral equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

Or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who said "We're very important ... we do God's work." (Reverend King might beg to differ.)

Or the King of the Emo Executives, Jamie Dimon, pouring out his hurt feelings to the New York Times - "My Achilles heel?" Jay-Z rapped this year, "Love! I don't get enough of it!" - even as his bank was on its way to earning record profits in a time of record unemployment (and as it continued to engage in unscrupulous business practices).

Poverty's up. Unemployment's essentially unchanged. The American family is struggling. American businesses just had their best quarter ever. Yet its leaders are whining. They're using the rhetoric of freedom in defense of greed.

Dr. King trained his followers in the path of nonviolent resistance to endure jail, starvation, beatings, and even death without complaint or retaliation. He would not be impressed with America's CEOs.

After it was bailed out, Wall Street immediately redoubled its lobbying efforts. Banks were able to blunt the most effective and urgently needed financial reforms, like breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Now they're hard at work eliminating the reforms that were passed last year, with the help of the Republican Congress they helped get elected. Big-bank CEOs have spent more than $170 million to influence politicians in the last ten years.

And that report was issued before the lobbying frenzy of the last twelve months - before the White House hired more bank executives to placate Wall Street, and before leading Republicans paraded themselves before bank lobbyists like le Pigalle hookers on a Parisian summer's night.

Guess who wasn't represented? The American public, 72% of whom want Washington to do more to rein in Wall Street misbehavior. Washington still lives by its version of the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, sets the rules.

Recent court cases have revealed widespread lawbreaking on the part of United States banks - a "power majority group" - as they foreclosed on homes that in some cases they don't even own.

The incestuous relationship between big banks and government threatens to undermine fundamental principles of law and justice, some of which were established in the Magna Carta. A recent proposal from "centrist" group Third Way is typical ("centrist" is a term Dr. King wouldn't recognize in its present use, where it denotes a right-wing ideology masquerading as middle-of-the-road "common sense'). It would override centuries of legal tradition and the legal responsibilities of the states to protect the nation's banks at the expense of their clients.

There are rumors that the Administration is sympathetic to solutions of this kind. It seems safe to say that Dr. King would not have felt the same way.

Is racism conquered? When infant mortality for African Americans in 2.5 times that of whites? With these disparities in poverty and employment?

As for conquering materialism, how many people even want to anymore? Dr. King's "three triplets" still walk the earth. And three years into what has become a permanent depression for millions of Americans, reality shows about rich people are still popular.

As a theologian and scholar, Dr. King would recognize a practice that was condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

Big banks also back auto loans, which have been shown to charge more to African Americans than whites. HSBC Bank settled when it was found to have been charging minority customers more than others.

He would be pleased to learn that the American people are dedicated to eliminating poverty - and to protecting Social Security, defending Medicare, and asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. He might be disappointed, however, to find that there aren't more national leaders speaking up for the public's values in Washington.

10. "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." Domestic impact of the war.

And I had to answer by looking that person into the eye, and say 'I'm sorry sir but you don't know me. I'm not a consensus leader.' I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of my organization or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project.

Third Way is No Way for Social Security

Eric Kingson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:55:43 -0400

CO-AUTHORED BY NANCY J. ALTMAN and ERIC KINGSON, co-chairs of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign (www.strengthensocialsecurity.org)

In a recent Politico column, Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler, respectively the president and senior vice-president of The Third Way, criticize “progressives” for opposing deals which cut Social Security benefits. They advise the Strengthen Social Security Coalition to “wise up and buck up the president so Social Security reform gets done in the coming weeks.” But their advice belies the expressed wishes of the American people, who poll after poll reveals, overwhelmingly favor eliminating Social Security’s projected shortfall through increased revenues, not through reductions in Social Security’s already modest benefits, just $13,000 a year on average.

Cowan and Kessler state the obvious, that “math knows no ideology," but they fail to acknowledge that they do. Undisclosed is Cowan’s long history of fanning the fans of “intergenerational warfare” and calling for the radical dismantling of Social Security. For instance, in a 1995 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he proclaimed, “The time has come to reinvent Social Security based on a "cut and privatize" approach that will be fair to all age groups.” Although no longer threatening as Newsweek quoted him as saying in 1995 that he plans “burn social-security cards in New Hampshire" to make a big splash in the presidential campaign, Cowan is hardly an objective voice when it comes to Social Security.

Here are the facts, stripped of political spin and cleaned of biased factoids used to support their radical changes and benefit cuts. Here, too, are the reasons why the coalition of 300 national and state organizations they criticize – composed of many of the nation’s major unions, women's, aging, disability, human rights groups – strongly oppose the cuts they advocate.

First, Social Security works. Despite their claim that Social Security is “in deep financial trouble,” the data produced by the most unbiased sources lead to the opposite conclusion. According to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Social Security can meet all its obligations for the next quarter century, after which it can pay out 77 percent of scheduled benefits. This is if Congress makes NO changes to Social Security for the next 75 years! The projected shortfall is the rough equivalent of the revenue that will be lost to the federal treasury if the Bush tax cuts are continued for the top 2% of American taxpayers.

There are numerous ways to eliminate this shortfall but it is impossible to have a serious discussion of the options until Third Way and other similar actors agree that Social Security is structurally sound, is not in crisis, and does not need fundamental change. Means testing Social Security, as Cowan and Kessler casually suggest, would fundamentally change Social Security from insurance to welfare. It would not reduce the projected shortfall in any meaningful way unless the means test were set to reduce benefits for households with as little as $50,000. This kind of major change, with complicated distributional impacts and implications for the long-range stability of the program, is not a change that should be hammered out behind closed doors under the threat of a default by the United States on obligations on which it has pledged its full faith and credit. Neither should changes be imposed to cut COLA adjustments or place young and middle-aged Americans at risk by raising their retirement age or otherwise reducing the benefits they are earning for themselves and their families.

Social Security affects virtually every American. It is the most important source of life insurance and disability insurance, as well as retirement income for the vast majority of the American people. It is neither cause nor solution to the federal deficit. Social Security has no borrowing authority. It does not and cannot contribute to the federal deficit. In the unlikely event that the program’s revenues ever fall short of what is needed to meet its obligations, then, by law, benefits would be cut. Today, the Social Security Trust Funds hold $2.7 trillion dollars in treasury notes and bonds, essentially the very same federal obligations held by Wall Street banks, China, Savings Bond holders and others. Cutting its benefits does not change the amount of federal debt subject to statutory limit by a single penny.

In Social Security’s 76 year history, it has always been dealt with independent of the general budget, through the normal legislative process. Rather than enact major changes in haste and, we believe, repent at leisure after the damage has been done, we urge policymakers to focus on Social Security after the debt limit has been raised, in its own legislative vehicle, through the normal legislative process with full hearings and open debate. Let’s go with the old-fashioned way, rather than some new, untested third way.

Why AARP's Support for Social Security Cuts Matters

Daniel Marans — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:11:55 -0400

People are basically divided into two camps on the news that AARP has endorsed Social Security cuts. One thinks it’s a big deal, the other not so much. I spent some time over the course of the Netroots Nation convention in Minneapolis explaining to the latter camp why it is in fact a big deal.

Much of the divergence of opinion hinges on what one makes of AARP’s attempts at damage control. After AARP’s policy director, John Rother, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that they were open to cutting Social Security benefits, AARP issued a clarification supposedly “denying” that this was true. Or at least that’s how most people interpreted it. “Oh, don’t worry, that was a gaffe. AARP has clarified for the record that it’s not true.”

A closer look at AARP’s damage control statement, entitled “AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security,” reveals it to be a non-denial. The press release basically said that Rother’s remarks were non-news because they have favored a “balanced” Social Security reform package—ie one that includes cuts—for years. They use the language of many groups advocating cuts, emphasizing that “changes” won’t affect current beneficiaries. “It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries,” AARP CEO A. Barry Rand, said in the press release.

In a follow-up interview, AARP director of legislative policy said, "Our policy for decades has always been that we basically support a package that would include revenue enhancements and benefit adjustments to get Social Security to long-term solvency. That has been our policy stated over and over again for, I mean, literally it has to be two decades, now."

While some people were surprised to hear that AARP has supported cuts for years, most of us knew that they have long relished the opportunity to be the inside dealmaker. AARP has also drawn scrutiny for its conflict of interest in taking certain political positions. When AARP came out in support of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, many criticized the organization for endorsing a bill that forced millions to pay more for drugs, and subsidized private plans—of which AARP is a provider. The allegations were investigated by the House of Representatives’ Ways and Means Committee.

That’s why AARP’s damage control did little to dampen the significance of Rother’s leak to the Wall Street Journal. It wasn’t the content of Rother’s remarks to the Journal that had progressives up in arms. It was, as Roger Hickey has pointed out, the timing.

If AARP was so intent on keeping Social Security out of deficit discussions, then why had they signaled their willingness to make a deal now, in the midst of the debt-ceiling negotiations, when reform would undoubtedly have to be part of a deficit deal—or at least be made in the context of Washington’s deficit hysteria? Whether it was AARP or Rother acting alone, the effect of declaring openness to Social Security to cuts was to give their politically powerful imprimatur to Washington to put Social Security back on the table.

And the political fallout is already beginning to take effect. No sooner had AARP made its announcement then leading Wall Street-funded groups used the political headwinds to call on Congress to act on a “balanced” Social Security reform deal. First it was the centrist Democratic group Third Way, which, chaired by Wall Street executives, has come under fire in the past for conflating Social Security with the deficit, and recommending massive Social Security cuts. Then it was the Peterson-funded Moment of Truth Project, co-chaired by Fiscal Commission co-chair Alan Simpson, whose disparaging remarks and severe recommendations about Social Security have earned him criticism from all sides.

That those influential groups are making political hay of AARP’s revelation is just the first sign that AARP has helped open the floodgates to Social Security cuts.

Unfortunately, it is hard to believe that this was a naive mistake and not a deliberate chess move. AARP has a habit of inserting itself into the debate at crucial junctures. Rother did virtually the same thing, in the same newspaper, back in August when the Fiscal Commission was developing its recommendations, which included cuts to Social Security that made the 1983 reforms look paltry by comparison.

Many progressive groups have turned their attention to defending Medicare and Medicaid as the terms of raising the debt-ceiling come to a head. Since the Ryan budget omitted recommending direct changes to Social Security, it has receded as a major focus of the left’s energy.

In truth, threats to Social Security—be it an extension of the payroll tax cut, or the chained CPI COLA reduction—while less public, have always remained on the table.

Now that AARP’s support for cuts has brought Social Security back to the fore of the deficit reduction talks in a more public way, progressives should adjust their focus accordingly.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and in no way reflect the views of Social Security Works or the Strengthen Social Security Campaign.

On Social Security, Beware the False Progressives

Daniel Marans — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:14:51 -0400

Halloween has come early this year for Wall Street Democrats who are busy disguising their plans to gut Social Security as "progressive"--and smearing Social Security while they're at it. Exhibit A: financial executive Robert Pozen, whose 2005 Social Security proposal was so "progressive" it earned the support of none other than George W. Bush.

Pozen recently took to the pages of the Washington Post to admonish progressives to "lead the charge" on Social Security "reform" (read: cuts). Pozen is certainly not the first pseudo-Democrat to champion benefit cuts under the progressive banner. But what makes Pozen's approach so novel is why he thinks progressives should get behind Social Security "reform." Unlike his colleagues at Third Way, who erroneously took progressives to task in January for not even recognizing that in 27 years Social Security will have a modest financial shortfall, Pozen hardly even mentions the solvency question.

No, Pozen's main argument for reform is that Social Security is "no longer progressive." Thus, progressives should warm to the idea of overhauling the program in order to restore it to progressivity. Pozen then offers a vague outline for "progressive reform" that is nearly identical to the Bowles-Simpson plan and various other extreme center-right reform proposals floating around: raise the retirement age, dramatically scale back benefits for the middle class, turn Social Security into a hated welfare program, and throw Democrats a bone with one minor revenue increase. Pozen's reform plan is at best two-thirds cuts, one-third revenue increases.

Many experts have already dissected the provisions of his plan in greater depth, so I'll save my breath.

Instead, I want to take down Pozen's mischaracterization of Social Security as "regressive" -- the claim upon which his entire case for reform is based. A key strategy of those pushing to cut Social Security is to cast doubt on the program's integrity, so that cuts somehow seem preferable to the status quo. Usually this takes the form of fear-mongering about Social Security's modest funding shortfall.

In this instance, however, Pozen goes after the nature of the program itself. And because Social Security provides benefits to middle class people, and not just the poor like other programs, Pozen's disingenuous attempt to claim that Social Security is "no longer progressive," could have sticking power.

Fortunately, Pozen is dead wrong. Social Security was, and is still, progressive. Here's why:

The lower your lifetime wages, the more you get out of Social Security. The key figure to look at in assessing Social Security's progressivity is the extent to which Social Security benefits substitute your annual pre-retirement earnings, because it is the best indicator of whether Social Security accomplishes its goal of preserving Americans' pre-retirement standard of living, and preventing poverty in old-age (as well as disability, or death). This figure, aka the program's "replacement rate," is decidedly progressive and was specifically engineered to be that way. The lower your pre-retirement earnings, the higher the program's replacement rate. For low-wage workers, Social Security replaces as much 90% of their pre-retirement annual wages; for upper-income workers the replacement rate is often closer to 15%.
Flat tax rate, progressive benefit formula. One of the reasons people are so often under the impression that Social Security is a regressive program is that it has a flat tax rate. Unlike income taxes, which are paid in progressively higher rates, every worker pays the same 6.2% of their earnings in payroll taxes to finance Social Security. But in fact, the flat tax conceals the progressive nature of the benefit formula, which allows for a higher replacement rate the lower down on the earnings distribution you are. The revenue from the contributions of higher earners partially subsidizes the benefits of the low and moderate-income workers, allowing them to enjoy a larger replacement rate. Call it redistribution by stealth.
The link between earnings and benefits. Benefits are earnings-based, so even though the replacement rate is higher for lower earners, higher earners still receive higher benefits in absolute terms. But that's what keeps the system fair and popular. Social Security was intended as a wage insurance program that workers purchase through their payroll contributions to safeguard against the "vicissitudes of life," as FDR put it. There are, no doubt, a small number of wealthy individuals who could support themselves and their families very well in retirement, disability, or death, without Social Security's help. But FDR knew what some politicians have apparently forgotten: the support of the rich and powerful is essential for the financing of any government program. Since Social Security benefits are universal, the rich have a financial stake in its survival, and do not feel that they are simply underwriting other people's lifestyles. As a result, the program has been inoculated from the funding cuts that the upper middle class and the rich have successfully fought for in numerous other government programs.
Benefits are already capped for the rich. Since Social Security's inception, benefits have been capped for wages above a certain level. Right now that means wealthy Americans do not receive Social Security benefits on earnings above106,800. So whatever check we send to Warren Buffett, as the Pozens of the world love to remind us, it is no more than around27,000 -- hardly a windfall for him, and financially insignificant for the program. It is true that having the cap in place also means wealthier Americans are not taxed on earnings above that amount, but that is a reason to consider increasing the cap, while continuing to keep replacement rates low or non-existent on earnings above it--not a reason to lament how "regressive" Social Security is. (For more details on a plan that does just that, see Rep. Deutch's "Preserving Our Promise to Seniors Act.")

Pozen claims that Social Security is "no longer progressive" for three reasons that have nothing to do with Social Security's progressivity as a program.

Social Security is the most successful, progressive antipoverty program in American history. In 2009 alone, Social Security lifted 20 million people out of poverty, and lessened the poverty of millions more. (Does that sound progressive to you?) That's why if there's any lesson to take away from Pozen's article, it is that we must be skeptical of center-right Democrats whose primary reason for "reforming" Social Security is that it is somehow "no longer progressive."

Pozen and his fellow Third Way Democrats can't seem to have the fight on fair terms. If they want to cut benefits for their own reasons, then they should speak their minds. But they shouldn't brand Social Security "regressive" in its current form in order to make the case for cuts. It's dishonest. Actual progressives would know better.

Today's Visionary: 10 Things Martin Luther King, Jr. Taught Us About Today's Struggles

Richard Eskow — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:04:59 -0500

A lot of people in the media are so afraid of offending anyone with controversial truths that they can't even tell the truth about the man whose holiday we're celebrating this weekend. Their coverage could give you the impression that the purpose of Martin Luther King, Jr's life was simply to make everybody in this country feel good about themselves—so good, in fact, that we deserve a day off just for having the wisdom to be born American.

You might be forgiven for thinking that everybody liked and admired Dr. King while he was alive - except maybe for a few angry old white people down South, who later realized the errors of their ways and were very sorry. The media have been so reluctant to convey Dr. King's true message that Glenn Beck can claim to have inherited his mantle and millions of people believe him. They're so afraid of telling his truth that a Pentagon official can claim that the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the spiritual heir to Gandhi's mantle of nonviolence, would have supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this fame-addicted age, this activist and challenger of comfortable ideals has been presented as just another celebrity. And these days "celebrity" is another word for "commodity." Dr. King: Didn't they use his picture for one of those Apple ads? Or was it Nike? Didn't he have his picture taken with movie stars and singers? Future generations may come to believe he was famous just for being famous - you know, like Heidi Montag.

(photo by Jeff Schrier, Saginaw News)

Had Dr. King's vision become reality, it wouldn't have been necessary to extend unemployment for the 99ers. As he said:

"The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all."

With 15 million people out of work, demand is harder to come by. And the rapid rise in long-term unemployment is a portrait of human loss, the outline of human beings cast out of productive, wage-earning lives into an existence of hopelessness and deprivation:

Some people "celebrated" last month when the official unemployment rate dropped from 9.8% to 9.4%. (In the mid-sixties there was vigorous protest at the idea that 5% might be an acceptable unemployment level.) The racial disparities of Dr. King's day haven't changed much, at least as far as employment is concerned: The African American rate that month was 15.8%, as opposed to 8.5% for Caucasians. Official figures reflect the fact that unemployment in the black community is twice that of whites - and the true difference is probably even greater, once figures are adjusted for those who have given up seeking employment. Underemployment is also considerably higher among African Americans.

Could a President as economically progressive as Richard Nixon get elected today? It's hard to tell, because nobody's tried lately.

3. "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.

(Daimler Maybach sedan, manufacturer's suggested retail price $366,000 - plus delivery and other charges)

Case in point: Steven Schwartzman, the hedge fund manager we mentioned earlier, who felt that paying taxes on his billions' at a laborers' rate was the moral equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

Or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who said "We're very important ... we do God's work." (Reverend King might beg to differ.)

Poverty's up. Unemployment's up. The American family is struggling. American businesses just had their best quarter ever. Yet its leaders are whining. They're using the rhetoric of freedom in defense of greed.

After it was bailed out, Wall Street immediately redoubled its lobbying efforts. Banks were able to blunt the most effective and urgently needed financial reforms, like breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Now they're hard at work eliminating the reforms that were passed last year, with the help of the Republican Congress they helped get elected. Big-bank CEOs have spent more than $170 million to influence politicians in the last ten years.

Recent court cases have revealed widespread lawbreaking on the part of United States banks - a "power majority group" - as they foreclosed on homes that in some cases they don't even own.

There are rumors that the Administration is sympathetic to solutions of this kind. It seems safe to say that Dr. King would not have felt the same way.

Is racism conquered? When infant mortality for African Americans in 2.5 times that of whites? With these disparities in poverty and employment?

As a theologian and scholar, Dr. King would recognize a practice that was condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

Big banks also back auto loans, which have been shown to charge more to African Americans than whites. HSBC Bank settled when it was found to have been charging minority customers more than others.

10. "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." Domestic impact of the war.

And I had to answer by looking that person into the eye, and say 'I'm sorry sir but you don't know me. I'm not a consensus leader.' I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of my organization or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project.

Mr. President, Americans Agree On Social Security. So Talk To Us, Not Washington.

Richard Eskow — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:53:11 -0500

Mr. President, you moved a nation today with your words in Tucson. "Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame," you said, "let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

You also said this: "It's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

Two weeks from now the State of the Union address will be an opportunity to bring Americans together - Americans who have been bitterly divided by party loyalty and ideology, but who stand united in their support for the social programs that have improved our lives for the past seventy-five years. On that night, will they know that somebody has heard them? Will they feel that someone is talking to them? Will they feel they have a voice inside the Capitol rotunda, in a city where they sometimes seem to have been forgotten?

There's a popular idea in Washington that I've - perhaps too harshly - called "the Third Way Fallacy." It essentially says we can end the harsh and divisive nature of today's politics by having Washington party leaders work out their differences in private. Some of us think that's the wrong way to go about the people's business - that a truly "bipartisan" approach must respect the opinions of each party's members, not just those of its leaders.

But whatever my past criticisms of Third Way, the organization had a terrific suggestion today for increasing civility in politics. In an open letter to Speaker Boehner, they suggested that the Congressional seating chart be changed for this year's State of the Union address so that members aren't separated by party.

"We do not see any purpose behind putting Democrats on one side of the floor and Republicans on the other," Third Way's letter said. "The spectacle of one side of the room leaping to its feet while the other sits glumly on its hands is just that--a spectacle. Perhaps having both parties sit together, intermingled, would help control the choreography of partisanship that accompanies the President's remarks."

This idea is smart, moving, and even beautiful. The State of the Union has turned into an annual circus, as you know far better than I. Americans want more statesmanship in Washington, and this would be a symbolic way of letting them know they've been heard. The Speaker would bring honor to himself and his institution if he took this suggestion. It would, in Third Way's words, "demonstrate what is true but not always apparent--that we are one nation, not two, and that Members are unified by their service to our country."

Mr. Boehner is famous for crying in public, but if he follows this suggestion maybe we'll cry instead. It might be good for the country if more of us shared the burden of tears.

But the business at hand won't just be symbolic. As you know, Mr. President, leaders of both political parties have been talking about Social Security cuts. Your own Deficit Commission came up with some very Draconian (and unpopular) ideas, and members of your Administration haven't committed to defending retirement benefits. There are even rumors that people in your Administration have floated trial balloons about cutting a deal with Republicans to raise the retirement age and make other cuts.

Inside the Beltway there's some "bipartisan" approval for those ideas. But outside Washington the real bipartisan consensus is even stronger: Large majorities of Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike - agree that Social Security must be defended, not cut.

Mr. President, I hope you'll have the chance to see the poll numbers on Social Security. We know you've said you won't govern by following polls, and we respect that. But it's moving and inspiring to see the way Americans of all political parties have joined together in their defense of Social Security. They speak with one voice about how to handle it: Raise the payroll tax cap and protect its current benefits. They're equally united in their defense of Medicare in similarly large numbers. These are the people's programs, and people of all political persuasions want them protected.

We know that Americans don't like party squabbling. But that doesn't mean they want the two parties to collaborate on policies that rank-and-file members of both parties have rejected. Voters mean exactly what they've told those pollsters for years: They want Washington politicians to work for them, not each other. They'll be watching on January 25 to see their leaders speak to them, or to each other.

When asked how we should cut the deficit, Americans would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security by more than two to one. These Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and independents - make up the New Silent Majority, and they speak with a single voice. To paraphrase Third Way, when they talk about Social Security they demonstrate what is true but not always apparent - that we are one nation, not two.

This bipartisan consensus has the unwavering support of non-partisan experts, too - experts like Harry C. Ballantyne, who was appointed Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration under Ronald Reagan. Mr. Ballantyne and two respected economists wrote a paper that explains how the bipartisan preference for Social Security - keep benefits and raise the payroll tax cap - addresses that program's very modest long-term shortfall.

There will be many people in the room with you who want to make these cuts anyway, Mr. President. Despite the great benefits that have flowed to the wealthiest among us, they'll want to protect the wealthy from paying the same payroll tax rate as police officers or nurses. These differences of opinion are unavoidable in a democracy. But you'll have an opportunity to show the nation how its leaders can differ with courtesy and grace - and in this case, with a bipartisan majority at your back. You'll be able explain that you're not defending Social Security because you speak for Democrats, but because you speak for all Americans.

While you're at it, you can also defend the principles of trust and honesty. Too many politicians and pundits have said that the government's bonds, which cover the money it has borrowed from Social Security's Trust Fund, is just an "IOU." That's not true. And you can remind them that even if it were true, we're an honorable people who make good on our IOUs.

There isn't a single argument being thrown around today about Social Security that hasn't been around for 75 years: "Ponzi scheme," too many old people and too few workers -- you name it, we've heard it before. That's why President Eisenhower's bipartisan panel refuted them all back in the 1950s. Ike's experts defended our shared hopes and dreams back then, and now it's our generation's turn.

You also said that in a time of tragedy "we reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent ... Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us?" What better way of expressing gratitude to all of our aging parents than by ensuring their financial security? That's an ideal way to "expand our moral imaginations, listen to each other more carefully, sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

Our moral imaginations shouldn't be limited to slanted ideas cooked up in think tanks and parroted by pundits and consultants.

Sometimes listening to one another, really listening, means we have to silence the clamor of Beltway chatter.

Our instincts for empathy can be sharpened by the image of an elderly woman in a small urban apartment, struggling to get by on $800 per month. They should direct our thoughts to the 68-year-old janitor whose back aches after half a century spent pushing a broom. They should call us to remember the waitress whose feet can no longer support her for eight hours, and whose bent fingers can no longer scribble on her order pad.

We've been bound by shared dreams since the country was founded. Social Security and Medicare turned some of those dreams into reality. Let's not turn them back into dreams.

Mr. President, this year's State of the Union will help to shape your legacy. That legacy can be one of real bipartisanship. You can bring us together as a people by expressing our shared commitment to Social Security. That's a commitment that binds Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and even Tea Party followers together in a common bond.

Reach out for that bond. Express it. Build on it to create a new American consensus - a consensus for fairness, a consensus for security, a consensus for growth and jobs. Americans are united on the issue of Social Security, and the state of that union is sound.

At least in one small way, we're already bound together in our hopes and dreams. In a wounded moment, that bond can help us heal.

________________________________________________

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

Bipartisanship vs. Democracy: The Third Way Fallacy

Richard Eskow — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 02:28:02 -0500

Last Friday the White House partied like it was 1999. It was fascinating to see Bill Clinton back at the podium, and it's a pleasure to see a master of the medium at work. But the Administration's latest moves raise serious concerns about the future of Obama's Presidency. Clinton played the "centrist" angle brilliantly in the 1990s, artfully fusing Republican and Democratic positions and rescuing his own political fortunes. But times have changed, even if Washington's illusions have not.

Today the country's real center - the commonly-held set of goals and aspirations shared by Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike - has never been farther from the narrow right-leaning viewpoint that's still being peddled as a "centrism." If the White House and other Democrats buy into that illusion, as they seem to be doing, they'll lose the country.

The Third Way Fallacy

Politicians and journalists in Washington cling to the belief that there's a better way to run government, one that dispenses with the messy process of debate and disagreement. Call it "the Third Way Fallacy." It suggests that all will be well if we just stop all the partisan "bickering" - "bickering" being a pejorative word for the political discourse that permits voters to distinguish one politician's views from another and vote accordingly. The Third Way approach would replace the quarrelsome democratic process with a system in which powerful people from both parties sit down amicably to "work things out," presumably in quiet - and private - places.

This elusive dream is revived every couple of years by some well-funded publicity campaign, and this year is no exception. Like its predecessors, this year's model assumes there's a political spectrum represented by Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right. If they meet in the middle, the fallacy goes, we will have found the "center."

But if we look at the public's opinions issue by issue we see that the opinions of this so-called "center" - the points on which so many Washington-based Republicans, Democrats, and journalists agree - is wildly out of step with Americans of all political affiliations. The nation's center is not the Beltway's center.

Truth in labelling

There's a reason why we have laws requiring labels. Without them people can get sold a bill of goods. Consider the latest PR campaign for the right-wing Washington consensus, "No Labels": Its "founding leaders" include two key members of George W. Bush's political team, several mid-level figures from the rightmost spectrum of the Democratic Party, and two career "centrists" (including Jon Cowan, whose organization "Third Way" provided the name for this new fallacy). The reason this group isn't labelled is because a label would read as follows: "A center-right to far-right group that reflects the worldview of powerful Washington insiders from both parties."

I feel safe in predicting that "No Labels" will revolutionize American politics every bit as much as Unity08 did. That is, it's going to be announced with great fanfare - fanfare that's generated by the highly-paid efforts of Washington publicists. It will then be received enthusiastically by the David Broder crowd, and nobody else. Within six months it will have been forgotten by the few people who had ever even heard of it in the first place.

"No Labels" is the latest reflection of a deep-seated yearning among Washington insiders: the yearning to fuse the leadership of both parties into a unitary political order, one that can dispense with bothersome chores like justifying your actions to the public. Washington "centrists" are the One Worlders of American politics, dreaming of a Utopia governed by a Council of Elders.

Except that these Elders rose to power in the rough-and-tumble world of partisan campaigns funded by influential donors. They're not going to suddenly turn into a wise and kindly ruling body likes the ones that govern peaceful forest planets on old Star Trek episodes. If they're given free reign to cut secret deals behind closed doors, the result won't be Utopia.

Washington 'Bipartisanship' vs. Public Opinion

Some of the Administration's comments imply they've interpreted this election as a mandate to pursue precisely this form of centrism, and the President has often indicated that this is how he would prefer to govern. What have we seen so far, as the result of horse-trading conducted by party leaders along a narrow political spectrum?

Social Security benefit cuts appear to be a real possibility, despite the fact that a vast majority of the country opposes them - including 76% to 77% of independents, Republicans, and Tea Party supporters.
The financial reform bill was largely negotiated behind closed doors, out of the public eye. As a result, we'll never know which politicians undercut some of that bill's most urgently needed provisions. That kind of secrecy that undermines democracy and public accountability, especially when most Americans want stronger bank regulations. That's an option that the bipartisan "consensus" has agreed is not on the table.
One financial reform measure rejected by the "bipartisans" - a limitation on bonuses for bankers we've rescued - was more popular with Republicans than Democrats! (That makes sense, when you think about it: If you believe in the free market, as they - and I - do, you should believe that bad judgement must be punished with economic pain.) Overall, 85% of the public wanted large bonuses limited or banned. The "centrists" say no.
Only one American in 25 thought that Congress should make deficits its first priority after the last election, and only one in 50 thought its first priority should be taxes. What's dominated Washington politics (and media coverage) since then? Deficits and taxes.

The end result is shown below:

The blue portion of the bar represents the majority opinion on each issue. In every case, this view is supported by most Republicans and independents, as well as by most Democrats. There's a real bipartisan consensus in the nation - to protect Social Security, tax the wealthy, preserve Medicare, improve banking regulations, and ban big bonuses at banks which were rescued by the taxpayers. The ersatz 'centrism' being peddled in Washington is on the wrong side of every single issue. It would turn the leadership of the country over to people on the red, rightmost side of the chart, restricting the debate to the best way of implementing these unpopular positions.

No wonder 70% of people surveyed are "somewhat" or "deeply dissatisfied" with the way Washington works. The political consensus doesn't represent them, and these "solutions" would merely institutionalize that lack of representiation.

Bipartisan, Nonpartisan, Antipartisan

Sure, people say they'd prefer a "bipartisan" solution when pollsters. They'd rather see politicians act in the country's interests, rather than their own. But "bipartisan" literally means "of two parties" - Democrats and Republicans. On issue after issue, neither party is promoting the public's preferred policies. What's striking about the polling data is how much agreement there is among registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents - and how different that agreement is from the conservative agenda being peddled in their names as "centrism."

Neither the public, nor the press, nor politicians seem to understand the difference between "bi-partisanship" - something negotiated between Democrats and Republicans - and "non-partisanship," which is the process of making decisions without partisan preference or loyalty.

A "nonpartisan" set of solutions crafted by experts might closely parallel the public's preferences. Or the experts might offer several alternatives for the public to choose from. Either way, a non-partisan approach would probably lead to far more democratic results than the bi-partisan approach being pushed in Washington today.

The Third Way Fallacy fundamentally misreads independent voters, too. While many of those voters will vote for candidates from both parties - "I vote the man, not the party," as they said in the old sexist days - many of them hold both parties in equal disdain. They'll vote for a candidate like John McCain for just as long as they can believe he's not a self-serving politician like all the others. These voters aren't bi-partisan, either. They're anti-partisan.

Why doesn't the "centrist"/Third Way/ "No Labels" pitch ever work with voters who don't like either party? I can only use a personal example: I don't like pickles in my sandwiches. I don't like cottage cheese, either. If someone offered me a pickles-and-cottage cheese sandwich, I would not want to eat it.

Do not remove tag under penalty of law

Another prominent member of the "No Labels" team is David Walker, the former U. S. Comptroller General who comes to the team after two years in the employ of Pete Peterson's foundation. Peterson's the billionaire who opposes most taxes for the wealthy, wants to radically downsize government, and has spared no effort or expense in his mission to cut Social Security benefits. Peterson's used the "no labels" playbook for many of his highly subsidized ventures, including the "AmericaSpeaks" forums, his "bipartisan" commissions of right-wingers from both parties, and of course his ~~Deathrace 2000~~ "Deficitball" games

How would a truly "no labels" agenda look if it reflected the strongly-held policy preferences held by Americans across the political spectrum, and weighed the consensus view of truly non-partisan experts? It would protect Social Security benefits, promote public investment in jobs and growth, tax the wealthy and the big banks to restore deficit balance, and expand the financial regulations passed earlier this year.

What do all those positions have in common? They're the exact opposite of everything David Walker's been trying to accomplish for the last two years . As for "No Labels," it is keeping a veil of secrecy around its donor list. We're not allowed to know who's bankrolling this venture.

See why we need labels?

Behind the labels

Why aren't the views of the American majority represented in Washington? For one thing, they threaten the vested interests that bankroll political campaigns - and gimmicky "centrist' organizations, too. For another, these views look an awful lot like liberalism, which Washington elites have spent decades demonizing. A lot of "Third Way" types are too locked in the left/right paradigms of the past to embrace positions that look this much like Mommy and Daddy's liberalism. But unfortunately for them, yesterday's liberalism is today's bipartisan consensus. So they keep trying to marginalize these ideas by pretending they represent the extreme wing of one party, rather than the views of an overwhelming majority.

There's nothing wrong with holding center-right opinions, of course. And there's nothing wrong with advocating a form of governance that would dispense with public debate and turn decision-making over to current or former leaders from both parties. But it's misleading to label those positions "mainstream" or "centrist." They're not. Back in the 1990s, a lot of people in both parties believed financial deregulation and reduced government services would lead to a brighter future. But deregulation led to disaster, and today the American people see the vital role government plays in their lives. The public has changed with the times. The "Beltway bipartisans" have not.

Third-Rate Results

We saw the electoral fruits of the Third Way fallacy in November's election. Democrats who embraced it were seen as representing nothing in particular, so they were judged by the status quo - a status quo that was made worse by "centrist" policies. Now we're seeing an ever-widening gap between the public's wishes and a Republican/Democratic/media elite that refuses to accept or acknowledge them. That's a recipe for bad policy, and politically it's a one way ticket for the Democratic Party to receive the Mother of All Shellackin's in 2012.

It's still not too late. Many Democrats embrace the proposals most Americans want. A few Republicans will back them too, if forced into the open by partisan "bickering," as we learned during the financial reform debate. The President can still embrace them too, leading his party and the country toward a much brighter future than the one they seem to face today. But to do that he'll have to let go of the Third Way Fallacy and fight for the positions that the American people want and need.

Hey, We're Gonna Balance the Budget! But Seriously, Folks ...

Richard Eskow — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:51:25 -0500

Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the Internet rounds yesterday:

"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."

It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."

So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.

You can call it a joke if you want. But, to paraphrase Elvis Costello, it's got "a punchline you can feel."

Roger Hickey and I pointed out on Wednesday that most Americans (including most Republicans) oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They want the payroll tax cap lifted instead, which is a fiscally sound approach. But the Republican leadership would rather cut benefits than inconvenience the wealthy, and Democrats like Conrad agree. So the "serious" position in Washington is to split the difference between them.

What happens you if recommend the solution that most people (including most Republicans) want? People say you're an "extremist." No, seriously. And nothing you can do that will change that. You can point out that Social Security is self funded and they'll roll their eyes. You can have the most qualified actuary in the nation prove that your solution works, and they'll never even acknowledge that your solution exists. (Peter Orszag and Alice Rivlin have both practiced this form of rebuttal by non-acknowledgement- which seems to be the public policy equivalent of an Amish shunning.)

If all that makes you a little exasperated, they'll observe that you're not just an extremist, you're a shrill extremist. Which, of course, proves you're not "serious."

Consider this snippet of media repartee, captured by the always-serious Digby, about the Bowles/Simpson "deficit reduction" proposal:

JIM LEHRER: Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?

LORI MONTGOMERY (Washington Post): Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.

There's an interesting dynamic developing ... Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing ...

They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect ... It's like, you know: This is a serious plan .. these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life...

In this clip a prominent journalist is saying that it's "serious" to solve the deficit problem by cutting a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit. She's lauding "serious" people for finding the "middle ground" - between what the public doesn't want and what it really, really doesn't want. And she's marginalizing anyone who thinks otherwise as "extreme," "liberal", and from the "far end" of the party. (Remember: Most Republicans polled don't like this idea either.).

Then there's Jon Cowan of Third Way, who writes: "It's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This (the Erskine/Bowles proposal) is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?"

Leaving aside the misstatement of fact - the Bowles/Simpson proposal doesn't come from the "Fiscal Commission," a group that would never endorse such extreme positions - let's consider the nature of this "leadership test." As the perpetually unserious Paul Krugman observes, this proposal "represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." This drain on middle-class income to benefit the wealthy is the through-line that links Bowles and Simpson to Conrad and the other so-called "deficit hawks." Jon Cowan's position is that this upward redistribution of wealth doesn't even warrant public debate, and that politicians who submit to it without protest have passed a "leadership test."

Now, as it happens I've met Jon Cowan. He's a very nice, very bright guy. But this is another example of the unserious nature of "serious" thinking in Washington. Pols must "put up or shut up" - but it's not the public who decides what gets "put up." And if you speak up for what most people (including most Republicans) want, that's a "cop out." You're "picking the plan apart." C'mon now: Do you want to be a leader or a decision-dodging nitpicker?

I'm gonna have to go with "nitpicker." If that's the new term for representing the people's wishes and acting in their best interests, I'd say we need a lot more nitpickers in Washington.

None of this is really "serious." It's play-acting, dress-up. It's like wearing daddy's overlarge clothes and repeating how-mommy-talks-in-the-office words that sound important, even though you don't know what they mean. We're talking tough, we're making the hard decisions, we're rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Except we're not doing any of those things. This radical position is becoming the new Washington consensus. Going along with the crowd is easy, comfortable, and convenient.

The problem isn't Lori Montgomery or Jon Cowan. They're probably driven by the best of motives: the desire to work together, to collaborate, to go beyond rigid ideological boundaries to solve problems. But collaboration and bipartisanship are means, not ends. They're ways of getting things done, not the things themselves. When a culture prizes the method more it does the results, it's gone astray.

The "unserious" truth is this: Simpson and Bowles, like Conrad, would accelerate an upward restribution of wealth that's already rolling ahead like a freight train. They'd pay for it by taking money out of the pockets of soldiers, lower- and middle-income college students, and the elderly. That's a debate we need to have, and it's not a "leadership test" to run from it.

So, you want to hear an old joke? A drunk goes into a restaurant and orders a cup of coffee and a bun. The waiter says "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of buns." The drunk thinks for a second and says, "Okay, I'll have a cup of tea and a bun." The waiter says "Sorry, we're out of buns." The drunk says "Fine, I'll have a glass of orange juice and a bun." After a few more exchanges like this the waiter loses his temper: "How many times do I have to tell you we're out of buns? No buns! No buns! No buns!"

The drunk says "Jeez, pal, if you're going to get so upset I'll just have the bun."

These so-called "deficit hawks" are the drunk, the public is the waiter, and the "bun" is any policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income people. No matter how many times voters say that's not on the menu, they're going to keep ordering it. And they may very well get it.

But seriously, folks.
______________________________________

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