It's good that the GOP has admitted to lying about the fiscal crisis. However, the question remains: Will Obama now back off his plan to cut Social Security and Medicare?

---

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2013 05:15 AM MST

GOP: We’ve been lying all along

Boehner's admission that we don't really have a debt crisis reveals his party's ulterior, program-cutting motives

BY DAVID SIROTA

John Boehner (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)

I never thought I’d write these words, but here goes: Thank you, John Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for finally admitting on national television that all the fiscal cliffs, sequestrations and budget battles you’ve created are, indeed, artificially fabricated by ideologues and self-interested politicians and not the result of some imminent crisis that’s out of our control.

America owes this debt of gratitude to Boehner after he finally came clean on yesterday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week” and admitted that “we do not have an immediate debt crisis.” (His admission was followed up by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who quickly echoed much the same sentiment on CBS’ “Face the Nation”).

In offering up such a stunningly honest admission, the GOP leader has put himself on record as agreeing with President Obama, who has previously acknowledged that demonstrable reality. But the big news here isn’t just about the politics of a Republican House speaker tacitly admitting they agree with a Democratic president. It is also about a bigger admission revealing the fact that the GOP’s fiscal alarmism is not merely some natural reaction to reality, but a calculated means to other ideological ends.

Before considering those ends, first remember that Boehner (like Obama) is correct on the facts.

As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, “Even if we do run deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II” and “it will also be substantially less than, say, debt in several European countries in the mid- to late 1990s.” It is also lower than the 80 percent of GDP level that many economists say starts to put countries in a precarious position. Additionally, citing Congressional Budget Office data, the Center for American Progress notes that the long-term debt outlook is only dire because the projections simply assume without question that “future Congresses will enact huge new deficit-increasing tax cuts and spending hikes.”

“The debt outlook is bad (but) we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with,” writes Krugman. “We’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the US included, have had in the past, and dealt with.”

So yes, we should start dealing with the long-term debt in a pragmatic and sober way, but we shouldn’t pretend it is some sort of imminent crisis worthy of draconian austerity measures.

If we could somehow do that, then there would be plenty of gradual steps that could be taken right now — steps that deal with the debt in measured ways that do the least harm to the overall economy. Those include starting to phase out the Bush tax cuts, which show no correlation with job growth and yet are the single largest driver of annual deficits; starting to reduce defense and war spending, which, job-creation-wise, is one of the least effective ways for the government to spend money; starting to move the United States toward the least costly, more efficient, and more effective single-payer healthcare system that most industrialized countries have, and that lowers overhead for employers; and starting to spend more money on social programs that fight economic inequality, with the understanding that driving down such inequality tends to boost macroeconomic growth and consequently boost public revenues (this is the Reagan-esque idea of growing one’s way out of debt).

But, of course, we aren’t having a sober and measured discussion about such pragmatic solutions. Instead, the national conversation about the budget is dominated by debt demagogues with ulterior motives. Taking a page out of the shock doctrine playbook that says every crisis is an opportunity, these alarmists have sought to create the perception of an immediate crisis in order to quickly manufacture opportunities to legislate their otherwise politically impossible agenda items.

In practice, that means Wall Streeters and conservative ideologues citing the supposedly imminent crisis to successfully nudge the political establishment to endorse cuts to Social Security, even though the program has almost nothing to do with the debt crisis. It also means a GOP budget that targets most of its cuts at the social programs that the poor and middle-class most rely on (this, at the same time most of these same alleged budget hawks supported an extension of most of the deficit-expanding Bush tax cuts; decry any cuts to the defense budget; and either outright oppose a single-payer system or support the Obama healthcare law that while certainly expanding coverage, nonetheless buttresses the private health insurance industry and, thus, arguably makes such a single-payer system more out of reach).

From Boehner to Ryan to the Bowles-Simpson tandem to an unending parade of television pundits, the last year has been marked by the most prominent political voices ignoring the more prudent way forward, and instead claiming that these shock doctrine prescriptions — i.e., Social Security/Medicare cuts, social program cuts, etc. — are all required. And not just required, but required immediately, because of the supposed urgency of the debt crisis.

Using that supposed urgency as a rationale to create fiscal cliffs, sequestration battles and debt ceiling crises, their talking points have lately assumed a similar tenor to that of the old Thatcherites’ “There Is No Alternative” mantra, the idea being that because the emergency is supposedly so imminent, there is simply no other way forward than the conservative neoliberal path of profligacy for the rich (tax cuts, continued corporate subsidies, etc.) and austerity for everyone else.

But suddenly, thanks to yesterday’s declarations by Boehner and Ryan, the charade’s most sacred lie has been exposed. In acknowledging that “we do not have an immediate debt crisis,” GOP leaders are admitting that there is, in fact, an alternative. They are also admitting that their longtime claims to the contrary were ends-justify-the-means tactics to manufacture an unnecessary panic — one that they hoped would scare America into abruptly accepting the kind of draconian policies polls show the public opposes.

Now that the truth is out, maybe a more reasoned debate can begin and more pragmatic policies can finally take center stage.

 

David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.  

MORE DAVID SIROTA. 
 

Coup d'Etat: Standard & Poor's Is Now Giving Orders to Congress ... and the American People

Coup d'Etat: Standard & Poor's Is Now Giving Orders to Congress ... and the American People

Richard (RJ) Eskow
Consultant, Writer, Senior Fellow with The Campaign for America's Future
Posted: August 30, 2010 03:05 PM

There's been a lot of talk recently about the enormous power that's been given to the Deficit Commission, which is co-chaired by Alan "Social Security recipients are milking it" Simpson and dominated by people who have advocated cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But here's an aspect of the story that's gone unremarked: Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency whose reputation should rightfully have been shattered by the economic crisis, is now dictating policy to the United States government. S&P just put our elected officials on notice: Submit to the proclamations of the Deficit Commission or we'll downgrade our rating of government debt.

That's blackmail, plain and simple. This threat comes from a privately-owned company whose rating process is riddled with conflicts, and which has gotten virtually every critical assessment of recent years spectacularly wrong. Enron? Lehman? Subprime mortgages? They were zero for three. Yet rather than reining back their penchant for reckless proclamations, the chairman of S&P's "sovereign rating committee" said that our elected officials' response to the Deficit Commission would be crucial to its analysis of US debt. John Chambers said last week: "It is very important for the credit standing of the United States that the Congress considers very carefully what the fiscal commission proposes." Just in case his intent wasn't clear enough, he added: "It is very important for Congress to take the required steps."

"Sovereign" is right. That's a kingly proclamation.

Bear in mind, we supposedly don't know yet what the Deficit Commission will propose. (We have a good idea, of course, since both the Democratic and Republican co-chairs are long-time advocates for cutting Social Security.) The total extent of the Commission's recommendations, and the extent to which they'll actually provide financial stability, are supposed to be completely unknown at this point. S&P's statement isn't an analysis, since there's nothing to analyze. It's a threat: Turn your authority as elected representatives over to this unelected body or we'll cause financial damage to the United States Government.

It's not a hollow threat, either. This statement was made one day after S&P downgraded Ireland's debt. A downgrade could cause massive harm to the United States government at a time of extreme difficulty. Debt could be harder to obtain, and it would become more expensive. That, in turn, would plunge the US deeper into debt. So who, exactly, is issuing this warning? What kind of credibility do they have?

Standard & Poor's is a division of McGraw-Hill, a publicly traded publishing company. They are a for-profit company, as is their fellow rating agency Moody's (which issued a similar threat last March). Both of these for-profit companies have eagerly pursued the very institutions they were rating, to disastrous effect. Internal documents obtained by the Levin Subcommittee showed that both Moody's and S&P let the profit motive compromise their judgments in the run-up to the economic meltdown. As we noted in a previous analysis, one internal S&P email said this about a rating they did for a customer: ""I don't think this is enough to satisfy them. What's the next step?"

Here's another example of S&P's integrity. When an analyst asked to review loan files for a security he was asked to rate, his supervisor told him the request was "TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!"

And consider this reported comment, which occurred during exploratory acquisition talks with investment research company Morningstar: "The S&P people insisted to Joe Mansueto (Founder/Chairman) that he was leaving big mounds of money on the table by not charging mutual funds for their 'star' ratings. Joe replied to the S&P bidders that it was an obvious conflict of interest to charge the funds for their own ratings -- how would Morningstar maintain its independence? They called him naive -- and stopped the merger talks."

The comments, though unconfirmed, have not been denied. Expert money manager Barry Ritholtz, who reported the story, indicated his confidence in his source and added, "This anecdote rings rather true to me."
Moody's fared even worse in our review of Levin Subcommittee documents. Of four key objectives for its Structured Finance Group, responsible for ratings, "high quality ratings and research came in dead last - behind "generating increased revenue," "increasing market share ...," and "fostering good relationships with issuers and investors."

Get the picture?

Why would companies like Standard & Poor's and Moody's issue threats of this kind? There could be many reasons. One might be to please its corporate clients, who would like to see government spending cut for both ideological and business reasons. Another might be to encourage cuts in Social Security because, under current proposals from both parties, that would place more retirement savings in funds and accounts managed by S&P's key clients. Moody's may also legitimately believe that the deficit needs to be reduced immediately, which is debatable on economic grounds. But if the Moody's action was arguable, S&P's statement is indefensible.

The ratings agency system is broken. These private companies have accrued enormous power without earning it. A lot of that power has been handed to them by government actions that rely on their ratings. That's why the Senate voted for the Franken Amendment, which -- while leaving these companies private -- would have removed the inevitable conflict of interest that's created when they compete for business. (The House/Senate Conference eliminated the Franken Amendment, calling instead for a two-year study. While the final bill is weighted toward an action of the kind called for by Franken's amendment, two years gives lobbyists a long time to influence the outcome.)

Standard & Poor's are called "agencies," but they should be called by their proper name: For-profit companies. These "ratings companies" have undermined the free market by allowing powerful issuers and investors to influence their own ratings. Markets with bad information - information that's bought and paid for - aren't really "free."

Now the "rating companies" are targeting the democratic process, too. We need a national discussion about the proper role of these companies, before they cause even more damage. Standard & Poor's should be reprimanded for its inappropriate and unprofessional intrusion into the working of government. And everyone needs to be reminded: Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch can 'outsource' the democratic process. They are our elected representatives. They must not be forced to submit to conflict-ridden private companies with a track record of failure.


_______________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street and Strengthen Social Security projects. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates

Alan Simpson, co-chair of Obama's committee on reducing federal deficits, shoulders the heavy burden of objectively deciding whether or not people's Social Security really must be cut. Part 1

Some slides from a presentation prepared for the deficit commission by Social Security's chief actuary

Senator Simpson: He's Not Just Offensive, He's Ignorant

by Dean Baker
Posted: August 25, 2010 05:56 PM

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the co-chairman of President Obama's deficit commission, has sparked calls for his resignation after sending an offensive and sexist note to Ashley Carson, the executive director of the Older Women's League. While such calls are reasonable -- Simpson's comments were certainly more offensive than remarks that led to the resignation of other people from the Obama administration -- the Senator's determined ignorance about the basic facts on Social Security is an even more important reason for him to leave his position.

I was also a recipient of one of Simpson's tirades. As was the case with the note he sent to Carson, Simpson attached a presentation prepared for the commission by Social Security's chief actuary. Simpson implied that this presentation had some especially eye-opening information that would lead Carson and me to give up our wrong-headed views on Social Security.

While I opened the presentation with great expectations, I quickly discovered there was nothing in the presentation that would not already be known to anyone familiar with the annual Social Security trustees' report. The presentation showed a program that is currently in solid financial shape, but somewhere in the next three decades will face a shortfall due to an upward redistribution of wage income, increasing life expectancy, and slow growth in the size of the workforce. The projected shortfall is not larger than what the program has faced at prior points in its history, most notably in 1982 when the Greenspan Commission was established to restore the program's solvency.

It was disturbing to see that Simpson seemed surprised by what should have been old hat to anyone familiar with the policy debate on Social Security. After all, he had been a leading participant in these debates in his years in the Senate.

Simpson's public remarks also seem to show very little knowledge of the financial situation of the elderly or near elderly. He has repeatedly made references to retirees driving up to their gated communities in their Lexuses. While this description may apply to Simpson's friends, it applies to very few other retirees, the vast majority of whom rely on Social Security for the bulk of their income. Cutting the benefits of the small group of genuinely affluent elderly would make almost no difference in the finances of the program.

Furthermore, the baby-boom generation that is nearing retirement has seen most of its savings destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble that both wiped out their housing equity and took a big chunk of the limited money they were able to put aside in their 401(k)s. Simpson shows no understanding of this fact as he prepares to cut benefits for near retirees.

He also doesn't seem to have a clue as to the type of work that most older people are doing. While it is possible for senators to continue in their jobs late in life, nearly half of older workers have jobs that are either physically demanding or require they work in difficult conditions. Simpson seems totally clueless on this point when he considers proposals to raise the retirement age.

The key facts on Social Security are not hard to understand. The shortfall is relatively minor and distant. Most retirees have little income other than their Social Security, and most workers would find it quite difficult to stay at their jobs in their late 60s or even 70. We might have hoped that Senator Simpson understood these facts at the time when he was appointed to the commission, but we should at least expect that he would learn them on the job.

His determined ignorance in the face of the facts is the most important reason why he is not qualified to serve on President Obama's commission. Someone who is co-chairman of such an important group should be able to critically evaluate information, not just insult and demean his critics.

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
 
He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. His blog, Beat the Press, features commentary on economic reporting.

He received his Ph.D in economics from the University of Michigan.

He has written numerous books and articles, including The United States Since 1980, Cambridge University Press, March 2007; The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2006; Social Security: The Phony Crisis (with Mark Weisbrot), University of Chicago Press, 1999; "Asset Returns and Economic Growth," (with Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (2005); "Financing Drug Research: What Are the Issues," Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2004; "Medicare Choice Plus: The Solution to the Long-Term Deficit Problem," Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2004; The Benefits of Full Employment (with Jared Bernstein), Economic Policy Institute, 2004; "Professional Protectionists: The Gains From Free Trade in Highly Paid Professional Services," Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2003; "The Run-Up in Home Prices: Is It Real or Is It Another Bubble," Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2002. His book Getting Prices Right: The Battle Over the Consumer Price Index (M.E. Sharpe, 1997) was a winner of a Choice Book Award as one of the outstanding academic books of the year. He was also the author of the weekly online commentary on economic reporting, the Economic Reporting Review (ERR), from 1996 - 2006.

He has worked as a consultant for the World Bank, the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, and the OECD's Trade Union Advisory Council.

His columns have appeared in many major media outlets including the Atlantic Monthly, the Washington Post, and the London Financial Times. He is frequently cited in economics reporting in major media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, CNBC and National Public Radio.