Social Security and Medicare Keep us alive!

flyer for Lungren Town Hall event

2011-10-17T19:47:00.000-07:00

Watch the video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xls8DN4O7aQ
Flyer for Lungren rally the 18th: Word PDF
Resolution to County Central Committee Word PDF
OWL Resolution: Word PDF
Contact Information: raise your voice! Word PDF

REP. LUNGREN VOTED TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

Voted for Ryan Act, which would have replaced Medicare with useless coupons and forced seniors to find and buy their own health insurance

Voted to cut Social Security twice this year

Voted for deep benefit cuts while giving a huge tax cut to the rich

Voted to cut the Social Security Administration, hurting service delivery to millions of elderly and disabled beneficiaries

Tell Dan Lungren to keep his hands off our Social Security and Medicare!

Ø In 2005 Lungren voted and campaigned for Bush’s failed scheme to privatize Social Security

Ø Voted for a bill that could cut your Social Security benefits by up to one-third by 2016 — a $5,700 a year benefit cut for the average earner.

Ø Voted YES on H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, July 19, 2011;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll606.xml

Ø Voted to give a huge tax cut of $1.1 TRILLION to the richest Americans.

Ø Voted YES on H.Con.Res. 34, the House Budget Resolution, April 15,

2011; http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll277.xml

Ø Voted to cut the Social Security Administration by $1.7 billion in 2011, forcing the agency to furlough workers, reduce office hours, and increase customer waiting time.

Ø Voted YES on H.R. 1, Feb. 19, 2011; http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/ rll147.xml)

Ø Voted to replace Medicare with a useless coupon that would guarantee that seniors could not find affordable private insurance

He promises that no one over 55 will lose Social Security or Medicare--- But what about seniors who have been paying into the system for decades?

He voted repeatedly against allowing Medicare recipients to obtain free preventive care, and to allow their children to stay on their insurance plans to age 27

On Tues October 18^th, 2011

Dan Lungren is having a town hall meeting in Galt:

7:00 PM – 8:30 PM
Littleton Community Center
420 Civic Drive

Explanation of Votes in Congress

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 (H.R. 2560) was a proposal to control federal spending by making across-the-board cuts for the next decade. It was approved 234 to 190 on July 19, 2011 (Roll Call Vote 606). Specifically, the bill would have:

• Made the debt limit increase contingent on Congress passing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), which would make extremely deep cuts to Social Security. The BBA would reduce federal spending as a share of the economy to 18 percent by 2021, down from the current 24 percent. If the BBA took effect in 2016, and the spending cuts were distributed evenly across the government, Social Security would be cut $1.8 trillion from 2016 to 2020—a one-third cut. That would mean that the Social Security benefit for the average earner retiring at age 65 in 2016, $17,632, would be cut by $5,766, a 32.7 percent reduction.1

• Prohibited any spending from the Social Security Trust Fund, which currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion that is expected to rise to $3.7 trillion by 2022. This is because the BBA would prohibit federal spending from exceeding revenue in each year, making the disbursement of funds collected in the past nearly impossible.2

The House Republican Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 34) was a proposal to set forth the congressional budget for the federal government for Fiscal Year 2012, including the appropriate budgetary levels for FY2013- FY2021. It was approved 235 to 193 on April 15, 2011 (Roll Call Vote 277). It would have drastically restructured the Medicare and Medicaid programs while implementing a “fast track” procedure for cutting Social Security benefits.

Included in this bill was a $1.1 trillion tax cut to the richest Americans and a cut in the individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. The Republican budget extended all of President Bush’s tax cuts, which would cut taxes by $700 billion over 10 years for the richest 2 percent of Americans. It also would cut taxes by $371.4 billion for the richest Americans by repealing the surtax on investment income and the additional Hospital Insurance tax contained in the Affordable Care Act.3 The Republican budget also would have cut the top marginal tax rate for individuals from 35 percent to 25 percent and reduced the corporate tax rate by the same amount. (No estimates are available about how much more that would save individuals and corporations in taxes.)4

H.R. 1 was a House Republican proposal to fund the government through the end of Fiscal Year 2011.5 It was approved 239 to 189 on February 19, 2011 (Roll Call Vote 147).

Among its $61 billion in cuts from President Obama’s budget was a $1.7 billion cut to the Social Security Administration (SSA) below the level needed to provide promised service levels and to fund current projects.6 It was estimated that H.R. 1 would have the following effects: SSA would have had to furlough its workers for up to one month by the end of 2011; up to 400,000 people would have had their retirement, survivors, and Medicare applications significantly delayed, becoming part of a large and growing backlog; and up to 290,000 people would have had their disability benefit applications delayed.

1Rebecca Theiss, Economic Policy Institute, “Unbalanced Budgeting: Federal Spending Cap May Endanger Social Security,” June 22, 2011. http://www.epi.org/page/-/EPI_PolicyMemorandum_186.pdf?nocdn=1. These calculations are based on the BBA in S.J. Res. 10, introduced March 31, 2011, which is one example of a BBA that is acceptable by the standards of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. Social Security benefit from Social Security Administration, Statistical Supplement to the 2011 Trustees Report, Table VI.F10. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2011/lr6f10.html.

2Robert Greenstein and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “A Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Threatens Great Economic Damage,” July 27, 2011. http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6-11bud2-rev7-26-11.pdf

3Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, “Statement of Robert Greenstein, President, on Chairman Ryan’s Budget Plan,” April 20, 2011, available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3452; Tax Policy Center, “Reduce Corporate Income Tax Rate and Repeal Various Income Tax and Payroll Tax Provisions: Impact on Tax Revenue vs. Current Policy Baseline, 2012-2021,” April 7, 2011, available at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T11-0088.pdf.

4Paul Ryan, “Advancing Social Security Reforms,” in Path to Prosperity, April 2011, p. 6. Available at http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

5H.R. 1 available at http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/2011crapprops/AppropCRFinal_xml.pdf

6House Ways and Means Committee Democratic Staff, “Ways and Means Democrats Blast Republican Plan to Shut Down Social Security Administration,” February 15, 2011. Available at http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=11465

Sound only: OWL/Gray Panthers meeting on Social Security/Medicare

2011-10-17T19:44:00.000-07:00

OWL/Gray Panthers Meeting on Social Security and Medicare. Speakers, Chris Flores, Congresswoman Doris Matsui's Office; John Joseph, AARP; HICAP (Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program); Margie Metzler, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (sound only). mp3 file

OWL Resolution on Social Sec. and Medicare

2011-10-17T11:44:00.001-07:00

Resolution on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

WHEREAS, Social Security is a great pride to America and its senior citizens, and is neither a welfare nor an "entitlement program" because it is funded entirely out of the contributions of workers and their employers; and

WHEREAS, Social Security is not a retirement program, but an insurance program protecting against poverty in old age, loss of income due to disability, or the death of a spouse or parent; and

WHEREAS, Medicare protects seniors from catastrophic health problems which would otherwise bankrupt themselves and their families, and

WHEREAS, Medicaid is a nationwide safety net that ensures that people who fall through our complex and inadequate health care system will have health care, and is also the provider of long-term living solutions for many disabled and/or senior Americans, and

WHEREAS, the problem with our healthcare system is neither Medicare nor Medicaid, but that we as a nation have not come to terms with our need for a national healthcare system such as a single-payer system, which would cut costs in a far more meaningful fashion, without harming our most vulnerable people, and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Sacramento Chapter of the Older Women’s League (www.owlca.org/sc.htm) calls upon the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction to reject any and all attempts to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, including but not limited to increase in eligibility age, chained-CPI, privatization in any form, or decreases in funding; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that OWL Sacramento has a responsibility to preserve an American treasure which is the right of all citizens of this country, and therefore calls upon our President and other elected officials to consider it a duty and privilege to protect and defend the integrity of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid against any individual or organization who would seek to diminish their presence in our society.

Submitted by: Margie Metzler

How to contact the Supercommittee and electeds

2011-10-17T11:35:00.000-07:00

Here's a list of ways to comment on the Super Committee's possible efforts to "balance the budget" on the backs of sweniors and the disabled.

President Obama: White House website form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ or call 202-456-1111

Super Committee (formally known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction) http://www.deficitreduction.gov/public/index.cfm/contact. Write them at http://www.deficitreduction.gov/public/ and clicking “Write to us today.” Phone: 877-762-8762 (thanks to Jodi Reid and David Blank at ARA/CARA)

Congressman Dan Lungren: e-mail: https://lungren.house.gov/?sectionid=91

Phone: (202) 225-5716 District Office Phone: (916) 859-9906

Congresswoman Doris Matsui: D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-7163; Sac Office Phone: (916) 498-5600

e-mail: http://www.matsui.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=92

Congressman Tom McClintock: D.C.: (202) 225-2511; dist. Office, (916) 786-5560

e-mail: http://mcclintock.house.gov/contact/

Senator Barbara Boxer: Email: http://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

Dist. Ofc., (916) 448-2787; D.C. (202) 228-3865

Senator Dianne Feinstein: e-mail: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

Dist. Ofc. (415) 393-0707; D.C. Phone: (202) 224-3841

OR… to call any representative (Matsui, McClintock, Lungren) or Senator (Feinstein, Boxer)

Call your Members of Congress:

(877) 762-8762 (toll free – ask for your Representative and Senators)

2011-10-17T11:31:00.000-07:00

Rapid Response Overview

Margie Metzler

October 11, 2011

http://www.margiemetzler.org/ncpssm.htm

I attended a three-day training presented in the their Washington DC offices by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (www.ncpssm.org). In a joint effort with www.strengthensocialsecurity.org (formerly Social Security-Works) along with many other organizations, top presenters hired from outside as well as their combined staffs gave about 15 of us volunteers a combination of PowerPoint presentations, hands-on workshops, and policy briefings.
We are now part of a Rapid Response Team, engaged in a crash 90 day effort to influence the 12 member Super Committee. Below is an overview of the Super Committee, the people on it, and the upcoming dates, from http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/super-committee/:

Debt-ceiling legislation recently signed into law created a powerful joint committee of Congress known as the “Super Committee.” This bipartisan committee of 12 lawmakers is charged with proposing legislation that reduces federal deficits by at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. The committee’s recommendations will receive an up-or-down vote without amendment in each chamber, and without being subject to the Senate filibuster.

Many reports indicate that they will be looking to cut Social Security, even though Social Security does not contribute a penny to the deficit--and by law cannot contribute to the deficit. Medicare and Medicaid also could be on the chopping block.

Aug. 16: Congressional Leadership must appoint all members of Super Committee
Sept.16: Super Committee must have first meeting
Oct. 14: Legislative committees and president make recommendations to Super Committee
Nov. 23: Super Committee must vote on plan--if approved, it goes to Congress
Dec. 23: Super Committee plan must pass both chambers to avoid trigger

You can click each members' name to see where they stand on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.: http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/where-the-super-committee-members-stand-on-social-security-medicare-and-medicaid

Table: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid's Importance in Super Committee Members' States and Congressional Districts http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-medicare-and-medicaids-importance-in-super-committee-members-states-and-congressiona

MEMBER	REPUBLICAN	DEMOCRAT
HOUSE	Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan)	Rep. Xavier Beccera (D-California) Rep. James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland)
SENATE	Sen. John Kyl (R-Arizona) Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania)	Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)

Fact sheets about the Super Committee

Fact Sheet: How the Debt Ceiling Deal Affects Social Security. http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/SSSCHowtheDebtCeilingDealAffectsSocialSecurityFINAL.pdf

Fact Sheet: “Super Committee” Created to Develop Deficit-Reduction Plan Should Exempt Social Security from Cuts http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/SSSCHowtheDebtCeilingDealAffectsSocialSecurityFINAL.pdf

Table: Social Security and Medicare's Importance in Super Committee Members' States and Congressional Districts http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-medicare-and-medicaids-importance-in-super-committee-members-states-and-congressiona

Blog: Social Security's Biggest Threat: The Debt Deal Super Committee by Russ Feingold. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-feingold/social-securitys-biggest_b_917419.html

Strengthen Social Security Campaign Letter Urging Super Committee to Oppose Chained CPI COLA Cut http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SSSCltrSenateSupercommittee10-11-11FINAL.pdf

Letter to Harry Reid from Strengthen Social Security Campaign about Super Committee Appointments http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/SSSCReidLetterSuperCommitteeFINAL.pdf

Letter to Nancy Pelosi from Strengthen Social Security Campaign about Super Committee Appointments http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/SSSCPelosiLetterSuperCommitteeFINAL.pdf

The New 'Super Committee': The plan creates a new Joint Committee of 12 Members of Congress, divided evenly between the House and Senate and each political party. This "Super Committee" will have until November 23, 2011 to produce a plan reducing the deficit by at least $1.2-$1.5 trillion. It only takes 7 out of the 12 Members to approve any plan - which will then be 'fast-tracked' through Congress by the end of this year with limited debate, a simple majority to pass and no amendments allowed . No programs are protected from the reach of this Super Committee, and numerous Members of Congress have made it clear they expect most of the deficit reduction to come from 'entitlement reform' - which is code for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid .

More Domestic Spending Cuts: As a way of putting pressure on Congress to approve the Super Committee's proposal, the agreement includes a 'penalty' for inaction. The penalty takes the form of a second round of automatic spending cuts to discretionary programs (which include, for example, total of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. This second round of cuts is also intended to be split evenly between domestic and security programs, and exempts Social Security, and low-income programs such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts are limited to 2% in lower provider reimbursements - Medicare benefits that go directly to seniors are protected.

Revenues: Raising revenue is not included in the first round of cuts, nor is it included in the automatic cuts that would result if the Super Committee is not successful in producing a deficit reduction plan that is signed into law. Although increased revenue could be part of the Super Committee's recommendations, Republican Congressional Leaders have made it clear they only intend to appoint Members to the Super Committee who oppose tax increases, even to close tax loopholes or to require the extremely wealthy to contribute to deficit reduction. If they are successful in imposing this limit, just as they were successful in keeping revenue out of any of the spending cuts in the debt limit plan, all of our Nation's deficit reduction will come at the expense of the poor and middle-income Americans. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will see deep cuts, not just for future beneficiaries but also for today's seniors.

What can we do?

It's clear that advocacy by individual seniors and our advocacy groups made a difference in protecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries from short-term and automatic cuts. However, much work remains in the weeks ahead, when we must:

Convince the Super Committee not to propose cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending programs that are important to vulnerable older adults.
Press the Super Committee to include increased revenue for deficit reduction from those who can most easily afford it
Results of several polls are now indicating that voters are really angry and frightened by the current moves to destroy all our New Deal safety net programs. They are expressing willingness to punish such efforts at the polling booth. (See below for more details.)

Here are some general poll results:

• Obama Job Performance – Positive 35%, negative 63%.

• Dems in Congress Job Performance – Positive 19%, negative 75%.

• Republicans in Congress Job Performance – Positive 10%, negative 83%.

• Wrong Track 65%, Right Track 21%.

Our experts indicate that the President and Democrats Can Win While Losing Seniors by 8% -- Not by 21% (as in 2010). All of this data indicates that seniors are a Key Swing Vote

Watch this video from the Committee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xls8DN4O7aQideo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xls8DN4O7aQ

New Celinda Lake Poll

Voters United Against Cutting Social Security & Medicare

By NCPSSM | September 27, 2011

New National Poll Shows Massive Washington Disconnect with Main Street America On Deficit Reduction Options

New national polling conducted by a Democratic/GOP research partnership shows Republicans, Democrats and Independents outside official Washington share unprecedented unity in their views on deficit reduction. By huge margins, Americans across all ages do not support cutting Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit. Even in this polarized political climate, no other single issue garners such broad unanimity across all party lines.

“This poll shows what bi-partisanship really means. When you step outside Washington, D.C. and talk to average Americans of all political parties including self-identified fiscal conservatives—the answer is the same–Do Not Cut Social Security & Medicare to reduce the deficit. Americans understand the real-life impacts of the cuts being promoted and they don’t believe cutting these vital programs shows fiscal responsibility. That is true bi-partisanship that Congress ignores at its own peril.” Max Richtman, President/CEO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

Some of the poll highlights include:

Opposition to cutting Social Security & Medicare is strong across party lines with 82% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 58% of Republicans against cuts to reduce the deficit
A wide margin of all Americans, 94% of Democrats, 82% of Independents and 64% of Republicans, would prefer to raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security and Medicare.
By a 3 -1 margin, self-identified “fiscal conservatives” of both parties oppose cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit and by a 2 ½ -1 to one margin, fiscally conservative voters oppose cutting Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit.

Lungren event Oct. 18

Two people who may be critical in California are Dan Lungren and Javier Becerra. Becerra is committed to our programs but we ned to give him continual thanks and encouragement. Lungren’s power lies in his lifetime of hostility to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, his influence in his caucus, and his outspoken, consistent and destructive attitudes.

I have been assigned to follow Congressman Lungren, which is terrific since I have already been doing so. His district has changed due to redistricting, and he has a viable candidate running against him.

The next event we have is an event on Oct. 18 in Galt. Of course it is not a political effort but rather an effort to bring attention to his views and our unhappiness with votes that would destroy our programs and rip away programs that have saved the lives of the most vulnerable of us for many years.

This is the message that went out to all ncpssm members who live near Sacramento.

Please show up.... Seniors especially can make all the difference with the Supercommittee and in the 2010 election. RSVP to me at 916-921-5008, cell 916-248-6148, or email margiemetz@hotmail.com

Hands Off, No Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!!

ATTEND
Representative Dan Lungren's Town Hall Meeting

Tuesday, October 18th
7pm – 8:30pm

Littleton Community Center
420 Civic Drive
Galt, CA 95632

Join National Committee members and others at Representative Dan Lungren's Town Hall Meeting, Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 7:00 PM – 8:30 PM, Littleton Community Center, 420 Civic Drive, Galt, CA 95632.

Social Security and Medicare are commitments made to all Americans that have withstood the test of time. They represent the best of American values—rewarding hard work, honoring our parents and caring for our neighbor. We need to send the message to Representative Lungren that the large majority of American citizens want Congress to keep their Hands Off, No Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If you plan to attend, please RSVP, via email at johnsonka@ncpssm.org or telephone (800) 998-0181 and ask for Katie Johnson.

Thank you for your support of our efforts to assure the well-being of seniors and future generations of retirees.

Katie M. Johnson
Grassroots Manager

WE NEED A LOT OF PEOPLE to SHOW UP WHO ARE WILLING TO CONFRONT LUNGREN ON HIS OWN TURF. A large turnout MAY convince him that his stand could imperil his political future. It will also let the others at the event know that we are serious and that his stand can imperil them.

Simpson back with "rude gesture" to AARP

2011-05-12T09:46:00.000-07:00

TUE MAY 10, 2011 AT 11:30 AM PDT

Alan Simpson gives the finger to AARP, says Social Security is 'not a retirement program'

byJoan McCarterforDaily Kos

Alan Simpson and his senior-citizen-hating ways are back in the news. It will come as a shock for most Social Security recipients to find out that Social Security isn't a retirement program. And that a former Senator who was chosen by the President to lead an important government commission has so much contempt for government programs.

WASHINGTON—Alan Simpson's cold relationship with AARP is no secret, but the former Republican Senator from Wyoming took it to a new level Friday. At an event hosted by the Investment Company Institute, Simpson delighted the finance industry audience members by aiming a rude gesture at the leading lobby for senior citizens....

Simpson's forceful gesture came after an extended diatribe against Social Security, which he said is a "Ponzi" scheme, "not a retirement program.”

Simpson argued that Social Security was originally intended more as a welfare program.

"It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in '37 and '38 to take care of people who were in distress—ditch diggers, wage earners—it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That's why they set retirement age at 65” for Social Security, he said.

Which of course, is not true. And Ryan Grim does an excellent job in this piece showing that, and exposing Simpson for the fraud that he is.

HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable. Incorporating such early deaths skews the average life expectancy number downward, making it appear as if people live dramatically longer today than they did half a century ago. According to the Social Security Administration's actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years.

"If that is the case—and I don't think it is—then that means they put in peanuts," said Simpson.

Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by "the Catfood Commission people"—a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave president's panel that label.

Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: "If you're telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940—that all of them lived to be 77—that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he's gonna live to be 77? Hell, that's my genre. That's not true," said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September....

The second prong of the Social Security critique relies on the coming wave of Baby Boomer retirements. This flood of retirees will tip the ratio of workers to pensioners out of whack, the argument goes.

"The statistics right now show a totally unsustainable program that cannot possibly function when 10,000 a day are coming into the Social Security system at 65," Simpson explained to HuffPost. "Was that ever planned [for]? That 10,000 a day would suddenly coming into the system?"

In fact, it was planned for: The Social Security Administration tracks births every year and knew by 1947 that 1946 had been a boom year. When the system was reformed in 1983 by the Greenspan Commission, the Baby Boom was specifically taken into account.....

Simpson said that questioning his data wasn't helping to solve the underlying problem.

"This is the first time, the first time—and Erskine [Bowles, the deficit commission co-chair,] and I have been talking for a year and many months—that anyone's going to sit around and play with statistics like this," he told HuffPost. "Anything I tell you, you repudiate. You're the first guy in a year and a half who's stood out here with a sharp pencil playing a game that doesn't have a damn thing to do with: 'What the hell are you going to do with the system?'"

The former senator enjoys a pension for his service in Congress, which lasted fewer than 20 years.

Of course, this isn't the first time Alan Simpson has been confronted with real Social Security statistics and facts. There's one extremely memorable occasion in which Simpson unleashed an obscene tirade at Alex Lawson, with Social Security Works in response to Lawson's informed questions about the program. Again, using actual information from the Social Security Administration, Simpson attacked, calling Lawson's facts "sophistry of babbling."

Simpson is a fraud and an ideologue, unable to separate whatever personal and long-standing resentment he has of the AARP (and apparently all senior citizens) from the truth about the program. When will this guy stop being the crazy uncle that everybody indulges and just thinks of as eccentric, and be recognized for the venomous, classless, charlatan that he is? That goes for his non-report with co-chair Erskine Bowles, as well.

WED MAY 11, 2011 AT 07:20 PM PDT

Alan Simpson's Social Security lessons

byJoan McCarterforDaily Kos

Share99 4

PERMALINK

87 COMMENTS

Alan Simpson's stunningly ignorant and arrogant exchange with HuffPo reporter Ryan Grim is making the rounds. In that interview, Simpson steadfastly proclaimed ignorance of Social Security's actual demographic statistics, and then proceeded to dismiss the information as unbelievable. Simpson and the catfood commission have advocated raising the retirement age, with Simpson doggedly repeating the falsehood that people are living longer.

First up, Ezra Klein responds with simple graph.

As co-chairman of the President Obama’s deficit commission, Simpson is one of the guys tasked with figuring out what to do about Social Security, and one of the arguments he’s charged with evaluating is that we should raise the retirement age specifically because people are living so much longer. There's no way for him to make a sound judgment if he lacks a basic familiarity with this data. But it seems that in this conversation with Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim, Alan Simpson not only didn't know the numbers but was so unfamiliar with them that he refused to believe they were true....

As the graph atop this post shows, the life expectancy increases we’ve seen have not been shared equally; the richer and whiter you are, the more your life expectancy has stretched. So raising the retirement age inflicts a double-blow on lower-income Americans: They already work more physically demanding jobs and die younger than the rich, but now they’re being told to work those jobs longer because people who aren’t them have seen large increases in life expectancy.

He circled back to the story with this, going through point-by-point eight facts about Social Security's demographics, concluding in part:

Most opinion elites — Simpson being one good example, and the U.S. Senate being another — show a very strong preference for working as long as possible. Most Americans show a very strong preference for retiring as early as possible. Elites who enjoy their jobs need to be very careful about generalizing their experience to people who don’t enjoy their jobs. More bluntly: Raising the retirement age is the worst of all possible options for reforming Social Security. It’s not only regressive, but it also falls most heavily on those with the worst jobs. Means-testing would be much better. [See here for the multitude of reasons means testing isn't a solution, either. —ed.]

Kevin Drum piles on:

Simpson is a guy who's taken very seriously on Social Security issues inside the Beltway. He's studied it for years. And yet, as he makes clear later in the interview, he simply had no idea any of this was true. No idea. And he doesn't believe it, even though this stuff is Social Security 101.

This is the kind of thing that explains why so many people think Social Security is some kind of fiscal time bomb. They just flatly don't understand the arithmetic. The plain fact is that Social Security is only modestly underfunded and can be fixed with a basket of quite moderate changes over the next 30 years or so. Anyone who understands the numbers knows this. People like Alan Simpson don't. But guess who gets the most press coverage?

As does Steve Benen:

[W]hen pressed on some of the basics—stuff anyone with a serious interest in these issues would learn on the first day—Simpson’s ignorance is just breathtaking. He’s making sweeping recommendations about the future of programs millions of Americans rely on, and yet, Simpson just doesn’t have his facts straight.

This isn’t some minor error of arithmetic. Simpson is lost on the entry-level details. It’s scandalous, or at least should be.

In some ways, all of these guys are taking it pretty easy on Simpson. He's not just ignorant on the "entry-level details" of Social Security—he's willfully ignorant. All of this information was undoubtedly made both available and very clear to him during the commission meetings and hearings. Simpson is refusing to believe it because he doesn't want to believe it. He's the equivalent of a birther in the realm of Social Security. Social Security Works Alex Lawsonexposed that aspect of Simpson last year, and Grim has just reaffirmed it.

What all three of these guys got right about Simpson, though, is that he shouldn't be leading the debate on how to reform Social Security.

new info on Women and Social Security

2011-05-10T15:10:00.000-07:00

National Women's Law Center Social Security info for Women, by state: www.nwlc.org

Gray Panthers to show "Inside Job" at the March 29 meeting, March 29, 1-3

2011-03-22T12:46:00.000-07:00

Please come to the Hart Center in Sacramento. 1-3 on Tuesday, March 29, for a showing by Gray Panthers of the Academy-award documentary, Inside Job. It details the financial spinout, who and what caused it, and how they got away with murder. You will be mad as hell and ready to take up your pitchfork!

My review of the movie is here: http://owlca.blogspot.com/2010/11/inside-job-documentary_15.html

"Encourage" Corporations to pay their share of taxes!

2011-03-09T18:25:00.000-08:00

Johann Kari wrote an article in the Nation magazine about successful efforts in the UK to make corporations pay their fair share of taxes so they could ameliorate draconian spending cuts. That article, along with a plea to US citizens to do the same, is at the bottom of this post.

Well, it's happening now, with a major action taking place on March 26 all over the country!! (And others will follow.) California has actions in San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles, among others!

Please read the whole thing and let's join this fight! (I am planning on going to Los Angeles, myself.)

US Uncut

http://www.usuncut.org/

US Uncut is about taking action against unnecessary and unfair cuts to public services across the US. Washington’s proposed budget for the coming year sends a clear message: The wrath of budget cuts will fall upon the shoulders of hard-working Americans.

Obama seeks to trim $1.1 trillion from the budget in the next ten years by cutting or eliminating over 200 federal programs, many dedicated to social services and education. For instance, it cuts in half funding to subsidize heating for low-income Americans; limits an expansion of the Pell grant program for students; and decreases Environmental Protection Agency funding by over 12%.
Meanwhile, Republicans are using their new House majority to slash spending even more brutally. The GOP has made it clear that they are bent on raiding funds for Social Security, Medicare, education; determined to kill health care reform; and gut needed investments in infrastructure, climate change and job creation, at a time when America needs it most.
These cuts will come on top of very painful austerity measures made at the state-level across our nation–-worth hundreds of billions--since the recession began.
In short, budget cuts demonstrate that Washington has abandoned ordinary Americans.
But there is an alternative: Make corporate tax avoiders pay.
Enjoying record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts as the economy slowly recovers from a financial crisis, nearly two-thirds of US corporations don't pay any income taxes, instead opting to abuse tax loopholes and offshore tax havens. According to this study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations that operate in the US exploit corporate tax havens. Since 2009, America’s most profitable companies such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, Bank of America andCitigroup all paid a grand total of $0 in federal income taxes to Uncle Sam. Tax havens alone account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade, money that could be invested in K-12 education, colleges, public health, job creation and hundreds of other worthy public programs.
If we pay our taxes, why don’t they? If corporations profit here, shouldn't they pay here?
It’s time for ordinary Americans to fight back and demand an end to the corporate tax avoidance. Join US Uncut and together let's make corporate tax avoiders pay.
US Uncut is a horizontal movement. There are no centrally planned protests. If you want one in your town or city, you'll have to take it on yourself. Read our blog about what to do next.
Also remember to visit UK Uncut for some inspiration.

See you on the streets.

US Uncut is a new movement inspired by UK Uncut, the anti-austerity movement that has swept the UK.

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

Find an action http://www.usuncut.org/actions/list

Prepare for your event

This is the day that the wealthiest corporations are finally forced to listen to the people they've been bankrupting for a generation.

Here are 5 things every US Uncut demonstration should do for a successful protest.

1. ARRIVE EARLY. Get to your meeting place at least a half-hour before your protest is scheduled.

2. REHEARSE YOUR CREATIVE DEMONSTRATION. Creativity in your protests is paramount. Any unique presentations, visuals, skits and other forms of political theatre should be rehearsed prior to performance.

3. DESIGNATE SPEAKERS TO TALK TO REPORTERS AND POLICE. Have someone ready to take questions from the press and to be diplomatic when police show up to break up your protest.

4. EXECUTE YOUR ACTION. Creativity and nonviolence are emphasized. Stay on message. Corporations dodging their tax duties are the direct cause for draconian budget cuts that the rest of us have to suffer.

5. REPORT BACK. It is important to share your experiences so that we can all learn from each other. Action attendees should come back to the website and report back what you have done. Remember- pictures and/or video, or it didn't happen! Anyone can report back and submit media in the action listing, you don't have to be the original action submitter.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I'm absolutely blown away by the efforts of organizers from across the nation over the last two weeks. Let's do this. Let's be loud. Let's be heard. And let's keep working together and speaking out in public, as one, as much as we can until America's corporate tax dodgers start playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

A Ten-Step Guide to Launching US Uncut

Johann Hari

1. Get some friends you trust and respect, and identify a tax dodger to target. (Should be a company that owes billions in tax dollars, has brick-and mortar presence, and is all over the country.)

2. Find the company’s flagship store in your neighborhood. Scout it out. Determine the best way to shut it down.

3. Pick a meeting point and time. Ask some high-profile people to tweet a link explaining what you are doing and why. Ask Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Glenn Greenwald—anybody who can reach thousands of people quickly.

4. Send the call out to as many active networks as possible. For example, the Coffee Party got a huge number of followers on Facebook but hasn’t done much—why not turn it into a network to organize this?

5. Pick a Twitter hashtag so people can follow the action as you shut down the target.

6. As soon as you’ve done this, put a call out for people to copy you, wherever they are around the country, on a certain day.

7. Set up a website to list all the actions being planned, all the information on the targets and all the resources people will need. Use a Google map to show where all the actions are planned.

8. Choose a few carefully crafted key messages and repeat them over and over again to the media. Explain that if X company paid its taxes, Y budget cut or tax increase wouldn’t have to happen.

9. Call days of action. Aim to have shutdowns arranged in as many cities as possible.

10. Pick a new target and do it again. Do it bigger..

For updates on this issue and others, you can follow the author of this article on Twitter.

Johann Hari

The original article that led to this!

Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)

How to Build a Progressive Tea Party

Johann Hari | February 3, 2011

Imagine a parallel universe where the Great Crash of 2008 was followed by a Tea Party of a very different kind. Enraged citizens gather in every city, week after week—to demand the government finally regulate the behavior of corporations and the superrich, and force them to start paying taxes. The protesters shut down the shops and offices of the companies that have most aggressively ripped off the country. The swelling movement is made up of everyone from teenagers to pensioners. They surround branches of the banks that caused this crash and force them to close, with banners saying, You Caused This Crisis. Now YOU Pay.

As people see their fellow citizens acting in self-defense, these tax-the-rich protests spread to even the most conservative parts of the country. It becomes the most-discussed subject on Twitter. Even right-wing media outlets, sensing a startling effect on the public mood, begin to praise the uprising, and dig up damning facts on the tax dodgers.

Instead of the fake populism of the Tea Party, there is a movement based on real populism. It shows that there is an alternative to making the poor and the middle class pay for a crisis caused by the rich. It shifts the national conversation. Instead of letting the government cut our services and increase our taxes, the people demand that it cut the endless and lavish aid for the rich and make them pay the massive sums they dodge in taxes.

This may sound like a fantasy—but it has all happened. The name of this parallel universe is Britain. As recently as this past fall, people here were asking the same questions liberal Americans have been glumly contemplating: Why is everyone being so passive? Why are we letting ourselves be ripped off? Why are people staying in their homes watching their flat-screens while our politicians strip away services so they can fatten the superrich even more?

And then twelve ordinary citizens—a nurse, a firefighter, a student, a TV researcher and others—met in a pub in London one night and realized they were asking the wrong questions. “We had spent all this energy asking why it wasn’t happening,” says Tom Philips, a 23-year-old nurse who was there that night, “and then we suddenly said, That’s what everybody else is saying too. Why don’t we just do it? Why don’t we just start? If we do it, maybe everybody will stop asking why it isn’t happening and join in. It’s a bit like that Kevin Costner film Field of Dreams. We thought, If you build it, they will come.”

The new Conservative-led government in Britain is imposing the most extreme cuts to public spending the country has seen since the 1920s. The fees for going to university are set to triple. Children’s hospitals like Great Ormond Street are facing 20 percent cuts in their budgets. In London alone, more than 200,000 people are being forced out of their homes and out of the city as the government takes away their housing subsidies.

Amid all these figures, this group of friends made some startling observations. Here’s one. All the cuts in housing subsidies, driving all those people out of their homes, are part of a package of cuts to the poor, adding up to £7 billion. Yet the magazine Private Eye reported that one company alone—Vodafone, one of Britain’s leading cellphone firms—owed an outstanding bill of £6 billion to the British taxpayers. According to Private Eye, Vodaphone had been refusing to pay for years, claiming that a crucial part of its business ran through a post office box in ultra-low-tax Luxembourg. The last Labour government, for all its many flaws, had insisted it pay up.

But when the Conservatives came to power, David Hartnett, head of the British equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service, apologized to rich people for being “too black and white about the law.” Soon after, Vodafone’s bill was reported to be largely canceled, with just over £1 billion paid in the end. Days later George Osborne, the finance minister, was urging people to invest in Vodafone by taking representatives of the company with him on a taxpayer-funded trip to India—a country where that company is also being pursued for unpaid taxes. Vodafone and Hartnett deny this account, claiming it was simply a longstanding “dispute” over fees that ended with the company paying the correct amount. The government has been forced under pressure to order the independent National Audit Office to investigate the affair and to pore over every detail of the corporation’s tax deal.

“It was clear to us that if this one company had been made to pay its taxes, almost all these people could have been kept from being forced out of their homes,” says Sam Greene, another of the protesters. “We keep being told there’s no alternative to cutting services. This just showed it was rubbish. So we decided we had to do something.”

They resolved to set up an initial protest that would prick people’s attention. They called themselves UK Uncut and asked several liberal-left journalists, on Twitter (full disclosure: I was one of them), to announce a time and place where people could meet “to take direct action protest against the cuts and show there’s an alternative.” People were urged to gather at 9:30 am on a Wednesday morning outside the Ritz hotel in central London and look for an orange umbrella. More than sixty people arrived, and they went to one of the busiest Vodafone stores—on Oxford Street, the city’s biggest shopping area—and sat down in front of it so nobody could get in.

“What really struck me is that when we explained our reasons, ordinary people walking down Oxford Street were incredibly supportive,” says Alex Miller, a 31-year-old nurse. “People would stop and tell us how they were terrified of losing their homes and their jobs—and when they heard that virtually none of it had to happen if only these massive companies paid their taxes, they were furious. Several people stopped what they were doing, sat down and joined us. I guess it’s at that point that I realized this was going to really take off.”

That first protest grabbed a little media attention—and then the next day, in a different city, three other Vodafone stores were shut down in the northern city of Leeds, by unconnected protests. UK Uncut realized this could be replicated across the country. So the group set up a Twitter account and a website, where members announced there would be a national day of protest the following Saturday. They urged anybody who wanted to organize a protest to e-mail them so it could be added to a Google map. Britain’s most prominent tweeters, such as actor Stephen Fry, joined in.

That Saturday Vodafone’s stores were shut down across the country by peaceful sit-ins. The crowds sang songs and announced they had come as volunteer tax collectors. Prime Minister David Cameron wants axed government services to be replaced by a “Big Society,” in which volunteers do the jobs instead. So UK Uncut announced it was the Big Society Tax Collection Agency.

The mix of people who turned out was remarkable. There were 16-year-olds from the housing projects who had just had their £30-a-week subsidy for school taken away. There were 78-year-olds facing the closure of senior centers where they can meet their friends and socialize. A chuckling 64-year-old woman named Mary James said, “The scare stories will say this protest is being hijacked by anarchists. If anything, it’s being hijacked by pensioners!” They stopped passers-by to explain why they were protesting by asking, “Sir, do you pay your taxes? So do I. Did you know that Vodafone doesn’t?”

The police looked on, bemused. There wasn’t much they could do: in a few places, they surrounded the Vodafone stores before the protesters arrived, stopping anyone from going in or out—in effect doing the protesters’ job for them. One police officer asked me how this tax dodge had been allowed to happen, and when I explained, he said, “So you mean I’m likely to lose my job because these people won’t pay up?”

* * *

UK Uncut organized entirely on Twitter, asking what it should do next and taking votes. There was an embarrassment of potential targets: the National Audit Office found in 2007 that a third of the country’s top 700 corporations paid no tax at all. UK Uncut decided to expose and protest one of the most egregious alleged tax dodgers: Sir Philip Green. He is the ninth-richest man in the country, running some of the leading High Street chain stores, including Topshop, Miss Selfridge and British Home Stores. Although he lives and works in Britain, and his companies all operate on British streets, he avoids British taxes by claiming his income is “really” earned by his wife, who lives in the tax haven of Monaco. In 2005 the BBC calculated that he earned £1.2 billion and paid nothing in taxes—dodging more than £300 million in taxes.

Far from objecting, Cameron’s government appointed Green as an official adviser, with special responsibility for “cutting waste.” So UK Uncut drew a direct line from Green’s tax exemption to the cuts in services for ordinary people. For example, Cameron had just announced the closure of the school sports partnership, which makes it possible for millions of schoolchildren to engage in healthy, competitive exercise. The protesters pointed out that if Green was made to pay taxes, the entire program could be saved, with more than £120 million left as small change. So they declared a day of action.

At the London protests against Green, everybody was asked to turn up at the largest branch of Topshop—again on Oxford Street—and mill around like ordinary shoppers. Once a whistle was blown, they were to start chanting, put on sports clothing to dramatize what was being taken away from schoolchildren and sit down by the counters to stop sales. It was the Saturday before Christmas. There was a strange frisson as everyone turned up and looked around. It was impossible to tell who was a shopper and who was a protester: they looked the same. The whistle blew—and they shut down one of the largest retail stores in Europe.

Across Britain, the same thing was happening. Even in Tunbridge Wells—a town synonymous with ultraconservatism—the Vodafone store was blockaded. Again, many people spontaneously joined in. The protests were all over that evening’s TV news. It was the most-read story on the websites of the BBC and the country’s most-read newspaper, the Daily Mail. The prime-time Channel 4 News reported, “A more eloquent and informed group of demonstrators would be hard to come across and one is struck by the wide appeal across ages and incomes, of what they had to say.” The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have shown how social media can be used to conduct the unfocused rage of a scattered population and harden it into a weapon. UK Uncut shows the same tactics can be used in a democracy—and there is the same need. Unemployment in the United States is at the same level as in Egypt before the uprising: 9 percent.

The UK Uncut message was simple: if you want to sell in our country, you pay our taxes. They are the membership fee for a civilized society. Most of the protesters I spoke with had never attended a demonstration before, but were driven to act by the rising unemployment, insecurity and austerity that are being outpaced only by rising rewards for the superrich. Ellie Mae O’Hagan, a 25-year-old office worker in Liverpool, one of the most economically depressed places in the country, said she was “absolutely outraged to discover that I was paying more than Philip Green in taxes.” She added, “I could see what all the cuts were doing. My brother had been made redundant, loads of my friends were unemployed and I could see it all getting worse, while these bankers get even bigger bonuses. And I thought, Right, you’ve got to do something. So I e-mailed UK Uncut to ask if there was a protest happening in Liverpool. They said, Not yet, so you organize one. So I spent forty-eight hours arranging one. And a hundred people turned up—an amazing mixture of people, who I had never met, and who didn’t know each other—and we shut down both Vodafone stores. Suddenly, it felt like we weren’t passive anymore. We were standing up for ourselves.”

At every protest, a clear and direct line was drawn from tax avoidance to real people’s lives. If they pay their bill, you won’t be forced out of your home. If they pay their bill, your grandmother won’t lose her government support. If they pay their bill, our children’s hospitals won’t be slashed.

The protests began to influence the political debate. Public opinion had already been firmly for pursuing tax dodgers, with 77 percent telling YouGov pollsters there should be a crackdown. But by dramatizing and demonstrating this mood, the protesters forced it onto the agenda—and stripped away Cameron’s claims that there was no alternative to his cuts.

Polly Toynbee is one of Britain’s most influential columnists: imagine Maureen Dowd with principles instead of snark. Toynbee attended the London protests and was manhandled out of Topshop by security guards. She reported later that the protests were being watched very nervously on Downing Street. “It is no coincidence that the government immediately hurried out a ‘clampdown’ on tax avoidance, collecting £2 billion,” she tells me, “or that [its coalition partners] the Liberal Democrats suddenly remembered this was one of their big commitments. Of course, that sum is only a drop in the ocean. But this really was a jolt to the political system. It was hugely important.”

But perhaps the most striking response was from the right. One of Britain’s most famous businessmen, Duncan Bannatyne, came out in support of the protests, declaring, “We need to rebel against tax dodgers…as Government won’t.” The Financial Times conceded that “the protesters have a point” but then grumbled about them. Surprisingly, the Daily Mail, Britain’s most right-wing newspaper, became one of the movement’s most sympathetic allies. The editors could see that their Middle England readers were outraged to be paying more taxes than the superrich. So they ran their own exposé on Philip Green’s tax affairs, along with straightforward and detailed reporting of the protests.

* * *

The only part of the media that attacked UK Uncut outright was, predictably, Rupert Murdoch’s empire. This isn’t surprising given that his company, News International, is one of the world’s most egregious tax dodgers, contributing almost nothing to the US or UK treasuries. His tabloid the Sun accused UK Uncut of being a “group of up to 30,000 anarchists” scheming “to bring misery to millions of Christmas shoppers,” with plans to “set off stink bombs, leave mouldy cheese in clothes and rack up huge sales at tills and then refuse to pay.” After one of the people named in the article reported the Sun to the Press Complaints Commission, the newspaper was forced to retract the article by removing it from its website.

But these smear jobs were the best the right could muster. Conservatives ran into hiding, with almost nobody prepared to defend tax avoiders. Only a few stray voices emerged: ultraconservative blogger Tim Montgomerie, regarded as highly influential with Cameron; and Labour MP Tom Harris, our equivalent of a Blue Dog Democrat. They argued that tax avoidance is legal and therefore fine. The protesters responded that they were obviously arguing for a change in the law.

The tax-evasion defenders also tried to argue that a crackdown would “drive away” corporations, to the detriment of the nation. But the corporations are already, for all intents and purposes, “away.” They pay nothing to Britain. They have relocated everything they can. They can’t, however, physically relocate their British shops to Bangalore. It’s impossible. That remnant can certainly be taxed. What are they going to do?

Besides, the right’s claim that enforcing fair taxes drives away the rich was recently tested—and proved wrong. Toward the end of the last Labour government, officials increased the top tax rate to 50 percent. (This is still far short of the 90 percent levied on US taxpayers by President Eisenhower, during the biggest boom in American history.) Conservatives predicted disaster: London Mayor Boris Johnson said it would reduce the city to a ghost town as bankers fled to Switzerland. Yet after the taxes rose, the number of rich people applying for visas to leave Britain for Switzerland actually fell by 7 percent.

After the empirical argument collapsed, a few on the right tried to shift the argument to a moral one. They said that Green “earns all his money on his own,” so why should he have to pay any of it back to the rest of us? I responded on TV and in a blog post by suggesting a small experiment. Let’s take one branch of Topshop, and for twelve months we’ll deny any services funded by collective taxation to that store. When the rubbish piles up, we won’t send garbage men to collect it. When the rat outbreak begins, we won’t send pest control. When they catch a shoplifter, we won’t send the police. When there’s a fire, we won’t send the fire brigade. When suppliers want to get their goods to the store, there may be a problem: we won’t maintain the roads. When the employees get sick, we won’t treat them in the publicly funded hospitals. Then let Philip Green come back and tell us he does it all himself.

The last argument of the defenders has been to say it’s impossible to do anything about tax havens, so we’ll just have to accept them. But this is false. After the 9/11 attacks, the world—under US pressure—passed virtually universal laws to freeze Al Qaeda–related accounts and so prevent them from stashing or accessing money from tax havens. Where there is political will, they can be brought to heel rapidly. In the early 1960s Monaco was refusing to hand over details of French tax dodgers to the French authorities. President Charles de Gaulle surrounded the country with tanks and cut off its water supply until it relented. On a more prosaic level, many countries have integrated into their law something called a General Anti-Avoidance Principle, which stipulates that any act contrary to the spirit of the nation’s tax laws is illegal. It slams shut most loopholes overnight.

* * *

There has been an obsessive hunt by the media to discover who UK Uncut “really are.” They assume there must be secretive leaders pulling the strings somewhere. But the more I dug into the movement, the more I realized this is a misunderstanding. The old protest movements were modeled like businesses, with a CEO and a managing board. This protest movement, however, is shaped like a hive of bees, or like Twitter itself. There is no center. There is no leadership. There is just a shared determination not to be bilked, connected by tweets. Every decision made by UK Uncut is open and driven by the will of its participants. Alongside many people who had never protested, activists from across the spectrum have poured into the movement, from the students occupying their universities to protest the massive hike in fees, to antipoverty groups like War on Want, to trade unions. Indeed, even the trade union at Britain’s IRS came out in support, with ordinary tax collectors rebelling against their bosses for letting the rich wriggle out of taxes.

Think of it as an open-source protest, or wikiprotest. It uses Twitter as the basic software, but anyone can then mold the protest. The Western left has been proud of its use of social media and blogging, but all too often this hasn’t amounted to much more than clicktivism. By contrast, these protesters have tried at every turn to create a picture of George Osborne, Cameron’s finance minister, sitting in his office, about to sign off on another big tax break for a rich person, paid for by cuts to the rest of us. Is a big Facebook group going to stop him? No. Is an angry buzz on the blogosphere going to stop him? No. But what these protesters have done—putting all the online energy into the streets and straight into the national conversation—just might. And by creating a media buzz, it draws in people from far beyond the tech-savvy Twitterverse, with older activist groups—from trade unions to charities—clamoring to join.

As one UK Uncut participant, Becky Anadeche, explains, “So many campaigns rely on the premise that the less you ask somebody to do, the more likely they are to do it. This campaign has proved the opposite. People who have never even been on a protest before have been organizing them.”

British liberals and left-wingers have been holding marches and protests for years and been roundly ignored. So why did UK Uncut suddenly gain such traction? Alex Higgins, another protester, explains, “It’s because we broke the frame that people expect protest to be confined to. Suddenly, protesters were somewhere they weren’t supposed to be—they were not in the predictable place where they are tolerated and regarded as harmless by the authorities. If UK Uncut had just consisted of a march on Whitehall [where government departments are located], where we listened to a few speakers and went home, nobody would have heard of it. But this time we went somewhere unanticipated. We disrupted something they really value: trade.” A wave of bankers’ bonuses is due to be announced in February, and it would be surprising if UK Uncut did not respond with a similar program of direct action.

* * *

Can this model be transferred to the United States? Remember that a few months ago, Brits were as pessimistic about the possibility of a left-wing rival to the Tea Party as Americans are now. Of course, there are differences in political culture and tax law structure and enforcement, but there are also strong parallels. In the United States the same three crucial factors that created UK Uncut are in place. First, at the state level, Americans are facing severe budget cuts, causing the recession to worsen. Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman says state governors are acting like “50 Herbert Hoovers…slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.”

Second, most of these cuts could be prevented simply by requiring superrich individuals and corporations to pay their taxes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) calculated in 2008 that eighty-three of the 100 biggest US corporations hide fortunes in tax havens. And even without these shelters, the rich have been virtually exempted from taxes across America. Billionaire Warren Buffet recently conducted a straw poll in his office and found he paid a lower proportion of his income in taxes than anybody else there—and considerably less than his secretary. Indeed, tax expert Nicholas Shaxson says that in many ways “America itself is a tax haven for many rich people.” WikiLeaks is poised to release the details of a whole raft of corporations and banks using tax havens in the Cayman Islands, laying out the dodging for all to see.

And third, public opinion is firmly behind going after the rich and corporations. A poll in January for 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair asked Americans which policy they would choose to reduce the deficit. By far the most popular, chosen by 61 percent of respondents, was to increase taxes on the rich. The next most popular, chosen by 20 percent, was to cut military spending. Other polls bear this out.

So Americans are facing the same cuts as the Brits. They are being ripped off by corporations and rich people just like the Brits. And they are as angry as the Brits. “All it takes,” says Tom Philips, “is for a few people to do what we did in that pub that night and light the touch paper.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to go after tax havens. He pointed out that one building in the Cayman Islands claims to house 12,000 corporations, and said: “That’s either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.” He promised he would “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.”

Yet in office he hasn’t done this. In 2009 Congress passed the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act, which shuffled a few inches forward but still doesn’t even require the automatic exchange of information from tax havens that EU law requires as a matter of right. So if a rich person opens a tax account in the Cayman Islands and hides his money there, the IRS isn’t told and doesn’t know. Yes, President Obama’s deficit commission made a few passing noises about closing tax loopholes, but the bulk of its recommendations and energy focused on going after benefits for the poor and middle class, like Social Security.

What should US Uncut target? “It’s important to go after brand names that exist in every city in America,” says Tom Purley, a UK Uncut participant. “The key to our success was that it was so easily replicated. People could do it anywhere. It took something that seems like a remote issue and connected it to a place they see every day.” Most of the companies that engage in the worst tax avoidance in the United States are Big Pharma and financial companies, which don’t have stores. But the GAO also named a number of major brands that are exploiting tax havens. They include Apple, Bank of America, Best Buy, ExxonMobil, FedEx (whose president, Frederick Smith, was named by Obama as the businessman he most admires), Kraft Foods, McDonald’s, Safeway and Target. That’s a wealth of potential targets.

American citizens should ask themselves: I work hard and pay my taxes, so why don’t the richest people and the corporations? Why should I pick up the entire tab for keeping the nation running? Why should the people who can afford the most pay the least? If you’re happy with that situation, you can stay at home and leave the protesting to the Tea Party. For the rest, there’s an alternative. For too long, progressive Americans have been lulled into inactivity by Obama’s soaring promises, which come to little. As writer Rebecca Solnit says, “Hope is not a lottery ticket you can sit on the sofa and clutch, feeling lucky…. Hope is an ax you break down doors with in an emergency.” UK Uncut has just shown Americans how to express real hope—and build a left-wing Tea Party.

For updates on this issue and others, you can follow [1] the author of this article on Twitter.

Madisonian Democracy: The Nation Editors

In the previous issue of this magazine, we asked “Where is the outrage?”—at Wall Street’s staggering greed and the political class that feeds it; at the suffering of Americans who have lost their jobs and homes; at the cruelty of the Republican Party, whose latest proposals would slash what remains of the social safety net while protecting the fortunes of its corporate benefactors. Well, ask and ye shall receive. In the span of just two weeks, the spirit of democratic protest—so vibrant across the Middle East—has been kindled here, in middle America. Nowhere is this uprising more electrifying than in Madison, Wisconsin, where as of press, for the sixteenth day in a row, thousands of students, teachers, firefighters, nurses, police and other workers are occupying the city square and the Capitol to cry out against Governor Walker’s plan to end the right of government employees to bargain collectively (see John Nichols, “The Spirit of Wisconsin”).

And the workers of Wisconsin are not alone. They’ve been joined by their peers in Ohio and Indiana, where union busting proposals are also being considered, and in solidarity demonstrations from Trenton to Los Angeles. Then there were the fifty-plus actions on February 26 against corporate tax dodger Bank of America, organized by the spunky new outfit US Uncut. Inspired by Johann Hari’s February 21 Nation article “The UK’s Left-Wing Tea Party,” US Uncut hopes to replicate (and exceed!) the success of its sister UK Uncut, which exposed British tax evaders like Topshop and Vodafone. US Uncut’s first target couldn’t have been more fitting: Bank of America, the beneficiary of a $45 billion taxpayer-financed rescue in 2008, paid—ready for this?—$0.00 in taxes the next year. Up next: other giants like Citigroup, Boeing, ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo and General Electric, which benefit from government largesse but contribute not a cent to the public coffers. (http://www.usuncut.org/)( http://www.usuncut.org/actions/list Actions Marh 26 in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose!)( http://www.usuncut.org/actions/155)

It’s too early to say where this ferment will go. But there is more hope and fire from below than there has been in years. So why now? Without overplaying the parallels, we note that the demonstrators in Wisconsin and elsewhere undeniably drew courage from Egypt’s January Revolution. A sense of possibility opened; the public square was redrawn as a space for the people. And Egyptians have reciprocated this global kinship by sending pizzas to Madison’s Capitol and by simple declarations of solidarity—“Egypt Supports Wisconsin Workers: One World, One Pain.”

Then there’s the utter nakedness of the GOP’s cronyism. Breaking unions or shredding Head Start isn’t about reducing the deficit; it’s about rewarding corporate allies and consolidating power. This transparent overreach has created easy targets: Walker’s bill also contains a blatant gift to one of his chief supporters, Koch Industries, a quid pro quo highlighted by the stomach-turning chumminess of a phone call with a prankster posing as billionaire David Koch. Unlike previous attempts to rally the people, today’s actions have clear villains—corporate bosses and their political lackeys—and clear demands: make big business pay its fair share instead of squeezing the working and middle class.

Finally, there’s sheer desperation. After thirty years of seeing their wealth redistributed upward, Americans are at a tipping point. Without destroying the government services like education and healthcare that most Americans say they want, there’s simply no more money to be extracted from below. The lines are being drawn, and Americans across the country are gearing up to fight for their very futures.

The Editors

Who am I? (Part Deux)

2011-02-11T18:17:00.000-08:00

I am a 65 year old woman. I have a BA in English and an MS in education. Over the years I have worked as a teacher, computer trainer, webmaster and technical support person. In 2000, at the height of the tech crash, I was laid off from a lovely high tech job in the heart of Silicon Valley. I re-upped my teaching credential and ended up moving to Marysville to teach high school computer subjects, until the Leave no Child Behind repercussions sent me on my way again. I found a job in Sacramento, but two years later a layoff sent me out once more. By now I was over 60, and really scared. And without health insurance.

Ultimately, I had no choice but sign up for Social Security when I turned 62,

Here are some facts:

The average Social Security beneficiary in America receives $13,900 annually.
The average older woman receives approximately $11,000 each year.

This is almost exactly the amount that I get. And contrary to what some may believe, this is not enough to live on.

I will note here that finding a job when you're 40 is pretty dicey, and over 60 is a real struggle. Everyone is willing to offer me work as a volunteer, but no one is eager to offer a paid position to someone my age.

Ultimately, I found a consulting part-time job that pays some of the bills, and I am grateful for it. But I feel sometimes that I am on the edge of homelessness and disaster at every turn.

After three years I finally turned 65 and signed up for Medicare. It turns out it is very far from free.

Here’s what happens.

Medicare A, hospitalization, doesn’t cost anything when you don’t use it, but you pay 20% of the costs when you do. I haven’t had to, thank God.
Medicare Part B, C and D, plus Medigap coverage, all cost out of pocket every month. Here is the breakdown for me:
Part B: This covers doctor visits. For this coverage, $96.40 is withheld from my Social Security check every month. Note that for me that is almost 10% of my total income, and it just went up by about $10 for new people signing up. Co-pays are 20% of the bill every time I have an office visit or outpatient procedure. When I first signed onto Medicare I had a range of tests, including mammogram and colonoscopy, to which I was entitled under “Welcome to Medicare.” However, I was still obligated to pay 20% and a hefty (for me) deductible, which I actually had not realized. Luckily my tests results were all great, but now I still owe more than $500, which I can’t pay.

o Part C: this is the part of the system which allows HMO’s to sell packages to seniors on Medicare. I was interested in Kaiser, but that would have cost me an additional $100 per month, which I just flat out didn’t have. And the co-pays would have been $30 for every single procedure.

o Part D: Prescription Drug care. $20-100 per month. I pay $30 per month for this, and haven’t yet get any benefit because I take only one medication and haven’t yet paid my deductible. I knew I had to get some plan, though, since you just don’t know what illness could be around the corner.

o MediGap: $30 and up. This insurance pays some of the costs not covered by the rest. I didn’t sign up for this, though I suspect I should have. If you sign up when you first sign up for Medicare, there is no physical exam required; now there would be.

So now my monthly check has gone from $1250 to about $1125. With rent at $865, there is not much left for gas and food.

In September, I had to choose between paying rent and making car payments, and I chose rent. My car was repossessed, of course. I was in shock and desperate because Sacramento doesn’t have terrific public transportation, it is the third worst city in the country to find a job, housing costs are still high for rentals (though you could get real buys here if you had lots of cash…)

My car provided entertainment, escape, socialization, and would have hopefully allowed me to find and eventually go to a job. It is a vicious cycle; you can't find a job without a car, and can't afford a car without a job.

I got through that period. My friends were there and probably saved my life.

Right now I don’t know how I am going to pay my rent, and my electricity has been turned off for over two weeks. Thank heavens it is not frigid here in California. I can read by flashlight, my dogs don’t care at all, and I spend most of my time in my toasty bed. I can shower at the gym; still have that membership.

I am grateful for my consulting job because it helps financially, provides socialization, and I really love the advocacy, writing, website and technical work I do.

I started a blog about living on Social Security (www.owlca.blogspot.com) because I am getting the idea that there are those out there (we know you're there, Sen. Alan K. Simpson) who think we are "greedy geezers.”

What we are is frightened and constantly worried.

New attack on Social Security (will they never cease?!)

2011-02-11T17:10:00.000-08:00

Click here to watch a compelling video and then submit your own story:

http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/ss_hc_stories/?akid=3305.209047.Ebfl4W&rd=1&source=e1v1&t=1.

In recent weeks, an increasing number of top Republicans like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) have said Republicans will move to cut Social Security.

This is the biggest threat to Social Security in decades -- and some Democrats are joining Republicans in calling for Social Security cuts.

However, we've been working with bold members of Congress who are ready to stand strong and defend Social Security. They need our help. They're looking for real stories from people in Tennessee who would be affected by Social Security cuts -- stories they can highlight in speeches and media appearances.

Are you retired or near retirement and barely making ends meet? Or working at a job that causes pain to your body -- where raising the retirement age would be a disaster for you? Tell us your story.

Our Capitol Hill director Shaunna Thomas is working with a group of Democratic members of Congress who are eager to highlight the real stories of people who would be impacted if the Social Security retirement age was raised. So we'll share your stories with them.

We did this to great success during the recent health care fight: PCCC member's stories made up more than half of the stories that were read on the House floor and one lucky member even told her story on MSNBC!

Having legislators share real stories from real people is one of the best ways we can stop cuts to Social Security.

If cuts to Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age would affect you, no matter how old you are, please share your story here.

Please pass this email to others you know who would be impacted by Social Security cuts. And thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- Stephanie Taylor, Adam Green, Forrest Brown, Julia Rosen, and the PCCC team

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in $3 today.
Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

My Health Care Story

2011-02-11T17:03:00.000-08:00

My Health Care story

Margie Metzler

916-921-5008; margiemetz@hotmail.com

In 2006, I was laid off from my job in Sacramento. I found work with a non-profit quickly, but it came without benefits. I took it because I needed to work for my emotional well-being, thought it could lead to full-time work, and wanted to be of service. I could not afford COBRA. I was over 60 and could not even get a job interview. I was uninsured for four years, the scariest time in my life.

In 2009 I reached the age of 65 and went on Medicare. I was really scared, as I had seen a doctor only one time in the previous 4 years and had not had a single test or examination.

I then had a battery of tests, including the usual: blood and urine, colon, mammography, eyes, hearing. My cost share of all these tests was over $600; I am currently still paying off these costs.

I was looking forward to next year, getting at least another colonoscopy, as there were 4 polyps found and removed the last time. Because I am now living solely on Social Security, I really need the full coverage for preventive tests included in the Healthcare Reform bill.

Preventive care is vastly less expensive in the long run than waiting to see a doctor only when you are already sick.

Raising the Retirement Age=More Class Warfare

2011-01-16T11:26:00.000-08:00

Raising the Retirement Age=More Class Warfare

Please Write to the President before the State of the Union Message on Tuesday, Jan. 25.

2011-01-16T11:00:00.000-08:00

Many of us believe that President Obama will send a message regarding his intentions regarding Social Security at the State of the Union speech on Tuesday, Jan. 25 (next Tuesday.) Let’s let him know in no uncertain terms where we stand. Keep in mind:

§ Social Security has never impacted the deficit until the Payroll tax “holiday” – which is NO HOLIDAY for seniors or Baby Boomers!

§ A real solution to the high costs of medical care (including Medicare) would be single payer (though Health Care Reform is an improvement);

§ The REAL causes of the deficit lie with our endless and unnecessary wars.

§ SENIORS VOTE!! And we love Social Security and Medicare. For many of us our lives depend on it… especially in this economy.

§ More on http://www.owlca.org/socsec.htm, www.gpcal.org and www.owlca.blogspot.com.

Here is a statement from the Alliance for Retired Americans about this issue:

State of the Union: Defending Social Security
Last Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said that means testing or raising the retirement age was a “backdoor method” of going after Social Security. He scolded those who would like to cut Social Security and said, “One of the things that always troubles me is when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security…Stop picking on Social Security.”

Alliance President Barbara J. Easterling said, “I commend Senator Harry Reid for again taking a strong stand on Social Security. Even though Social Security by law cannot be part of the deficit, too many ofhis colleagues in Washington would have you believe otherwise.”

On Tuesday, January 25th, the President’s annual State of the Union Address will air across the country. President Obama has supported the Alliance position on Social Security in the past – no benefit cuts, no raising the retirement age, no cuts in the COLA and no privatization, which only benefits Wall Street. President Obama may address critical retiree issues such as Social Security and Medicare when he delivers his speech. Use the guide here http://bit.ly/fXUmt2 to verify that President Obama keeps his Social Security promises in the State of the Union Address, and keep making sure that your own Member of Congress does, too! Watch parties for Alliance members are already planned in Tempe and Tucson, Arizona [ http://on.fb.me/go74Ab ] and other locations. If you are interested in hosting a watch party ofyour own, please click here http://bit.ly/ezVRam and contact araorganizing@retiredamericans.org to let us know.

Contact President Obama

White House website form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Write to the President: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers: Comments: 202-456-1111; Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Also, it can’t hurt to contact your senators and representatives: Let them know there is still a third rail!

Congressman Dan Lungren
2339 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 220
Gold River, CA 95670

e-mail: https://lungren.house.gov/?sectionid=91

Phone: (202) 225-5716 District Office Phone: (916) 859-9906 • Fax: (916) 859-9976

Congresswoman Doris Matsui

Washington, D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-7163; Fax: (202) 225-0566

Sacramento Office Phone: (916) 498-5600 Fax: (916) 444-6117

501 I Street, Suite 12-600, Sacramento, CA 95814-7305

e-mail: http://www.matsui.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=92

Congressman Tom McClintock

Washington, D.C. Office: 508 Cannon HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2511; Fax: (202) 225-5444

District Office: 4230 Douglas Blvd. Suite 200, Granite Bay, Ca 95746
Phone: (916) 786-5560; Fax: (916) 786-6364

e-mail: http://mcclintock.house.gov/contact/

Senator Barbara Boxer

Email: http://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

Office: 501 I Street, Suite 7-600, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 448-2787; (202) 228-3865 fax; DC: (202) 224-3553

Senator Dianne Feinstein: e-mail: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

San Francisco: One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104
Main: (415) 393-0707; Fax: (415) 393-0710

Washington, D.C.: United States Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841 Fax: (202) 228-3954

January 13, 2011

How the G.O.P. Can Cut and Survive

By RAMESH PONNURU

THE new Congress is less than two weeks old, but pundits from across the political spectrum are already urging the newly empowered Republicans to take on Medicare and Social Security.

Conservatives argue it’s the only way to make good on the party’s limited-government rhetoric. Centrists say it’s the only plausible way to bring the budget into sustainable balance. Even some liberals are telling the Republicans to demonstrate the courage of their anti-spending convictions.

Reforming these programs is vital to our nation’s long-term fiscal health — which is why Republicans should resist this advice and leave the issue alone. Reform is impossible this year or next unless President Obama takes the lead on it. What’s more, Republicans have no mandate for reform, and a failed attempt will only set back the cause.

Some Republicans are understandably eager to take on these entitlements. “The third rail is not the third rail anymore,” Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, said in December.

Maybe he’s right. But Republicans have gotten a painful shock every time they have decided it’s finally safe to take on entitlements. Ronald Reagan suffered a defeat in his first year when he tried cutting Social Security’s early retirement benefits. Newt Gingrich’s 1995 Republican revolution fizzled when President Bill Clinton fought him over Medicare cuts. President George W. Bush’s effort to reform Social Security in 2005 ended any political momentum he brought to his second term.

Would-be reformers should draw two lessons from this history. The first is that reform can’t be sprung on the electorate. Reagan hadn’t campaigned on cutting Social Security in 1980, nor did the Gingrich Republicans promise to reduce the growth of Medicare.

Today is no different: while some Republican candidates in the last election spoke forthrightly about the need to rein in these programs — notably Representative Ryan himself, but also new Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky — most of them didn’t.

As a result, if Republicans spend much of the next two years fighting over these programs, voters who depend on them are going to be unpleasantly surprised. Keep in mind that most voters oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, so they are likely to be very nervous about any proposals to restrain their growth, especially if opponents portray such cuts as excessive. Even worse, most members of Congress are not well informed about these programs, so they’ll have a hard time soothing public anxieties.

The second lesson is that presidential support for reform is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for success. As John Boehner, the new speaker of the House, said himself on election night, governing from Capitol Hill doesn’t work — the president has to set the agenda.

If Mr. Obama delivers a good-faith proposal for Social Security, for example in this month’s State of the Union address, then by all means Republicans should offer a serious counterproposal and, depending on their differences, negotiate. If he doesn’t, then Republicans should wait on a new president in 2013.

But they should do more than wait: in the event of presidential inaction, reformers should blame Mr. Obama for the lack of progress and work to make entitlements a litmus-test issue in the Republican presidential primaries. The goal should be to nominate someone willing to make a strong case for reducing entitlement growth as part of a larger strategy to restore American prosperity.

True, reform won’t generate the near-term budget savings the federal government needs to avoid a fiscal crisis this decade. Even the boldest plans phase their cuts in gradually, and they exempt people who are at or near retirement.

But that doesn’t mean that all action on entitlements can be deferred. Medicaid is wrecking state budgets and is set to expand thanks to the Democrats’ new health care law. It is also more politically vulnerable than Social Security or Medicare, which offer benefits to everyone who reaches old age. As they try to undo the health care law, Republicans might also consider capping Medicaid’s growth and sending the savings back to the states. It would be a mistake, however, for Republicans to take the same approach to Social Security or Medicare.

Instead, they should show their budget-hawk bona fides by making spending cuts elsewhere.

They should begin by freezing or cutting government payrolls, including in the legislative branch — something Republicans have already started doing. Message: the federal government is not just imposing sacrifices but sharing them. Then they should get control of the discretionary, or non-entitlement, portions of the budget, which are small only in comparison with entitlements. Only after winning those fights, and probably electing a new president, should the old-age entitlements be up for reform.

There are times when it is admirable for a politician to support legislation for the public good even if it will cost him his own re-election. Some of the Democrats who voted for the new health care law and then lost in November probably feel that way. But that tradeoff made sense only because they knew they could actually pass the law.

There is no point to Republicans’ endangering their seats for legislation, however worthy, unless they have a good shot at getting a presidential signature on it. They will get their answer in the next State of the Union address.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.

Seniors may have to pay for Medicare home health

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9KNMCPO1.htm

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON

Congressional advisers are calling for a new out-of-pocket charge for Medicare home health care, a service that until now has been free of charge to patients.

The recommendation Thursday from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission comes as lawmakers look for health care spending cuts to help get control of federal deficits. The advisory panel did not prescribe an amount, but its staff has suggested the charge be $150 for a series of related visits.

More than 3 million seniors got home health care last year, including visits from nurses, therapists and personal care attendants.

The service was once seen as a cost saver, since it's much cheaper than putting patients in the hospital, but costs are approaching $20 billion a year and rising.

The AARP seniors lobby opposes the plan.

2011-01-14T09:49:00.001-08:00

Some of you may remember my comments in this blog about conflicts of interest in the Economics profession (http://owlca.blogspot.com/2010/11/inside-job-documentary_15.html).

Well, NPR Morning Edition had a segment last week on ethics and the economics profession. Turns out they never had a code of ethics and probably don't want one. I say get thee to an ethicist! These are people who can ruin our country (and may already have done so.) I believe they should be compelled to reveal their fiscal connections with banks and other financial institutions.

I judt checked with the American Economics Associaltion and see nothing about it.

I think I am going to keep my eyes on them!a€edk€€€

Today is a day for classical music and sadness

2011-01-09T08:27:00.001-08:00

As a Liberal, I seldom tune into Fox TV and have never listened to Rush Limbough. Partly this is because I know that they are so often and so deeply wrong. It takes a physical toll on my body to hear hatred and irrational ranting. My blood pressure goes up, I feel shooting bursts of rage, my heartbeat increases, and I even shake a little. (I should add that these same effects sometimes occur listening to Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. They often have great information, but I just can’t listen to high levels of hatred and rage without serious repercussions.) The antidote for me is to turn to classical music, at least for a while.

So I assume that others are equally affected, probably more for some people and less for others. I don’t take out a gun, partly because I don’t own one, and I don’t write, because my thought patterns are not orderly enough.

Rush, Glenn, and O’Reilly are generally fact-free and purely emotional, and they don’t ever have me thinking more rationally; they make me want to shove something into the TV.

But I don’t I just don’t.

I didn’t know anything about Gabrielle before this. I do now, and I grieve for her and her family. And for our country. And I pray.

Today is a day for classical music and sadness.

"Payroll Tax Holiday" passes.... Sigh! But the fight continues

2010-12-17T09:25:00.000-08:00

From Margie:

Well, the Tax Deal (with the awful “Payroll Tax Holiday” passed yesterday and will be signed today. And unless you are reading materials from www.ncpssm.org or From Margie:

Well, the Tax Deal (with the awful Payroll Tax Holiday” passed yesterday and will be signed today. And unless you are reading materials from www.ncpssm.org or http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-works-0 or this blog (and a few others), you may not even realize the ramifications. According to polls (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/insight/stories/2010/12/12/let-rich-pay-to-fix-deficit-say-americans.html?sid=101) Americans think it is unfair and unwise to “fix the deficit” on the backs of senior, the unemployed, or the poor.

This fight is not over. In about 13 months there will be another Senate and House fight over whether to extend the “Payroll Tax Holiday” or even make it permanent. Our job will be twofold:

Make sure every person on Social Security understands what is happening and starts fighting back. It is our job to talk about this issue whenever and wherever we can. Remember, the payroll tax will not do much of anything to fix the deficit and it is an effort to “Starve the Beast”: shrink Social Security till foes away. Politicians are already are taking aim at abolishing COLA’s, voting down one-time payments to seniors, and increasing the amount of co pays for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.
Pay close attention to what is happening in Congress and what politicians are saying. If you see an article or item that applies to this fight, please send it to me so I can spread it to my list and put it on my blog (www.owlca.blogspot.com.)
There is another fight coming up” the fight to save Medicare and Medicaid (Medical in California.). These two programs do seriously affect the deficit and will continue to do so without action. And they will also be targets of “starving the Beast in the near future.

We have a heap of work ahead of us!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-effort-to-claim-that-_b_794862.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/11/927904/-Obama-gets-Social-Security-facts-wrong

Social Security advocates fear payroll tax cut (plus my letter of response)

2010-12-13T20:08:00.000-08:00

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press – Sun Dec 12, 8:18 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101212/ap_on_bi_ge/us_payroll_tax_holiday

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's plan to cut payroll taxes for a year would provide big savings for many workers, but makes Social Security advocates nervous that it could jeopardize the retirement program's finances.

The plan is part of a package of tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits that Obama negotiated with Senate Republican leaders. It would cut workers' share of Social Security taxes by nearly one-third for 2011. Workers making $50,000 in wages would get a $1,000 tax cut; those making $100,000 would get a $2,000 tax cut.

The government would borrow about $112 billion to make Social Security whole. Advocates and some lawmakers worry that relying on borrowed money to fund Social Security could eventually force it to compete with other federal programs for scarce dollars, leading to cuts.

Social Security taxes "ought to be held sacrosanct," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security.

"When you start to signal that the (Social Security) tax levels are negotiable, you end up in long-term trouble, I think, in terms of making absolutely certain that the entitlement funding streams are secure," Pomeroy said.

Social Security is funded by a 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 earned by a worker. The tax is matched by employers. The package negotiated by Obama would reduce the tax paid by workers to 4.2 percent for 2011. Employer rates would stay unchanged.

Obama administration officials say that a payroll tax cut is an efficient way to stimulate the economy by immediately increasing take home pay for about 155 million workers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office agrees, and many business groups and Republicans support it.

"What came out of the compromise was the idea of the payroll tax holiday, which, frankly, a huge number of economists and other experts had been talking about over the last two years with a lot of support in both political parties," said Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser.

The United Auto Workers endorsed the deal, saying, "Working families will likely spend this money in their local communities, creating jobs and stimulating overall growth."

The payroll tax cut is part of a larger package negotiated by Obama and GOP lawmakers to extend a sweeping array of Bush era tax cuts that expire at the end of the month. Some Democratic lawmakers have balked at the plan, saying it is tilted too much in favor of the rich.

The payroll tax cut would provide relief to any worker earning a wage. It would replace Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit, which has provided modest increases in most workers' paychecks for the past two years.

The payroll tax credit would be more generous to individuals making more than $20,000 and married couples making more than $40,000. For those making less, the payroll tax cut would be less than the Making WorkPay credit.

Making Work Pay, which expires at the end of the year, gives workers a tax credit of 6.2 percent of their wages, but it is capped at $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. The credit is phased out for individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000.

A worker would have to make $20,000 in wages for the payroll tax cut to equal the $400 Making Work Pay tax credit; couples would have to make $40,000.

At the wealthy end of the pay scale, workers making $106,800 — the maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes — would see their payroll taxes reduced by $2,136. That worker's spouse could also get a payroll tax cut of up to $2,136, if he or she makes at least $106,800.

The proposal requires the Treasury Department to replenish Social Security with other government funds, which would have to be borrowed.

"The payroll tax cut has absolutely no effect on the solvency of Social Security," said White House economic adviser Jason Furman.

Social Security has accumulated a $2.5 trillion trust fund since the 1980s. But the government has borrowed that money to pay for other programs. The Treasury Department has issued special bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing the money will be repaid, with interest.

As aging baby boomers start to retire and strain the system, advocates worry about future benefit cuts. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Without changes, Social Security's trust funds will run out of money by 2037, according to the trustees who oversee the program.

To save money, the leaders of a bipartisan deficit commission recently proposed a gradual increase in the full retirement age, from 67 to 69, drawing opposition from groups representing older people.

"This 2 percent payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it," said the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which is led by former Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly, D-Conn. "Worker contributions have successfully funded the program for 75 years and that critical linkage between contributions and benefits is what keeps Social Security a self-funded program."

Margie Letter to the editor Mon. Dec. 13 2010 Re: the article just above : Social Security advocates fear payroll tax cut

It is not just Social Security advocates that should fear the “payroll tax holiday.” It is senior and disability advocates, seniors, the disabled, and every citizen who aspires to someday be a senior.

Social Security has been a beloved program for 75 years. It has given seniors dignity, independence, and freedom from fear, and it has allowed their children and grandchildren peace of mind. It has never missed a payment, in spite of the fact that numerous efforts have been made over the years to dismantle it. In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, “We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions… With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

I am heartbroken that either this President doesn’t understand the long-term consequences of this action or doesn’t care. But those who have been using the deficit as an excuse to pull the plug on Social
Security are undoubtedly dancing in the streets.

Obama gets Social Security facts wrong

2010-12-12T17:36:00.000-08:00

Obama gets Social Security facts wrong

by Joan McCarter

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/11/927904/-Obama-gets-Social-Security-facts-wrong

Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:00:05 AM PST

Here's a book that needs to be on President Obama's immediate reading list: Nancy Altman's excellent The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision To Bush's Gamble. In it, Altman dispels the kind of Zombie Social Security lies that have been showing up in President Obama's talking points. Dan Froomkin has the details on how he got its history wrong.

At the press conference (see the transcript), Obama defended his controversial decision to give in to Republican demands for a massive tax cut for the rich on the grounds that "in order to get stuff done, we're going to compromise."

His prime example: "This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people."

....

Obama's overall point -- that Social Security wasn't born fully grown -- was exactly right. But his facts were exactly wrong. The Social Security Act, as first signed into law by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935, paid retirement benefits to the primary worker -- andnot to their widows and orphans. It wasn't until a 1939 change that the law added benefits for survivors and for the retiree's spouse and children.

The system was set up specifically not as welfare for the neediest, aid to widows and children. It was set up as an insurance program for every American worker, into which every American worker paid, and done so for very smart political and policy reasons. Here's how Altman describes that history:

FDR recognized that a visible dedicated contribution makes it both politically and morally difficult for future politicians to cut Social Security. When pressed about the impact of payroll taxes on the economy, FDR said:

“I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.”

The myth of Social Security as a widows and orphans program has been a right-wing talking point that diminishes Social Security's role as a social insurance program--an insurance program paid into directly by the people who will benefit from it eventually. It reduces it to an "entitlement" program, implying that it's not a program in which we all, collectively as American, have a stake.

Unfortunately, the President's repetition of Zombie Social Security lies goes beyond just the program's history. Here's one of the worst (h/t Progressive Blue):

(NPR's) INSKEEP: Won't Republicans argue - and, in fact, won't reality argue that any cuts will have to be even deeper because this package that you're pushing for now will mean there's even less government revenue?

OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

Maybe he meant "Medicare" or there was a transcription error. Yes, Medicare--because of huge and rising systemic medical costs is a problem for the nation. Medicaid too, but less so. But, let's say this loud and clear, again: Social Security does not now and never has added to the deficit. It very simply does not and never has. As Zach Carter says, "Targeting Social Security in order to fix the deficit is like invading Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda. The issues are not related."

This has been one of the hardest Zombie Lies to kill, you need no further proof of that than seeing a Democratic president repeat it. The fact that he's repeating it, when coupled with his catfood commission and the potential trap being set with this tax cut deal, all bode poorly for Social Security coming out of this administration unscathed, much less strengthened.

Let rich pay to fix deficit, say Americans

2010-12-12T17:27:00.001-08:00

Let rich pay to fix deficit, say Americans

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/insight/stories/2010/12/12/let-rich-pay-to-fix-deficit-say-americans.html?sid=101

Sunday, December 12, 2010 03:01 AM

BY HEIDI PRZYBYLA AND MIKE DORNING

Bloomberg News

WASHINGTON — Americans want Congress to bring down a federal budget deficit that many believe is “dangerously out of control” only under two conditions: minimize the pain and make the rich pay.

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction.

That aversion to sacrifice is at odds with recent studies, including one by President Barack Obama’s debt panel, that say reductions in Medicare, Social Security, military and other spending are necessary to curb a deficit that totaled $1.29 trillion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, or 9 percent of the gross domestic product.

“The idea that we can solve our structural-deficit problems merely by asking more of the well-off is totally unrealistic,” said David Walker, who was U.S. comptroller general and now leads a group advocating against deficits. “The math simply doesn’t work.”

According to the Dec. 4-7 poll, taken days after Obama’s commission sounded an alarm over the nation’s “unsustainable fiscal path,” the public still believes it’s more important to “minimize sacrifice” than to take “bold and fast” action to pare the $13.7 trillion national debt.

“The reality is deficit-cutting hurts, and the American public is in no mood for further hurt than the slow economy and high unemployment is delivering,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa firm that conducted the nationwide survey.

The one place Americans are willing to see sacrifice is in the wallets of the wealthy.

While they say they strongly support balancing the budget over the next 20 years, when offered a list of more than a dozen possible spending cuts or tax increases, majorities opposed all of them except imposing a bigger burden on the rich.

A majority backs raising the cap on earnings covered by the Social Security tax above the current limit of $107,000. Two-thirds would means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits. Six of 10 would end tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans.

“We give billions of dollars to these corporations, and in my eyes they pretty much just put it in their pocket,” said Donald Froemming, a 57-year-old independent voter and unemployed diesel mechanic from Moose Lake, Minn.

The Bloomberg National survey of 1,000 U.S. adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Sunday Musings on the Tax Deal

2010-12-12T10:03:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was pretty emotionally draining for me. I have been spending a lot of time on fighting for the payroll tax cuts to not be enacted, because I think they will become permanent and will ultimately open the door to the destruction of Social Security.

Yesterday I watched Bil Clinton. He is good, no question. And loyal. But in that entire press conference no one even mentioned the possible long-term effects of the cuts. Sigh.

I settled into a bit of a calm. If you're going to get involved in the big fight, you have to be OK about losing. And I think I can do that if necessary.

On the other side of the spectrum, of course, was Bernie Sanders, channeling Jimmy Stewart in Mr.
Smith Goes to Washington. Only better! Jimmy Stewart quickly got visibly exhausted. Our Bernie is the EverReady Bunny! Of course, Senators don't have to actually go through the motions, but Bernie is such a hero! He put in the full eight hours. And no reading cook books or phone directories, just good clear understandable truth. Just revisiting the videos (see my last post) gives me an adrenaline boost.

In the meantime, though, we are not done yet with this fight. And I hope you will stay with it too!

Sen Bernie Sanders Amazing Speech!

2010-12-11T10:30:00.000-08:00

Cutting contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End

2010-12-10T10:31:00.000-08:00

Cutting contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End

By NCPSSM | December 7, 2010

Payroll Tax “Holiday” is Anything But

“Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides deficit busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in Social Security contributions for a so-called ‘tax holiday’ may sound like a good deal for workers now but it’s bad business for the program that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.”… Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

Conservatives have long dreamed of a payroll tax holiday because it fulfills two ideological goals, lower taxes and weakening Social Security’s finances. The White House claims the 2% payroll tax cut won’t impact Social Security; however, we disagree.

· There’s no such thing as a “temporary” tax Cut. If Congress is unwilling to allow tax cuts for wealthy Americans to expire in the midst of economic crisis now, then why would it allow this so-called “holiday” to end in one year? The short answer–it wouldn’t. Americans should expect that when this tax “holiday” ends, restoring Social Security’s funding will be portrayed by those opposed to the program as a massive tax hike, rather than the legislated end of the “holiday”. That leaves Social Security permanently dependent on general fund revenues rather than worker contributions which have successfully funded the program for 75 years. If extended, this payroll tax cut would then double Social Security’s 75 year projected shortfall.

· This 2% payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it. Worker contributions have successfully funded the program for 75 years and that critical linkage between contributions and benefits is what keeps Social Security a self-funded program. Proposals like this threaten the program’s independence, forcing Social Security to compete for limited federal dollars.

· Cutting contributions to Social Security isn’t the best way to stimulate the economy. The Tax Policy Center reports the wealthiest 40% of households benefit most from a payroll tax cut. According to The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, extending the “Making Work Pay Tax Credit” is a much better and targeted stimulus.

For all of these reasons, the National Committee does not support proposals to cut the payroll tax. America’s seniors understand the vital role Social Security plays during these difficult economic times and they’re not willing to trade promises of possible short-term economic gains for real and measurable damage to this vital program which would impact generations of Americans to come.

Share|

Obama's Stealth Attack on Social Security

2010-12-09T22:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2010/12/obamas-stealth-attack-on-social-security.html

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Please read the post below and then come back to read this update.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) tells me that time is of the essence on this proposal as Congressional members try to get out of Washington for the holidays. In an email, the NCPSSM said,

“Flooding members' offices is what is absolutely needed...House members have been far more vocal in their opposition to this deal than we’ve seen in the Senate but it’s vital that seniors and their families contact their representatives in both.

"Far too many in Washington don’t understand the fundamental threat of what’s being proposed and they need to hear from seniors.”

At their website, the NCPSSM has set up Payroll Tax Letter to legislators that is similar to what you can do at congress.org. Here are instructions:

Follow this link
Under “Elected Officials,” enter your Zip Code and press Go
At the top of the next page, select “Issues”
At the top of the page, select “Tax Holiday is no holiday at all”

Separate letters to the House and to the Senate will appear. Feel free to personalize them. Fill in the required information, press “send message” and you're done.

PLEASE DO THIS in addition to calling and emailing individual lawmakers. And please don't put it off for later. Time is short and the future of Social Security is at stake.

Also, feel free to copy any or all of this post and use it at your blogs. Attribution to TGB is not necessary.

Yesterday, Crabby Old Lady told you why President Obama's agreement with Congressional Republicans to extend unemployment benefits while retaining the Bush-era tax cuts is a bad idea. She intended to let me move on to some lighter material today, but further digging show that the deal is much worse than a giveaway to rich people.

Included in the proposal is a temporary “payroll tax holiday” - that is, a two percent cut in the FICA (Social Security) deduction for workers although not employers. The duration of this holiday is so far unspecified, but for one year, it would cost $120 billion which would be made up, says President Obama, from the general fund.

This is a DISASTER for Social Security – and no one in Washington is talking about it.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Bruce Bartlett, an economics expert, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan and treasury official during the George H.W. Bush administration writing in November (please read this carefully; emphasis is mine):

”What are the odds that Republicans will ever allow this one-year tax holiday to expire?...My point is that if allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the biggest tax increase in history, one that Republicans claim would decimate a still-fragile economy, then surely expiration of a payroll tax holiday would also constitute a massive tax increase on the working people of America.

“And what are the odds that the economy won't still be fragile a year from now? Zero, I would say.

“...a payroll tax holiday is Pandora's Box and best left unopened. Republicans would prefer to destroy Social Security's finances or permanently fund it with general revenues than allow a once-suspended payroll tax to be reimposed.

“Arch Social Security hater Peter Ferrara once told me that funding it with general revenues was part of his plan to destroy it by converting Social Security into a welfare program, rather than an earned benefit. He was right.”

At Hullabaloo yesterday digby, who titled her post,One More Nail in the Social Security Coffin, correctly identifies the ultimate outcome of a payroll tax holiday (again, my emphasis):

“The 2012 election is looking like its going to be about taxes and deficits (as a proxy for fixing the economy, since everything else is off the table.) And from what I can see, the president is going to be competing with the Republicans on who will lower both of them the most. Social Security is in maximum danger in that environment.”

Nancy Altman at FireDogLake makes a point that has been bothering me for a long time – that so many in Congress, and the president too, do not grasp the crucially important nature of Social Security's self-funding by American workers (my emphasis agaiin):

“Today’s Democrats fail to understand the program, and so are not only blind to subtle assaults against it, but seem to conspire in those assaults. All I can say is that with the Republicans and the Democratic President, perhaps unwittingly, conspiring to destroy Social Security, the American people don’t stand a chance.”

masslib, who also writes at FireDogLake, is as suspicious as I am:

”...something doesn’t smell right here. We have a presidential deficit commission that just proposed cutting social security benefits and essentially means testing it into a welfare program, and now we have Republicans and the President agreeing to an employee Social Security payroll tax to be paid from the general fund. Well, what could possibly go wrong...”

Go wrong. Go wrong...

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) issued a press release yesterday saying, "There is no such thing as a 'temporary' tax cut." Further,

"This 2% payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it...Proposals like this threaten the program’s independence, forcing Social Security to compete for limited federal dollars."

Not to put too fine a point on all the above: if the payroll tax holiday were to become permanent - and it will if it passes Congress with this current proposal - it will force massive cuts to Social Security.

It is a stealth attack on the program.

It will destroy the system.

Which is what the Republicans have been trying to do for decades.

Not one journalist at President Obama's press conference yesterday raised this issue. They are blind to it while they rattle on about whether the president is flip-flopping on campaign promises rather than dealing with the substance.

In fact, at this moment as I write, CNN is insulting my intelligence (for the zillionth time) by reporting that the payroll tax holiday would be a big help for Americans because it would put more money in their pockets. The reporter, apparently, is ignorant of the consequences to Social Security and old people. Bah!

Many sources have reported that the number of calls objecting to the entire proposal crashed the White House phone system yesterday. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said his office received more than 900 calls from his tiny state. Let's keep it up.

Certainly you should call if you prefer, but congress.org says lawmakers prefer to email and it is a better choice than the telephone to be sure to get through and to be able to clearly explain your position.

At congress.org, you can simultaneously send the same email to all three of your representatives and the president, but you must be registered. You can do that here. It is a quick, easy registration and you can immediately write your message.

Yesterday, President Obama defended his agreement with Congressional Republicans as “a good deal for Americans.” I vehemently disagree and it is particularly not so for old people.

If you agree, please email the president and all your representatives now to tell them this is a disaster and unacceptable. Be sure to mention the Social Security issue as well as the tax cuts for the rich that are getting all the attention.

More on Payroll Tax issue

2010-12-09T21:20:00.000-08:00

Randy Block of Gray Panthers (MI) wrote the following. Under that is the Heritage blog article to which he refers.

To Vice President Joe Biden/Staff of the Vice President:

I'm am unemployed American who just started getting unemployment compensation. I am grateful that this safety net will probably be there for me and others struggling to find a job within the next 12 months. However, I'm angry that a Payroll Tax "Holiday" could become a poison pill for the future solvency of the Social Security Trust fund.

1. Withholding 2% of payroll deductions that would normally go into the Social Security "Trust" fund results in a 16% reduction ($120 billion) in the amount of the REAL MONEY going in to the Social Security "Trust" fund.

2. If we are not again held hostage by the Republicans on this issue, you will be allowed to replace the borrowed $120 billion with government IOU's from the general fund. Republicans (see Heritage Foundation position on Payroll Tax Holidays from February 2010: http://blog.heritage.org/?p=26386) are likely to oppose repayment from the general fund in the SS Trust Fund as more deficit spending.

3. When the one year Payroll Tax Holiday expires, Republicans will argue that stopping this diversion from the SS Trust Fund will represent "raising taxes". If the economy still needs priming, your administration may be pressured to say yes again to extending the Payroll Tax Holiday.

4. Of course, undermining the solvency of the Trust Fund by diverting funds from it, sets the stage for the privatizers who want to argue that we should allow payroll deductions into private investments in lieu of SS/FICA payments.

There are MANY people who feel exactly as I do about this issue. Please work to restore my trust that the Social Security Trust Fund will keep solvent. Find another way to help workers than undermining their future retirement benefits under Social Security.

Randy Block

4220 Arlington Dr.

Royal Oak, MI 48073

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=26386

Posted February 15th, 2010 at 1:00pm in Enterprise and Free Markets 9

Despite efforts by Senator Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Grassley (R-IA) to draft a broad and bi-partisan federal legislation as part of another round of federal “stimulus” Senator Reid (D-NV) has now derailed the endeavor. After eliminating most of the tax cuts in the bi-partisan effort put forward by Senators Baucus and Grassley, one of the few “tax cuts” Senator Reid has retained is the payroll tax holiday plan.

What is the Payroll Tax Holiday? Sec. 101 of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act outlines a suspension during 2010 on the employer share of the Social Security OASDI (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) payroll tax. The OASDI payroll tax is normally divided into an employer and an employee share, where each is responsible for 6.2 percent on total payroll (or wages earned for employees). Sec. 101 only applies to qualified employers hiring a qualified individual from February 3, 2010 to December 31, 2010. It largely excludes public sector organizations hiring workers, except for “post-secondary educational institutions”.

How Will This Impact Employers? As evidence by continuing unemployment trends during 2009 and now into 2010, it is clear that firms have suspended hiring workers – and in many instances fired current workers – because of the significant drop in demand for goods and services. In the absence of real demand for these firms’ products, it is reasonable to assume most employers will not react strongly to this temporary incentive to hire. Participating in the payroll tax holiday program will reduce the cost of labor during the eligible time frame, although temporarily and not by a large share.

How Is It Financed? The payroll tax holiday program will be financed with money from general revenues. Specifically, those funds otherwise used from the Treasury—amounting to lost revenue in the Federal Social Security OASDI Trust Fund—will be “replenished” with equal amounts from the federal general revenue account.

Implications to Social Security. The Social Security system is effectively drained of real money. In 2009, Social Security ran on a deficit of $4.3 billion, and by 2016, these deficits will continue to grow permanently. In 2020, the annual deficit is project to reach $68.5 billion. Financing deficits in one program with deficits from another –the White House has already released its $1.57 trillion federal deficit-spending agenda – means that the real cost of the proposed $13 billion of this hiring incentive plan will be much higher and permanently add to growing Social Security debt. Moreover, any shift towards a partial general revenue financing arrangement of Social Security opens the way to a back-door tax increase that everyone will incur down the road.

Moving Forward. At this nexus, Congress should concertedly reconsider passing a “jobs stimulus” plan that will 1) potentially create a net decline in employment, 2) fail to provide incentives for productive and permanent employment; and 3) contribute significantly to the on-going deficits in the Social Security system—especially if the financing involves deficit spending from general revenues. A more promising message to employers of all sizes would be if Congress commits to reducing burdensome regulation, taxes, and federal government spending that all contribute to the crippling uncertainty of planning and operating a business.

AUTHOR: John Ligon

The Tax Deal: Why I hate it

2010-12-08T12:07:00.001-08:00

Margie Metzler

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

President Obama has announced a “deal” with Republican leaders that leaves Republicans gloating and Democrats demoralized and depressed. It has been presented in the press as a two-year extension of tax cuts for the wealthy and for the middle class, in return for a one year extension of unemployment benefits.

First, keep in mind that this conversation is not over. There is yet no bill, and plenty of people are still fighting it.

But critically for seniors on Social Security, there is a one year “holiday” of the payroll tax, from 6.2% to 4.2%. The payroll tax is the tax that workers pay that goes to support people currently on Social Security. As soon as a worker earns $106,800, she has reached the “cap,” and the payroll tax is no longer levied until the next year. We have always advocated that raising this cap when necessary is the best way to keep Social Security solvent.

When I first read about the cut in payroll taxes its importance slipped right by me. A 2% cut; so what?

But a 2% cut amounts to a 16% cut in the money going into the system to support seniors currently in the system, and those entering this year. This will be catastrophic.

People hostile to Social Security have long known that it is hard to kill it because—surprise! —people like it. So their strategy has been twofold:

Divide the nation into two groups: those currently on Social Security and those far from it. Convince the first group that they will be able to stay on Social Security (and to hell with everyone else), and the second that it won’t be there by the time they get that old, so why fight for it? The whole privatization argument is based on this very successful effort.
Starve the beast (Grover Norquist): ensure there isn’t enough money to keep the system going, so it gradually crumbles away to nothing. (The current fight.)

The 16% cut in Social Security income would be a huge hit in the next year. And is it likely the cut will be reinstated in a year? No. It will be framed as a tax increase, especially with the current Congress, making it virtually impossible to return to sustainable levels.

Other important concerns include:

How will the missing income be replaced? By borrowing from the General fund. We will be replacing money from the trust fund and with debt. And more, the 75-year principle of a fence between Social Security and the general fund will be breached permanently, making Social Security a contributor to the deficit and even more of a target by deficit hawks.
It’s easy to enact tax cuts, but hard to end them. Remember the “temporary” Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Restoring the payroll tax cut on someone making $100,000 a year will be framed as a tax increase of $2,000, or $400 on someone making $20,000 a year.
It will undermine Social Security’s long-term solvency. It would double the 75-year projected shortfall in the 1010 Trustees Report.
If it’s not paid back, it will lead to massive benefits cuts, and ultimately turn the program into a charity rather than an insurance program.
It will promote privatization of Social Security. Once people are used to having the 2% cut they will be more susceptible to arguments that they should be able to invest this money. And the next crash with wipe them out.

We need to fight back.

· Please continue to call and write your Senators, Congress members and Senators.

· Speak with friends and family, in the grocery store line, in classes, on the street. With younger people, suggest that Social Security will be in crisis only if we don't fight for it. And with older people, we are all in this together and it matters for our children and grandchildren.

· If you know someone who wants a speaker, please let me know. I have my own projector and will travel.

· Continue to ally ourselves with other organizations of like minds and rally, write, and yell.

· Keep those letters to the editor coming.

· Pass this and other articles on to everyone you can think of.

· See if you can get a resolution passed by your Central committee.

Social Security COLA Vote Coming Up-Call Congress Today!

2010-12-08T07:19:00.000-08:00

Congressional leaders have put emergency COLA legislation on the calendar—with a vote expected as early as tomorrow. Unfortunately, its passage is far from certain.

Which makes it more than just ironic (you could say it’s actually infuriating) is that many of the same fiscal hawks who fought hard to keep $4 trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, will blithely argue on the floor of the Senate and House this week that America can’t afford to give seniors–who will go without a cost of living increase for two consecutive years–$250.

Contrary to the “greedy geezer” mythology preferred by these Washington’s fiscal hawks, the truth about this COLA legislation has absolutely nothing to do their us-versus-them, young-versus-old propaganda. In fact, these $250 one-time payments have been proven to be effective economic stimulus and a job creator, as was the case in 2009:

While its share of the overall Recovery Act spending was very small, this lump-sum payment was one of the quickest-acting components of the overall package—the majority of payments were received just months after the Act was passed (by the end of May 2009). This Social Security and SSI payment by itself likely boosted GDP by roughly 0.5% in the second quarter of 2009, which would roughly translate to about 125,000 jobs created or saved due to these payments.”– “Downpayment on Economic Recovery,” September 2010

Ask your representatives in Congress…

”Where do you stand on COLA relief legislation for millions of retirees?”
and then
“Where do you stand on extending $4 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy?”

The answers to these questions will tell you a lot about Washington’s current fiscal priorities. Pushing tax cuts for the wealthy while rejecting any COLA relief and even proposing benefit cuts in Social Security are not America’s fiscal priorities. This Washington disconnect is not good for our nation or our economic recovery and it’s time we deliver that message loud and clear.

Use our 24-hour Legislative Hotline to connect directly to your members:

800-998-0180

Or send an email from our Legislative Action Center. You can see a sample email message there and personalize it with your own message to Congress.

Tell Congress – it’s time to get their priorities straight!

No Payroll Tax Holiday!

2010-12-07T20:52:00.000-08:00

OWL-CA and Gray Panthers are adamantly opposed to the payroll tax holiday. President Obama promises that it would expire after a year, but we don't believe that would happen. Although proponents refer to "only" a 2% tax cut, keep in mind that it would mean a 30% cut in the financing for Social Security. It would mean and end to Social Security as we know it. See below for a statement from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Margie

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cutting contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End

By NCPSSM | December 7, 2010

Payroll Tax “Holiday” is Anything But

• There’s no such thing as a “temporary” tax Cut. If Congress is unwilling to allow tax cuts for wealthy Americans to expire in the midst of economic crisis now, then why would it allow this so-called “holiday” to end in one year? The short answer–it wouldn’t. Americans should expect that when this tax “holiday” ends, restoring Social Security’s funding will be portrayed by those opposed to the program as a massive tax hike, rather than the legislated end of the “holiday”. That leaves Social Security permanently dependent on general fund revenues rather than worker contributions which have successfully funded the program for 75 years. If extended, this payroll tax cut would then double Social Security’s 75 year projected shortfall.
• This 2% payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it. Worker contributions have successfully funded the program for 75 years and that critical linkage between contributions and benefits is what keeps Social Security a self-funded program. Proposals like this threaten the program’s independence, forcing Social Security to compete for limited federal dollars.
• Cutting contributions to Social Security isn’t the best way to stimulate the economy. The Tax Policy Center reports the wealthiest 40% of households benefit most from a payroll tax cut. According to The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, extending the “Making Work Pay Tax Credit” is a much better and targeted stimulus.

OK, the next fight is already starting! Yikes! We’ll be watching….

2010-12-04T12:26:00.000-08:00

OK, the fight is already starting! Yikes! We’ll be watching….

From:

Frank Clemente
Campaign Manager
Social Security Works & Strengthen Social Security Campaign
(o) 202-587-1632
(m) 202-441-9818
frank.clemente@gmail.com

fclemente@socialsecurity-works.org

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/

Go here for our new analysis of the effect of the Bowles-Simpson plan on benefit levels.

Look below at 13 returning U.S. Senators (minus Sen. Bayh) who are focused on deficit reduction (plus Sen. Conrad).

Have a good weekend everybody. Thanks to everyone for all the hard work.

United States Senate

Washington, D.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, Dec. 3, 2010 9:30 AM

FOURTEEN SENATORS URGE

SWIFT ACTION ON NATION’S FISCAL CHALLENGES

~“Prompt action needed” regardless of today’s Commission vote~

~American people "deserve and demand" that we "pull together" to avert crisis~

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of 14 Senators today asked the White House and the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to move forward to address the urgent fiscal challenges facing our nation regardless of the outcome of today’s scheduled vote by members of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Their joint letter was publicly released this morning as Commission members prepared to vote on bipartisan recommendations to reduce our nation’s long-term debt by an estimated $4 trillion over the coming decade.

“The strong bipartisan support [the Commission’s] recommendations have already received demonstrates we can, and must, come together to solve this impending fiscal crisis,” the Senators say in their joint letter. “Every day that we fail to act, the choices become more difficult… There is no easy way out, and Washington must lead the way.”

Senators signing the letter included Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN),Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mary Landrieu(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Mark Udall (D-CO).

“While there are plenty of provisions in the Commission plan we do not support, our nation would be far better off with a comprehensive deficit reduction plan than without one,” the letter states. “The [Commission’s] report shows that we can stabilize our debt over the long term, while fostering our economic recovery now, improving our country’s global competitiveness, and maintaining our commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society.”

“Prompt action is needed to bring the country’s deficit into balance and stabilize our debt over the long term,” the joint letter concludes. “Regardless of whether the Commission’s report receives the support of at least 14 of its 18 members, we urge legislative action to address these problems.

“The American people deserve—and demand—that we pull together to avert this looming crisis.”

The complete text of the letter appears below.

# # #

December 3, 2010

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Minority Leader John Boehner

Office of the Speaker H-204, US Capitol

H-232, US Capitol Washington, DC 20515

Washington, DC 20515

Majority Leader Harry Reid Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

522 Hart Senate Office Building 361-A Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this nation’s future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it’s time for leaders in Washington to do the same.

The report issued Wednesday by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is a courageous first step in tackling our national debt. The report shows in stark terms that solving the debt problem will require difficult choices. There is no easy way out, and Washington must lead the way. The strong bipartisan support its recommendations have already received demonstrates we can, and must, come together to solve this impending fiscal crisis. Every day that we fail to act the choices become more difficult.

We believe that now is the time to act. The situations in Ireland and Greece demonstrate that rising debt levels, left unchecked, can quickly and unpredictably force a country to take drastic austerity measures. If we don’t choose to act now, we will be forced to act later with fewer and more painful options available to us.

While there are plenty of provisions in the Commission plan we do not support, our nation would be far better off with a comprehensive deficit reduction plan than without one. The report shows that we can stabilize our debt over the long term, while fostering our economic recovery now, improving our country’s global competitiveness, and maintaining our commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Specifically, we commend the Commission’s efforts to:

Protect our economic recovery by gradually phasing in deficit reduction and still allowing for critical investments;

Fundamentally reform and simplify the tax code in a way that lowers rates for all taxpayers, increases progressivity, and improves the ability of businesses to compete in the global marketplace;
Ensure that Social Security will be there to support seniors for at least 75 more years, while adding a new minimum benefit and further support for our oldest seniors and long-term disabled;

· Preserve and better target tax benefits that support home ownership and charitable giving; and,

· Further control the costs of health care.

Prompt action is needed to bring the country’s deficit into balance and stabilize our debt over the long term. Regardless of whether the Commission’s report receives the support of at least 14 of its 18 members, we urge legislative action to address these problems. The American people deserve—and demand—that we pull together to avert this looming crisis. Your leadership on this issue will be crucial to our success.