Medicare

Republicans Try to Convert America into Pottersville

Leo Gerard — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:20:41 -0500

In the iconic Christmas film, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” an angel offers the beleaguered main character, George Bailey, the stark choice between a hometown named for a cruel banker or one created by and for the middle class.

The banker’s town, Pottersville, is filled with bars, gambling dens and despair. The people’s town of Bedford Falls is made of hope, hard working middle class families, and their homes financed by the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan.

The film’s happy ending is the people of Bedford Falls banding together to rescue George Bailey and the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan that had given so many of them a leg up over the years. Republicans seek a different conclusion. They find middle class cooperation and community intolerable. They want the banker, Henry Potter, with his “every man for himself” philosophy to triumph. In the spirit of their self-centered mentor Ayn Rand, Republicans are trying to disfigure America so she resembles Pottersville.

A building and loan association, like the Bailey Brothers’, uses the savings of its members to provide mortgages to the depositors. Members essentially pool their money to give each other the opportunity to buy cars and homes. At one point in the film, George Bailey explains this concept to frightened depositors who are trying to withdraw their savings during the panic that led to bank runs in 1929.

Bailey urges the townspeople who had crowded into the building and loan office to withdraw only what they need, not empty their accounts. “We have got to stick together,” he tells them, “We have to do this together.” A building and loan doesn’t function without trust and cooperation.

It works well for Bedford Falls. The mortgages it provides help working people move out of the Potters Field slums and into Bailey Park, where homes well kept by their owners increase in value. Despite the success, Potter condemned this practice, saying it was based on “high ideals without common sense.” He criticized the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan for granting a taxi driver a mortgage after Potter’s bank had rejected his application. Potter scoffed at such practices, asking if the building and loan was a “business or a charity ward.”

This is exactly what Republicans do. They describe beloved American programs like Medicare and Social Security as charities – using the euphemism “entitlements.” Like mortgages from the Bailey Building & Loan, Medicare and Social Security are not charities. They’re the American people depositing and pooling their money for the benefit of the American community.

The GOP tries to destroy programs like these that aid the middle class, the vast majority of Americans – the 99 percent – while Republicans protect tax breaks and special perks for the rich – the one percent, the Henry Potters.

This time last year, Republicans demanded extension of tax breaks for the 1 percent, contending tax breaks stimulate the economy.

For the past three months, however, Republicans have fought extension of payroll tax cuts, contending a break benefiting 160 million middle class Americans did not stimulate the economy.

All year, Republicans have demanded an end to programs the middle class created to aid the majority, the 99 percent. The GOP wants to reverse the new banking regulations that were passed in an attempt to prevent another economic collapse caused by risky Wall Street practices. The GOP tried to to rescind the healthcare reform law that prevents insurance companies from terminating coverage when beneficiaries get sick and prohibits the practice of refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Influential Republicans this year have called for repealing laws forbidding child labor, laws guaranteeing minimum wage and laws protecting the environment. They’ve demanded elimination of federal funding for organizations like the Public Broadcasting System that educates preschoolers, Head Start, which provides opportunity to poor children, and Planned Parenthood, which uses 97 percent of its funds to provide general, obstetrical and gynecological medical care to women, many of whom are rural and poor.

Republicans have decided to be the party of Henry Potter, the “meanest man in the county,” a man about whom George Bailey’s father said: “he's a sick man, frustrated. Sick in his mind, sick in his soul, if he has one.”

Like Potter, Republicans deride compassion and community as character defects.

In the Republican world, where greed is good, it was appropriate for Henry Potter to keep the $8,000 in Bailey Building & Loan money that George Bailey’s uncle, Billy Bailey, accidently handed him.

Republicans are attempting to impose that selfish belief system on the selfless American people, people like the citizens of Bedford Falls who rush to the rescue of neighbors.

It won’t work, just like it didn’t in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Republicans will fail in their attempt to make America Pottersville because the 99 percent believe avarice is a sin, not a value. The GOP will fail because greed is not the American way.

Bitter Editorial Rant Kills Fact-Checker Model, "Ends Politifact As We Know It"

Richard Eskow — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:28:41 -0500

Today Politifact Editor Bill Adair probably ruined his outlet's chances of ever being taken seriously again as an objective debunker of political spin. What a shame. There's a glaring need for somebody to play that role, and Politifact was in a unique position to fill it. Its parent newspaper is owned by a foundation, which should relieve them of some of the pressures that for-profit publishers place on editors.

Unfortunately, Bill Adair has made it impossible for Politifact to fill that role by committing a series of errors in judgment that culminated with today's intemperate rant.

There are good and bad ways to respond when a media outlet's criticized harshly. Today Adair chose the worst way - arrogance, distortion, and ad hominem attacks. There's very little chance Politifact will ever regain its credibility.

Background

Many people, including me, were highly critical of what we felt was Politifact's egregious mischaracterizations of the Republicans' Medicare plan back in May. A number of us responded to Politifact's argument that Democrats were wrong to claim that the Ryan plan passed by the house would not "end Medicare as we know it." We believed then, and continue to believe, that it would.

Politifact's response at the time could best be characterized as disdainful indifference. That was a mistake, and it led to an escalation of the rhetoric that apparently bruised Adair's feelings and his ego.

The Politifact team failed to understand that credibility is essential to its mission. A "fact checking" project is only useful if people believe that it is both unbiased and intelligent in its assessments. You don't have to agree with your critics, nor do you have to enjoy being the recipient of heated criticism. (Who does?) But you do have to engage your critics and their arguments if you are to remain credible.

Poltifact didn't just ignore the criticisms it received last May. It then upped the ante this week by naming the Medicare issue "The Lie of the Year." It should have expected the firestorm of criticism that followed.

How Politifact could have responded effectively

The best way to respond to criticism is to review your critics' charges, consider them, and - if you still disagree - rebut them point by point. You accomplish several things that way:

1) You show respect for your critics.
2) You affirm your own objectivity. (A journalist needs to remain objective, even when being criticized.)
3) You let your readers know you have understood these criticisms and considered them carefully.
4) You demonstrate a willingness to correct yourself if you have erred.
5) Even if you don't change your position, you can now defend it with some credibility.

Adair and Politifact should have responded this way in May, or at the very least this week.

The Low Road

What a shame that Adair took the low road instead. His response is called "Fact-Checking in the Echo Chamber Nation," and it leads off with a contemptuous dismissal of both left and right -- the right for listening to Rush and Fox, and the left for "the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, and DailyKos."

"To make sure they get a balanced view," Adair sneers, "they click Facebook links -- from their liberal friends."

The false equivalence of Adair's left/right language is exactly what he's being attacked for on the Medicare issue. By opening with it, he's affirming the criticism that Politifact values equivalence over facts. His dismissal of "left" and "right" reveals his own true bias for what he describes as a "balanced view," one that includes both liberal and conservative viewpoints.

That comeback highlights the fatal flaw behind Politifact and Adair's approach to reporting. "Left" and "right" don't matter in journalism. The view that Adair and every journalist should strive for is the accurate view, not a "balanced" one - regardless of the political viewpoint that the facts reinforce.

With this misguided opening, Adair has already wounded the credibility of Politifact "as we know it."

A Good Response

I don't agree with Adair and Politifact, but it's not hard to write a defense of their editorial position that would not have been self-destructive. How about this?

We have carefully considered the criticism we have received, and here's what we have concluded: In order to determine whether or not the Republicans 'voted to end Medicare,' we need to agree on what we mean by 'Medicare.' Our critics consider Medicare to be a system where the government directly insures seniors and issues payments for their medical care. The right-leaning Wall Street Journal stopped just short of embracing that position itself when it wrote that the Republican plan "would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills."

We used a different definition for Medicare, and we should have made that clear. Upon reviewing the comments of our critics, we continue to stand by our conclusion that the Republican plan would not 'end Medicare as we know it,' but would transfer it to a privately-run program under much stricter budget controls. That would result in a program that looks and feels quite different from today's Medicare, and would also lead to higher out-of-pocket costs, as our critics have asserted. But we chose to characterize Medicare a funding program for senior medical care. Since the Republican plan would still fund seniors' care, we reject the assertion that it would 'end Medicare.'

An ideal approach would be to poll the public on what they believe 'Medicare' is, but we don't have the resources to do that. Therefore the confusion is understandable, and we should have provided our definition of is meant by 'Medicare.' But we think our definition of Medicare is useful, and stand by our conclusion - with that clarification."

If Politifact has responded this way its critics would still have disagreed strongly, but the matter would have been closed on a civil note that allowed its critics to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

Sarcasm and Safety in Numbers

But Adair chose not to respond to the substance of the criticisms at all. Instead he opened with an arrogant, Bill Keller-esque swipe at 'Echo Chamber Nation' that included an attempt at biting sarcasm - 'for balance, they listen to their friends' - a style of response which was inappropriate for the situation and for which he has no apparent gifts.

Adair also took a 'safety in numbers' approach by noting that competitors "FactCheck.org" and the Washington Post's "FactChecker" agreed with Politifact on Medicare. But both of those organizations have been criticized for the same error as Politifact's - the pursuit of false "balance" between left and right rather than of the truth - so this is a failed gambit.

End of the Fack-Checkers?

I disagreed with Ezra Klein when he wrote that "the 'fact checker' model is probably unsustainable. " It doesn't have to be. Even though I mostly write advocacy pieces rather than reporting, I haven't found it difficult to criticize politicians in both parties. All it requires is the fortitude to read some nasty things about yourself online, and the willingness to accept the occasional Facebook de-friending or hostile confrontation at a holiday party. Comes with the territory, as they say.

Political fact-checking can play an extremely useful role - if the fact checkers can hang on to their credibility. Their lack of a policy or political agenda allows them to convince readers who would not be convinced by people like me. But after reading Adair, I've concluded that Ezra Klein is probably right. There's probably no way to sustain that model as long as editors strive for 'balance' rather than accuracy.

And that seems to be what they're all doing at the major media outlets.

Unaccountable

The damage that Adair has done to Politifact's credibility will be lethal in many quarters. It has done some excellent work, so that's a real pity.

It's hard to understand why Adair chose such an injudicious response - pique? Poor self control? It's hard to imagine that he thought a piece like this would be in the best interests of his organization, but if he did he was sadly mistaken.

Adair takes a few more ineffectual ad hominem swings at his critics before closing on a note of grandiosity. "PolitiFact is dangerous," he boasts. "We have disrupted the status quo because we're doing what journalists should have been doing for a long time -- holding politicians and pundits accountable for their words."

That's a noble objective for journalists. People like Bill Adair should make it their life's work to hold powerful and influential people "accountable for their words." But he can't do it if he refuses to be accountable for his own.

Politifact Kills Its Credibility

Dave Johnson — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:22:28 -0500

If you take a government program, change everything about it, destroy its core purpose, but keep the same name, is it the same program? Politifact.com says yes, and even goes so far as to say it is "The Lie Of The Year" to say it isn't -- because it still has the same name.

Early this year Republicans voted to privatize Medicare, ending it as a government insurance program, instead giving limited vouchers to people to use to purchase private insurance. Everything about the program would change, and because of the loss of economy-of-scale that government provides the costs to seniors would be much higher while the coverage would be lower. This would effectively end the program.

Americans were outraged by this. People love Medicare, and depend on it. And the cost-shifting these changes would bring mean that the cost to the larger economy would greatly increase. But since government wasn't paying those costs anymore, the pressure to raise taxes on the 1% would go down.

People took up arms that Republicans were trying to end Medicare. Newspaper editorials expressed shock and outrage. Bloggers were angry. Politicians pledged to run against Republicans who voted for this plan to end Medicare.

Enter Politifact.com

Politifact.com's About page says, "PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and its partners to help you find the truth in politics." The look at statements, research the facts, "then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False and False."

Politifact examined the statements that Republicans voted to "end Medicare" and decided this was a "lie" -- because the program would continue to have the same name. This week Politicat doubled down on this absurd conclusion, saying that claiming the program would end is the "Lie Of The Year."

That's right, they say it is "The Lie Of The Year" to say that a program ends, as long as there still exists a program with the same name.

The Kicker

HOW did Politifact decide that this is the lie of the year? Digby explains, in Paul Ryan Stuffed The PolitiFact Ballot Box, that Rep. Paul Ryan rigged this by sending people to vote at Politifact. She writes,

Unfortunately, the Villagers will be gleefully using this as proof that their dreamy young idol Paul Ryan is a good guy after all but it's probably a good idea to demand another source for anyone who cites Politifact on the veracity of any claim going forward. This will make it easier on the Republicans in the beginning, since they actually make a profit at their lying, but in the long run it will be for good. Clearly Politifact can't tell the difference between a lie and and a fact and is subject to obvious right wing manipulation.

Richard Eskow: PolitiFiction: A 'Lie Of The Year' Sends Alice Back To Wonderland, "If you thought that the "aspect of Medicare" that directly pays for hospital coverage was Medicare, then apparently you are a very silly person ..."

Others Weigh In

Paul Krugman: Politifact, R.I.P.: "This is really awful. Politifact, which is supposed to police false claims in politics, has announced its Lie of the Year — and it’s a statement that happens to be true, the claim that Republicans have voted to end Medicare."

Steve Benen: PolitiFact ought to be ashamed of itself: "This is simply indefensible. Claims that are factually true shouldn’t be eligible for a Lie of the Year designation."

Jason Linkins at Huffington Post: Politifact Has Decided That A Totally True Thing Is The "Lie Of The Year," For Some Reason

Ben Adler at The Nation: Politifact Peddles Falsehood About Ryan Plan to Privatize Medicare

But Politifact, an independent organization associated with the St. Petersburg Times, chose instead a claim that placed third in their poll, thanks to an effort by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to stuff the ballots. The only problem? The big “lie” is true. "Republicans voted to end Medicare,” by the the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other Democrats, is the winner, despite the fact that Republicans did indeed vote to end Medicare when they voted for Ryan’s budget.

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog: Politifact wins own "lie of the year" after letting Paul Ryan rig the results

Joshua Holland at AlterNet: PolitiFact, Fearing a Right-Wing Backlash, Calls Democrats' 100% True Claim About the GOP Medicare Plan the "Lie of the Year",

Conservatives have long excelled at working the refs -- the corporate media. And this week they scored a resounding victory, as PolitiFact, the non-partisan fact-checker, dismissed the results of its readers' poll to declare the entirely truthful statement that House Republicans voted to “end Medicare” as we know it the “lie of the year.”

Politifact.com has ended its credibility.

Full disclosure: Politifact fact-checked the claim in a post of mine that 400 people have as much wealth as half our population, which was picked up by Michael Moore for use in a speech in Wisconsin. In their article they misidentified me, misstated and just got wrong what I sent them, linked to the wrong post, but concluded that the claim is true.

PolitiFiction: A 'Lie of the Year' Sends Alice Back to Wonderland

Richard Eskow — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:35:24 -0500

"If I had a world of my own," said Alice, "everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't."

I can't take it anymore. I just can't. In fact I'm falling down the rabbit hole even as we speak.

'PolitiFact,' a project of the St. Petersburg Times, is at it again. It chastised Democrats months ago for saying the GOP Medicare proposal would "change the essential nature of Medicare." That was right before they noted that it would "end the aspect of Medicare that directly covers specific services, such as hospital coverage."

If you thought that the "aspect of Medicare" that directly pays for hospital coverage was Medicare, then apparently you are a very silly person ...

Now they've made this factual statement their "Lie of the Year." We found PolitiFact's logic so tortured when they first made this claim that we found ourselves falling like Alice into a hallucinogenic wonderland. Don't make us go there again! Fortunately, the cudgel has been taken up by Steve Benen and Paul Krugman, although we'll take a little exception to Steve's analogy of a golf cart with a Ferrari symbol on it.

That's too generous. At least a golf cart is still a vehicle. A better analogy would be to take somebody's Ferrari and replace it with a box of quarters for bus fare - and while the bus fare will go up every year, your substitute 'Ferrari' will never pay more than a quarter per ride. In fact, we used a similar analogy ourselves when we first tried tackling this subject back in May. And as much as I'm trying to fight it, I'm falling back, back, back,into a world where nothing is as it seems ...

Alice! the voice is shouting. Don't you ride the bus to school every day?

Mmm, yes, you say. Sometimes one, sometimes the other.

Well, they're getting rid of them and replacing them with vouchers.

Why? you ask. How?

Just then the Cato Institute Caterpillar - the Cato-Pillar - appears before you, sitting on an ornate toadstool built by generous corporate donors. Beside him is the Mad Hatter, er, the Bad Tanner, we mean, the "Tan Boehner" - with a pricetag on his hat that reads "Citizens United."

Ahem, they say. We think public transportation is too expensive, don't you? So we're taking the subways and buses away.

But, you ask, why not just fix what makes it get more expensive?

You'll like this better, they say. There will be taxis. Wonderful, wonderful taxis. Taxis that aren't owned and operated by the evil government.

But a taxi driver tried to cheat me once, you say. And when we came back from vacation, another one tried to take us all over town and ...

Stop! they said. We will turn them into good taxis.

But what will come after the buses and subways?

But the taxis will soon cost more than that! And they'll keep getting more and more expensive if nobody's negotiating with them! How will we afford them?

You don't understand, they reply. Competition can do wonderful things! Our plan will replace the purchasing power of everybody's money all put together with ... well, with $2.50. And then Competition will lower the cost of cab fare, and make the cabs better too.

If Competition can do all that, you ask, why hasn't it done it already?

Trust us, they reply. Believe.

I want to believe, you say. But how will it lower cab fares to give taxi drivers millions of new riders? Doesn't increased demand lead to higher prices? Isn't that how the free market works?

They shake their heads sadly. Silly girl, they mutter.

I don't like this! You stamp your foot. I don't like this at all! I ride the subway and buses every day and now you're shutting them down!

Their faces grow red. That's a lie! We're not shutting down the subways and buses! We're reforming them!

You say, Reforming them? But they'll be sold for scrap! You'll rip out the seats and sell the copper wiring to people with wheelbarrows!

Wel-l-l-l ... they murmur.

You'll take those subway cars and buses to a junkyard, where they'll be pounded into metal cubes and buried in landfill! The token machines will gather dust! The dark and cavernous tunnels and stations will echo only with the cries of rats! Spiderwebs will cover the entrances and the turnstiles will rust! There will be no people, no subways, no buses - They'll all be gone! How can you "reform" something by making it go away?

Ahh, they say. Look at your new voucher. See what it says at the top? It says "This voucher is your new bus or subway." That's what we call our plan: "Your New Bus or Subway." Then the Cheshire PolitiCat scolds you in a husky, purring voice. Stop being a demagogue about this very important issue, it says.

But buses and subways have wheels! you shout. Where are the wheels?

Don't you remember what Humpty Dumpty told you? asks the PolitiCat. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean." The word "voucher" can mean whatever they choose it to mean. It can even mean "bus," or "subway," or "Medicare." Words are very nonpartisan.

Ahem. The Cato-Pillar and the Tan Boehner cough gently. Please don't call it a "voucher" anymore, either. We've decided to call it "Transportation Support." That sound so very much more pleasant, don't you think? PolitiCat purrs.

See, Alice? says the Tan Boehner. You're not holding a piece of paper anymore. It's a "train" or a "bus." The one in your hand is the Number Nine to Main Street. He salutes it smartly. And I'm holding the Uptown Local. He moves it along the floor, making little engine noises with his mouth.

You toss the pieces of paper into the air. The Cato-Pillar and the Tan Boehner fall to their hands and knees, the PolitiCat on its haunches beside them. Grab them! they all cry. Someone shouts, The Midtown Express is getting crushed! They all weep softly. A twelve-car subway train just blew down the street like confetti, they say.

They're not really buses or subways, you say. They're just vouchers.

You're playing word games about a very important subject, says the PolitiCat. The Newspaper People nod their papery heads in agreement. Some "moderate" human chess pieces, who are really Democrats standing in the center of a tilted chessboard, stand up and shout in chorus: We agree!

The PolitiCat hisses,You must treat the vouchers as if they were really buses and subways. It holds up a wrinkled piece of paper with its paw. Now tell this train you're sorry, it says. These are very serious people, say the Newspaper People. They applaud, but all that can be heard is the rustle of crumpling paper.

I think I'm in hell, you say. I can't take any more.

You mean you can't take any less! the Cato-Pillar and the Tan Boehner say cheerfully. Remember when the Mad Hatter said that to you? Now we're saying it too. After all, they chuckle, you sure can't take any less than we'll give you!

The truth about Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare plan »

I won't believe you! you shout. This piece of paper (you hold the voucher in the air) is not a bus!

They shake their heads and look at you disapprovingly. I'm sorry, they say, but you've just repeated "the Lie of the Year."

Giving Thanks for the Occupation, Election, Demonstrations

Leo Gerard — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:29:51 -0500

I want to thank you, thank you
Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you. ~ Natalie Merchant, “Kind and Generous”

This week’s holiday mandates giving thanks. For many Americans, that is complicated by the harsh years since 2008.

There’s the bitterness of lost jobs, foreclosed homes and diminished opportunity. There’s the resentment over bailing out Wall Street, then watching banksters grant themselves sensational bonuses while denying Main Street loans to save businesses. There’s the fear generated by county club conservatives demanding draconian cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

It’s hard to muster gratitude while suffering, to feel appreciative while dreading a meaner future.

The past two months, though, produced glimmers of hope -- the occupation, the election and the mid-November demonstrations. These events suggest empowerment of the 99 percent and emergence of change. They’re reason for thanks giving, especially by those formerly in the middle class who will for the first time experience this holiday without the traditional feast.

Change began in September with the launch of Occupy Wall Street. Previously, the disaffected had rallied and protested. The newly-homeless had held signs. The jobless had marched on Wall Street, the epicenter of the economy’s crash. But this was different. These rabble-rousers didn’t protest and go home. They dug in. They offered no end date for their cries for justice. Like the sit-down strikers who inhabited the General Motors plant in Flint, Mich. for 44 days in 1936 and 1937, these protesters are determined to stay as long as necessary.

The New York occupiers’ gumption and message – “we are the 99 percent” -- inspired a movement worldwide. Activists encamped in more than a 1,000 cities. And when police tried to rout them, the occupiers defied the official oppression, just as the sit-down strikers did. Emblematic is the 84-year-old Oakland, Calif. protester who said after police pepper sprayed her in the face that the experience energized her.

Before this movement began, country club conservatives had confined political discussion and concern to government deficits. No one acknowledged the unemployed, the impoverished or the foreclosed on – except to condemn them. The occupations changed this. Suddenly, the media talked of the problem of sharply higher income inequality and wrote about highly profitable corporations dodging taxes. Abruptly, politicians recalled the agony of joblessness and homelessness. Amazingly, there was new emphasis on polls showing massive majorities opposing austerity for the 99 percent and supporting higher taxes on the 1 percent.

For those of us in warm homes, Natalie Merchant’s words send a perfect message to those encamped:

“For your kindness, I’m in debt to you,
And I could never have gone this far without you,
For everything you’ve done,
You know I’m bound – I’m bound to thank you for it.”

On Election Day, the majority put the 1 percent and their purchased politicians on notice. The problem for the 1 percent in a one-person-one-vote democracy is that they’re outnumbered. In referendums on Nov. 8, the majority rebuffed attempts to restrict the ability of citizens to vote and to collectively bargain.

Mainers reversed a Republican attempt to limit balloting. The majority there restored Election Day voter registration – a right they’d exercised without problem for 38 years before the state’s GOP-dominated legislature and GOP governor passed a law eliminating it. The 60 percent vote for reinstatement served as public censure to Republican lawmakers nationwide who have worked to suppress voting.

In Ohio, citizens reversed a Republican attempt to sharply constrict the right of public employees to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Ohio citizens affirmed their belief in unionization as a way to move workers into the middle class. The vote was 61 percent in favor of union rights, a margin that chastened country club conservatives, including Ohio’s GOP Gov. John Kasich, who said afterwards that he would “pause” to reflect because: "The people have spoken clearly. You don't ignore the public.”

To the voters in Ohio and Maine:

“Oh, I want to thank you for so many gifts. . .
I want to thank you for your generosity . . .
I want to thank you, show my gratitude. . .” ~Natalie Merchant

The following week, two demonstrations reinforced the election’s message of hope for the 99 percent. On Nov. 16, two dozen millionaires climbed up Capitol Hill and told Congress they wanted their taxes increased. Really. The following day, on the two-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street’s birth, activists and unionists took to bridges nationwide in demonstrations for jobs.

The rich guys, the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, told Congress to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich to help balance the budget. This group of 200 members of the 1 percent offered a solution very different from the Republican austerity demand that had dominated discourse for months.

Similarly, the protesters who occupied bridges across America sought federal investment in infrastructure to create jobs, which would help relieve the recession. Jobs, not cuts.

To the Patriotic Millionaires and the protesters,

“Oh, I want to thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you. . .” ~Natalie Merchant

Because of them, because of wise voters in Ohio and Maine, because of the Occupiers, there’s reason for gratitude this Thanksgiving.

Senator Sanders, Ordinary Americans #OccupytheSuperCommittee

Daniel Marans — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:13:02 -0500

Days after the tents were ripped out of Zucotti Park in New York, hundreds of Americans brought the fight for the 99% to the nation’s capital on Thursday with a “Wake-Up Congress” rally calling for the Super Committee to support “Jobs, Not Cuts” to key social programs. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) fittingly called it “#OccupyThe SuperCommittee.”

Thursday’s town hall-style event, organized by the Strengthen Social Security Campaign and other advocacy groups, was aimed at influencing the Super Committee, and the lawmakers who will vote on their proposal, against cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The lawmakers on hand shared the stage with ordinary Americans who came to explain the importance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in their lives, and the harm that cuts would cause them.

If the goal of the rally was to “Wake Up Congress,” the message to which attendees wanted Congress to wake up was that “No deal is better than a bad deal.” Those on hand sough to push back against the conventional wisdom that the failure of the Super Committee to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction and the subsequent sequestration would be worse for the economy than a deal agreed to by the Super Committee members.

Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) spoke, as well as Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). But the hero, organizer and unofficial emcee of the event was Senator Sanders, who is far and away the most stalwart defender of social insurance programs in the United States Congress. The retirees, community members and activists who assembled there treated Sanders like a celebrity. Sanders’ entrance and exit were greeted with chants of “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie,” the likes of which are usually reserved for popular sports players.

Sanders gave plainspoken arguments against cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the country’s deficit. “Here’s the issue: The issue is that in fact, this country does have a serious deficit problem,” Sanders said. “But the reality is that the deficit was caused by two wars not paid for, huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, and a recession as a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And if those are the causes of the deficit and the national debt I will be damned if we’re going to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children, and the poor. That’s wrong.”

The speakers focused their criticism on two proposals that the Super Committee is rumored to be considering: the chained CPI (Consumer Price Index), which would reduce the Social Security COLA (cost-of-living adjustment); and an increase in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

Senator Mikulski summed up the policy argument against the chained CPI. Mikulski effectively pointed out that the chained CPI’s logic of “price substitution” does not apply to seniors for whom health care costs make up the vast majority of expenses. “Sure, maybe you can switch to Dunkin Donuts from a latte if you’re young, but what are seniors going to do as drug prices go up?” Mikulski asked incredulously. “Will they substitute an expensive drug with water?”

(Another of Senator Mikulski’s memorable lines: “So here we are on the brink of Thanks giving…We are so mired in partisanship that we can’t seem to find a path forward. They think we [members of Congress] are the turkeys. Wherever I go in my state, they’re telling Congress to stuff it.”)

Senator Sanders spoke out strongly against raising the Medicare eligibility age, citing the cases of 65- and 66-year-olds who would have trouble getting private health insurance to cover their care. “If a 66-year-old gets cancer, what private health insurance is going to cover his treatment?” Sanders asked, before answering his own question. “The answer is none.”

It was the stories of some half dozen average Americans who spoke, however, that brought the hard numbers of the benefit cuts a human face. The people who testified included retirees on modest incomes, adults living with cerebral palsy and other disabilities, and people who lost parents and spouses upon whom they were financially dependent.

Marilyn Dixon-Hill from Camden, NJ, 58 years old, worked as a nurse for thirty years. A year ago to the day of the rally, Marilyn suffered from a disease that left her paralyzed. She has since regained the ability to walk, which she calls “a miracle,” but remains seriously physically impaired. As a result, she is unable to work and has begun collecting Social Security disability benefits.

Currently Marilyn has no medical insurance. Like other disability beneficiaries, Marilyn must wait two years to begin receiving Medicare benefits. “I need Medicare. I need Medicaid. No Cuts to Social Security,” Marilyn cried, tearing up as she said it. “These are safety nets for vulnerable people like myself.” Marilyn shared the concerns of many of the other speakers that benefit cuts would jeopardize their independence. “My fear is that with any cuts, I will not be able to care for myself and be a burden on my adult children, who have their own burdens in this economic system.”

The speaker who received perhaps the greatest applause was a retired Virginia man named Kenyon Peas. Peas, a retired union worker and veteran of the US military, paid into Social Security since 1958, when, at age 15, he worked as an amusement park ride operator. Peas’ Social Security check paid the out-of-pocket costs from serious medical problems, including a heart attack, and the removal of one-third of his lung, as well as Type 2 Diabetes, from which he continues to suffer. “Is this the way the United States honors its commitments?” Peas asked of plans to cut the programs. “The debt we owe China and others will most assuredly be repaid… Bank of America, among others, is too big to fail. We bailed them out. If you’re a working man or woman, we’ll cut your benefits, freeze or eliminate your COLA, and ask for your vote.”

Thursday’s rally in the Senate was the culmination in a series of actions by activists across the country protesting potential cuts to the three key programs. It started two weeks ago, when several thousand nurses and other union workers from around the country rallied in front of the White House and Treasury Department. They came from places as far away as Bemidji, Minnesota, to tell Congress to tax Wall Street—not cut the programs Americans need now more than ever.

Then more than 1,000 seniors from the Jane Addams Senior Caucus joined forces with #OccupyChicago to protest cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in Chicago, on November 7. The intergenerational solidarity against the tyranny of the 1% was a fitting refutation of conservative attempts to pit young against old.

Most recently, 3,200 seniors and union workers gathered in Wang Theatre in Boston to demonstrate against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, on November 9.

The momentum of popular movements to prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid shows no signs of abating. The American people are finally making their voices heard. Now it is up to Congress to listen.

Sabotage the Supercommittee? We Say Go For It!

Richard Eskow — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:55:30 -0500

Ezra Klein's "Wonkbook" is invaluable for anyone trying to follow the Washington policymaking process. Each day it offers its readers everything from the latest CBO analyses to the newest latest adorable animal videos. Since I'm both an obsessive reader of reports and a watcher of cute animal videos (I personally posted this clip of a baby kitten being hugged by its mother when it was having a nightmare), I'm glad it's around.

In the contentious and confused world of political debate, the data informs us and the videos humanize us. (Although I have to say the Corgi riding a playground swing in this morning's Wonkbook video doesn't look too thrilled with the experience.) But that doesn't mean we'll always react to the same information in the same way.

Take the bipartisan Congressional "supercommittee"[1] tasked with cutting the Federal deficit. This morning's Wonkbook tells us that Republicans on the Committee aren't just resisting a deal. They're also working to undercut the defense spending part of the "triggers" - those automatic cuts that were to take effect if no compromise was reached.

Ezra writes that Republicans are "reneging on the terms of the debt-ceiling deal," and concludes: "The reality is, the supercommittee might not just end without reaching a deal. It might end by undoing a previous deal, and by making the two sides trust each other less in future deals. That's not just failure. That's sabotage."

You say that like it's a bad thing. A supercommittee failure would be great news. It doesn't matter who blows up the process, as long as it's stopped. Sabotage the supercommittee? Don't mind if you do!

The idea was a terrible one from the start. The country's wracked with devastating levels of un- and underemployment (the figures vary from 24 to 25 million Americans), wages have stagnated for the middle class, and our infrastructure is crumbling. Yet both parties have adopted the misguided right-wing idea that deficits - an important long-term concern - are our most important immediate concern. That defies both economic logic, which says we must invest now to get the economy going, and polling data, which shows that the public wants Washington to fix the economy before it cuts deficit spending.

It would be anything but tragic if the supercommittee process broke down over Republican intransigence. In fact, it would be terrific! But continued Democratic missteps could lead to a real tragedy. Right now Harry Reid and the President are both insisting that those triggers be enacted to both defense and domestic cuts if the committee fails to propose a plan. That puts them in the position of advocating Medicare cuts that Republicans can then claim to have opposed. The GOP ran that play against them in 2010, and it worked.

Wouldn't it be better if the Democrats moved the dialog back where it belongs instead - back to creating jobs and rebuilding the American economy? The President made a start with his Jobs Act, which has helped him in the polls. And while it's far from what it should be, enacting it would be very good for the country. So why not go with what works?

Americans - and often even a majority of Republicans - oppose cutting Medicare or Social Security to reduce Federal deficits. Yet that's exactly what the Democratic supercommittee proposal suggests.Somehow the White House team has even managed to convince itself that this would be smart politics. Klein's White House sources as usually very good, and as he reported the other day:

"For most of this year, the White House has thought that the surest path to President Obama’s reelection was to strike a big deficit deal with Republicans, or at least be seen trying to strike a big deficit deal with Republicans."

Good Lord.

The deficit-cutting process was always a political death trap for Democrats in particular. The party once known for Social Security, Medicare, and fighting poverty had nothing to gain and everything to lose by sacrificing middle class and lower-income interests in a misguided effort to please markets that are indifferent to their efforts. The fact that they must deal with the most extremist Republicans in political history makes the exercise even more ill-advised. Perhaps to provide a veneer of legitimacy to future deals, the President and some in his party increasingly adopted the nonsensical rhetoric of the anti-government right.

Here's the truth: Deficits matter, but they're not our urgent priority - and job creation would help there, too. And no, Mr. President, a government's budget is not like a family's budget. The markets and ratings agencies don't seem to care much about the supercommittee.

Besides, no family would let Grandma go without needed medical care just so that it could lower its FICO score.

Their miguided efforts led to a political dialog that's wildly divorced from the electorate's concerns and wishes. While voters struggled with underwater mortgages, low wages, and a shortage of full-time jobs, Barack Obama and Hill Republicans were posturing over who would cut the Federal deficit more. The austerity train rumbled forward relentlessly, rendering Washington's arguments largely irrelevant to the public, while voters looked on as helplessly ... well, as helplessly as a Corgi in a playground swing.

That's why the Occupy movement has captured the public's interests. It has helped shift the dialog back where it belongs: to creating jobs, restraining Wall Street, and asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. The President's Jobs Act, while not as strong as it should have been, was a step in the right direction. But it's not clear that he and other Democrats are getting the message. Today we're told that "the Obama Administration is quietly bracing for supercommittee failure."

"Bracing" for failure? They should be praying for it. I know I am. Sabotage the supercommittee? We say "go for it."

___________________

[1] Style note: Klein and the Washington Post have been using "supercommittee" when writing about this extrajudicial body, while I and others have been using "Super Committee."

That's another problem with this attempted end run around the political process, using an unprecedented body that deliberates in secret and whose decisions must be subject to a straight up-and-down vote with no amendments and limited debate.

Writers like us know the naming conventions for democratic political terms like Congressional Committee, Caucus, or cloture. But when it comes to a non-democratic body like this one, the rules haven't been written yet. So give us all a break and knock it off, would ya?

Crash Tax: Wall Street Reparations

Leo Gerard — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:35:59 -0500

Wall Street waged war on the American economy and middle class with its reckless gambling.

It wasn’t Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that crashed the economy. It wasn’t the federal government. It wasn’t hapless homeowners who were sold mortgages they couldn’t afford. It was Wall Street financiers that aggressively sought and bought mortgages to package and sell as derivatives, which the banks could wager on.

Americans bailed out Wall Street, handing it a Marshall Plan for reconstruction after its bad bets blew up the world economy. Now, three years later, happy days are here again for the Wall Street banksters. They’re hauling in big profits and paying outrageous bonuses. But the American middle class continues to suffer high unemployment, record foreclosures and rising poverty.

So it’s time for Wall Street to pay reparations. It’s time for a crash tax, a tiny sales tax on Wall Street transactions, the revenues from which would pay for Main Street restoration. It’s time for the 1 percent to repay the 99 percent, for Wall Street to share in the sacrifices necessitated by its rogue behavior.

The levy, sometimes called a Tobin Tax after the American economist and Nobel Laureate James Tobin, who endorsed it in the 1970s, is far from shocking or novel. A financial transaction tax is advocated by a huge range of groups and individuals, from billionaires to conservative heads of state. Thirty nations, including Great Britain and Switzerland, already tax some financial transactions. The United States imposed a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. In addition to raising revenue in a time of government deficits worldwide, the tax would suppress the very kind of risky speculation that got the global economy into this mess.

Supporters of the tax include the expected -- the AFL-CIO, Democratic benefactor George Soros, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, and economist Dean Baker, one of the few who saw the housing bubble and predicted its bursting. The unexpected include billionaires Bill Gates and Peter G. Peterson; former Goldman Sachs chairman John Whitehead, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker. Conservative political leaders behind it include German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Experts promoting it include Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Moral leaders advocating for it include Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Here’s what Archbishop Williams wrote in support of imposing the levy:

“There is still a powerful sense around – fair or not – of a whole society paying for the errors and irresponsibility of bankers; of messages not getting through; of impatience with a return to “business as usual” represented by still soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices.”

The European Commission recommended in September that the 27 European Union member countries adopt a .1 percent tax on financial transactions beginning in 2014. It estimated that the tax would raise $78 billion a year. Europe hesitates to institute the tax without a similar levy in the United States.

Earlier this month, two U.S. lawmakers who have long supported the levy introduced legislation to impose a smaller tax -- .03 percent or 3 cents on $100 in transactions. The tax proposed by U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore, and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, would raise about $350 billion over a decade.

Here’s what Sen. Harkin said about it:

“I think it’s fair. I think it’s just. I think it’s a reasonable way of raising revenue.”

That’s the gist of it. It’s fair. Wall Street caused the crash. It caused devastating unemployment. It exacerbated deficit problems in the United States, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. If the market hadn’t crashed, sustained higher tax revenues would have prevented these difficulties from intensifying.

Now, in countries worldwide, including the United States, conservatives are demanding austerity to deal with deficits. They refuse to ask financial speculators to help pay for the trouble they caused. Instead, these conservatives demand that the middle class and the poor foot the bill. American conservatives insist the middle class lose Social Security benefits, accept Medicare and Medicaid cuts, subsist with fewer teachers, firefighters and police officers.

The 99 percent have sent a pretty clear message, however, that they’re fed up and they’re not going to take unshared sacrifice anymore.

They told Bank of America where it could put its proposed monthly fee on debit cards. They told Ohio governor John Kasich where he and fellow conservatives could put their law denying public workers the right to collectively bargain for a better life. And in parks across America and around the world, the 99 percent are telling the 1 percent where they can put their demand that sacrifice be suffered only by the 99 percent.

The crash tax is, essentially, a sales tax on financial transactions. The middle class pays sales tax on all the stuff it purchases. There should be no special exceptions. The 1 percent should be paying sales tax on the purchase of risky derivatives and on bets that derivatives will fail. This is equity. This is simple fairness.

Some call this levy a Robin Hood tax. But that’s not right. This is not robbing the rich to give to the poor. This is charging the 1 percent a just share.

This is holding speculators accountable. This is individual responsibility, the concept the GOP claims to love. Wall Street bombed the world economy. Now it’s obligated to participate in financing recovery, to pay reparations to Main Street.

If the Super Committee Doesn't Cut Your Medicare, Santa Claus Will Die!

Richard Eskow — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:12:40 -0500

This holiday season, let's spare a kind thought for the decent people who toil inside Washington's legislative machinery. These good folk must live and work inside the dreamlike bubble that is today's policy and media world. Each day they strain to see reality through the reflected light of the false but colorful narratives projected against the bubble's surface.

Or would it be a better metaphor to say they're prisoners in some cold underground cell? No matter how many polls are conducted, no matter how many economic analyses are performed, no matter how many bitter lessons are taught and re-taught, there are those who hope to deny them even a glimpse of reality.

Instead these good people are forced to stare into the harsh glare of synthetic reality, hour after hour, as if were a naked lightbulb in windowless room. Only a few precious slivers of genuine sunlight penetrate the dank basement of illusion that imprisons them.

Well-intentioned staffers in Washington need good information to do their jobs well. Instead they're being inundated with confusing pseudo-facts and empty fear-mongering. This week's case in point? The Congressional "Super Committee." Did you know that unless they come up with their cuts there will be no Christmas this year? You didn't? Then you haven't been reading the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, that kind of distortion isn't the exception. It's the rule. 

The War (on Christmas) Comes Home

As we reported the other day, Democrats on the Committee are on the verge of offering a disastrous and unjust "compromise" that would punish millions of innocent people for the excesses of a few - and probably doom their own party's electoral chances.

As the Committee approaches its final days, the pressure is building ... and so is the media misinformation. The most darkly comical example of this comes from the Wall Street Journal, where a headline tells us that "Supercommittee Failure Could Throttle Holiday Spending."

Imagine: No gifts will glitter under the tree. The elves will join the ranks of the unemployed. The North Pole will fall into darkness as its failing economy threatens the Eurozone, if not the world. Rudolph will shrug off his harness and slink into the forest as the other reindeer look on mournfully.

Listen up, Congress: Give us those cuts or the fat guy in the red suit gets it!

But, absurd as it sounds, it's not far from what the Journal is saying: "Consumers are starting to feel a bit more confident about the economy," writes Josh Mitchell, citing the most recent index of consumer sentiment from Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan. "But," adds Mitchell, "a cloud forming over Washington threatens to darken the mood."

A securities analyst is quoted as saying this: “Although investors have found it easy to ignore the US deficit problem against the backdrop of the European crisis, the calm before the storm is about to end and with it risks of a further downgrade by at least one rating agency ..."

Adds Mitchell: "Such a scenario can’t be good for consumer confidence heading into the holiday shopping season."

This would be nothing more than comic relief if it weren't so typical of the entire media narrative around the Committee, and if this narrative weren't taken so seriously inside the Beltway.

Confidence Game

We've already explained why a Super Committee failure will not necessarily lead to another downgrade of US debt - and that, contrary to another media myth, the last downgrade didn't affect the stock market at all. It was the last austerity deal, the debt-ceiling agreement between Barack Obama and John Boehner, that tanked the market this summer.

But that's only addressing the world's markets. What about American consumers? They're the engine of economic growth. Will their confidence in the economy really be shattered if a Congressional committee doesn't recommend cutting their entitlements and raising their taxes? (It sounds silly, but that's the proposition being put forward.) A new Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll gives us the answer:

No.

At least half of those people weren't even familiar with the Super Committee or its mission. Once it was described, nearly 70% said they expect it to fail and only 21% expect it to succeed. If they've either never heard of it or expect it to fail, how could its failure undermine their confidence in the economy? It could certainly undermine their confidence in the parties making the deal, however. The people who were polled made it clear that they're adamantly opposed to the very kind of deal the Democrats are now proposing as a "compromise."

Lumps of Coal in the Christmas Stocking

The centerpiece of the Democratic proposal was a series of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. What's the number one item people did not want to see cut? Medicare and Medicaid. The second most unpopular target was Social Security. Between Medicare and Social Security, 56% of people polled felt that these entitlements were (in the poll's words) "the worst possible thing to cut." By contrast, only 20% of people polled felt that way about defense spending.

When asked whether they supported "hundreds of millions of dollars in spending cuts to Medicare and Medicaid through increasing beneficiary costs" (the Democratic offer includes $100 billion of such costs for Medicare and an additional amount for Medicaid), 76% were opposed -- and 52% were "opposed strongly."

Overall, 21% of people polled thought "the economy" was our most urgent problem, and 21% thought it was our second-most urgent problem. 18% thought that jobs are our most urgent problem, with 15% rating jobs at second place. That's 40% who think that jobs and the economy are our most urgent problem and 33% who place them second. Deficits and government spending, the focus of this committee, is rated at 19% and 13% respectively.

In other words: There's a committee which people have either never heard of or expect to fail. It's prepared to do things they hate to solve a problem they don't consider very important. And yet Washington's gripped with a fear that this committee will fail. It should be terrified that it will succeed.

(To ask Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi to protect Medicare and Medicaid, click here)

Super Collusion: Will Obama & Capitol Dems Betray the Middle Class, Seniors, and the Poor?

Richard Eskow — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:53:44 -0500

Two new reports suggest that the President and Congressional Democrats are about to betray everything Democrats once stood for. Under pressure from Barack Obama, Democrats on the "Super Committee" have sketched out an appalling "compromise" proposal that would almost certainly doom both their 2012 electoral chances and his own.

They'd have it coming. Their draft plan that literally takes crutches away from poor people to protect tax breaks for the wealthy.

Unfortunately, middle class and impoverished Americans would suffer much more than they would. Career politicians can always look forward to comfortable sinecures from the wealthy interests who will benefit from their proposal. But the rest of us would once again be punished for the excesses of the rich, then left to the untender mercies of our new Republican leaders.

That, and not the fate of a President or a party, would be the real tragedy.

Pain Threshold

The President's actively pressuring Super Committee members from both parties to come up with a budget-slashing deal, according to a report in today's Washington Post. In addition, Obama is also urging them not to cancel the automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts that would be triggered under current law if they fail to make an agreement.

Another story, from the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, gave details on the Democrats' latest proposed "compromise." These two stories paint the picture of a President and a party who are willing to keep taxes low for the wealthy, and who would pay for it by proposing cuts that punish seniors, doctors, and the poor.

Why? So they can say they "successfully governed" with extremist Republicans? To please international markets that, in reality, couldn't care less? So the President can campaign as "above left and right," as if differences in principle are a bad thing? Because they've been spiritually suffocated by the cultural norms of Washington's insular culture?

There are more questions than answers. Here's one more: With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?

Low rates for the wealthy

Stein reports that the Democratic proposal would keep tax rates for the wealthiest Americans at the historically low Bush-cut rate of 35% to please the GOP. (That rate was 91% under Eisenhower, 50% at the start of Reagan's term, and 39% under Clinton.) The very wealthiest among us would continue to savor these unusually low tax rates to sweeten the fruits of ever-increasing wealth inequity.

The Dems would also accept the principle of "corporate tax reform to enhance competitiveness," which sounds a lot like a bid for lower tax rates for corporations. That would be offset by reductions in overly indulgent tax breaks, such as those that apply to corporate jets. But corporations would still retain expensive accountants and even more expensive lobbyists. I'll bet you a big chunk of your future Medicare benefits how that would turn out.

Oh, wait. These Democrats are already placing that bet. We'll get to that shortly.

Those are the breaks

The party's internal discussion document includes "triggers" that would take effect if Congress can't cut these deductions itself. One of those triggers is described as "a Feldstein-type limitation on itemized deductions for higher income taxpayers." They're referring to Martin S. Feldstein, the former Reagan advisor who wants to eliminate tax breaks for solar panels or electric cars. More significantly, Feldstein also wants to cap tax deductions at 2 percent of income - for everyone.

Feldstein's op-ed in the New York Times explained that " Taxpayers with incomes of $25,000 to $50,000 would pay about $1,000 more in taxes; those with incomes of more than $500,000 might pay $40,000 more." In other words, the poor must pay part of the bill for the excesses of the rich.

To be sure, the Democratic proposal says it would target "higher income taxpayers," which is not Feldstein's plan. But who'll have better lobbyists when those tax exemptions are being defined - the rich and the corporations, or the middle class? And we learned what conservatives mean by "higher income" when the Concord Coalition suggested that anyone earning over $20,000 per year should be targeted for Social Security means testing when they retire.

That's the kind of person the Dems would be dealing with in their detailed tax negotiations.

Here's more thing these Democrats should understand and explain: Tax breaks for items like solar power or electric cars are a good thing. They serve the public interest, which is what public policy is supposed to do. They reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect our environment, and improve public health. That saves us money, too.

The unkindest cuts of all

The Democratic proposal also includes cuts of $250 billion to providers under Medicare. Unless they're very well designed (they won't be), that will mean problems with access to doctors and adequacy of care.

There's also a cut of $100 billion in benefits for seniors. That would affect every single person in the United States who reaches retirement age, along with those who become disabled.

Depending on how those "Feldstein tax increases" were structured, many retired Americans could see their Medicare benefits reduced - and lose a tax deduction for paying those costs out of their own pockets.

There would also be cuts to Medicaid's prevention and public health trust fund, one of the most "Democratic" aspects of last year's health care bill. So the proposal would subvert one of the provisions in the law they just passed. This cut doesn't just target the vulnerable. It's also economically foolish, since it cuts programs that can prevent costlier illnesses later on. And the Democrats would also cut $5 billion for Medicaid's "DME," which presumably means "durable medical equipment" like crutches and wheelchairs.

It looks like Democrats will literally propose taking wheelchairs away from poor people so we can keep tax rates low for the wealthy.

Tone Deaf

The White House issued a stunningly inappropriate statement about the Committee, saying the automatic "trigger" cuts the President's defending were "agreed to by both parties to ensure there was a meaningful enforcement mechanism to force a result from the Committee." The statement went on to say:

“Congress must not shirk its responsibilities. The American people deserve to have their leaders come together and make the tough choices necessary to live within our means, just as American families do every day in these tough economic times.”

That's not merely an economically silly statement, although it's certainly that. The analogy between the US budget and that of a family is fatuous (how many families print their own currency, which is the world's standard?), misleading (even families will invest in their future sometimes), and ruthless (few families would argue that a balanced budget is more important than a wheelchair or crutches for Grandma).

This statement revives the troubling question of whether this White House and this President have lost their moral compass along with their understanding of economics.

It's true that President and Congress should not "shirk their responsibilities" - to provide jobs for the unemployed and reduce the swelling ranks of the impoverished. It's devastating that the President chose to apply those words to a lopsided, premature, and misguided exercise in austerity economics instead.

The Bottom Line

There comes a time when ethical people have to take a stand, and this is one of them. Democrats must reject the premise behind these negotiations. If they don't it raises serious questions about their party's values, future, and social worth.

Today's deficits were caused by wild and reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, along with the cost of two unnecessary wars and the consequences of bank greed and recklessness. It's a terrible mistake to ask the Americans who were wounded most by deficit-causing behavior to carry so much of the cost of fixing it. And to propose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid simply to preserve low tax rates for the wealthy is nothing less than a moral obscenity.

In these dark times, here are the President's and Congress's real and unshirkable responsibilities: To help 25 million un- or under-employed Americans get back on their feet. To stop Wall Street looters from making off with our nation's riches. To restore tax fairness and economic justice. To invest in our crumbling infrastructure. To create economic growth that will fix deficits in the long term. To ensure retirement security for all Americans. To ensure genuine access to health care for all. And to stem the growing tide of poverty.

Maybe these professional politicians are constitutionally hardwired to compromise and deal, and are therefore incapable of recognizing when doing so is to reinforce great wrongs. But if they can't see it, we'll have to show them - with phone calls, emails, and a very clear message about the consequences they'll face next November if they go through with this plan.

This proposal, along with the whole Super Committee process, is a dying gasp from the failed "bipartisan" economic consensus that brought us deregulation, the financial crisis, rampant banker criminality, and inequitable distribution of wealth. It must be discarded with all the other refuse of that cynical, tragical, failed experiment.

Politicians who don't understand that may wind up being discarded too.

Take Action

Sign the petition urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to keep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid out of any "grand bargain" with Republicans.