As for the myth that Obama packed the Fiscal Commission

[johnaries]

in order to "kill" or privatize Social Security, let's look at that for a minute.

First of all, per his EO he only appointed 6 members, 2 of which HAD to be Republicans:

Sec. 2. Membership. The Commission shall be composed of 18 members who shall be selected as follows:

(a) six members appointed by the President, not more than four of whom shall be from the same political party;
(b) three members selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate;
(c) three members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate; and
(e) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives.

Sec. 3. Co-Chairs. From among his appointees, the President shall designate two members, who shall not be of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Commission.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform

Now, let's look at the members he actually appointed:

ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman

Bowles, the president of the University of North Carolina since 2006, started his business career at Morgan Stanley in New York and later founded an investment banking firm.

Former President Bill Clinton named him to lead the Small Business Administration in 1993, and Bowles became the president's chief of staff from 1996 to 1998. In that position, he helped negotiate the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with Republican congressional leaders, producing the first balanced U.S. budget in nearly 30 years.

ALAN SIMPSON, co-chairman

Simpson was the No. 2 Republican in the Senate for a decade. His chief legacy in the Senate was the overhaul of U.S. immigration law that was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 after intense lobbying by special interest groups.

Simpson was also known as a strong voice for fiscal balance, voting in favor of the 1990 bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, a U.S. official said.

OTHER MEMBERS APPOINTED BY OBAMA

DAVID COTE

Cote, a Republican, has served as Honeywell International chairman, chief executive and president since 2002. He is a member of the U.S.-India CEO Forum, which Obama asked him to co-chair in 2009. He adds a business perspective to Obama's slate of representatives on the panel.

ALICE RIVLIN

Rivlin is a former Federal Reserve vice chair who was also budget director under Bill Clinton. She was the founding director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983. Now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, she would bring budget savvy to the panel.

ANN FUDGE

Fudge worked as chairman and chief executive of Young & Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006. She previously held executive positions at General Mills and Kraft. Fudge would bring business experience to the budget panel.

ANDREW STERN

Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union, which covers 2.2 million workers such as healthcare staffers, security officers and public employees. Stern would bring a labor perspective to the panel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63Q0HB20100427

OK, so you've got the 2 token Republicans. What about the other 4?

Andrew Stern - former President of the SEIU. No way he wants to privatize SS.

Alice Rivlin & Ann Fudge, both of whom worked with the Brookings Institutio. Brookings formal stand on SS:

Restoring long-term balance to Social Security is therefore necessary, but lawmakers do not have to destroy the program in order to save it.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/12saving_orszag.aspx

AS for Erskine Bowles the Dem co-chair, this is from his own website:

Erskine believes that Social Security and Medicare are the bedrocks of retirement security for our nation's seniors. These programs represent a solemn compact that has been made between our government and every American who now, or in the future, seeks their benefits. Erskine will fight to protect Social Security and Medicare by opposing efforts to privatize them, and by putting our fiscal house in order and ending the raid on the trust funds of these important programs.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Erskine_Bowles.htm

So, the claim that Obama "packed" the commission in order to kill Social Security is just plain ridiculous.

[truedelphi]

1. Bigger and more important question - why in the world would he not simply GO ON

THE FRIGGIN RECORD, stating that he is a Democrat, not a Republican, and that since he was voted in by a majority of Americans, he assumes we want to have our Social Security continue.

I know the guy is Commission crazy, but far better to appoint a Commission to find out why he ran as a Progressive and acts like a Conservative than to take this action of attempting to go along with the Republicans on Social Security.

Obama concedes on every issue, long before he needs to.

The only thing he is going to accomplish is to perhaps strengthen the hand of third and fourth parties.

[indepat]

2. Hear, hear; hear, hear; hear, hear

:P

[johnaries]

3. He HAS gone on the record.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8644408&mesg_id=8644408

[Raineyb]

27. Talk is cheap.

Lots of Democrats declare how they are Democrats who believe in Democratic principles while enacting Republican policies. This commission says a hell of a lot more than any god-damned speech. I have no idea why this concept seems to be so difficult for some on this board.

[johnaries]

33. That is what I am trying to point out. That his actions are being

misrepressented by many here. You were the one who said "why doesn't he go on record...".

[moriah]

92. Actually, that wasTrueDelphi.....

....who said that.

Perhaps the "Talk is cheap" comment should have been addressed to him, too, instead of you.

[Enrique]

4. I'm really worried about this

I hope that Pelosi and Reid hold strong.

[johnaries]

6. That's another point. All the commission will do is generate

a report with recommendations. The Congress will vote whether to use the recommendations or not.

[donco6]

70. "It's just a report, with recommendations."

Relax. There's nothing to see here.

Except that reports with recommendations almost always turn into legislation at some point. But let's wait until then to speak up. And then we'll be hearing about how the bill is just a small adjustment in a program - nothing to worry about. And then we'll be hearing how we couldn't stop the amendments from being added because we don't have a super-duper majority. And then we'll be told we have to support the Dems because they're all in the midst of their campaigns and we can't lose this seat or that seat, so how can we hold them accountable to voting against the now-hideous bill? And then we'll hear about how Obama can't veto the bill because he has to demonstrate his "fiscal responsibility" or be trashed in HIS campaign. And then we'll see the death of what Social Security once was.

Yeah, I know, all completely far-fetched. Except it isn't.

[William Z. Foster]

107. exactly

Had variations on that scenario not already happened - again and again - then perhaps the charges that we are being premature or making wild speculations would have some merit. As it is, I think we chronically have been a day late and a dollar short.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. Reid hold strong? He appointed Kent Conrad and Max Baucus!

Yeah, that makes me sleep better. I think we can predict how they'll come down. Ok, he also appointed Dick Durbin - someone's got to put up the token display of fighting and then compromising.

[NJmaverick]

5. Thank you, that was quite informative

[madfloridian]

7. Pete Peterson is funding the commission's activities. Why???

Alan Simpson is a fool.

I could go on about folks like Hensarling....but why are they anywhere near the commission?

It's not like Obama had choices?

[johnaries]

24. No, the funding is coming from the WH. Hensarling was not

appointed by Obama, he was appointed by Boehner.

[Hannah Bell]

72. corporate/foundation money are funding the town halls, not the white house.

AmericaSpeaks: Our Budget, Our Economy National Town Meeting will convene a large, diverse group of Americans on June 26, 2010 to help find common ground and provide our leaders in Washington with a better understanding of the informed priorities of the American public.

The National Town Meeting is made possible by generous contributions from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.


http://usabudgetdiscussion.org/about-2/our-funders/

[johnaries]

85. Exactly. And the town halls are NOT the fiscal reform commission.

People seem to sometimes confuse them.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

[Hannah Bell]

89. not the commission, but part of the activities surrounding the commission.

peterson was one of the major voices pushing for such a commission. prominent dems speak of him as partnering with the commission. he's paid for media spots pushing the necessity of the commission & "entitlement" cuts. i think there's some justification for the confusion.

[johnaries]

94. But that's a far cry from funding the commission. And still doesn't

change my initial statement that the majority of Obama's appointees support Social Security and oppose privatization.

[Hannah Bell]

103. i didn't say he funded the commission, i said there's a reason why that distinction is blurred,

& it's because peterson's been involved in the formation & work of the commission since BEFORE day one.

it may be completely true that the majority of obama's appointees don't favor the extreme of immediate privatization.

that doesn't mean they don't favor e.g. benefits reductions, tax increases, raising the retirement age & equally thieving "solutions" to a non-existent "problem".

and in fact, i bet they do.

[tsuki]

31. Peter G. Peterson, of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, has two of

his minions on the Catfood Commission, Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg. Obama wanted to put Peter G. Peterson, of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation on the commission but the screaming started so he backed down.

[johnaries]

35. Neither of them was appointed by Obama. And why do say Obama

wanted to appoint him to the commission? Anything to back that up?

[TheKentuckian]

8. You have got to be shitting. The whole lot appointed by Obama is hopeless minus Stern

Simpson, snake ass Bowles, and some corporate heads???

Pelosi and Reid did little better.

You can spin like a fucking top till we all puke but the number of friends of labor and working people are a tiny minority and the whole deal was forced by Executive order.

[madfloridian]

12. Stern made some deals that are suspect...

Got a little cozy with big business.

[amandabeech]

14. Not my favorite labor leader, either.

SEIU has a reputation in some quarters for treating its employees and locals like serfs and minor fiefdoms.

Sure, they sign people up, but I cannot recall major victories at the bargaining table.

The Teamsters at one time were corrupt as you know what, but they did a good job with wages and health insurance, although some of their pension funds stunk.

[johnaries]

22. All with previous proven budget success. And if you research

them like I did you will find that only the 2 token Repukes support privatization.

[Hannah Bell]

73. "budget success" - lol.

[AnArmyVeteran]

82. We keep getting sold out

[Hannah Bell]

9. He appointed Simpson, a republican strongly identified with the anti-ss forces.

let's look at the others:


ERSKINE BOWLES: Morgan stanley, investment banking, congress (the orwellian "balanced budget act")


DAVID COTE: Honeywell


ALICE RIVLIN: federal reserve, CBO, Brookings


ANN FUDGE: Young & rubicam, General Mills, Kraft


ANDREW STERN: seiu


I make that 5 reps from the side of capital, one from the side of labor; & stern is a bit dubious, too.

[johnaries]

13. You are cherry-picking. Look at the other 5's complete records.

None of them support privatization.

[Hannah Bell]

28. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8646200&mesg_id=8646302

[WillyT]

10. Huh... My List Must Not Be White House Approved...

ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman —

Like his late father Skipper, an investment banker as well as a big-wheel politician in North Carolina. Prominent Clinton Administration figure (In January of 1998, Business Week called him “Corporate America’s Friend in the White House“) and deeply involved in the Gingrich-Clinton pact to kill Social Security — a pact derailed by Monicagate.

ALAN SIMPSON, co-chairman —

Another son of a prominent politician, and also the father of one, Simpson is not exactly a man of the people no matter how many rodeo badges he wears. Fortunately for us, he doesn’t hide his upper-class arrogance as well as he thinks he does, hence his rather revealing outburst against us “lessers” last week.

OTHER MEMBERS APPOINTED BY OBAMA

DAVID COTE

– Honeywell bigwig Cote is #9 on the list of 2009’s 10 Biggest CEO Paychecks as enumerated by CNNMoney.com, bringing in an obscene $28.7 million in the wake of the economic crisis left by the popping of the Bush-era financial bubbles. But hey, cut the guy some slack: In the five years from 2002 to 2007, the poor fellow had to make do with overall total compensation of only $60.23 million. I know, I know, my heart bleeds for him, too.

ALICE RIVLIN

– Former Federal Reserve vice chair, OMB head under Bill Clinton, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983 and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Doesn’t sound too bad so far, right? Well, except that she, like the not-so-trusty Social Security “trustees”, uses extremely pessimistic economic growth projections to justify keeping a tight rein on spending — which is not what we need at a time when massive government stimulus is needed to restore our dying middle class.

(By the way: Ever notice how over the past decade and a half, the Social Security Doomsday has been getting pushed farther and farther into the future? That’s because of the trustees’ having to admit a tiny bit of reality every so often.)

ANN FUDGE

– Reuters tells us that “Fudge worked as chairman and chief executive of Young & Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006. She previously held executive positions at General Mills and Kraft. Fudge would bring business experience to the budget panel.” Yeah, as if the panel already wasn’t weighted in favor of Big Business and against everyone else. She’d also bring the pro-tobacco viewpoint on top of the pro-corporate viewpoint. How charming.

ANDREW STERN

– Until recently, Andy Stern was the president of the Service Employees International Union. He’s there as a sop to labor and progressives, even though, as a member in good standing of the Veal Pen, that group of tame progressive organizations whose job it is to cover for the Obama White House’s pro-corporate bent, he’s not going to buck the drive to put Grandma on catfood.

:evilgrin:

Pssst... Some of us aren't sure we can't trust Obama anymore either!

:shrug:

[johnaries]

15. Pssst, some of us still do trust him. And much of the criticism is

basically unfounded. Yes, these people are very successful and have experience balancing big budgets. Except for the token Repukes, none of them have supported privatization.

[WillyT]

25. It's Not SOLEY About Privitazation !!!

Its about... raising the retirement age, cutting benefits through indexing or straight cuts, raising the payroll tax, raising the “limit of taxable earnings” (but not just eliminating the limit)...

as well as... “creating personal savings accounts within the system.”

So question for you...

IF it is the determination of this commission that we need to do these things in order to "save" Social security, AND President Obama approves/signs-on with said changes...

Will you STILL be supporting President Obama in the arena of SocSec & Medicare???

:shrug:

[johnaries]

30. I was addressing the people here who keep claiming that Obama

"packed" the commission in order to privatize SS.

There are many options to keep SS, Medicare, and Medicaid solvent.

[WillyT]

38. Yes... And Some Options Service The Rich, While Others Service The Rest Of Us...

:shrug:

[johnaries]

43. Yes, and I support the ones that service the rest of us.

Just like Obama's non-Repuke appointees. That's what I'm trying to point out.

[donco6]

67. Sounds like a "yes" to me. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

108. "solvent?

That we need "options" to "keep SS, Medicare, and Medicaid solvent" is a talking point from those who seek to destroy those programs - that they are not "solvent," that there is a crisis, that something needs to be done.

The danger to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are not from "solvency," the danger is from the right wingers who seek to eliminate them and the Dems who are failing to stand against that.

"There are many options...???" Think about that statement. You are saying that it is possible to save them, that there are some ways to do that. That is already a compromising position. What if those "ways" turn out to be "impractical" or "unrealistic?" What if "we don't have the votes?"

Why would there even be a "bi-partisan" committee to study any of this?

I don't know of people are just incredibly naive or in deep denial, or if they actually agree with the various privatization schemes. There is no way to tell. But I just cannot imagine anyone at this point, with what we know, not being very suspicious and very worried about Social Security, as well as public education and dozens of other things, unless they did not support those things. I cannot imagine why anyone would beat up on those who are expressing suspicion and worry. None of this makes any sense.

[William Z. Foster]

64. balance the budget?

When did we get behind that right wing goal, that stalking horse for privatization and the dismantling government and aiding the wealthy?

Are you saying that the intention was to appoint "people who are very successful and have experience balancing big budgets?"

You are admitting that people's fears about this are well-founded.

Your only "facts" are comments that politicians made. Here is the problem: Democrats are perfecting the art of convincing us that they "believe" one thing, while they are doing things that advance the opposite. Those actions are then later excused with "we didn't have the votes" or "the Republicans were against it" or "the economy would have collapsed" or "it is better than nothing and a step in the right direction." You ask us to be loyal based on what they "are" as determined by what they say.

Politician: "I believe that all Americans should have a chicken in the pot!"

People support that, as they now have no chicken, and they vote for the politician.

Then the politician goes off to meet with Chickenco International Inc. (We later find out that the politician was meeting with Chickenco International Inc. all along, and that they funded the politician's campaign.)

Then the new program is unveiled, and the stock of Chickenco International Inc. goes up, up, up.

"We have reached a compromise that will put chickens in every pot. Is it perfect? No. But is it a step in the right direction? I believe that it is."

Then we discover that people will be forced to buy chickens, and Chickenco International Inc. will decide when and how and will be setting the prices.

Should any of us object to this, we hear "you can't get everything you want" and...well we all know exactly what we then hear.

"Hey, I don't know where you got this crazy idea that you would get a chicken. No one promised you a chicken. You need to face reality and stop blaming politicians and tearing them down. It is not all about you and your chicken, you know. There happen to be other priorities if you haven't noticed."

All along, that same politician can still claim to be "for" everyone getting a chicken.

[Zhade]

76. You keep saying the criticism is unfounded, but have provided no evidence to support that assertion.

You can't simply make an empty statement not supported by evidence and expect anyone to take your claim as proven. It doesn't work that way, especially when the actual historical record shows this commission is weighted toward and with corporate power over labor.

Until you can support your argument about the criticism, I (and, it appears, a number of others) reject it as readily as you reject the facts about the commission's collective pro-corporate, anti-SocSec record.

[johnaries]

88. But I have provided links demonstrating that the Dems he

appointed support Social Security and do NOT want to privatize it.

[William Z. Foster]

106. right

But too often, what Democratic party politicians claim to "want" and what they actually do are two different things.

[donco6]

56. Golly! Your list reads a lot different than th' other one.

And funny, but yours rings of more truth. Imagine.

[johnaries]

62. It's the same list, his is just cherry-picked. Do some research

and you'll find that the Dems he picked support SS.

[donco6]

68. And your single-sourced quotes are the end of all info gathering?

Not hardly.

[johnaries]

84. Actually, no. I just didn't include all of my research.

But here are the Google links. I won't bother with the token REpublicans.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GWYA_enUS318US318&&sa=X&ei=0xooTPPfNsPflgei4u3QAg&ved=0CAoQBSgA&q=erskine+bowles&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GWYA_enUS318US318&q=alice%20rivlin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GWYA_enUS318US318&q=ann+fudge&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GWYA_enUS318US318&q=andrew+stern&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

And since Alice Rivlin and Ann Fudge both were members of the Brookings Institution, here is Brookings' stance:

http://www.retirementsecurity.org/public/220.cfm

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb126.htm

[moriah]

95. I'm reading the book that people seem to be saying is the source for the "Glinton-Gingrich" pact....

... and reserving judgment on whether it was designed to "kill" social security until I'm finished. Have you actually read it yourself? It's $9.99 on Amazon.com's Kindle Store.

The reviews of the book from the bookstores and ratings places don't say anything at all about how they were trying to "kill" social security, just that they were trying to work together to fix it. Your phrasing is exactly the same as a meme from FireDogLake, but that's the ONLY place (besides people quoting that article) who is saying that's what the pact was designed to do.

Until a person has actually read the book or can quote what in their attempt at compromise was designed to "kill" social security, I think it's really irresponsible to make accusations like that.

[madfloridian]

11. You want to know more about Bowles???

The other co-chair of Obama's debt commission made Social Security pact with Gingrich

"The Pact Between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich

In the evening of Oct. 28, 1997, House Speaker Newt Gingrich headed to the White House to meet with President Bill Clinton, ostensibly to hammer out final details of the 1998 budget. In reality, Gingrich and Clinton were putting finishing touches on a deal to create a centrist political coalition to fix long-term problems facing Social Security and Medicare.

..."While there were dozens of reform plans circulating around Washington, ranging from minor tinkering to radical overhaul, there was a growing consensus around "middle ground'' proposals that combined some structural changes in the retirement age with some form of private accounts. There were also hopeful signs that the public was ready for a serious discussion about Social Security reform. An August 1997 survey by Clinton pollster Mark Penn found that 73 percent of Democratic voters favored some form of privatization, and support was especially strong among younger workers. Independent polls also showed that many young people believed that without significant change the programs would not be able to provide for them in their old age.

.."The exact details would have been worked out later, but the broad outlines were clear. Gingrich was willing to give up the tax cut for a proposal that included private investment in Social Security. "The balanced budget bill was Act I,'' Gingrich reflected. "This was Act II.'' Instinctively, both men still wondered whether the other was setting a trap in preparation for the upcoming elections. Would Clinton leak word that Gingrich was once again trying to tamper with Social Security and Medicare, reinforcing his image as hostile to the old and poor? Would Gingrich tell reporters that the president was ready to accept the centerpiece of Republican proposals for Social Security: privately funded accounts?"

More about Bowles.

"Those who consider themselves Social Security mavens know the name Erskine Bowles. Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, and currently president of the University of North Carolina system, Bowles has teamed up with former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson to head the newly created deficit reduction commission. The president tasked the commission with finding ways to reduce the federal deficit and reforming the country’s two most popular social programs—Medicare and Social Security.

Both Simpson and Bowles are making their way back into the limelight, so it won’t be long before the media, which we know plays a good game of follow the newsmaker, will soon be covering what they say. Bloomberg began last week when it covered Bowles’s speech to the North Carolina Bankers Association’s annual Bank Directors Assembly. Like his sidekick Simpson, Bowles didn’t mince words, saying:

"We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there. If we don’t make those choices, America is going to be a second-rate power, and I don’t mean in fifty years. I mean in my lifetime."

Bull hockey. Get our priorities straight, stop the war machine, and tend to our problems here at home.

[johnaries]

19. Did you also see my direct quote from Bowles?

Yes, those programs have to be addressed. But most of Obama's appointees come from the position that the answer is primarily in increasing revenues.

[JackRiddler]

81. They conflict with those quoted by others. And you're doing talking points, not discussion.

We'll talk again in December. Unfortunately.

[johnaries]

87. My Bowles quotes come directly from Bowles website. nt

[JackRiddler]

100. And this means? So he's said different-sounding things at different times. That's nice.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. Alan Simpson alone is a sign of poor judgement at the very least. Co Chair?!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/deficit-commission-co-cha_b_617468.html
Dave Johnson Fellow, Campaign for America's Future
Posted: June 18, 2010

Deficit Commission Co-Chair: Social Security T-Bills Have "Been Used"
skip

The Commission: Now there is the Deficit Commission looking into how to raise money to cover what the government handed out as tax cuts to the rich. Rather than get the money from where the money went, the plutocrats are instead trying to convince people that it would make more sense to just cut Social Security instead, so they don't have to pay it back. The commission is meeting in secret, preparing to recommend cutting Social Security benefits. Hence the nickname for the Commission: "Catfood Commission," because cutting Social Security would force as many as 1.5 million old people into poverty and eating cat food for dinner because it costs less.

After Bush and Wall Street destroyed the economy older people were laid off in waves (because they're past a certain age), can't get jobs (because they're old), now have been denied extended unemployment and denied COBRA subsidies. Now they're called "lazy". They're threatened with the humiliation of drug tests. And finally, the Catfood Commission, meeting in secret, threatens any retirement security they have. Digby calls it "simple cruelty." And, as sTiVo pointed out in a comment at Open Left yesterday,
"Since raising the retirement age is now on the table as a solution to the non-problem of Social Security, it is VITAL to raise this issue. WHAT JOBS????"

skip

This is really important. They increased the Social Security tax on working people, gave the money out as tax cuts for the wealthy, created deficits on purpose to defund government, created a huge debt mess, and now the next stage of this plan is to gut social programs.

This is what the Deficit Commission is about. Tax cuts for the rich and military spending caused the borrowing and raising taxes on the rich can stop it. But the plan was to force a perception of a debt emergency to stampede people into accepting a dismantling of government that works for We, the People, and provides for us, empowers us and protects us. This is the confrontation of plutocracy vs democracy. We can't let them get away with it.

Here are 2 more reads I reccomend

**************************************************

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041624/week-obama-s-deficit-commission-or-pete-peterson-s
This Week: Obama’s Deficit Commission – or Pete Peterson’s?
By Roger Hickey

April 24, 2010 - 7:11pm ET

**************************************************
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008479-503544.html
June 22, 2010 3:43 PM
Obama's Deficit Panel Draws Ire from Liberals
Posted by Stephanie Condon

[johnaries]

21. By his own EO one of the co-chairs had to be a Repuke.

At least he picked one with budget experience.

[madfloridian]

23. You are defending Simpson as a pick?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6362

[johnaries]

26. If you HAD to pick a Repuke with experience balancing budgets

your options are pretty limited.

[madfloridian]

29. Oh, geez

Please.

[johnaries]

40. No, seriously! Who would have been your choice?

Remember, it has to be a Republican. Preferably someone with budget exxperience. Who would you have chosen, and why?

[William Z. Foster]

109. easy

There should be no one - no one - who opposes Social Security. Of course. Just as there should be no one supporting or defending torture, detention or rendition in the Justice Department. No one.

"Budget experience" is a joke, no?

[Hannah Bell]

32. it didn't have to be one who wants to kill social security. one of the primary voices for killing

it, in fact.

and a first-class asshole.

[johnaries]

39. Juat curious, who would have been your choice out of the

Republicans?

[JackRiddler]

54. The material you quote doesn't say Republicans. It says no more than four from one party.

My choice would have been Ralph Nader.

[johnaries]

93. And what are the 2 parties in Congress?

There are only 2 Independents, and they caucus with the Dems. So for a bi-partisan (bi means "2", btw) your choices are Dems and Repubs. Why is that so hard to understand? :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

101. Why does that matter? The Commission has people from outside Congress.

That Cote, for example, is the CEO of a Pentagon contractor and a director at JPM Chase, is interesting. There are millions of other people that could have been picked.

[nashville_brook]

17. Seems that Simpson has a problem with the truth w/r/t Social Security -->

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/zombies-have-already-killed-the-deficit-commission/


June 21, 2010, 12:12 PM - Paul Krugman
Zombies Have Already Killed The Deficit Commission

(snip)

Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first. We went through all this at length back in 2005, but let me do this yet again.

Social Security is a government program funded by a dedicated tax. There are two ways to look at this. First, you can simply view the program as part of the general federal budget, with the the dedicated tax bit just a formality. And there’s a lot to be said for that point of view; if you take it, benefits are a federal cost, payroll taxes a source of revenue, and they don’t really have anything to do with each other. Alternatively, you can look at Social Security on its own. And as a practical matter, this has considerable significance too; as long as Social Security still has funds in its trust fund, it doesn’t need new legislation to keep paying promised benefits.

OK, so two views, both of some use. But here’s what you can’t do: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that for the last 25 years, when Social Security ran surpluses, well, that didn’t mean anything, because it’s just part of the federal government — but when payroll taxes fall short of benefits, even though there’s lots of money in the trust fund, Social Security is broke. And bear in mind what happens when payroll receipts fall short of benefits: NOTHING. No new action is required; the checks just keep going out.

So what does it mean that the co-chair of the commission is resurrecting this zombie lie? It means that at even the most basic level of discussion, either (a) he isn’t willing to deal in good faith or (b) the zombies have eaten his brain. And in either case, there’s no point going on with this farce.

[Whisp]

18. thank you.

not near as boogie-man as some here make it sound.

lord tunderin' jesus.
why do so many here believe the right wing talking spews?

?•W•T•F•?

[Dr.Phool]

34. The myth that you have a clue............

Ain't working.

These people have histories and public records.

[johnaries]

37. Yes, they do. That is what I am presenting here.

Care to present any evidence that the 4 non-Republicans are anti-Social Security? Please do, I am looking for as much honest information as possible.

[William Z. Foster]

36. we shall see

Let's say that what you are saying is true. In that case then, you would not nor would anyone in the administration have any problem whatsoever with the people here who are worried about Social Security. We would all be on the same side in that case, would we not? The idea that those fighting for Social Security here are somehow a problem belies your reassurances. Which is it? Which side are you on? If you are on our side, then you should have no problem with what we are saying, If you are not, then the fears and objections we have are warranted.

If the administration - and you - strongly support Social Security then you should not be having any problem at all with the Social Security advocates here. Yet you do seem to have some problem with them.

People merely saying that they support Social Security is of no value. The pattern is becoming clear - "we really really really are on your side, so could you please shut up?" Then we get the opposite result and the excuse is "we could not do anything because of the opposition, this is the reality and you need to face it. But we are really, really on your side."

If it is the Republicans who are the problem - or the drug companies, or the insurance companies or Wall Street - and will later be used as an excuse for failure after the fact, then why on earth would people not be completely justified in objecting when those foxes are admitted to the hen house at the onset of the process?

If Republicans - like Simpson - are the problem and are later going to be used as the excuse, why are they given so much power and influence?

What we are seeing is that saying something is a set up for doing the opposite and then blaming others.

People who are now saying that it is nothing to worry about that Simpson is involved will, I predict, in a few months be blaming Simpson for the results and saying that "we could do nothing because of the opposition."

This pattern has repeated itself too many times now and is becoming too obvious.

[johnaries]

42. I do not have a problem with Social Security advocates - I AM one.

I am getting close to retirement, and since my 401k was pretty much wiped (thank you, GW) I am going to depend heavily on my SS check. I was hoping to retire at 65 (I'm 53), but have decided to delay it by 2 years in order to get a bigger SS check.

So I am most DEFINITELY a Social Security advocate. I also will have to depend on Medicare, so I want to see it solvent and working well, also.

What I have a problem with is people who jump to conclusions and spread misinformation without doing any research. That is what I am addressing here.

My own personal choice would be to adjust the automatic COL increase by 1% (or less) and raise the cap. Oh, and for Congress to stop "borrowing" from it.

[William Z. Foster]

46. yes, that is a problem

Yes, people who jump to conclusions and spread misinformation without doing any research are a problem, I agree.

For example, "Social Security is insolvent" is a right wing lie being used to scare people into accepting some sort of privatization of Social Security. We would not want to fail to research that, jump to conclusions and then spread misinformation by repeating it.

[johnaries]

48. True, most estimates I've read say

it will be solvent until 2037 if we do nothing. But, I hope to live longer than that! So, I thnk it should be addressed before then although I don't believe it requires drastic measures like the RW claims.

Nor does it add to the deficit. So all this talk of the deficit commission striving to eliminate SS is just a bunch of hysteria, as far as I can see.

[William Z. Foster]

53. it cannot be insolvent

I cannot be "insolvent" in 2037 either.

There most certainly are people striving to eliminate SS. I do not see any of this "hysteria" you are worried about. Why not address the specific (documented and well-reasoned) arguments people are making rather than trying to have us dismiss them merely because you want us to dismiss them.

[johnaries]

59. I think you misunderstand my purpose. Yes, there certainly are

people striving to eliminate SS. What I am trying to address is the anti-Obama rhetoric that Obama is trying to eliminate SS and that he "stacked" the fiscal reform panel in order to do so.

I have seen that presented several times here, and I'm trying to show that the facts refute that rhetoric.

[William Z. Foster]

60. the facts do not refute that

Nor is this about Obama. People are fighting on certain fronts. They would be fighting on those fronts regardless of which politician is involved. Loyalty to a personality is not the issue, should not be the issue.

The facts show a pattern. I don't think you are going to be able to get people to un-see that pattern now.

The facts you are presenting are about what a politician said. Those are not facts.

[Radical Activist]

79. To believe in your pattern and see this

as an attack on Social Security requires that we assume Obama is always up to no good and is on a secret mission to do...something bad. You haven't really specified what the bad result will be yet but you're suggesting you don't like whatever it is.

That isn't about facts. It reveals much more about your personal attitude regarding Obama.

If the commission proposes something damaging to Social Security that I don't like then I'll oppose it. That's what issue-focused people do. But there are a lot of people on this board jumping the gun with assumptions about Obama attacking Social Security. Is that about the issue or is it about alway assuming the worst of a personality they don't like?

[William Z. Foster]

105. this is not about Obama

I have no "personal attitude regarding Obama." He is one among many politicians, and I do not look at him any differently than I have hundreds of others, including JFK, LBJ, RFK, Humphrey, Carter and Clinton. The difference is that we could criticize them without being attacked for doing so, the way that we are now by the defenders of this administration. That is the only thing that has changed.

You ask "is that about the issue or is it about always assuming the worst of a personality they don't like?"

Neither. It is about bitter experience.

You are the one consistently trying to make everything be about Obama - loving or hating him. People's fears about banking regulation, health care, the wars, executive powers, housing, education, and the Gulf catastrophe have all been borne out. If anything, we have not been aggressive and suspicious enough, we have not been critical enough.

[johnaries]

98. The facts are that 2/3 of the people Obama appointed to the

commission are opposed to privatization. So it simply doesn't make sense to accuse Obama of "stacking" the commission in order to kill Social Security. It's a false attack.

[Radical Activist]

77. You can see the baseless assumptions all around you.

In the current thread and this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8644408&mesg_id=8644408

If this is really about the issue then why not wait until the commission actually proposes something before declaring it's an attack on Social Security? Any criticism of policy is speculative at this point. So far Obama has consistently held a position that all of us agree with.

Your own cryptic suggestion that this is part of a pattern with some kind of bad result is mind reading and speculation. The committee's makeup could also be designed to build support among Republicans for a tax increase in areas outside of social security. We don't know yet.

It doesn't appear that someone is most concerned about issues when they have trouble sticking to facts. For some of us it really is about accuracy and we've seen too many people crying wolf about Obama. Do you see how speculative, exaggerated accusations get in the way of discussing issues? It turns the discussion to defending Obama from unfair attacks instead of keeping the focus on the issues.

[Hannah Bell]

74. it will be solvent even in 2037 and beyond. "insolvent" mean NO FUNDS.

Even by the conservative estimates of the social security trustees, whose estimates have been wrong more often than they've been right, ss will be able to pay out 75% of benefits in 2037.

and that 75% (because of the assumptions built into that projection, which include benefit hikes to keep ss on par with assumed increases in prevailing wages) will have more buying power than 100% of benefits today.

SS will never be "insolvent" so long as workers are paying into it.

[Radical Activist]

41. Why didn't my rec count?

People don't like facts?

[donco6]

57. Over your quota?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

44. Here is more about Peterson and his money behind the commission.

You can be in denial or not.

Pete Peterson's "anti-entitlement juggernaut" ....

""When Obama’s new Deficit Commission gets going, it has plans for "partnering“--in the words of executive director Bruce Reed--with outside groups. Among them will be the foundation run by Wall Street billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who on today is upstaging the president with his own fiscal summit in Washington. Obama insists he is keeping an open mind about how to deal with the deficit and national debt--but he’s already stacked his own commission with people who lean heavily toward one particular solution: cutting entitlements for the old, the sick, the disabled, and the poor. And if that wasn't enough, he now looks to be working hand-in-glove with a wealthy private organization whose central purpose is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Talk about foregone conclusions.

The White House set the stage two months ago when it created the euphemistically named National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform--commonly called the Deficit Commission or the Debt Panel. The commission's anti-entitlement bent was clear from the get-go based on Obama’s choice of Alan Simpson to co-chair the commission. The former Republican senator from Wyoming has already described his mission as “saving” the United States from “insolvency” by hacking away at entitlements. His longstanding dedication to cutting entitlements dates back several decades, according to Saul Friedman, and "as recently as 2005, Simpson, a conservative from Wyoming who left the Senate in 1997, supported attempts by President George Bush to privatize Social Security by turning part of the pension and insurance program into millions of individual investment accounts, which by now would have lost 20 percent of their value." And even now, "Simpson, who should know better, conflates or deliberately confuses Social Security’s long term fiscal problems, which are minor, with its supposed contribution to the federal deficit, which is almost nil."

..."But Simpson's power as chair of the presidential Deficit Commission pales in comparison to that of billionaire anti-entitlement crusader Pete Peterson."

[johnaries]

45. Yes, I read that - and no where does it say that Peterson has any

direct ties to the commission. Peterson is funding his OWN "summit". NOT the commission. Yes, he needs to be opposed, but he still has nothing to do with the commission itself.

And again with Simpson. Obama had to pick a Repuke for co-chair as an opposing voice to the other co-chair. But, again, the majority of Obama's picks want to save SS.

[madfloridian]

47. What the H do you think "partnering with" means?

"When Obama’s new Deficit Commission gets going, it has plans for "partnering“--in the words of executive director Bruce Reed--with outside groups. Among them will be the foundation run by Wall Street billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who on today is upstaging the president with his own fiscal summit in Washington. Obama insists he is keeping an open mind about how to deal with the deficit and national debt--but he’s already stacked his own commission with people who lean heavily toward one particular solution: cutting entitlements for the old, the sick, the disabled, and the poor. And if that wasn't enough, he now looks to be working hand-in-glove with a wealthy private organization whose central purpose is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Talk about foregone conclusions."

You may choose to be in denial. I would rather face facts and be honest and up front about things.

[johnaries]

50. Read it again. One person said that it has "plans" to "partner"

with outside groups. Then it names Peterson's foundation as "one" of those outside groups.

This is all speculation based on a single statement. Is the commission currently "partnering" with Peterson?

I've searched, but I've found no evidence of it at all.

[madfloridian]

51. That person is Bruce Reed, head of the DLC.

You really don't see what is happening.

[johnaries]

55. Again, have you seen any evidence that it is currently partnering

with Peterson? Did Reed even mention Peterson's group?

[madfloridian]

61. Oh my, I just quoted Reed's words to you. You really are in denial.

[johnaries]

63. You still haven't answered the question. Do you have ANY

evidence that Peterson's group is "partnering" with the commission? Did Reed actually mention Peterson or his group?

Who's the one in denial?

[Hannah Bell]

75. yes.

Executive Director Bruce Reed, who is on leave from the Democratic Leadership Council, said the commission will partner with other groups to get the word out, including the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which will hold a fiscal summit Wednesday featuring former president Bill Clinton. And in June, commission members plan to participate in a 20-city electronic town hall meeting on the budget organized by the nonprofit America Speaks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604189_2.html?sid=ST2010042700096

[johnaries]

97. And what was the outcome of yesterday's fiscal summit?

when a scientifically selected group of participants picked up their electronic voting devices, they overwhelmingly supported proposals to

*Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than1 million.
*Reduce military spending by 10 to 15 percent,
*Create a carbon tax AND a securities-transaction tax.

[Hannah Bell]

104. you forgot the other three, two of which were first on the list.

cut non-defense spending 5%.
raise the retirement age to 69.
raise the cap to cover 90% of wages.

the second one is particularly bad.

[donco6]

69. Hey, when Obama's "Fight the Smears" is your sig line -

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

[johnaries]

83. The facts.

[Zhade]

80. Why do you keep misrepresenting Obama's choices?

The fact is that his EO DOES NOT state he was "required" to pick a Republican AT ALL.

It says "not more than four from the same party". Obama could easily have chosen Bernie Sanders, for example.

It's a misrepresentation of the facts to repeatedly insist that he was forced to choose ANY Republican. let alone any whose political raison d'etre is to CUT SOCIAL SECURITY!

And this has been pointed out to you more than once.

[johnaries]

90. Oh, yeah, he could have picked Sanders and Lieberman.

That would have made it completely "bi-partisan". :sarcasm:

[SunsetDreams]

49. K&R for facts, thank you

[JackRiddler]

52. Why would he ever pick Simpson and Cote? And have you watched the actual meetings of this monster?

The only reason to appoint a commission to figure out the deficit is so that it can propose unpopular measures like Social Security cuts or privatization. That's what these people have been talking about in their meetings, where the experts who testify are IMF economists who have been specializing in fucking the Third World with austerity measures for decades.

Go here, I was kind enough to transcribe an hour's worth of the sessions for you. (I did so because it was the most interesting, the guy who followed on Carmen Reinhart was much, much worse.)

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&start=480#p343261

I don't want to hear how he has to pick Republicans, it doesn't say that, it says no more than four from one party. He could have picked Greens or independents. There's a whole universe of Republicans other than Simpson, one of the most avowed enemies of Social Security for decades.

Want to cut the deficit? It's not that hard. End the completely useless empire and raise taxes on the rich. Acknowledge that history shows austerity does not work, that austerity actually raises deficits by cutting into growth and thus reducing revenues. What's needed is intelligent investment, not mere stimulus. Put a few hundred billion dollars into solar and wind and efficiency and railways and mass public transport, not Afghanistan and new death stars.

These are untouchables, however, because this country is designed for the empire and for the super-rich. So they appoint a Commission and pretend they're neutral and bipartisan so that neither major party can be blamed when their kabuki produces the predetermined finding that "entitlements" are unsustainable.

The report will be coming out in December. How much you want to bet that the economy and financial system will be declared to be in dire crisis and under attack by the bond vigilantes right after the November election?

[johnaries]

58. First of all, can you imagine what would have happened if Obama

declared a "bi-partisan" commission and then didn't appoint any Republicans? I'm surprised that he managed to get away with appointing twice as many Dems without more of an outrage.

But, of course, Republicans are claiming the commission is just an excuse to justify raising taxes. Which I believe that raising taxes on the rich will be a large part of it.

Thanks for your link, but the only mention of SS I saw was when one member asked if it was included in Reinhold's debt calculations.

[Edweird]

66. Um, since when was an 'excuse' needed to 'justify' raising taxes?

[johnaries]

96. I'm just stating that is what the conservative meme is. Actually,

the commission itself has said that it is going to look at a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes. However, they have not targeted any spending or any taxes as yet.

[laughingliberal]

71. There actually were some moderate Republians around in Simpson's day. He had other choices.

Simpson is a well known hater of SS and all things New Deal from way back.


Simpson is apparently a graduate of the Bobby Etheridge school of charm. Alex Lawson was incredibly respectful and polite as the crankly Simpson berated, interrupted and cussed him. Simpson has been a long-time supporter of rolling back the New Deal, and when asked about cuts he would recommend to the President and Congress on CNBC, Simpson said “We are going to stick to the big three,” meaning Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. His sentiments haven’t changed.
CJR’s Trudy Lieberman recently ran down Simpson’s history of delicate statements on the subject of Social Security. He is equally decorous on camera with Alex, who clearly knows a great deal more about the subject than he does. Simpson starts from the premise that the Treasury will default on the bonds issued to the Social Security trust fund, because all the best people apparently know that it’s better to default on America’s senior citizens and plunge them into poverty than it is to default on, say, the Chinese.
Despite Simpson’s assertions, raising the retirement age to 70 IS a benefit cut. It would put an estimated 1.5 million senior citizens into poverty. After two years of watching billions of dollars in taxpayer money being paid out to Wall Street CEOs in lavish bonuses while the White House breaks every promise they’ve made to rein them in, that takes a fat load of nerve.
The commission is also looking into cutting Medicare benefits, because the deal guaranteeing no-bid Medicare contracts to the pharmaceutical industry by both Republicans and Democrats can’t possibly be abrogated. The committee claims it’s independent, but it’s not THAT independent. So, old people, too bad for you.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-take-care-lesser-people-society

[William Z. Foster]

102. who cares?

What would have happened had he not appointed any Republicans? Would they have been angry? Would they have opposed everything we need anymore than they will anyway no matter what the administration does?

Who cares if Republicans are "outraged?" They will be outraged no matter what. They won't stop obstructing no matter how much the Dems compromise.

Yeah, I can imagine what would happen if Obama took a partisan stand and fought for the working people. Millions would rally around him, Democrats would be emboldened everywhere, and Republicans would lose their seats. Sure the Republicans would call him a Socialist, sure the MSM talking heads would trash him. So what? They are going to do that anyway, no matter what he does.

[Edweird]

65. Who are we gonna believe? You or our lying eyes?

[johnaries]

91. I want you to look up the actual stances of Obama's appointees.

I'll grant the 2 Republicans, but what about the other 4? That's hardly "stacking" it as some have claimed.

[William Z. Foster]

99. "stances" don't mean anything

Democrats are perfecting the art of having one "stance" and then allowing, encouraging or advancing programs and policies that have the opposite result. They have also perfected the art of excuse making after the fact.

We have all sorts of Democratic party politicians who "share our beliefs." So what? It means absolutely nothing. We are supposed to look at the "beliefs" and ignore the actions.

One fox in the hen house is "stacking" the odds in my book.

[Edweird]

112. Sorry. It's totally rigged and everyone can see it.

[joe black]

78. Simpson is about the fucking worst.

I think if Obama looked around he could find someone less twisted.

[JanMichael]

86. Erskine is fucking loser. Plus he tried to gut janitorial staff in the UNC system.

Got fucked to wall on that "cost saving" measure too. Fucking smarmy assed shithead with no moral compass unless you include his ridiculous glasses.

Two shitty campaigns for senate which allowed a slumlord and psycho nut job to make laws should prevent him from holding the post of dog catcher let alone anything higher.

[jeanpalmer]

110. Who of his appointees

is going to advocate stopping the wars and cutting defense spending?

That quotation from from the Brookings Institute is another way of saying "cut SS." When these people want to reduce SS benefits, they treat SS like a separate program, with separate funding and accounting. When they want to raid it to fund wars and other pet projects, they treat its revenues as part of the general fund. It has been a fraud perpetrated on the people by the likes of Rivlin and the other 5 of his appointments. Name one of them who advocated cutting SS taxes when too much was being taken in, instead of stealing the money for wars.

By the time the average Democrat wakes up to what's going on here, it will be over.

[jaxx]

111. Rec.

Not that it did any good, but I read through it all and you have stayed on target and not been sidetracked. I applaud you and your even handedness with the topic. Well done, and very interesting.