Here are two numbers that should warm the heart of anyone who wants to end sectarian bickering and build a bipartisan consensus for change:
68% of likely voters polled believe that we should not cut Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit.
60% of Republicans agree.
These figures are from a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner on behalf of the Campaign for America's Future and DemocracyCorps, with support from MoveOn.org. They tell us that the Democrats have a winning issue for November's elections. All they have to do is strongly reaffirm the President's campaign pledges for Social Security.
As Robert Borosage explains, the poll shows overwhelming support for a progressive political agenda not unlike the one described by President Obama last year as a "New Foundation" for growth. There are those who have suggested that the Democrats should downplay progressive policies, because only 20% of people polled describe themselves as "liberals." But these numbers show that there's overwhelming support, often even among Republicans, for policies that are typically labelled "progressive." It turns out that the new political truism is correct: When it comes to good economic policy, the old labels of "left" and "right" don't apply.
We'll focus on Social Security here (see the Borosage piece for a broader discussion of the poll's implications). A recent AARP poll echoed Greenberg's findings: Voters strongly oppose Social Security cuts, and all segments (including younger voters) would rather pay more in taxes to protect their benefits. Democrats are sending a decidedly mixed message on this hot-button issue, and these poll findings show them a way forward. If the President reiterates his campaign promises -- lift the payroll tax cap, with no benefit cuts -- and if House and Senate candidates do the same, that could put them on the road to political recovery.
Voters across the board believe that Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts should not be used to balance the budget. 65% of voters polled support lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes (which currently apply to the first $106,000+ of income) rather than cutting benefits, while an equal number (65%) oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age for 65 to 67.
Voters also oppose increasing the Social Security retirement age, yet John Boehner floated the idea of raising it to 70. And he's not the only Republican on the anti-Social Security warpath: Rep. Paul Ryan's alternative economic plan would slash benefits from 16% to 28% long-term, while Dick Armey and a host of other Republicans are pushing for privatization plans that would cut guaranteed benefits.
You'd think this would be a winning issue for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi apparently agrees, since House Dems have made Social Security a core campaign theme for House Dems this year. The GOP assault on Social Security may help explain why, despite a terrible economy and the anti-incumbent trend for off-year elections, the Republicans aren't getting much traction with voters. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that, in Ezra Klein's words, "voters don't like anyone." Their enthusiasm for both parties is low. They disapprove of the President by 48% to 47%, but -- in an intriguing finding -- 58% say he's doing about as well as expected and 12% say he's doing better than expected.
The implication of the NBC/WSJ poll is that voters don't believe that anybody in Washington is representing them. That's understandable: The Greenberg poll shows widespread hostility toward Social Security benefit cuts, yet virtually everybody in one party wants to cut them while the other party is sending mixed messages.
Speaker Pelosi has been trying to pull her party in the right direction. She made a good statement when the annual Trustees Report was released, and her comments at Netroots Nation were powerful and effective: "When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you're talking about apples and oranges." Yet her statement last month on the topic seemed a bit more ambiguous: "We remain dedicated, in FDR's words, to providing 'some measure of protection' to our workers for the long term."
And, at the same time, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has been strenuously undercutting the Speaker's position on this issue. He's been saying things like "everything needs to be on the table" in Social Security discussions. Raising the eligibility age is a benefit reduction -- as Dean Baker explains, raising the retirement age to 70 would be a 15% benefit cut. Yet Hoyer continues to express sympathy for the idea, and has even goes so far as to express openness to privatizing the plan (which would have left many seniors destitute if Bush had succeeded in implementing it in 2005).
The Greenberg poll suggests that beleaguered Congressional Democrats would benefit from defending Social Security, and in Shermanesque terms. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Chair of the Social Security Subcommittee, offers a good example of how it can be done. "Even a phased-in adjustment in the age would change the terms of the deal," says Pomeroy. "That is completely unacceptable... it would be a breach of faith with 53 million present ... recipients and tens of millions to follow." That message will resonate strongly with Congressional voters this fall -- including Republicans and independents. More Dems should follow Pomeroy's lead.
The President's has an ambiguity problem on this issue, too. His Deficit Commission has become a political liability for him, since its chairs persist in sending the signal that Social Security cuts are on the table for them -- and therefore implicitly for the President. Even more "moderate" Commission members are stoking fears about the program while taking Candidate Obama's preferred solution -- raising the tax cap -- off the table.
The President himself was explicit about his intentions for Social Security during the campaign. He called for lifting the cap on payroll taxes, which would solve Social Security's (relatively minor) financial problems for the foreseeable future, and explicitly rejected either benefit cuts or raising the retirement age. These new poll results show he got it exactly right.
Social Security offers an opportunity for Democrats to persuade swing voters while at the same time reassuring and pleasing their base. Robert Gibbs' "professional left" controversy led to him to make the comment, presumably on behalf of the White House, that liberals in Obama's base will show up to vote in 2010. But will they? While Democrats still approve of the President by a vast majority, Gallup's tracking polls for the last nine months show him slipping from a high point of 87% to 80%, a 7-point drop. Approval among self-described liberals, a core Obama constituency, has slipped from a high of 80% to the current 72%. 71% of Democrats oppose raising the retirement age to 70, while 65% want to see the payroll cap raised - and the vast majority of those who hold these opinions feel "strongly" about it.
Imagine: Politicians can energize and reinforce their base, while at the same time attracting indepentents and persuadable members of the other party -- using the same issue. It's like a gift from the gods. All it takes to accept that gift is firmness and clarity.
Senate Democrats met recently to reinforce their campaign strategy against the Republicans: "Contrast, contrast, contrast." They were handed pocket cards that highlighted their talking points: "Democrats are on the side of the middle class." The ideal way to support their strategy, and their party's overall goals, is by defending Social Security - clearly, unequivocally, and forcefully.
That's the political dimension of this issue. But the best news of all is this: It's good policy, too.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at rjeskow@ourfuture.org.
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Jesse Kornbluth: Dick Armey Has a New Book. It's More Like His Legal Defense.
These days, money is not Armey's problem; his movement is. Arizona's anti-immigration law was struck down, Proposition 8 has been overturned, and another liberal woman is on the Supreme Court.
Rep. Joe Baca: Protecting Social Security on Its 75th Anniversary
For 75 years, Social Security has never been a day late or a dollar short. We must preserve Social Security for generations to come, and strongly reject all attempts to privatize and dismantle it.
And you're right, the Democrats should seize it with an iron fist and hold it up before every pair of old eyes in this country and then point at the Republicans and say "They want to take it away from you. They think you're old and addled and so they use words like "tweak it" and "minor adjustment" but what they're really saying is that they want to take it away. But perversely - they want you to help them do it! By giving them your vote. Show them there's wisdom in age and make them feel stoopid for trying to fool you."
They should crack this like a whip. My parents are dependent on their social security - and yes they are Republicans. (I forgive them. They gave me life. And a dog. And Christmas.) But if they get wind of what the Republicans are up to, if it's hammered in no uncertain terms, while there's no way they're going to vote for a Democrat it is entirely possible that they'll just stay home. And I suspect they're not alone.
So we do see real change from Democratic wins.
Social Security is an historical Democratic Party originated and implemented legislation....
....and partisan republicans hate that it makes the Democratic Party perpetuate it's image for looking out of vulnerable Americans....
That's why we are even having this discussion at all.
They want to "fix" it right into the bank accounts of themselves and their buddies.
There is not enough talk about cutting the defense budget that kills people all over the world, does not make us safer, creates few jobs, poisons the environment, wastes fuel at enormous rates, and does not make us safer. Did I mention it does not make us any safer? (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, propane bomber).
The defense budget is discretionary spending but legislators are not using enough discretion when it comes to voting down this wasteful spending.
The military budget IS VOTED on every single frickin year. That makes it discretionary, because approval is at the discretion of the legislative body.
This is not my opinion, it is a fact.
Please go to nationpriorities.org and sign up for one of the many free webinars that are offered and learn about the budget. You will be glad you did.
However, an equally important part of this campaign of lies has been the collusion between the two parties to never mention how much money both parties have stolen from government trust funds over the last two decades. Here are the horrible details which have been hidden from the U.S. public.
A total of $4.2 trillion has been pillaged from U.S. government trust funds. However $3.4 trillion of those thefts have taken place during the last 17 years (1991 – 2008), with amount that is being stolen this year not yet known. an average theft of $200 billion per year. This lying is already serious enough to constitute a national scandal, but it gets worse.
There no provisions in future government budgets to ever repay the trillions that have been stolen.
http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3709:us-government-squanders-trust-funds&catid=47:us-commentary&Itemid=132
I do believe that since people have paid into the fund and have been told they can expect benefits from the fund that they should in fact be paid benefits.
If the treasury is low on cash then congress should take back the power to print money - take it away from the Central Bank (FED) and print the money itself !!!
I don't really trust the Central Bank or the international monetary fund. They create money with a mouse click, print it out, and then loan it. Why should we let them do that? And then the FED buys T bills and bonds from the government with the money they just printed up. The whole thing is really screwy. The government has to take our tax dollars, the REAL MONEY that we earned with the sweat of our brow and trade it for the fake money that the FED printed up with a mouse click. Then whoooooshh! the real money is gone!
Where did it go?
In my book, "New Century New Deal", I outline some of the problems facing the U.S. Social Security system. Both the system and the individual savers need to transition to a more funded program. However, the risks of a market-based system are more apparent now than a decade ago, http://www.wealthvest.com/blog/category/wade-dokken.
Wade Dokken
http://www.wealthvest.com
Part D is the only reason Medicare is in trouble. Bush put it there to bankrupt Medicare.
BTW I'm 60 and I don't want the benefit. Most drugs are ineffective or even harmful.
Disagree? That's your right. Taxpayers have the right not to pay for your habit.
Doesn't sound like such a spooky Boogie Man. Again, it defies common sense to be fearful of "better conditions." Hell, a person who's not a progressive could be considered a regressive, and that seems to me to be one who wishes to worsen. Now, who in their sane mind wants to worsen their condition???
What a weird puzzle the human mind is!
Well, not quite all. There are any number of Republicans claiming they want to "save" Social Security, but it's important they get nailed both on the specifics of such "saving," such as Boehner's proposal to raise the age of eligibility to, like, death, and for the hypocrisy of those such as Angle, who only months ago was advocating for its elimination.
I'd also be careful about any campaigning relying too heavily on any "pledge" of Obama's.
If means testing becomes a reality, you have to admit that saving for retirement looks a little foolish. Mind you, I'm not negative on Social Security, it is a good thing. But penalizing people for planning and being responsible for their entire lives is the same thing as rewarding people who were fools with their money.
Most people die long before they ever get out of SS what they put into it. Raising the retirement age to 70 virtually guarantees that most men will die before they see a dime of their own money back and most women would only enjoy about 5 years worth of the benefits they have paid for all their lives.
Politicians are playing games, because they want ever more of that money in their own hands.