medicare

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

There have been rumors that President Obama may agree to a Republican demand to hike the Medicare age. In an interview with Barbara Walters, Obama suggested that this move is on the table.

Progressive Democratic senators are revolting against this unpopular idea. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that we should be “lowering” the Medicare age, “not raising it”:

ai???I do a lot of town halls,ai??? Merkley said. ai???I canai??i??t tell you how many times someone will come up to me and say, ai???Hereai??i??s the thing. Iai??i??m 61, and I have these major health problems. I donai??i??t have insurance. Iai??i??m praying I make it to 65.ai??i?? The idea that weai??i??re going to take all these folks with diseases setting in as they get older, and move them two years later? Absolutely unacceptable.ai???

ai???We should be lowering the age, not raising it,ai??? Merkley said. Speaking of the president, Merkley added: ai???I hope he hears long and loud from us who are connected to the real lives of working people.ai???

Merkley is absolutely right. Hiking the Medicare age from 65 to 67 would cost seniors at least $11 billion every year. Meanwhile, expanding public health insurance would save American beneficiaries and the Treasury money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates, for example, that offering a public option based on Medicare rates in the Affordable Care Act would save about $15 billion every year.

A coalition of liberal groups this week delivered petitions with more than 21,000 names to Villaraigosa’s office, demanding that he resign from the Campaign to Fix the Debt, which those on the left consider to be a right-wing plot to slash Social Security, Medicare and other social service and support programs, and protect the wealthy against tax increases. Move.on, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the California-based Courage Campaign are joining forces to pressure Villaraigosa, as detailed in this item on the Calitics website.

As we reported last month, CNBC has become the unofficial channel of the top one percent. Over the month of November, it mentioned the “Simpson-Bowles” plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits three times as often as it did poverty. Even Fox News talked about poverty more.

CNBC hostAi??Tyler Mathisen demonstrated this callousness to the concerns of ordinary Americans again today. In an interview with Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder (KS), Mathisen suggested that we shouldn’t be “so afraid” of cutting Medicare benefits because, after all, Big Business has been cutting workers’ health care benefits for Ai??years:

MATHISEN: How specifically would you address the spending in Medicare? I — it seems to me that Americans are very accustomed to seeing their health care benefits cut. Just ask anyone who works for a major corporation over the past twenty years, and you would see that the portion of your medical care that you pay for has risen as the portion that your medical care that the company pays for has declined. Why are we so afraid of that?

Watch it (the relevant section starts at 2:51):

Yoder went on to reply that House Republicans already passed Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare plan –which effectively privatizes the program.

It almost going without being said that Mathisen’s logic is widely off the mark. Corporations exist to serve their bottom line and make money. The government exists to serve the needs of those who elect it. Just because corporations are shafting workers, that doesn’t mean the government should short-change seniors.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)

A few Democrats and many Republicans have proposed that we make major cuts to Medicare benefits as a part of an upcoming fiscal deal. This is a bad idea for many reasons, foremost of which that American seniors shouldn’t have to pay for debt caused by two wars, tax cuts for the richest Americans, and Wall Street’s recession.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) rejected this call for cuts in Medicare benefits in a recent interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.Ai??”I don’t support any cuts to beneficiaries or benefits,” he told the newspaper.

When politicians do the right thing, we should let them know that we have their back. Click here to give Johnson’s office a call and thank him for taking this stand.Ai??

In a sign that progressive push-back against Los Angeles Mayor Villariagosa’s membership in the right-wing “Fix The Debt” lobbying group isn’t abating, activists from MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered over 21,000 signatures to LA City Hall this afternoon demanding Villariagosa resign from the group’s steering committee.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)

As Democrats and Republicans continue to negotiate over the contours of a fiscal deal, many Democrats have propositioned the idea that any agreement should include a ratio of cuts-to-revenue of 2-to-1. This is a model that President Obama chose for his most recent budget request, for example.

But 2-to-1 isn’t balanced. Balanced means at least equal parts cuts and revenue. Progressive Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) has stepped up to the plate and unveiled a new petition to Obama that not only calls on him to reject damaging cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits, but also assure a 1-to-1 ratio of cuts to revenue in any deal:

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has a credible approach to dealing with the deficit over the long term that lays out specific cuts to wasteful spending as well as making the rich pay their fair share in taxes.

Here’s her alternative, truly “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit. During a campaign debate, she laid out a popular vision for dealing with the debt: 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.

The following poll numbers (also see the “flip” for more) come from Public Policy Polling, for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC). A few interesting findings that jumped out at me are: 1) Bob McDonnell within 4 points of Mark Warner for U.S. Senate in 2014; 2) any support by Sen. Warner for cutting Medicare and/or Medicaid, including raising the retirement age, would make 33% of voters “less likely” to vote for him (vs. 22% who say “more likely”); and 3) Virginia voters believe President Obama’s mandate in this election is far more to focus on jobs (46%) than on the debt (22%).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)

Senior Republican Senator Bob Corker (TN) made headlines this weekend when he said he would be willing to let the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire. But Corker wanted something else in return — major cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits. He has laid out a plan that not only includes so-called “means testing” but also a hike in the eligibility/retirement age for both programs.

He even explicitly talked about using the debt ceiling as “leverage” in order to enforce such a deal. Watch it:

Here’s the important thing to remember about Corker’s offer. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are already expiring. Even if Congress does nothing, the tax policy will once against return all the rates to those of the Clinton era starting in 2013. Congress would then be free next month to pass tax cuts for working class and middle class people, without necessarily having to once again lower taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans.

The Republicans are essentially asking the Democrats to cut benefits for all Americans in exchange for something that is going to happen, anyway. That’s not a deal they should even think about taking.

We think that any Democrat who would endorse a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits needs to be held accountable. Click here to sign up to help us hold their feet to the fire.Ai??

Cutting Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare benefits is vogue among elites in Washington and their corporate lobbyist allies. These programs did not cause our deficits, but many elites want to cut them because they fundamentally want to see them privatized.

Take Arthur Brooks. He’s the president of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Yesterday he tweeted that raising the Medicare eligibility age is “at least a step in the right direction”:

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67 would result in “$3.7 billion in higher costs for 65- and 66 year-olds, $4.5 billion from employers through company-sponsored insurance, $0.7 billion from state governments, and $2.5 billion in higher average prices for third parties once younger seniors are shifted out of the Medicare risk-pool and into the general population.”

For the incredibly wealthy Brooks, that’s probably not much of a problem. According to disclosures, he nets an annual salary ofAi??$528,272. Higher costs for seniors are not a problem to him.

As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and others have noted, you can save billions of dollars for Medicare, beneficiaries, and taxpayers by enacting common sense reforms that don’t cut benefits by even a penny.

For example, if we simply dropped the protectionist trade barrier and allowed Americans to import drugs from Canada, we could save as much as $80 billion over ten years. Empowering Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices just as the Pentagon negotiates for basic goods like paperclips could save as much as $156 billion over ten years.

These are very basic reforms that would save enormous amounts of money without costing taxpayers or beneficiaries anything. But they require standing up to Big Pharma. That’s …

Alan Simpson, author of a plan to cut Social Security

You might’ve seen a new video of Alan Simpson — the former senator and Washington lobbyist who authored a plan to lower corporate taxes and cut Medicare and Social Security benefits — where he does the popular “Gangnam Style” dance. If not — here it is:

At the end of the video, Simpson warns young Americans to beware of “old coots who clear out the Treasury before you get there.” Considering that the entire video is made to recruit young Americans to sign a petition calling for cuts to benefits for programs they rely on, like Social Security and Medicare, Simpson’s warning is particularly ironic.

Here’s another interesting fact. The popular Gangnam Style song is itself a parody of the residents of the region of Gangnam, a wealthy part of the South Korean capital city of Seoul. As Foreign Policy’s Max Fisher writes, the song is made to lampoon the “self-importance andAi??ostentatiousAi??wealth” in Gangnam. The star of the song, the Korean artist Psy, is a “clownish caricature” of a an out of touch rich person.

Then perhaps it is fitting that Simpson would utilize this song in a desperate attempt to enlist young Americans to cut benefits in programs like Medicare and Social Security while lowering the corporate tax rate.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

During his weekly address yesterday, House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told the press that major cuts to Medicare benefits must be on the table:

Hoyer said GOP proposals to raise the Medicare eligibility age, make wealthier seniors pay higher Medicare rates and limit the cost-of-living increases for some federal programs are legitimate ones, even as he warned he might not support them.

ai???They clearly are on the table,ai??? Hoyer said of the Medicare changes during his weekly press briefing in the Capitol. ai???They were on the table in the Boehner-Obama talks. They’ve been on the table for some period of time. That does not mean that I’d be prepared to adopt them now, but they’re clearly, I think, on the table.ai???

Seniors on Medicare did not cause our deficit — Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, two wars, and Wall Street’s recession did. They should not be asked to pay through their hard-earned benefits.

We’re asking PCCC members to make calls to Hoyer’s office to ask him to take cuts in Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid benefits off the table. Click here to make a call.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)

As we wrote about last week, the Republican Party’s new strategy is to agree to raising revenue from ending token tax deductions — essentially, Mitt Romney’s plan — in exchange to getting Democrats to agree to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week yesterday, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) explicitly said that Republicans want Democrats’ help in order to enact “entitlement reform” — code for cuts — so that they could not be blamed in the next election:

COLE: To be fair to Leader McConnell, he’s always been very forthright, entitlement reform takes both sides — and then it’s not an issue in the next election, because they both did it.

Watch it:

To be clear, Cole is part of the House Republican leadership teamAi??that just sent a proposal that would cut Medicare benefits by raising the eligibility age and Social Security benefits by adjusting the Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA). This is what the Republicans mean by “entitlement reform.”

This is more evidence that Democrats should not fall for Republicans’ trap. They are seeking Democratic cover to move to their real goal: cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits.

The truth is that on every prominent economic issue of our time, the public overwhelmingly agrees with the progressive position. If 74 percent of voters oppose cuts to Medicare benefits and only 17 percent support them (which is true in New Hampshire), progressives insisting on the 74 percent position is different than the Tea Party insisting on the 17 percent position. One is democracy. The other is fringe incalcitrance. Equating the two is either ignorant or dishonest, but in either case destructive. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee did our homework and hired the No. 1 most-accurate pollster of 2012, Public Policy Polling, to poll New Hampshire voters on these fiscal issues (with more states to come). As the Union Leader’s John DiStaso reported, huge majorities of voters in the “Live Free Or Die” state support taxing the rich, oppose cutting benefits, and support cutting corporate welfare. They also say that President Obama’s mandate is not to compromise for its own sake, but to “stand up for regular families – even if that means fighting.” That’s a mandate – a mandate for “the left.” The only question is whether Democrats will use it to fight for the will of the people.

In a story already making waves across Washington, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen reported this morning that a bipartisan “grand bargain” is emerging from talks between the White House and Republicans. The contours of the deal are this: About $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue, most likely from an rate increase on income over $250,000, along with at least $400 billion over 10 years in entitlement cuts “and perhaps a lot more,” mostly from Medicare.

Liberals have drawn a hard line against entitlement cuts and $400 billion is a lot of money, so some progressives are not pleased with the idea….However, there’s an important caveat that’s missing from the deal described by Politico… The details of the cuts in the Politico article were vague, and it’s unclear if they represents real cuts to benefits or not. “That’s a crucial distinction,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “What’s worried some about the Politico article is that it kind of tossed in reforms or efficiencies along with talk about raising the Medicare retirement age or adjusting the cost of living adjustment — those two things would essentially start a nuclear war on the left,” Green said. “Those are the two big things. Those are benefit cuts. Those actively hurt seniors.” But Green said he was encouraged by Durbin’s speech yesterday, and he doesn’t think raising the retirement age is a real possibility.

The poll gave strong indication that Granite Staters oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits and support higher taxes for the rich. If Shaheen supported cuts to Medicare of Medicaid, 46 percent said they would be less likely to vote for her, while 35 percent said it would not make a difference, 13 percent said they would be more likely to vote for her and 7 percent were not sure, according to the poll. If Shaheen “led the national fight to raise taxes on the rich,” 48 percent said they would be more likely to vote for her, while 31 percent said they would be less likely to vote for her, 19 percent said it would not make a difference and 1 percent said they were not sure.

Generations of racial injustice in the United States have resulted in the life expectancy of African Americans being far below that of whites.

Americans pay into Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives. They expect these programs to there for them when they retire.

But corporate lobbyists and their allies in Washington want to cut benefits for both of these programs. One way they advocate of doing this is raising the retirement age to 70.

Their argument is that Americans are living longer, and therefore it makes sense to raise the retirement age. However most gains in life expectancy have gone to white-collar workers, and blue-collar workers are barely living longer at all. Here’s a chart of life expectancy from the Center for Economic Policy and Research that demonstrates this fact:

When you break down the situation by race, it gets even worse. While some politicians clamor for the retirement age to be raised to 70, the life expectancy of black males is only 70.8, according to the latest data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System. That’s nearly six years behind non-Hispanic white men, whose life expectancy is 76.2.

Thus, raising the retirement age wouldn’t just disproportionately hurt blue collar workers, it would disproportionately harm African American men. We should not be considering policies that would have such a harmful impact.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Earlier this month, leading Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen (MD) indicated that he was “open to all ideas” on Medicare and Social Security cuts. Discussing a hike in the Medicare retirement age, he told a group of corporate CEOs, “I think it should be part of the conversation.”

On November 14th, one day after Van Hollen made his original remarks, Progressive Change Campaign Committee members sprung into action, flooding his office with constituent phone calls and asking him to take benefit cuts off the table.

Today on Fox, Van Hollen made his first definitive statement that raising the Medicare age was off the table for him:

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Look at Medicare, what you’reAi??doing by moving it from 65 to 67Ai??is again not reducing costs in Medicare, it’s not reallyAi??reforming the Medicare systemAi??you’re just transferring thoseAi??costs and risks onto people whoAi??may be 66 years old.

ANCHOR: You are reforming the Medicare system because it’sAi??going to go bust in severalAi??years, so if you prolong theAi??program and make the age later,Ai??people are living longer, soAi??isn’t that age sort of outmodedAi??and isn’t that a good thing toAi??address long term?

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: There are a lot better waysAi??of doing it.

ANCHOR: That’s a no I’mAi??hearing. You’re not willing to change theAi??age.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN:Ai?? No, because there are muchAi??better ways of dealing with Medicare costs. Let’s look at ways we can reduceAi??the cost of withoutAi??transferring rising healthcareAi??costs.

Watch it:

Our polling showsAi??that, by huge margins, voters oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

We applaud Congressman Van Hollen for listening to his constituents and taking this much-discussed Medicare benefit cut off the table. Today, PCCC members in his district will be calling to thank Van Hollen for his bold statement — and we’ll urge him to firmly …

Grover Norquist’s influence is decreasing in the Republican Party, but even worse ideas are on the rise.

The media has been abuzz with a spree of high-level Republicans rebuking Washington lobbyist Grover Norquist’s tax pledge in recent days. What has not been explained is why they are breaking with this pledge.

As we explained earlier, the goal of these Republicans is to secure a deal with Democrats that lowers corporate tax rates while cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

In exchange, they are basically offering Mitt Romney’s tax plan of closing some minor deductions and loopholes (some of which are widely used by the middle class).Ai?? Here is how The Maddow Blog’s Steve Benen explains Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) latest offer:

In other words, Graham — being singled out for praise today for being so “reasonable” — would demand that Bush-era tax rates be left in place for everyone, including the very wealthy, but he’d consider a cap on deductions. As a practical matter, his “concession” is being open to adopting Romney’s revenue proposal.

Needless to say, Americans rejected Romney’s tax plan when they rejected Romney. Additionally, we just commissioned a poll in New Hampshire that found that “clear majority” of people in the state “oppose making significant changes to benefits given to seniors who receive Social Security or Medicare. Sixty-six percent supported raising taxes for those earning more than $250,000 a year, with 29 percent opposed to it.”

Whether Norquist likes the plan or not, it is certainly not worth trading for significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Seniors on Medicare and Social Security did not cause the Great Recession, Wall Street did. And they should not be asked to pay for the resulting debt.

We should look instead to Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren …

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made headlines yesterday when he publicly rebuked lobbyist Grover Norquist, saying that he was willing to violate his pledge against increasing any taxes. (Graham actually broke with Norquist’s pledge back in June.)

What the news coverage of Graham’s remarks missed was why this staunchly right-wing senator was breaking Norquists pledge.

For months, Graham has been working with a group of senators who want to implement the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and lower corporate tax rates. This plan does end some tax deductions and loopholes, which is why Norquist opposes it, and, by extension, Graham.

Like Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) before him, Graham thinks it’s more important to gut our social insurance programs than it is to uphold Norquists’s pledge. That is not cause for celebration among progressives.

In fact, Graham is asking for cuts in Medicare benefits that are even more severe than what Bowles-Simpson proposed. Here’s what he said on ABC’s This Week:

GRAHAM: It goes to 66, 67 here pretty soon for Social Security. Let it float up another year or so over the next 30 years, adjust Medicare from 65 to 67 over the next 30 years, means test benefits for people in our income level. I donai??i??t expect Democrats to go for premium support or a voucher plan, but I do expect them to adjust these entitlement programs before they bankrupt the country and run out of money themselves.

Watch it:

Graham explicitly said on the show that he is only willing to violate the Norquist pledge if Democrats agree to “entitlement reform” — code for cutting benefits. “I think Grover is wrong,” he said. “When you are $16 trillion in debt the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming …

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 …

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 …

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.

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.”

Tommy Thompson

Wisconsin Republican Senate Tommy Thompson has been caught on tape saying he wants to “do away with Medicare and Medicaid.” To accomplish this assault on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — which he supported privatizing in 2004 — he has to try to convince the public that they are going broke.

So maybe that explains this bizarre statement by Thompson. At a recent Republican Party event in Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson ludicrously claimed that China is paying for a portion of every Social Security and Medicare check mailed to seniors:

THOMPSON: I look at the fact that 40 cents out of every dollar, ladies and gentleman, is borrowed mainly from the Chinese. Every Social Security check, every Medicare check 40 cents is borrowed from the Chinese. Does that make you comfortable?

Watch it:

Thompson is trying to claim that 40 cents out of every dollar in our Social Security and Medicare checks comes from the Chinese. The truth is actually the opposite. Social Security is fully financed through payroll contributions, taxes on higher income beneficiaries, and the interest on its own surplus. In fact, it is actually one of the largest holders of U.S. debt — meaning that not only do we not borrow from the Chinese to finance it, but it actually keeps us from borrowing more from the Chinese and other foreign debt holders.

With respect to Medicare, it is also largely funded by its own dedicated revenue stream of payroll taxes, although half of Medicare Part A is funded by general revenue.

And by the way, China only owns 10 percent of U.S. treasuries.

This leaves one of two possibilities. Either Thompson is too ignorant to realize that American taxpayers, not Chinese debt holders, pay for …