Two month reprieve on fast-track commission

Looks like the House has raised the debt ceiling temporarily for the next two months, thus avoiding the Conrad-Gregg fast-track “deficit” commission that threatened to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare in the name of reducing the deficit. (See this previous post, and this, and this.) A group of Senators has vowed to hold up an increase in the debt ceiling unless such a commission is put in place. (Funny, why didn’t they try to do that when the previous administration was racking up such huge deficits?)

However, the pressure for some sort of cost-cutting commission is intense. On Monday, a coalition consisting of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Pew Trust, and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget held a press conference at the National Press Club to release the report of what they called the “Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.” The Peterson Foundation was founded in 2008 with an endowment of $1 billion by its namesake, who made his money as a co-founder of the Blackstone Group, a huge multinational investment firm. With that kind of money (Peterson & Pew) behind the call for the fast-track commission, it’s hard to ignore.

Yet, a large coalition of nonprofit groups — more than 40 — has sent a letter to Congress urging it to resist the suggestion that a fast-track commission that starts off with a predisposition to cut social benefits is the right way to work on the deficit. In addition, thousands of individuals have signed a petition that we initiated urging President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid to say no to such a commission.

And in a new wrinkle, CNN reported today that the Obama Administration is considering an executive order to create a similar commission. This would be preferable to the commission proposed by Conrad and Gregg:

If Obama signed an executive order to create the commission, however, it would not have the full force of law and thus the outside commission could not mandate that Congress vote up-or-down on the recommendations. This would also give the president more wiggle room to ignore the recommendations if the commission suggests, for example, raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year, which would break an Obama campaign promise.

So, we have the next two months to fight the undemocratic fast-track commission idea. That’s better news than we might have expected…

AARP joins the protest against a “deficit commission”

This note just in from Roger Hickey of America’s Future:

“The AARP just released the attached 2-page letter from Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive VP outlining their serious concerns about a Budget Commission.  Great work by one of America’s most powerful citizen organizations.    Here’s how it ends:

Given the significance of these programs to the well-being of nearly all Americans, AARP believes a full and open debate is essential to ensuring the development of equitable solutions.  As such, we oppose legislation that would bypass or short circuit the protections afforded by regular order.

Read the entire letter here: AARP Fiscal Taskforce Letter

Don’t let them harm Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, school meals and other programs crucial to struggling lower income and middle-income people

Add your name to the list of people opposing a fast-track commission. Say “No Way!” to trying to cut the deficit by cutting your benefits — now or in the future.

Please tell our leaders: don’t steal from Social Security and Medicare!

A few days ago, Ben Bernanke encouraged Congress to act like bank robber Willie Sutton (left) and raid Social Security and Medicare, saying, “That’s where the money is.” In his re-appointment hearing on December 3rd, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke called for cuts in Medicare and Social Security, reminding Congress that it could even repeal Social Security and Medicare. “It’s only mandatory until Congress says it’s not mandatory,” he stated.

What’s going on? A conservative group of Democrats and Republicans in Congress are trying to scare us into thinking that the only way to reduce the budget deficit is by cutting Social Security and Medicare. These fear-mongerers are telling us that those programs must be cut now — not in the open by elected officials who are accountable to us, but behind closed doors by an unelected commission. As with the “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco, they’re hoping that in fear we’ll agree to give away more of our American rights and privileges — in this case, social programs. Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, along with a group of colleagues, say that they’ll hold the budget hostage until their fast-track commission is appointed, a commission that’s hostile to Social Security and Medicare.

We need to get word to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama that cutting social programs is the WRONG way to cut the deficit. A fast-track commission that limits debate and allows only an up-or-down vote on its proposals is undemocratic and anti-American.

Sign the petition today!

Robert Kuttner said this¹ in the Huffington Post on November 30th about the Conrad-Gregg proposal for a fast-track commission:

“We do need to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP. But we need to do it after the economy is back in recovery. And we need to do it using the normal legislative process. And above all we need to use progressive taxation rather than program cuts.”

FACT: Social Security is not contributing to the deficit. The 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees stated that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office, in its August 2009 forecast, said that full benefits can continue to be paid until 2043.

FACT: There is ample time for Congress to review options for adjusting the Social Security system through the usual legislative process. Congress should do its job, not hide behind an unelected, unaccountable commission.

FACT: Such a hasty and undemocratic procedure would be unprecedented. Since 1935, Social Security legislation has always had the benefit of full hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, executive sessions giving all members a chance to offer amendments, and unlimited debate and opportunity for amendments in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

FACT: More than 52 million people are depending on monthly benefits this year. Wounded soldiers and their spouses and children receive Social Security benefits, as well as the families of soldiers who have died for their country. Social Security continues to provide benefits to the families of those who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks, and millions of others whose families have met unthinkable calamity.

FACT: The solution to Medicare and Medicaid’s rising costs can be found by cutting the cost of health care and fixing our broken system, not by cutting services. The bills under consideration in Congress, though not perfect, would help do that.

FACT: The projected deficit–which seems like a huge number–isn’t that huge. As pointed out by Paul Krugman on his blog², our debt-service burden is about the same as that of 1992 under President H.W. Bush.

FACT: There are and always have been politicians who oppose Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and would like nothing better than to see these programs cut to shreds.³ There are also many corporate titans who’d like to see all those dollars invested with their Wall Street firms (remember George Bush’s privatization?).

FACT: There are many ways to cut the deficit. Why are these Senators so eager to cut social programs but so reluctant to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations?

Don’t let the alarmists frighten us into cutting the very programs that have kept our people healthy and our communities solvent in these dire financial times.

Derail the fast-track commission! Add your name to the petition.

Can you help to get more signatures for this important petition? For an easy way to forward this request to your like-minded friends, please use this link.

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

¹Kuttner, Robert, “Recovery And Debt: Squaring The Circle,” November 30, 2009, The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/recovery-and-debt-squarin_b_373238.html

²Krugman, Paul, “The Dogbert theory of the debt,” November 30, 2009, The Conscience of a Liberal (New York Times). http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/the-dogbert-theory-of-the-debt/

³Baker, Dean, “‘Commission’ is WashingtonSpeak for Cutting Social Security and Medicare.” December 1, 2009, TPMCafe. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/01/commission_is_washingtonspeak_for_cutting_social_s/

Frances Perkins must be rolling over in her grave

Just a quick note to draw attention to the comments of Ben Bernanke at his re-appointment hearing today. As reported by Ryan Grim in Huffington Post (and pointed out to me by Nancy Altman), Bernanke actually said this about Congress repealing Social Security and Medicare:

“It’s only mandatory until Congress says it’s not mandatory. And we have no option but to address those costs at some point or else we will have an unsustainable situation.”

If you’re feeling apoplectic about that–coming from a high official in the Administration–well, so was Senator Sanders, who has placed a hold on the Bernanke nomination:

“The CEOs and top people on Wall Street make huge bonuses, and what? We’re going to cut back on Social Security and Medicare? That’s what we’re going to do?”

If Frances Perkins were alive, she’d be in the thick of this battle. But today, unfortunately, those who would defend Social Security, at least the vast majority of those in high places at the Social Security Administration, were put in place by the Bush Administration. And we know what their plan was — privatize. Why do you think they were so keen to privatize Social Security? Because, like Bernanke and Willie Sutton, they know that’s where the money is!

‘Emphatically and truly, a government of the people’

There was a fine opinion piece in the LA Times yesterday noting the anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act. The title was “President Barack Obama could learn from Franklin D. Roosevelt” and the author is Nancy J. Altman, who wrote the recently published history, The Battle for Social Security: From FDR’s Vision to Bush’s Gamble.

Altman compares the current health care debate with the fight over the Social Security Act and finds many similarities:

Then as now, opponents played the socialism card. In hearings before the Senate Finance Committee, a senator from Oklahoma accusingly asked President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, “Isn’t this socialism?” When Perkins emphatically answered no, the senator leaned forward and, with a conspiratorial whisper, pressed, “Isn’t this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?”

Altman says that the difference is that FDR controlled the debate:

In a series of fireside chats and other broadcasts, the president anticipated arguments and responded before public opposition got out of control. “A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing,” he said in one talk. “Sometimes they will call it ‘fascism,’ sometimes ‘communism,’ sometimes ‘regimentation,’ sometimes ’socialism.’ But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical. … I believe that what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what Americans have always been doing — a fulfillment of old and tested American ideals. … We remain, as John Marshall said a century ago, ‘emphatically and truly, a government of the people.’ “

You can read the entire piece here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-altman14-2009aug14,0,6660527.story.

Real Principles for Healthcare Reform

I recently received an email from a friend asking me to sign a petition listing the following principles for health care reform as set out by President Obama:

The PRINCIPLES

REDUCE COSTS — Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals and families and they must be brought under control

GUARANTEE CHOICE — Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have, or to select a new doctor or health care plan if they choose

ENSURE AFFORDABLE CARE FOR ALL — All Americans must have quality and affordable health care

These principles, though pithy, are much too general. Who defines “quality” and “affordable”? Here’s what I propose as the real principles for health care that we should be following:

The REAL PRINCIPLES

HEALTH IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE Access to health care is a human right and recipients should not be subject to market pressures or personal financial considerations in their pursuit of good health.

MEDICAL EXPERTS AND THEIR PATIENTS SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER MEDICAL DECISIONS Doctors, nurses, and patients together — not insurance companies — should determine medical treatment.

WE SHOULD BE WORKING TOWARD A PATIENT-CENTERED — NOT PROFIT-CENTERED — SYSTEM A majority of Americans (a NY Times poll from June 20, 2009 reports 72%) are in favor of a public option. Our current system lags far behind those of other developed countries, in terms of health outcomes, convenience, and cost. (Check out our dismal ranking here.)

OUR POPULATION’S HEALTH IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY We pay for public education with taxes because we believe that an educated citizenry is a benefit to all. We pay for our judicial system, our military, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food & Drug Administration, our airports, roads, and bridges — and many other critical items — in the same way, because they make all of us stronger. Is health care less important than these other essential services?

A BAD BILL IS WORSE THAN NO BILL We need major reform, not a re-jiggering of the current system. We must not settle for less. A complicated incremental bill will not help anyone, except the industry lobbyists who are working so hard toward that goal.

And I like to think that Frances Perkins would agree.

“There’s a new sheriff in town”

A friend of the Center’s from inside the Department of Labor wrote an eye-witness account of this morning’s swearing-in:

Official portrait of Frances Perkins

She [Secretary Solis] said  that if someone is mistreating workers, then they better know that “there’s a new sheriff in town!”

She said that she has placed Frances Perkins’ portrait in the lobby of her office and then quoted FP with the same quote that Obama used last week. [See my blog post about that, along with the video of his speech.]

It’s really great to hear such enthusiasm emanating from the halls of the Frances Perkins building!

Here’s a link to a webcast of the swearing in: http://www.dol.gov/dol/media/webcast/main.htm.

Solis confirmed as secretary of labor

Finally! The vote in the Senate was 80 – 17 late yesterday. It will be interesting to see what influence the long-awaited labor secretary wields in President Obama’s cabinet. Hilda Solis has been compared to Frances Perkins, who played a huge part in the New Deal. With Solis’s pro-worker perspective, an influential role for her would mean good news for American working families.

Solis vote today at 2:00?

Secretary of Labor-nominee Rep. Hilda Solis cleared the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions late yesterday (hooray!) and may come up for confirmation today. Says blogger Meteor Blades of DailyKos:

Many observers have compared Solis with the first woman who ever served in a U.S. Cabinet, Frances Perkins, the liberal Labor Secretary in Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. Perkins is often credited with having pushed FDR to the left on many issues.

There’s some concern that an anonymous Republican senator could still put a hold on Solis’s nomination. Or that the Republicans could filibuster it. But in reality, both of these tactics are dead ends — the Obama administration favors passing the Employee Free Choice Act and ANYONE they nominate will also support it. At some point, the anti-unionists will have to admit defeat.

NOTE: The Frances Perkins Center is waiting to finalize a date for an event at the Department of Labor honoring Secretary Perkins’s contributions to workers’ lives until the Senate confirms a new secretary of labor. We’re hopeful about that 2:00 PM vote!

It’s the Department of Labor, not the Department of Management

The Progress Report has an excellent discussion of the delayed confirmation of Labor Secretary-nominee Hilda Solis. An excerpt:

Obama has made clear that his Labor Department won’t be anything like the one under Bush. “Remember, this is supposed to be the Department of Labor, not the Department of Management,” he has stated. Elaine Chao — Bush’s Secretary of Labor who was confirmed in just 18 days — made it through all eight years of the Bush administration, causing such a drop in morale at the Labor Department that staffers threw a “good-riddance party” to cheer her departure. She left behind a “deeply troubled department” that “spent eight years attacking workers’ rights, strong workplace health and safety rules, and unions while they carried the water for Big Business.” Chao, of course, was also a stalwart opponent of the Employee Free Choice Act. Under Solis, the Department of Labor will once again defend the rights of workers. As a state senator, Solis authored the first environmental justice law in the nation, and she has since said she is committed to creating green jobs. She also told the Senate that she would address the retirement security crisis; ensure that workplaces are safe, healthy, and fair; and protect workers from job discrimination.