Bernie Sanders: The People Have Spoken

As I’m sure you are aware, there is currently a major effort being waged by Wall Street CEOs, Republicans and some Democrats to do deficit reduction on the backs of the middle class and working families.

This could mean, among other things, significant cuts to vital programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

President Obama and the Democrats won a decisive victory on Election Day. The people have spoken and the Democratic Leadership must make it very clear that they intend to stand with the middle class and working families of our country, and not the Big Money interests. This means that in the coming weeks and months the Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done in a way that is fair — and not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

As Congress reconvenes and addresses the so-called "fiscal cliff," I have outlined several ways that we can do deficit reduction without cutting the programs that working families rely on most:

• At a time when the wealthiest people in our country are doing phenomenally well, we must eliminate the Bush tax cuts favoring the top 2 percent.
• At a time when corporate profits are soaring, we must end the absurd tax policy that allows about one-quarter of large, profitable corporations to pay nothing in federal income taxes.
• At a time when the federal treasury is losing over $100 billion annually because the wealthy and large corporations are stashing their money in tax havens in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, we must pass real tax reform that ends this outrage.
• At a time when we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, we must cut defense spending. There is also waste in other governmental agencies which must be eliminated.

Now, is the time to hold Democrats accountable and ensure that we do deficit reduction in a way that is fair, while also protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Please stand with me in fighting for a deficit reduction plan which is fair — Sign the petition calling on Congress to let the Bush tax cuts expire, while protecting vital programs.

Let me be clear. Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit because it is funded independently by the payroll tax. In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund today, according to the Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay 100 percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years. Social Security, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must be protected.

Poll after poll shows that the American people want to see deficit reduction done in a way that is fair. They do not want to see cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while millionaires, billionaires and large corporations continue to receive huge tax breaks.

In my view, if the Republicans continue to play an obstructionist role, the president should get out of the Oval Office and travel the country. If he does that, I believe that he will find that there is no state in the country, including those that are very red, where people believe that we should give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, while cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Right now, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year. That means the only way that Republicans can extend tax breaks for the wealthy and cut vital programs is if Democrats let them.

Sadly, virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are too willing to do deficit reduction in a way that hurts those who are already hurting.

Don’t let them win. The Bush tax cuts must be allowed to expire. Please sign the petition today.

I look forward to working with President Obama and all members of Congress to do deficit reduction in a way that finally asks the wealthiest people in our country to pay their fair share, and that recognizes the needs of working families.

Despite the fact that we just won a major electoral victory over Big Money, Wall Street CEOs, big corporations and the millionaires and billionaires are not giving up. Defeating them will take a major grass-roots effort with millions of people getting involved in this fight.

Please, stand with me today.

Thank you,

Senator Bernie Sanders

A Pension Deficit Disorder

Beware of wealthy CEOs who are lecturing the rest of us about tightening our belts.

By Scott Klinger

While America’s CEOs are fretting about the government’s so-called "fiscal cliff," millions of American workers face a financial disaster that gets much less media attention. There’s a half-trillion-dollar deficit in the nation’s worker retirement benefits.

The Great Recession, which decimated retirement assets, played a big role in building this lesser-known cliff. But many corporations could have avoided the problem by shoring up these funds during the boom years. Instead, they siphoned pension assets for other profit-boosting purposes. When the pension deficits started to balloon, many corporations responded by slashing back their benefit programs.

The Ant and the Grasshopper, an OtherWords cartoon by Khalil Bendib

As a result, Americans today are more reliant on government-funded Social Security and Medicare programs than at any other time in the last 60 years.

What’s even more outrageous is that the very same CEOs who have contributed to rampant retirement insecurity are now calling for cuts to these earned-benefit programs for senior citizens.

Nearly 100 CEOs have banded together to convince the American public that Social Security and Medicare lie at the root of America’s fiscal challenges. Their "Fix the Debt" campaign features plain-spoken Americans in their ads and sounds moderate because they call for both spending cuts and revenue increases.

But the real objectives of the campaign include massive new corporate tax cuts and reduced spending on Social Security and Medicare, which would likely involve raising the retirement age.

American workers, at present, cannot collect Social Security and Medicare until age 66, the highest retirement age among rich countries. In 2020, the Social Security retirement age will rise to 67, assuring that American workers will be toiling longer than any other industrialized country for years to come. In contrast, Japanese and Chinese workers can collect their equivalent of Social Security starting at age 60.

The Fix the Debt campaign’s CEO supporters need not worry about Social Security because they’re members of the "I’ve Got Mine Club." Fifty-four of the CEOs leading Fix the Debt directly benefit from lavish executive retirement programs. Their collective pension assets total $649 million, which comes to more than $12 million per CEO. That’s enough to garner a $65,000 retirement check each month starting at age 65 that will continue for as long as they live, according to a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies, which I co-authored. In contrast, the average retiree receives just $1,237 from Social Security each month.

Yet, the firms headed by Fix the Debt CEOs owe their U.S. pension funds more than $100 billion, according to the IPS study. U.S. law requires corporations to keep their pension debts to manageable levels, but this pressure has often resulted in benefit cuts.

General Electric, which has a staggering $22 billion pension deficit, shut down its pension fund last year, saying it had become a "drag on earnings" (at a whopping cost of 13 cents per share, according to their estimates). Like many other firms, GE has shifted new employees to a less costly 401(k) plan, putting the risk for poor stock market performance onto employees.

Beware of wealthy CEOs who are lecturing the rest of us about tightening our belts. American workers would be far better off if CEOs worried more about fixing their own companies’ pension debts.

Scott Klinger is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and co-author of A Pension Deficit Disorder: The Massive CEO Retirement Funds and Unfunded Worker Pensions at Firms Pushing Social Security Cuts. IPS-dc.org

How Washington Insiders Bar Economic Reality From Political Debate

How Washington Insiders Bar Economic Reality From Political Debate — By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis

Washington policy debates are primarily about being admitted to the club of participants rather than about logic and evidence. Until the public understands this fact, there is little chance that the vast majority of people will have much ability to influence the course of policy.

The budget deficit is the current obsession in Washington. You can get big bucks spinning scare stories of huge budget deficits that will bankrupt the government and sink the economy. However, the indisputable reality is that the large budget deficits of recent years are due to the economic downturn following the collapse of the housing bubble …

… read more here … or at the Center for Economic & Policy Research.

Republican Attitudes May Be Changing

Whoa … some members of the Republican Party may be seeing the light.  In a memorandum sent out by Jan van Lohuizen, a pollster for former President George W. Bush suggesting that Republican candidates should shift the way they discuss same-sex marriage.

************************************************************
“BACKGROUND: In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
   1. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
   2. Protections against bullying and harassment
   3. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
   4. Right to visit partners in hospitals
   5. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
   6. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:
“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:
“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals:
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

Given this memo, maybe at least some Republicans are finally realizing that “freedom means freedom for everyone” … not just freedom for straight folks. There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
***********************************************************

Below is a Summary and Explanation compiled by the Human Rights Campaign:

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

Social Security
Social Security provides the sole means of support for some elderly Americans.  All working Americans contribute to this program through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement.  Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments.  A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment.  Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry.  Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.
Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits

• Family #1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child
  • Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
  • Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
• Family #2: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive of the child
  • Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
  • Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
• Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
  • Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
  • Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits

Tax:
According to the GAO report, as of 1997 there were 179 tax provisions that took marital status into account.   The following is a limited sample of such tax provisions.

Tax on Employer-Provided Health Benefits to Domestic Partners: In growing numbers, both public and private employers across the country have made the business decision to provide domestic partner benefits in order to promoted fairness and equality in the workplace.   For example, as of August 2003, 198 (almost forty percent) of the Fortune 500 companies and 173 state and local governments nationwide provide health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.  Federal tax law has not kept up with corporate and governmental who take advantage of it are taxed inequitably.

As policymakers have put an increasing emphasis on delivering health coverage through the tax code and as the cost of healthcare has once again begun to skyrocket, the current inequities in the tax code have placed a burden on the employers who provide healthcare coverage to domestic partners and on the employees who depend upon these benefits to provide security for their families.

1. Burden on Employees
   Employers who provide health benefits to their employees typically pay a portion of the premium – if not the entire premium.   Currently, the Code provides that the employer’s contribution of the premium for health insurance for an employee’s spouse is excluded from the employee’s taxable income.  An employer’s contribution for the domestic partner’s coverage, however, is included in the employee’s taxable income as a fringe benefit.
2. Burden on Employers
   An employer’s payroll tax liability is calculated based on their employees’ taxable incomes.   When contributions for domestic partner benefits are included in employees’ incomes, employers pay higher payroll taxes.  This provision also places an administrative burden on employers by requiring them to identify those employees utilizing their benefits for a partner rather than a spouse.  Employers must then calculate the portion of their contribution that is attributable to the partner, and create and maintain a separate payroll function for these employees’ income tax withholding and payroll tax.  Thus, the employers are penalized for making a sound business decision that contributes to stability in the workforce.

Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT Households:
Recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States.  The Code contains competing definitions of “child.”  Certain provisions of the Code defining child penalize for the marital status of their parents and caregivers.

1. Earned Income Tax Credit
   Eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC) is based in part upon the number of “qualifying” children in the taxpayer’s household.   See 26 USC § 32.   The definition of qualifying child under this provision includes only a child who is the taxpayer’s (a) biological child or descendent; (b) stepchild of the taxpayer; or (c) adopted child.  Certain children of lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged by this provision.  For exampled, a taxpayer and their partner domestic are jointly raising the partner’s biological child.  The taxpayer works full-time and the child’s legal parent stays home to care for the child.  The state in which the taxpayer resides does not permit them to adopt through second-parent adoption or to marry the partner and become the child’s step-parent.  This working family is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of the EITC, and therefore has decreased the resources to devote to the child’s care.
2. Head of Household Status
   Heads of household, as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 2, are eligible for an increased standard deduction that, among other things, provides taxpayers with increased funds to care for their dependents.   The “limitations” section of this provision explicitly denies the benefit of head-of-household status to taxpayers supporting non-biological, non-adopted children.  Thus, a gay or lesbian taxpayer who supports his or her partner’s child (and who is ineligible to adopt the child) has fewer post-tax dollars with which to support the child.
3. Child Tax Credit
   Taxpayers meeting income eligibility requirements are entitled to a credit against tax for qualifying children in their households.   This provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship test set fourth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32(c)(3)(B).  As set forth above, § 32 does not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic partner if the children are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through adoption.All three of these inequities have the effect of penalizing families who choose to have one parent in the work force and the other caring for the children full-time.   In addition, they disadvantage such couples and their children by limiting the choice of which parent will be a full-time caregiver.  Although similarly situated married couples may choose which parent will fulfill that role without consequence, lesbian and gay couples, as well as other unmarried couples, face negative tax consequences for the same decision.

Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer’s Principal Residence:  Under Internal Revenue Code §121, a single taxpayer may exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of his or her personal principal residence from taxable income.   Married couples filing jointly may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of their home.  Lesbian and gay couples, who are not permitted to marry or to file jointly, are therefore taxed on all gain above $250,000, creating a large tax penalty compared to similarly situated married couples.

Estate Tax:
Internal Revenue Code § 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate.   For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.

Taxation of Retirement Savings:
Under current law, when a retirement plan participant dies, plan benefits must be distributed in a lump sum or remain in the plan to be distributed in accordance with the minimum distribution requirements of § 401(a)(9).   This problem does not exist if the beneficiary is the deceased participant’s surviving spouse, because the surviving spouse may transfer plan benefits to an IRA or a retirement plan in which he or she is a participant.  This entitlement is valuable because (a) it allows the surviving spouse to defer taxation of the proceeds, often until the survivor is in a lower tax bracket; and (b) it protects the surviving spouse from being forced to withdraw from an investment program when its value is depressed.  Because gay and lesbian couples are treated as strangers under federal tax and pension law, they cannot transfer plan benefits without incurring significant penalties, and do not have the flexibility to withdraw funds when they choose.

This example demonstrates this inequity: Michelle and Sarah have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years.   They have registered as domestic partners under the laws of the District of Columbia.  Throughout their relationship, they have taken every legal step available to formalize their relationship and protect themselves, legally and financially as domestic partners.  Michelle participated in her employer’s 401(k) retirement plans, naming Sarah as the primary beneficiary.  Sarah purchased an individual retirement account (IRA).  While driving to her job, Michelle is killed in a car accident.  Sarah does not have the option to transfer Michelle’s 401(k) funds into her existing IRA because, under current law, only a “spouse” may roll over 401(k) and inherited IRA plans upon the death of a plan participant.  Sarah must then take the entire proceeds of the inherited 401(k) in a lump sum and pay taxes on them immediately at a much higher rate, rather than rolling it over into her own name tax free as a surviving spouse can do.

Family and Medical Leave:
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses.   As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member.  Family and medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.

Immigration Law: Currently, U.S. immigration law does not allow lesbian and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.  Approximately 75% of the one million green cards or immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.  However, those excluded from the definition, under current immigration law of family, are not eligible to immigrate as family.  Such ineligible person include (but are not limited to) same-sex partners and unmarried heterosexual couples.

Each year, current law forces thousands of lesbian and gay couples to separate or live in constant fear of deportation.   In some cases, partners of lesbian and gays face prosecution by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), hefty fines and deportation and U.S. citizens are sometimes left with no other choice but to migrate with their partner to a nation whose immigration laws recognize their relationship.  This creates a tremendous hardship, not only for those involved, but for their friends and family, and leads to a drain of talent and productivity for our country.Fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognize lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of immigration.

Employee Benefits for Federal Workers:
According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges.   Most significantly, under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).  Although married couples are eligible for reimbursement for expenses incurred by a domestic partner are not reimbursable.   As of August 2003, nine states and the District of Columbia and 322 local governments offer health benefits to the domestic partners of their public employees, while the nation’s largest employer – the federal government – does not.

Continued Health Coverage (COBRA):
Federal law requires employers to give their former employees the opportunity to continue their employer-provided health insurance coverage by paying a premium (the requirement was part of the consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; hence the common name COBRA).  An increasing number of employers, including 198 of the Fortune 500, now offer their employees domestic partner benefits.  Although this trend is encouraging, the Federal COBRA law does not require employers to provide domestic partners the continued coverage guaranteed to married couples.  Under 29 U.S.C. § 1167, an employer is only required to offer continuation coverage to the employee and to “qualified beneficiaries,” defined as the employee’s spouse and dependent children, regardless of whether the employee’s original benefits plan covered other beneficiaries.  Because of the narrow definition of “spouse” under federal law, employees are not guaranteed continued coverage for their domestic partners. [2]

[1] Defense of Marriage Act: An Update to Prior Report, General Accounting Office, 2004
[2] Nothing in this law prevents an employer from extending COBRA benefits to domestic partners.

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

It’s nice to see that at least some Republicans are finally beginning to realize that, just maybe, it’s well passed time to end the systemic discrimination against an entire segment of our population.  It’s time for them to stop cherry-picking excerpts from the Bible and incorporating them into governmental laws affecting the people of our nation.

Ryan’s Path to Poverty — The Numbers

Okay … I went back and pulled out my last summary of version 1.0 of the Ryan “Path to Prosperity” budget and added in the figures he’s proposing in his “version 2.0” of the Path to Prosperity.  It’s startling.  Before you start down through the figures, there are probably a few terms you should understand:

1. Budget authority is the legal authority to incur financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays of federal government funds.
2. Obligations are commitments to make payments, immediately or in the future. Examples include contracts and purchase orders.
3. An outlay is a payment (usually a check drawn on the Treasury, or in cash) by the government in fulfillment of an obligation.

While the budget bill (H.Con.Res.112) doesn’t specify the amount of obligations that have been undertaken, you’ll clearly see a difference in new budget authority and anticipated outlays that will occur during each given budget year.  All figures below are shown in millions of dollars ( number X 1,000,000).

Now, a budget is basically a statement of priorities.  I don’t agree with the GOP’s statement of priorities.  As you peruse the numbers, here are a couple of questions you should ask yourselves as to the GOP’s priorities:

1. National Defense (050):  Do we really need to spend that much money on weapons, war, etc.?  Do you think it’s time to close down some of those foreign bases?  A large number of those basest were necessary for “cold war’ security … but really … the cold war ended during Reagan’s term.
2. Rep. Ryan claimed during introduction of version 2 of the “Path to Prosperity” that he was leaving  Social Security alone … yet check the numbers, he’s cut back Social Security even further than he proposed under version 1.0.  Are his figures realistic given the number of baby boomers headed into retirement … or does it look to you like he’s hiding a privatization scheme in his back pocket?
3. Rep. Ryan claimed that he needs to change the way we fund and deal with Medicare (turning it into voucher program).  Given that fact that he’s cut Medicare spending even further from his V1.0 Path … what kind of value might those vouchers have?  And, how many Seniors will no longer be able to afford health care (or how many will be denied care by private insurance companies) before all is said and done?
4. Funding for space and science has been increased.  Hmmm.  Is he hedging his bet just in case the Newster manages to pull of a major coup, win the Presidency and need the funding for his moon base?
5. He pretty much cut Energy to the bone in favor of locking us into nothing but oil strategy for the foreseeable future.
6. He cut education below what he proposed in Version 1.0 until 2017, when funding finally manages to eke past what he proposed in his Version 1.0 Path.
7. He increased funding for the Criminal Justice System … is he planning to incarcerate even more Americans?
8. And lastly … he proposes to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Plan … yet in doing so, the federal government saves nothing in the process.  In fact, check out the rapidly escalating rise in health care costs (550).  Are you looking forward to insurance companies once again being in charge of your health, denying coverage, limiting lifetime coverage, utilizing claims of “pre-existing conditions” to deny coverage, charging women far more for insurance coverage than men, etc.?

Rep. Ryan has proposed nearly $3 Trillion dollars in cuts for the wealthy and multinational corporations.  Absent, however, from his “Path” was the means through which he would pay for those cuts.  Other than stealing working American’s Social Security and Medicare, he has no means to pay for such unnecessary and outrageous cuts to government revenue. Pure and simple, his “path” amounts to nothing more than ‘theft.”  And, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of this post, you will see that what Mr. Ryan has proposed will not get us any where near balancing our federal budget as the GOP is claiming this budget will get us closer to doing.  It does not and it will not.  What it will do is explode our national debt to $21,627,396,000,000 by 2022.  That’s not a path to prosperity, that’s a path to poverty and the destruction of our nation.

Debt Ceiling Debate Issues

The debate over raising the debt ceiling and deficit reduction is coming down to the wire.  Despite the fact that Democrats control the White House and the Senate, it is right-wing Republicans who are calling the shots and setting the agenda.  Unless we fight back vigorously, Congress and President Obama will give the American people exactly what they don’t want.

Poll after poll shows that the American people want Congress to focus on job creation and that they want deficit reduction to be done in a way which is fair and which requires shared sacrifice.  They do not want the budget to be balanced on the backs of those people who are already hurting through massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, child care, nutrition, affordable housing, fuel assistance and environmental protection.  They want millionaires and billionaires to start paying their fair share in taxes, and they want the removal of massive loopholes which enable many large corporations to avoid taxes.  They also want a seriously significant reduction in military spending, ending the wars and closing of a large number of European and Asian bases left over from the Cold War, yet still open, funded and staffed (for what purpose?).

Republican leaders talk about three or four trillion dollars in spending cuts over the next ten years, with no new taxes on the wealthy and large corporations and unless we turn the tide NOW, they will get pretty much what they want.

Please understand what they mean.  While no specific proposals have been adopted as of this date, here are some of the ideas which have been discussed.

SOCIAL SECURITY:  Revising the formula which determines cost of living increases (COLAs) so that in ten years, a 75-year-old will receive $560 a year less in benefits and in 20 years an 85-year-old will receive $1,000 a year less.  Further, another provision which would require that Social Security always be solvent for 75 years would likely mean even larger cuts in benefits.  All of this would take place despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit and has a $2.6 trillion surplus today.  This new formula would also cut back on the pensions of veterans.  You and I have paid into Social Security throughout our entire careers and have planned our retirement savings based on certain expectations.  Now the GOP wants to move the goal posts.  They’ve even gone so far as to suggest increasing the full retirement age which would deny full benefits to many physical labor workers whose bodies just won’t allow them to work to that age, or who will be terminated late in their careers by their employers as their productivity levels fall below some arbitrary standard, so those employers can hire younger, more virile workers, at potentially some lower wage.

MEDICARE:  Raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 and/or cutting benefits by $250 billion over ten years.  Now you tell me, how are 66 year old Americans with modest means going to afford health insurance with a private company – especially if they have medical problems?  It’s not going to happen.  They are going to suffer.  Some will unnecessarily die.  What’s going to happen to those of us who are covered by our employer’s insurance plans until age 65 when Medicare is supposed to kick in?  Will be forced into COBRA situations where we would have to pay 102% of our employer’s premium cost to continue that insurance until Medicare kicked in?  Would they change the COBRA law such that it spanned that 2-year period?

MEDICAID:  At a time when 50 million Americans already have no health insurance, Republicans and some Democrats are proposing to cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid which means that many men, women and children will lose what little health care opportunities they might have.  According to a Harvard University study, some 45,000 Americans die each year because they don’t get to a doctor when they should.  How many more will die if Medicaid is slashed?  How many children will be thrown off of the Children’s Health Insurance Program?  Is this the GOP version of Death Panels and public policy?  Die Quickly?

EDUCATION:  Today, childcare and college education are already unaffordable for millions of working families and Head Start has long waiting lists.  If Republicans and some Democrats get their way, Pell grants and other educational programs will be deeply slashed.  Affordable childcare and a college education will no longer be possible for many families in our country.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE:  Forget about the government having the ability to protect the people from corporations who want to evade regulations within the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.  With massive cuts in the EPA, the resources will not be there.  Forget about this country having the investment capability to transform our energy system to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.  Forget about creating millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and improving our public transportation system.  Look forward to “fracked” water tables full of carcinogens, chemicals harmful to human existence, and natural gas sufficient to enable you to light off your water faucet and use it to make Smores for the kiddies.

At a time of growing hunger in America there will be massive cuts to nutrition programs.  We have a crisis in homelessness, and there will be cuts to affordable housing.  While we need more funds for research and development in disease prevention and other areas, fewer funds will be available.  And on and on it goes.

Yes, the time is late, but we can still make a huge difference.  

We need to stand up behind those who are advocating for a deficit reduction plan which is fair, which requires the wealthy and large corporations to begin paying their fair share of taxes and contribute at least 50 percent toward any plan which is adopted.  We also need to  demand that Congress take a hard look at excessive military spending, closing a large number of the unnecessary Cold War bases across Europe and Asia, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a much more expeditious manner.

This nightmare can be avoided, if, as progressives, we continue to stand together for social justice and common decency.

National Call-In Days: July 14-15

Your Social Security benefits are under attack by politicians in Washington. They want to:

• Cut Social Security’s Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) to reduce the deficit. But Social Security doesn’t contribute a penny to the deficit.
• Raid Social Security by using your contributions to give a tax break to Wall Street banks, Big Oil and other corporations.

They shouldn’t get another taxpayer handout. Social Security belongs to you. You pay for it in every paycheck. Don’t let them cut it or raid it!

Call both Senator Reid’s office and Senator Heller’s office on Thursday and/or Friday, July 14-15.

• Senator Reid:  1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)  [calls accepted only from 775 & 702 area codes]
• Senator Heller:  202-224-6244

Tell them:

• NO cuts to Social Security!
• NO cuts to Social Security’s COLA!
• NO Social Security payroll tax holiday!

I’ve already written twice and called once, but I’ll be calling again to let them know that Social Security does not and has not contributed to the budget deficit, nor has it contributed to the burgeoning national debt.  It is not allowable to raid the funds we’ve contributed throughout our lifetimes, expecting to receive some benefit in the future, only to find that they’ve been pillaged and left us with dramatically lower benefits or worse, nothing at all.

I was married to a wonderful man for 29 years.  He was self-employed and thus had to contribute both the employee and employer contributions to Social Security.  That was money that went to Social Security and not into our household coffers.  He passed on at 59 and I remarried at the age of 54, before reaching the magic age of 60.  That means that I have to forfeit any claim to his social security.  So, as far as I’m concerned, I’ve already forfeited enough and they just can’t have any more!

Call their offices this Thursday or Friday and tell them your story, why you think raiding Social Security is a bad idea and what consequences it will have on your vote at the polls next year.

Last Word Interview with Senator Reid

We may live in Nevada and Harry Reid may be our Senator, but it’s not all that often that we get the chance to sit down and listen to Harry.  Here’s a link to Lawrence O’Donnell full interview with Harry Reid ….. Harry Reid Interview