Seniors Fire A White House Warning Shot in Advance of 2013 Budget
The National Committee Urges the White House to Reject Proposals that Target Middle Class Families
We’vewritten to President Obama and Budget Director, Jack Lew, urging the administration to protect programs vital to hard-working Americans and their families as the administration prepares its Fiscal Year 2013 budget. Social Security and Medicare provide lifelines to millions who still suffer in this economy, yet these programs continue to be targeted by those in Washington hoping to balance the budget by cutting benefits to seniors, the disabled, and their families. Our President/CEO, Max Richtman said:
?The vast majority of Americans, of all ages and political stripes, do not support cutting Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget; however, they do support allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. In spite of this, benefit cuts for the middle-class continue to top the budget agenda for many in Washington. The President?s 2013 Budget will provide an opportunity for Washington to reverse the failed fiscal policies of the past and reconnect with an American middle-class still suffering in this economy. We look forward to working with the President to protect and strengthen our vital social insurance safety net. ?
Following are just some of the proposals discussed by the White House and others which the National Committee opposes and are highlighted inour letter:Raising Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67. We are also deeply concerned about a plan to cut Medicare by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. This would not only shift the cost saved by the federal government to 65 and 66 year-olds losing Medicare coverage, but also to employers and employees, the states, and younger people buying health insurance through the new health insurance exchanges.Expanding Medicare means testing. Medicare Part B has been means tested since 2007. Additional means testing would undermine the social insurance nature of Medicare, and ultimately raise costs for middle and lower-income seniors who depend on it.Cutting the COLA by replacing the current the CPI-W with the chained-CPI. This would have the effect of reducing the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that seniors depend on in retirement to protect their Social Security benefits? purchasing power against the harmful effects of inflation. Recent analysis estimates that, over time, the annual benefit cut stemming from the chained-CPI will accumulate to almost $1,400. Rather than cutting the COLA for seniors we should adopt a more accurate measure of seniors? costs, by adopting the CPI-E.In the past few months, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens have told Washington ?Hands Off ? No Cuts? during rallies, protests, marches and in email, phone and petition campaigns to Congress. Americans have engaged in the National Committee?s nationwide campaign in a big way and will continue to do so throughout this election cycle. Average Americans understand the value of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the middle-class and they worry that Washington will turn its back on American retirees, workers and their families.You can see ourfull letter to the White House on the NCPSSM website.
Cutting Contributions to Social Security Isn’t the ONLY Way to Stimulate the Economy
While Congress negotiates with itself and the President takes his case for further cutting the payroll tax on the road, there?s one key point that seems to continually be overlooked in this Washington debate. Cutting the payroll tax isn?t the only way to provide stimulus to middle-class Americans?it?s just seen as the most politically feasible way.The Tax Policy Center?s TaxVox blog provides this great overview of why the payroll tax cut extension is notthe best way to provide stimulus toaverage Americans.
Obama Had It Right the First Time: Bring Back the Making Work Pay Tax Credit
Roberton Williams | Posted on December 5, 2011, 5:09 pm Last December, Congress replaced the two-year-old Making Work Pay tax credit (MWP) with this year?s payroll tax cut. That change cut taxes for higher-income workers, raised taxes for some low-wage workers, and nearly doubled the amount of lost tax revenue. And it most likely provided less bang-for-the-buck economic stimulus than the credit it replaced.Since our anemic economy still needs a boost, why not reverse course and bring back the MWP in a bulked-up form? That step would provide more powerful macro medicine for 2012.A quick review: MWP provided a credit in 2009 and 2010 of 6.2 percent of earnings up to $400 for singles and twice that for couples. It phased out between $75,000 and $95,000 of income (twice that range for couples). That meant that most of the tax savings went to low- and middle-income workers, the group most likely to spend rather than save the extra cash.In contrast, the 2011 payroll tax cut equals 2 percent of earnings up to a maximum of $2,136 per worker with no income limit. Tax savings for high-income recipients probably went largely into savings accounts and delivered little economic kick. On balance, the payroll tax cut almost certainly had less bang-for-the-buck than MWP but its doubled cost probably resulted in a greater overall boost to the economy.A Tax Policy Center analysis showed that replacing MWP with this year?s payroll tax cut raised taxes for about one-third of households (60 percent with income under $20,000) and lowered taxes for about half of households (nearly a third with income over $75,000). Shifting tax savings from low- to high-income households certainly diluted the stimulus.Congress could revert to the original MWP or go with a beefed up MWP with double the maximum benefits?$800 for singles and $1,600 for couples. TPC analysis shows that the latter would cost roughly the same as extending the payroll tax cut but would focus tax savings on low- and middle-income families, those most likely spend the extra money?half would go to households with income under $50,000 and 80 percent to those with income under $100,000. In contrast, 60 percent of an extended payroll tax cut would go to households making more than $100,000. Applying MWP?s greater bang-for-the-buck to the larger aggregate revenue loss would give the economy a bigger kick than continuing this year?s policy.My own tax cut this year?more than $2,000?went straight into savings and I?m not likely to spend it until sometime in the late 2020s when my grandsons head off to college. That certainly did nothing to help the economy now. And I?m sure I wasn?t alone.So, Congress, raise my taxes in 2012?along with the taxes of people like me?and give the money to lower-income workers who need cash today to make ends meet. They?ll spend every last cent, I?ll hardly notice the change, the economy will grow a little faster, the country will be better off, and we can all celebrate a more promising new year.
NCPSSM on CSPAN
NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, took calls and questions today on CSpan about the Supercommittee, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and ongoing efforts in Congress to cut these programs.
Let’s Give Thanks for Stopping the Supercommittee
For months, Hands Off-No Cuts activists have taken to the streets, met with their Members of Congress and placed literally thousands of phone calls and emails urging Congress to reject flawed fiscal policies that send the bill for those failures straight to the middle class. It?s been an incredibly successful campaign and we wanted tohighlight just some of your successes in this video.Economist Dean Baker also provides this wonderful perspective on how we got here and what?s ahead.
Since the supercommittee’s real agenda was to bypass Congress and cut social security, let’s give thanks for the 99%
Congress gave us a wonderful Thanksgiving present when we got word that the supercommittee “superheroes” were hanging up their capes. While many in the media were pushing the story of a dysfunctional Congress that could not get anything done, the exact opposite was true. The supercommittee was about finding a backdoor way to cut social security and Medicare, and create enough cover that Congress could get away with it.It is important to remember the basic facts about the budget and the economy. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, it is easy to show (by looking at the website of the Congressional Budget Office) that we do not have a chronic deficit problem. In 2007, prior to the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic downturn, the deficit was just 1.2% of GDP.The deficit was projected to remain near this level for the immediate future, even if the Bush tax cuts did not expire, as originally scheduled in 2011. If the tax cuts were allowed to expire, then the budget was projected to turn to surplus.All this changed when the collapse of the housing bubble wrecked the economy. The story is simple, the housing bubble generated over $1tn in annual demand by stimulating record levels of construction and causing a home equity-driven consumption boom. This demand disappeared when the bubble burst. This is what created the large deficits that we are now seeing.The $1tn-plus deficits are replacing lost private-sector demand. Those who want lower deficits now also want higher unemployment. They may not know this, but that is the reality ? since employers are not going to hire people because the government has cut its spending or fired government employees. The world does not work that way.While this is the reality, the supercommittee was about turning reality on its head. Instead of the problem being a Congress that is too corrupt and/or incompetent to rein in the sort of Wall Street excesses that wrecked the economy, we were told that the problem was a Congress that could not deal with the budget deficit.To address this invented problem, the supercommittee created an end-run around the normal congressional process. This was a long-held dream of the people financed by investment banker Peter Peterson. Their strategy was derived from the conclusion that it would not be possible to make major cuts to social security and Medicare through the normal congressional process because these programs are too popular.Both programs enjoy enormous support across the political spectrum. Even large majorities of self-identified conservatives and Republicans are opposed to cuts in social security and Medicare. For this reason, they have wanted to set up a special process that could insulate members of Congress from political pressure. The hope was that both parties would sign on to cuts in these programs, so that voters would have nowhere to go.However, this effort went down in flames this week. Much of the credit goes to the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement: OWS and the response it has drawn from around the country has hugely altered the political debate. It has put inequality and the incredible upward redistribution of income over the last three decades at the center of the national debate. In this context, it became impossible for Congress to back a package that had cuts to social security and Medicare at its center, while actually lowering taxes for the richest 1%, as the Republican members of the supercommittee were demanding.Now that the supercommittee is dead, Congress must be forced to address the real crisis facing the country: the 26 million people who are unemployed, underemployed, or out of the labor force altogether. This would not be difficult if we had a functional Congress.The teenage unemployment rate is 25%; the unemployment rate for African American teenagers is 45%. A youth employment program simply putting people to work cleaning up parks and abandoned buildings could put many of these people to work. If we got adequate funding to state and local governments, they would not be paying off 30,000 workers a month.We have a serious need for rebuilding our infrastructure. Major projects take time ? but unfortunately, time we have: no projections show the economy recovering until at least 2016 or 2017. In these circumstances, we can promote work-sharing, which would encourage employers to keep workers on the job instead of putting them on the unemployment rolls.These are the sorts of things that Congress should be debating right now. As the financial markets keep telling us, the budget deficit is not a problem ? otherwise, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds would not be 2%.There is a long-term issue with the deficit, but as every budget analyst knows, this is a healthcare story. If the United States fixes its healthcare system, then the deficit will not be a major problem. If we don’t, then our broken healthcare system will wreck the economy regardless of what we do with Medicare, Medicaid and other public sector healthcare programs.So, everyone should enjoy their Thanksgiving, grateful that the supercommittee turkey is dead. If the 99% can keep up the pressure, Congress will return to reality after the holiday.
Super Committee’s Rejection of Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Is Not a “Failure”
Statement from Co-Chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
(Washington D.C.) ? Today, the Co-Chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Representative Jeb Hensarling and Senator Patty Murray, released the following statement. “After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee?s deadline. “Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve. We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee?s work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy. “We are deeply disappointed that we have been unable to come to a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, but as we approach the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving, we want to express our appreciation to every member of this committee, each of whom came into the process committed to achieving a solution that has eluded many groups before us. Most importantly, we want to thank the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task. “We would also like to thank our committee staff, in particular Staff Director Mark Prater and Deputy Staff Director Sarah Kuehl, as well as each committee member’s staff for the tremendous work they contributed to this effort. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Douglas Elmendorf and Mr. Thomas Barthold and their teams at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, respectively, for the technical support they provided to the committee and its members.”
Reaction from Max Richtman, President/CEO of National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare
?The super committee?s so-called ?failure? to sign off on yet another bad deal for average Americans could be the first indication that Washington has begun to listen to the American people who?ve said they don?t want their benefits cut for deficit reduction. They?ve finally realized that it is wrong to get our budget house in order by targeting the very people hurt most by this difficult economy. The American people do want fiscal sanity returned to Washington but the vast majority of all ages and political persuasions have said Congress should not cut vital programs like Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction.They know Congress can cut the deficit without further stacking the deck against the poor and the middle class if it focuses on improving the economy and asking those who have done extremely well in the last decade to finally pay their fair share. In the past few months, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens delivered that message during rallies, protests and marches and in email, phone and petition campaigns to Congress. Americans were engaged in this deficit debate because they know the value of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for American families. This has become painfully evident in an economy where the middle class has already shouldered enough of the financial burden through lower home values, job loss, shrinking savings and stagnant wages. In the case of the supercommittee, failure to support a flawed deficit deal that would target our social insurance safety net while protecting the wealthy isn?t a failure at all?it could be Washington?s first successful step in closing the growing disconnect and economic gap between America?s haves and have-nots.? Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEOAnd while the blame game will be in full throttle tonight and tomorrow, here is a good primer laying out the super committee time line showing just how far Democrats were willing to compromise (too far) and how little (none) the GOP was willing to give (not “one red cent” as co-chair Jeb Hensarling famously bragged).
Seniors Fire A White House Warning Shot in Advance of 2013 Budget
The National Committee Urges the White House to Reject Proposals that Target Middle Class Families
We’vewritten to President Obama and Budget Director, Jack Lew, urging the administration to protect programs vital to hard-working Americans and their families as the administration prepares its Fiscal Year 2013 budget. Social Security and Medicare provide lifelines to millions who still suffer in this economy, yet these programs continue to be targeted by those in Washington hoping to balance the budget by cutting benefits to seniors, the disabled, and their families. Our President/CEO, Max Richtman said:
?The vast majority of Americans, of all ages and political stripes, do not support cutting Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget; however, they do support allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. In spite of this, benefit cuts for the middle-class continue to top the budget agenda for many in Washington. The President?s 2013 Budget will provide an opportunity for Washington to reverse the failed fiscal policies of the past and reconnect with an American middle-class still suffering in this economy. We look forward to working with the President to protect and strengthen our vital social insurance safety net. ?
Following are just some of the proposals discussed by the White House and others which the National Committee opposes and are highlighted inour letter:Raising Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67. We are also deeply concerned about a plan to cut Medicare by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. This would not only shift the cost saved by the federal government to 65 and 66 year-olds losing Medicare coverage, but also to employers and employees, the states, and younger people buying health insurance through the new health insurance exchanges.Expanding Medicare means testing. Medicare Part B has been means tested since 2007. Additional means testing would undermine the social insurance nature of Medicare, and ultimately raise costs for middle and lower-income seniors who depend on it.Cutting the COLA by replacing the current the CPI-W with the chained-CPI. This would have the effect of reducing the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that seniors depend on in retirement to protect their Social Security benefits? purchasing power against the harmful effects of inflation. Recent analysis estimates that, over time, the annual benefit cut stemming from the chained-CPI will accumulate to almost $1,400. Rather than cutting the COLA for seniors we should adopt a more accurate measure of seniors? costs, by adopting the CPI-E.In the past few months, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens have told Washington ?Hands Off ? No Cuts? during rallies, protests, marches and in email, phone and petition campaigns to Congress. Americans have engaged in the National Committee?s nationwide campaign in a big way and will continue to do so throughout this election cycle. Average Americans understand the value of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the middle-class and they worry that Washington will turn its back on American retirees, workers and their families.You can see ourfull letter to the White House on the NCPSSM website.
Cutting Contributions to Social Security Isn’t the ONLY Way to Stimulate the Economy
While Congress negotiates with itself and the President takes his case for further cutting the payroll tax on the road, there?s one key point that seems to continually be overlooked in this Washington debate. Cutting the payroll tax isn?t the only way to provide stimulus to middle-class Americans?it?s just seen as the most politically feasible way.The Tax Policy Center?s TaxVox blog provides this great overview of why the payroll tax cut extension is notthe best way to provide stimulus toaverage Americans.
Obama Had It Right the First Time: Bring Back the Making Work Pay Tax Credit
Roberton Williams | Posted on December 5, 2011, 5:09 pm Last December, Congress replaced the two-year-old Making Work Pay tax credit (MWP) with this year?s payroll tax cut. That change cut taxes for higher-income workers, raised taxes for some low-wage workers, and nearly doubled the amount of lost tax revenue. And it most likely provided less bang-for-the-buck economic stimulus than the credit it replaced.Since our anemic economy still needs a boost, why not reverse course and bring back the MWP in a bulked-up form? That step would provide more powerful macro medicine for 2012.A quick review: MWP provided a credit in 2009 and 2010 of 6.2 percent of earnings up to $400 for singles and twice that for couples. It phased out between $75,000 and $95,000 of income (twice that range for couples). That meant that most of the tax savings went to low- and middle-income workers, the group most likely to spend rather than save the extra cash.In contrast, the 2011 payroll tax cut equals 2 percent of earnings up to a maximum of $2,136 per worker with no income limit. Tax savings for high-income recipients probably went largely into savings accounts and delivered little economic kick. On balance, the payroll tax cut almost certainly had less bang-for-the-buck than MWP but its doubled cost probably resulted in a greater overall boost to the economy.A Tax Policy Center analysis showed that replacing MWP with this year?s payroll tax cut raised taxes for about one-third of households (60 percent with income under $20,000) and lowered taxes for about half of households (nearly a third with income over $75,000). Shifting tax savings from low- to high-income households certainly diluted the stimulus.Congress could revert to the original MWP or go with a beefed up MWP with double the maximum benefits?$800 for singles and $1,600 for couples. TPC analysis shows that the latter would cost roughly the same as extending the payroll tax cut but would focus tax savings on low- and middle-income families, those most likely spend the extra money?half would go to households with income under $50,000 and 80 percent to those with income under $100,000. In contrast, 60 percent of an extended payroll tax cut would go to households making more than $100,000. Applying MWP?s greater bang-for-the-buck to the larger aggregate revenue loss would give the economy a bigger kick than continuing this year?s policy.My own tax cut this year?more than $2,000?went straight into savings and I?m not likely to spend it until sometime in the late 2020s when my grandsons head off to college. That certainly did nothing to help the economy now. And I?m sure I wasn?t alone.So, Congress, raise my taxes in 2012?along with the taxes of people like me?and give the money to lower-income workers who need cash today to make ends meet. They?ll spend every last cent, I?ll hardly notice the change, the economy will grow a little faster, the country will be better off, and we can all celebrate a more promising new year.
NCPSSM on CSPAN
NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, took calls and questions today on CSpan about the Supercommittee, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and ongoing efforts in Congress to cut these programs.
Let’s Give Thanks for Stopping the Supercommittee
For months, Hands Off-No Cuts activists have taken to the streets, met with their Members of Congress and placed literally thousands of phone calls and emails urging Congress to reject flawed fiscal policies that send the bill for those failures straight to the middle class. It?s been an incredibly successful campaign and we wanted tohighlight just some of your successes in this video.Economist Dean Baker also provides this wonderful perspective on how we got here and what?s ahead.
Since the supercommittee’s real agenda was to bypass Congress and cut social security, let’s give thanks for the 99%
Congress gave us a wonderful Thanksgiving present when we got word that the supercommittee “superheroes” were hanging up their capes. While many in the media were pushing the story of a dysfunctional Congress that could not get anything done, the exact opposite was true. The supercommittee was about finding a backdoor way to cut social security and Medicare, and create enough cover that Congress could get away with it.It is important to remember the basic facts about the budget and the economy. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, it is easy to show (by looking at the website of the Congressional Budget Office) that we do not have a chronic deficit problem. In 2007, prior to the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic downturn, the deficit was just 1.2% of GDP.The deficit was projected to remain near this level for the immediate future, even if the Bush tax cuts did not expire, as originally scheduled in 2011. If the tax cuts were allowed to expire, then the budget was projected to turn to surplus.All this changed when the collapse of the housing bubble wrecked the economy. The story is simple, the housing bubble generated over $1tn in annual demand by stimulating record levels of construction and causing a home equity-driven consumption boom. This demand disappeared when the bubble burst. This is what created the large deficits that we are now seeing.The $1tn-plus deficits are replacing lost private-sector demand. Those who want lower deficits now also want higher unemployment. They may not know this, but that is the reality ? since employers are not going to hire people because the government has cut its spending or fired government employees. The world does not work that way.While this is the reality, the supercommittee was about turning reality on its head. Instead of the problem being a Congress that is too corrupt and/or incompetent to rein in the sort of Wall Street excesses that wrecked the economy, we were told that the problem was a Congress that could not deal with the budget deficit.To address this invented problem, the supercommittee created an end-run around the normal congressional process. This was a long-held dream of the people financed by investment banker Peter Peterson. Their strategy was derived from the conclusion that it would not be possible to make major cuts to social security and Medicare through the normal congressional process because these programs are too popular.Both programs enjoy enormous support across the political spectrum. Even large majorities of self-identified conservatives and Republicans are opposed to cuts in social security and Medicare. For this reason, they have wanted to set up a special process that could insulate members of Congress from political pressure. The hope was that both parties would sign on to cuts in these programs, so that voters would have nowhere to go.However, this effort went down in flames this week. Much of the credit goes to the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement: OWS and the response it has drawn from around the country has hugely altered the political debate. It has put inequality and the incredible upward redistribution of income over the last three decades at the center of the national debate. In this context, it became impossible for Congress to back a package that had cuts to social security and Medicare at its center, while actually lowering taxes for the richest 1%, as the Republican members of the supercommittee were demanding.Now that the supercommittee is dead, Congress must be forced to address the real crisis facing the country: the 26 million people who are unemployed, underemployed, or out of the labor force altogether. This would not be difficult if we had a functional Congress.The teenage unemployment rate is 25%; the unemployment rate for African American teenagers is 45%. A youth employment program simply putting people to work cleaning up parks and abandoned buildings could put many of these people to work. If we got adequate funding to state and local governments, they would not be paying off 30,000 workers a month.We have a serious need for rebuilding our infrastructure. Major projects take time ? but unfortunately, time we have: no projections show the economy recovering until at least 2016 or 2017. In these circumstances, we can promote work-sharing, which would encourage employers to keep workers on the job instead of putting them on the unemployment rolls.These are the sorts of things that Congress should be debating right now. As the financial markets keep telling us, the budget deficit is not a problem ? otherwise, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds would not be 2%.There is a long-term issue with the deficit, but as every budget analyst knows, this is a healthcare story. If the United States fixes its healthcare system, then the deficit will not be a major problem. If we don’t, then our broken healthcare system will wreck the economy regardless of what we do with Medicare, Medicaid and other public sector healthcare programs.So, everyone should enjoy their Thanksgiving, grateful that the supercommittee turkey is dead. If the 99% can keep up the pressure, Congress will return to reality after the holiday.
Super Committee’s Rejection of Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Is Not a “Failure”
Statement from Co-Chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
(Washington D.C.) ? Today, the Co-Chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Representative Jeb Hensarling and Senator Patty Murray, released the following statement. “After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee?s deadline. “Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve. We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee?s work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy. “We are deeply disappointed that we have been unable to come to a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, but as we approach the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving, we want to express our appreciation to every member of this committee, each of whom came into the process committed to achieving a solution that has eluded many groups before us. Most importantly, we want to thank the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task. “We would also like to thank our committee staff, in particular Staff Director Mark Prater and Deputy Staff Director Sarah Kuehl, as well as each committee member’s staff for the tremendous work they contributed to this effort. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Douglas Elmendorf and Mr. Thomas Barthold and their teams at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, respectively, for the technical support they provided to the committee and its members.”
Reaction from Max Richtman, President/CEO of National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare
?The super committee?s so-called ?failure? to sign off on yet another bad deal for average Americans could be the first indication that Washington has begun to listen to the American people who?ve said they don?t want their benefits cut for deficit reduction. They?ve finally realized that it is wrong to get our budget house in order by targeting the very people hurt most by this difficult economy. The American people do want fiscal sanity returned to Washington but the vast majority of all ages and political persuasions have said Congress should not cut vital programs like Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction.They know Congress can cut the deficit without further stacking the deck against the poor and the middle class if it focuses on improving the economy and asking those who have done extremely well in the last decade to finally pay their fair share. In the past few months, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens delivered that message during rallies, protests and marches and in email, phone and petition campaigns to Congress. Americans were engaged in this deficit debate because they know the value of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for American families. This has become painfully evident in an economy where the middle class has already shouldered enough of the financial burden through lower home values, job loss, shrinking savings and stagnant wages. In the case of the supercommittee, failure to support a flawed deficit deal that would target our social insurance safety net while protecting the wealthy isn?t a failure at all?it could be Washington?s first successful step in closing the growing disconnect and economic gap between America?s haves and have-nots.? Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEOAnd while the blame game will be in full throttle tonight and tomorrow, here is a good primer laying out the super committee time line showing just how far Democrats were willing to compromise (too far) and how little (none) the GOP was willing to give (not “one red cent” as co-chair Jeb Hensarling famously bragged).