Voters Not Ready To Give Up Social Security For Cat Food And Vouchers Yet

With Boehner and his GOP cronies still howling about dismantling Social Security-- the way selfish, greed-driven conservatives have been doing since it started 75 years ago-- progressives are getting serious about fighting off the "let's all be friends and compromise" crowd around Obama. As it becomes clearer and clearer that Obama was more of a skilled orator than a strong, principled leader, progressives are fighting back against increasing pressure to stab working families in the back on the alter of increased tax breaks for multimillionaires and, worse, billionaires. I'm not advocating throwing them all into internment camps-- a right-wing tactic-- and confiscating their ill-gotten gains, unless it can be proven in a court of law that they've committed crimes. (Can I volunteer in advance for jury duty?) But I do want to commend Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) for leading the Progressive Caucus into taking a firm stand on Social Security. This is the letter they sent the two corporate shills Obama appointed to head his Cat Food Commission, which he stacked with anti-Social Security fanatics.

White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Attn: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

Dear Mr. Bowles and Sen. Simpson,

We write to express our strong opposition to any potential proposal from your commission that would undermine Social Security by reducing benefits, increasing the retirement age, or privatizing elements of the program.

Social Security runs an annual surplus of $100 billion, and is by law prohibited from incurring any debt that would contribute to the national deficit. Because Social Security is not the cause of our national deficit, attempts to reduce it by cutting benefits would be misguided.

For 75 years, Social Security has been a promise to the American people that if they work hard and pay their share, they will have a financially secure retirement. This promise includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), survivor benefits and retirement benefits. In communities across this country, Social Security benefits are often the only thing helping families maintain a decent standard of living. We will not allow the commission to reduce Social Security payments, especially during an economic downturn that has wiped out trillions of dollars in net worth around the country.

Any recommendations from your commission must be enacted by both houses of Congress. If any of those recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them.

With new polling coming out that shows the vast majority of Americans strongly oppose cuts to Social Security and other conservative shenanigans to further shift the burden of paying for the disasters of the ruling elites onto the backs of working families, even as radical right a Social Security hater as Nevada nut case Sharron Angle is trying to back away from her threats to destroy the program. Yesterday Campaign For America's Future released a study showing that "politicians will face major voter backlash if they advocate cuts in Social Security benefits or choose deficit reduction over job creation." If Democrats use that wisely-- they won't-- they could rid themselves of trouble from lots of Republicans and Blue Dogs in one shot.

At this difficult moment for the struggling economy and country, voters show an uncommon common sense about the choices ahead. For sure, they are concerned about deficits and what impact that will have on future job creation and key obligations, like Social Security. But they are as intent on learning politicians’ plans for investing in new industries and rebuilding the country as they are on learning their plans to reduce the deficit over the next five years. They think they know how we got into this mess-- foreign wars and bailouts-- and are determined that the highest income earners and big banks finance deficit reduction, not the middle class through Social Security and Medicare cuts or a national sales tax.

Voters take the long view, seeing the need for both a commitment to a 21st century economy and long-term strategies to reduce the deficit. These are complimentary, not exclusive goals. Progressives need to show they are serious about the deficits, but once they do, voters turn to them, not conservatives, for the right spending priorities and answers.

Voters are united on this key point: Social Security and Medicare are off-limits as a way to reduce the deficit. It is the threat to Social Security that leads many voters to prioritize deficit reductions. Voters instead want to see higher taxes on top income earners and big corporations.

As Social Security celebrates its 75th anniversary this week in the midst of this troubled economy, voters across the political divide want these programs defended.

At a point when deficits are very high and after almost two years of increased national spending, it is not surprising that there has been a reaction-- particularly as unemployment remains high, Washington seems unreformed and bailed out Wall Street banks are paying out million dollar bonuses again.

But what is surprising is voters’ support in the short-term to fund states to prevent service cuts and lay-offs, particularly when informed of the scale of the problem. What is more surprising is that voters are thinking about the long-term response with equal enthusiasm to a larger narrative of investment and economic renewal, with an aspiration to rebuild America with a new industrial revolution.

Some of the key findings from the latest poll from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future include:

• Right now, a plurality of 49 percent support providing more funding to states to prevent lay-offs-- jumping to 62 percent when told about the scale of public sector lay-offs due to the recession.

• Just as many, six-in-ten, give a favorable rating to a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years as to a plan for dramatically reducing the deficit.

• Voters say spending cuts for Social Security and Medicare should not be part of any deficit reduction plan by a wide 68 to 28 percent margin.

• Progressive proposals for deficit reduction-- ending tax breaks for corporations, raising taxes on Wall Street and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000-- win large majority support.

• By 52 to 42 percent, more voters prefer investing in the future over an alternative proposition for bold cuts in spending-- so long as it is combined with deficit reduction over time.

• Six-in-ten voters respond positively to a broad narrative focused on resolving our public investment deficit in infrastructure. This message focuses on investments in “roads, sewers, schools, trains, renewable energy and other basic parts of our communities.” Such investments would “create jobs, help business compete, improve our communities and generate revenues to pay down the deficit.” This message tests better than any other progressive message on investment as well as more conservative messages focused on spending cuts.

So take that John Boehner and Paul Ryan!