On Saturday, the group known as America Speaks (funded by Wall Street mogul Peter G. Peterson and two other foundations) brought together several thousand people in meetings in 18 cities. They gave participants misleading background information about the federal deficit and economic options to achieve fiscal "balance" and future prosperity.
Peterson cannot be pleased with the participants' mainly progressive policy choices, which will be presented on June 30 to the Deficit Commission that Peterson encouraged President Obama to create.
According to America Speaks' own press release, when a scientifically selected group of participants picked up their electronic voting devices, they overwhelmingly supported proposals to
This pretty progressive set of solutions emerged from the process many feared would be skewed to the solutions of conservative deficit hawks.
America Speaks was certainly not pushing the discussion in a progressive direction. The background materials -- and policy options -- provided to participants were anything but fair and balanced, as analysis by economist Dean Baker demonstrated. Most egregious were the following:
Social Security. America Speaks gave participants no explanation of the fact that Social Security has its own source of funding, and thus does not contribute a dime to the deficit. Americans actually have been paying extra payroll taxes to create a trust fund that will make sure full benefits can be paid for decades into the future -- and thus there is no rational reason to cut Social Security benefits (or raise the retirement age) in order to reduce the Federal deficit. But you wouldn't know that from the America Speaks materials or explanations. The Social Security program is simply presented as another big spending program and participants were presented with various ways to cut benefits. Given all this, a majority endorsed raising the retirement age for full benefits to 69 -- a benefit cut for future retirees. But they also chose the progressive plan to raise the cap on taxable earnings subject to Social Security taxes, thus producing income for the system from greater portion of higher income peoples' wages.
Medicare and Medicaid. The America Speaks background materials actually did acknowledge that the rising budgetary costs of Medicare and Medicaid are driven by the fact that our whole health care system is broken -- and costing both the private sector and government programs much more per person than in countries that have much better health outcomes. They even acknowledged that thoroughgoing reform -- like single-payer health care system -- is the only way to control those rising costs.
However, when it came to options the participants were allowed to vote on, they were all variations on how much people wanted to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits. At this point in the proceedings, the America Speaks founder and President, Carolyn Lukensmeyer had to acknowledge a rebellion in the ranks. People were demanding to have the option of voting for "single-payer" reform instead of cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and when she announced a complicated process of writing in that alternative, a roar of approval went up from the crowd in several locations. Their press release doesn't report how many people chose this difficult to select option, but the organization clearly had had to scramble to quell a revolt by participants. (Note: their press release states that people chose to "cut health care spending by at least five percent," but the choice was really to cut government health programs five percent -- and my reading of the charts online was that only 21 percent of participants chose that option, with 71 percent choosing "no change.")
Austerity vs Growth. Finally, the organizers had heard enough protests from the Economic Policy Institute and the AFL-CIO that they felt they had to assure the audience that they were not prioritizing deficit reduction over the need for economic stimulus to get the economy to start producing jobs. But after that ritual disclaimer, they went on to devote the vast majority of the day to deficits as our defining economic program.
David Dyen, an LA participant, wrote in a post on firedoglake,
"While the cumulative effect of all this tends towards social safety net cuts rather than tax fairness, the crowd in Los Angeles, at least, wasn't biting at first. In surveying the discussion groups, most people seemed more concerned about the desperate need for more stimulus spending to move the economic recovery forward... In the nationwide instant survey, taken by participants through electronic devices at all 19 America Speaks sites, 61% said the government needed to do more to strengthen the recovery, with only 25% opposed. Even with a push poll question asking if participants supported government programs to increase growth "if it increases the deficit," got a majority, 51%, of the nation-wide group of participants.
My next-day posting here -- claiming participants mostly rejected conservative nostrums -- is based on watching the process online, from reports from people who attended events around the country -- and on a fairly sketchy press release put out by America Speaks on Thursday, just after the town meetings. But America Speaks billed these events as a nation-wide scientific experiment in finding out what the "American people" think about the economic way forward. They are thus duty bound to publish a full report on the details of every single question -- and voting results -- that participants were asked to make decisions about. It is especially important that they put out this comprehensive report because they are also scheduled to summarize their findings before a special public meeting of the White House Deficit Commission on June 30. Only then can the people who participated in the process judge whether their surprisingly progressive decisions are being accurately presented to the Commission.
Note: Click here for a blog post on the Augusta, Maine America Speaks event by participant Barbara Burt, director of the Frances Perkins Center.
Follow Roger Hickey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rogerhickey
This is an S.O.S .for the Tier V Unemployment Benefits Movement for those five millions of unemployed Americans who cannot find work after searching for employment for 99 weeks and exhausted the current unemployment benefit limit.
For those Americans who would rather turn their head away or think it won't happen to them, think again. When you least expect it, like a year or so before you plan on retiring, it will happen.
One has to wonder if our elected officials, Senators, Congressmen, Jim McDermott and President Barack Obama, thought of offset costs when they evaluated their raises, vacations, and when they send our men and women to war around the world.
Five million Americans or 99ers don't know where to turn because they have exhausted all of their savings, 401K if they were lucky to put away, and now have no place to turn.
Why is it that our country was able to help immigrants from every country and now won't help the millions of Americans by passing thisTier V ?
The majority of these folks are from all walks of life and now range from 28 to 52 years old.
When will someone in Washington and the mainstream media take notice and ACT on our behalf?
Len Pasek
Supporter of the Tier V Unemployment Movement
If an Executive Order is necessary then the Leader of the Greatest Country on earth needs to do it.
Len Pasek
Supporter of the Tier V Movement & 99ers
http://www.ilwu.org/dispatcher/2004/05/social-security.cfm
THE FED LED! And NOW WE ARE TO TRUST BERNANKE (GREENSCAM ON STER01DS) to protect the Middle-Class+P00R Consumers? HA - WHAT A LAUGH!
GREENSCAM tried to STEAL For Wall Street ALL Remaining SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS starting in 2004 USING SCARE TACTICS! GREENSCAM started destroying SSFund in 1983 under REAGAN taking $MONEY WE Americans paid into FUND since 1938.
Since 1983 payroll taxes generated MASSIVE $1.46 TRILLION SURPLUS in SSFund (2005) because thanks to GREENSCAM recommending NO significant increase in SS benefits for 20+ years!
So where did that MASSIVE SURPLUS GO? WHO STOLE IT? IT's another MASSIVE THEFT BY THE RICH - a SCANDAL ONLY WALL STREET AND BP CAN SURPASS! $TRILLIONS SWINDLED FROM WORKING CLASS to BENEFIT THE RICH!
$TRILLIONS in surplus paid by workers was sucked out during Reagan to Bush ERA by the BANKSTERS' OWNED-CONGRESS.
Despite "LOCK-BOX" legislation on SSFund in 1990s OUR CORRUPT BANKSTER OWNED GOVERNMENT has been STEALING (“borrowing”) over the past 20 years to fund WARS for the RICH and TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH! The federal budget deficits of approximately $4 trillion from Reagan through George W. Bush (2005) and About $2.9 trillion of this went to tax cuts for the rich and for CORPORATE WELFARE another $1.1 TRILLION FOR FAKED WARS+TERORISM to FEED the RICH!
If there is a crisis in Social Security, it is a POLITICAL+CRIMINAL CRISIS, not a SSFund one.
WHEN DID SS THEFT HAPPEN:
Year Amount
1984 -$185.4 Billion
1989 -$152.4
1994 -$203.2
1999 -$125.6
2003 -$304.1
Total -$2.513 trillion
Take the money and run: RICH WANT TO KEEP THEIR 16.1% Tax Rate - LOWEST in CIVILIZED WORLD and Lowest since before GREAT Depression (1920's) - contributing to DEPRESSION!
From Reagan to Bush Regimes Consciously Planned BIG Chronic deficits enable RICH Owning class to steal BACK any WEALTH gains made by WORKING CLASS in their CLASS-WAR!
RICH Owning Classes prefer paying workers peanuts to work long hours in bad conditions, but NOW they're taking MONEY using this SCAM pushed through BANKSTER OWNED CONGRESS into LAWS APPROVING THEFT! Combined with LOWEST TAX RATE on RICH in CIVILIZED WORLD THE TRANSFER OF WEALTH IS ALMOST COMPLETED with FAKED 2008 CRASH of the MARKETS that Sucked out $TRILLIONS for the RICH!
BANKSTER RICH still want MORE MORE MORE = Social Security and Medicare FUNDS!
This THEFT combined with MASSIVE MILITARY DEFICITS ENRICHING the RICH and PRIVATIZATION THAT SUCKS OUT $TRILLIONS from Working Class to pay $1 Million/Soldier +$40/Cafeteria Breakfast +$100/Bag of Laundry +$500/Gallon of gas!
They are SUCKING THE MIDDLE-CLASS DRY while Buying CONGRESS+ MEDIA+ President+ ELECTIONS added to their FED OWNERSHIP and DEBT PRINTING to enslave the MASSES!
Naomi Klein Exposes the Origins and Intentions of the G20
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/57202
Sorry folks, I attended and it was a right wing 3 card monty game. It was obvious by the structure of the questions that were asked and how they were confined that these people want to cut spending, particularly for those who need it most.
They will use the meetings for some fake report that says "The American People" want to kill
Social Security/Medicare
( hint: it isn't because he's black)
This isn't a liberal/conservative argument. This foundation believes, as Lemieux states, in 'deliberative democracy.' Corporate money should control the markets and the government: what's best for them is what's best for America.
Look at their website list of 'partners.' http://www.americaspeaks.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=690&parentID=473&nodeID=1 Half way down you'll see the Rockefeller Foundations...that's David Rockefeller of JPMorgan/Chase and associated GS and Citi. Rockefeller is the real mastermind behind the US financial system, and it's a legacy business. His family started the Federal Reserve. He's been Volker's and Greenspan's mentor since time began.
This foundation needs hard workers desperately fighting for lower wage jobs while fervently believing capitalism means 'upward mobility' and 'the American Dream.' We should vote for Incumbents since they're already on the payroll. (Third party candidates are not 'employees,' yet. Registered independents don't so what either party says. These are major threats.)
What America Speaks and the huge corporations that back them don't want are protests, civil unrest, tax strikes, facebook pages, internet petitions, a constitutional convention, a well-organized movement to disband the Federal Reserve, and organized credit card, secured loan or mortgage strikes.
They're talking to us now because those corporations are scared of 'the little people' who are so angry. If they don't calm us down, the corporations could actually lose control of the government.
Choose wisely, Americans.
Come November.
The Republican US Supreme Court says unlimited money by anyone, (except foreign)
Karl Liar Liar Rove is running the anti Democrat program.
They have enough money to buy all the advertising time and completely block any Democrat ads.
Think of that!
Independents were the kingmakers Obama needed in 2008, and they're jumping ship. Party affiliations don't impress them, and no one can speak for what they will do in November.
As an Independent progressive in MD since 1990, I've consistently voted for my Democratic Incumbents (MD. Mikulski and Cardin, and Hoyer.) Having heard the lip service, read legislation for which they voted and their opensecrets.org campaign funding, I'm sure they represent corporate America as diligently and profitably as they can. I'm not in fear of 'what Republicans will do' - there's no difference between the two parties. I prefer Independent candidates, but I will choose each vote strategically to defeat these incumbents. In the true American spirit, I'll offer a new poor guy a chance to steal.
All my dems had to do was the right thing for the 99%. They have no one to blame but themselves. I'm only one vote. Oh, my old, retired Democratic neighbors and their adult children are also voting this strategy. Still, it's only a few votes, nothing for the Democrats to worry about...
I have worked with AmericaSpeaks on several projects, and I can say without reservation that they -- and esp. their Executive Director Carolyn Lukensmeyer -- are true believers in the power of deliberative democracy, not at all Right (or Left) -wing hacks.
If you want to fix the problem, you have to first identify the problem. Not a word about the real problems.
Understandable since the "message" has been entirely in the hands of the conservatives since 1981.
The concept of zero- based budgeting was never even hinted at. At present the government considers the budget of every department as presently constituted and adds or subtracts from it. What would be the result if every department had to thoroughly justify the efficacy of each of their expenses and programs and submit them to rigorous audit and examination? Then, in order to have their budget considered they had to start from ground zero and build their department anew with their current briefs and directives--rather than carry around decades old fiscal baggage--with every budget cycle.
This is also the was to enchant Conservatives, most of whom really don't hate government--just ineffective government.
I honestly didn't think "socialism" was this strong in America (I'm in Canada). Good for you and go get em.
The "facts" are that Americans when faced with insurmountable problems usually come together to solve them. Political party identification pales when faced with practical reality. If there is anything that makes us "exceptional" it is our ability to discuss options politely and rationally around a table and then take them to the voting booth. "A bas la lanterne" is not an American concept, nor will it ever be one.
The deficit is an incredibly complicated problem, and the people addressing it at these town halls were coming at it from a position of fairly profound ignorance. No one at my table except myself understood what depreciation was and why accellerating it would lead to greater production of the goods thus depreciated and jobs would be created thereby. Once I explained it, everyone changed their vote.
There are two distinct and opposing realities at work in this country at present. The first is that we do not have the money in the bank to afford the programs people want. The second is that not providing those programs is the quickest way to get unelected. Nowhere was this dichotomy in evidence more so than at the America Speaks townhall meetings.
There is not enough money in the universe that would make me even run for dogcatcher in this economy, but many of the formerly disinterested have developed a sudden passion for politics.
I attended the session in Silver Springs, MD. Not much of a turnout, but those present were clearly opposed to the way the options were skewed. I complained bitterly about the paucity of real "outside of the box" alternatives and that the Peterson folks are desperatly clinging to the disasterous options of those who wish to eviscerate SS and Medicare; regressive taxation and draconian cuts in people programs. None of the "moderators" were prepared to deviate from the master's (Peterson, et al) script.
I told the moderators that if there's another round of these "Town Hall" events before the recommendations are crafted it would be wise to include other alternatives for reducing debt and the deficit that eschew protection of permanent income streams for bankers.
They didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about so I spent a few minutes pointing them to Ellen Brown's web site. And I asked them to think about the question, why does the federal government pay interest on all of the money it's appropriated to improve the commons? Reaction---Deer---Headlights---Duhhhh.
Everyone who shares the view that the Peterson ploy remains an insult to Americans needs to post comments wherever they make their views known, write a letter to the editor, send an email to the sponsoring foundations, do something so that we don't have to put up with these Peterson flim flam, con artists, who spout Democracy and practice plutocratic demagogurey.
As for Medicare, even without controlling costs, the high cost of Medicare that is projected will be less than the increase in earnings that is also projected, so you won't be any worse off ... in fact you will have twice as much money after taxes as you do today, plus having all that expensive medical care paid for in advance.
But you really have to understand where your money is going, and not be scared silly by the way Peterson and the media distort the numbers.
Neither raising the cap nor raising the retirement age are good solutions, despite the fact the people have been sold them. Raising the cap just turns Social Security into welfare and sets it up for killing later on. Raising the retirement age is cruel and stupid. You don't know that you will want or be able to work when you get to be 65 let alone 69, however long you are going to live. And since you can pay for your retirement in advance... however long you live... there is no reason you should change the law to deny people the option of retiring. Especially since the poorest people are not going to be living as long as the richest.
The cost of paying for the longer life expectancy would be an increase in the payroll tax amounting to 20 cents per week each year. And yes that does add up to "15 Trillion Dollar Unfunded Deficit Over the Infinite Horizon." Unfunded only because we haven't decided yet to raise the tax. The only way Peterson gets his huge deficits is by pretending we will be too stupid to pay for what we need. He could be right.
There better be a rebellion on this!
Most businesses, mine included, gave their employees a choice. Vote someone off the island or relinquish benefits--mine included. While this is a small business we are also a unique family. We do what is needful to help our employees first and foremost. Keeping our clients happy guarantees our paychecks.
You want to blame someone? Blame any entity be it consumer, client, union, investor, founder or venture capitalist which did not adequately respond to adverse economic conditions and retrench while it was still an option.
Just how much blame should a business bear for a failed economic policy beginning with NAFTA? In case you don't know what an authentic victim looks like, may I draw your eyes to American small business?
I can't recall such an instance. Don't be shy in providing links to material demonstrating efficacious deficit hawk activity.