Strengthen Social Security

How much would you lose in benefits if President Obama makes a deal with the Republicans to cut Social Security? The Administration isn't denying reports that just such a deal is in the works. As the President prepares to meet with Congressional leaders tomorrow, the financial security of millions of Americans may hang in the balance.

According to the polls, so could his political future.

If the President and his party accept a proposed "chained CPI" benefit cut, they - and not their opponents - are likely to be painted as "Social Security slashers. " (Remember the GOP's Medicare strategy in 2010?) Dealmakers hope to avoid that by hiding the reduction in a lowered cost of living (COLA) adjustment, but it seems wildly optimistic to think a cut of this magnitude can be hidden from the public. It's doubly unfortunate because COLA adjustments should be increased, not reduced.

If you have a copy of your statement of estimated Social Security benefits (a document which, interestingly, the government seems to have stopped sending), this chart may give you a sense of how this deal would affect you: more »

More »»

Do you hear a noise like power saws cutting away at your Social Security benefits? That's the sound of the politicians working on the "Chain Gang."

They're promoting the "chained CPI," Washington's latest gimmick for tricking voters and cutting their hard-earned benefits to protect the wealthy. That may sound like inflammatory rhetoric, but the numbers don't allow for any other conclusion. People retiring today could lose more than $18,000 in benefits over their lifetimes - and people who are already retired will feel the pain too.

What's wrong with this idea?

1) It's an underhanded way to cut Social Security benefits (its true intent).
2) It's unnecessary.
3) It's unfair to women, the poor, minorities, and the very elderly.
4) It reflects a un-American political culture of pessimism and lost faith in the future.

More »»

t's one of modern political life's strange ironies that defending Social Security and Medicare is considered an "old people's issue." Old people are doing just fine with these programs, thank you very much -- at least so far.

Anti-government hawks like Alan Simpson and Pete Peterson also made a deft (if deeply cynical) move by framing these programs as a war between baby boomers vs. Gen X-ers, since some of their cuts would hurt boomers too.

But young people will take the worst of these cuts, since their impact increases over time. When you combine this assault on "entitlements" with other forms of austerity economics, the result is a plan to hand the next generation a nation with crumbling infrastructure, collapsing government services, and bleak economic prospects. It's an all-out assault on the future of the young.

That's no accident. Politicians know that seniors would rise up against any politician who crosses them. And seniors vote. They're also aware that baby boomers are a large and powerful voting bloc, not to be trifled with.

More »»

When it comes to jobs, sometimes it seems as if the White House is from Mars and the middle class is from Venus. And Republicans act like they're from the Death Star, patrolling the economy in their Imperial Cruisers directing laser blasts at every job initiative they can find.

The resulting political paralysis has left millions of Americans trapped in geographical or demographic pockets of full-blown depression. Unlike Wall Street's America, theirs is a bleak economic landscape from which there seems to be no escape.

The Administration's mishandling of jobs has become a Rorschach test for those who understands that more needs to be done. Is the White House following a misguided political strategy, thinking people want lower deficits more than they want jobs? Has it been "captured" by the conservative thinking of ex-Republican Tim Geithner? Are the President and his advisors too reluctant to propose measures they know will fail in the Republican House because they want success stories?

More »»

Anthony Weiner wanted to get off, while Evan Bayh wants to get rich. Weiner serviced himself in public, while Bayh's abusing his public service. Guess which one will be a pariah in Washington and which will still attend all the right parties?

Ex-Senator Bayh, who was lionized in the media as the selfless embodiment of bipartisan idealism, just took a job lobbying against the health, safety, and well-being of the American public. His efforts are likely to hurt a lot of people. Weiner hurt himself, his wife, and the quality of television news for a week or so.

Weiner apparently used social media to gratify his needs with people he never touched. Evan Bayh will use his social relationships and the media against those whose needs apparently never touched him.

Which is the bigger scandal? Spoiler alert: We may have to consult philosopher Hannah Arendt to sort this out.

More »»

An email entitled "Lies of Eskov in HP AOL Ariticle" (sic) was received this morning at the office of the Campaign For America's Future and forwarded to me with the comment, "Here's a nice complimentary one ... geez." Hate mail comes with the job and this note was unexceptional, but it got me thinking anyway. more »

More »»

While I'm posting videos, here's a debate on the death of the middle class I did on Russian Television with Harvard economist and Cato Institute maven Jeffrey Miron and Samuel Sherraden of New America. Samuel's a good guy, but Miron and I really went at it. more »

More »»

I participated in an MSNBC panel discussion with Cenk Uygur, Sam Seder, and conservative Matt Lewis. We discussed Cain, Mitch McConnell's insistence on Medicare cuts as part of a budget deal, and Eric Cantor's insistence on no disaster relief funds for Missouri unless they're taken out of the budget somewhere else.

My overall point was then all of the GOP's policies make sense if you assume that their overriding goal is to protect tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs. Video of the discussion is here.

More »»

On Monday we'll hear a lot of Memorial Day speeches about honoring our fallen soldiers and their disabled comrades. On Tuesday some of the politicians giving those speeches will try to cut benefits for them and their families.

In the words of Ben Franklin, "Well done is better than well said." The nine million veterans who currently receive Social Security benefits would probably agree. more »

More »»

On Wednesday forty radicals in the United States Senate took an extremist position by voting to end Medicare.

That simple sentence will be challenged by a lot of political and media people. They'll say I don't understand the popular mood, and that I'm applying my own values to Wednesday's vote. But I can prove this statement is true, using only a dictionary and some polling data. They'll even say they didn't vote to end Medicare! But that can be proved, too.

When 40% of the Senate votes for a policy that's opposed by 78% of the public, it suggests that one of our political parties has been profoundly radicalized. In a two-party system, that's a serious challenge for democracy.

A radical, extremist vote

Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal was rejected by 57-40. All the Senate's Democrats voted against it, and so did Republican Senators Rand Paul, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski. On Medicare at least, these five Republicans did not reveal themselves to be radicals or extremists on Wednesday. Good for them.

Let's be clear: Americans in all walks of life, including politics, have every right to hold radical or extremist views. Some of our best and noblest ideas have come from radicals. The abolition of slavery, a woman's right to vote, financial security for elderly and disabled Americans -- each was considered a radical or extreme position at some point in history.

More »»