deficit commission

Yesterday some prominent people signed a letter urging the so-called "Super Committee" to "go big" on cuts to the Federal budget. Many of these people would describe themselves as "moderate" and "centrist." Some would call themselves liberal. I've met a few of them casually, both Republicans and Democrats, and they seemed like very nice people.

They're nothing like the audience members at the Republican Presidential debate who shouted "yes!" when asked if society should let a young man die because he didn't buy health insurance. They're courteous and civilized, and were undoubtedly appalled by the shouts from the crowd.

That sort of thing isn't done in the salons or think tanks of Washington. You wouldn't catch anyone who signed that letter behaving that way.

But are they really all that different? more »

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 »»

It's almost like they had a plan. The right-wing has been trying to dismantle the New Deal since its inception, but after decades of failure it's found a new path to success. They're already persuaded quite a few Democrats to support the first steps toward dismantling Medicare and Social Security. They've also convinced a lot of journalists to ignore detailed economic analyses, and accept the ideological platforms of the far right as "moderate" and "reasonable."

How do you do it? How do you sell a nation on dismantling its most popular programs at a time when they're more needed than ever? How do you convince an entire class of people - the middle class - to voluntarily surrender their health and financial security to benefit those who are far wealthier than they are?

Well, we found it! We found the twenty-year-old PowerPoint presentation that outlines the whole thing - the radical agenda, and the 12-point marketing plan that made it possible. Here it is, available to the public for the first time anywhere: more »

More »»

We provided live commentary for Al Jazeera English at the conclusion of the President's speech on the deficit and the Federal budget. That speech was Thursday, but we weren't able to receive and post the video until now. It's below:

more »

More »»

Liberals don't like the prospect of the Bowles-Simpson plan becoming the starting point of deficit reduction talks, because it is too centrist to offer Democrats a strong bargaining hand. But if you look more closely, it's far worse than that. Bowles-Simpson is Ryan-lite.

More »»

Scientists say there are trillions of parallel universes. Statistically, that means that must be one where some poor version of humanity lives in an inverted, mind-bending alternate reality where everything is backwards and nothing makes sense.

But why did it have to be us?

Consider the latest evidence: 64 Senators are ignoring the one problem that polls consistently show is the public's highest priority. Instead they've written a letter to the President asking him to make a different issue his highest priority - and to address it by doing something the public doesn't want. In return they're promising that they'll do something the public doesn't want, too.

Welcome to reality.

You can see the original letter here. Then you can keep reading to see what that letter would say in a rational universe. more »

More »»

George Orwell would be proud. The latest Washington catchphrase deserves a place of honor in the 1984 lexicon, right between "War Is Peace" and "Love Is Hate." It's a virus of the language that's spreading faster than the stomach flu.

"The President's budget punts on entitlement reform," reads a statement by House Republicans. "Our budget will lead where the President has failed, and it will include real entitlement reforms." "You have to do entitlement reforms if you are serious about this budget," says Rep. Paul Ryan.

Reality check: Nobody's proposing 'entitlement reform.' That term is a cloaking device for some very ugly intentions. It's a meaningless manufactured phrase cooked up by some highly-paid consultant, and it diminishes the sum total of human understanding every time it's used. The phrase is a euphemism for deep cuts to programs that are vital and even life-saving for millions of elderly and poor people, but it's politically unpalatable to say that. So it became necessary to come up with yet another cognition-killing term designed to numb us from the human toll of our political actions. "Entitlement reform" is the new "collateral damage."

More »»

Some condescending politicians and pundits never miss an opportunity to talk down to the American people, especially when it comes to budgets. The members of Washington's political "center" encounter one another at social events, often in pleasant halls where the chill of winter is kept at bay by the warmth of oak paneling. more »

More »»

Here's a clip of our appearance on the Russia Today network to discuss the economies of Egypt and the United States.  It felt very important, while pointing out the possibly surprising similarities, to also point out their greater hardships and dangers - especially now, while they're showing so much courage.

The Egypt discussion allowed us to point out the risks of "austerity economics" and the problems that can arise when economic policy places a premature emphasis on deficits at times when growth and jobs investment are needed; and to point out the parallels between Egyptian and US decisions to offer tax cuts for high-earning individuals and corporations while more stimulus is still needed.

The other panelist was Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy.  The entire discussion lasted fifteen minutes.  For those who only want to see our participation, we were the lead-off commentator and reappeared at 7 minutes and 45 seconds (where, you may notice, I didn't answer a question for which I felt unqualified).  Here it is:

more »

More »»

Whatever the President says about Social Security in his State of the Union speech, the push to cut it will continue. A great deal of time, effort, and money has been expended to make sure that it does, and to promote a very limited set of policies for reducing retirement benefits. The centerpiece of those proposals is a plan to raise the retirement age to age 69 by 2075.

This harsh idea is being defended with a promise that there will be a "hardship exemption" for workers whose jobs are too demanding. But that's a promise that's destined to be broken.

There are many reasons why this solution won't work, and here are eight of them: The future is unpredictable. It will be difficult and bureaucratic to define "hardship." The definition of hardship is too limited. Age discrimination leads to unrecognized hardship. It will create cumbersome administrative and legal processes. They're not setting enough money aside. Hardship's impact will be discriminatory. And last but not least, relying on the 'hardship exemption" calls on us to trust politicians even as they're in the act of breaking a commitment.

Let's look at those eight reasons more closely: more »

More »»