conservative

Budget Hawks Are “Excited” by the Thought of Cutting the Social Security COLA—Only Don’t Ask Why

Daniel Marans — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:12:45 -0500

One of the lesser known, but most devastating Social Security cuts being discussed in Beltway circles is the adoption of a new, less generous version of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for calculating the yearly cost-of-living adjustment (aka COLA) in Social Security benefits. It is called the “Chained”-CPI, which is fitting, because it will chain you to your parents when they have to move in with you for their golden years. Most importantly, it is the only proposed benefit cut that will whack current and future retirees.

When advocates challenge the new formula though, the conservatives and pseudo-Democrats hawking this proposal are no longer even bothering to defend the “Chained” CPI on its merits. (In fact, the current CPI is, if anything, too modest.) They simply coo at how brilliant and “exciting” of a new policy tool it is. Maya MacGuineas’s cheerful performance at a Senate briefing this morning was a case in point.

MacGuineas, a former Wall Street banker and current president of the Pete Peterson-funded Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, was a panelist at an Urban Institute-sponsored Senate briefing, “The $5 Trillion Question: What Do the Budget Commissions’ Social Security Proposals Mean for Retirees and Taxpayers?” When asked what she would like to see from the President in the forthcoming State of the Union address, she joked about the “Chained” CPI, but not everyone in the audience was laughing. To paraphrase her remarks:

“I kid to my family that I may be the only one in the country who is waiting to hear the President say he’ll support the ‘Chained’ CPI in his State of the Union speech! I will literally be jumping off of my couch in excitement if he does.”

MacGuineas is right that she is likely to be the only person having a “Tom Cruise moment” over the “Chained” CPI—only not for the reason she thinks. She was making fun of herself for knowing the wonkish nuggets that average Americans just don’t know. But even Social Security experts and policy wonks who know the “Chained” CPI proposal are not exactly salivating over it. That’s because while the “Chained” CPI might be the gosh-darned most exciting new policy for Beltway budget hawks like MacGuineas, it would represent a 0.3% benefit cut every year, which would compound over time, cutting $108 billion in benefits over ten years.

What’s more, despite MacGuineas’s protests to the contrary, it is not even a more accurate measure of inflation. You see, the “Chained” CPI assumes that when the price of certain goods increases, consumers choose less expensive substitutes. As a result, the Chained CPI registers slower growth in inflation. But the substitution method does not work for the medical services that make up the lion’s share of seniors’ expenses. You can't exactly trade in your prescription prostate drugs or open-heart surgery for cheaper substitutes.

Even the current CPI, tailored as it is for the regular population, does not adequately weigh the medical expenses of the seniors who rely on Social Security. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has created a new, experimental Consumer Price Index for the elderly, called the CPI-E. The CPI-E grew by 126% from 1982 to 2007, compared to the normal CPI’s 110% growth rate, demonstrating the true cost curve facing the elderly.

Joan Entmacher, the Vice President for Family Economic Security at the national Women’s law Center, and a nationally renowned expert on issues affecting low-income women, challenged MacGuineas on this point during the Q &A session. Why she asked, are we discussing reducing a COLA that is already inadequate, rather than adopting the CPI-E?

MacGuineas’s response was pathetic. “We can’t tailor-make a CPI for specific populations,” she said, with a chuckle. “We believe the case is strong that the current CPI formula is inaccurate. No change will be perfect, but we need to start there.” MacGuineas did nothing to deny Entmacher’s arguments, and indeed, the facts about the CPI’s inadequacy for the elderly, but apparently she just doesn’t care, because “nothing is perfect.” And about the idea of “tailor-made” CPI for the elderly? We don't need to create a new one; we already have it: it's called the CPI-E.

In truth, MacGuineas and her fellow travelers care more about saving money than doing what is right for Americans’ retirement security. They use the accuracy argument as cover. And when called out on their chicanery, they stick to their guns come what may.

To sum up, the conservative case for the Chained CPI amounts to, uh…Well, it’s just, “exciting”!

Finance, Mine, Oil & Debt Disasters: THIS is Deregulation

Dave Johnson — Tue, 04 May 2010 10:41:31 -0400

The terrible Gulf oil, West Virginia mining, Wall Street finance and government debt disasters all demonstrate the ongoing catastrophic and continuing results of conservative policies. Each of these is a direct consequence of letting corporate conservatives take over government and dismantle the regulatory and democratic protections that We, the People fought so hard for following the Great Depression -- itself a previous demonstration of the failure of conservative policies.

How often have you had to hear that "the market" is the best way to run things? That is is "self-correcting?" That regulations are government "interference" or "meddling" in the market? That business/free markets/private sector always does things better or is more efficient than government? When you hear these you are experiencing the clash between a "one-dollar-one-vote" free market system -- as we had before the Teddy Roosevelt progressive era and the Franklin Roosevelt New Deal -- and "one-person-one-vote" democratic, We, the People system that brings the benefits of our economy and our country to the most people. But because of the power of money and marketing most people are hearing only one side of an ongoing argument between the wealthy few and the broad masses of working people.

For decades we have heard these pro-market, anti-government arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over and over. Big corporations have a lot of money to buy a big megaphone, so you hear that government is bad, business is good and the people ought to just keep their noses out of the marketplace and stop telling businesses how to do things. You hear that taxes are bad, "hurt the economy," "cost jobs," "take money out of the economy," "just get passed through to customers anyway" and a million similar great-sounding slogans that fall down under minimal evaluation. They have been repeated over and over, until we forgot why we had fought so hard for strong government regulations and high taxes at the top.

After the disaster of Nixon the country learned about cracks in our democracy that let big money get their nose under the tent. But after Watergate we didn't plug all of the leaks, and big money got into the tent anyway. They used their position to give themselves more power, and used that power to give themselves even more, etc. and now we have a system that is corrupted absolutely.

So with the conservative government of Reagan and then later under the all-out anti-government conservative administration of George W. Bush we have had the opportunity of seeing just what happens when these "free market" ideas are given free reign to replace democracy. Anti-government zealots were put into positions inside the government and used that power to take apart the protections that We, the People had painstakingly built.

Taxes were cut to "defund" government in order to "starve the beast." The strategy was create huge deficits so the public would later demand cuts in government benefits. In the meantime the deficits would be used as an excuse to cut government oversight, inspections and enforcement of rules restricting the activities of big corporations. But all they did was create huge deficit that added up to massive debt.

Katrina was the first clear, public demonstration of the governing offered by conservatives. When they talked about replacing progressive ideas of "we're in this together" and "watching out for each other" with "personal responsibility" they meant it. And the country saw what that meant to real people in real trouble.

More recently we have been hearing about disaster after disaster and catastrophe after catastrophe, all caused by businesses running out of control, aided by conservative government that relaxed or just stopped enforcing regulations and laws. Each catastrophe is beyond the scope or willingness of private businesses to repair, requiring public intervention, at great cost. (But never any suggestion of "clawback" - or getting back the profits that were made while creating the catastrophe.)

We all certainly know about the Wall Street financial crisis caused by the big banks and insurance giants. We heard about the SEC ignoring warnings about Bernie Madoff and Goldman Sachs and all the others. We've seen hearings about the things that WaMu was doing, and loans going to people who couldn't read, and brokers making up incomes on "liar loans" and ratings agencies giving top ratings to "designed to fail" bond deals that investment banks and hedge funds had put together so they could make huge "swap" bets against them when the loans went under... The government, under control of "free market" conservatives looked the other way the whole time.

They brought down the economy of the whole world, requiring government bailouts that added up to more money that has been spent by our government in the history of the country. And now they are fighting tooth and nail to keep We, the People from passing financial reforms to bring Wall Street back under control.

Just recently there was the West Virginia mining disaster caused by deregulation, sweet deals between the company and regulators and lack of enforcement. The CEO of the Massey Energy had literally bought himself a judge, who then voted in favor of Massey Energy. Corrupted absolutely, 29 dead later.

And now, the huge, huge catastrophe in the Gulf.

This is the Reagan Revolution coming home to roost, and I will be writing about the terrible price we are paying and will be paying for a long time for the failed experiment in conservative ideology.

See the Reagan Revolution Home To Roost series.

kurt h

kurt h — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:55:02 -0500

Self-employed
Degreed
Conservative always; Republican sometimes
Right of RUSH
Own www.northtexaswatercooler.com

Conservatives: Not even trying to be serious

Eric Lotke — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:04:45 -0400

The email came from GOPUSA, whose mission is to “spread the conservative message throughout America.” The editorial, “Barack Obama’s Dream Cabinet”, caught my attention. I’m curious and thought they might have insight to offer. So I indulged a click.

Here then are the predictions for cabinet. These are the prospects that I am supposed to associate with an Obama presidency:

• Secretary of Education: William Ayers. He’s a professor now but “[h]e is also a self-proclaimed Marxist, anarchist and domestic terrorist who brags about having set off bombs at the Pentagon.”

• Health and Human Services: Doctor Jack Kevorkian: The author wasn’t sure if he’s still alive, but if so he “really would be perfect to carry out Obama's creepy anti-life policies.”

• Secretary of State: Noam Chomsky, “widely known as a political dissident, anarchist and socialist intellectual.”

These are not jokes. The editorial is written as if serious. The author wanted to inform voters what might happen if Barack Obama were elected President and could “appoint people to his cabinet who share his view of the world.”

I was not informed. That was not information but an insult. None of these possibilities are serious and none show insight into actual potential nominees or the direction Obama may guide the country. Do they really think I’m that stupid? Do they think conservatives are that stupid? As Bill Scher puts it, conservatives are “addicted to snidery” and “sowing the seeds of their own demise.”

Conservatives once had ideas. Small government and local control are genuine constitutional values. All of us value families. But conservatives have made a mockery of these ideas. Surely some sincere conservatives are left somewhere; I hope they can swim to the surface.

Conservatives Kill Renewable Energy Bill

Alexander Sewell — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Conservatives killed 2007 legislation that would have required 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources and they continue to block the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.

Tom Hartman

Tom Hartman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:36:59 -0400

N H

N H — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:33:21 -0400

Smirk of the Union

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:39:08 -0500

Behind President Bush's facial expressions during his final State of the Union speech was a series of dangerous ideas and misleading statements.

Robert Borosage surveys the wreckage of a presidency in its death throes, and what's missing in the Democrats' response.
Rick Perlstein delves into the substance of the speech and points out one of its most Orwellian moments.
David Sirota hits Bush on trade and Bill Scher picks apart Bush' insincerity on global warming.

By the Numbers

We've counted up the cost of the last seven years of conservative misrule. See the facts in our comprehensive Real State of the Union chart. Plus, watch our video reality check of Bush's past State of the Union fantasies.

Conservative Judges to Enron Retirees: Drop Dead

Robert Borosage — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:44:39 -0500

Remember the Enron employees who watched their retirement savings evaporate as the Enron ponzi scheme, chaired by George Bush’s best buddy, “Kenny Boy” Lay, went up in smoke?

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court just told them all: “Drop Dead.” Forced to choose between protecting the rights of the small investors who got defrauded and the companies, banks, accountants and vendors who conspired in creating and profited from the fraud, the Court protected the crooks and skewered the victims.

No surprise. That was the entire point of stacking the court with right-wing, activist judges. Sure the nomination battles over the judges focused on Roe v. Wade and civil rights. But the intent all along was to choose judges who would protect corporate interests and presidential prerogatives. Roe v. Wade is still standing. But consumers, workers, small investors, and the freedoms of Americans are taking it in the ear.

The conservative majority’s decision yesterday held that companies that conspired to help Stoneridge report fraudulent profits could not be held liable to the investors who got fleeced. Unless the co-conspirers communicated with the investors directly, investors could not be said to have been misled by them.

The case was widely seen as a precursor of the decision in the suit by Enron investors against the Wall Street banks –including JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup – that worked with Enron to create fake sales that enabled Enron to report mythic profits and hide significant losses.

So now does fraud becomes a profit center for Wall Street banks? With their catastrophic failures in mortgage lending, they need something. The majority noted that the Securities Exchange Commission could pursue the co-conspirators on criminal charges, but needless to say, the toothless SEC won’t disturb any fraud peddler’s sleep.

The rationale of the decision was to reassure third party lenders and vendors that they couldn’t be held liable to unfounded lawsuits against corporate fraud. But these weren’t folks just doing business with a crooked company. These were principals in the fraudulent schemes designed to mislead investors. The decision can only undermine investor confidence in US markets at the very moment the reputation of US banks and markets has been savaged by the subprime mortgage debacle, the coming credit card and auto loan defaults, and the terrifying vulnerability of the 40 trillion unregulated and unfathomable credit-default swaps market.

The conservatives on the Supreme Court have just defined that free markets mean free for fraud. If this keeps up, pillows will once more be a popular place for small investors to park their savings.

Experts Fire First Shot At GOP Presidential Candidates Hours Before First Presidential Debate

Toby Chaudhuri — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - Hours before the Republican presidential candidates gather for their first debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum today, progressive leaders held a daylong conference at the National Press Club, exposing how conservative ideas have failed America. Panels of experts gathered at the conference, sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future and The American Prospect, detailing how conservatives get the government, the economy, the family and the world wrong.

Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage kicked-off the conference this morning, arguing that Republican candidates are facing an unsolvable problem.

"Even the Gipper can't pull this one out," said Borosage. "Republican contenders for the presidential nomination are caught between a rock and a hard place. The vast majority of Americans have given up on George Bush, the sitting conservative president. But the die-hards who still support him are loyal Republican primary voters that no Republican candidate can afford to offend."

The Weekly Standard's William Kristol and The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner are scheduled to debate if conservatives can be trusted to govern at the Failure of Conservatism conference at 1 p.m. ET. The debate, to be moderated by Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty, will air live on C-SPAN3.

# # #

**NOTE: An opinion piece by Borosage on tonight's debate that ran in today's Chicago Times is available here. Electronic video of the Failure of Conservatism conference will be available at www.ourfuture.org. To schedule an interview with any of the conference speakers, please contact Noreen Nielsen at nnielsen@ourfuture.org or 603-858-2607.**

CONFERENCE ON THE FAILURE OF CONSERVATISMThursday, May 3, 2007National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

9 a.m.Experts discuss how President Bush and conservatives get the world wrong.

10:30 a.m.Experts discuss how conservatives get government wrong.

11:15 a.m.Experts discuss how conservatives have failed the economy.

1 p.m.Leaders debate if conservatives can be trusted to govern.

2:15 p.m.Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, discusses the new progressive challenge.

2:30 p.m.Experts discuss whether the conservative era is over.

Conference participants include:

--Robert Borosage, co-dir., Campaign for America's Future--Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio--Michelle Ciccarelli, lawyer, victims of Enron fraud--Tamara Draut, author and economic opportunity program dir., Demos--Thomas Frank, author and editor, The Baffler Magazine--E.J. Graff, resident scholar, Brandeis Univ. Women's Studies Research Center--Stan Greenberg, pollster and CEO, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research--Jacob Hacker, author and Yale Univ. professor--John Judis, sr. editor, The New Republic--Robert Kuttner, founding co-editor, The American Prospect--Thea Lee, domestic policy dir. and chief international economist, AFL-CIO--Bill Lerach, leading securities lawyer--Harold Meyerson, columnist, Washington Post--Cecelia Muñoz, sr. vice pres., Natl. Council of La Raza--Rick Perlstein, sr. fellow, Campaign for America's Future--Isaiah Poole, exec. editor, TomPaine.com--Beth Shulman, author and lawyer--Bill Spriggs, professor and chairman of the Economics Dept., Howard Univ.--Diane Straus Tucker, president and publisher, American Prospect