Can Obama Do For Big Business With Social Security What Clinton Delivered For Them With "Free" Trade?

One of the ways Obama started losing his base of support among activists, the blogosphere and grassroots Democrats was by appointing what Digby dubbed "the Cat Food Commission" and what Obama and his corporate financial backers call the Deficit Commission. President Bipartisan-- how did that work for him-- apparently believed whatever hogwash he was being fed that he was the man who could overcome the third-rail stigma of tampering with Social Security. Wrong. I'd rather see the Republicans his lame calculations and inept staff saddled us with impeach him now than have them start the process the Republicans have been clamoring for for 75 years-- the dismantling of Social Security. The official commission report is due out December first but at a press conference yesterday the two conservative Obama appointed chairmen, Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles, presented their proposal (basically, deep cuts in Social Security benefits plus raising the retirement age for working people so that long-lived plutocrats and other social parasites can pass more of their wealth along to their undeserving progeny), which has been widely, thoroughly-- and deservedly-- trashed. It isn't the final report and other commission members are already disowning it, but it's out there, sitting and sticking up the room and further tarnishing the Democratic brand Obama and Emanuel have all but destroyed.

Before we get into the specifics, please recall two things-- one, that Obama seems to be trying to follow a path Bill Clinton took when he did Big Business' bidding on what George H.W. Bush had failed (NAFTA and the start of a process to de-industrialize the United States in pursuit of a concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people; and two, that progressives have offered perfectly logical, fair solutions to bolstering Social Security, some of which are outlined in this letter economist Dean Baker sent mouthy corporate Dem Kent Conrad.

On Election Day, Democracy for America commissioned a poll of voters who voted in the midterms which moves along the narrative that Obama's Cat Food Commission report is DOA:

• 85% of voters polled are opposed to cutting Social Security

• 2010 Midterm Voters support changing the Social Security tax cap over cutting benefits by 55% to 4%

• Republicans, by a margin of 2 to 1, support changing the Social Security tax cap over raising the retirement age.

The proposal from the two hapless chairmen are also recommending other GOP dream options, like cutting health care benefits for veterans, cutting student loan funding and, always popular among that set, eliminating funding for PBS. Before we get into the reactions from savvier political leaders than Obama, let;s take a look at what Paul Krugman had to say. It may sting Obama, busy at the moment in South Korea furthering corporate/Republican plans to enrich outsourcing manufacturers at the expense of American working families. I have no idea why these idiots talk about impeaching him. He's doing a better job moving their agenda along than Bush did. Anyway, here's someone who earned a Nobel Prize:

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future-- and there’s good reason to be-- you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies-- goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.
I mean, what’s this about? There is no-- zero-- evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.

Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer-- except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.

Perhaps more important, albeit more diplomatic, was the thumbs down the proposals received from Speaker Pelosi (if not from the Blue Dogs who probably admire them as much as the GOP does).

This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America’s middle class families–under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who Blue America is urging to challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries next year, was far more scathing than just "simply unacceptable."

The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people. The huge increase in the national debt in recent years was caused by two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout. Unlike Social Security, none of these proposals were paid for. Not only has Social Security not contributed a dime to the deficit, it has a $2.6 trillion surplus. 
 
“It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.
 
“Despite all of the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security can pay every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 29 years and after that about 80 percent of benefits. 
 
“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.
 
“With the richest people in this country getting richer and the middle class in decline, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the Social Security system as someone who earns $106,800.”

It just got worse and worse (for conservatives and reactionaries) as the day went on. Congressman Raúl Grijalva, chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

“If the co-chairs of the deficit commission were dead set on gutting Social Security and Medicare from the beginning, they could have saved time and effort by releasing this proposal the day after the commission was formed. Instead, we have waited through nine months of backroom negotiations only to be told that the American people will have to tighten their belts another notch while defense spending continues to grow and corporate bonuses continue to expand.
 
"The path this plan would set is not good for the public. Congress should be having a realistic, productive conversation right now about how to reduce our budget deficit and maintain a secure retirement system for those who have earned it. Instead, we’re debating a proposal from a commission dedicated to cutting crucial social programs and reducing corporate and upper-income taxes at the same time. This is not a recipe for a healthier American economy.
 
"Real budget reform must begin by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of earners to expire, as they were always designed to do. This would reduce the debt by at least $680 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Department of the Treasury. The middle class has already been hit extremely hard by the ongoing economic downturn and the housing crisis. The last thing we should do is take more money out of their pockets in the name of a conservative tax cut agenda that favors the wealthy over the rest of us.”

It doesn't look like Jerry Nadler cared much for it either:

“The recommendations released today in the Fiscal Commission’s chairmen’s mark are a recipe for economic disaster and social regression. With some exceptions, the recommendations read like the wish lists of right-wing conservatives for the last 50 years. I will vehemently oppose their attempts to weaken vital programs for Americans, to dismantle the safety net created by Social Security, and to make our tax system more burdensome to the middle-class and less burdensome to the rich.
 
“Increasing the retirement age is a terrible idea and would lead to serious reductions in benefits when our seniors need them most.  It simply isn’t necessary to tinker with Social Security, which will be solvent for the foreseeable future and adds nothing to the federal deficit. 
 
“Furthermore, the chairmen’s proposal to reduce tax rates for the wealthiest Americans will solve none of our problems, other than kowtowing to the ranks of the billionaires’ club.”

Obama isn't all that popular with the people who will support this load of crap and unless he expects the South Korean and Indian businessmen he's sending American jobs to finance his reelection campaign, he'd better get real about supporting middle class Americans and leave the millionaires to their own party. John Conyers, one of the most respected and admired members of Congress sent Obama a polite warning yesterday: “The set of policy recommendations issued today by the Co-Chairmen of the Commission are incredibly out of touch with the needs and priorities of Americans, young and old. This report does a disservice to current efforts to address our country’s very serious fiscal problems by focusing on cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other critical programs without seriously considering the costs associated with our bloated defense budget and a tax structure that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and powerful. For the 136 Members who recently signed a letter to the President opposing all cuts to Social Security, which I authored with Representatives Raúl Grijalva of Arizona and Dan Maffei of New York, this proposal is a non-starter.”