Alice Rivlin

WASHINGTON -- Democrats who are staking the 2012 election in part on the charge that Republicans will "end Medicare as we know it" likely will join in...

WASHINGTON -- A powerful coalition of corporate executives on Wednesday praised a deficit reduction plan that has long been maligned by GOP leaders fo...

Burr and Coburn want you to believe that they can raise the Medicare eligibility age, make you pay more in premiums, turn your health care over to the same insurers that are bankrupting you before you're sixty-five -- and that somehow you'll save money!

We're seeing the demonization of the victim everywhere. It's in the public hatred for underwater homeowners and now reaches to the highest halls of power in both parties, where we told that helping struggling homeowners would be "rewarding the undeseverving."

WASHINGTON -- Democratic economist Alice Rivlin said Sunday the debt ceiling increase should be paired with a long-term plan for dealing with the defi...

When you strip away the verbiage, all of the economic triggers discussed in the budget debate would have the same basic outcome: They would cut government spending without asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes.

Back when I analyzed health plans and other benefits for a living, I asked a famous CEO what his goals were for the corporation's employee benefit plan. "I want to give them less and make them think it's more," he said.

A collection of senior lawmakers gathered at a Washington panel last Wednesday to reflect on the possibility of cooperation across party lines in the 112th Congress.

Tea Party acolytes had among their core message two principles: First, Congress should move quickly to end out of control deficit spending. Second, Congress should stop lying to the American people. Well, so much for that election.

You know what they always say: Pay now or pay later. Middle-class Americans may pay very dearly for the president's tax deal, and at the stage of life when they can least afford it.

Under Clinton, we went from a $290 billion deficit in 1992 to a $239 billion surplus in 2000 while creating over 20 million private sector jobs. That's no coincidence; job creation and deficit reduction are inextricably linked.

Tomorrow the deficit commission votes on its draft proposal. If it gets enough yes votes, it's likely to trigger a chain of events that will cost the president and his party dearly.

The deficit commission is releasing its report today, and its recommendations will be very different from those of the self-described "bipartisan" plans now dominating Washington conversations.

Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. But it can help decrease it, provided you have no moral qualms about raiding a Trust Fund created for people's retirement

Everyone talks about Democrats caving in to the GOP and right-wing talking points, but not many advocacy groups are effectively and visibly pushing back against the right-wing assault either.

Both "bipartisan" bodies claim that "tough decisions" must be made. Yet their policies are only really tough if you happen to belong to America's struggling working middle class.

The only way to get our fiscal house in order is by enacting a thoughtful, balanced program that includes spending cuts; reforms to medical, retirement, farm, and other programs; and revenue increases.

So-called "deficit hawks" like Kent Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century.

Cutting Social Security would be a policy disaster, and a new poll proves that it would be a political disaster, too.

I'd like to pose this question to everyone who has proposed cutting Social Security benefits: Why are you against this simple, clean, and popular idea? It's a sincere question. I'd really like to know.

Pissing off Alan Simpson may not be the most high-minded motive for executing one's civic duty, but like they say: Whatever works.