Citizens Commission

Health Care Reform Is Deficit Reduction. Remember That?

Bill Scher — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:25:31 -0500

When health care reform was signed into law, President Barack Obama correctly described it as "biggest deficit reduction plan since the 1990s." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projected it would save more than $1 trillion during the next two decades.

This didn't end the deficit hysteria. It should have.

It is a profound shame that congresspeople who voted for the law did not echo the President and consistently tout that they just put America on the path to long-term deficit reduction. Instead, they either tried to change the subject or play up the provisions that polled well such as ending discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

But that allowed perceptions to remain that the health care bill amounted to $1 trillion in reckless spending, when the literal opposite was true.

And so we face a deficit commission proposal that pretends the path to deficit reduction isn't health care reform.

As Kevin Drum recently observed, the huge increases in the long-term budget deficit forecast is almost completely due to the cost of health care. In turn, he said: "any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious."

And the Simpson-Bowles plan? "[It], goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious."

In that respect, I agree with the deeply conservative incoming House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan. When announcing his opposition to the Simpson-Bowles plan, he said, "You cannot fix this problem without taking on health care."

Of course, that's where Ryan's wisdom ends.

He charges the new health care law with making the deficit worse. Problem is there are no credible estimates backing up that assertion. (Conservatives lean on an oversimplification of the estimates of national health expenditures made by the Medicare actuary, when in fact his report finds a slowing of spending up to 2019, and doesn't even analyze the following decade when CBO expects the big savings to materialize.)

Furthermore, many argue -- such as Peter Orszag and Paul Krugman -- that the CBO estimates are too conservatve, and the experimental cost-controls in the new health reform law are likely to perform better than expected.

As Krugman wrote back in March:

There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them. What the actuary and the budget office do is a bit like looking at an oil company’s prospecting efforts, concluding that any individual test hole it drills will probably come up dry, and predicting as a consequence that the company won’t find any oil at all — when the odds are, in fact, that some of the test holes will pan out, and produce big payoffs.

To conservatives like Ryan, who think gutting Medicare and providing less health care is a superior way to cut the deficit: Sorry. You lost the legislative battle. The Affordable Care Act is law.

It is our most serious attempt at long-range deficit reduction, involving the only area where our long-term deficit can be reduced.

Do we know exactly how well it's going to work? Of course not!

They are reforms. We need to try them out. We need to see what works and what doesn't in practice, and make adjustments as we go.

That is the only way to reform. Anything.

Is it likely more reforms will be needed later on? Of course!

In fact, one of the positive aspects of passing the Affordable Care Act this year was that it ensured we would continue fighting about how best to implement health care reform on an ongoing basis. Whereas defeat would have likely meant ducking the issue for another decade or more while our health and fiscal problems festered.

But Rep. Ryan rips the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan for not proposing to junk our only plausible path to deficit reduction. That's being a sore loser, not being a constructive lawmaker.

Whereas the Citizens' Commission accepts the reality of the law and goes on to propose additional cost saving measures, such as a public health insurance option and direct government negotiations for prescription drug prices, that build on the cost-control reforms already in place.

The bottom line is: we are already firmly on the path to health care reform, which means we are already firmly on the path to deficit reduction.

We need to keep working at it. We don't need take our eye off the ball.

UPDATE: The New Republic's Jonathan Chait notes Rep. Ryan's stubborn refusal to accept the Affordable Care Act as reason why "You Can't Negotiate With Paul Ryan":

Ryan, like many conservatives, prefers to reside in an alternate universe in which the Affordable Care Act is not a budget saver but a massive drain on the federal budget (like, say, the prescription drug entitlement he supported.) ... You can negotiate with somebody who has different preferences than you do. But negotiating with somebody who inhabits a different reality is very difficult.

The Income Gap Will Grow

James Galbraith — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:18:39 -0500

In general, macroeconomic policies cut two ways on inequality — one via effects on economic activity, which if favorable, can reduce inequality by creating more jobs and raising wages, and the other through effects on the stock market, which can make inequality worse if stock prices rise.

Thus in the 1990s the technology boom reduced inequality by increasing employment and low-end wages, while the NASDAQ bubble drove up incomes for a few. The second effect dominated the statistics, but the first dominated the experience most working people had: it was a good time.

The premature and excessive deficit-cutting plans now being framed will almost surely hurt working and retired Americans: they will increase unemployment, decrease hours and overtime, place downward pressure on wages, and in all these ways make low-income workers worse off.

Their effect on the stock market is less clear. The plutocrats behind these plans apparently think that stocks will go up, increasing inequality (in their favor). They may be right but I’m not sure; Japan has discovered it can be hard to have a stock boom in a depression.

When you examine the specifics, ambiguity disappears. While there are progressive variations with better results, the main Bowles-Simpson proposal is an assault on the middle class, the working class and the poor.

Cuts in Social Security will gradually increase poverty and early death among the old. Cuts in the mortgage interest deduction will further drive down home values while hardly affecting those rich enough to pay cash. Killing the Earned Income Tax Credit will reverse a highly effective anti-poverty program for working people. Meanwhile Bowles and Simpson hold the line on the top rate in the income tax, and they say nothing about a financial transactions tax. This is most revealing.

Budget-balancing is crackpot economics, yet these proposals illustrate clearly the true underlying goal. Increasing inequality, it would appear, is the point.

James K. Galbraith, an economist at the L.B.J. School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, is head of the University of Texas Inequality Project and the general editor of "Galbraith: The Affluent Society and Other Writings, 1952-1967."

Obama Faces Great Deficit Divide

Robert Borosage — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:56:31 -0500

The following was originally published at Politico.

"The era of deficit denial is over," crowed former Sen. Alan Simpson, the garrulous co-chair of President Barack Obama's deficit reduction commission. But the debate about what is to be done has just begun. Simpson likes to describe his position as the center against ideological extremes, reason against the "greediest generation."

Matt Bai in The New York Times Wednesday says Obama must choose between "centrist reformers" and the "traditional liberals," who resist change. But the choice is better described as between a developing Beltway establishment consensus and the vast majority of the Americans.

On jobs, austerity, Social Security and Medicare, tax reform and where to cut spending, most Americans don't support the proposals of the deficit commission co-chairs, which are echoed in other inside-the-beltway elite reports from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Pew-Peterson Commission. In fact, popular support for a road to fiscal balance and national revival may be best reflected in a group of liberal responses – laid out by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the deficit commission; the Campaign for America's Future Citizen's Commission Report, and a detailed plan from three progressive policy groups, Demos, the 21th Century Fund and the Economic Policy Institute.

For example, despite Republican claims of an election mandate to cut spending, polls regularly show that Americans are most concerned about jobs and the economy.

A post-election CBS News poll found 56 percent of Americans thought Congress should focus on jobs and the economy as a top priority. Only 4 percent chose budget deficits as the first order of business. Yet, declaring that "deficits are a cancer," the deficit commission co-chairs are urging rapid surgery.

This position is buttressed by the Republican pledge to cut $100 billion out of domestic programs next year, as well as the president's commitment to a three-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending and his two-year wage freeze for federal employees.

In contrast, the Citizen's Commission report gives priority to jobs and growth, calling for deficit-financed jobs programs over the next two years to help put people to work and get the economy going. The Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is also calling forg more action to generate jobs.

Polls show that Americans are looking for a clear and bold strategy to revive America's prospects. A striking two-thirds of the voters who swept Democrats out of office approved of a hypothetical post-election statement by the president calling for building a new foundation for the economy, investing in areas vital for our future and arguing that reducing our deficits is "not enough," according to an election-night poll sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future and Democracy Corps.

Yet Bai's "centrist reformers" make balancing our books the overriding goal of economic policy, painting a fearful picture of an America on the verge of collapse, akin to Greece or Ireland at the mercy of capricious investors. But this hysteria is misplaced, as the Citizen's Commission report shows. Deficits – and long term debt driven by out-of-control health care costs – are a concern. But the real problem is an economy in decline. The report calls for making vital investments in a new foundation for the economy, even as we bring deficits under control.

Polls show more than two-thirds of Americans – right, left and center – oppose raising the retirement age or cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. In a Stan Greenberg election poll, 68 percent called on politicians to keep their hands off Social Security and Medicare, over accepting that deficits might require raising the retirement age.

Yet the commission co-chairs and the other establishment reports call for raising the retirement age, cutting Social Security benefits and raising Medicare premiums -- moving it closer to a voucher program.

In contrast, the progressive plans note that Social Security hasn't contributed to the deficits, and oppose increases in retirement age or cuts in benefits. While our long-term debt problem stems almost entirely from soaring health care costs, the problem isn't Medicare. It is a broken health care system. They urge reforms to contain costs across the system, including negotiating bulk discounts on prescription drugs and even moving to a Medicare-for-all system if needed.

Polls reveal that the public is wary about taxes. Americans divide on a carbon tax on utilities, balk at raising the gas tax and overwhelmingly oppose a federal sales tax. Majorities support letting the Bush tax breaks lapse on incomes that are more than $250,000. Asked to choose between higher taxes on the rich and a national sales tax, by 54 percent to 31 percent, Americans favored taxing the rich over a sales tax.

Yet the co-chairs' report features tax reforms that lower rates across the board, while removing various tax expenditures favored by the middle class -- including the mortgage deduction. The Bipartisan Policy Commission task force adds a regressive 6.5 percent "deficit reduction sales tax." The liberal alternatives call for raising taxes on wealthy, and argue for taxing "what we need less of" -- like carbon emissions and financial speculation.

Polls based on budget-cutting exercises show that when Americans are forced to make choices, most choose greater cuts from defense, while trying to protect spending on education and the environment. The co-chairs would cut domestic spending and defense at the same rate. The liberal alternatives would take more from the defense budget while expanding investments in areas vital to our economy, from education to infrastructure to research and development.

Ironically, the position that best reflects popular support is the president's own vision, articulated in his Georgetown remarks, that we must build a new foundation for the U.S. economy.

The choice is not, as Simpson and Bai would suggest, between centrist reforms and liberals who resist needed change. The choice is between a cribbed beltway consensus at odds with most Americans, and the fresh vision of fundamental reforms needed to revive America's prospects – a vision once best described by the president himself.

News Media Covers Citizens' Commission Report

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:30:47 -0500

The New York Times
Liberal Groups to Propose Routes to Smaller Deficit

"On Tuesday, a separate coalition of liberal groups, economists and labor leaders — the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future — will release a similar outline."

The Washington Post
Commission comes up with new deficit plan, but delays vote until Friday

In recent days, those groups have rolled out a series of competing deficit-reduction plans that would preserve the social safety net by targeting the military for deeper cuts and raising taxes for the wealthy. The latest, unveiled Tuesday by the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future, argues that deficits should be reduced only after the economy has fully recovered and unemployment has dropped below 5.5 percent. Even then, the report says, "deficit reduction must be performed judiciously, without restricting government's ability to create jobs and without damaging needed social programs."

CBS News
Deficit Panel Chair: Debt is "Like a Cancer"

"Meanwhile, liberal groups have been busy fashioning alternative proposals. The "Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future," for instance, released its own recommendations today, which include investments to spur job creation and long term economic recovery, establishing a "cap and trade" plan or carbon tax to raise revenue, and implementing a public option health plan. The Citizen's Commission is comprised of liberal economic policy experts, such as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Jeff Madrick and economists Dean Baker, Robert Pollin and Heidi Hartman, and former members of the House and Senate."

Politico
Barack Obama Faces Great Deficit Divide

-Robert Borosage
"On jobs, austerity, Social Security and Medicare, tax reform and where to cut spending, most Americans don’t support the proposals of the deficit commission co-chairs, which are echoed in other inside-the-beltway elite reports from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Pew-Peterson Commission. In fact, popular support for a road to fiscal balance and national revival may be best reflected in a group of liberal responses – laid out by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the deficit commission; the Campaign for America’s Future Citizen’s Commission Report, and a detailed plan from three progressive policy groups, Demos, the 21th Century Fund and the Economic Policy Institute."

The Huffington Post
Jobs First -- Any Other 'Deficit Plan' Sells America Short

-Richard (RJ) Eskow
"The Citizens' Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America's Economic Future is releasing its report today, and its recommendations will be very different from those of the self-described "bipartisan" plans now dominating Washington conversations. (They are bipartisan in a way, come to think of it, since polls show that many of their ideas are disliked by both Democrats and Republicans.)"

"...The Citizens' Commission was organized and supported by the Campaign for America's Future and the Institute for America's Future*. As the name suggests, the Commission addresses the subject of deficits in its rightful context: the economy as a whole. And as the name also suggests, its proposals closely mirror the public's preferred deficit solutions. That's not, however, because the distinguished members of this panel were looking for popular answers. It's because the popular answers also happen to be the right answers."

USA Today
Rival Deficit Plan Raises Taxes, Angers All

"Groups representing seniors and working-class Americans, such as the Campaign for America's Future, criticized the latest deficit-reduction plan in the nation's capital — this one by the independent Bipartisan Policy Center — because it would reduce future Social Security benefits and turn Medicare into a voucher program."

"..."We're going at this backwards," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, which favors more government spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs. He said the plan hurts working-class Americans more than those in upper-income brackets because the former depend more on Social Security and Medicare."

The Hill
Union-Backed Deficit Proposal Ramps up Stimulus Spending

"The Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future calls for $1 trillion in stimulus spending over the next two years and continued investment of $450 billion per year thereafter. It proposes no spending cuts until the unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent, down from October’s 9.6 percent."

The Huffington Post
Deficit Commission Slashes Taxes For Wealthy, Corporations, While Raising Retirement Age And Cutting Spending

-Ryan Grim & Dan Froomkin
"And a Citizens' Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America's Economic Future, organized by the Campaign for America's Future, released its proposal on Tuesday."

CBS News
Deficit Plan Proves Offensive to All, Leaders Admit, but Plan Gets Some Support

"The "Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future," one of a few liberal groups to release a counter-proposal, called the deficit commission's report "fundamentally misguided."

Open Left
A Budget for America's Future

"Earlier this morning I did a diary about the new report, "Investing in America's Economy: A Budget Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility," from Our Fiscal Security, a joint venture of Demos, The Century Foundation and the Economic Policy Institute. In it, I noted, "I'll have more later today about a second progressive proposal, which in part builds on this report." Well, here it is."

"This second proposal is the "Report And Recommendations Of The Citizens' Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America's Economic Future", organized out of the Institute for America's Future."

SEIU
SEIU Joins Citizens' Commission to Create Jobs, Reduce Deficit

"SEIU joined Campaign for America's Future, economists, progressive organizations and other unions today to announce the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future and release a set of proposals to reduce our deficit, create good jobs and protect essential programs like Social Security and Medicare."

The Washington Post
Andy Stern Takes on America's Second Deficit

"Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union, is a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. He's not the only participant to bring out his own plan -- both Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Alice Rivlin have already released separate proposals -- but his plan is more clearly distinguished from the others. This is, in part, because where they reduce one deficit, he reduces two."

The Chicago Sun-Times
Cutting Poverty Should be Nation's Top Priority

"Today, the Citizens Commission on Jobs, Deficits and the American Economy, sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future, publishes an antidote to the current Washington focus on austerity. The Citizen’s Commission argues that we need to put America back to work first, and then redress our deficits not by cutting Social Security or Medicare, but by progressive taxation, cuts in wasteful defense spending and corporate subsidies."

FDL
Letting the Tax Cuts Expire as a Deficit Cut Roadblock

"So that’s the context of the Citizen’s Commission report put out by the Campaign for America’s Future today. It calls for the novel idea of actually growing the economy to deal with the deficit, since it’s the only thing that’s ever worked on a large scale. And it calls to target what actually drives deficits; namely, runaway health care and military spending, and unaffordable tax cuts for the rich. You can balance the budget while investing in the country and growing the economy, that’s essentially the message, and it’s a good one."

Daily Kos
Citizens Commission on Economy: Grow the National Debt to Fiscal Stability

"Yesterday, a coalition of progressive organizations--Demos, Economic Policy Institute, and The Century Foundation--released a fiscal blueprint for growing our way to economic stability. It is reinforced today by another report from some of the nation's leading progressive economists, the Citizens' Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America's Economic Future, including Jeff Madrick, a member of the commission and Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, with contributions from Roger Hickey, Robert Borosage and Richard Eskow of the Institute for America’s Future, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect and Demos, and Robert Pollin of the Political Economy Research Institute, with additional work by other members of the commission. "

AlterNet
America's Shocking Unemployment Rate Is the Big Economic Crisis, Not the Deficit

"Members of the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future formally released their report earlier today with a declaration that the commission created by the White House to come up with a deficit-reduction plan is poised to make the economy worse."

10 Reasons the Deficit Commission Proposal is Still Unconscionable and Unacceptable

Richard Eskow — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:15:42 -0500

The co-chairs of the Presidential Deficit Commission released the final draft of their report today, and it's now scheduled for a Friday vote by members of the Commission. We're being told that it's a fairer and more reasonable document than its predecessor. It's nothing of the kind. In many ways this document is worse than the draft that preceded it, and those much-lauded "compromises" evaporate in the cold light of reality. This new draft is lipstick on a piggy-bank robber, a package of cosmetic changes meant to disguise its true purpose: To raid the future financial security of most Americans in order to benefit a few.

This proposal would still cripple government's vital role in society by imposing arbitrary limits on spending. It would still place great financial burdens on lower- and middle-class Americans while easing those of the wealthy. All in all, it's the most profoundly right-wing policy prescription the nation has seen in decades. Democrats who lack the political courage to oppose it will be remembered for it for a long time to come.

There are more balanced and effective ways to balance the budget. Instead, this plan is so ideologically driven that it actually increases the deficit at times, while the reductions it does achieve are needlessly unfair and destructive. Here are ten reasons why this proposal remains unacceptable and must be opposed - not just by progressive or Democrats, but by anyone of good conscience who wants to reduce the deficit in a responsible way:

1. It's still a massive tax giveaway for the rich.

Imagine the outcry if a deficit-cutting commission recommended spending more money on government programs. Then imagine it recommended spending that money on programs that weren't needed, and which only benefited the wealthy. When it comes to tax revenues, that's exactly what this proposal does.

Remember, spending's only one-half of the deficit problem, and tax revenue's the other. A responsible plan would increase revenue wherever it's fair and possible to do so. Yet, in the name of "deficit reduction," this plan actually proposes cutting taxes - for the wealthiest Americans. Its defenders point out that the proposal also ends all sorts of itemized deductions - but those deductions primarily help the middle class.

Defenders will also say that it no longer eliminates vital middle-class tax breaks (like mortgage interest deductions) completely, which is true. But it would force "Congress and the President" to decide which of these deductions is retained and at what levels. And if would force Congress and the President to offset them with increased tax rates elsewhere, which the authors know is politically almost possible.

Defenders point out that then plan proposes to tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.[1] But Wall Street law firms are no doubt already developing workarounds - and, in any case, the net effect is still a tax break for the wealthiest Americans.

The wealthy even get a break on the payroll tax used to fund Social Security. The plan's defenders boast that it would raise the payroll tax cap to cover 90% of all income. But that was the percentage the tax covered tin the 1980s, before the explosion in very high-end wealth distorted the entire economy. This plan doesn't return to that 90% level until 2050! That's a forty-year wait before we fund Social Security with as much high-end income as we did twenty years ago.

In a little-noticed observation, the actuaries who reviewed this proposal observed that "lower marginal tax rates are expected to have a large effect on (this tax) ... reducing revenue ... by roughly 20 percent." The net effect will be to "increase the long-range ... actuarial deficit ..." Got that? This Commission co-chairs insisted on attacking Social Security because they claimed to be so concerned about its long-term actuarial deficit (which is easily fixed by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share). Yet, having seized control of Social Security's under that pretense, they then propose tax breaks for the wealthy that make Social Security's long-term deficit worse.

Since this is supposed to be a deficit-reducing Commission, not a party-time-for-the-rich Commission, how are they going to pay for such big giveaways?

2. It still increases the tax burden for everyone else.

That's where you come in. (Unless you're a billionaire, of course.) Unless Congress and the President come up with something else, this proposal would set arbitrary caps on home mortgage deductions and other tax deductions that are primarily used by the middle class. As we've seen, even that rise in payroll taxes is expected to hit the middle class more than the wealthy.

And, while this needs further study, it looks as if their new tax brackets place more of a burden on you, too. The 10% and 15% tax brackets seem to be compressed into a 12% bracket, which doesn't seem like a dramatic change. The 28% bracket goes to 25%, which is a little more than 10% and is more than offset in most cases by the loss of itemized deductions. But the highest bracket takes a deep plunge, from the current planned level of 39.6% down to 28%. That's more than 28%. Sweet - if you're rich. But somebody's gotta pay for it.

That would be you.

3. It will result in millions of lost jobs.

As the Economic Policy Institute has demonstrated, this proposal will cost the nation 4 million lost jobs and damage our economic growth. This new draft demands even deeper discretionary spending cuts, enacted even sooner, so the loss of jobs is likely to be even greater.

That's why Mary Kay Henry, President of the SEIU, said ""This proposal is a jobs killer at a time when our number one priority must be putting America back to work." It's why AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that "this whole discussion reeks of hypocrisy. The faux deficit hawks on the commission - and Senators who claim unemployment insurance must be paid for -- have no problem clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires. We need to focus now on the jobs deficit."

The report's defenders will dismiss Henry and Trumka as "special interests" (while criticizing any mention of co-chair Erskine Bowles' position on Morgan Stanley's Board of Directors, or the financial interests of other Commissioners, as an "ad hominem" attack). But these two leaders are aware of proposals like the EPI's and the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits, and America's Economic Future. Thse reports demonstrate that these radical changes aren't needed to balance the budget - and that, in fact, that they interfere with that goal.

4. The elderly will face harsh benefit cuts.

The average Social Security retirement benefit today is $1100, and even less for women ($920). Under this proposal a median earner, someone earning $43,000 in today's dollars, would face a 20% (19.1%) benefit cut.

It looks, therefore, as if the average benefit would eventually drop to$889 overall, with women receiving an average of $744. These cuts are offset somewhat for lower-income workers but, as we'll see, those offsets aren't what they seem to be.

5. Most of us will still work longer for less.

You won't just receive less in benefits. You'll work longer to get it, since they're raising the retirement age.

We're told that there will be exceptions for people who would face hardship if forced to work longer. That's a nice thought, given all the benefit-slashing going on. But that decision is kicked down the road and assigned to Social Security Administration staff. The cuts are fixed, but the exemptions are left vague and deferred to people who aren't trained in that kind of analysis.

Their definition of "hardship" is narrow, too, and it excludes hardships like discrimination. The net effect of this proposal is to ensure a longer work life for most people while making jobs harder to get. The only small mitigating factor they promise is delayed to a future date and left vague.

6. It punishes the long-term jobless

This proposal doesn't just ignore the nation's "jobs deficit." It makes it worse, at a time when the number of long-term unemployed Americans is at historical levels. This program doesn't just leave them in the lurch, or ignore their urgent need for unemployment assistance. After having made their situation worse, it then punishes them in their old age too.

Much has been made about the proposal's "generous" suggestion that benefit cuts be made offset for lower-income workers who are at the brink of poverty in old age. But many (if not most) of the workers struggling today would be excluded from this change. As the actuarial analysis of the proposal notes, "workers ... (at) the level of the low and very low scaled earners, but with less than 25 years of (qualifying) work ... would be subject to the full reduction in benefit for longevity ..."

There's more, but you get the gist. These much-vaunted "safety nets" are filled with holes.

7. Women will pay an unfair price.

Women get the short end of the stick here, too. Women already receive less in retirement benefits than men, on average - right now they receive an average of about $920 per month. They live longer, too. Women have traditionally moved in and out of the workforce more than men, because of traditional gender roles. They'll be punished even more for this difference under this proposal, thanks to rules and loopholes like the one described above. For a "family values" culture, that's not a very family-oriented policy.

Here's the future Simpson and Bowles plan for the mothers of America: First, cut their income by reducing the adjustments to their benefits. That means they'll get less than $920 in tomorrow's dollars. Then offer them a poverty exemption - but dangle it out of reach for millions of women who chose to stay home with their children for a few years (and all of them who couldn't find work when they looked).

Thanks for raising us, Mom, now eat your Friskies and pipe down.

8. That "living longer" benefit bump is a pittance.

We're also hearing about the "benefit bump" America's beleaguered seniors have been promised once they reach extreme old age. But here's what the proposal actually says: "Provide benefit enhancement equal to 5% of the average benefits (spread out over 5 years) for individuals who have been eligible for benefits for 20 years."

Since they're proposing to raise the retirement age to 68 and then 69, that means offering this bounty when a retiree becomes 88 or 89. With the estimates we've made above, that amounts to a "bonus" of $45 per month ($37 for women).

9. The plan still discriminates - by income, and by race.

Even that minimal adjustment is likely to benefit wealthier - and whiter - Americans. As Paul Krugman and others have pointed out, average life expectancy has risen by 6 years for the top 50% of earners, but only by 1.3 years for the bottom half.

White Americans still live five years longer on average than African-Americans, too. So who is this really helping?

10. It doesn't solve the healthcare problem. It just shifts the cost.

This proposal is filled with irreversible triggers, like the Doomsday Machine in Dr. Strangelove, that are set to go off if targets aren't met. But they're all designed to trigger spending cuts or regressive tax changes. When it comes to the single greatest driver of future deficits - health care costs - there's no trigger for the public option that would significantly lower costs.

Here's a proposal that is in the plan: Repeal the CLASS Act. That's the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, which provides funds that allow people to receive medical care in the home rather than the hospital. Why does this proposal single out the CLASS Act? It's only projected to cost $11 billion in 2015. But then, that's typical of this proposal. It ignores the big issues and then goes out of its way to step on programs that serve the public good.

Their health proposals tinker at the margin of cost and ignore the big picture. Reducing administrative cost support for Medicaid merely shifts costs from the Federal government to the states, while freezing provider payments will reduce access to care with minimal reduction in costs. They also plan to cut health benefits severely for Federal employees.

They want to force Medicare recipients to pay more out-of-pocket for their care. That's a double-whammy for seniors who have already had their Social Security benefits cut.

The authors claim that because "(Medicare) cost-sharing for most medical services is low, the benefit structure encourages over-utilization of health care." That's unproven theory, especially when discussing seniors. Studies have shown that increasing out-of-pocket costs discourages utilization - it keeps people from getting medical care - but studies among younger populations that seemed to back this idea have recently come under question, while other studies among seniors suggest they're likely to skip needed care and suffer as a result.

These Medicare changes will impose unnecessary hardship without addressing the real causes of healthcare cost. Why? Because private health insurance is one of this Commission's "sacred cows," and any program that would provide public competition for these insurers is deferred (while "all-payer" coverage is buried elsewhere as one of many possible alternatives once other avenues have failed.)

What do they propose for the under-65 crowd instead? One of the main features of their proposals is an increase in the health "excise tax," which would undermine employee benefit health plans and shift more health care costs on the under-65 set, too. (For greater discussion of this very bad idea, see here.)

"No class act." Somehow that seems to say it all. Commission member Dick Durbin is a good Senator who has provided valuable service. But it's painful and to hear him say, as he did today, that he's inclined to vote for this plan because the times call for "shared sacrifice." That's a highly regrettable statement. In this plan, the sacrifice is only shared among those who can least afford it, while the wealthiest enjoy a free ride.

This proposal must not be passed.

________________________

[1] There's a footnote with an escape clause, offering the possibility of exempting a portion of these earnings from that rule by raising the top tax rate instead.

10 Reasons Why The Fiscal Commission's Social Security Proposals Should be DOA

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:10:43 -0500

The co-chairs of the White House National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released its deficit-reduction ideas earlier today, and a range of progressive leaders are united in saying its proposals, particularly on Social Security, should be rejected outright.

"Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson’s latest proposal to radically change Social Security once again slashes Social Security benefits for most Americans, now and in the future." says Eric Kingson, co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. "Again, it disregards the will of the American people who do not want Social Security benefits cut. The Simpson-Bowles proposal was dead on arrival once; it should be considered even deader the second time around."

Here are their 10 reasons why. The deficit commission proposal:

1. Deeply cuts the benefits of middle-class families. Benefits for retirees, survivors and disabled workers will be cut between 17% and 36% for young people entering the workforce today, affecting those earning an average of $43,000 (17%) to $107,000 (36%) a year over their working lives, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary.

2. Closes Social Security’s long-range funding gap primarily by cutting already low benefits, rather than by raising taxes on those who can most afford to pay. Ninety-two percent of Social Security’s long-range funding gap is closed by cutting promised benefits. Instead, this gap could be closed, as most Americans want, by requiring those employees (and their employers) who make more than $107,000 a year to pay Social Security taxes on all their wages, as the rest of us do who earn less.

3. Raises the retirement age to 69. This is a 13% benefit cut on top of the 13% cut already made when the retirement age was increased from 65 to 67, according to the Social Security Administration.

4. Raises the early retirement age to 64. Most Americans claim Social Security benefits before age 64, even though the benefits are currently reduced by as much as 25% when they do so. That’s usually because they work in physically demanding jobs, have health problems, or can no longer find work.

5. Discriminates against lower-wage workers by raising the retirement age. Upper-income Americans are living longer. But in recent years the life expectancy of lower-income men has increased only slightly and the life expectancy of lower-income women declined.

6. Reduces the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security beneficiaries. The proposal would reduce the purchasing power of benefits by 3.7% after 10 years of receiving benefits and by 6.5% after 20 years, according to the Social Security chief actuary.

7. Hurts current retirees, contrary to promises made by the fiscal commission Co-Chairs. The change in the COLA calculation would affect all beneficiaries, not just retirees, starting in 2012.

8. Breaks faith with our nation’s veterans and service members. Forty-three percent of veterans receive Social Security. They or their families will see their Social Security disability benefits cut deeply if they are seriously injured in combat, their survivors’ benefits cut substantially if they die in combat, and their retirement benefits cut significantly just like all other Americans.

9. Harms our grandchildren the most. The younger a person is, the deeper the cuts because of the increase in the retirement age and the changes in the benefit formula.

10. Breaks Social Security’s promise with Americans. Social Security belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to the program. The proposal breaks that promise.

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, released this statement immediately after the deficit commission released its report:

With this report the Deficit Commission once again tells working Americans to Drop Dead. No proposal on fiscal issues is serious that leaves the Bush tax cuts for the rich in place while raising taxes on the middle class and slashing Social Security and Medicare. All commission members should vote no on this misguided plan. All members of Congress should also oppose these job-killing policies if they are raised in future legislation or budgets.

Our nation IS facing an immediate jobs crisis. Last night 800,000 Americans lost their unemployment insurance, and that number will grow to two million by Christmas. One hundred workers from across the country have come to Washington today to lobby Congress to extend unemployment insurance. It is unconscionable that this commission is proposing to slash these very workers Social Security and Medicare.

This whole discussion reeks of hypocrisy. The faux deficit hawks on the commission and Senators who claim unemployment insurance must be paid for -- have no problem clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

We need to focus now on the jobs deficit. Fifteen million people are out of work, and another eleven million have given up looking or are working part-time involuntarily. We need to end tax breaks that send American jobs overseas and invest in jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and green technologies.

The Service Employees International Union also released the following statement by its international president, Mary Kay Henry:

“This proposal is a jobs killer at a time when our number one priority must be putting America back to work. The American people expect real solutions to create good jobs that support a family and bring fairness to our economy.

“It's time for our policies to move beyond the Beltway to reflect the real world. For too long, we've forced the American people to pay the price for the failed economic policies that plunged our economy into crisis and racked up our debt. We need to reduce the deficit - and we can do so without breaking the back of American workers. We can do so without cutting the jobs of nurses, educators, first responders, fire fighters, and millions of other Americans.
"What the proposals by Representative Schakowsky, EPI, Demos and the Century Foundation, and the Citizens' Commission all demonstrate is that we can reduce the deficit without cutting jobs or undermining the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare. These proposals offer real solutions to move our economy forward, reject the failed policies that created our current crisis, and respond to the demands of the American people to create good jobs.

“We can reduce our deficit, create jobs, and restore economic security to our communities. It's time for our leaders to find the political courage to invest in real job creation and challenge those responsible for the crisis we face.”

And Tamara Draut, vice president of policy and programs at Demos, which released its own counterproposal to the the deficit commission's recommendations with the Economic Policy Institute and the Century Foundation, said:

"The final recommendations released today illustrate how out of touch many on the Fiscal Commission, and many of those wielding influence in the Beltway, are with the everyday economic concerns and fears of Americans everywhere. This plan ignores the need for immediate public investments to spur job creation, relies too heavily on discretionary spending cuts, and slashes Social Security at a time when fewer Americans can count on a secure retirement.

"Outrageously, it embarks on a job-killing austerity path next fall (fiscal year 2012), when unemployment is still projected to be near 10 percent. In addition to imperiling the recovery in the short-term, the arbitrarily low debt target also hamstrings our ability to invest in our own economy – as our global competitors are doing.

"Are the $4 trillion Bush tax cuts (the same amount saved by the Commission’s proposals) worth sacrificing America’s place in the world? The Our Fiscal Security blueprint shows that we can rebuild the middle class, invest in our own economy, and put our nation's finances on a sustainable path. The Commission’s recommendations would guarantee that America’s greatest days our behind us."

Kingson of Social Security Works concluded his statement by saying:

About 60 percent of the House Democratic caucus – 136 members – have written to President Obama opposing all Social Security cuts, including raising the retirement age. Cuts to Social Security are opposed by 8 out of 10 Americans – from Tea Partyers to union households, young and old – according to a recent poll of Election Day voters by Lake Research Partners. And 2 out of 3 Americans support lifting the payroll tax cap so that all earnings are subject to the tax, which currently taxes income up to $106,800.

[Tuesday] the Strengthen Social Security Campaign members made tens of thousands of calls to their senators and representatives. Their message: Do not cut Social Security. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit. Cutting benefits will not fix the deficit. It is time for the Fiscal Commission and elected officials who would undermine the economic security of Americans to heed this call. If elected officials do not, the 2012 elections could be very ugly indeed.

It's Time to Save the Democrats From Themselves -- And All of Us From Deficit Extremism

Richard Eskow — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:58:21 -0500

It's come to this: At a strange and bitter press conference this afternoon (where they even accused their opponents of "racism"), the co-chairs of the Presidential Deficit Commission laid out a proposal that literally meets the dictionary definition of extremism. They've apparently rewritten the Executive Order creating their Commission, too, so if enough Commission members back their proposal it could become law. That would spell long-term defeat for the Democratic Party. More importantly, it would create misery for generations to come.

The only four people who can prevent this disaster are the four Democratic members of the Deficit Commission who have yet to stake a clear position on this proposal: Sen. Kent Conrad, Sen. Max Baucus, Sen. Dick Durbin, and Rep. Xavier Becerra. They need to hear from intelligent, sober-minded people who will encourage them to take a brave stand against these destructive ideas. (Their phone numbers are below.)

_______________________________________________

ex·trem·ist (x-strmst): n. One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics. [1]

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson are pushing ideas that lie well outside the norms that have governed mainstream politics for the last 75 years. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed a Social Security advisory council back in 1959, for example, which disproved many of the talking points Bowles and Simpson are still using today.

That hasn't stopped them. And if their positions are out of step with political orthodoxy, they're even further out of step with public opinion. They want to cut Social Security to decrease the deficit - a move that's even opposed by most Tea Partiers. Washington ireporters and politicians get upset when anybody but one of them uses the word "extremist." But what's a better word?

When you're too right-wing for the Tea Party, it's official: You're an extremist.

As we reported elsewhere, 67% of the public opposes Social Security cuts. 69% are against raising the retirement age. 79% are against cutting Medicare. How many of these ideas are likely to be in the Simpson/Bowles proposal?

All of them.

And it gets worse - much worse. Simpson and Bowles kept repeating a new slogan for tax expenditures - "tax earmarks" - for the deductions familiar to most Americans. That term sounds like it was dreamed up by the same Pete Peterson consultant who came up with the tin-eared "Owe No" slogan, but the co-chairs repeated it as if it were the Lord's Prayer. "Senate earmarks only cost $16 billion a year," they said, "but 'tax earmarks' cost $1.1 trillion." They hinted strongly that they intended to recommend ending all tax expenditures.

What would that mean? Ending the mortgage interest credit would push millions more struggling homeowners underwater, triggering another wave of foreclosures. Ending the child tax credit would push many families with children deeper into a financial quagmire. Ending the employer tax credit for health benefits would erode or completely end health benefits for 144 million Americans who are insured through their employer today (a number that has already been dropping rapidly).

Millions of lost jobs, millions of lost votes

The EPI had already estimated that the co-chairs' proposal could cost 4 million jobs - and that was before the "tax earmark" routine. It's no wonder that some Republicans, who have been chafing at the bit to do these things for ages, are egging on Obama and Senate Democrats to embrace their proposal. They would get policies their party financiers have craved for decades - and Democrats would take the fall.

These Republicans are like schoolkids urging the unpopular nerd to break the principal's window. They'll hear the satisfying sound of breaking glass, and they'll get rid of a a pesky kid they didn't want hanging around anyway.

ex·tremism: n. Any political theory favoring immoderate, uncompromising policies. [2]

Ideas aren't bad just because they're outside the political mainstream. All of the principles we hold dear as a nation probably were, at one time or another. But one of the striking things about this afternoon's press conference was the vitriol and contempt that Simpson and Bowles slung at anyone who dares to react to their ideas with anything other than enthusiasm or submission. Dissent from their radical orthodoxy, as they presented it today, was an impermissible position that could only come from the basest of motives: "The far left and the far right have hired auditoriums to terrorize their minions," said Simpson. (They often use false equivalence - pretending that conservatives are as outraged as progressives - to mask their positions.)

Who's terrorizing who? The deficits are a "cancer," they said. They'll bring on a collapse that will come "all of a sudden" and "without warning." "The era of deficit denial is over," Smpson bragged - before adding, bizarrely, that their opponents were guilty of "racism" (no explanation was given) and were spreading "emotion, guilt, and fear."

Failing up?

Among other things, this press conference was an admission of failure. As Atrios pointed out, the Executive Order creating their commission gave them clear direction: " 14 out of 18 votes (are) needed to report recommendations, and recommendations must be reported to Congress by December 1, 2010. " The co-chairs made it clear they don't expect to win 14 votes and announced they would miss the date by which "recommendations must be reported."

But rules are apparently for the little people. They're forging ahead anyway, planning to submit a report that's missed their deadline and failed to win enough votes for passage. The fact that their "report" isn't an official report anymore, combined with their "immoderate, uncompromising" policy position, should be the end of the story. But we can't be sure. President Obama's wage freeze for Federal workers was an ill-advised nod to deficit hysteria, and an overly compliant Harry Reid told Bowles and Simpson that a vote on their proposed bill was possible next year. Those are warning signs that the Democrats may be preparing to do themselves - and everybody else - lasting harm.

The last line of defense

That's where the rest of us come in.

Simpson and Bowles will use every vote they get as an affirmation that the Senate must vote on their extreme legislative draft. If it passes in the right-leaning Senate, the Boehner Congress could be a shoo-in. And the President cannot be counted upon to veto such a bill. These four Democrats are the last line of defense. They need to be reminded that there are better ways to manage the country's finances (the Citizens' Commission report on Jobs, Deficits, and America's Economic Future is a great place to start.) They need to hear from thoughtful, rational citizens who can explain the serious flaws in the Simpson-Bowles proposal. In other words, they need to hear from you.

So why not call them? Sen. Conrad's office number is (202) 224-2043. Sen. Baucus can be reached at (2020) 224-2651. Sen. Durbin's number is (202) 224-2152. Rep. Becerra is at (202) 225-6235. Be respectful. They're undoubtedly under extreme political pressure. Please call them. Let them know that if they resist this rush to fiscal extremism, millions of grateful Americans will have their back.

_________________________________

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
[2] WordNet 3.0 © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc

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

Citizens' Commission: The Real Issue Is Jobs

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:03:50 -0500

Members of the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future formally released their report earlier today with a declaration that the commission created by the White House to come up with a deficit-reduction plan is poised to make the economy worse.

That commission's report, combined with a conservative agenda that includes ending all remaining stimulus spending and cutting $100 billion from existing government programs, will "endanger the faltering growth we now see, add to unemployment and postpone measures vital to putting this economy back on track," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, during a media conference call.

"The current debate focuses too much on balancing our accounts, with little or no attention to what needs to be done to make the economy work for working people again," he said.

The first priority must be to generate jobs and get the economy going," Borosage said.

The citizens' commission report proposes an alternative plan that calls for spending $500 billion a year for the next two years in order to generate jobs and growth, with a special focus on protecting state and local services, building infrastructure and funding public service jobs. "This will generate millions of jobs and spur the economy," Borosage said.

After that two-year stimulus, the report goes on to propose additional public investment averaging over $400 billion a year "to build a new foundation for the economy" in such areas as education, green energy technology, research, and other areas. To pay for that investment, the report details a number of budget cuts—the principal targets include military spending and corporate tax subsidies—and progressive taxation proposals.

The report also calls for continued reforms in health care. "The long-term debt comes almost entirely from soaring health-care costs. America does not have an entitlements problem; it has an unaffordable health care system," Borosage said. There would not be a long-term deficit problem, he said, if the U.S. spent the same percentage of its gross domestic product on health care as other industrialized countries that now have overall better health profiles than we do.

The citizens commission is led by a 23-member group that includes economists, labor and grassroots organization leaders, and academic experts. Among them is Deepak Bargava, director of the Center for Community Change, who on the call denounced the co-chairs of the White House deficit commission, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, for pushing cuts to Social Security.

Noting that the average Social Security benefit is about $14,000 a year, Bhargava said, "It is morally unacceptable to reduce benefits to middle-income and low-income people, or to raise the retirement age, as Bowles-Simpson would do."

Likewise, Angela Glover Blackwell, the director of the PolicyLink think tank, said that poor- and middle-class families, particularly people of color, have already been harmed too severely by the recession and the decade of economic stagnation that preceded it. "We can't slash our way to prosperity. We must grow the nation out of this crisis," she said.

"Working Americans have had it with the austerity model," added Larry Cohen, the president of the Communications Workers of America. "We're not going to work our way out of this by cutting the living stands of working Americans. That's a failed method. It's been a dead method for 75 years, and it's being revived by those on this other [White House] commission."

Robert Kuttner, senior fellow at Demos and editor of The American Prospect, said that the citizens' commission report flies in the face of a stacking of the deck in the favor of austerity economics fueled largely by a multimillion-dollar campaign funded by Wall Street billionaire Peter G. Peterson.

As a result, "I don't think I have ever seen a time, as both a protagonist and a working journalist, where I've seen the media captured by one side of the argument," Kuttner said.

Kuttner warned that if the forces advocating attempting to cut their way to deficit reduction prevail, "You are only going to make the recession worse. It is not rocket science. It is basic economics."

Borosage said that the citizens commission report will be the centerpiece of a campaign that will include commission members making media appearances and organizations mobilizing grassroots lobbying efforts and demonstrations. efforts are underway to get the citizens' commission report to be championed by progressive members of Congress and to be used by activist groups to encourage drawing clear lines around Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and keep President Obama focused on creating jobs. "I think you are going to see a kind of mobilization around this that will I hope challenge the very limited frame of this debate," Borosage said.

Kuttner said that one outcome is that members of Congress will find the proposals in the report to be sound politics as well as sound economics. "Slash and burn is not popular politics," he said.

Deficit Commission Moves The Goalpost, Disses Leading Progressive Member

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:02:35 -0500

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., says that as of this morning she had not been shown the latest proposal of the White House deficit commission, even as she says it is being "shopped around" by its co-chairs in an effort to get the support of a simple majority of its 18 members—not the support of 14 members as was its original goal.

Schakowsky confirmed this shift in an interview with OurFuture.org after giving a private briefing to members of the Tuesday Group, a meeting of progressive organization leaders convened by the Campaign for America's Future.

The deficit commission—formally known as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—was scheduled to hold a public meeting today in advance of its planned release of its recommendations Wednesday, but the meeting was abruptly canceled. Instead, its co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, were tweaking the deficit reduction plan they made public earlier this month, which includes proposals to cut Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and other key programs.

When the commission was created by President Obama, its charge was to come up with a set of recommendations that would be endorsed by 14 of its members. Those recommendations would then be sent to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

"Now I think their more modest goal is to get 10 members to endorse it" so that Simpson, a Republican, and Bowles, a conservative Democrat, can claim bipartisan support, Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky has released her own deficit-reduction plan, which does not cut Social Security or other human needs programs but tackles excessive spending in other areas, such as the military budget. Elements of Schakowsky's plan were adopted by the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future, which released its report formally today.

Before Simpson-Bowles Spins The Vote, We Must Raise Our Voice

Bill Scher — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:54:34 -0500

On Wednesday, the White House deficit commission is expected to take a final vote of the recommendations of its co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. Then the battle for public opinion really begins.

As the Wall Street Journal reported today, there is little expectation that the commission will meet the threshold of support --14 of 18 members -- needed to prompt Congress to vote on the entire package before the end of the year.

But the reporters at the Journal suggest -- presumably at the urging of insiders actively pushing the Simpson-Bowles plan -- that a vote which comes up short could still spark political momentum: "If the panel wins close to a dozen votes for its proposal, some of the ideas could be incorporated into the White House's 2011 budget proposal, or tax and spending plans from either Democrats or Republicans next year."

If we want to make sure that one of the ideas that doesn't get incorporated is cutting Social Security benefits, now is the time to speak up.

The Strengthen Social Security Campaign has designatied tomorrow, Tuesday Nov. 30th, as "National Call Congress Day: Hands Off Social Security!"

It's clear that Simpson, Bowles and their allies will spin any vote as a sign of broader support for its entire package, regardless of what poll after poll after poll says.

And thanks to billionaire austerity activist Pete Peterson's relentless backing, Social Security's attackers will have plenty of media platforms to make their case and distort public opinion.

We can't rely on poll numbers to win the battle for public opinion. We need to rally the public and put maximum pressure on Washington.

Tomorrow is our chance to show our numbers and our intensity. Go to www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/callcongress now and make your pledge to call your congressperson tomorrow.

Citizens Commission

Health Care Reform Is Deficit Reduction. Remember That?

The Income Gap Will Grow

Obama Faces Great Deficit Divide

News Media Covers Citizens' Commission Report

The New York Times Liberal Groups to Propose Routes to Smaller Deficit

The Washington Post Commission comes up with new deficit plan, but delays vote until Friday

CBS News Deficit Panel Chair: Debt is "Like a Cancer"

Politico Barack Obama Faces Great Deficit Divide

The Huffington Post Jobs First -- Any Other 'Deficit Plan' Sells America Short

USA Today Rival Deficit Plan Raises Taxes, Angers All

The Hill Union-Backed Deficit Proposal Ramps up Stimulus Spending

The Huffington Post Deficit Commission Slashes Taxes For Wealthy, Corporations, While Raising Retirement Age And Cutting Spending

CBS News Deficit Plan Proves Offensive to All, Leaders Admit, but Plan Gets Some Support

Open Left A Budget for America's Future

SEIU SEIU Joins Citizens' Commission to Create Jobs, Reduce Deficit

The Washington Post Andy Stern Takes on America's Second Deficit

The Chicago Sun-Times Cutting Poverty Should be Nation's Top Priority

FDL Letting the Tax Cuts Expire as a Deficit Cut Roadblock

Daily Kos Citizens Commission on Economy: Grow the National Debt to Fiscal Stability

AlterNet America's Shocking Unemployment Rate Is the Big Economic Crisis, Not the Deficit