Winning Progressive

In our post from earlier today about Thomas Friedman’s obsession with promoting “centrist” third parties, Winning Progressive referenced the Social Security “reform” efforts of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and its former Director, David Walker.  Mr. Walker, who is now the CEO of the Comeback America Initiative, provided the following response to our post via a Communications Assistant at his organization:

I read with interest the article on ‘Thomas Friedman’s Destructive Obsession With Third Parties Continues.’ The article contains several false statements. For example, the Peterson Foundation never sought to “privatize Social Security”, and as a former Public Trustee of Social Security and Medicare, I have publicly opposed such efforts in the past. Second, Social Security has been in a negative cash flow position since 2010. Therefore, since the unified budget is calculated in a cash basis, Social Security has been adding to federal deficits since 2010. In addition according to the latest Trustees’ Annual Report, Social Security has unfunded promises of over $9 trillion and growing.

If your readers want to know what my views are on a range of social insurance, defense, health care, tax and other key issues they should read the book Comeback America (available here), and the Restoring Fiscal Sanity Report at www.tcaii.org.

We appreciate Mr. Walker’s response, and agree that when he was head of the General Accounting Office, Mr. Walker rightly criticized President George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme on the grounds that private retirement accounts would excerbate Social Security funding challenges.

As for Mr. Walker’s current views on Social Security “reform,” he has reportedly proposed the following in his book:

* Increasing Social Security benefits for lower income people who have worked at least 30 years

* Reducing benefits for middle and high income people through wage indexing or some other means

* Raising the retirement age, and then indexing it to average life expectancy

* Raising the income cap for the Social Security payroll tax to around $150,000

* Establishing a mandatory individual savings account program through an additional 2 to 3 percent payroll deduction

While advocates of proposals such as those listed above do not use the politically unpopular word “privatize,” the approach would weaken the long term political stability of Social Security by reducing benefits for middle class Americans, reducing the number of people receiving benefits, and getting the camel’s nose of individual savings accounts under the tent.

Mr. Walker correctly notes that the Social Security Trustee’s report identifies some short and long term funding issues for Social Security.  But the short term problems are the result of the Bush Recession.  As for the long term, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to continue to grow until 2022 and to remain solvent through 2036. After that, three-quarters of benefits could continue to be paid out through 2086 even if no changes are made.

The easiest way to address the long term fiscal issues faced by Social Security is to entirely lift the income cap so that the payroll tax applies to all levels of income, and to increase the payroll tax by 1%.  Such an approach would ensure the viability of the Social Security program for nearly 75 years, without weakening the program or creating risky and administratively burdensome private savings accounts.

(Editor’s Note – please see here for a response to this post on Social Security “reform” from David Walker, CEO of the Comeback America Initiative, and Winning Progressive’s reply)

One of the most predictable things in the world of political commentary is that New York Times columnist and Iraq War cheerleader Thomas Friedman will, on a regular basis, argue that we need a “centrist” third party in order to get things done in Washington.  For example, in July 2011, Friedman used his valuable NYT space to trumpet Americans Elect, which seeks to get a third party Presidential candidate, selected by internet voting, onto the ballot in all 50 states. In October 2010, the group being promoted by Friedman was No Labels, which seeks to put partisan labels aside so that we can all somehow come together and solve the nation’s problems.

The problems with such yearning for a “centrist” third party are manifold.  First, as we have explained previously, in most cases the best resolution of issues will be reached through healthy, rigorous, and respectful debate between competing ideological viewpoints, not by pretending that we can all come together by dropping partisan labels and ideology.  The simple fact is that the serious economic, fiscal, and social issues that we face will be solved by serious debate and effort, not by singing Kumbaya and splitting the difference between liberal and conservative views on everything.

Second, the promoters of “centrist” third parties are often a group of Beltway insiders who are using the allure of a third party to channel discontent in a safe way that prevents the type of fundamental change that is needed.

Third, in many cases the advocates of third parties ignore the fact that one party – typically the Democrats – are already promoting addressing the policy issues that such advocates claim to be concerned about.

Finally, the presence of a “centrist” third party is likely to pull the most votes away from whichever of the two political parties is closest to the views of the third party.  In this case, President Obama and the Democrats have shown time after time that they are far more reasonable and willing to compromise than are the Republicans, which means that a “centrist” third party is likely to suck far more votes away from President Obama than from the GOP candidate.  As such, the “centrist” third party effort would increase the chance of the most reactionary conservative candidate in the race defeating President Obama.

A perfect example of this disconnect between what third party advocates claim to want on matters of policy and what their promotion of a third party could cause is seen through two recent Friedman columns.  Earlier this month, Mr. Friedman surprisingly offered a column titled “We Need A Second Party,” in which he set forth the argument that the GOP has gone far off track by becoming a reactionary party that is “captive of conflicting ideological bases,” rather than a conservative party offering serious debate on the pressing issues facing our nation.  In the column, Mr. Friedman wondered if perhaps the GOP “shouldn’t just sit this election out” and whether “maybe the best thing would be for [the GOP] to get crushed in this election and forced into a fundamental rethink.”

Unfortunately, over the past weekend Mr. Friedman returned to his obsession of promoting a “centrist” third party.  In his post titled “A Third Voice for 2012,” Mr. Friedman promotes the idea that we need to have a third candidate, such as David Walker of the Comeback America Initiative, to “offer sensible solutions” for “getting America’s fiscal house in order.”  The Comeback America Initiative is a purportedly non-partisan effort to “promote fiscal responsibility and sustainability.”  Mr. Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General, previously ran the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which is focused primarily on attempting to privatize Social Security.  Walker’s association with Peterson, and his continued focus on “reforming” Social Security when Social Security does not contribute to the deficit and needs only minor tweaks to remain solvent for the next 75 years, raises serious red flags about whether this purportedly “non-partisan” effort to reduce the deficit is little more than a conservative Trojan horse.

But the more fundamental problem with Mr. Friedman’s column is that it relies on a false “pox-on-both-houses view” that is simply not based in reality. In particular, Mr. Friedman suggests a third party candidate is needed because “both parties” are purportedly not interested in restoring fiscal sanity.

But the facts are that one party – the Democrats – has shown a willingness to address long term fiscal issues.  Unlike under the W. Bush Administration, major legislative proposals under President Obama have almost always been fully paid for.  The Obama Administration has, at the risk of angering its base, proposed far more spending cuts than many progressives, including us here at Winning Progressive, would like to see.  President Obama has also proposed tax policies that rightly ask the wealthy to pay their fair share again, rather than buying into the false conservative mantra that cutting taxes will somehow reduce the deficit.

And the Obama Administration is focused on rationalizing and reducing the escalating cost of health care, which is the primary contributor to the long term fiscal issues that we face.   As we’ve discussed previously, the Democrats’ health care reform legislation found $500 billion in savings over a decade by phasing out unnecessary industry subsidies under the Medicare Advantage program, and beginning to implement comparative effectiveness approaches that help ensure we are getting the best bang for our buck. President Obama has also proposed to increase, such comparative effectiveness, strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, which would achieve even greater savings.

The GOP response has been to promote tax cuts for the wealthy as their number one priority, and to fearmonger about Democratic efforts to rationalize health care spending.  In the place of reducing health care costs, Republicans seek to “solve” the fiscal issues caused by rising health care costs by abolishing Medicare and block granting Medicaid. That approach would simply shift those costs to individuals in the more expensive private insurance market. None of this is surprising given that the GOP has spent the last 30 years driving up deficits in a cynical effort to generate political support for undermining core government programs.

The problem with Mr. Friedman’s approach is that falsely treating both parties as the same on fiscal issues (or virtually any other issue) will simply help put into power whichever of the two parties is less serious about reasonably addressing those issues.  In short, by splitting the vote of people who are interested in reasonably approaching long term fiscal problems, a third party candidate would increase the changes that the GOP, which has no interest in fiscal responsibility, will come out top.  Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Friedman rightly focused on the threat that putting the GOP back into the White House would pose.  Yet he then undermines that focus by promoting a third party fantasy that would help do exactly that.

In a two-party system, a far better approach on fiscal issues is to elect the side that is more serious about finding ways to responsibly address long term health care costs and push them to do even more, rather than promoting a destructive and self-defeating fantasy about third party candidates.

GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-13th Century) is a social troglodyte whose obsession with limiting reproductive freedom has led him to be a leader in the conservative effort to stop coverage of birth control as preventive care for which there would be no insurance co-pays, and to make the absolutely ridiculous and offensive claim that pre-natal testing is little more than a liberal plot to increase abortions.  In a concession to the political popularity of access to contraception, however, Santorum has also made a recent push to claim that he has no interest in outlawing birth control, telling the Washington Post that “the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd.”  Predictably, conservative commentators have echoed this claim to assert that Santorum doesn’t pose a threat to access to birth control, with Ross Douthat at the New York Times claiming:

Even the fiercest conservative critics of the White House’s contraception mandate — yes, Rick Santorum included — agree that artificial birth control should be legal and available.

But the only thing absurd here is the suggestion that we should not be concerned about the legality or availability of contraception if, heaven forbid, Santorum were to become President.  In fact, there are at least three reasons why supporters of access to contraception should be terrified of a Santorum Presidency:

1. Santorum has made clear that he objects to birth control: In an interview last October, Santorum said the following about birth control:

One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

Similarly, in 2006, Santorum expressed the following views about contraception:

I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s  a healthy thing for our country.

Certainly a person could have these personal beliefs while still supporting the right to birth control as a matter of government policy.  But given how focused Santorum is on restricting reproductive freedoms, that is not a risk I’d be willing to take.

2. Santorum Rejects the Right to Privacy: Santorum’s statements regarding contraception become even more problematic when combined with his opposition to a Constitutional right to privacy.  In particular, Santorum has been very vocal in his opposition to the groundbreaking 1965 Supreme Court decision of Griswold v. Connecticut.  That decision established the Constitutional right to privacy that protects many of the individual liberties that we take for granted today.  It also struck down as unconstitutional a Connecticut law that made the use of contraception illegal.  Reversing Griswold, as Santorum would like to see happen, would once again allow states to outlaw the use of birth control.

3. Santorum is Not a True Supporter of Federal Funding for Contraception Services - In attempting to appear reasonable, Santorum has noted that, despite his personal beliefs about contraception, he has in the past voted in favor of funding for Title X, the federal program that supports family planning clinics that provide access to contraception and other preventive services to millions of low income families.  But more recently, Santorum has pledged to end federal funding for contraception.  Those Title X programs that Santorum wishes to defund annually provide contraception and other family planning services to millions of low income women.

The simple fact is that Santorum is a politician who cannot be trusted with any issue relating to family planning or reproductive freedom.  Commentators of any stripe should know better than to accept his claims regarding support for contraception at face value.

By Eric Brehm (cross-posted at Bang the Buckets)

Author’s Note:  One year ago today, I sent a letter to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker that entered cyberspace and was circulated in ways I had not imagined possible.  My own personal blog, Bang the Buckets, will fold at the end of the month, for reasons which will shortly be explained there.  It’s been a heckuva ride, and I appreciate those who have come with me on it. Before I go, I had a few last questions for Wisconsin’s Governor, and will be sending the following on Tuesday the 21st.

To the duly-elected Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker:

It’s been a full calendar year since I wrote a letter to you describing how tired I was of your “Budget Repair Bill” and the discord that it had introduced into the state where I have lived for most of my life.  That letter moved through the blogosphere in ways that I did not know existed at the time.  I posted the words that I sent to you on my Facebook page, because I thought maybe other people were feeling the same way that I did.  I still don’t exactly know how it started, but it seems that one of my students or former students re-posted it somewhere, and it took off from there.  Before it was done, tens of thousands of people ending up reading words that I wrote, and that inspired me enough to start my own personal blog.

You were the inspiration for that blog, sir, and I would like to say thank you.  I have always fancied myself a bit of a writer, but thanks to you I actually became one, and that has been good for me on a variety of levels.  Writing posts for this blog helped me (I hope) sharpen my craft, and the writing here proved therapeutic as I contemplated just how much your politics were going to harm me personally, as well as potentially prove dangerous to the state of Wisconsin.

I don’t write those words in an effort to lament the take-home pay I lost as a result of your policies:  In my first letter, I told you quite plainly that you could have that money.  Pretty much every public sector employee agreed to the pay concessions long before your Budget Repair Bill ever became law, and I was no different in that.  In the end, Governor, the letter I write today–like the one I wrote a year ago–is not really addressed for a mass audience.  The first one ended up that way, and I will post these words on my own blog to provide a degree of symmetry, but I don’t expect to reach the masses.  Rather, now as well as then, I had hoped for some answers to what I felt were honest questions.  I did not get them then, and I don’t expect them now.  But I hope you’ll understand that I have to ask.  And so, without further ado, here are my points and/or questions, in no particular order:

* Do you have any comment, sir, to the notion that after all your politicking and your “Budget Repair,” the projected shortfall of your budget is actually $6 million larger than the shortfall you inherited?  I say this only because the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, a non-partisan body in Wisconsin, projects that you currently have a deficit of $143 million, when you inherited a deficit of $137 million.  I welcome your response.

* Related to the above point, could you please express why the current ads that you run in Wisconsin explicitly state that you have “balanced the budget,” when the budget currently has a projected deficit of $143 million, as stated above?  I don’t feel as though you have been as clear about that as you might be; I’m curious why you continued to run ads—or allow ads to be run on your behalf—that would seem at best to be misinformed, and at worst to be just plain dishonest.

* The goal of your Budget Repair Bill, in addition to balancing the state budget, was to create jobs in the state of Wisconsin.  Can you or will you provide any explanation as to why private-sector jobs actually decreased for the first several months after the bill became law?  Was the failure to create jobs due to a failure in the bill itself, or to other factors?

* While I recognize that you are the Executive and not the Legislative branch, can you offer insight as to why Republican legislators were sworn to secrecy about redistricting in our state, and were told to ignore the public when making their decision?

* There is a John Doe investigation being conducted in Wisconsin that would seem to implicate a number of your former employees and/or associates.  Would you please explain, clearly and succinctly, your own involvement or lack of involvement in any wrongdoing?  I agree that you are innocent until proven guilty, but could you clear the air, once and for all?

* Could you explain the hiring practices that are used in Wisconsin?  A number of your financial supporters or their relatives/spouses/girlfriends seem to end up with high-paying jobs in your administration.  Are they really that uniquely qualified, or is there something more at work there?

* Finally, though it seems small by comparison, would you be willing to tell me your reasoning for restricting access to the State Capitol, even though the Wisconsin State Constitution forbids restriction to the State Capitol?  As someone who swore an oath of office to uphold that State Constitution in order to be sworn in as Governor, can you offer the reasoning why you seem to have so callously disregarded your oath?

I could go on, but I would be satisfied if you would choose to answer the points listed above.  Again, I have no real expectation that you will reply—my last two missives resulted in form letters, and I have no great hopes for this letter—but I hope you can understand why I have to ask.

I was tired of your politics when I first wrote you a year ago.  You can imagine how tired I am now.  I used to teach Political Science for my school, sir, and I must admit I am grateful that I haven’t in the past few years.  Back when I did, I tried to tell my students that government was and could be a good, and that the people that served in it—despite their many differences—were doing what they believed best for the common good.  I know, that’s horribly naïve and idealistic.  But it was for the students, who might still grow up with a desire to serve their country or state; while I was smart enough to realize that my words were not always true, I was hopeful enough that they were true more often than not.  However, in light of the events in Wisconsin in the last year, it would now be very difficult for me to choke out those words with any degree of sincerity.

What I most find objectionable about your administration, sir, is that it has caused me to lose respect for the office.  Not for you—I don’t know you personally, and as such have no reason to dislike you—but for the office of Governor of the State of Wisconsin.  You’ve heard “Shame” chanted at you so many times that I’m sure it has lost its meaning.  And yet, I’m going to imagine that you must feel some degree of shame; after all, only sociopaths don’t, and unlike several others, I am not willing to lump you into that category.

But really, sir:  You’re the Governor of Wisconsin.  Doesn’t it bother you, at least a little, that much of the public (including some Republicans) feel that you’re not even allowed to come up with your own legislation, but rather have to have it spoon-fed to you by ALEC?  As someone who has spoken so often about how you have provided “tools” to school districts, do you not sometimes wonder if you are not a tool yourself—something used by those outside of you in order to foster an agenda that isn’t your own?  I’m fairly certain that you’re pleased to be Governor, but don’t you wonder sometimes how history will look at you?  Ronald Reagan had confidence, and he is still largely revered.  But so did Joe McCarthy, and he is still largely reviled.  Have you given thought to your own legacy, as you allowed the events of the past year to unfold?

As I close this letter, Governor, I find that I am still willing to close it as I did with my letter of a year ago; that is, with a note of thanks.  I lament sometimes that our state, like our nation, has become so divided between those on the left and those on the right and those who are so disgusted by both that they choose not to vote.  But for a year now, your actions have had young people paying attention.  As it was a year ago, a number of them agree with you, and a number of them don’t.  I worry that more of them seem to fall in the disgusted camp, but you and I can both work to rectify that.

I can still recall a conversation I had with my wife about a year or so ago.  We were sitting on the sofa, talking about affairs in the state, and I said something to the effect that as time passed, it would be possible that the Budget Repair Bill might be the best thing that ever happened to us.  She of course dismissed it out of hand and has no recollection of it, but when a girlfriend of hers told her that the Budget Repair Bill might be the best thing that ever happened to us, she accepted it as gospel.  We’ll see, Governor.  Unlike many, I don’t think you’re evil, and if I have given that impression over the last year, I apologize.  I do think you’re occasionally misguided by those who seem do your thinking for you . . . Without going too religious on you, I know that you are the son of a minister, and I would welcome the compassion I would expect from a preacher’s son.  That choice, of course, is ultimately up to you.  But I would be remiss if I did not at least attempt to remind you that Jesus loved the poor, and did not seek to end their tax credits, so far as we know.

Either way, Governor, for a year or so you have given me many things to write about, and I’ve had a worthy experience and a fair amount of fun while doing so.  It seems as though there might be a recall election coming up, and good luck with that.  It seems as though a John Doe investigation is trying to get closer to activities you may have been a part of in Milwaukee County, and good luck with that, too.  I can’t say I’m on your side, Governor, but I can say that you keep things interesting.

As always, Governor:  Thank you for your time.

For this weekend’s reading list we have articles on contraception and gender equality, how the safety net helps those in need, the lessons we can learn from the success of schools in Finland, the dangers of fracking, and what needs to occur in Afghanistan as our troops start coming home next year.

If you have comments on any of these articles, or would like to recommend an article for next weekend’s reading list, please let us know below or at the Winning Progressive Facebook page.

10 Facts About Contraception (and How It Changed the World) – a good overview of how contraception has helped increase gender equality throughout the world

Contrary to ‘Entitlement Society’ Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households – deconstructing the conservative myth that social safety net programs are somehow destroying the work ethic in the US

Schools We Can Envy – an overview of education success in Finland, and how it contradicts the testing and anti-teacher union agenda of education “reform” advocates here in the US

Why Not Frack? – a review of two books and a movie about the dangers of fracking and the impacts that the natural gas industry is having on local communities

Beginning of the End – a good overview of things that need to occur in Afghanistan as we prepare to begin bringing our troops home.

(By Joanne Boyer, cross-posted at Wisdom Voices)

I didn’t think there could be a political issue that could rile me as much as the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, but I think I may just have found it.

I’ve watched with horror as the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”) has pushed voter photo ID laws nationwide in mainly Republican-controlled state legislatures. How can we as a country watch as this wholly manufactured crisis is used to erect barriers to voting among Democratic-leaning demographic groups state-by-state?

My native state of Wisconsin, which had one of the richest histories of same-day voting registration, fell prey to this legislation and now it’s being introduced by the Republican controlled state legislature in Minnesota, where I currently reside.  This time, they are pushing a constitutional amendment because Republican legislators know Democratic Governor Mark Dayton would veto any such legislation.  Tell me again, when did we vote in legislators to amend a state constitution on a regular basis?  I thought they were elected to legislate.

A Bit of Background

How and why has this legislative push happened?  Consider this: The 2008 electorate that put President Barack Obama in the White House was more than just the highest turnout in more than 60 years. It represented the emergence of a new Democratic coalition, one comprised primarily of racial and ethnic minorities, low-income Americans, liberals, young voters and women. At the time, forecasts of demographic change and shifting views on social issues led to speculation that Republicans were on the verge of becoming a permanent minority party.

Shortly after President Obama’s election, ALEC began to prioritize efforts to chip away at the influence of that coalition. It’s not a big leap to say that these Republican-controlled legislative initiatives are motivated not to protect electoral integrity, but rather to limit the voting power of populations that tend to vote Democratic.  Studies show that approximately 11 percent of Americans – about 21 million people – lack a current government photo ID, disproportionately racial minorities, senior citizens, young voters, the working poor and people with disabilities.

As we head into another historic election cycle, at least 33 states as of November 2011 have introduced legislation to require voter IDs and 14 states have photo ID requirements in place.  This doesn’t even account for the voter suppression laws that were introduced to restrict hours of early voting and voting registration.

The evidence to support the rhetoric of “voter fraud” is scant – and has been for years. You remember the firings of U.S. attorneys during George Bush’s administration?  The ones who refused to prosecute the cases of voter fraud because of weak evidence?  A comprehensive five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department announced in 2007 found just 86 instances of improper voting.  Simply put:  Those who seek voter photo ID laws buy into the myth of “voter fraud.”

The Advancement Project, a policy, communications and legal action group committed to racial justice, has sounded the alarm on this recent forceful momentum of voter suppression bills.  This group and its recent report provide some of the best analysis of the current situation and present some of the most logical and reason-based arguments against voter ID legislation.  They point to it as the largest legislative effort to scale back ballot access since the post-Reconstruction era, reversing a century-long trend of opening the ballot to everyone.

In the conclusion of The Advancement Project’s report:  What’s Wrong With This Picture:  New Photo ID Proposals Part of a National Push to Turn Back the Clock on Voting Rights they state:

Elections cannot be free and fair unless they are open to every eligible voter. Photo ID requirements erode the integrity of elections by systematically excluding large groups of eligible voters and place them in second-class status. This is part of a larger movement to erect significant barriers for voters of color, reversing a century-long trend. If states are truly concerned about protecting the integrity of the elections process, they should start by ensuring that all eligible voters have access to the vote, not just those with a state-issued photo ID.

Another excellent source of information is the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law, which also issued a report on the voting rights changes for 2012 and states:

These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Already 19 new laws and two new executive actions are in place. At least 42 bills are still pending, and at least 69 more were introduced but failed. Already, it is clear that:

• These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
• The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 185 electoral votes in 2012 – more than two thirds of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

• Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August  Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, six have either cut back on voting rights already or are currently considering new restrictions.

I urge everyone to read these reports and to stay informed and up-to-date about what your state is doing on this issue, especially if you have a Republican controlled legislature.

Winning Progressive adds – if you are as upset as we are about the GOP’s attack on voting rights, click here for some ways to get involved in fighting back.