Why are Americans unaware of the people oriented deficit reduction plan of Jan Schakowsky?
While her deficit reduction plan has been forgotten by Americans and Simpson-Bowles is now the start of the show that should seem like an important question. The answer is as complicated as you want it to be but the question that should be addressed at a Democratic website is "Where does Democratic leadership stand?"
Even though Jan Schakowsky did a grand tour of PBS, NPR, the left wing television media, got much newspaper coverage and even some supportive coverage from CNN, the Republicans never even needed to argue. When all was said and done instead of pointing out that Alan Simpson's claim of "harpooning every whale" had only "stabbed the minnows to death" Dick Durbin used his national television time in acknowledgment of the false claim that American retirees represent the problems Americans face. A Democratic leader and the the senior Senator from Jan Schakowsky's state praised Simpson with not a word about a Democratic plan presented by a fellow commission member.
Do you feel the disappearance of the good actions of Rep. Jan Schakowsky is about the media or does it represent an action item for Democratic constituents to address Democratic leadership?
Most of us know what Rep. Jan Schakowsky presented on November 16th. A plan to reduce the deficit by $427.75 billion by 2015, surpassing the president's $250 billion target. There was deep reductions in military spending by cutting unnecessary weapons systems and reducing troop levels. She called for a rise in corporate taxes on companies that outsource jobs, as well as eliminating various corporate tax breaks. It is (or was) a plan that, unlike the cat food commission, would not burden the middle class or penalize older Americans. Her plan included proposals to raise taxes and modify Social Security without changing the benefits it pays out. It is already too late for ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and creating a new energy tax through the cap-and-trade system seems like a nonstarter now but is all sounded so Democratic. The plan also called for a much needed $200 billion stimulus plan and still reduced the deficit but it seems to be forgotten already.
Obviously none of these items stand a chance with a Republican House but did it all need to leave the national debate? Instead all we are hearing about now is a class warfare fix for Social Security where the poor who die younger get the short end. How did it come about that the only answer left is a deeply conservative so called bipartisan document that offers cutting and flattening income tax rates with sharp reductions in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Can We change that?
The first place for Democratic activist to start is the upcoming State of the Union address. John Amato has a post at Crooks and Liars today Will President Obama keep his promise to strengthen Social Security in upcoming SOTU?
It's been leaked that the SOTU will focus at least partially on the deficit so we need to make our feelings known about Social Security made very clear. I think we have been doing so, but we have to keep it up.
With the Simpson/Bowles Commission findings far from dead and getting daily attention from the media where does your confidence stand? President Obama might treat Social Security like a third rail but as Meteor Blades pointed out last night, it is not looking good. Those same people who have been working for education cuts, no investments in job growth and keeping tax cuts for the rich in place have been controlling the debate. There are indications starting with defending Alan Simpson for multiple blunders, through the pay freeze for federal workers and then the Social Security payroll tax holiday, that the President is planning on addressing the Republican controlled narrative by fixing Social Security to save us from republicans fixing it. There is much fear now that we will be hearing a Presidential speech about how the Republicans held Social Security hostage with the debt ceiling and Americans losing in a budget compromise.
Contacting the White House either by email or dialing 202-456-1111 to make your feelings know about a Presidential compromise on Social Security is certainly not counterproductive. Now is the time to ask if the President is going to lead by defending retirees who are already suffering. Will he follow the example of Harry Reid and go further by pointing out that this is not reducing government spending but assaulting retirees who are only getting $14,000 per year with ever increasing medical cost eating more and more of that tiny income. Democratic voters need that sort of leadership now instead of feeding into the message of people like Pete Peterson.
While there doesn't seem much room for Democratic voters to sway the Obama administration and fixing Social Security will probably not change the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, there are people who can change that speech and it is the people with the most influence. Elected Democrats are the most vulnerable when it comes to assaulting a popular government program that only three percent of the nation want reduced. Now is the time to contact your Senator or Congressperson to ask where they stand because voters feel like something is missing and judging by the national debate, they have ever right to feel betrayed. So ask if they are willing to change the narrative. Ask what they are willing to do at the level of the press. Ask if they will give some of their time and efforts to Jan Schakowsky's plan to reduce the deficit.
The cat food commission as a bipartisan feature act will of course benefit the Republicans. Not only are Democrats who support Social Security cuts going to suffer in 2012, those who remain mute will too. The Democratic leaders already know that sitting this one out will be political suicide but they seem frozen.
To backtrack and follow the hard work of Jan Schakowsky is an example of what many voters feel is missing from Democratic leadership. I know many here like to blame the Republicans and the media as often as possible but the efforts of the hard working Congresswoman is an example of it being the Democrats. It was far from the first example of a liberal Democrat being ignored by her own or Democrats offering no answer. We watched as Republicans and Blue Dogs controlled the health care debate. We also watched the great shellacking.
By late summer Simpson-Bowles was leaking like a sieve and people were not liking what they heard. We already knew here that the deficit commission had a conservative bias and were placing out hopes in Nancy Pelosi's gambit to protect Social Security where Rep. Jan Schakowski seemed like one of the three secret weapons for the people.
It was immediately after the election when the general public began showing outrage after newspapers, television and op-eds were all over the cuts being suggested and people were asking "Why me?" Joan McCarter summed it up nicely with Fiscal commission chairs' mark: Lower taxes for 2%, austerity for 98% People wanted to know why they had been paying into Social Security for so many years and who didn't want to honor the agreement. They also wanted to know who came up with this Commission idea.
From Korea President Obama tried to clam things down with a Veteran's Day message. The President was talking to his own Democrats in Congress.
"Before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts," Obama told reporters.
While no names were given by the President, Rep. Schakowsky was one of those shooting down bullshit. That same day Robert Siegel interviewed the good Congresswoman on "All Things Considered."
Rep. SCHAKOWSKY: Well, for me the nonstarters include the changes to Social Security and Medicare. I was operating, I think most of the commissioners, with the assumption that current beneficiaries at the very least would be exempt from any cuts. Their proposal would include a change to the cost of living adjustment, meaning that current beneficiaries would see a decrease in the monthly check that they get. And then future beneficiaries would see an increase in the age of retirement. These represent cuts in Social Security at a time when private pensions are disappearing.
On November 16th, Jan Schakowsky countered the deficit commission leaders by releasing her own deficit-reduction plan, which was not aimed at Social Security and other human needs programs but went after excessive spending in other areas. CBS seemed to like it while Chris Bowers loved it. When the Congresswoman offers her alternative on Lawrence O'Donnell, O'Donnell led off with Obama warning against not giving the cat food commission a proper chance.
I even took a crack at it myself when I was overjoyed to see Jan Schakowsky on the PBS NewsHour.
She was saying exactly what the people wanted to hear.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, as you say, you mentioned revenue increases. It is the case that you do rely more heavily than they do on tax increases. In fact, two-thirds of your plan would come from higher taxes on corporations, on individuals earning over $100,000 a year.
Why that focus?
REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY: Well, you know, we have right now the greatest disparity in income from the rich to the poor and middle class than we have had since 1925, right before the Great Depression.
And this kind of income inequality is not good for our economy. And it's certainly not good for people who have seen their incomes stagnant or falling over the last couple decades. In fact, all of the growth in wealth went during the Bush years to the top -- wealthiest people in our economy.
It is not a good situation for us to be, as Nicholas Kristof has called, like a banana republic.
Not exactly the MSM but it was starting to sound like the people were on a roll.
And there there was Charlie Rose, where Schakowsky and Baker had a better idea than Simpson and Bowles, where Dean Baker pointed out the reality of American health care and Jan Schakowsky claims that older Americans are spending the same percentage of their income on health care as before Medicare was enacted. She also calls for putting the Public Option back on the table.
Part 1;
In Part 2 she starts off with the heartless adjustment to cost of living calculations form Simpson. Dean Baker mentions Americans faith in Democratic leadership "60% of Americans under age 60 believe they will get no (Social Security) benefit at all." Congress and our President are trying to fix a program that "might" become insolvent in 29 years and Americans who will be 65 in less time than that think they will get epits?
Charlie Rose read a Peter Orszag talking point about "a more accurate cost of living adjustment" and claims some spin about the left not jumping at this opportunity, then the Republicans might put privatizing Social Security back on the table. Is that really the way to fight for the people?
As time went on Deficit Commission meetings were canceled because of being extremely unpopular. Eventually the assault seemed to have ended around the time that the rich got their Bush tax cuts transformed to the Obama tax cuts. We hoped the cuts would leave the national debate and many claimed it was over when they never got their 14 votes but the Cat Food Commission never did go away and the cuts are still in the news everyday.
The efforts of Jan Schakowsky were far from insignificant but she is all forgotten now. I think voters got that message loud and clear. Waiting in vain for a Democratic leader to present a reasonable solution no longer even seems like an option. Would it have killed one of them on the Sunday Morning talk shows to just mention Jan Schakowsky or any of the sensible options? I know when I watched Dick Durbin at that final meeting pretending like he didn’t know who Jan Schakowsky was, I was feeling pretty disgusted thinking it looked pretty grim for a Democratic controlled Senate in 2013.
The Republicans have their deceitful ways of getting elected but Democrats need people to identify with them on issues and when voters can't find it there they go elsewhere. We've all seen the excuses about well financed Republican think tanks and Repubs in lockstep behind a set of talking points, over and over. We can rant all we want but they will be out telling older voters how they fixed Medicare and talking about what Obama took away. As bad as Republicans are voters need to hear a little FDR in their Democrats.
After two years of Democratic leadership talking about what Republicans would not let them do, what did we get? After two years of progressive blogging being about how it is the media's fault and what the Republicans said, isn't it time the progressive blogger starts focusing on what Democrats didn't say?
This is a place for us, you me and everyone here to take a leadership position. There are letter to the editors, contacting Senators and Congress, posting notices about the good talking points and email to friends to get them working. Follow the steps laid out by slinkerwink in You Are NOT Helpless And You CAN Fight Back!
TALKING POINTS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
- Mention that you oppose turning Social Security into a welfare program through means-testing, and that you don't support cutting SS benefits or the raising of the retirement age.
- In a recent poll, 68% opposed benefit cuts, including raising the retirement age. Instead, Americans want to see the rich pay their share by lifting the cap on Social Security contributions—right now millionaires only pay Social Security taxes on a tiny portion of their income. Mention that doing away with the cap on payroll taxes for incomes above $106,800 more than enough takes care of Social Security for the foreseeable future.
- Mention that hardworking Americans aren't living long enough in terms of life expectancy, and raising the retirement age would be penalizing them in favor of those who are wealthy and can afford to live longer.
- Mention that most Americans over 50 are having a hard time finding jobs, and raising the retirement age would be basically your Representative or Senator telling these Americans go off and die.
- Mention the Representative's name, and the Senator's name as well in the body of the letter.
- Use the points brought up in Schakowsky's progressive plan to cut the budget deficit.
Obviously it is too late for Jan Schakowsky's progressive plan or it will need some modification but if we are helpless to turn this Republican narrative around there will just be disgusted voters in 2012 and the Republicans best friend besides low turnout is voters who don't believe in government.