Generations of racial injustice in the United States have resulted in the life expectancy of African Americans being far below that of whites.

Americans pay into Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives. They expect these programs to there for them when they retire.

But corporate lobbyists and their allies in Washington want to cut benefits for both of these programs. One way they advocate of doing this is raising the retirement age to 70.

Their argument is that Americans are living longer, and therefore it makes sense to raise the retirement age. However most gains in life expectancy have gone to white-collar workers, and blue-collar workers are barely living longer at all. Here’s a chart of life expectancy from the Center for Economic Policy and Research that demonstrates this fact:

When you break down the situation by race, it gets even worse. While some politicians clamor for the retirement age to be raised to 70, the life expectancy of black males is only 70.8, according to the latest data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System. That’s nearly six years behind non-Hispanic white men, whose life expectancy is 76.2.

Thus, raising the retirement age wouldn’t just disproportionately hurt blue collar workers, it would disproportionately harm African American men. We should not be considering policies that would have such a harmful impact.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Earlier this month, leading Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen (MD) indicated that he was “open to all ideas” on Medicare and Social Security cuts. Discussing a hike in the Medicare retirement age, he told a group of corporate CEOs, “I think it should be part of the conversation.”

On November 14th, one day after Van Hollen made his original remarks, Progressive Change Campaign Committee members sprung into action, flooding his office with constituent phone calls and asking him to take benefit cuts off the table.

Today on Fox, Van Hollen made his first definitive statement that raising the Medicare age was off the table for him:

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Look at Medicare, what you’reAi??doing by moving it from 65 to 67Ai??is again not reducing costs in Medicare, it’s not reallyAi??reforming the Medicare systemAi??you’re just transferring thoseAi??costs and risks onto people whoAi??may be 66 years old.

ANCHOR: You are reforming the Medicare system because it’sAi??going to go bust in severalAi??years, so if you prolong theAi??program and make the age later,Ai??people are living longer, soAi??isn’t that age sort of outmodedAi??and isn’t that a good thing toAi??address long term?

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: There are a lot better waysAi??of doing it.

ANCHOR: That’s a no I’mAi??hearing. You’re not willing to change theAi??age.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN:Ai?? No, because there are muchAi??better ways of dealing with Medicare costs. Let’s look at ways we can reduceAi??the cost of withoutAi??transferring rising healthcareAi??costs.

Watch it:

Our polling showsAi??that, by huge margins, voters oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

We applaud Congressman Van Hollen for listening to his constituents and taking this much-discussed Medicare benefit cut off the table. Today, PCCC members in his district will be calling to thank Van Hollen for his bold statement — and we’ll urge him to firmly …

Grover Norquist’s influence is decreasing in the Republican Party, but even worse ideas are on the rise.

The media has been abuzz with a spree of high-level Republicans rebuking Washington lobbyist Grover Norquist’s tax pledge in recent days. What has not been explained is why they are breaking with this pledge.

As we explained earlier, the goal of these Republicans is to secure a deal with Democrats that lowers corporate tax rates while cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

In exchange, they are basically offering Mitt Romney’s tax plan of closing some minor deductions and loopholes (some of which are widely used by the middle class).Ai?? Here is how The Maddow Blog’s Steve Benen explains Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) latest offer:

In other words, Graham — being singled out for praise today for being so “reasonable” — would demand that Bush-era tax rates be left in place for everyone, including the very wealthy, but he’d consider a cap on deductions. As a practical matter, his “concession” is being open to adopting Romney’s revenue proposal.

Needless to say, Americans rejected Romney’s tax plan when they rejected Romney. Additionally, we just commissioned a poll in New Hampshire that found that “clear majority” of people in the state “oppose making significant changes to benefits given to seniors who receive Social Security or Medicare. Sixty-six percent supported raising taxes for those earning more than $250,000 a year, with 29 percent opposed to it.”

Whether Norquist likes the plan or not, it is certainly not worth trading for significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Seniors on Medicare and Social Security did not cause the Great Recession, Wall Street did. And they should not be asked to pay for the resulting debt.

We should look instead to Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren …

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made headlines yesterday when he publicly rebuked lobbyist Grover Norquist, saying that he was willing to violate his pledge against increasing any taxes. (Graham actually broke with Norquist’s pledge back in June.)

What the news coverage of Graham’s remarks missed was why this staunchly right-wing senator was breaking Norquists pledge.

For months, Graham has been working with a group of senators who want to implement the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and lower corporate tax rates. This plan does end some tax deductions and loopholes, which is why Norquist opposes it, and, by extension, Graham.

Like Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) before him, Graham thinks it’s more important to gut our social insurance programs than it is to uphold Norquists’s pledge. That is not cause for celebration among progressives.

In fact, Graham is asking for cuts in Medicare benefits that are even more severe than what Bowles-Simpson proposed. Here’s what he said on ABC’s This Week:

GRAHAM: It goes to 66, 67 here pretty soon for Social Security. Let it float up another year or so over the next 30 years, adjust Medicare from 65 to 67 over the next 30 years, means test benefits for people in our income level. I donai??i??t expect Democrats to go for premium support or a voucher plan, but I do expect them to adjust these entitlement programs before they bankrupt the country and run out of money themselves.

Watch it:

Graham explicitly said on the show that he is only willing to violate the Norquist pledge if Democrats agree to “entitlement reform” — code for cutting benefits. “I think Grover is wrong,” he said. “When you are $16 trillion in debt the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming …

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

There has been much fanfare about Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss’s (GA) break from Washington Lobbyist Grover Norquist. On a local television station, Chambliss spoke of breaking with Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes under any situation, saying, “I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

Many progressives have been celebrating Chambliss’s rebuke of Norquist. While Norquist is indeed a powerful lobbyist who should not have so much influence over the Republican Party, progressives should not be fooled by Chambliss’s rhetoric. The senator is not breaking from Norquist because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy or big corporations. Rather, he’s doing it because it will make it easier to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Here’s why. For more than a year, Chambliss has been involved with a group of senators who support the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering the corporate tax rate. This Bowles-Simpson plan closes a few token tax loopholes, and also reduces the popular mortgage interest deduction. Norquist is opposed to closing even the tiny loopholes that the Bowles-Simpson plan closes, so he staunchly opposes the plan altogether — which also means opposing Chambliss.

Chambliss is willing to deal with closing small loopholes in the tax code in order to get to the wider goals of the Bowles-Simpson plan: cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, cutting Medicare benefits by capping overall spending, and dramatically lowering corporate tax rates.

The Senator is likely trying to curry favor with Democrats in order to pass such a plan. Publicly denouncing Norquist is one way to do that. Some in the press have suggested that his feud with Norquist …

You’d think that Goldman Sachs — the mega-bank that took $10 billion of taxpayer money — would show a little bit of humility in the wake of the financial crisis. You’d be wrong.

In an interview with CBS News, Lloyd Blankfein, the Goldman CEO who famously said he was doing “God’s work,” said that Social Security benefits must be cut by raising the retirement age and Medicare and Medicaid must be “contained” as well:

PELLEY: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?

BLANKFEIN: You can look at history of these things, and Social Security wasn’t devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career. … So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained.

PELLEY: Because we can’t afford them going forward?

BLANKFEIN: Because we can’t afford them.

Let’s get something clear. Blankfein made these comments in the context of what should happen in budget negotiations related to the debt. Social Security does not add one penny to the deficit. And it’s fully solvent until 2033 — it would be fully solvent well into the 22nd century if we simply lifted the payroll tax cap.

Watch it:

Instead of letting banking tycoons guide our public policy,we should look instead to Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (who Goldman Sachs spent big to try to defeat in the recent election).

Warren has an alternative, truly balanced approach to tackling the deficit. During a campaign debate last month, she laid out a popular, credible vision for dealing with the deficit: cut back on wasteful military and agriculture subsidy spending, and make …

The Wall Street Journal CEO Council is an event that brings together elite corporate leaders, journalists, and politicians. It is usually only lightly covered by the media, so the public ends up not seeing much of what goes on.

We’ve obtained a transcript of the event’s dinner meeting that took place earlier this week. At the meeting, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), making conversation with former Senate Minority Leader and current corporate lobbyist Trent Lott, suggests that President Obama should “courageously” cut Medicare by raising the eligibility age in order to combat the deficit:

LIEBERMAN: I’d say that sometime soon– both privately to Speaker Boehner and — and also publicly, he — he should– make clear that he’s prepared– to– to change some of — Medicare status quo. […] But I think the President will have to make clear he’ll either support some– well, for instance, in– beginning to increase the age of eligibility. […] Incidentally, increasing the age of eligibility to be more close (LAUGH) to the actual age at which people are living, as opposed to the age– that they were living in 1965, when Medicare was adopted, the average age It’s now closing in on 80 — saves a lotta money– every year. The president has to show the public, and the Republicans, who he’s asking to support higher revenue, or tax reform, that he’s prepared and Democrats are prepared to deal– courageously with– entitlements.

To be clear — Americans as a whole are not living longer. White-collar workers are, but blue-collar workers have barely seen any increase in life expectancy.

Raising the Medicare age “to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare.”

What could Lieberman’s …

A number of right-wing politicians and corporate CEOs are demanding that Congress and the President agree to cuts to Social Security along with reductions in the corporate tax rate as part of a “Grand Bargain.”

These conservatives who are making this demand should heed the words of their icon, former President Ronald Reagan. In the 1984 presidential debate, Reagan — the most right-wing president in his generation — debunked the lie that Social Security adds to the debt:

REAGAN: Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once in for all…Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.

Watch it:

If only John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other Social Security foes would heed the words of this Republican they so often praise.

Want to help fight for a progressive approach to the deficit that doesn’t involve cutting Social Security?

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has an alternative, truly “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit. During a campaign debate last month, she laid out a popular vision for dealing with the deficit: cut back on wasteful military and agriculture subsidy spending, and make the rich pay their fair share with higher tax rates. Watch Warren explain:

Show your support for Warrenai??i??s “balanced approach” by clicking here to add your name as a citizen supporter of her vision.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)

Earlier today, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) — who serves as the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee — appeared on MNSBC to discuss upcoming budget negotiations. After being probed by the television anchor about cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits, Wasserman Schultz said that “what we don’t need to do, I canAi??tell you, is cut benefits”:

TAMRON HALL: How muchAi??leeway will the left give theAi??president regarding entitlementAi??reform?Ai?? He met with union leadersAi??yesterday.Ai??they have the president’s backAi??at this point but where does theAi??balance come from?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, it is going to beAi??difficult and challenging, butAi??anything worth doing is worthAi??doing well and together. You know, we have shownAi??repeatedly that when the twoAi??parties come together like Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan on Social Security reform we canAi??add years of solvency and toAi??medicare and do it and increaseAi??benefits like with Obamacare and we need both sides to beAi??willing.Ai?? I know the Democrats areAi??willing. President Obama’s willing to sitAi??down at the table. What we don’t need to do, I canAi??tell you, is cut benefits. That’s something that I don’tAi??think is the first thing thatAi??should be put forward. We have a lot of opportunity toAi??continue to make reforms inAi??medicare, make sure we build inAi??more efficiencies to the programAi??so we can add the years ofAi??solvency.

TAMRON HALL: What about eligibility ageAi??change?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, eligibility age changeAi??would fall in the realm ofAi??benefit cuts. We need to focus like I saidAi??first on making sure we build inAi??more efficiencies to theAi??program.Ai??we have been able to from ObamaAi??care make sure that with thatAi??$716 billion in savings plowedAi??in to waste, fraud and abuse –Ai??fighting waste, fraud and abuseAi??we have collected more than $10Ai??billion in fraudulent medicareAi??payments and we can make moreAi??progress in that area, as well.

Watch it:

Wasserman Schultz’s opposition to benefits cuts …

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

As part of an event with the Wall Street Journal and corporate leaders, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD) — a leading Democrat and ranking member of the House Budget Committee — indicated that he thinks cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits should be part of the upcoming deficit negotiations:

On Capitol Hill, it isn’t clear how strenuously Democrats will resist cutting entitlements. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said he and others were open to changes as long as they were done in a measured way and were part of deal that included tax increases. Mr. Van Hollen also said changing Social Security and increasing the Medicare eligibility age above 65 should be part of negotiations.

“I’m willing to consider all of these ideas as part of an overall plan,” Mr. Van Hollen said Tuesday at the Journal’s CEO Council.

American voters were very clear during last week’s election: they do not want any cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits (and keep in mind Social Security adds nothing to the deficit, anyway).

Click here to call Van Hollen’s office and tell him to reject cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

A screenshot of the Fix the Debt campaign’s logo.

As you read this, powerful corporations are working with groups like the Campaign To Fix The Debt are pushing Congress and President Obama to pass a “Grand Bargain” that would include cuts to corporate tax rates and Social Security and Medicare benefits.

We shouldn’t beat around the bush as to why these corporations are doing this. They want to see this deal enacted so that they can make billions of dollars from reduced taxes while Americans are asked to sacrifice their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) just released a report looking at some of the corporations that support the Campaign To Fix The Debt — such as Microsoft, General Electric, and Goldman Sachs — and what they would gain if the “Grand Bargain” they seek were to be passed.

The IPS report concludes that if one of the tenets of the corporate plan — a proposed territorial tax system that would exempt foreign earnings from U.S. taxes — were passed, the 63 publicly held companies backing the Fix The Debt campaign would get as much as $134 billion.

It’s time for the media and politicians to stop taking the Campaign To Fix The Debt seriously. It is obvious that the group is being backed by powerful corporations because its recommendations would make them money, not because it has any serious solutions for our debt or the economy.

Bank of America actually paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2010.

The so-called Campaign To Fix The Debt and other organizations backed by Wall Street and powerful corporations are pushing for a debt deal during the lame-duck session that would cut Social Security while lowering corporate taxes.

These corporate proponents claim that lowering the corporate tax rate would spur enormous economic growth that would create revenue that would lower the debt.

But there’s just one problem with that — corporate taxes are already incredibly low. Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal, no left-wing rag, about how corporate tax receipts as a share of profits have actually hit a 40-year low this year:

U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years. Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972.

With corporate taxes already hitting record lows, it’s simply unrealistic to claim that lowering the rates even further would spur economic growth and reduce the debt. Rather, it seems like these corporate CEOs are backing a reduction in rates in the debt deal for a simple reason — it would make them money, even if it would rip off taxpayers.

We’ll keep you updated on the fight to protect Social Security and Medicare over the next few months. Sign up for our e-mail list above or below to get updates.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)

As we wrote recently, many of the most fervent advocates for the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering corporate taxes lost their races.

There has been some debate about the case of Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who had spoken favorably of the Bowles-Simpson plan in the past. But while Tester did offer some positive remarks about the plan, it’s important to remember that he explicitly rejected the plan’s call for cuts to Social Security — which are widely seen as the plan’s centerpiece. Here’s an article from the Missoulian from October 21st showing this:

While Tester has said the Simpson-Bowles plan is a good starting point on how to reduce the federal deficit, he never supported its Social Security proposals, campaign spokesman Aaron Murphy said last week.

ai???Cutting the debt and deficit will be about priorities, and Jon believes cutting the safety net from seniors is not what we should be discussing,ai??? Murphy said.

Additionally, his campaign website specifically called for the need to “expand” benefits in the Social Security and Medicare programs — which goes well beyond the normal “protecting” nomenclature:Ai??

In fact, during an August town hall meeting, Tester said he “doesn’t support cuts to Social Security and Medicare,” a fact he prominently displayed on his Senate website.

Perhaps this is why Tester did not receive the direct backing of Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles.

When Change.org was founded in 2007, it was engineered to be a platform for the voiceless to quickly organize for a cause and win battles for progressive change. Indeed, the organization has helped people stop foreclosures of their homes, and has been involved in much positive change.

But it fell under controversy recently when it was revealed that it would start allowing corporate, Republican, and other organizations and causes to use its list-building tools. It is a for-profit corporation and these sources would allow it to expand its revenue stream.

The so-called ai???Campaign To Fix The Debtai??? is using Change.org tools to get members and build its e-mail list. Recall that the Campaign To Fix The Debt is a groupAi??run by corporate CEOs and bankers that is trying to cut Social Security and lower corporate tax rates.

The group is running a petition on Change’s site calling on Congress to endorse the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and corporate taxes. In the three months the petition has been up, it has gained 255,846 supporters.

If you go to the Campaign To Fix The Debt’s website, you’ll see that it brags of having over 300,000 signatories to its petition:

Put two and two together and you’ll see that it appears that almost the entire membership list of the Campaign To Fix The Debt comes from Change.org’s petition tool.

Progressive organizations and grassroots activists who have been utilizing Change.org should be wary about the organization’s tentative alliance with this CEO-led group that is trying to cut Social Security while lowering the corporate tax rate.

We won’t compromise our values. Sign up to join our e-mail list using the tool below this post or …

Over the next couple months, Congress will deliberate in budget negotiations related to budget sequestration and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

There is a growing group of corporate CEO’s and right-wing politicians who are demanding that discussions over these issues include cuts to Medicare and Social Security — programs that are not responsible for the sequestration and tax cut issues.

Appearing on the Ed Show last night, re-elected independent Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) explained why Social Security should not be a part of these negotiations:

SANDERS: We are in the midst of a horrendous Wall Street-caused recession. We are not going to cut Social Security, which by the way as Harry Reid just reminded us, has nothing to with the recession. We’re not going to cut Medicare, we’re not going to cut Medicaid.

Watch it:

Indeed, Social Security is a self-funded program Ai??that isAi??currently projected to beAi??fully solventAi??until the year 2037. After that, it is expected to be able to pay out 75 percent of benefits until 2084, which basically equals full benefits, once inflation isAi??accounted for. There is no threat of the program running out of money any time soon.Ai??Ai??We could make it solvent far into the future if weAi??simply raised the payroll tax capAi??ai??i?? meaning that income above $106,000 would be taxed just like income below that amount is. It does not add to the deficit nor take funds from the general treasury.

Alan Simpson, author of a plan to cut Social Security

It’s conventional wisdom among elites in Washington and Wall Street that Social Security must be cut. The American people don’t agree.

That’s why a long string of lawmakers who supported the Bowles-Simpson plan — which would slash Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering corporate taxes — went down in flames last night.

In fact, almost every candidate who was personally endorsed by the authors of the plan was defeated:

Charlie Bass: Bass was a strong supporter of the Bowles-Simpson plan, and the plan’s authors even personally endorsed him. He was defeated last night by bold progressive Annie Kuster.
Bob Kerrey: Kerrey, a Democrat, endorsed the Bowles-Simpson plan and got their endorsement in return. But promising to cut Social Security did not mobilize voters on his behalf, and he lost to his Republican opponent.
Brendan Doherty: Rhode Island Republican Brian Doherty — who proudly touted his support for the Bowles-Simpson plan and his endorsement by the plans’ authors — lost to David Cicilline.

The election results of last night should serve as a warning to both Democrats and Republicans alike: Americans treasure their social insurance programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and they do not want any candidate promising to cut them.

But ultimately, Obama cannot implement a deal alone. He has to get members of his own party to vote for it in Congress—so regardless of the president’s disposition, there are many pressure points in Congress for progressives who want to keep Democrats from cutting the safety net. To that end, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has been seeking out Democrats running in tough races and getting them on board with a no-cuts agenda, in exchange for valuable financial and logistical support. At least eight House candidates are receiving PCCC support, along with four Senators or Senate candidates: Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and now Representative Shelley Berkley, whom PCCC endorsed on Monday. On a call with volunteers this week—joined, quite notably, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—Berkley re-stated her position on safety net cuts: “I will promise you without fear of contradiction, I will do everything in my power to strengthen and protect Medicare and Social Security and it’s going to be a cold day in the middle of August in the Nevada desert before I do anything that’s going to harm those two essential programs.”

Tommy Thompson

Wisconsin Republican Senate Tommy Thompson has been caught on tape saying he wants to “do away with Medicare and Medicaid.” To accomplish this assault on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — which he supported privatizing in 2004 — he has to try to convince the public that they are going broke.

So maybe that explains this bizarre statement by Thompson. At a recent Republican Party event in Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson ludicrously claimed that China is paying for a portion of every Social Security and Medicare check mailed to seniors:

THOMPSON: I look at the fact that 40 cents out of every dollar, ladies and gentleman, is borrowed mainly from the Chinese. Every Social Security check, every Medicare check 40 cents is borrowed from the Chinese. Does that make you comfortable?

Watch it:

Thompson is trying to claim that 40 cents out of every dollar in our Social Security and Medicare checks comes from the Chinese. The truth is actually the opposite. Social Security is fully financed through payroll contributions, taxes on higher income beneficiaries, and the interest on its own surplus. In fact, it is actually one of the largest holders of U.S. debt — meaning that not only do we not borrow from the Chinese to finance it, but it actually keeps us from borrowing more from the Chinese and other foreign debt holders.

With respect to Medicare, it is also largely funded by its own dedicated revenue stream of payroll taxes, although half of Medicare Part A is funded by general revenue.

And by the way, China only owns 10 percent of U.S. treasuries.

This leaves one of two possibilities. Either Thompson is too ignorant to realize that American taxpayers, not Chinese debt holders, pay for …

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) has a reputation of being a champion for the middle class. But since he left his position as governor, he’s decided to sell himself out to various shady causes that are willing to pay big for his advocacy. For example, he became a paid speaker for the MEK, an Iranian cult group that waged a sophisticated campaign to get de-listed from the U.S. Terrorism group list, despite its past violence against Americans and others.

His latest sellout involves Social Security and Medicare. He has joined the “Fix The Debt” campaign, a $30 million effort designed to implement the Simpson Bowles plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering corporate taxes.

Here’s what he said on NPR today about how he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare:

RENDELL: But what the president should’ve said I think and what I hope he says before the campaigns over is look the mostAi??importantAi??thing we’ve gotta do is fix the debt…and I intend to do that. Look at entitlement programs, because look, when Social Security and Medicare were passed, people were living average life expectancy of 67, 68, now it’s 79 and a half years, and they weren’t meant to cover that much time, so we’ve got to restructure.

First of all, Social Security is completely unrelated to the debt. The program funds itself and is fully funded going out to 2037. After that, if we simply raise the payroll tax cap, it will be funded far out into the future. By conflating Social Security with the debt issue, Rendell is being simply dishonest.

Second of all, the numbers he’s citing about life expectancy are misleading. It’s true that there have been strong gains in life expectancy for some …

Ryan is flat out lying about Social Security and Medicare. (Photo credit: Flickr user monkeyz_uncle)

Last night, during the vice presidential debate with Joe Biden, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan lied to the American people. He said, “Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.”

Watch it:

This statement was a bald-faced lie. Neither program is going bankrupt any time soon. Here’s our quick explainer why:

Social Security: It’s currently projected to beAi??fully solventAi??until the year 2037. After that, it is expected to be able to pay out 75 percent of benefits until 2084, which basically equals full benefits, once inflation isAi??accounted for. There is no threat of the program running out of money any time soon.Ai??Ai??We could make it solvent far into the future if we simply raised the payroll tax cap — meaning that income above $106,000 would be taxed just like income below that amount is. Lifting the cap would require the wealthy to pay a tiny bit more so that the program would be safe and secure. Even a majority of self-identified Tea Partiers find this to be a good idea versus cutting Social Security by raising the retirement age.
Medicare: According to the Medicare Trustees’ annual report that was released in April 2012, “the Hospital Insurance (Part A) Trust Fund has sufficient reserves to pay out the full amount of Medicare Part A benefits until 2024 ai??i?? the same projection made in last year’s report.Ai?? Should nothing else change, and the Trust Fund reserves be depleted in 2024, the Trust Fund would still receive sufficient income from the payroll taxes and other revenue through which it is funded to pay 87% of anticipated Part A expenses.” And all of …

Judd Gregg was once a U.S. Senator, but then decided to go work for Goldman Sachs.

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have launched a new campaign — called “Fix The Debt” — to get Members of Congress to support their austerity plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefitsAi?? while lowering corporate tax rates. They’re even taking aim at bold progressive congressional candidates like Annie Kuster who oppose their plan.

They have a steep hill to climb, because their plan is very unpopular among the public and was already defeated in a 382-38 vote in Congress.

In an article published yesterday in Bloomberg News, former Senator Judd Gregg, who is campaigning with Bowles and Simpson, promised “financial support” to lawmakers who back their Social Security-cutting plan:

ai???Weai??i??re trying to develop a plan that can be used by members of Congress, called ai???Simpson-Bowles plus,ai??i?? if you will,ai??? Gregg said. ai???We want to combine that with grassroots help and financial support to be there for members of Congress who need political support when they make these tough decisions.ai???

First of all, there is no “grassroots” demand to cut Social Security and Medicare. As we revealed to you last week, Bowles and Simpson have enlisted funding from billionaires to try to create the impression of one by flooding town halls with questions about austerity. They’ve already raised $30 million.

But the second part of what Gregg said is more interesting. He is openly saying that his group will provide “financial support” for lawmakers who want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. That’s a monetary incentive to Members of Congress.

And who is Gregg, exactly? Bloomberg correctly identifies him as a former senator, but doesn’t note his day job. Gregg was named an “international advisor” to Goldman Sachs …

A screenshot of the Fix the Debt campaign’s logo.

The so-called Ai??”Campaign To Fix The Debt” is being run by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles and is designed to pressure Congress to enact an austerity plan that cuts Social Security and guts investments in Main Street America while lowering corporate taxes.

To pass this unpopular plan, Simpson and Bowles have amassed a massive $25 million war chest. As the Huffington Post just reported, it is likely that the group is being funded by the right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson; its steering committee includes billionaire CEOs like Honeywell’s Dave Cote.

If you sign up as a volunteer for the group, you’ll be e-mailed a “toolkit” that you’re supposed to use to engage in pro-austerity activism on behalf of the billionaires who run the group.

One of the instructions in the tool kit is to “bird dog” campaign events and town halls that feature Members of Congress. Here’s the sample questions that the campaign is asking people to dog lawmakers with. Notice that they are designed to pressure legislators to agree to cuts to Social Security and enact other devastating spending cuts:

The took kit also instructs activists to “get to the event early to hold signs or pass outAi??literature about the debt,” and to “have somebody ready to record the answer with video, if possible.” Finally, it reminds you to “raise your hand as quickly as possible when theAi??candidate takes questions, speak clearly andAi??confidently!”

This bird-dogging isn’t too different from what a lot of grassroots activists do. The difference, however, is that this group is run by billionaire CEOs who are trying to cut Social Security. They …

Alan Simpson

Earlier this week, former senator and corporate lobbyist Alan Simpson and banking mogul Erskine Bowles, the authors of a plan to cut Social Security and gut programs for the poorest Americans, took out an ad attacking bold progressive congressional candidate Annie Kuster.

Last night, we got a look into the mind of Simpson during a forum held at Harvard University. During the panel, Simpson went off on the critics of his plan to cut Social Security:

SIMPSON: I get so damn sick and tired of listening to the little guy, the vulnerable, the veteran — I am a veteran, and the seniors and this and this and this and the meanwhile this country is headed for second-class status while everybody just babblesAi??into the vapor.

Watch Simpson’s rant:

Simpson might be sick of listening to “the little guy,” veterans, and the vulnerable, but Annie Kuster is not. Click here to chip in a few dollars to defend her from Simpson’s attacks.

Billionaire Honeywell CEO David Cote joined former Senator Sam Nunn to advocate for cutting Social Security. (Photo credit: Flickr user Policy Network)

Former Senator Sam Nunn has a new gig. He’s a Steering Committee memberfor the “Campaign to Fix The Debt,” which is advocating for economy-killing austerity.

This week he appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box as a guest host. He was joined by fellow Campaign to Fix The Debt committee member David Cote, a billionaire CEO who has said he wants a zero percent corporate tax rate. Nunn laid out his case for cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age:

COTE: When you recommend something like that you raise the retirement age by a year 75 years from now when my grandchildren will already be retired — and the outcry begins — say this is ridiculous […]

NUNN: When we passed Social Security and we passed Medicare the life expectancy was somewhere in the mid-60’s. Today the life expectancy is somewhere betwen 78 and 82, somewhere in that range. We basically haven’t made the adjustment. You can’t live with that!

Cote then heartily agreed. Watch Cote and Nunn’s remarks (they begin at around 11:50):

The problem with Cote and Nunn’s justification for raising the retirement age — the idea that we’re all living longer — is that it simply isn’t true. Life expectancy has shot up — but only for white collar workers like lawyers. Life expectancy for blue collar workers has stayed fairly constant over the past few decades. Here’s a chart from the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrating this inequality in life expectancy:

So if we were to raise the retirement age, we’d essentially be …

(Photo credit: Flickr user DonkeyHotey)

It’s a common refrain among Washington policymakers that Social Security must be cut. Even though the program is solvent decades out into the future and could be completely protected by simply raising the payroll tax cap, calls for cutting the program persist.

But Duncan Black — the blogger who writes under the handle “Atrios” — nails the true issue with Social Security in a recent USA Today op-ed. The program is actually not generous enough:

As the system exists, large numbers of Americans nearing retirement will have little more than fairly meager Social Security benefits (the average benefit for retired workers is currently $1230) to survive on in their old age. We can doom them to a life of insecurity and relative poverty or we can take the obvious step to improve their lives: Increase Social Security benefits.

The goal of a retirement system should be to ensure that retired people have sufficient income to live out the remainder of their lives without a radical reduction in quality of life after they stop working. Our current system, a modest mandatory government retirement program combined with individual savings, is failing to do that. Strengthen Social Security now, not by cutting benefits, but by increasing them.

We pointed out recently that nearly a fifth of Americans 65 and older are still working past the official “retirement age.” And leading economists have pointed out that lowering the retirement age would also increase employment. If we truly want to live in a country that treats its seniors well in retirement, we should be talking about protecting and expanding this successful system, not cutting it.

Sign our letter to President Obama opposing any cuts to Social Security by …