Strengthen Social Security

Silence is Golden: What Democrats Aren't Saying in Charlotte

Richard Eskow — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:12:58 -0400

Here's a new Zen riddle: What is the sound of money not talking?

Sure, it talks sometimes. We heard it loud and clear at the Republican Convention. But sometimes the sound of money in politics is the sound of silence. It's the sound of crooked bankers being let off the hook, of economies left at risk, of Social Security and Medicare being weakened, of growing inequity being ignored. Wall Street is spending record amounts on this year's election, and sometimes the best response is silence.

They're certainly talking about the economy at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, which calls itself "the Wall Street of the South." But as of this writing (mid-day on Wednesday), nobody's talked about stronger oversight of Wall Street and other corporations,and nobody's promised to defend Social Security and Medicare from benefit cuts. (See UPDATE, below.)

Big-money interests want weak regulations and cuts to Social Security and Medicare. And they're a siren song to both parties - not only for their campaign contributions, but for the lucrative world of para-political employment that awaits ex-pols if they don't step out of line. (Matt Stoller's been exploring that topic - here, and here.)

If you're campaigning as a liberal and don't want to limit your career opportunities, sometimes the best course is silence.

Good Works

Tonight Bill Clinton will rally the crowd for Barack Obama. But he won't criticize the Wall Street interests that financed his political career and made him wealthy once he left office. It was Clinton who rebuked Obama for using anti-hedge fund rhetoric to attack Mitt Romney, saying Romney had "a sterling business career."

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position," said Clinton, "where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work.'"

But Bain-style predation is bad work. And deregulating Wall Street was bad policy. So was the idea of building an economy around financial speculation rather than jobs-based production.

Last night another ex-President who governed as a "centrist," Jimmy Carter, was limited to a short video appearance. Clinton's star turn is based on his popularity, but Carter's selfless and courageous post-Presidential career may also make ambitious politicians and staffers uncomfortable. Instead they can take heart from the post-political path to riches followed by Clinton and many of his senior aides.

It's no coincidence that Bill Clinton is also one of the most outspoken - and most deceptively cynical - sales reps for that elite piece of austerity hucksterism known as the "Simpson Bowles" plan,which would cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while actually lowering tax rates for corporations and the ultra-wealthy (under the pretense of closing unnamed "loopholes" at an unspecified later date).

Entitled

"Simpson Bowles," and the propaganda efforts behind it, are also creatures of big money - especially that of billionaire Pete Peterson, a former member of Richard Nixon's cabinet who has been coopting Democrats into his anti-government, anti-middle class agenda for decades. Peterson's had a long and close relationship with Bill Clinton, who appointed him to an "Entitlement and Tax Reform Commission" in 1994.

Peterson acolytes Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) and Erskine Bowles (D-Morgan Stanley) were appointed to a "deficit commission" by President Obama. Following that commission's failure, they issued a personal proposal cuts Social Security and Medicare, fulfilling Peterson's long-held dream of eviscerating those programs. President Obama's been trying to cut that deal for years.

This year's Democratic platform equivocates on Social Security and Medicare, promising only to prevent Social Security from being privatized (which isn't on the table right now). "We reject approaches that insist that cutting benefits is the only answer," say the Democrats.

Yet, surprisingly, a couple of weeks ago Joe Biden changed the script by offering a "flat guarantee" that there will be no changes to Social Security in a second Obama Administration. What have we heard about that so far this week?

Silence.

Anybody who was truly concerned about the Federal government's long-term deficits would support this accurate observation in the 2008 Democratic platform: "The real long-run fiscal challenge is rooted in the rising spending on health care ..." But our runaway health care costs are driven by for-profit corporations, whose abuses were only lightly addressed in the health reform bill. This 2008 statement was replaced this year with ... silence.

With Nancy Pelosi's capitulation to the Simpson Bowles austerity plan, Biden and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are the only two Democratic leaders in Washington who've said unequivocally that its benefits need not and should not be cut. What did we hear about Social Security in Sen. Reid's convention speech this week?

Silence.

Headline: big banks defeated

In his speech to the convention, Sen. Reid said this: "Some said (Obama) couldn't take on the big banks that brought our economy to its knees. But President Obama made the tough and right call so taxpayers will never again be on the hook for Wall Street's risky bets." Reid's rhetoric echoed the party's 2012 platform, which reads "We put in place Wall Street reform with smarter, tougher, commonsense rules that will prevent a crisis like that from ever happening again."

But the Dodd/Frank bill was the product of a "negotiation" charade was acted out between Senator (now lobbyist) Christopher Dodd and his GOP counterparts. Their backroom negotiations produced watered-down reform - and still received no Republican votes. And yet, to hear them tell it, the Democrats took on the big banks and won. A lot of people will be surprised to hear that, especially when they find out that the victory was complete and no further work is needed.

No bankers have been tried for their crimes, despite massive evidence. They're still allowed to buy their freedom - and the right to keep pillaging - with other people's money. There's been nothing to show for the latest "this time we really mean it" round of announcements of a task force to investigate mortgage-related fraud. And, contrary to Sen. Reid's assertion, it's almost certain that there will be another crisis.

The Demorats' repeated use of the past tense - "We put in place ..... made the right call ... never again on the hook ..." - is the most discouraging sign of all. Like their speeches and their platform, it implies that no further reforms are needed. They seem to be telling us they have no intention of fighting for the additional reforms we so urgently need.

I think I liked the silence better.

And now for a word from our sponsor

Today we learned that the party has moved the location of tomorrow night's events, so the President won't be accepting the nomination in Bank of America Stadium as planned. He and his his party won't enter an arena whose entrance is a shrine to one of our largest and most crooked too-big-to-fail banks.

Bank of America: whose bankers committed massive forgery and other crimes to foreclose on American families. Whose CEO was its top lawyer when it committed widespread fraud that led to billion-dollar fines and settlements. Which would have gone bankrupt if not for the taxpayer, and yet has paid out huge bonuses (despite the Democrats' 2008 pledge to "ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies) -

- and where, despite the fraud and criminality, not a single banker has been indicted.

Enter through those doors? Politically, at least, it wasn't worth the price of admission. It wouldn't have been wise to have the President and his party coming together under the words "Bank of America," even if those words were looking down on the politicians and their party the way that Bank of America and its kind have always done:

In silence.

(UPDATE: It's always a thrill to see the political master at his best. But, as predicted, President Clinton promoted Simpson Bowles and never suggested we might need more Wall Street regulation. Several pundits predicted that he would do a mea culpa on repealing Glass-Steagall; we didn't expect that. Elizabeth Warren's speech was terrific, too, but she was in no position to call for additional Wall Street regulation and did not do so.)

Happy Birthday, Social Security! Now About Your Gift ...

Richard Eskow — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:44:14 -0400

Today, August 14, is Social Security's 77th birthday. That presents us with a difficult challenge: What do you give a government program that has everything ... except a secure future of its own?

Let's take a look at the options for this year's celebration.

The Gift Pile

Talk about an embarrassment of riches! Look what Social Security can already list among its gifts. It's got:

Hundreds of millions of people who love it. Polls consistently show that Social Security, along with Medicare, is one of our most popular government programs.

The best balance sheet in the entire government. Despite all the scare talk (which we'll get to shortly), no program in U.S. history is on a firmer financial footing than Social Security. It's a stand-alone program which isn't allowed to contribute to the overall government deficit, and is absolutely solvent until the mid-2030s.

No other program can say that.

A great profile. There's no way to say this delicately, so we'll come right out with it: Social Security has the slimmest, sleekest look in Washington. We don't like to encourage our society's fixation on thinness as the ideal of beauty, but let's face it -- Social Security is so cost-effective in delivering its benefits that it's got the most streamlined chassis around.

The Social Security Administration beats every private benefits program in the country when it comes to low overhead and efficient administrative design. One of the main reasons for that is the fact that everybody who pays into the system receives its benefits at qualification time.

There's no "means testing," no gamesmanship, no trick—just trim, no-overhead service delivery.

Great polls. Time and time again, overwhelming majorities of Americans have made it clear that they don't want this program to be cut. That means a lot: Of all the gifts in the world, the best any of us can hope for is friends who will defend you to the end.

Lumps of Coal

Unfortunately, Social Security also has some "gifts" it doesn't want - and which the American people don't want either. It's got:

Political enemies. The Republican Party is determined to dismantle it and give its enormous financial resources to Wall Street as gambling money. They failed in 2005, but they're bound to try again.

Billionaire-funded attack campaigns. These propaganda campaigns are designed to convince the public that this fiscally stable program is in dire economic danger, and to distract people from the simple and easy solutions to its long-term instability.

Why? Because those solutions involve things like asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, and imposing a tax on the Wall Street gambling that's contributed to the program's long-term shortfall.

A lazy, misleading news media. Rather than do the research themselves, too many journalists are content to repeat the misleading propaganda put out by those billionaire-funded campaigns.

Here's the latest case of sloppy misreporting, debunked by economist Dean Baker. (These phony scare stories crop up so often that it's starting to feel like a George Romero movie, where a tiny band is all that's left to fight them. But if they keep coming the whole cast's going to get picked off one by one - and everyone will get eaten.)

An artificial Washington "center" — one that's really way to the right of the American people. In fact, their so-called "center," occupied by leaders of both parties, is far to the right of the Tea Party. Self-described Tea Party supporters opposed Social Security cuts by a two-to-one margin in a 2011 poll. (Other polls have shown their opposition to be more than three to one.)

Grinches

Why has this radical-right consensus formed in elite Washington circles? We don't know for sure, but all that "billionaire funded" activity couldn't have hurt. Which gets us to another lump of coal Social Security might be getting in its Christmas stocking this year:

Political "defenders" who'd rather switch than fight. Social Security is one of the Democratic Party's signature accomplishments. After the Republicans' 2005 attempt to privatize it, voters trusted Democrats by a margin of 30 percent (50 percent to the GOP's 20 percent) to manage it well.

But the White House has made a number of misguided attempts to score political points inside the Beltway by forcing an unnecessary "deficit reduction" deal along the lines of the one proposed in the "Simpson Bowles" plan proposed by the co-chairs of a failed Presidential Deficit Commission. By 2011, when the last conclusive polling was done, that lead had disappeared and the Republicans were more trusted than Democrats to protect the program.

What's more, Barack Obama was less trusted than George W. Bush when it came to "trust in the President's ability to handle Social Security vs. the opposition party in Congress."

Earlier this year Sen. Dick Durbin had a joint Meet the Press appearance with Rep. Paul Ryan, who's now the GOP's new VP pick, and said "I can tell you that Paul and I agree on the basic premise. We are facing serious deficit and debt challenge in this country."

Now they're still working on a December surprise to cut the program. Even Nancy Pelosi's gotten into the act, saying that "If (another bill) were Simpson/Bowles I would have voted for it ... (and) thought it was not even a controversial thing ..."

How's that for trading away one of your party's strongest political arguments? The Democrats' seeming urge to trade away this vital program casts a dark shadow of our birthday celebrant's future.

A "December surprise" that cuts Social Security at Christmastime? That would give the Grinch and Ebenezer Scrooge a run for their money.

I'll just put this on the table with the others ...

That's not to say the program hasn't received some beautiful gifts, too. Sen. Bernie Sanders has given it the gift of a stalwart defense, along with a practical proposal which ensures its long-term ablity to pay 100 percent of its projected bonuses. So has the Congressional Progressive caucus, whose budget proposal provides for responsible long-term deficit reduction without cutting Social Security's benefits.

Right now we're living in a political Bizarro World where the only people speaking for most Tea Party members, not to mention the vast majority of all Americans, are a socialist Senator from Vermont and a Congressional group that's usually called "extreme" and "leftist" by insider politicians and media types.

That means the Socialist and the "lefties" are the real "bipartisans" and the genuine "centrists," while Washington's self-described "bipartisanship" and "centrism" is really much more conservative than the political mainstream. Left is right, right is wrong, Ryan's with Romney ... I tell ya, it's exhausting to drive through a landscape as crazy as this one.

Here. You take the wheel for a while. We're going to take a nap.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Okay, we're back.

And we've finally figured out what gift we're going to give the Social Security program. We're going to give it the gift of ongoing citizen activism to demand that it be protected from predators who would gut it in the name of Washington deal-making or tax breaks for the wealthy.

We're going to make calls, send emails, and do whatever else it takes to let elected officials at all levels know how we feel. And we'll keep checking sites like Strengthen Social Security and Our Future to see what can be done to defend them.

That's our gift to you, Social Security. May you have a very Happy Birthday. And many more to come ...

... we hope.

But we're going to do more than hope this time around. We're going to give you the gift of action, too - because in helping you, we're really helping ourselves.

_________

(Conflict alert: I'm affiliated with websites and organizations mentioned in this article. They're fine institutions anyway.)

The Social Security/Medicare "Crisis" Is Really a Choice - Between the Middle Class and the Wealthy

Richard Eskow — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:14:24 -0400

The word for today is "choice," not "crisis."

It's time to stop saying the country "can't afford" Medicare, Social Security, or other programs that benefit the middle class. If I told my mother that I "can't mow the lawn" or "I can't do all that homework" when I was a kid, she'd say: "Don't say you can't. Say you don't want to." (The outcome of these exchanges was inevitable. Hello, lawnmower ...)

Now we're told there's a "crisis" and we can no longer afford the middle-class American dream. The truth is the opposite: Our long-term problems aren't caused by the middle class, but by politicians who choose to sacrifice the middle class for wealthy interests.

All this talk about a "debt crisis" is a way for politicians to avoid telling the truth: They'd rather say they "have to" sacrifice the middle class than admit they're making a choice.

"It Needs to Happen"

A comment today from Sen. Tom Coburn reflects the 'crisis mentality' masking today's choices. Sen. Coburn reportedly withdrew from the "Gang of Six" Senators trying to craft a budget-cutting deal. According to a report in the National Journal, Coburn said the Senators "can't bridge the gap between what actually needs to happen and what people will allow to happen."

The Journal described the "gang" as "the group most likely to produce a bipartisan deal that combined deficit reduction and tax changes that would allow a rise in the nation's debt ceiling." So that, we're told, is what "needs to happen." But is it?

First, note the choice of words: "tax changes" rather than "tax increases." Tax increases for the wealthy are off the table, but they don't want to admit that. And "deficit reduction" is being used here as a euphemism for "spending cuts." We're in an artificially-generated crisis brought on by tax cuts and two wars. Their tax "changes" would hurt the already-damaged middle class even more by taking away tax deductions for health insurance, mortgages, children, and other breaks they desperately need right now.

Last week's reports from the trustees for Medicare and Social Security were a perfect illustration of how the game's being played: First, create a problem by serving the privileged few. Then use that problem to explain why we can't afford financial security for the middle class. Then do it again. Unless this cycle is broken, it will become a death spiral for the American dream.

It didn't have to be this way. It still doesn't. These changes don't "need to happen" at all.

Social Security Spin

Make no mistake: Despite what you may have read, cuts to Social Security and Medicare are still very much on the table. They're just likely to be disguised as artificial "ceilings," "triggers," or other gimmicks designed to protect politicians from accountability.

Social Security's projected long-term shortfall isn't caused by baby boomers entering retirement. Social Security has a $2.6 trillion trust fund because planners have known about the baby boom for many years (not an impressive achievement, since the last one was born in 1964).

The main reasons for the long-term shortfall are stagnating wages for most Americans, and the fact that the wealthiest Americans capture far more of our national income than at any time in modern history.[1] That's because politicians made choices - about deregulation, banking, government investment, trade, and other key issues.

A bipartisan commission led by Alan Greenspan restructured Social Security during Reagan's Presidency. It solved its financial problems, which were very real then - or it should have. But even the crusty old libertarian Greenspan didn't realize that the rich were about to hijack so much more of the nation's income, or that wage growth for everyone else would flatten so badly. Social Security is funded by a payroll tax that cuts off at a specified level (currently just above $106,000). But these changes - the result of political choices - mean it's too low to keep the program going indefinitely.

Social Security's long-term projections are slightly less favorable under the latest report. One reason is that they're now expecting people to live about six months longer. As Dean Baker points out, longer lives are a good thing. As Baker also points out, the change is trivial as far as government deficits are concerned.

But it's also important to remember that life expectancy isn't fair or democratic: People with more money have much longer lives, and white people live longer than African Americans. Those who want to cut Social Security benefits because "people are living longer" are just creating another way for middle- and lower-income Americans to lose and wealthier people to win.

Social Security's long-term finances are out of balance because politicians made choices. Now we have another choice: ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, or cut benefits for people who didn't cause the problem and can't afford to pay for the solution.

Medicare: Tougher Choices

As for Medicare - well, Medicare's The Big One. In the long run, all other government spending pales in comparison. Exploding health care costs are tomorrow's biggest problem.

They're today's problem, too: Middle-class families are struggling under the weight of exploding health care costs. Even those lucky enough to have employer health benefits are paying more of these costs out of their own pockets.

These costs are devastating for working Americans. Out-of-pocket health expenses for a family of four with insurance have more than doubled in ten years, from over $9,000 in 2002 to more than $19,000 in 2011. They went up more than $1,000 last year alone.

And remember: Those "tax changes" we hear about could cause these out-of-pocket costs to jump by twenty or thirty percent overnight.

The same health costs that are crushing American family budgets today will swamp the Federal budget in a few short decades. But Republicans aren't proposing to control these costs for Medicare. The budget passed by the House simply shifts them onto the backs of the elderly. Nobody's willing to have the discussion we we urgently need, about ways to eliminate inefficiencies, bad incentives, and excessive healthcare profits.

We'll face a tough set of choices. But the longer we wait and let ourselves be distracted by false arguments about vouchers or benefit caps, the tougher it will get.

Jobs + Growth = Healthier Entitlements

Both Social Security and Medicare took a financial hit because of unemployment, too. Right-wingers are using the increased and ongoing deficits in these programs as damning evidence that we can no longer afford financial security for middle-class Americans in their retirement years.

But unemployment didn't happen in a vacuum, either. Politicians made a choice to block more government investment in jobs and economic growth so that those tax cuts for the wealthy could be preserved.

The middle class has already endured years of record-high unemployment, wage stagnation, and sluggish growth because politicians chose to protect tax cuts for the rich, rather than investing in a thriving middle-class America. Now it's being asked to sacrifice its senior years for the same reason.

An honest debate

Dave Johnson points out that today's deficit scare talk looks a lot like other manufactured debt crises, such as Canada's in 1993. Rather than letting politicians scare us, we should demand they give us an honest debate. If some of them would rather keep taxes low for the wealthy, and would sacrifice the middle class to do it, let them say so.

If other politicians - in the Democratic Party or elsewhere - recognize what's happening and disagree with it, they should say that too. They should stop being coy and start leveling with the public, even if it temporarily makes unpopular and necessary "bipartisanship" a little more difficult. The public will thank them for it.

Wealthy Americans and corporations have enormous political influence. That means it's easier for politicians to say "We can't afford today's Social Security and Medicare" than it is to raise taxes on the wealthy and move away from our dependence on for-profit healthcare. But every time they say that somebody should hit 'em with Mom's words:

"Don't say we can't. Say you don't want to."
_______________________________________________________________

[1] See, for example, Bivens, L. Josh.

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

Alice in Medicareland: One Voucher Makes You Larger ...

Richard Eskow — Thu, 05 May 2011 21:06:52 -0400

"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."

The rabbit hole's got nothing on this place."Let's save Social Security from a 25% cut in 27 years," they told Alice, "by cutting more than that, starting now." Paul Ryan's GOP plan doesn't "end Medicare," they explained. It just, well, ends it. And vouchers aren't really vouchers. Even "fact-checking" site Politifact joined in, chastising Democrats for saying Ryan's 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.

Politifact even found an 'expert' to challenge the notion that the GOP even voted to change Medicare! Calumnies and lies, he says: "Republicans voted to hopefully change it one day, when they get a chance, but they would need a Republican-dominated Senate and a Republican president, neither of which they have."

You stand rebuked, Sirs! (Madams too, of course.) A vote to end something isn't a vote to end something unless that something ends! Why didn't I vote for John Kerry to be President? Because he's not President! I voted to hopefully make him President one day when I get a chance. Why, that's not the same at all! A vote's not a vote, a voucher's not a voucher, and for all we know Paul Ryan isn't really Paul Ryan. Then came an urgent scratching like a cat, and a tiny voice like Alice's. The poor thing's lost inside the Looking Glass again. Or is it the Beltway? Doesn't matter. Imagine what it must feel like to be her, lost in a place where everything's backwards. Imagine, if you can. Close your sleepy eyes and dream ...

(Picture wavy images and harp music here. What do you mean, why? To show that that a dream has started, of course! Suddenly you hear a voice calling your name -- you're Alice, remember?)

Alice! the voice shouts. Don't you ride the bus or subway 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 buses and subways are too expensive, don't you? So we're taking them away.

But, you ask, why not just fix what makes them expensive?

You'll like this better, they say. A bus or subway ride costs $2.50. Soon it'll cost $5.00. That's too much,don't you think? So we'll just give you $2.50 instead.

But how will I get to school? you ask. How will my parents get to work?

Ah, 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, you say, I don't have another $2.50. And some people's rides might cost fifty dollars! Who can afford that?

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. Then they hand you a book with a note on its cover that says "Read Me." You open it and gasp.

Ayn Rand? How will this help?

It answers everything, says one. But you have to read it with your heart, not your head. That's the secret.

I don't like this! You stamp your foot. I don't like this at all! I use the subway and the 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 "Travel 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!

I thought I was in a sweetly-illustrated Victorian edition of my story, you say to yourself, but this feels more like a Tim Burton movie. So off you go to the Congressional Town Hall meeting, where you see lots of other Alices. You thought you were the only one, but you're not. Funny, the Newspaper People never said there were others. But there they are, male and female and Democratic and Republican and young and old, and they're all saying, You want to take our our buses and subways away! You want to give us vouchers for rides we can't afford! One sharp-eyed Alice stands up and points a finger at the Representative: You get campaign money from cab drivers, don't you? He looks worried. Soon he goes off to huddle with the other Representatives, and with the Tan Boehner and the Cato-Pillar too.

You know, they say, we didn't really mean it. Buses and subways can be like vouchers, they say, but only when we pretend. We were just pretending. But it was a good starting point for negotiations, wasn't it?

The Newspaper People nod their heads. That's a serious position, they say.

Now we have a new idea, say the Representatives. We won't scrap the buses and subway cars. We'll make up an Imaginary Number instead. And when the Imaginary Number doesn't appear, the buses and subway cars will scrap themselves!

Scrap themselves? Your voice quavers in fear: You mean a Trigger? A Kill Switch?

The Chess Pieces cheer. We can find Common Ground with that! they shout. And so it ends, as quickly as it began. The Cato-Pillar and the Tan Boehner wander off in search of a missing hookah. The Cheshire PolitiCat fades away until nothing's left but a very impartial-looking grin. The Chess Pieces wait to be told where to move next. The Newspaper People blow away in a soft gust of digital wind.

You sigh and melt back through the looking glass. What a terrible dream! you say to yourself. Then you turn on the television and there they all are: The Representatives, the Cato-Pillar, the Tan Boehner and the PolitiCat and the Chess Pieces and the Newspaper People and all the rest of them. They're smiling out at you, babbling about triggers and ceilings and ...

Stop it! you shout at them. It would be so nice everything made sense for a change! Can't everything make sense again?

Not in this town, honey, they say in unison.
__________________

This post was written as part of the Strengthen Social Security project.

Work 'Til You Die: The Alternate American Reality - and the Reality

Richard Eskow — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:00:17 -0400

A new video was released today by the folks at Strengthen Social Security to highlight the absurdity of today’s political debate about "entitlement programs," and specifically to address proposals that would raise the retirement age. Social Security and Medicare have widespread support from Democratic and Republicans voters alike, and defending them should be the at the center of centrist thought. Instead it's fashionable in Washington for otherwise reasonable Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin to push for cuts to these programs.

And if you object to what's being done in your name, why, then, you're not very "civil."

The retirement age is already scheduled to increase, and raising it even more is nothing less than cruel. That idea's part of the political trend toward "austerity economics," a resurgent anti-government ideology that'sengendered a wave of enthusiastic - no, make that orgiastic prose - from well-fed pundits. Their display of almost snuff-movie-like excitement should have been predictable, but I found it shocking anyway.

The entire idea of raising the retirement age is based on the false premise that Social Security has a financial problem because we're living longer. The numbers say otherwise. And proposals like Simpson/Bowles would do other terrible things, too: shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class, lower taxes even further for the rich, disproportionately harm women and minorities, and impose drastic financial hardship on the elderly.

In other words, this entire debate is based on a radical right-wing agenda which poses as "a good bipartisan starting point." In order to make sure the new consensus becomes reality, Republicans are pushing apocalyptic austerity programs that have no chance of passing. They're designed to pave the way for a predetermined"compromise" - an austerity that's merely unnecessary and brutal. When this theatrical display is concluded and the elite's long-awaited cutbacks are finally imposed, we'll be expected to cheer for the "victory" won through the tough "negotiation" of Dick Durbin and like-minded Democrats. (For more on Simpson/Bowles, see "10 Reasons Why the (then) Deficit Commission Proposal Is Still Unconscionable and Unacceptable.")

Anyone who disagrees with the new draconian agenda called “impractical,” even though Reagan’s chief Social Security actuary supports our conclusions, as do many (if not most) economists. And anyone who supports the pro-entitlement agenda support by Americans of all political persuasions is called "extreme," while anyone who gets heated when discussing the suffering and loss of life these plans would create is called “uncivil.” Washington's treatment of these policies resembles the Polynesian practice of tabu, so any mention of their real-world implications is a gross violation of propriety (if not downright sacrilegious).

(For more on the selling of this extreme agenda, check out the 20-year old, top secret PowerPoint presentation on selling right-wing radicalism that I discovered recently. It's eye-opening, shocking, and completely made up.)

This video takes a “Twilight Zone”/”alternate reality” tack, which suits me just fine. We've used that approach plenty of times ourselves over the years. (Here's the latest.) With that in mind, we'll adopt our best Rod Serling voice:

Submitted for your consideration … The Ryan budget proposal is called “serious” by the likes of Ezra Klein and others, yet Ryan voted to preserve a tax break for hedge fund billionaires that allows them to be taxed at 15% of income while the rest of us pay much higher rates. That will never people from writing sentences like this one from Ezra: "I like Ryan personally, and appreciate his policy-oriented approach to politics."

Submitted for your consideration …The top 25 hedge fund billionaires made $22 billion last year. If they had been taxed under the same rules that are used for cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers … for anyone who actually helps society, for that matter … the government would have received $4 billion in revenue last year.

Submitted for your consideration …That revenue would have been enough to write a check for $1,400 to everyone that turned 65 last year - all 2,858,000 of them.

Submitted for your consideration …Or the revenue from these hedge fund billionaires could have paid the entire Social Security retirement benefit for more than three hundred thousand people – more than four hundred thousand, if they were women.

Submitted for your consideration …And that's just by establishing tax fairness for 25 people. Imagine what a return to Reagan-era tax levels would do. Back then, the top marginal rate was 50%. It's 35% now (except for those hedge fund managers, who pay 15%), and both the Simpson/Bowles recommendations and Ryan's "policy-oriented approach" would lower it even more. While, of course, cutting Social Security and Medicare ...

Of course, nobody’s proposing to pay anybody’s retirement benefits out of general taxation – just lift the payroll tax cap so that the wealthy contribute more. Is that unfair? Not if you consider this: The changes made to Social Security under Reagan would have kept it solvent forever, if not for the fact that the extremely wealthy have captured more of our national income than even Alan Greenspan expected. Lifting the cap just redresses that wrong.

Submitted for your consideration …These unpopular cuts to Medicare and Social Security wouldn’t even be possible politically unless Democrats like Dick Durbin were accquiesing, and unless Democrats like Barack Obama weren’t refusing – at least so far - to offer unequivocal opposition. When Obama makes a Harry Reid statement about Social Security, we’ll be fine. Until then I'll worry.

If I have any complaint about the video, it’s that it’s too lighthearted. The reality behind raising the retirement age is a brutal one. (They'll undoubtedly try to mask the cruelty by creating a "hardship exemption" that will fail to protect workers. We've explained why that won't work.) And the same people pushing this "solution" want to cap Medicare benefits. If that happens, people will die. That’s not funny at all.

Submitted for your consideration …The new consensus that's being so warmly embraced by Dick Durbin and others will increase the death rate among elderly Americans, and force millions to continue working under conditions that are all but Dickensian for someone of their age.

And nobody’s outraged. Nobody at all. But then, why am I surprised? Outrage isn’t civil.

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

Liberal Groups to Propose Routes to Smaller Deficit

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:54:29 -0500

As President Obama’s fiscal commission faces a deadline this week for agreement on a plan to shrink the mounting national debt, liberal organizations will unveil debt-reduction proposals of their own in the next two days, seeking to sway the debate in favor of fewer reductions in domestic spending, more cuts in the military and higher taxes for the wealthy. The proposals from two sets of liberal advocacy groups highlight the deep ideological divides surrounding efforts to deal with the nation’s budgetary imbalances.

Josh Rosenblum

Josh Rosenblum — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:14:59 -0500

Angering A Key Constituency: Women Leaders Ask the President to Fire Alan Simpson

Richard Eskow — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:12 -0400

Four prominent leaders of women's organizations held a conference call today, accompanied by Rep. Raul Grijalva, to demand the resignation of retired Sen. Alan Simpson as co-chair of the Deficit Commission. Their comments, together with a number of private conversations with women's leaders, indicate that Simpson and his Commission could be an even greater political liability among women voters than most observers initially suspected.

Women represent a key constituency in every election. In 2008 53% of all voters were women, 56% of whom voted for Barack Obama (as opposed to 49% of males). So any issue that alienates women - and the organizations that mobilize and lead them - can be an enormous political liability. Simpson, and the Commission itself, are looking more and more like just such a liability.

The problem runs far deeper than Simpson's "milk cow with 310 million tits" comment in an email to Ashley B. Carson. As Ms. Carson said during the conference call: "An attack on Social Security is an attack on women." Even without the gratuitous insults, Simpson's disparaging remarks about recipients who "milk the system" indicate contempt for those who rely on Social Security, the majority of whom are women. If you combine Simpson's dismissal of women's groups as "Pink Panthers," his description of "ageism and sexism" as "all that crap" in his email, and his expressed contempt toward Ms. Carson's job working on behalf of older women ("write when you find real work"), these leaders say it paints the clear picture of a man who dismisses women and their issues as trivial.

At what point does Simpson become enough of a liability to draw a stronger response from the White House? In calling for his removal, Terry O'Neill, President of the National Organization of Women, said this on the conference call (I believe the quote's verbatim, although I'll check against a final transcript when it's available): "President Obama should have said 'I know women elected me to office. Simpson went beyond the pale.'" Ms. O'Neill's official biography indicates that she worked on Barack Obama's campaign, which adds resonance to her remarks.

Susan Scanlan, Chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations (a coalition of 240 organizations representing 12 million women), said: "An honest difference of opinion on whether Social Security is in crisis should spark a lively national debate ... Why can't this conversation be civil?"

The depth of anger among women over Simpson's stems from three things: the content of his email to Ms. Carson, his perceived hostility to women and their needs, and fears about his intentions toward Social Security.

About that email: I underestimated the level of offense it generated. While the "tit" reference was not sexual in nature, I've come to see that it triggered a real sense of violation and revulsion in a number of women - tough professionals who are not overly sensitive. As one leader pointed out, "If he'd said that at any workplace in the country he'd be in legal trouble." It's deliberate crudity, bullying language designed to inflict discomfort in a woman. And Simpson can't play the "folksy" card in his own defense. Contrary to his public image, Simpson wasn't raised in a rural setting (where, in real life, people are typically far more courteous to women - and everybody else - than Simpson). He's the son of a former Governor and Senator, a child of privilege whose vulgar speech is his and his alone.

Women were equally angered by Simpson's comments to Ms. Carson that she's "babbling into the vapors" and his implication that she can't read a graph. Would he have said that to a man? People can disagree on that point, but many of the women I've spoken with don't think so. In that sense, this is not unlike the controversy over Dr. Laura's use of the "N" word (for which she ultimately lost her job).

A number of prominent women leaders have also mentioned Simpson's notorious bullying of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, as well as his verbal and physical aggression toward journalist Nina Totenberg at that time (he reportedly forced her car door open and wouldn't let her leave as he continued screaming at her. Reports indicate, however, that eventually Ms. Totenberg "gave as good as she got" in their verbal exchange.) Many women felt that Simpson's hectoring of Ms. Hill during her testimony, especially about the fact that she didn't report Thomas' behavior and continued to be in contact with him, indicated a lack of empathy or understanding about the stress responses of sexual harrassment victims. It's hard to read his remarks any other way.

Simpson also said this at the time: "It's a harsh thing, a very sad and harsh thing, and Anita Hill will be sucked right into the -- the very thing she wanted to avoid most. She will be injured and destroyed and belittled and hounded and harassed, real harassment, different from the sexual kind, just plain old Washington variety harassment which is pretty unique in itself." Women read that "real harrassment" phrase as a dismissal of sexual harrassment, and many took the overall comment as a threat - which he then proceeded to carry out with vigor.

Wanda Baucus, then-wife of Sen. Max Baucus said at the time that she called members of the Judiciary Committee because she couldn't stand to see Ms. Hill "suffering at the hands of a bunch of thugs ..." Ms. Baucus singled out Simpson who, according to Ms. Baucus, admitted to her that he knew that sexual harrassment was a problem in Washington. Ms. Baucus said that Simpson's behavior "on television was totally false ... He was being certainly less than honest with the American people in trying to degrade Anita Hill for being quiet."

The pain and anger caused by these experiences, which were deeply felt by a number of influential women, appears to have been revived by this latest incident.

As for Simpson's policy preferences, the record there is clear. Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo has done an excellent job in uncovering his decades-long determination to cut Social Security (although I think Beutler underestimates the impact of Simpson's email itself, as many of us initially did). These women's organizations are understandably troubled by his longstanding hostility to the program, given the number of women who rely on Social Security for their financial security.

Simpson's"greedy geezers" comment angered seniors. Now he's insulted women. How many more key constituencies does he have to offend before it becomes clear what must be done? The President said he would bring a new tone to Washington, who insisted that "we can disagree without being disagreeable," is now backing an appointee who has repeatedly failed to meet that standard. As for Social Security, numerous polls have shown that Americans strongly oppose cutting its benefits. Republicans would like nothing more than to have Democrats take the heat for something they've wanted to do for a long time. And Democrats would pay dearly for a "bait and switch" campaign that promises to defend Social Security from cuts, if they then turn around and cut them anyway.

The Deficit Commission should not be cutting Social Security, since Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. And Alan Simpson has no place on that commission, whatever its mandate. That's why this online petition has been established, asking the White House and Congress to remove Sen. Simpson and remove Social Security from the Deficit Commission's scope of activities.

It usually takes a day or two to get a sense of how a political controversy will play out. After two days, and a public apology, this one's not looking good for Simpson. It's becoming increasingly clear that this controversy will linger on, creating long-term problems for everyone involved. The only way to end it, it now seems clear, is with decisive action - and the sooner, the better.

(UPDATE: If you're concerned about Social Security, this could become your new favorite site - StuffAlanSimpsonSays.com.)

"310 Million Tits" - If Simpson Doesn't Resign, The President Must Fire Him

Richard Eskow — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:03:27 -0400

Alan Simpson is the co-chair of President Obama's Deficit Commission, which is charged with creating a bipartisan consensus for balancing the budget. Lately Simpson's foulmouthed tirades have drawn at least as much attention as the Commission's actual work. His latest rant -- which includes denigrating an activist for women's issues with remarks about "a milk cow with 310 million tits" -- crosses the line once and for all. It demonstrates conclusively that he possesses neither the judgment, the ability, nor the emotional stability to carry out his mission. He's become an embarrassment to the President and an impediment to his Commission's objectives. He must resign immediately. If he's unwilling to do so, the President must fire him.

Simpson's notoriously thin-skinned, and he's in the habit of pelting his critics with abusive monologues or emails. That argumentative streak, which has only gotten worse in recent months, leaves him spectacularly ill-suited to the mission the President laid out for him when he announced the formation of his Commission. The President said "I'm confident that the Commission I'm establishing today will build a bipartisan consensus to put America on the path toward fiscal reform and responsibility."

Instead of building consensus, Simpson's been showering skeptics with abuse, rather than persuasion. His run-in with activist Alex Lawson became an Internet sensation, both for Simpson's unbalanced demeanor and for the sheer irrationality of his attempted counter-arguments. A Simpson email to Dean Baker read in part: "if this is the way that you do your reporting, I would think that you would have damn few fans or readers!" (He seems unaware that Baker's a highly respected economist.) Simpson adds: "I loved the picture accompanying your piece. With chin in hand, I first thought of Rodin's The Thinker -- but after reading the piece I can see you haven't done very much of that!"

There's a temptation among Washington insiders to shrug or laugh and say, "That's just Alan being Alan." But this is no laughing matter: He's gone from being refreshingly candid to being abusive, rude, and emotionally unstable. As for the Ashley B. Carson email, it's not just that he deprecatingly refers to activists for women's issues as "Pink Panthers," or even that he used the word "tit" in writing to a woman. Simpson could claim that he's known for barnyard metaphors, although its beginning to look like there's a certain disdain for women at play too. But the problem isn't just emotional balance, courtesy, or even respect for women: It's objectivity.

Here's that three-letter word in context, from his email to Ms. Carson: "... (Y)es, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!"

This comment makes something else clear about Simpson: He really hates people who collect Social Security. He already made that feeling pretty clear when he referred to retired Social Security recipients as "greedy geezers." He's not just referring to wealthy Americans who collect Social Security benefits here -- 310 million is the entire population of the United States. He's saying every American who contributes to the Social Security system and is therefore entitled to its retirement benefits is suckling at the teat of the system -- even though they and their employers funded that system!

his is a person who's made up his mind: People who collect Social Security are "milking the system." (How, exactly? People don't calculate their own benefits, after all.) But to Simpson, they're parasites. And anyone who has a different perspective on Social Security is to be attacked, not engaged in dialog.

Here's what the President said when he appointed Simpson and his co-chair: "I know they'll take up their work with the sense of integrity and strength of commitment that America's people deserve and America's future demands." Simpson's Commission is charged with undertaking its task in an unbiased manner, then reporting its conclusions to the American people in a way that will instill confidence in their fairness and objectivity. Alan Simpson has proven that he's unable to carry out that task.

I've expressed my own opinions on Social Security many times before. I disagree with Simpson's positions and those of some others on his Commission. But I'll make a confession: I've always had a secret fondness for Simpson himself, because he always seemed unpretentious and direct. Either my judgment was wrong, or he he's gone off the deep end in recent months -- perhaps as a result of intense criticism. He's gone from blunt talk and candor to irrationality, rage, and unrestrained hostility toward the people whose financial interests he's charged with protecting.

Simpson's note to Ms. Carson ends with these words: "Call when you get honest work!" Apparently advocating for older women isn't "honest work" -- unlike, for example, serving on the Board of Directors for an insurance and annuity fund or a biotech company. (Simpson's done both.) As for Ms. Carson's particular area of advocacy, it should be noted that women receive significantly less in Social Security payments after retirement than men do. Given that it provides a marginal income at best, Mr. Simpson should be more interested in her work than he appears to be.

The only fair conclusions that can be be drawn from Simpson's latest outburst are these:

He has a strong dislike for retired Social Security recipients.
He is temperamentally incapable of coping with disagreement or criticism.
He lacks both the judgment and the emotional stability to make unbiased decisions, or to communicate those decisions effectively on behalf of his Commission and the President who appointed him.

Simpson must resign immediately. If he does not, the President must fire him.

(Sign the petition to remove Alan Simpson)

Also: This blog post on the same topic has a better title than mine.

If We Put 10 Million Americans Back to Work That Social Security "Shortfall" Would Disappear

Richard Eskow — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:02:36 -0400

There's a great deal of alarmist talk these days about the fact that Social Security won't be adding to its surplus this year. Instead it will call in some interest payments (and possibly other monies, too) on the money Uncle Sam borrowed from its fund. (When a rich person retires on interest income they're called "lucky" or "successful." When the rest of us do - however indirectly and slightly - it's called a "crisis.")

Those who claim to be so gravely concerned about the financial stability of Social Security should consider this: If our government had put ten million unemployed Americans back to work, Social Security would have added to its surplus this year.

Since our professors trained us to always "show our work," here are the (admittedly back-on-the-envelope) calculations used to reach that conclusion:

a) An estimated 156 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes in 2010.
b) Net contributions plus taxable employee benefits totaled $689 billion.
c) That comes to an average of $4,416.67 in revenue collected per covered worker.
d) Multiplying the average contribution by 10,000,000 = $44 billion and change
e) This year's "shortfall" is $41 billion

(figures from the 2010 Annual Social Security Trustees Report)

Ten million new workers would have left us with a net surplus for the year of slightly over $3 billion. So why aren't those who profess such concern about Social Security's fiscal soundness pushing for more stimulus spending? Could it be because their real concern isn't protecting Social Security?

Some will say that putting ten million people back to work isn't politically or economically feasible, but more than eight million people lost their jobs because of the recession. Their contributions would have added more than $35 billion in income this year, as well as a similar amount last year, leaving Social Security with even more of a surplus than it has today. That wouldn't have prevented alarmists like Allan Sloan from using deceptive arguments - no matter how big the surplus is, it's "funny money" to them - but it certainly would've made it more difficult to create a false sense of emergency.

So why are these self-proclaimed protectors of Social Security trying to "fix" it by cutting benefits, instead of looking to those who caused the real problem in the first place? Because their real end-game is deficit reduction, and an aura of "crisis" around Social Security serves their ultimate objective: Using Social Security funds, either directly or indirectly, to reduce the deficit. Stimulus spending initiatives don't serve their true purposes.

If they were really as concerned about Social Security as they say, they wouldn't keep placing benefit reduction moves at the top of their "to do" list. But honesty wouldn't be the best policy for them, at least politically. "Let's save Social Security" probably plays a little better in focus groups than their real goal: "We want to use a trust fund for retirees to reduce a deficit caused by tax cuts for the wealthy and other unsound political decisions."

The next time someone says they want to cut Social Security because they're "concerned" about it, why not suggest we put some people back to work instead?