Grand Bargain

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 …

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.

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.

But ultimately, Obama cannot implement a deal alone. He has to get members of his own party to vote for it in Congress—so regardless of the president’s disposition, there are many pressure points in Congress for progressives who want to keep Democrats from cutting the safety net. To that end, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has been seeking out Democrats running in tough races and getting them on board with a no-cuts agenda, in exchange for valuable financial and logistical support. At least eight House candidates are receiving PCCC support, along with four Senators or Senate candidates: Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and now Representative Shelley Berkley, whom PCCC endorsed on Monday. On a call with volunteers this week—joined, quite notably, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—Berkley re-stated her position on safety net cuts: “I will promise you without fear of contradiction, I will do everything in my power to strengthen and protect Medicare and Social Security and it’s going to be a cold day in the middle of August in the Nevada desert before I do anything that’s going to harm those two essential programs.”