Will Republicans Fire Public Servants?

The Senate is voting this morning on a jobs bill that includes state funding for Medicaid, teachers and other public servants. The bill in question has been written to the specifications of alleged Republican moderates Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both from Maine. Spending has been cut from previous versions. Not only is it deficit neutral, it reduces the deficit (albeit by a small amount).  There is literally no remaining reason for Snowe and Collins to vote against it, other than being in lock-step with the Republican caucus and their desire to stop any legislation that will help working Americans.

The ad above is by Americans United for Change. I think it’s great. It’s about time Republicans pay a political price for their obstructionism, which is forcing their constituents to feel greater and greater economic pain.

I’m a fairly pessimistic person when it comes to expectations for Congress to get things done, but even the thought of Snowe and Collins rejecting this bill utterly appalls me.

Bruce Webb vs Paul Ryan

There’s a lot of talk lately about Republican Representative Paul Ryan and his intellectual chops, especially when it comes to the deficit and entitlement spending. Bruce Webb gives a serious look at Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” (something it seems almost no media outlets have bothered to do) and basically tears it to shreds. Webb concludes:

Ryan Roadmap: Cut taxes on the rich, increase taxes on the poor. Now that is tax simplification we can all believe in! (Not).

Webb’s deconstruction is so thorough, a parenthetical “not” at the end isn’t sufficiently ironic.

Galbraith: Expand Social Security, Medicare

James Galbraith, one of the staunchest defenders of  Social Security, has an op-ed in The Daily Beast that is definitely worth a read for those trying to contextualize arguments about the economic crisis, job creation, entitlements, and those hawking deficit concerns.  A key point Galbraith makes is that we are not in an ordinary recession, but “We’ve suffered a major collapse of the financial system.” Despite this, Galbraith points out ” There simply is no funding problem for the U.S. government, and in the real world of financial markets, none is foreseen.” The best way out of the current unemployment troubles, Galbraith convincingly argues, is not by cutting but expanding Social Security and Medicare. Lowering the retirement age would allow millions of older workers to retire, creating new jobs for young workers while giving older workers a reliable stream of income for the rest of their lives in Social Security. Similar benefits exist for expanding access to Medicare for younger workers. Galbraith concludes:

Care for the elderly, energy, climate change, the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe, our decayed infrastructure, public health—these are real issues. Let’s deal with them. The “long-term budget deficit” is a phony problem, ginned up by politicians, some economists, and the historic enemies of Social Security and Medicare on Wall Street. For God’s sake, let’s not sacrifice our most successful social programs to the hysteria we’re hearing from them.

This sort of message is critically important. Galbraith has been key in banging the Address Real Problems drum, as have people like Bob Herbert, Duncan Black and Paul Krugman. Moreover, as the deficit hawking heats up, having a sensible frame to talk about growing, not shrinking, entitlements is really important. Galbraith is a persuasive advocate and a voice who should be amplified.

Is the Fed Scared?

This post at Economics of Contempt puts forth an interesting theory that the Fed isn’t taking more action, including trying something unorthodox, because they worry that politicians will harshly criticize them. Of course, as Economics of Contempt notes, if the Fed isn’t acting as they are able to as an independent body because of political fears, then the Fed really isn’t independent.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the version of history in the post which says the Fed was successful “bailing out AIG, establishing currency swap lines, supporting the money market funds.” Sure, they saved Wall Street, but unemployment has dramatically increased from 2008 to now — from 6.2% to 9.5%. If the economy has taken a massive hit in real terms, how well did the Fed succeed? Not well, as it created a depression.

Also, it’s a nice trick if it is the case that the Fed won’t act out of fear of being criticized of politicians. As we see with the deficit hawks, politicians must set policy out of fears of vengeful bond traders, while the Fed must avoid action for fear of what vengeful politicians might say.

Primaries Are Good, But…

I think primaries are really good, healthy things for both democracy broadly and the Democratic Party specifically. In my home state of Connecticut, there’s a heated primary going on between grassroots hero Ned Lamont and Stamford mayor Dan Malloy. It’s not that it’s a close race – Ned is well ahead of Malloy and is likely going to win the primary by double digits. But Malloy has been spinning some of nastiest, negative attacks I’ve seen in a Democratic primary since, well, Joe Lieberman was attacking Ned Lamont in 2006. CT Bob has a post up today that covers the recent mud Malloy is throwing and puts Dan in his place for doing it. What’s so shocking and depressing about Malloy’s attacks is that they are verbatim the same ones Lieberman used against Ned in 2006 and every single one was refuted by facts then. That is, despite the fact that he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination, Malloy is repeating Lieberman’s attacks and he has to know that they’ve been proven false already. As Bob writes, “Malloy is running the most cynical and dishonest campaign I’ve ever seen.” This is scorched earth stuff and it’s not good for Connecticut nor is it good for the Democratic Party.

Build A Larger Case

Greg Sargent is right:

All I’m saying is that raging against successful Republican efforts to block individual Dem initiatives isn’t enough. Raging about GOP obstructionism in general isn’t enough, either. The point is that Dems need to build an effective larger case that transcends individual issues and reckons more directly with the strategy underlying all the GOP obstructionism. That’s all I’m saying.

Blaming the GOP and obstructionism for failure to achieve your agenda is not effective. Passion, as demonstrated by Rep. Weiner, is refreshing. But beyond wonks in the blogosphere, I don’t see it as being adopted as part of the larger assessment of who each party is and what they do.

Krugman

It’s pretty rare for me to find a blog post, let alone a full opinion column, that I agree with pretty much word for word. But today’s column by Paul Krugman is pretty much it for me. Krugman shows a magnificent understanding of the Obama administration’s behavior and how it has generated a disappointed base. But what makes Krugman’s column important isn’t that he adequately describes progressive pessimism about Obama, but that he sincerely tries to show the administration how their course of actions has been counterproductive and resulted in smaller achievements and more frequent defeats. Krugman is clearly a person who wants Obama and this administration to succeed; I hope the White House can view this column as being written in good faith and with the best of the country in mind.

It’s also worth pointing out Krugman’s endorsement of Elizabeth Warren to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He makes the case for Warren and also points out that if the administration does not nominate her to run the CFPB, it’s likely that it will serve as a microcosm for ways in which the administration has disappointed progressives.

It’s really interesting to watch the progressive online community pay this close attention to Warren and the CFPB. When I was working on Chris Dodd’s presidential campaign, in 2007 and early 2008, Tim Tagaris and I theorized that beyond ending the war in Iraq  and Bush’s attacks on civil liberties, the biggest issue that consistently drew blog outrage was the bankruptcy bills. Progressive blogs were able to watch and comment on fundamentally unfair and corporatist legislation. In many ways, progressive opposition to the bankruptcy bills of 2002-2005 is a perfect encapsulation of progressive values. Then the blogs were largely older, whiter, college educated and with incomes of over $70,000. And yet, economic legislation that would disproportionately hurt poor people and people of color was one of the most energizing issues in the blogs. I think a similar thing is happening now with the CFPB and Warren. It’s not just about appointing Warren, a proven advocate for the middle class; it’s about having government that works for the people. Separate from the specific policy and political implications of the CFPB fight, this is a great reminder to me of why I’m glad to be a member of the online progressive community.

Myth Busting Social Security Lies

Digby has posted an email from MoveOn wherein they bust up the top five myths conservatives are pushing about Social Security. Prometheus stealing fire is a myth. These are lies and should be treated as such.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Rumors of Social Security’s demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Can you check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers?

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits–and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly–since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market–which would have been disastrous–but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It’s not just wrong — it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.

This is really good stuff, and important too. Good job, MoveOn.

Filibuster Reform

Chris Bowers is doing really interesting work tracking votes in the Senate for meaningful filibuster reform. The post he has up today looks at the appearance of Democratic opponents to reform. The list is an interesting one, ranging from conservatives who tend to oppose progressives regardless the issue (Nelson, Pryor) to senators who benefit from having out-sized vote based on their state’s population (Tester).

It’s really interesting to watch a real movement towards filibuster reform emerge on the left. Outside of a smaller leadership footprint than we’d hoped with control of the White House and both bodies of Congress, the structural challenges in the Senate are probably the most visible obstacle to actual progressive governance in America. To change the filibuster, there has to be efforts to educate the public about the problems it causes. People think Washington is “broke” but this is an assessment that doesn’t look at how conservatives ensure the government breaks. So education is obviously important.

But the actual whipping of the Senate is where progressive activism can make a meaningful difference. Bowers is right that the reform movement does not have to be grounded in specifics now – different reform options will, at this point,  close off support from certain members. Fifty-one votes may be the most equitable solution, but that doesn’t mean it is the absolutely necessary definition of reform. We just need to un-foul the works and make it so the Senate majority can get things done in absence of a super majority.

Filibuster reform is going to be hard. Likely harder than passing a healthcare bill. There’s a structural window at the start of the next session, but if that is not made, then change is going to take a monumental amount of work. It’s good to see people regularly writing about it now. That in itself is a sign that there is momentum for reform.