President Obama criticized House Speaker John Boehner’s “Plan B” proposal today because it  lacks an extension for unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless.

If the president fails to win on this issue, two million people will face tough choices. The mortgage or the car payment? Go to the doctor or hope for the best? Cash in the 401(k) or take the kids out of college?

Tick tock. Ten days left. The hostages wait for forces beyond their control to decide their fate.

Yet it is up to all of us. Will we send these two million unfortunates a brochure with their last check? A few words of encouragement and instructions for signing up for the food stamps that Republicans love to hate? Don’t forget to say “Happy New Year.”

According to the Council of Economic Advisers¹, families will spend 22 percent less on food when they lose unemployment insurance. Considering half of the people collecting benefits had zero liquid assets² when they lost their job, they likely will not have enough money left to buy bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

We know this. We’ve been here before.

But we must save money, and everyone has to make hard choices. Most of us would concede that. Hard choices, yes. Stupid choices, no.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, every dollar spent on unemployment insurance raises gross domestic product by $1.90³. It has the highest potential impact on job creation of the policy options they examined.

We know this. Every time this program is threatened, we trot out these same statistics. We dig up the same research papers. The same economists write the same op-eds. Yet here we are again.

The question is: Why are we allowing this stupid and cruel policy to be used as a bargaining chip?

Most legislation that passes through Congress has a legitimate argument on both sides. Taxes, the war in Afghanistan even (God help us), gun control are all issues where each side has an argument that can be characterized as consistent with the DSM definition of sanity⁴.

This is not such a case. I cannot fathom the motivations of those who will let people who had jobs and want jobs (also well documented⁵) fall into destitution. I cannot understand why they would do this when there is literally no benefit to anyone. Nor would I try. Life is short.

Obama’s team must be tired. They must be frustrated. They must be scared that they will lose this game of chicken. I can see why they might give the baby their bottle for the greater good. If they do, I get it but it won’t be good enough.

This is where we come in. As progressives (scratch that, as human beings) we have to draw a line in the sand, put the cards on the table, man up and say “NO.” Two million private tragedies are at stake.

This week you’ve been told to sign petitions, write and phone Congress. You’ve written angry letters to the editor that get longer with each concession.  You’ve show up for protests. ‘Tis the season.

What I would like to do is get a rock and throw it a window.  Letters, phone calls and petitions deny us the satisfaction of shattering glass.

It’s not a productive impulse. I don’t know whose window to break nor can I tell you how breaking it would change anything. As far as I know, Campaign for America’s Future has no reserve fund for bailing frustrated progressives out of county jails.

Email. Phone calls. Petition.  Letters to the editor. Tell your friends, colleagues, church members and sympathetic looking strangers.

• Click here to contact your Congressman
• Click here to find your Senator
• Click here to sign a petition to extend unemployment insurance
• Click here to find contact information for letters to the editor.

If we don’t, there will be two more million people out there we can’t look in the eye.

MORNING MESSAGE: This Is Not America’s Deal

OurFuture.org’s Richard Eskow: “Our leaders in Washington heard from the voters last month. They may need to hear from them again. According to news reports a budget deal is coalescing around some very unattractive and unwise ideas … The deal being floated uses the sneaky ‘chained CPI’ to cut Social Security benefits – a lot – for current and future recipients. This supposed ‘correction’ in calculating annual cost-of-living increases makes an already-inadequate formula even less fair to the elderly and disabled. It’s a drastic cut, too: a 3.7 percent cut for the average 75 year old, a 6.5 percent cut for 85 year olds, and a 9.2 percent cut for 95 year olds … You can go here to tell President Obama: No deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.”

Obama, Boehner Close

President, Boehner counteroffers begin to converge as deal appears imminent. W. Post: “Obama laid out a counteroffer that included significant concessions … limiting the hike in tax rates to households earning more than $400,000 a year … Obama also gave ground on a key Republican demand — applying a less-generous measure of inflation across the federal government. That change would save about $225 billion over the next decade, with more than half the savings coming from smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries … Obama increased his overall offer on spending cuts and dropped his demand for extending the payroll tax holiday … . But he is still seeking $80 billion in new spending on infrastructure and unemployment benefits and an increase in the federal government’s borrowing limit large enough to avert any new fight over the issue for two years.”

“The two sides are now dickering over price, not philosophical differences, and the numbers are very close” reports NYT.

Republican leaders initially reject. Politico: “…Boehner and other top Republicans have already rejected the Obama offer as inadequate, and they disputed some of the savings that the White House was counting in its dollar-for-dollar ratio on spending cuts versus new revenue … Republican aides said the total savings are actually lower than $930 billion because Obama is seeking $50 billion in new infrastructure spending and $30 billion for extending unemployment benefits … It then closes the gap by counting savings on interest payments and using a less generous cost-of-living calculator for government benefits — two elements that the speaker’s office says aren’t cuts … And the president’s request to raise the debt limit for two years is likely to draw GOP resistance.”

GOP caucus not expected to put up major resistance to deal, according to Roll Call: “[Boehner] is set to meet with his rank and file for the first time since news leaked that he has put tax rate increases and a one-year debt ceiling increase on the table, and one Republican aide predicted ‘some major pushback’ … But with time running out before the nation goes over the cliff and public opinion turning against them, some Republicans are cautioning not to read too much into any political theater. ‘I think it’ll be a faux revolt,’ a Republican lobbyist said. ‘They’ll pretend like they’re upset. But they all know he had to do it. Some of them will truly be upset. But far less than the number of votes they’ll lose.’”

Social Security Cut Squarely On Table

Dean Baker slams “Chained CPI” proposal from Obama: “This will lead to a reduction in benefits of approximately 0.3 percentage points annually. This loss would be cumulative through time so that after 10 years the cut would be roughly 3 percent, after 20 years 6 percent, and after 30 years 9 percent. If a typical senior collects benefits for twenty years, then the average reduction in benefits will be roughly 3 percent … The proposed cut in the annual cost of living adjustment will be a substantial hit to a population that for the most part is ill-prepared to see a cut in its income. The effect of this cut on the income of the typical beneficiary will be larger, measured as a share of income, than the return to Clinton era tax rates on the richest 2 percent will be to the people affected.”

While Paul Krugman agonizes: “Those [Chained CPI] cuts are a very bad thing, although there will supposedly be some protection for low-income seniors. But the cuts are not nearly as bad as raising the Medicare age, for two reasons: the structure of the program remains intact, and unlike the Medicare age thing, they wouldn’t be totally devastating for hundreds of thousands of people, just somewhat painful for a much larger group. Oh, and raising the Medicare age would kill people; this benefit cut, not so much. The point is that we shouldn’t be doing benefit cuts at all; but if benefit cuts are the price of a deal that is better than no deal, much better that they involve the CPI adjustment than the retirement age. But is this rumored deal better than no deal? I’m on the edge.”

MoveOn.org slams proposal. HuffPost: “MoveOn.org, the largest online progressive organization in Washington, reacted angrily Monday night to reports that Obama was softening. The group’s quick reaction to a possible deal that has yet to be announced publicly shows there will be fierce opposition to cuts that hit Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries … [MoveOn.org's Justin] Ruben said that his organization would encourage Democrats to block such a bargain. ‘If such a deal were proposed by the president and speaker, MoveOn members would expect every Senate and House Democrat to do everything in their power to block it,’ Ruben said. ‘Senate Majority Leader Reid would play a crucial role, as MoveOn members would count on him and other senators to remain true to their repeated promises to keep Social Security benefits off the table.’”

Obama Taps Biden To Lead Gun Control Effort

Biden to lead effort to draft gun control proposals, as resistance softens. W. Post: “The tentative steps ended a paralyzing debate within the administration over how hard to pursue gun-control legislation, which has been a politically perilous issue for many Democrats … Democratic Sens. Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mark R. Warner (Va.) made clear that Congress should consider a range of options to address the issue; all three have been strong supporters of gun rights … But any significant gun legislation would require support from leading Republicans, none of whom joined Democrats on Monday in outlining specific changes they might consider.”

Protesters target NRA. W. Post: “Chanting ‘Shame on the NRA,’ the protesters marched from Spirit of Justice Park to the NRA offices on First Street near the Capitol. After observing a moment of silence, the protesters read off the names of the Sandy Hook Elementary School victims. They then read model responses from an NRA questionnaire given to politicians in order to grade them on their adherence to the NRA’s policies.”

NRA has the strategy for defeating gun legislation after horrific events. NYT: “Over the years the N.R.A. has perfected its strategy for responding to mass shootings: Lie low at first, then slow-roll any legislative push for a response. After the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999, for example, an effort to close the so-called gun-show loophole, requiring unlicensed dealers at gun shows to run background checks, ultimately died in conference after being stalled for months. After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored.”

More than 30 of the wealthiest Americans have signed a letter to Congress and the Obama administration arguing that the estate tax should be raised, not lowered, especially at a time when much of the political establishment is calling for the already economically vulnerable to surrender more of their financial security as the price for backing the country away from the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

Several of the millionaires were featured at a news conference today organized by United for a Fair Economy. They are members of the Responsible Wealth coalition, and the statement they issued today calls for setting the estate tax threshold at $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples. The current threshold is set at $10 million by a law that expires at the end of the year.

“We believe it is right to have a significant tax on large estates when they are passed on to the next generation. We believe it is right morally and economically, and that an estate tax promotes democracy by slowing the concentration of wealth and power,” the statement reads.

This runs counter to a continuing movement by conservatives to eliminate the estate tax altogether, raise the ceiling so high that only a few ultra-rich individuals have to pay it, or set the tax rate at a level that it is not consequential to the people required to pay it.

One of the more eloquent defenses of the estate tax was delivered by Abigail Disney, a filmmaker whose grandfather was the brother of Walt Disney and co-founder of the Disney entertainment empire.

“Let me state this as plainly as I can,” she said. “The current state of affairs is absolutely counter to my deepest values as an American. I have no desire to compound my already significant advantages, and the advantages of my children, especially on the backs of the middle class.”

Disney and the other members of the Responsible Wealth coalition argue that a robust estate tax, targeted at the top 1 percent of estates, will generate the revenues needed to fund the infrastructure and services that made their prosperity possible, so that a new generation of business owners and workers can benefit. A high estate tax also encourages large charitable contributions. And, it ensures that wealth is not perpetually concentrated in the hands of a small, closed aristocracy, but that America can fulfill the promise of upward mobility and shared prosperity.

You can show your support for preserving and strengthening the estate tax by signing this petition.

There’s really not much new to say about the fiscal cliff except that, as of today, we’re now three weeks away from it happening. There’s especially not much new to say when the only news is that a meeting took place at the White House over the weekend between the president and speaker and the big statement was that the lines of communication remain open. No additional meetings have been scheduled.

A deal is still possible, of course, although the grand bargain/big deal/legacy agreement that never was very likely to begin with now appears to be all-but-impossible to achieve. Even if Obama and Boehner could agree on something like that, the chances of translating it into legislation and getting enough votes to pass it in the House and Senate before the January 1-2 fiscal cliff deadlines are very, very small. I’m not surprised by any this: I’ve been predicting since September that we were more likely to go over the cliff than prevent it and my odds of that happening have only gotten better (or is it worse?) since Election Day. For the record, I still think there’s a better than 60 percent chance that we won’t get any deal by January 1, and I’m very close to raising that number.

The chances of getting a big deal are only about 5 percent, and I’m being generous.

That makes it time to start thinking about what happens next, that is, what if we do go over the cliff.

Here’s the first installment.

The negotiations won’t stop; they’ll just move into the next stage as the new Congress gets sworn in and becomes more Democratic; as the tax increases and spending cuts technically go into effect; and as the news focuses on how taxpayers, companies, government contractors, federal departments and agencies and federal employees start to respond to the changes even f they haven’t been fully implemented.

This will make the period between the start of the new Congress on January 3 and the Inauguration, which usually is uneventful to the point of being somnambulant, a whirlwind of post-fiscal cliff-related activities with every member of Congress doing whatever they can to reassure their district or state they are doing everything they can to deal with the situation. Hearings, press conferences, floor statements, town hall meetings, symbolic votes, demonstrations, etc. should all be expected.

Originally Posted at Capital Gains and Games.

The political friends of America’s rich aren’t aiming to convince us that higher taxes on the nation’s highest incomes make no sense. They’re just hoping to keep us distracted.

Why do so many lawmakers in Congress oppose raising taxes on America’s wealthy, even just a little? The answer: We’ll never really know for sure.

Lawmakers might deep down oppose tax hikes on the wealthy, for instance, because their wealthy campaign contributors don’t want to pay any more in taxes. Or they might oppose bigger tax bills for millionaires simply because they don’t want to pay Uncle Sam a cent more of their own million-dollar incomes.

Lawmakers under the influence of either of these motives would, of course, never openly admit to them. How could they — and politically survive? Simple political reality demands that rich people-friendly lawmakers must solemnly proffer much more noble rationales for zealously shielding rich people’s income from taxes.

Raising taxes on high incomes, we’ve been assured since long before the “fiscal cliff” debate, will discourage small business “job creators.” Higher taxes on the rich, we’re told, always backfire and never generate the revenue anticipated.

These claims make for effective sound-bites. But do they match up with facts on the ground? Last week Northwestern University’s Institute for Policy Research hosted a congressional briefing that sought to speak to those facts.

The briefing — entitled Taxing the Wealthy: What Does the Research Show? — brought to Capitol Hill top academic tax analysts, and they had a good many facts to share, to the distinct unease of the apologists for the awesomely affluent who happened to stop by.

What do the facts tell us about those small business “job creators” who’ll suffer so, as friends of the fortunate claim, if tax rates on high incomes rise? The facts don’t show much potential suffering.

Just under 70 percent of American taxpayers making over $1 million a year, U.S. Treasury Department figures show, do indeed report small business income on their tax returns. But these millionaires who do report small business income average only around 5 percent of their income from small business operations.

In other words, we’re talking investment bankers with hobby ranches in Montana here, not small business folks creating good jobs in their own local communities.

But won’t those investment bankers just flee to lower-tax pastures if Congress opts to hike the tax rates on their incomes? Won’t that exodus just negate the revenue boost that raising taxes on the rich is supposed to create?

Charles Varner, a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality, has been researching what typically happens when governments raise taxes on taxpayers of major means.

Varner and his colleagues looked closely at tax receipts in New Jersey and California after these two states enacted new “millionaire’s taxes” in 2004 and 2005. In California, the top tax rate rose from 9.3 to 10.3 percent. After the increase, out-migation of high-income Californians actually fell.

But California, skeptics might argue, occupies a great deal of territory. A deep pocket upset about a tax hike has to travel a good bit to leave California.

True enough, but deep pockets in New Jersey operate in a totally different environment. A millionaire who works on Wall Street could easily have chosen to move in lower-tax New York State or Connecticut after New Jersey’s millionaire’s tax went into effect. A New Jersey millionaire working in Philadelphia could have chosen to relocate in lower-tax Pennsylvania or Delaware.

But these New Jersey millionaires, in real life, opted overwhelmingly to stay put. Researchers, Stanford’s Varney explained at last week’s congressional briefing, have found similar patterns in Canada between provinces with different tax rates and in Switzerland between cantons.

What about the bigger picture? Does an entire nation that raises taxes on the rich risk triggering a rich people’s exodus? France, starting next month, will be levying a 75 percent tax on income over $1 million euros, about $1.28 million. Will high-rollers in France be rushing to end their French connection?

Research can help on this question, too, suggests Varney. Tax rates on high incomes do already vary between one European nation and the next, and investigators have closely studied the migratory behavior of one category of European affluent: star professional soccer players.

These soccer stars can ply their trade in any number of countries. They can move from a high-tax nation to a low-tax nation and easily make as much money in their new locale. They may, in fact, be the most mobile mega millionaires on the face of the earth.

These uniquely mobile soccer stars, the research shows, do appear to be sensitive to taxes, but not nearly as “super-sensitive” as might be expected.

And that doesn’t surprise Stanford’s Varney. Moving carries costs, he notes, everything from the monetary cost of having to pick up stakes and shift somewhere else to the social cost of losing easy geographic access to networks of friends and colleagues.

Varney’s basic point: “Economies of place,” as he noted at last week’s Capitol Hill briefing on the research around taxing the wealthy, remain “significant even for people at the top of the income distribution.”

Varney doesn’t expect any mass exodus of the wealthy from France after the new year’s 75 percent top French tax rate kicks in. The chances of a mass deep-pocket exit in the United States? Even slimmer. If President Obama gets all of the tax hike he’s now seeking in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, the top U.S. tax rate will nudge up only to 39.6 percent.

Veteran labor journalist Sam Pizzigati, an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, writes widely about inequality. His latest book, The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, has just been published.

Nobody who reads this blog will be the least bit surprised by this turn of events:

A growing chorus of Republicans is urging House leaders to abandon their staunch opposition to higher tax rates for the wealthy with the aim of clearing the way for a broad deal that would also rein in the cost of federal health and retirement programs.

With less than a month before the “fiscal cliff” deadline, President Obama remains adamant about allowing tax rates to rise for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. Without such a deal, he is “absolutely” ready to go over the cliff, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Wednesday on CNBC.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza outlines the position of the White House in the fight over how to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, the tax increases and spending cuts set to going into effect at the end of the year.

Many GOP centrists and some conservatives are calling on House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return. Republicans are eager to win changes to fast-growing safety-net programs, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and applying a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits.

After Dec. 31, tax rates for most Americans, including the wealthy, are set to automatically rise, and this could cost Republicans a key bargaining chip in winning changes to entitlements.

“I and some others are advocating giving the president what he wants,” said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio). But he stressed that this must be part of a package that slows federal borrowing and reduces the debt by $4 trillion to $5 trillion.

“Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them,” said LaTourette, a close Boehner ally who is retiring in January.

Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) added: “If there are truly real entitlement reforms that are going to preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, it’s going to be very difficult for me to oppose” higher rates for the rich. [imagine that … ed]

An agreement to raise the top tax rate above the current 35 percent would mark a major concession for a Republican Party that has made opposition to higher tax rates a touchstone for more than two decades.

The step would come on top of what was already a significant compromise for the GOP: an offer earlier this week to increase tax revenue by $800 billion over the next decade. That offer involved generating new revenue by closing loopholes and ending deductions for top earners, not by increasing rates.

Now we’re getting down to brass tacks (tax?) Just how far are the Democrats willing to go on cuts once the Republicans say yes to the tax hikes? Since the only people even talking about the cuts have been Bernie Sanders and a few House progressives, we don’t really know.

So, reporters out there should be asking the White House:

Are you willing to go over the cliff if the Republicans agree to your demands for tax hikes but require major benefits cuts in return?

In my view, as regular readers know, the real problem has always been that the Republicans could easily decide to take yes for an answer on millionaire chump change in exchange for big cuts to “entitlements”. By making the tax cuts the hill they will die on, the Democrats have been setting themselves up for a severe backlash by the Villagers for being unreasonable in the face of GOP capitulation if they refuse to deal on that. Sure, they can say it’s “unbalanced” to ask for all these cuts, but they haven’t really been making that argument up to now so it’s not going to sound all that convincing. (And frankly, the Dems have already shown how far they are willing to go on that … and it’s really far.)

Maybe they don’t care about that and will go over the so-called cliff even if the Republican capitulate on taxes but make steep demands on cuts. I hope they do. But this was always the biggest risk of making the tax hikes the be all and end all so it will be a near thing if this happens and they manage to get out of it.

I’m still hoping for Tea Party intransigence on the tax hikes. Going over the cliff because the Republicans refuse to take yes for an answer has always been the best way out of this mess, at least in this first round. Keep those “entitlements” off the table in these fiscal cliff negotiations — it won’t end well.

And in any case, they’ll be back to try to destroy them another day. They never give up.

MORNING MESSAGE: Jobs Fix Deficits

OurFuture.org’s Dave Johnson: “The economy is slowing, with signs of trouble on the horizon. Trade deficits are huge, a bad manufacturing number this week, Europe still stagnant and slipping (because of austerity), China slowing … This slowing is not happening because people are ‘worried about the fiscal cliff.’ … The slowdown is because the jobs are not coming back fast enough, wages are stagnant and falling, and the government is not doing anything about it … the country could just hire people to do those jobs that need doing — like FDR did. How hard is it to understand that?”

Republicans Cracking On Taxes

Politico suggests Republicans may accept raising top tax rate to 37%: “If Republicans split the difference between current top rates — 35 percent — and Clinton-era rates — 39.6 percent — Obama will get his tax rate increase on the rich, and Republicans can say they stopped him from hiking rates as far as he originally wanted. Some Republicans think it’s not such a bad idea to press Obama to accept a 37 percent top rate, getting him to agree to massive entitlement reform, spending cuts and tax reform. That way, Republicans can fold a losing hand and go home for Christmas.”

NYT suggests Republican caucus giving Boehner flexibility: “Should his support hold up, Mr. Boehner, who faced a frequent battering from his own members over the last two years as he tried to seal deals on various spending agreements, would be better able to negotiate from a point of relative Republican unity. And, most important, he would be viewed as able to sell a deal to his once-fractious caucus. On Wednesday, in a private meeting between Mr. Boehner and House Republicans, member after member spoke in support of him, in some cases saying a deal they would have rejected six months ago would most likely be taken today … Several Republicans said Wednesday that the combination of the onerous nature of the potential tax increases and spending cuts and the realities of the recent election combined to bolster Mr. Boehner’s support.”

Three Senate Republicans explicitly back higher taxes on wealthy. CNN: “‘I know we have to raise revenue,’ [Sen. Tom Coburn] told MSNBC. ‘I don’t really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.’ … Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans from Maine, said later Wednesday they, too, would support the tax rate increase on the wealthy, though they would like to see a caveat to ‘protect small business owners’ who include their business income on their personal tax returns.”

“A few dozen Republicans [are] signaling they are ready to bargain” on taxes reports Bloomberg.

“Cantor Says House Will Not Adjourn Until Deal Reached” reports NYT.

Dems Up Stakes With Push To End Debt Limit Abuse

“Debt limit complicates deficit talks” reports The Hill: “President Obama and congressional Republicans on Wednesday ratcheted up their threats on an increase in the debt ceiling, complicating fiscal-cliff negotiations that had already stalled over taxes.”

Pelosi rejects raising Medicare eligibility age. W. Post quotes: “I am very much against that, and I think most of my members are … I don’t see any reason why that should be in any agreement … I don’t anticipate that it will be in it.”

President “absolutely” will go over “cliff” if GOP won’t accept higher tax rates, says Geithner. CBS quotes: “There is no prospect (for) an agreement that doesn’t involve rates going up on the top 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans.”

Europe Suffering From Austerity, Cronyism

Reckless behavior by Greece’s 1% contributed to its debt crisis. NYT: “Greece’s economic troubles are often attributed to a public sector packed full of redundant workers, a lavish pension system and uncompetitive industries hampered by overpaid workers with lifetime employment guarantees. Often overlooked, however, is the role played by a handful of wealthy families, politicians and the news media — often owned by the magnates — that make up the Greek power structure … everal dozen powerful families control critical sectors, including banking, shipping and construction, and can usually count on the political class to look out for their interests, sometimes by passing legislation tailored to their specific needs. The result, analysts say, is a lack of competition that undermines the economy by allowing the magnates to run cartels and enrich themselves through crony capitalism.”

Britain extends austerity program for an additional year. NYT: “The architect of the austerity program, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, told Parliament on Wednesday that the government had missed one of its self-imposed debt-cutting goals and would have to extend the belt-tightening into 2018 … his presentation drew heckling and laughter from some opposition lawmakers … The next general election in Britain will take place in 2015, well before the end of austerity measures that have included cuts in welfare services and the elimination of tens of thousands of public sector jobs.”

Jared Bernstein urges Washington to focus on growth, not debt, in NYT oped: “The first thing to do is keep applying the accelerator on pro-growth policies that strengthen near-term demand and labor quality, including paycheck supports (like the payroll tax break), training for unemployed workers and investment in bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure. Over the longer term, we might want to think of immigration reform as a way to counteract our decelerating work force.”

In case you were wondering if class war had anything to do with the outcome of the presidential vote in 2012, take a look at the “income” breakdown in The New York Times exit polls for the top 10 swing states.

The division is stark. In eight of the 10 battleground states (Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin), President Obama won voters with incomes under $50,000 while losing voters with incomes of more than $50,000. In the other two swing states (New Hampshire and Colorado), Obama won voters with incomes under $50,000 while tying voters over $50,000 (and losing the subset of voters with incomes over $100,000).

Less than $50,000? Obama won. More than $50,000? Obama lost (or tied). Tell me again why so many Democrats want to screw around with the benefits and retirement ages for Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid? Maybe it’s their lack of class…

Senator Dick Durbin, Senate Majority Whip and one of President Obama’s closest allies, laid out his principles for a deal in the current fiscal showdown today in a speech at the Center for American Progress.  The nuanced speech was a revealing mixture of common sense and nonsense.   The good news is that Durbin, and perhaps the president, have moved far closer to the position supported by the broad base of the Democratic Party, and the vast majority of Americans.

A broad alliance has formed around the demand that any agreement begin with jobs and growth, end the tax breaks for the richest 2%, reject any benefit cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and protect programs for the most vulnerable.  Durbin’s speech suggests the mobilization may be having an effect.

Progressive Taxes:  Durbin sensibly insisted that any agreement had to include progressive tax reform, calling on the House to pass the president’s bill to sustain tax breaks for all income under $250,000 per family, and end them for income above $250,000.

Social Security:  Durbin explicitly joined Senate Leader Harry Reid in taking Social Security off the table in the negotiations, noting that it has not added one penny to the deficit.  He called for a separate commission to meet to insure that Social Security could project solvency for 75 years, saying it is too important to be at risk. (He failed to explain why concrete program changes should be made  now to fit 75-year projections that are inevitably massively inaccurate).

Medicare:   Here Durbin was both vague and slippery.  He argued that everything (outside of Social Security) should be on the table.  He explicitly opposed raising the eligibility age for Medicare and the Ryan plan to turn it into a voucher.  He argued that there were “savings to be had” in Medicare that “would not compromise benefits.”  The entire base of the Democratic Party is united in demanding no benefit cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but supports reforms to make the programs more cost effective.  Certainly there are savings to be made – such as enabling Medicare to negotiate bulk discounts for prescription drugs from the drug companies – without cutting benefits.

Medicaid:  Durbin argued that Medicaid was a “special case” because its recipients were among the most vulnerable, who have the hardest time getting their voice heard in Washington. He explicitly opposed the Ryan plan to turn Medicaid into a block grant and cut its support by one-third over time.  He didn’t argue, however, that Medicaid should be off the table, or insist on no benefit cuts for Medicaid.

Programs for the Vulnerable:  Durbin made the explicit case that domestic discretionary spending had already been cut by $900 billion over 10 years in the debt ceiling deal, and that more savings could be found in the military budget.  He argued that any agreement should be sensitive to protecting the safety net.

Jobs and Growth:  Durbin stated that any agreement had to be careful not to derail a faltering recovery that has already reduced the deficit by 30 percent as a percentage of the economy.  He warned that we were “testing the speed limits” in deficit reduction, having reduced deficits at a faster rate than any time since the demobilization after World War II.  He urged that any agreement on budget caps should have room for expanded investment in infrastructure, education, research and development and other areas vital to jobs and strengthening the economy.

This acknowledges the progressive position, but surely will shortchange the investments needed to put people to work.

The $4 Trillion Mirage:  Durbin embraced the arbitrary goal of a $4-trillion-dollar deficit-reduction deal over 10 years, without offering reason or logic for the position.

“We can get this done,” he stated, saying that a deal would leave America with the “strongest currency in the world.”  But the U.S. currency is already strong, with interest rates near record lows.  America is already viewed as such a safe harbor that investors are willing to collect less than the rate of inflation to hold their money in Treasury notes.  Markets are predicting slow growth and high unemployment, not vibrant recovery and inflation.  Arguably, the U.S. currency is too strong, with trade deficits once more rising to over $1 billion a day, costing jobs and slowing growth.

What’s Not on the Table:  Essential Reform

What we should be focused on is how to get the economy going – and the fundamental reforms needed to make it work for working families once more.  An arbitrary $4 trillion package of deficit reduction is at best irrelevant, and might well be counterproductive.

If we make the reforms we need, we can put our books in order, in part by generating jobs and growth.  Putting people to work in good jobs is the essential first step to deficit reduction.  To help accomplish that, we need to end the extreme inequality that saps the demand needed to make the economy work. So higher taxes on the rich, taxing investors at the same rate as wage earners, not only raises money but addresses a real obstacle to growth.

We need to curb the Wall Street gambling that blew up the economy, so a financial speculation tax would raise money and help essential reform.  We need to balance our trade, so a minimum tax on profits reported abroad, and an end to tax breaks for moving jobs overseas would produce revenue and needed reform.  We need to stop policing the world and start rebuilding America, so cutting the Pentagon budget to fit a lower profile generates both savings and needed reform.  We have to fix our broken health care system, so taking on the drug companies and insurance and hospital complexes that drive health care costs both generates savings and needed reform.

Sadly, other than the president’s sensible insistence that we not extend tax breaks for income over $250,000, none of these essential reforms is “on the table.”  Durbin said, “everything must be on the table.”  Yeah, everything but the essential.

Happy Thanksgiving in corporate-owned America. Walmart workers are preparing for “Black Friday” actions nationwide as the company continues to drive wages and benefits down. And Thanksgiving-day-parade-company Macy’s CEO is standing with Donald Trump at the same time as he is urging Congress to cut our Social Security and Medicare. Let’s tell them who is boss under our We, the People Constitution. Here is how.

Walmart Black Friday Actions

I don’t have to write about how Walmart pays low wages, etc… (I don’t have a problem with companies following the laws that allow low wages, etc., I have a problem with companies using their size and influence to get those laws written for them.)

Walmart workers are finally taking action. This Friday, “Black Friday,” they are planning a number of activities and walkouts at Walmart stores around the country.

In my recent post, Help Change The Economy — Join Walmart Workers Striking On Black Friday, I wrote,

You can help change the economy! Big companies use their size and the fear of losing our jobs to force us to accept no raises or even lower pay and benefits. They can use their size to force communities, states and even the federal government to lower their taxes. You can help change the economy by standing with Walmart workers next week. They have the money but we have the people.

Here are some ways you can participate and help Walmart workers change the economy:

American Rights At Work has sent the following out,

Wow – the word has gotten out about the viral strikes happening at Walmart. Walmart even held late-night mandatory meetings for all store associates to threaten that “there could be consequences” if employees did not report for work on Black Friday. This is clearly illegal and continues to demonstrate the bravery of the workers and why you and I need to back them up.

In major cities, in rural towns, and in nearly every state, workers are standing up to Walmart to say they will not be intimidated. On Friday, they will demand an end to the retaliation they face for speaking out about unacceptable working conditions.

Can you join them this Friday? Find out the details and sign up to join your local rally:

YES, I’ll join a Walmart store action!

NO, but I can stand with Walmart workers.

This is a now-or-never moment for workers across the country.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is standing in solidarity with Walmart’s workers, and sent out the following:

Before you consider hitting Walmart for Black Friday deals, consider this: The workers who ring up all those mega-deals are suffering. And now they are risking everything to make a change. Some Walmart workers will put their jobs on the line this Friday and stand up to the giant big-box store, going on strike to protest poor, unsafe working conditions; low wages; irregular hours and the company’s retaliation against workers who speak out.

Help Walmart employees win the respect they deserve.

These workers are not union members, but they’ve banded together in OUR Walmart, a worker-led organization, to make Black Friday (the biggest shopping day of the year) the most memorable Walmart holiday on record.

Here are ways you can help Walmart workers:

• Take the Black Friday Pledge to stand with workers at your local Walmart.
• Sponsor a brave striker with a $50 grocery gift card donation.
• Visit Share for Respect on Facebook and keep Walmart workers you know informed.
• Use Tumblr to post art and ideas about how to change Walmart.
• Spread the word on the Black Friday Walmart Strike and Making Change at Walmart Facebook pages.
• Use hashtag #walmartstrikers and follow Making Change at Walmart on Twitter.

Help Walmart workers secure decent wages, a safe workplace, manageable hours and the respect they deserve.

In unity,

Randi Weingarten
AFT President

Also, see David Dayen’s post at Firedoglake, Labor Unions Show Solidarity With Walmart Workers.

Macy’s CEO Tries To Ruin Company Brand

Walmart is not the only company ruining the meaning of Thanksgiving for We, the People. Macy’s CEO Terry Lundgren has been trying to ruin the Macy’s brand for the holidays by playing footsie with the right. He is standing up for Donald Trump, in teh face of more than half a million signers of a petition to get Trump off Macy’s shelves. I mean, Donald Trump? Really?

And to make matters worse, Lundgren has signed on with those CEOs who are urging Congress to cut Medicare and Social Security just in time for the holidays!

Macy’s CEO standing by Trump despite petition,

Macy’s CEO Terry Lundgren is sticking by billionaire Donald Trump and his apparel line despite an online petition to “dump Trump.”

The petition was started by Angelo Carusone of SignOn.org, a liberal website “Powered by MoveOn.org.” Carusone is trying to gather 650,000 signatures to persuade Macy’s to drop Trump’s merchandise and ads after the businessman’s repeated criticisms of President Barack Obama, culminating in an online tirade that called for a “revolution” after Obama was re-elected Nov. 6. So far, Carusone said, the petition drive has gathered more than 500,000 signatures.

Macy’s CEO has also signed on as part of the corporate “Fix the Deficit” campaign to cut the things we are entitled to as citizens, including Social Security and Medicare. This triggered the organization Progressive Congress to put out the online action, Tell Macy’s CEO: Hands off Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,

Terry Lundgren
CEO, Macy’s, Inc.
7 West Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Dear Mr. Lundgren:

Our families’ futures aren’t up for negotiation. American workers, retirees, and families have sacrificed enough. Please drop out of the CEO coalition to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Thank you.

It also triggered CREDO to launch the online petition, Macy’s vs. Medicare?,

From Miracle on 34th Street to the Thanksgiving Day Parade, Macy’s is a powerful symbol of the holidays for many Americans.

But this holiday season, Macy’s CEO Terry Lundgren is part of a coalition of ultra-wealthy CEOs who are actively working to undermine the economic security of countless American families.

These CEOs are lobbying Congress to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits (not to mention other important safety net programs), all to get themselves and their companies massive tax breaks.

Tell Terry Lundgren, the CEO of Macy’s: Stop trying to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

Suggested tweet: RT @CREDOMobile: Why is the CEO of @Macys trying to cut #Medicare and #SocialSecurity benefits? http://bit.ly/RURijq #p2 #MacysParade

–

Click these to follow Dave Johnson and/or Campaign for America’s Future on Twitter: