A new poll of New Hampshire by Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling showed that nearly half of all voters there — 49 percent — say President Obama’s mandate following his reelection is to focus on jobs. That’s compared to only 22 percent of voters who say the president’s mandate involved reducing the debt. In the same survey, only 36 percent of respondents said that the president was tasked with striking a compromise with congressional Republicans. Voters were more likely to say that the president’s mandate was to stand up for middle-class families, even if that meant a confrontation over the fiscal cliff of tax hikes and spending cuts. “The mandate of 2012 was clear. Tax the rich, use that money to invest in jobs, and do not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for regular people,” said Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green in a statement. “Americans want President Obama to fight for them if the Republicans stand in the way, not settle for a bad compromise.”

(Photo credit: Blog For Choice)

New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie has certainly acted gracefully in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, cooperating with President Obama to take care of his own people and drawing the ire of much of the far-right elements of his own party in the process.

But it’s important for Americans to remember that Christie — who is widely believed to have presidential aspirations in 2016 — is not a moderate Republican. During his time in office, he has pursued a staunchly right-wing agenda that has taken aim at workers, the environment, education, and other areas of American life.

Here’s five reasons Christie is not a moderate:

He Has Moved To Crush Unions: If one thing marks Christie’s tenure, it is his hostility to organized labor. In 2011, Christie “signed landmark legislation that increases pension and health contributions paid by a half-million teachers, police and other public workers and removes the issue from collective bargaining for four years” — undermining labor rights. During his speech at the Republican National Convention, he derided teachers unions: “[Democrats] believe in pitting unions against teachers, educators against parents, and lobbyists against children. They believe in teachers’ unions. We believe in teachers.”
He Killed Marriage Equality: Remember that Christie vetoed a bill that would’ve given gays and lesbians full marriage rights.
He Has Rapidly Advanced Education Privatization In The State: In 2010, Chris Christie (R) slashed $820 million in school spending, a cut so extreme that a judge ruled it unconstitutional. At the same time, he has pushed for hundreds of millions of dollars in school vouchers which would transfer taxpayer dollars to private schools.
He Ended New Jersey’s Involvement In Battling Global Warming: Despite his strong leadership in the wake of Sandy, Christie undermined …

A recent anti-austerity protest in London. (Photo credit: Flickr user Duncan Harris)

Deficit fever has gripped Washington, and a number of special interest groups and right-wing lawmakers are demanding that Congress dramatically cut government investment in the economy, even if it harms job growth.

350 economists have signed an open letter saying that we should invest in our economy and grow our way out of the deficit — not enact austerity programs that would cost us jobs:

The government should invest in areas vital to our economy ai??i?? to repair crumbling infrastructure, to build 21st-century smart-grid, public transportation and renewable energy systems, and to create public and private sector jobs. We should also help states prevent layoffs of teachers and other public servants, make early care and higher education more affordable, and create public service jobs throughout the nation. It can do so by borrowing at record low interest rates. We can also stimulate recovery without increasing deficits by increasing taxes on the wealthy and pumping the proceeds directly into the economy. […]Ai??We need jobs first. With recovery, deficit reduction will come of its own accord thanks to increased revenues in an improving economy. That was the case in the three decades after World War II ai??i?? when the debt to GDP ratio declined from over 120 percent of GDP in 1945 to under 30 percent by 1978.

For the full letter and the list of economists who signed it, click here.

We don’t have to guess what austerity would do to our economy — we have real-world experiment. Austerity in Europe has led to skyrocketing unemployment, and workers across the continent are on strike to reverse these policies.

We shouldn’t face the same fate.

Right-wing politicians and their corporate lobbyist backers want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of an upcoming “Grand Bargain.” Their goal is to cut social spending and investments in middle class America to pay for corporate tax cuts and more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

But it’s impossible to talk about the budget deficit without talking about the military budget. It has the largest share of discretionary spending, and we spend more on our military than almost the rest of the world combined.

Even Senator Tom Coburn — a hard-right Republican from Oklahoma — knows that much of this Pentagon spending is wasteful and completely unrelated to our modern security needs. He released a report a few days ago that laid out some of this wasteful spending. Here are a few highlights, from the Washington Times:

ai??? $300,000 spent by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to fund Brown University’s research into archaeopteryx, the 150-million-year-old early bird, in which the researchers determined the creature likely had black feathers.

ai??? An Office of Naval Research research project that helped spawn Caffeine Zone 2, an iPhone application that tells people how to schedule their coffee breaks.

ai??? $1.5 million to develop a special new roll-up beef jerky, which Mr. Coburn said was funded by taking money out of a weapons program.

ai??? $100,000 for a 2011 workshop on interstellar space travel that included a session entitled “Did Jesus die for Klingons too?” The session probed how Christian theology would apply in the event of the discovery of aliens.

We can’t talk about the budget deficit without looking at the wasteful Pentagon budget.

In one week, Wal-Mart workers in as many as a thousand stores plan to hold protests walk-outs and other actions to disrupt the company’s busiest shopping day: Black Friday. These workers are fed up of low wages and the high level of intimidation that the company has been using against those who dare to organize.

Late yesterday, Wal-Mart filed an “unfair labor practice charge” against the main union helping organize workers to take labor actions:

Wal-Mart late on Thursday filed an unfair labor practice charge against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, or UFCW, asking the National Labor Relations Board to halt what the retailer says are unlawful attempts to disrupt its business.

“Walmart is grasping at straws,” replied UFCW Communications Director Jill Cashen. “There’s nothing in the law that gives an employer the right to silence workers and citizens.”

Needless to say, it is the height of irony for Wal-Mart to allege unfair labor practices. This is the company, after all, that shut down entire stores because workers unionized.

We’ll continue to keep you up to date on the upcoming Wal-Mart labor actions. Here’s a full list of Wal-Mart stores where protests and walk-outs are planned next week.

Bold progressive Alan Grayson will be returning to Congress in January.

Last night, Grayson appeared on The Young Turks and pushed back on demands from corporate-backed groups like the Campaign To Fix The Debt that Congress cut Social Security or Medicare benefits as part of a “Grand Bargain.”

ai???The Democratic Party should be united,ai??? said Grayson. ai???We are the party that created Social Security. We are the party that created Medicare. We should stand behind it, and we should protect it. Itai??i??s amazingly popular among the voters. Why should we shoot ourselves in the head by saying weai??i??re going to end these programs, or even cut back these programs, when we created them, and the voters love them?ai???

Watch it:

Remember that it was thanks to the efforts of Progressive Change Campaign Committee members — we made 216,577 calls for him and raised $56,684 from 5,429 donations — that Grayson will be returning to Congress.

(Photo credit: Flickr user Monochrome)

Wal-Mart, America’s largest private employer and one of the worst union-busters in the country, is facing a worker rebellion at its stores and suppliers nationwide.

Earlier this week, workers at Los Angeles Wal-Mart warehouses and Seattle stores walked off the job. The Nation’s Josh Eidelson reports today that workers in Dallas joined these strikers:

This morning, at 10 AM local time, Dallas Walmart store workers are headed back to the picket line. Theirs is the latest in aAi??string of strikesAi??that hit a California warehouse Wednesday and Seattle stores on Thursday. Thereai??i??s more where that came from: On a Thursday call with reporters, union-backed Walmart worker groups said to expect a thousand strikes or demonstrations spread over nine days, culminating in an unprecedented array of ai???Black Fridayai??? disruptions. That news follows a major legal settlement by a Walmart contractor that organizers credited to a 2011 sit-in at Hersheyai??i??s Chocolate.

We’ll keep you up to date as we approach Black Friday, which is expected to be the largest day of strikes in Wal-Mart’s history.

UPDATE: The Corporate Action Network has set up a page for Americans to ai???adopt a Wal-Martai??? to show up and support workers who will be walking out on Black Friday.

November 6 was “probably one of the best election nights progressives will ever have,” says Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Underlying the fact that Democrats picked up a few seats is that the progressive ranks are growing while the Blue Dogs are dwindling.” Progressive advocates believe these new faces will lead to more favorable policies out of Congress… But the progressives also make a political argument. For years, they’ve claimed that Democrats need to be more progressive, not less, if they want to win elections. The idea that tacking to the middle and embracing center-right positions is what wins, they say, is a canard. Now, they point to the 2012 results as proof.

The Wall Street Journal CEO Council is an event that brings together elite corporate leaders, journalists, and politicians. It is usually only lightly covered by the media, so the public ends up not seeing much of what goes on.

We’ve obtained a transcript of the event’s dinner meeting that took place earlier this week. At the meeting, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), making conversation with former Senate Minority Leader and current corporate lobbyist Trent Lott, suggests that President Obama should “courageously” cut Medicare by raising the eligibility age in order to combat the deficit:

LIEBERMAN: I’d say that sometime soon– both privately to Speaker Boehner and — and also publicly, he — he should– make clear that he’s prepared– to– to change some of — Medicare status quo. […] But I think the President will have to make clear he’ll either support some– well, for instance, in– beginning to increase the age of eligibility. […] Incidentally, increasing the age of eligibility to be more close (LAUGH) to the actual age at which people are living, as opposed to the age– that they were living in 1965, when Medicare was adopted, the average age It’s now closing in on 80 — saves a lotta money– every year. The president has to show the public, and the Republicans, who he’s asking to support higher revenue, or tax reform, that he’s prepared and Democrats are prepared to deal– courageously with– entitlements.

To be clear — Americans as a whole are not living longer. White-collar workers are, but blue-collar workers have barely seen any increase in life expectancy.

Raising the Medicare age “to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare.”

What could Lieberman’s …

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)

In an interview with the Washington Post’s Suzy Khimm, North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said that it would be “fair and balanced” to raise the Medicare age, which would require a huge cut in benefits to American seniors:

KHIMM: Obama has already suggested raising the retirement age for Medicare. Should that be the starting point for thinking about entitlement savings?

I wouldnai??i??t want that to be the starting point, but as part of an overall package, thatai??i??s balanced and fair. Given that we now have exchanges to purchase insurance because of the presidentai??i??s health-care reform law, it makes it much more acceptable, much more reasonable, over a long period of time to gradually increase the age given that people are living so much longer.

As ThinkProgress’s Igor Volsky writes, raising the Medicare age would create an enormous burden on seniors:

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, raising the eligibility age to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare. Seniors in Medicare Part B would also face a 3 percent premium increase, the study found, since younger and healthier enrollees would be routed out of Medicare and into private insurance. Beneficiaries in health care reformai??i??s exchanges would see a similar spike in premiums with the addition of the older population.

Medicare isn’t the driver of our budget deficits — two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and Wall Street’s recession are responsible for most of our debt. It’s simply unfair to ask American seniors to pay for a problem they did not cause.

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren has an alternative, truly “balanced” approach. During a campaign debate last month, she laid out a popular, credible …

A number of right-wing politicians and corporate CEOs are demanding that Congress and the President agree to cuts to Social Security along with reductions in the corporate tax rate as part of a “Grand Bargain.”

These conservatives who are making this demand should heed the words of their icon, former President Ronald Reagan. In the 1984 presidential debate, Reagan — the most right-wing president in his generation — debunked the lie that Social Security adds to the debt:

REAGAN: Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once in for all…Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.

Watch it:

If only John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other Social Security foes would heed the words of this Republican they so often praise.

Want to help fight for a progressive approach to the deficit that doesn’t involve cutting Social Security?

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has an alternative, truly “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit. During a campaign debate last month, she laid out a popular vision for dealing with the deficit: cut back on wasteful military and agriculture subsidy spending, and make the rich pay their fair share with higher tax rates. Watch Warren explain:

Show your support for Warrenai??i??s “balanced approach” by clicking here to add your name as a citizen supporter of her vision.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)

Earlier today, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) — who serves as the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee — appeared on MNSBC to discuss upcoming budget negotiations. After being probed by the television anchor about cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits, Wasserman Schultz said that “what we don’t need to do, I canAi??tell you, is cut benefits”:

TAMRON HALL: How muchAi??leeway will the left give theAi??president regarding entitlementAi??reform?Ai?? He met with union leadersAi??yesterday.Ai??they have the president’s backAi??at this point but where does theAi??balance come from?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, it is going to beAi??difficult and challenging, butAi??anything worth doing is worthAi??doing well and together. You know, we have shownAi??repeatedly that when the twoAi??parties come together like Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan on Social Security reform we canAi??add years of solvency and toAi??medicare and do it and increaseAi??benefits like with Obamacare and we need both sides to beAi??willing.Ai?? I know the Democrats areAi??willing. President Obama’s willing to sitAi??down at the table. What we don’t need to do, I canAi??tell you, is cut benefits. That’s something that I don’tAi??think is the first thing thatAi??should be put forward. We have a lot of opportunity toAi??continue to make reforms inAi??medicare, make sure we build inAi??more efficiencies to the programAi??so we can add the years ofAi??solvency.

TAMRON HALL: What about eligibility ageAi??change?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, eligibility age changeAi??would fall in the realm ofAi??benefit cuts. We need to focus like I saidAi??first on making sure we build inAi??more efficiencies to theAi??program.Ai??we have been able to from ObamaAi??care make sure that with thatAi??$716 billion in savings plowedAi??in to waste, fraud and abuse –Ai??fighting waste, fraud and abuseAi??we have collected more than $10Ai??billion in fraudulent medicareAi??payments and we can make moreAi??progress in that area, as well.

Watch it:

Wasserman Schultz’s opposition to benefits cuts …

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

As part of an event with the Wall Street Journal and corporate leaders, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD) — a leading Democrat and ranking member of the House Budget Committee — indicated that he thinks cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits should be part of the upcoming deficit negotiations:

On Capitol Hill, it isn’t clear how strenuously Democrats will resist cutting entitlements. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said he and others were open to changes as long as they were done in a measured way and were part of deal that included tax increases. Mr. Van Hollen also said changing Social Security and increasing the Medicare eligibility age above 65 should be part of negotiations.

“I’m willing to consider all of these ideas as part of an overall plan,” Mr. Van Hollen said Tuesday at the Journal’s CEO Council.

American voters were very clear during last week’s election: they do not want any cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits (and keep in mind Social Security adds nothing to the deficit, anyway).

Click here to call Van Hollen’s office and tell him to reject cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Congress will soon begin deliberating on a debt deal, and many on the right and their corporate backers are exploiting the situation to argue for a “Grand Bargain” that would cut both Social Security and the corporate tax rate.

In an interview with a local television station, Wisconsin Senator-elect Tammy Baldwin (D) argued against including Social Security in these discussions, saying that it “shouldn’t even be on the table”:

BALDWIN: With regard to Social Security, Social Security is in no way contributing to our deficit and debt, and shouldn’t even be on the table for the discussion about where we move forward from here.

Watch it:

Indeed, Social Security is a self-funded program Ai??that isAi??currently projected to beAi??fully solventAi??until the year 2037. After that, it is expected to be able to pay out 75 percent of benefits until 2084, which basically equals full benefits, once inflation isAi??accounted for. There is no threat of the program running out of money any time soon.Ai??Ai??We could make it solvent far into the future if weAi??simply raised the payroll tax capAi??ai??i?? meaning that income above $106,000 would be taxed just like income below that amount is. It does not add to the deficit nor take funds from the general treasury.

Recall that Progressive Change Campaign Committee members were integral to Baldwin’s election. We made 92,000 calls for her and also raised more than $55,000 for her campaign.

Want to stay up to date on the fight for a balanced approach to the deficit and economy? Sign up for to get e-mail updates using the form above or below.

Show your support for a progressive alternative to the “Grand Bargain” that cuts Social Security and Medicare by clicking here to add your name as a “citizen supporter” of Elizabeth …

Thanks to our efforts, Elizabeth Warren and 31 other state and federal candidates were elected last week.

As Congress moves to enter discussions over the debt and deficit during the lame duck session, many on the right — and their corporate allies — are calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits while further cutting corporate taxes.

This is not a balanced approach to the issue. Our immediate deficit is caused primarily by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, two wars, and Wall Street’s economic meltdown — not American seniors and other middle class Americans who rely on these social insurance programs.

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren explained what a real balanced approach to the deficit would be during a debate with Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) last month:

WARREN: I believe we need to make cuts, we need to make cuts to agriculture subsidies. We need to make cuts in our defense budget, targeted cuts. We need to end the war in Afghanistan, that’s $2 billion a week. We need to cut fraud and abuse out of the system. But we also need to ask others to pay their fair share. I believe that billionaires should pay taxes at least at the same rate that their secretaries do.

Watch it:

Show your support for Warren’s progressive alternative to the “Grand Bargain” that cuts Social Security and Medicare by clicking here to add your name as a “citizen supporter” of her vision.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi announced Wednesday that she will stay on as House Democratic leader in the next Congress… Liberal groups, which have been wary that Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip who was expected to replace Pelosi had she stepped down, would be too quick to cut entitlement programs in order to solidify a bipartisan deficit deal, were quick to cheer her decision. “Thank you, thank you, thank you, Nancy Pelosi,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said Wednesday in an email. “The mandate of the election was to tax the rich and protect programs like Medicare and Social Security from benefit cuts. Steny Hoyer would likely not have respected that mandate, but given her track record, we have high hopes for Nancy Pelosi.”

A screenshot of the Fix the Debt campaign’s logo.

As you read this, powerful corporations are working with groups like the Campaign To Fix The Debt are pushing Congress and President Obama to pass a “Grand Bargain” that would include cuts to corporate tax rates and Social Security and Medicare benefits.

We shouldn’t beat around the bush as to why these corporations are doing this. They want to see this deal enacted so that they can make billions of dollars from reduced taxes while Americans are asked to sacrifice their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) just released a report looking at some of the corporations that support the Campaign To Fix The Debt — such as Microsoft, General Electric, and Goldman Sachs — and what they would gain if the “Grand Bargain” they seek were to be passed.

The IPS report concludes that if one of the tenets of the corporate plan — a proposed territorial tax system that would exempt foreign earnings from U.S. taxes — were passed, the 63 publicly held companies backing the Fix The Debt campaign would get as much as $134 billion.

It’s time for the media and politicians to stop taking the Campaign To Fix The Debt seriously. It is obvious that the group is being backed by powerful corporations because its recommendations would make them money, not because it has any serious solutions for our debt or the economy.

A prominent liberal group launched a last-minute campaign urging Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to stay on as the top House Democrat next year… The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a Washington-based liberal advocacy group, sent out a notice at 11 p.m. Tuesday night warning that, if Pelosi steps down, “a conservative Democrat will take over.” Although the PCCC email doesn’t name names, the reference likely is to Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip who’s expected to replace Pelosi if she steps down. As highlighted by the PCCC, many liberals fear Hoyer will be too quick to cut programs like Medicare and Social Security for the sake of reaching a deficit deal with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the Republicans.

Think Scott Walker is the most extreme Republican Wisconsin has to offer? Think again. The Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel reports that nine Republicans in the state legislature have told an advocacy group that they support arresting any federal official who tries to implement the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare:

As Gov. Scott Walker contemplates whether to create a state health care exchange under Obamacare, he must contend with nine members of his own party who will serve in the Legislature for the next two years who say they back a bill to arrest any federal officials who try to implement the health care law.

Eight of the nine Republicans also have gone on record saying they also want to write a law that would see Transportation Security Administration agents charged with sexual assault if they conduct pat-downs of passengers going through airport security.

But there’s some good news out of Wisconsin, too. Bold progressive Chris Larson was just elected Democratic leader in the state senate!

Led by the AFL-CIO, the progressives have presented a united front on two basic demands: No cuts to entitlement programs, and no reauthorization of the Bush tax cuts for higher income brackets. “If it’s bad for workers, it doesn’t matter to us who proposes it. We won’t be on board. We won’t be taken for granted,” Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO’s president recently told Salon’s Josh Eidelson. “Some people in the White House think that compromise and bipartisanship for its own sake is a principle the American people will admire,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which boosts liberals in primary fights against moderate Democrats. “But there’s good compromises and there’s bad compromises, and if he cuts Social Security or Medicare, that would just be a huge betrayal of the mandate the American people gave him.” Green said his group would “absolutely” mobilize against the president, including running TV ads, if it looks like he’s going to cut a bad deal. During a previous fight with Congress over taxes in 2010, the PCCC ran TV ads hitting Obama by merely repeating his own words opposing the Bush tax cuts.

In this week’s installment of Break Room, political columnist Michelle Cottle talks with Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, about what Petraeus’ scandal might mean for Obama’s meeting with progressive groups on Tuesday.

(Photo credit: Flickr user Monochrome)

Wal-Mart has been hit with an unprecedented series of strikes and walk-outs in the past few months, the first major labor actions in the company’s history.

Labor journalist Josh Eidelson has the scoop on how a group of workers in the company’s Los Angeles warehouses will be hitting the picket lines on Thursday:

Thursday, Walmart warehouse workers are headed back to the picket line. At 8 AM Pacific, twenty-some workers in Mira Loma, California plan to launch a one-day walk-out which could spread to more workers, including retail employees in Walmart stores. Thursdayai??i??s strike will be the latest in an unprecedented wave of work stoppages throughout the retail giantai??i??s US supply chain. It follows strikes by seafood workers in June, by warehouse workers in September, and by 160 retail workers in 12 states last month. It comes a week before Black Friday, the post-Thanksgiving shopping extravaganza that workers have pledgedai??i??barring concessions from the companyai??i??will bring their biggest disruptions yet.

ai???Hopefully it will make a dent in their productionai??i??ai??? said Raymond Castillo, ai???and it gets their attention, that weai??i??re not playing around.ai??? Castillo and other Mira Loma workers struck in September, and voted Sunday to do it again on Thursday. According to Castillo, workers started organizing because of unsafe and unsanitary conditions: crooked ramps caused serious injuries; workersai??i?? drinking water came from a hose. The organizing brought retaliation, which inspired a strike, which drew more punishment. ai???Since weai??i??ve all been retaliated against,ai??? said Castillo, ai???it was a pretty easy decision for all of us to go back on strike.ai???

Recall that Wal-Mart’s operations in Los Angeles were the center of controversy earlier this year when they were caught hiring a public relations and lobbying firm that spied on organizing workers. That level …

Bank of America actually paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2010.

The so-called Campaign To Fix The Debt and other organizations backed by Wall Street and powerful corporations are pushing for a debt deal during the lame-duck session that would cut Social Security while lowering corporate taxes.

These corporate proponents claim that lowering the corporate tax rate would spur enormous economic growth that would create revenue that would lower the debt.

But there’s just one problem with that — corporate taxes are already incredibly low. Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal, no left-wing rag, about how corporate tax receipts as a share of profits have actually hit a 40-year low this year:

U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years. Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972.

With corporate taxes already hitting record lows, it’s simply unrealistic to claim that lowering the rates even further would spur economic growth and reduce the debt. Rather, it seems like these corporate CEOs are backing a reduction in rates in the debt deal for a simple reason — it would make them money, even if it would rip off taxpayers.

We’ll keep you updated on the fight to protect Social Security and Medicare over the next few months. Sign up for our e-mail list above or below to get updates.

A painting portraying the first Thanksgiving

Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, is traditionally the most popular shopping day of the year. Last year, Americans spent a record $52.4 billion on that day.

But a number of major retailers are deciding to open instead on Thanksgiving Day itself, forcing many of their employees to choose between their jobs and their families.

Here’s a short list of some of the retailers who are making this anti-worker move:

– Wal-Mart: This retail behemoth — which is also facing walkouts on Black Friday — will be opening on 8 P.M. Thanksgiving Day.

– Toys R’ Us: This retailer will be matching Wal-Mart’s ultra-early opening time.

– Sears: Sears is matching Wal-Mart and Toys R’Us by having Thursday “door busters.”

– Target: Target will be opening at 9 P.M. on Thanksgiving.

– K-Mart: K-Mart has transformed its Black Friday into a Thanksgiving sale that lasts from Thanksgiving through Saturday.

This move by retailers to start their sales on Thanksgiving Day will needlessly be pulling workers away from their families on a day Americans have come to know as a well-deserved day off. But consumers can vote with their dollars and choose to shop only at locations where workers are not being made to work on this holiday.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)

As we wrote recently, many of the most fervent advocates for the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering corporate taxes lost their races.

There has been some debate about the case of Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who had spoken favorably of the Bowles-Simpson plan in the past. But while Tester did offer some positive remarks about the plan, it’s important to remember that he explicitly rejected the plan’s call for cuts to Social Security — which are widely seen as the plan’s centerpiece. Here’s an article from the Missoulian from October 21st showing this:

While Tester has said the Simpson-Bowles plan is a good starting point on how to reduce the federal deficit, he never supported its Social Security proposals, campaign spokesman Aaron Murphy said last week.

ai???Cutting the debt and deficit will be about priorities, and Jon believes cutting the safety net from seniors is not what we should be discussing,ai??? Murphy said.

Additionally, his campaign website specifically called for the need to “expand” benefits in the Social Security and Medicare programs — which goes well beyond the normal “protecting” nomenclature:Ai??

In fact, during an August town hall meeting, Tester said he “doesn’t support cuts to Social Security and Medicare,” a fact he prominently displayed on his Senate website.

Perhaps this is why Tester did not receive the direct backing of Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles.