Three Good Ideas And Three Not So Good Ideas From The Chairmen Of The Debt Commission from THINKPROGRESS 10NOV10

WELL it is no surprise the deficit commission, made up of millionaires, wants to cut the social programs like veteran's health care, education, health and science research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement,  that we all depend on, especially those of us who are not wealthy. So the battle begins, and it may be a long, dragged out battle, but we can not tire and give in. We need to stand together and fight for Social Security until we are victorious. We can win this battle, don't believe anyone who says we can't. This is from Think Progress, and is followed by a call to action from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (click the link to participate in the Citizens Letter), 100 U.S. Representatives and so far over 39000 regular citizens have signed on, and the letter is just one day old!
Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Debt commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson

Earlier today, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission released their draft proposal (a.k.a. chairmen’s mark) to reduce the deficit. This is not the final report of the fiscal commission, but it is likely going to be the starting point for the remainder of the panel’s discussions. There’s a lot in there, but let’s highlight three good ideas and three bad ideas. Here are the good ideas:

– Defense Cuts: The chairmen’s mark includes about $100 billion in what they call “illustrative” cuts to military spending. These cuts would be used to meet an overall discretionary target of about $174 billon in savings compared to the president’s budget. Their suggested cuts are similar to the Center for American Progress’ own suggestions, and it’s nice to see them take seriously the fact that defense cuts have to be a part of the solution.
– Agriculture Subsidy Reductions: The proposal includes about $3 billion a year in cuts to agriculture subsidies. This is a big step in the right direction. Experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly called for these subsidies to be substantially reduced. Even President Bush thought so. If we’re going to cut wasteful or unnecessary spending, this is the place to start.
– Revenue: The chairmen’s mark has revenue going to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2015 and then eventually up to 21 percent of GDP. Again, this is an important step in the right direction. The president’s budget plan calls for 19 percent of GDP in 2015, and that assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the richest two percent, along with a host of other revenue raisers. That the chairmen’s proposal results in slightly higher revenues for 2015 is, at the least, an admission that revenue must be part of the solution. I think they’re still a little low on the revenue side of things, but it’s a start.

As for the bad ones:

– Draconian Cuts To Services And Programs: The plan seems to suggest about one dollar in non-defense discretionary cuts for every dollar in defense cuts. I can understand the political logic of this, but substantively it’s a really bad idea. Non-defense discretionary dollars go to pay for some very crucial things like veteran’s health care, education, science and health research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement. $100 billion in cuts represents a greater than 15 percent reduction on all these things. Unlike the defense cuts – which could be implemented without harming national security – this level of reduction to such a wide array of public services would really hurt.
– Raising The Social Security Retirement Age: This is a popular idea in certain Washington circles, but as ThinkProgress’ Matthew Yglesias says, it is “basically the very most regressive way to reduce entitlement spending.” There are better ways to bring Social Security into 75 year actuarial balance than asking people to work longer.
– Revenue: It’s good that the chairmen recognize the need for more revenue. It’s bad that they don’t really tell us how they plan to get it. Instead they say they’ll get $80 billion from tax reform, and then offer three visions of what that reform might look like. Now this is just their initial proposal, and I’m sure it’ll get fleshed out more in the coming weeks, but for now, while their spending cuts are pretty specific, their revenue plan is frustratingly muddied.

Stand with 100 House progressives against Social Security cuts.

---

BREAKING: The "bipartisan" deficit reduction commission -- appointed by President Obama and led by millionaires -- just made their ideas public. And they are ridiculous.
They recommend to Congress cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age. (Shockingly, the commission of millionaires didn't focus on raising taxes on the wealthy.)
We need to respond fast to make sure this goes nowhere. House Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva (who we just helped re-elect) has boldly organized over 100 of his colleagues to fight this proposal.
We need to show they have grassroots support. Can you join over 31,000 others in being a "citizen signer" of Grijalva's letter? Click here.
Then, share with others -- including on Facebook or Twitter.
We'll inform Grijalva of our progress, so he can work with us to inform the media of this grassroots support.
Just today, Talking Points Memo reported on a poll we commissioned asking voters their preference on how to reduce the deficit:

• 43% say raise taxes on the wealthy
• 22% say cut the huge military budget
• Only 12% say cut Social Security

Yet this "bipartisan" commission of millionaires recommends the exact opposite? Nancy Pelosi calls it "simply unacceptable."
Help House progressives declare loudly: Cutting Social Security is simply not an option. Click to be a "citizen signer" of Grijalva's letter -- then share this email with others.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Stephanie Taylor, Julia Rosen, Jason Rosenbaum, Forrest Brown, and the PCCC team

---

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. We've received over 60,246 small-dollar donations. Can you help us hit 65,000?

Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.