UPDATE: Cutting the Deficit by Stealing from Generation X

For a detailed analysis of how stealing from the public works see (0.00 / 0)

this report by Bloomberg News.

You may recall that I've mentioned previously that the preferred alternative to "tax and spend" is "lend and spend."  Now the details of how this works are coming out.  

"Financial engineering" is a really good phrase.  I'd not heard it before, but it's perfect in describing behavior that I've been aware of since the 1980s when our municipal utility in Florida was persuaded to "generate income" by investing in "commercial paper," rather than focusing solely on generating electricity more efficiently.
The temptation to play with other people's money is really hard to resist.

This is, of course, the same impulse which moves the periodic effort to wrest the social security trust funds out of OUR hands.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:08:47 AM CST

We could start (0.00 / 0)

with an LTE campaign.  

How else can we reach this age group?  Finding ways to let this group know they are about to be cheated is just part of the media/communications puzzle for us.  After I retire at the end of the year this is one of my priorities!  Ideas are welcome.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:18:09 AM CST

Be afraid (4.00 / 1)

Dean Baker, writing at TPM

Baker tells us about Peter Peterson, (Nixon's Commerce Secretary) Wall St. billionaire who has been trying to destroy Social Security from the beginning.

This effort is being led by billionaire investment banker Peter Peterson. Mr. Peterson has personally profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from the "fund managers' tax subsidy," an obscure provision of the tax code that allows billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than schoolteachers and firefighters. However, Peterson believes in giving back. He has committed $1 billion to an effort that is intended to take away the Social Security benefits that people have worked and paid for.

As part of this effort, Peterson set up a whole new foundation, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. He and/or his foundation created a "news service," the Fiscal Times, which is intended to promote the view that we have no choice but to cut Social Security. The Fiscal Times has entered into agreements with the Washington Post and other credible newspapers to provide material.

Peterson is also funding the creation of a high school curriculum which is intended to tell our children that the in the future the country will be too poor to finance Social Security. He funded a silly exercise called "America Speaks," which was supposed to convince an assembly of selected participants that we must cut Social Security after a daylong immersion in Peterson-style propaganda. (The people didn't buy it.) And now his crew is spending $20 million on an ad campaign to convince people the world will end if we don't cut Social Security.

To recap: he's created his own media outlet, and a program for brainwashing high school students. This guy, who has more money than he could spend in 2 lifetimes, wants to make sure you're eating catfood in a cardboard box when you retire.

It's about time that Democrats got tough, if they're capable.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:45:26 AM CST

Exactly (4.00 / 4)

This is no time to get squishy or to try to compromise for the sake of saying, "we can compromise".  Hooey. Social Security is a promise made, and if the elected Democrats participate in breaking that promise while "compromising" on tax cuts for the very wealthiest of Americans, it will be an outrage.

Not sure when the next DNC meeting is, but I am going to submit a resolution on this issue asking the membership to request our elected officials to draw some line in the sand - no lowering of benefits, no means testing, no increase in the age requirements. If anyone has suggestions for language, let me know!!



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:46:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks Kathy (0.00 / 0)

If the Democrats participate in breaking the promise, it will be the end of the party.

My suggestion for language is strong, uncompromising, kick-ass, tough. :) Along the lines of "NO EFFING WAY"

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:21:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL! (0.00 / 0)

Now that the D's are on the outs, I don't feel as obligated to bite my tongue, but I may have to edit out the adjective before "way'!  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:39:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's a phrase to avoid (0.00 / 0)

I love your idea, but here's one phrase to avoid: "when they pry it from our cold dead hands."

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:21:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Social Security (0.00 / 0)

Right on, Kathy! Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of removing the cap on contributions to Social Security. There was very little about making the rich pay their fair share of anything!

---

by: Katemck @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 14:29:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I suggest redirecting (0.00 / 0)

Yes, defend Social Security, but the hammer they use to attack Social Security is fear of deficits, which weighs heavily on the minds of younger voters.

The letter in the mail says "You'll get $800 a month" or whatever it says -- that provokes anxiety.

Rand Paul says he wants to cut military spending. That would help with the deficit too. Take him up on the offer, I say (or something else -- some non-Social Security deficit reducer).

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:17:34 AM CST

I fear (4.00 / 1)

that redirecting is a mistake, Jim. Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program ever created in this country. That's a strong defense, with millions of examples. That's nothing we need to run away from - it's a promise that MUST be kept.

That said - it's also necessary to point out the hypocrisy of the deficit peacocks, who care nothing for the fact that continuing tax cuts for millionaires will increase the deficit. They just want to get their slimy paws on Social Security so that they can hand it over to their even slimier friends on Wall St.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:49:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant defend AND redirect.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:58:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Social security = personal security (0.00 / 0)

as opposed to
national security = corporate security.

Democrats value the individual person, not some puffed up ideology.

The problem with national socialism wasn't the social part, it was the national part--the elevation of an ideology over real people.

Conservatives are anti-social.  Period.  That they excel in depriving people of their rights under the cover of law, merely means that the law has been hijacked to make crime legal.  Stiglitz, in his essay, makes that point.
http://www.project-syndicate.o...

The only problem I have with Stiglitz is that he's identifying a potential problem instead of recognizing that it's already here.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 16:23:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not about deficits, right? (4.00 / 1)

It's about privatization and feeding the Wall Street greed machine.  

There are limits to every system - the first two laws of thermodynamics.  We are fast approaching the limits to our major systems - economic, environmental, and political.  Even though it is not sustainable, feeding the system requires total privatization of all government functions.  The deficit hawks are simply shilling for the corporatocracy in the US.

Susan, if this picks up any steam, I'm willing to join the no difference club and start our own party.  Assuming that it's not too late.  

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:26:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think we're in loud agreement here (0.00 / 0)

Put yourself in the shoes of a young person, say a recent graduate with student loans. They can't get the job they studied for.

One group of politicians points to a spreadsheet and says, "This is not sustainable. The money will RUN OUT before you get it. Want a chance to make more money from your money?"

Another group of politcians points to a spreadsheet and says, "Everything is fine. Social Security is a sacred trust, a promise that must be kept."

Who wins that argument?

Protect, defend, show strength. And then reframe the deficit discussion. Or the budget discussion. Any discussion you want, but reframe it.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:49:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Money is a token. Worthless in and of itself. (4.00 / 1)

Look at the letters of the alphabet on this page.  What are they worth to a person who's illiterate?  
Money is the same.  It's a medium of exchange which allows people who don't know each other very well, or at all, to engage in transactions because somebody else guarantees that promises will be kept.  Who?  The American people, if a dollar is being used, pledge their good faith and credit.  

So, if our agents of government renege, what's our credit going to be worth?

Obama likes a good kerfuffle.  He likes keeping the citizenry riled up.  It's what got him elected, health insurance reform passed, bank regulations put in place, a Secretary of Defense that's arguing FOR human rights, equal pay for women, a profit for the Treasury from the Wall Street bailout, etc.  What else do you want?

---

by: hannah @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 16:34:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I need to think about it (4.00 / 1)

But here's my first draft answer.

Money (advancing Democratic goals), power (in the hands of Democrats), and the hammer of the gods (just in case).

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 16:42:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A sure sign that the apocalypse is indeed upon us. (0.00 / 0)

I'm hopeful that the hastily assembled press conference is a tipoff that Bowles and Simpson have no support for the chairmen's mark released today.  It is truly dreadful, and much worse than I had expected.  

The lowlights:

Raise the retirement age and reduce SS benefits.
Increase the health care co-pay for veterans.
Charge admission to the Smithsonian museums.
Eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Eliminate the charitable gift tax deduction.

Laughable, really, and about as politically feasible as electing 3/4s of the State legislature from one political party.  Oh, and lest I forget, the distinguished chairmen want to make sure we lower the top tax bracket to 23%, because, you know, there's never a better time to lower taxes for the wealthy.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 13:52:08 PM CST

especially when they don't vote n/t (0.00 / 0)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 13:58:49 PM CST

Don't use the scatter approach (0.00 / 0)

If we try to counter every argument about every budget/program cut proposed by the right we will be playing defense all the time. We need an overarching vision/strategy/narrative that we keep pounding away on: "The wealthy in this country have been trying to turn back all the protections we -- democrats -- have fought for over the past decades to keep American workers and families  safe and healthy.  They want to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare; they want to repeal the health care bill that protects all Americans access to health care and from insurance company interference, they want to undo worker safety; they want to undo all safety nets and let regular people fend for themselves. They don't care about anything but their own profits, etc..."

We should turn around all their arguments to be understood from the point of view of regular people: "regulation = bad" from their point of view to "regulation = worker and consumer safety" from our point of view. Our citizens have been hearing only one side of the story!  Protecting workers and consumers is NOT ANTI-GROWTH, it's anti exploitation!  Businesses do not have an inherent right to make billions of dollars in profits as so many banks, investment companies and energy companies do. If the right privatizes all social programs, their business buddies will be in it for profits only.  You can forget quality or fairness.

We need a message along these lines that provides the conceptual umbrella for understanding everything the republicans do, without having to educate people on every issue.  It's just obvious once the story is told.  We hammer home this big message. The right will prove our case.

What most "everyday" people don't see is that the right is NOT on their side, they have just figured out how to manipulate them.  Sadly, because Obama bailed out the banks and Wall Street, our argument is not as crystal clear as it should be, but we are still the better bet for all but the top 5% (guessing) in this country.

The central question: Who is going to fight for you?

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." Albert Einstein

---

by: susaninrindge @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 14:38:34 PM CST

One quibble (0.00 / 0)

Obama didn't bail out the banks. It was a bipartisan measure supported by leaders of both parties, and largely brokered by Barney Frank, one of the best progressive leaders in the entire Congress.

It was the right thing to do, and it worked. A lot of the money is being paid back.

Was it perfect? No. Could it have been avoided? Probably. But on balance, from where we sit, it was good that it was done.

So, to your point, it need not affect our message. We can cite its success, or we can cite its unfortunate necessity.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 15:34:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are right (4.00 / 1)

Yes, there are some good arguments and outcomes re bank (and auto) bailouts. It's more a perception problem that results from continued irresponsibility by banks and Wall Street - while regular people are suffering, the rich are getting fat bonuses. It tends to cloud the distinction between Rs and Ds.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." Albert Einstein

---

by: susaninrindge @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 15:44:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On that (0.00 / 0)

I agree completely.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 15:47:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

TARP =Judd Gregg + Dubya..done before Obama got there (0.00 / 0)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 15:59:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]