There is little/no penalty for pols to not reach an agreement...gerrymandering puts pols in "safe" Districts and they can seemingly say/do anything and get re-elected...One exception stands out - Patrick Murphy defeated crazy-talking teabagger, incumbant Allen West.
Wall Street-Funded Poll and Wall Street Bailout King Both Say 'Cut Social Security'
Richard (RJ) Eskow Posted: 11/20/2012 12:37 pm
The anti-Social Security propagandists should've thought this one through a little more carefully: On the same day that Goldman Sach's CEO issued his "balanced" demand for Social Security and Medicare cuts, the Wall Street-funded group called "Third Way" published the results of a poll which precisely reflected the wishes of Goldman Sach's CEO.
Coincidence? I report, you decide.
It certainly doesn't look good when the poll in question contains misleading questions, is deceptively presented, and includes sentences like "Questions 50 to 55 held for future release." Any remaining shred of credibility disappears in the face of numerous other polls which directly contradicts Third Way's claims about these results.
Oh, and we almost forgot: Two of that group's board members worked for that CEO.
Blankfein's comments followed the anti-social contract movement's inaccurate and misleading script to the letter: "Social Security wasn't designed to ... support a 30-year retirement after a 25 year career," said Blankfein. This is a variation on the "we're living longer" argument that's been debunked dozens of times. Americans who lived to the age of 65 are only living a little bit longer -- and the ones living the longest are the wealthiest among us, not the ones who rely on Social Security.
Blankfein's prescriptions come straight from the script, too:"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."
Well, gosh. By uncanny coincidence, that just happens to be exactly the kind of policy package proposed by Third Way ... and by the billionaire-funded individuals named Simpson and Bowles, who issued a personal proposal after failing to get one out of their Presidential commission ... and by the billionaire-funded Rivlin/Domenici group ...
And it happens to be exactly the kind of package which Third Way's outlier poll says Obama voters want to see.,,,,,HUH? ..wtf?
Are we getting the picture yet?
Balancing Act
The Wall Street austerity script now calls for an illusory gloss of "balance," which is to be provided by adding a little "revenue" to these enormous cuts. That's the word of the day -- "revenue" -- instead of "tax increases." The word "revenue" is used because the plan is to collect most of it from the middle class by eliminating tax deductions that it uses regularly.
"In the long run," says Blankfein, "there has to be more revenue." See what he did right there? In the "long run" -- not now. And although he says "the burden of that revenue will be disproportionately taken up by wealthier people," he doesn't say how.
On the other hand, he's very specific about the cuts we need to make to Medicare and Social Security, starting now. Why?
"Because we can't afford them," says Blankfein.
Of course, Blankfein had no scruples about "affordability" when it came time to rescue Goldman Sachs in the bank bailout. That took some doing, since Goldman wasn't a bank. But helpful government executives broke the rules so that it could become a bank -- and then receive $10 billion in bailout money from the same taxpayers who would suffer if Blankfein's social diktat ever became government policy.
The Paymasters vs. the Public
We shouldn't be surprised that Blankfein's following the script, of course. He wrote that script -- along with Republican billionaire Peter Peterson and all those who fund groups in the anti-Social Security movement, a cohort which includes Third Way and all the other pseudo-"centrist" and "bipartisan" groups.
They're pseudo-centrist, rather than truly centrist, because the real American majority passionately opposes their ideas. Seventy percent of voters were "uncomfortable" with the Simpson Bowles proposal when it was published. A stunning majority of Americans opposed cutting Social Security for deficit reduction, including 75 percent of registered Republicans and 76 percent of self-described <em>Tea Party</em> members.
One of the latest studies to reaffirm these findings was a Campaign For America's Future/Democracy Corps poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner immediately after the election. That poll showed that all voters -- not just Obama voters -- wanted the government to emphasize job creation and economic growth over deficit reduction.
The poll also found that voters opposed the Blankfein/Third Way proposal for Social Security cuts by 62 to 31 percent.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
