Text Size:
Spanish/Espanol
Home » Blog » Written testimony for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
Written testimony for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
June 30th, 2010

The following testimony was prepared for and submitted to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform for its public meeting on Wednesday, June 30, 2010.

By Carolyn Lukensmeyer, President, AmericaSpeaks

WHO IS AMERICASPEAKS?

AmericaSpeaks is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that I founded in 1995 with the mission of providing the American public with a greater voice in the policy making process. Our democracy is deeply broken and has been for some time. I founded AmericaSpeaks to develop new methods and processes for convening large, diverse groups of citizens to find common ground and inform the policy making process.

Track Record: Over the past 15 years, AmericaSpeaks has engaged more than 150,000 people in deliberative processes to inform and shape decisions on a wide range of issues. In 1998-99, AmericaSpeaks engaged 45,000 Americans in a national discussion on Social Security. In 2002, we engaged 5,000 New Yorkers in shaping the redevelopment plans for the World Trade Center after 9/11. Between 1999 and 2005, we engaged more than 10,000 residents of Washington, DC, in shaping their city’s budget priorities. In 2005-6, we engaged several thousand residents of New Orleans, many of whom had not yet returned home, in developing their city’s recovery plan after Hurricane Katrina.

Approach: At least six elements are unique to our work:

  • AmericaSpeaks is absolutely committed to preserving our role as an honest, neutral broker of public deliberations. We have not and will not take a position on the issues around which we convene the public.
  • AmericaSpeaks believes that every effort must be made to ensure that participation among the public should be as representative of the community’s actual demographics as possible.
  • AmericaSpeaks convenes the public in informed, facilitated deliberative processes before asking people to express their individual or collective priorities.
  • AmericaSpeaks uses technology to ensure that authentic face-to-face deliberations can be taken to scale and shared public priorities can be identified.
  • AmericaSpeaks convenes the public at a large enough scale to inform the policy making process.
  • AmericaSpeaks engages the public in the context of actual decision making to ensure that the public’s priorities can be heard.

Funding: On June 26, 2010, AmericaSpeaks convened a National Town Meeting across nearly 60 cities about the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges. The project was made possible through grants from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

WHO PARTICIPATED?

AmericaSpeaks convened a diverse group of Americans across nearly 60 cities on June 26, 2010. At 19 meeting sites, diverse groups of dozens to several hundred people came together, in what are known as 21st Century Town Meetings®. They were joined by people at 38 volunteer-organized Community Conversations across the nation, plus one Community Conversation in Second Life on the Internet. All 58 meeting sites were linked together by satellite and a webcast to create a single, truly national conversation.

Demographic Diversity: We are still tabulating data from the Community Conversation sites, where we did not have keypad polling technology, but our initial demographic polling of participants found that the National Town Meeting engaged a broad cross-section of the American public. At tables across the country, we had members of local Tea Parties sitting down with activists from MoveOn. Business owners sat with union members. Participants were young and old, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, and from every race and ethnic background.

  • Race: By race and ethnicity, for example, our demographics matched the nation’s demographics within a few percentage points, except for underrepresentation among Latino participants.
  • Income: By income, while participation did slightly favor higher incomes, 17% of participants had an annual household income of less than $25,000 a year.
  • Views on Economic Issues: 26% of participants said they tended to view themselves as liberal on economic and fiscal issues. 18% said they were somewhat liberal, 23% said they were moderate, 13% said they were somewhat conservative, and 20% said they were conservative.
  • Age: Ten percent of participants were between the ages of 17-24 – less than the national average, but still quite high for a public forum on a Saturday to discuss the federal budget.

Enclosed with this testimony, please find fuller demographic results in the appendix.

Congressional Participation: Current and former members of Congress participated either in person or via video and included Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), former Senator and co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force Pete Domenici (R-NM), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Representative Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Representative John Spratt (D-SC).

Senator Conrad, Senator Gregg and Representative Spratt serve on the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  Dr. Alice Rivlin, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, President’s fiscal commission member and co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, was in attendance the whole day and provided remarks at the end of the program.

WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE NATIONAL TOWN MEETING?

The National Town Meeting sought to provide the public with an opportunity to struggle with the kinds of tough choices facing policy makers as they look to address our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges. In order to do so, we assembled a large diverse National Advisory Committee to develop and provide feedback on the policy options that would be presented to the public. Our intent was not to be comprehensive, but rather to offer a set of choices that were roughly reflective of the kinds of options that are in front of the Commission today.

National Advisory Committee: The National Advisory Committee consisted of 31 experts and advocates from across the political spectrum. More liberal organizations on the committee included the the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for American Progress, the Coalition on Human Needs, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Academy of Social Insurance, and the National Council of La Raza. More conservative organizations on the committee included the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the National Tax Payers Union, the Tax Foundation, and the US Chamber of Commerce. A full list of members can be found in the appendix.

Discussion Materials: Working with our National Advisory Committee, AmericaSpeaks developed two documents for the National Town Meeting: an introduction to fiscal issues, called Federal Budget 101, and a review of 42 policy options, called the Options Workbook. The Options Workbook served as the primary guide for the “Making Tough Choices” exercise that took place at the forum. Participants were provided with a challenge of reducing the deficit in 2025 by $1.2 trillion. They were then presented with 42 options to cut spending and raise revenues to achieve these savings.

Deficit Reduction Target: The $1.2 trillion target in 2025 was set because such a target (a) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio, (b) was viewed by a bi-partisan group of experts as achievable through a variety of pathways, and (c) was not so far off as to be difficult for participants to imagine or take seriously. The spending options were divided into four sections: Health Care, Social Security, All Other Non-Defense, and Defense. Revenue options were also divided into four sections: Raising Rates, Reducing Deductions and Credits, Reforming the Tax Code, and Establishing New Taxes. Brief arguments for and against each option were also provided. Participants were encouraged to also submit additional options and ideas that went beyond the materials provided in the Options Workbook.

Program Agenda: At the National Town Meeting, participants began by talking about what it would mean to have a civil discussion. They talked about their common hopes and values for guiding decision making. They briefly discussed the economic recovery and used keypad voting to weigh in on short-term economic policies. After spending a half hour reviewing the options, each table group spent about two hours working to reach the deficit reduction target. They then identified their own individual priorities, created messages that they wanted to send to policy makers, and discussed actions they could take personally and collectively.

Achieving the Target: Across the board, participants took the exercise very seriously. Walking around the room in Philadelphia, I was deeply impressed by the depth with which participants grappled with the trade offs. All told, 47% of the 350 tables across our 19 primary sites reached the target of $1.2 trillion. An additional 11% reached $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions, 7% reached $1 trillion, 7% reached $900 billion, 5% reach $800 billion, 8% reached $700 billion, 6% reached $600 billion, and 10% reached less than $600 billion.

HOW DID THE NATIONAL TOWN MEETING WORK?

Participants at the National Town Meeting spent most of the 6.5 hour program working in small groups with skilled, neutral facilitators. Over the course of the day, participants heard brief presentations and used their discussion guides as reference materials. Budget and program experts were available to answer questions about the options as they arose.

Participants submitted the ideas and decisions they generated at their tables through laptop computers at each table. A team of analysts, known as the “theme team”, read all the ideas coming in from the table groups and periodically reported on the national themes that were heard from the discussion. Then, participants used voting keypads to register their priorities. A video link between the sites also let participants share their ideas and views with others across the country.

HOW WILL THE RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL TOWN MEETING BE REPORTED?

AmericaSpeaks only has preliminary data from the National Town Meeting today, as the meeting itself took place only four days ago. Our preliminary findings are based on the reports generated by the keypad voting system, as well as discussion themes that were analyzed by the “theme team” during the event itself. This data does not include an analysis of the packages developed by tables, break downs of priorities by demographics, nor data from the Community Conversation sites.

In the coming weeks, AmericaSpeaks will be able to provide a complete report that includes these elements and adjustments to polling data, as well as the raw data from the meeting, which includes hundreds of pages of ideas generated by tables, as well as full polling data.

Additionally, an evaluation team from Harvard University and the University of California is undertaking an evaluation of who participated in the process and how they were impacted through their participation in the process.

WHAT ARE THE PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES FROM THE NATIONAL TOWN MEETING?

Overall Messages

First and foremost, it is important to emphasize how seriously participants in the national discussion took the task of addressing our fiscal challenges. 3,500 Americans dedicated an entire Saturday to working with fellow citizens to wrestle with the federal budget. All but 15 percent of participants at the 19 sites said they were influenced by what they heard from other’s at their tables. More than half said they “learned a great deal” about the nation’s budget challenges during the event and 39 percent said they “learned a few things.”

Above and beyond anything else, the messages that participants said they wanted to send to leaders at the end of the day focused on the process rather than the content of the discussion. Among the most common sentiments from table groups were:

  • “Can you be elected officials first and politicians second? Our table balanced the budget in less than an hour.”
  • “Abandon the failed politics of partisanship.” “You can’t demonize each other and expect us to trust you.”
  • “Please find the political will to use this input as if it were coming from a powerful lobbying group – because we are!”
  • “Listen to the people and not special interests.”
  • “We need to deal with these issues now!”

89% of participants in the 19 sites said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the tone and quality of political discussion in our country today. In contrast, 91 percent of participants said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the tone and quality of discussions at the National Town Meeting.

Preliminary Findings on Economic Recovery

Before discussing the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, participants briefly weighed in on the nation’s economic recovery in the short term. Very few participants said that the economy appeared to be clearly getting “better.” About a third of participants said it was getting “somewhat better” this year, a quarter said it was “about the same,” and the remaining 42% of participants said it was getting “somewhat worse” or “worse.”

More than 6 in 10 participants at the 19 meeting sites said that the government should be doing more to strengthen the economy. Just over 50% said they were supportive or somewhat supportive of the legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives but did not pass the Senate, which would have provided aid to state governments and extended unemployment insurance. 38% of participants said they were “unsupportive” or “somewhat unsupportive” of the legislation.

Preliminary Findings on Spending Options

In general, participants expressed reluctance to reduce spending on those programs that support our most vulnerable populations, but demonstrated a willingness to reduce spending in order to reach the deficit reduction target. A majority of participants supported at least a 5% reduction in federal health care spending and in “all other non-defense spending” with some supporting higher levels of reductions. Participants expressed strong support for reducing spending on national defense as a means to reach their deficit reduction target with a majority supporting a 15% cut and additional participants supporting a 10% cut.

Relatively little support was expressed for reducing Social Security benefits to achieve deficit reductions, with the most popular of these options being an option to raise the age of achieving full benefits to 69 by 2025. Significant support was expressed, on the other hand, for raising revenues through payroll taxes. Far and away, the most highly supported of all options presented by AmericaSpeaks was an option to raise the payroll tax cap on earnings to 90%. Additional feedback through the computers suggested that some participants supported eliminating the cap all together.

Preliminary Findings on Revenue Options

Participants expressed support for raising revenues through increasing tax rates to those in the top tax brackets and to those earning more than $1 million a year. They expressed considerably lower support for options that would increase tax rates across the board on all taxpayers. Significant support was also offered for raising the top corporate income tax rate by five percentage points and on raising capital gains tax rates.

A majority of participants did not express support for reforming the tax code by removing large deductions and applying those deductions to deficit reduction and lowering taxes. Those that did favored applying larger, rather than smaller, portions to deficit reduction over reducing taxes.

A majority of participants expressed support for the establishment of both a securities-transaction tax and a carbon tax. Little support was provided for the establishment of a Value Added Tax.

Other Options

AmericaSpeaks will provide a detailed report on additional options and feedback provided by participants in the coming weeks.

Conclusion

In the end, participants in the National Town Meeting demonstrated that the American public cares about the fiscal challenges facing the country, is able to grasp the difficult trade-offs involved with resolving the challenges, and can offer policy makers strong guidance about the kind of policies that they are willing to support. They offered a plea to policy makers to set aside partisan differences and get on with the work of addressing our most pressing problems. I hope that the Commission will take their feedback seriously and follow their example of civil, productive problem solving in the spirit of the common good.

APPENDIX B:  NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

John Rother, AARP

Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute

Norm Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute

Henry Aaron, Brookings Institution

Thomas Mann, Brookings Institution

John Castellani, Business Roundtable

Neera Tanden, Center for American Progress

Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Deborah Weinstein, Coalition on Human Needs

Maya MacGuineas, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Jonathan Gruskin, Concerned Youth of America

Robert Bixby, Concord Coalition

Larry Mishel, Economic Policy Institute

Mark Zandi, Economy.com

Donna Butts, Generations United

Stuart Butler, Heritage Foundation

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

George Muñoz, Muñoz Group

Janice Gregory, National Academy of Social Insurance

Barbara Kennelly, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

Sarah Hicks, National Congress of American Indians

Linda Rosenberg, National Council of Community Behavioral Health Association

Leticia Miranda, National Council of La Raza

Duane Parde, National Tax Payers Union

Marc Morial, National Urban League

Mark Paul, New America Foundation

George C. Wu, OCA National

Scott Hodge, Tax Foundation

Rudolph Penner, Urban Institute

Margaret Simms, Urban Institute

R. Bruce Josten, US Chamber of Commerce

APPENDIX C: OPTIONS WORKBOOK

Download here: Federal Budget Options Workbook

Download the testimonial as a PDF here: Written testimony for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

  • Martha C Dominguez
    AmericaSpeaks did a great job! The diverse amount of people that attended were great!
    Let us hope our President and the US Congress listen and act for the nation's common good and
    stop using politics to block what is important to resolve the deficit and the main street economic
    needs.
  • Ejdodson
    Unfortunately, neither of the two dominant political parties are committed to policies that will produce sustainable economic growth. A major reason, unfortunately, is that those individuals (and "think tanks") who advise on economic policy have a flawed understanding of how public policies affect economic outcomes. My own study of so-called business cycles confirms they are caused by politics rather than by some natural process. The economic literature is filled with good analysis, almost all of which is ignored when it comes to advocacy by mainstream economists of structural changes in how government raises its revenue. One of the best papers by any economist in the last 50 years was written in the 1970s by an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin named Arthur Becker. His paper, "Full Employment Without Inflation," correctly attacked the emerging view of what was being sold as "supply-side" economic policies, the policies that have shifted investment away from capital goods investment and into speculation the financial gains of which transfer financial wealth but do not increase the real wealth available to people.
  • ACarroll
    Nationally, the participants were over-represented, compared to the census data they provided, with people aged 55-64 (more than twice as many), and 65+ (half again as many). They were also over-represented with people who are considered by economists to be well above the "middle class" (the median household income we $52,000 for 2008, although I have seen data that in 2009 this figure went down to $50,000): 50K-75K=20% (US=19%); 75K-100K=16% (US=12%); More than 100K=26% (US=21%). One conclusion that can be drawn is that participation depended on people who don't need to work on Saturday, as opposed to people who can't afford to give up a Saturday (service jobs?).
    The biggest lapse, of course, is that nowhere in the materials, in the video, or in the presentation, was it mentioned that, according to the CBO, Social Security is solvent through 2049 (easily found in many places on the WWW). This information, had it been generally known, would have without doubt changed the outcomes on the Social Security question. Considering that the timeframe for this exercise was 2025, this is an egregious lapse and reinforces any doubts about their "bipartisanship" or "neutrality," in spite of their list of supporting organizations.
    I thought that the video was misleading and I was angered by its placement at the beginning, before the discussion of "values" which occurred while it was still fresh in people's minds (Frank Luntz must be congratulating them). The video was misleading because it provided no context at all; there was no discussion about how we got to this deficit level (which would have required a discussion of the 42% increase under Bush, under Congressional control of both the Republicans and the Democrats, since it admitted that there was a surplus between 1998-2001. Nor was there a discussion of "how we got here" later in the materials or in the presentations). The video discussed how much the debt increased, and how much the deficit increased, and how much the interest increased, but it never mentioned how much the population increased. Since the population grows every year, a country can't maintain the same spending or retrench in spending without taking the population and its structure into account. The section on Social Security was again misleading; the attribution of growing costs to the "aging population", both in Medicare and in Social Security, has been shown to have not as much of an effect in other research. They could have held to their position and still been more honest by admitting that this point has been disputed and is open to more evidence; but it seems so much like "common sense" that it's easy to spread as an easily-swallowed propaganda point (the reason for evidence in the first place--to correct propaganda). Again in the Social Security section, the implication was that Social Security is in trouble because Americans aren't having enough babies (an argument that has had tinges of gringoism, classism, and nationalism in the past); but there was no admission that there are other ways to increase the working population, such as through immigration, guest worker programs, etc. Right after the video came the discussion about "values." It reminded me of George Lakoff's admonition to "don't think of an elephant."
    Along the lines of being restricted in choices by the pre-selected options: I thought the "values" and how they were presented on a spectrum of "agree-disagree" was wrong-headed; it was like trying to answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" To the question "taking care of current generation vs. taking care of future generations", I could only answer "yes". My facilitator asked me what that meant; did I mean the 4 in the middle? The second condition, "share the burden of reducting the deficit equally vs. on those that have more ability" was meaningless and potentially unfair without a discussion of "how we got here" and could only be interpreted as "how much do you believe in class war?", which the right wing supposedly decries.

    My table never got around to voting on the spending cuts because my facilitator was so fixated on discussing every option and we started with the revenue-raising side. At one point I suggested that we not try to reach the $1.2 billion in cuts, as it was "their figure," and just decide on what we need to live our lives in a country that we want to live in, and see how well we can do. I think there was general agreement at my table on that, but we never had the time to finish.

    On the topic of "non-defense discretionary spending," I looked that part up the night before (the part that President Obama has offered to freeze), and I found that it represents only 15% of the entire budget. This is what people depend on for their everyday lives. These funds pay for regulation of commerce: how can the public demand more regulation of the financial services sector, the energy sector, and every other sector where the corporations write the laws, decrying how "the government" has "laid down on the job," and still be willing to cut this area? These funds also pay for the entire CDC, NIH, HRSA, the FDA, and public health in general. How can the public demand safe food, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other health-related products and services, and demand that investigators investigate overseas production of these things as well as domestic (especially after the fatal pet food, toys, and baby formula exported from China), and still agree to cut this part of the budget? According to the "Preliminary Report" that was handed out at the exit, the "no-change" vote (32%) was far outweighed by the "reductions" votes (69%). These results are clearly due to the fact that discussion of this part was glossed over quickly and with no context.




    -----Original Message-----
    From: Walter Tsou
    Sent: Jun 27, 2010 12:07 PM
    To: "Phillyhealth.org" , healthcareforPA@googlegroups.com, oped@...
    Cc: Mark Almberg , Tim Carpenter
    Subject: [phillyhealth] America Spoke


    Yesterday, America Speaks, a non partisan group conducted the largest national town meeting on the budget deficit in 19 cities across the country. This 6.5 hour marathon consisted of about 3500 people who were meant to be representative of America. We were given the task of cutting 1.2 trillion dollars from the federal budget by 2025.



    The initial demographics suggested that there were equal numbers of men and women, liberals (44%), moderates (23%), conservatives (33%), a larger number of those older (55+) than the US population, and fewer Latinos. People were more supportive of government spending (51%) than not adding to the national debt (38%) at this time of recession. 61% felt government should do more to strengthen the economy. People were equally divided between taking care of the current generation vs. redirecting resources for "future generations" and equally divided between government caring for the most vulnerable and individual responsibility to take care of oneself. More people felt the rich should pay higher amounts to reduce the deficit.


    It was interesting to hear how people balanced the choices (which were pre chosen by the sponsors) between cuts in spending and raising revenue. The final report won't be out for several weeks, but my impression was that people were angry about the undue influence of lobbyists and corporate interests over that of ordinary people. The recent decision not to extend unemployment benefits and FMAP funding for Medicaid is a perfect example of this.


    People favored raising taxes over cutting health care or social security. When people were asked if they would cut Medicare and Medicaid by 5, 10 or 15%, the largest group (38%) said they wanted no cuts. Many felt that the choices were too limited (in the "options workbook" there is this statement "at the moment, the nation does not seem prepared to consider fundamental reform of the kind suggested in the first two approaches above - premium support or single payer." Amazingly, when people were asked to comment on their health cuts, there was a huge support for single payer health care - enough to get into the final report. In Philadelphia, which was the host center for the entire America Speaks program and where I was one of the 450 people who showed up, there was loud clapping for single payer. Dr. Alice Rivlin was in the Philadelphia conference all day and is one of the members of the debt commission. I went up to her and pointed to my T shirt which said "It's simple: Medicare for All". She most assuredly heard the response to single payer.


    There was one area that people definitely wanted cut - defense spending (85%) and raise taxes on corporations to 40% (59%), millionaires (68%), a carbon tax (64%) and stock and bond trading (61%) with the goal of cutting 1.2 trillion by 2025.


    I have to say that the technology was pretty impressive. There were live camera interviews from all of the sites cross the country. Everyone of the 3,500 people had keypads which allowed instantaneous polling within 20 seconds of asking a question. Each of the sites had tables with 6-8 people randomly assigned and a facilitator who discussed all of these issues. Each table had a laptop and free form comments were invited which allowed other choices besides the ones prescribed by the organizers. I was surprised at the consensus at my table. If there were teabaggers, they did not make their presence known in Philadelphia.


    AmericaSpeaks says that there is a scheduled meeting next week to discuss these national findings. They have access to key Congressional staffers and some members. I, of course, am too cynical to believe that it will make much of a difference since our politicians are totally bought off by the lobbyists. I remember the town hall meetings in 2006 leading up to the health reform debate which also supported a single payer system. It was not even a consideration for the politicians.


    But for those of us in the town hall meeting, I think the message was pretty clear - raise taxes on those who have the money, cut defense, don't cut services for main street Americans, and stop listening to special interests and start listening to the American people.


  • jomlam
    I attended in Albuquerque. The "town hall" concept was terrific; the execution -- at least in Albuquerque at the table I was at -- was disappointing: ineffective facilitator; too little time for discussion; too many interruptions by the site coordinator. Nonetheless, it was a valuable experience. Any of us could quibble with the range and content of the options, but they provided a practical structure for covering a complex subject in relatively little time. Overall, I think the results suggest that there are fewer "sacred cows" than politicians and elected officials might believe (or want us to believe); there is widespread willingness to consider spending reductions AND tax increases; and even broader consensus that the debt and deficits must be addressed without delay. I was disappointed that there was no way to measure support/opposition to the idea that increased taxes should not be approved unless and until spending reductions are legislated and implemented. I am also disappointed in the tenor of many critical comments to this point that appear to reflect the author's belief(s) that a) an imperfect set of options results in a lack of credibility for the whole process; and b) failure to include one of the author's favored ideas effectively invalidates all the results. Hopefully, this event will encourage more informed awareness and national discussion of the country's financial and economic conditions.
  • Billtodd
    The set of options provided was not merely 'imperfect': it was significantly slanted, along with the accompanying presentation (even leaving aside those areas where it was simply factually incorrect). That, plus the fact that ONLY that set of options could be used to achieve the stated goal (the nature of which was itself open to debate) clearly biased the results to a point where their 'credibility' is at the very least questionable.

    Furthermore, while the revenue-generating proposals were pretty specific, the spending cuts were far more open to interpretation (e.g., at least two of us responding here indicated that we opted for 15% cuts in Medicare/Medicaid spending not by cutting benefits or raising premiums at all but instead by restructuring the overall health-care payment system, a subtlety unlikely to be captured when aggregating those results).

    Finally, if those already-biased results are then cherry-picked to attempt to support a specific agenda (at least a taint of which seems evident in this first formal presentation here), they will become pretty much worthless.

    It would indeed be wonderful if this led to "more informed awareness and national discussion of the country's financial and economic conditions" - let's see whether the sponsors make any real effort to do this.given the significant engagement demonstrated by nearly 4,000 of us last month.
  • SLPezzino
    I agree with the comments posted thus far that indicate that the presentation of issues and choices at the conference was not "neutral" and I share their feelings that the questions of Social Security and Medicare were both defined and reported on from a particular slant. Very telling is the omission in the preliminary report of the rejection by a large majority of the participants of the idea of dismantling the Social Security system in favor of individual investment plans.

    My own take on the approach of the conference is that it represents business as usual. By that I mean that the conference framed the economic problems of our country in terms of budget allocations. The solutions to our deficit which the conference offered were likewise budgetary in nature. Of course, the formation of a budget to address the deficit is an urgent issue. But to me, even though my opinion may put me in a very small minority, the United States of America is not a business. It is a body politic that in the past has built its traditions on many kinds of development, with entrepreneurial activity being among the most significant but not the only significant constituent.

    Our problem now is not the lack of wealth which must be addressed by defining our problems and solutions in entrepreneurial terms. Rather, our problem now is hyper-entrepreneurialism (the extraction of profit to the point of self-destructivity). In the hyper-entrepreneurial scenario, individuals lose sight of ideals of service beyond the self, replacing them with ideals of material gain. Once this hyper-entrepreneurialism has penetrated to the residential, medical and educational sector (as it already has in America's case), the result is economic sterilization, with societal growth being made possible only by the importation of large numbers of immigrant workers who are able to advance themselves, at least initially, by not having the necessity of sheltering, providing medical care or providing educational opportunity for their families.

    Concomitant with the advent of economic sterilization is the kakogenic effect. In a society awash in narcissism, where the essentials of life are provided at what is for most households impossible cost, the first households to be sterilized are those in the service and helping professions, since these professions often pay lower salaries that business pursuits. Once the altruists called to these professions are unable to reproduce, society is deprived not only of the services which their offspring might offer, but also of the powerful role model effect which such altruists have in the past provided for young people. And once young people have it in mind that entering the teaching profession and other service professions is the equivalent of setting off on the road to economic oblivion, it will be impossible for our country to think and teach its way out of the economic quagmire in which we now find ourselves.

    We are not in debt because only the health care providers are asking too much of us; we are in debt because our shelter providers, our landlords and real estate developers, are asking too much of us and the high cost of shelter which they have been demanding for the past generation has served to make the American worker basically incapable of competing in the world labor market.

    Likewise our educational providers who have turned our universities into real estate investment trusts which coming generations are supposed to be financing instead of marrying and starting a family -- these brick and mortar crazed providers will prevent our producing enough highly prepared professionals to lead us out of our economic difficulties.

    The kakogenic effect in which only investment fraud perpetrators, customer's men specializing in derivative bonds, wholesale destroyers of our environment and physician extortionists (that is, the doctors who first prepare and anesthetize our elderly parents for operations and then come round to tell us that it will all be called off if we don't want to pay extra above the Medicare allowance) can afford to reproduce has already wreaked its havoc on the American way of life.

    In the past eugenics came into being as the intentional attempt to restrict the right to reproduce of those groups whom the eugenics practitioners felt should gradually be eradicated from society. As an intentional belief it sought to propagandize selected individuals regarding the benefits that limiting their reproductive life would offer them, while holding that the real benefits of eugenics would fall to the superior societal elements who could derive greater profit from society once they had to share its fruits with fewer members. These ideas were tenets which, of course, have been and continue to be debated.

    But kakogenics, for all that is may find its root in the Freudian schema of life as a field on which reproductive rivalry is played out as the prime motivation to all human action, is not a philosophy of intent. There is no place where one can debate whether one should or wishes to undergo its effects. Those who have been economically sterilized by hyper-entrepreneurialism now have either no or reduced offspring; they were not given a choice in the matter or a chance to debate hyper-entrepreneurialism's implementation. So it is somewhat to be expected that our foundations seem to be assuming that the operation of kakogenics is a norm with which the rest of us must passively and obediently comply.

    Let us take one example to show how the approach of the sponsoring foundations camouflages and hence fosters the underlying kakogenic problems of our economy. Consider the average American institution of higher learning where the chief executive and the head athletic coach are each making more than the President of the United States and the part-time faculty who teach half or more of the institution's offerings are making $10,000 per year for a 50% load. If the government decides that the solution to our budget problems will be to cut education by 5%, will the chief executive's salary or the health athletic coach's salary be cut? Not at all. What will happen when education budget allowance is cut is that $9,000 a year part-time faculty members and other modestly paid employees will be let go. Without their wages, they will pay less taxes and draw upon more of the welfare resources of the government; hence their situation will be worse and the budget situation of our society will also be worse when they are allotted their "share" of the sacrifice.

    If the transformation of America from democracy to plutocracy that has produced the kakogenic effect is to be reversed (if it can be reversed, a question which is very much in doubt), it will be up to the people of our country to point out to our foundations that the percentages we most need to calculate are not percentages of budget cuts "across the board" of medical care, dental care, education and defense.

    Of course we must learn to be prudent stewards of our resources. But at the moment the percentages which America most needs to study are the percentages by which the ruling plutocratic elite are being compensated and the percentages by which they should be compensated. The ratio that we need is not the ratio of how much to cut from various social service programs but what should be an equitable earnings ratios within institutions and companies -- first within all so-called not-for-profit entities intended to help or service the American people and then everywhere else.

    There is no reason for the American people to have to "sacrifice" their lives, their liberties and their pursuit of happiness to the excessive sense of self-entitlement exhibited by hyper-entrepreneurs. The American people were not created to be the slaves to the lifestyle and travel addictions of a small percentage of our population. We were created equal and we should be able to live equal with respect to the most important possibilities of life -- the possibilities of housing, health and higher education -- that is the destiny of the American middle class which, if fulfilled, is capable of reviving and sustaining a consumer-driven economy..

    The kakogenic effect has already relegated literally millions of the American people to the New Four H Club -- the group of those bankrupted by housing, health care, hospital and higher education costs. If our country does not being to cultivate an ethic of service beyond self, no amount of budget rearrangements will ever be able to counteract the effects of this relegation.

    When everything is reduced to the bottom line, people have nothing left to worship except themselves, hyper-entrepreneurialism flourishes, economic sterilization of young people spreads and the kakogenic effect can be noted. So far our leaders and our foundations are sticking with business as usual. But fiscal cuts and budget adjustments which are made to cover up the lesions of the National Debt will not affect the underlying cancer. Will America die of its metastasized greed? As long as the American people are being asked to shoulder the debt that has resulted from American professional, entertainment, sporting, business and not-for-profit corporations taking unlimited deductions for whatever amounts and types of executive compensation they choose to offer, there will be no hope for a cure.

    If our charitable foundations are too involved in the manipulation of mass sums of money to understand that the current configuration of our society is not sustainable because it is turning our young people into economically sterilized debt slaves, then it is up to the rest of us to let them know.

  • Tafbar96
    As a table leader I was unable to speak to any views but There are several points I would like to make not reflected in the America Speaks summary
    1. During gemeral discussion at my table and others(we were very close in the Richmond, Va. location) there was agreat deal of misinformation regarding the current tax structure, the supposed "loopholes " that allow people making greater then 250,000$ to not pay taxes, the current tax structure that was the basis for their desire to "increase taxes. Some persons came very prepared and others just wanted to "stick it to the rich".
    2. The options offered for changes to Medicare/Medicaid were very limted. There were suggestions that could be added but several critical areas like tort reform were not options.
    3. People of many ideologies sat and talked seeing others point of view therefore one major goal was not just the number of deficit reduction but the process.4. Lastly,Educate,educate. There is so much information, who and what to believe. Just the facts please. There was a brief portion of this in the town hall but very limted if people did not come prepared.
    The process was awsome. L Interesting , the politicians came for the intro but left very quickly. Two staffers for Eric Cantor and Mark Warren did sit at a table and participate in the discussion for an hour or so. Why aren't these people working for us listening when we come together to talk??????
  • Michael Brennan
    We don't need to weaken proven programs like Medicare and Social Security because of some questionable forecasts going out to 2050.

    As economist Robert Eisner noted,
    "Even relatively short-term forecasts can be notoriously inaccurate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, in December 1995 forecast a federal deficit for fiscal year 1997 of $182 billion. It lowered it to $165 billion in May 1996 and to $124 billion in January 1997. It finally revised its forecast of the 1997 federal deficit from a a figure of $115 billion as late as March, when the fiscal year was already half over, to $23 billion, approximately the correct figure ...." (Social Security More Not Less (New York: TheCentury Foundation Press, 1998, Page 5)

    Forecasting may have improved since the 1990s, but it's still an educated guess.
  • Shaich
    I tried to post a couple of days ago. Where is it? You put me on the disqus list but not my post?
  • AS_moderator
    Apologies for being behind on the comments -- between recovering from the town meeting weekend and the 4th of July holiday, some comments are still waiting.

    Many people have spent a lot of time writing comments, and some include a questions. We hope to get more of those answered shortly.

    Thanks for the rich conversation here! Since the blog comments have been very active after the National Town Meeting, we're alocating more time to respond.
  • Kervick
    Regarding support for single payer I'm not sure where folks are getting their information. Support is at 32%.

    <http: 34_favor_single_payer_health_care_system="" current_events="" december_2009="" healthcare="" politics="" public_content="" www.rasmussenreports.com="">

    Also it appears there are a lot of single issue social security people here, perhaps some professional advocates/lobbyists?</http:>
  • Billtodd
    Ah, if only Social Security HAD lobbyists to counter the vultures intent on misrepresenting its robustness so that they or their patrons can raid it for other purposes. Isn't trying to discredit those you may disagree with by suggesting without a shred of evidence that they have ulterior motives kind of a high-schoolish level of discourse?

    As for where I get my information about support for single-payer, it's usually from more (dare I say it?) fair and balanced sources than Rasmussen (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... for some of the reasons why). Still, when you provide a supporting link for an assertion (especially when it's as blatantly unqualified an assertion as this one) it's wise actually to read it: the support percentage that Rasmussen gives in your link is 34%, not 32% (the latter was a number from a mid-2009 poll, so even in his estimation support has risen a bit). Regrettably, the actual text of the question that elicited this proffered pearl of wisdom is not available without payment, so we can't tell just how much of the trademark Rasmussen slant may have been present in it.

    Polling by more neutral organizations reveals a decidedly different picture. For an overview, see the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... (which provides a good overall view of single-payer). Wikipedia, while not itself an authoritative source, does provide links (some of which may be indirect) to such authoritative sources: follow them and become enlightened.
  • Tom Broderick
    I was impressed by the racial variety at our table in Chicago: One Asian American man, three African American women, one Hispanic teenage woman, three Caucasian women and one Caucasian man. Ages ran from 16 to over 50, with half in the over 50 range.

    Unfortunately, the daylong event was goal driven: Table by table, we were to cut the budget deficit by $1.2 trillion. Our moderator informed us that we had an agenda and a tight time schedule. This left nearly no time for discussion. It seemed lie we were involved in validating an agenda designed by AMERICASPEAKS. Our table failed to cut the budget by $1.2 trillion and we were told to go back and meet "our" target. Apparently not all participants were required to do this.

    We were provided a primer called "Federal Budget 101." In it there was a pullout quote: "The federal budget is an expression of our priorities as a people and our values as a nation." Given the pushback by attendees on the lack of single payer healthcare as a cost savings option and on the limited choices we were given in cutting the military budget, AMERICASPEAKS has the opportunity to consider much about our values. What comes next?
  • bensears
    I am also trying to get my comments posted here. Here goes:
    President Carolyn's summary accurately hits most of the high points that leap out from the report of Saturday's discussion: attack the deficit (if that should really be a national priority right now) by 1) raising taxes on those in upper income brackets, especially those making over a million dollars a year and on corporate profits; 2) significantly reducing spending on the military (she might have added, as she informed us on Saturday, that sentiment was expressed for cutting military spending without harming the troops); and 3) if Social Security is really in trouble, then raise the cap on Social Security payroll taxes (it was never explained that Social Security is a separate budget that has nothing to do with the federal deficit). Also, on the healthcare issue, she might have added that significant support was expressed for "single payer" as an option for cutting costs in this area. This was reported a couple of times during the day, even thought it was not listed an option for us to discuss; we broke through on that issue apparently because several tables insisted on supporting single payer. The mention of support for single payer brought spontaneous applause and cheers from those gathered in Philadelphia (and maybe elsewhere.) I am hopeful that Carolyn will transmit the full impact of our deliberations to the National Commision.
  • judi
    Ben, your comments are right on--- my table companions were also curious about and felt the limited by the phrasing of questions, eliciting "qualified" responses. The facts remain: Social Security (a separate entity) was included but Universal Health Care was not, and for too many years, the funding for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were "off budget."
    jb
  • Shaich
    Fair summary. I'm eagerly awaiting the "Other Options" report because for me, at the Portland, Oregon event,
    it was significant that single payer was reported to be an option that should have been allowed. At our table, we voted for 15% reduction in healthcare costs but stipulated we would do this by adopting a healthcare system that took the best elements of healthcare in other developed nations as a way for us to drastically cut our helthcare costs. We also critizied the range of options provided and no information that the Social Security Trust Fund fully covers retirees until 2037.
  • Billtodd
    (For some reason the comment which I entered yesterday never appeared - so I'll try again now:)

    While the June 26th event was worth attending and produced some useful results, the claims that its sponsors were ‘neutral’ and the resulting implication that the results were not artificially skewed are very questionable. Rather than spend time debating some of the more subtle influences exerted upon the participants, let’s just cover the biggies:

    1. The most egregious misrepresentation involved Social Security. The scope of the lie was impressive, since BY DEFINITION (i.e., by law – see http://www.socialsecurity.gov/... changes to Social Security can have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER upon the Federal Budget or the National Debt (the sole focus of the meeting’s alleged ‘deficit reduction’ exercise).

    Most participants (certainly those at my table) bought into this lie at face value and struggled to find changes that would be minimally disruptive to those who depend most upon the system. Imagine how loath they would have been to change ANYTHING had they understood that it would not help the deficit situation one single, solitary cent because by law the system – which is wholly self-sustaining and thus places no burden whatsoever on the budget, deficit, or debt – has been completely off-budget since 1990, will remain solvent without change through 2037, and most likely will remain solvent without change far longer than that (since the 2037 date is based on extremely conservative estimates of economic growth: 1.9% annually vs. the historical average of 3.6%). As little as 2.7% annual growth will avoid any need for change, and should average growth over the next decade or so be unexpectedly lower than that increasing the income cap on FICA taxation (by far the most popular choice of those provided) at that time will solve the problem (with no need to raise FICA tax rates or eligibility ages at all, the next-most-popular options).

    But what, you may ask, of the need to repay that nearly $2.6 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds that constitute the Social Security Trust Fund over the next quarter-century to maintain the current level of benefits? The simple fact is (see reference above) that repaying those bonds (which represent past borrowing that used sleight of hand approaching outright fraud to obscure the fact that this borrowing INCREASED PAST DEFICITS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT BY THE AMOUNTS BORROWED) will simply entail replacing them with new bonds of the same value borrowed from someone else, leaving the net effect on the real (legally-defined) deficit and real (legally-defined) debt exactly zero.

    So Social Security really had no place whatsoever in any discussion involving deficits and the national debt. How then did it get included? Could it have something to do with the fact that dismantling Social Security has been a long-term goal of Pete Peterson and his foundation (a main sponsor of this event)? Hmmmm…

    2. By contrast, the misrepresentations involving health care were more subtle. Health-care spending (unlike Social Security) is indeed a real problem that must be addressed – but it is a societal problem rather than a budget problem (i.e., merely reducing government expenditures with respect to revenues will simply shift the burden to individuals without solving anything).

    But the options provided explicitly kept the kind of structural reforms necessary to solve this problem off the table. In fact, the instructions claimed that "the nation does not seem prepared to consider fundamental reform", despite consistent polling over the past year-plus by many organizations (including all the national networks) that indicated strong support for exactly that – in the 59% to 75% range for a strong ‘public option’ to help constrain both insurance and provider overheads and nearly as much support for "Medicare for All" to achieve even greater efficiencies. In other words, it’s not ‘the nation’ that’s not prepared to consider fundamental reform: it’s the politicians to whom we’re supposed to be giving advice on how to solve this deficit crisis. And perhaps the most important piece of advice would be to start doing their jobs rather than catering to their large contributors and making the rest of us suffer the consequences.

    What were we offered as options? Merely the choices of reducing net Medicare/Medicaid spending by 0%, 5%, 10%, or 15% (i.e., just shifting the burden to many who are least able to deal with that shift). To our credit, the option receiving the most support was not to reduce it at all (38%), the option receiving the next-most support was a 5% reduction (27%), reduction by 10% received only 16% support, and reduction by 15% received only 19% support. One of those last votes was my own, because the instructions did not PRECLUDE reducing expenditures by the kinds of structural changes mentioned above which made that choice acceptable to me, even though I suspected that it would be misinterpreted.

    My suspicions seem to have been justified. Note the interesting assertion above that "A majority of participants supported at least a 5% reduction in federal health care spending". This is technically accurate, since a total of 62% supported at least a 5% reduction. However, the statement "A majority of participants supported AT MOST a 5% reduction in federal health care spending" would have been true for even more (65%) of the participants. Could this choice of emphasis have anything to do with the fact that Medicare/Medicaid are also on Peterson’s hit list? I can’t know with any certainty but I have my suspicions, since it’s otherwise pretty inexplicable.

    3. Similarly ‘interesting’ wording is used to report that "A majority of participants supported at least a 5% reduction in … ‘all other non-defense spending’”. The actual figures were 32% for a 0% reduction, 26% for a 5% reduction, 16% for a 10% reduction, and 27% for a 15% reduction, so indeed 69% favored at least a 5% reduction – but 68% favored AT MOST a 5% reduction. This time at least the former was 1% more popular than the latter, but emphasizing this marginal difference rather than calling it a wash is still a bit much – unless you’ve got an agenda that favors spending cuts over tax increases rather than a really neutral stance.

    4. As with the health-care side of things, discussion of defense spending was carefully limited by the options offered: 0%, 5%, 10% or at most a 15% cut, when in actuality the changed nature of the threats to our nation since the end of the Cold War (when G. H. W. Bush talked so much about the ‘peace dividend’ that somehow never materialized) could easily justify at least 50% cuts and possibly 60% – 70% cuts without materially impacting our safety (though it would certainly help curtail our tendency to throw our weight around, providing additional – though non-budgetary – benefit at least for those of the non-neocon persuasion). A majority opted for the 15% cut, with significant sentiment expressed for larger cuts (which, had they been on the menu, would have helped take pressure off cutting other less questionable programs in the effort to reach the $1.2 trillion goal).

    5. On the revenue side of things, the tone of the ‘Preliminary Findings’ above was more muted. For example, the words "A strong majority of" could easily have been prefixed to the sentence "Participants expressed support for raising revenues through increasing tax rates to those in the top tax brackets and to those earning more than $1 million a year", since 66% favored the former and 68% favored the latter. A near-majority (48%) also favored raising taxes on capital gains and dividends.

    And, yet again, we were constrained by the options that were offered. The combination of ALL the options for raising top-bracket tax rates brought them only to 47% on those earning more than $1 million annually. That may sound like a lot today, but top-bracket rates averaged over 90% during the 1950s, over 80% during the 1960s, and over 70% during the 1970s, and then fell from 70% to 28% between 1981 and 1986: since high-income individuals have benefited the most from the disastrous tax policies of the last decade (or more) that helped create our deficit crisis, it seems reasonable that they should bear the brunt of the load for getting us back on our feet and that the top bracket should rise back into the 60% – 70% range temporarily and then stabilize at about 50% after the worst of the crisis has passed to help ensure that it does not happen again in a few years.

    "Oh, no! That will stifle our economic recovery!" cry the trickle-downers (and indeed the ‘options workbook’ provided to us raised that fearsome possibility). But their theories in this area don’t appear to be supported by our history since WWII. With top-bracket rates averaging 90+% in the ’50s our GDP grew by 41%. With top-bracket rates averaging 80+% in the ’60s our GDP grew by 51%. With top-bracket rates averaging 70+% in the ’70s our GDP grew by 37%. With top-bracket rates averaging about 48% in the ’80s our GDP grew by 38%. With top-bracket rates averaging about 37% in the ’90s our GDP grew by 40%. And with top-bracket rates averaging about 36% in the ’00s our GDP grew by only about 32% (April estimate). Perhaps high marginal tax rates just inspire our wealthiest earners to work all that much harder and thereby help BOOST economic growth – in any event, they certainly don’t appear to suppress growth.

    Even the program materials stated that 2010 government revenues are only about 15% of GDP, down from typical levels of 17% – 20% over the past half-century: there’s clearly room to grow them significantly more than the options which we were provided without bending, let alone breaking, any precedents.

    That about covers the ‘biggies’ to which I promised to limit myself. Many of the ways in which the sponsors attempted to influence the outcome of this ‘town meeting’ into something they could spin to their advantage were quite impressively subtle and effective, but therefore far more plausibly deniable than the more concrete actions described above. That they were considerably less than completely successful in this endeavor speaks well of the participants’ willingness to hold true to their principles despite the attempts to stampede them with cries of "Crisis!" and appeals for ’shared’ (rather than appropriately-targeted) sacrifice.
  • Judith
    Great rebuttal of the most troubling areas of the task format. Two questions included in the evaluation sheet for the day-long event seemed designed to elicit certain predetermined responses as well, one regarding approval or disapproval of President Obama's performance so far and one regarding a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party. There was no inclusion of ratings for either the Republicans or Democrats in Congress. It was apparent that participants were being shoe-horned into a defective format with time pressures that failed to allow for greater discussion among the participants. The very emergence of America Speaks suggests an underlying agenda. I praise the participants across the nation for resisting the intellectual herding inherent in the tasking to the extent that they did. Still, there is a nagging feeling that the citizenry is being prepared for expansion of the military and austerity in social safety net programs. Sadly, national paranoia runs in many directions.
  • Kervick
    Someone wrote:

    I participated in Albuquerque. I had the feeling that we were not looking to collectively sacrifice- just to have the "rich" sacrifice. My input was not heard because the majority at my particular table were very socialist leaning. Nice people but with very different objectives than mine.-----

    This was my experience as well. I was for a 30% cut across the board, similar to what many European countries are now doing. And for much sooner action than 2025.

    I am getting increasingly annoyed in reading the reactions here from people who apparently are not looking at the demographic information. And at America Speaks for its inadequate reporting. Take a look again at the demographics of the meeting as reported in the testimony. IT is GROSSLY misleading almost to the point of propaganda.

    Demographic Diversity: We are still tabulating data from the Community Conversation sites, where we did not have keypad polling technology, but our initial demographic polling of participants found that the National Town Meeting engaged a broad cross-section of the American public. At tables across the country, we had members of local Tea Parties sitting down with activists from MoveOn. Business owners sat with union members. Participants were young and old, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, and from every race and ethnic background.

    * Race: By race and ethnicity, for example, our demographics matched the nation’s demographics within a few percentage points, except for underrepresentation among Latino participants.

    * Income: By income, while participation did slightly favor higher incomes, 17% of participants had an annual household income of less than $25,000 a year.

    * Views on Economic Issues: 26% of participants said they tended to view themselves as liberal on economic and fiscal issues. 18% said they were somewhat liberal, 23% said they were moderate, 13% said they were somewhat conservative, and 20% said they were conservative.

    * Age: Ten percent of participants were between the ages of 17-24 – less than the national average, but still quite high for a public forum on a Saturday to discuss the federal budget.--------

    Only about 50% of the age 17-44 bracket was represented at the meeting while the 55 and older bracket was over represented by almost a 2-1 percentage.

    The liberal-conservative representation at the meeting was almost exactly opposite of how America leans. This is a deal-breaker, almost to the point that the meeting should have been canceled. Given the misrepresentation the results are completely meaningless. America will not be voting for ANY tax increases in November. If as one respondent here stated the percentage at the forums who favored military cuts was only 51, and given the misrepresented percentages it means that number would not even have been a majority if there were more conservatives there.

    Remember folks, the percentage of American citizens that identifies themselves as conservative according to Gallup just this month is 42! Not sort of conservative by just plain old conservative. And if the question were asked about fiscal leanings that number would probably go even higher! Our event had only 20% who said they were conservative. Let's get real! If there were more conservatives at the meeting there would have been less consensus, which is where the country undoubtedly is as well.

    This town hall day was stacked with people who were older and more socialist. And there were apparently many single issue social security activists in attendance. Tea Party people mostly stayed home because they already have their own forums that are getting through to Congress. The next consensus vote will be in November.

    If as someone mentioned
  • Childawg1z
    I participated in Albuquerque. I had the feeling that we were not looking to collectively sacrifice- just to have the "rich" sacrifice. My input was not heard because the majority at my particular table were very socialist leaning. Nice people but with very different objectives than mine.
  • Billtodd
    While the June 26th event was worth attending and produced some useful results, the claims that its sponsors were 'neutral' and the resulting implication that the results were not artificially skewed are very questionable. Rather than spend time debating some of the more subtle influences exerted upon the participants, let's just cover the biggies:

    1. The most egregious misrepresentation involved Social Security. The scope of the lie was impressive, since BY DEFINITION (i.e., by law - see http://www.socialsecurity.gov/... changes to Social Security can have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER upon the Federal Budget or the National Debt (the sole focus of the meeting's alleged 'deficit reduction' exercise).

    Most participants (certainly those at my table) bought into this lie at face value and struggled to find changes that would be minimally disruptive to those who depend most upon the system. Imagine how loath they would have been to change ANYTHING had they understood that it would not help the deficit situation one single, solitary cent because by law the system - which is wholly self-sustaining and thus places no burden whatsoever on the budget, deficit, or debt - has been completely off-budget since 1990, will remain solvent without change through 2037, and most likely will remain solvent without change far longer than that (since the 2037 date is based on extremely conservative estimates of economic growth: 1.9% annually vs. the historical average of 3.6%). As little as 2.7% annual growth will avoid any need for change, and should average growth over the next decade or so be unexpectedly lower than that increasing the income cap on FICA taxation (by far the most popular choice of those provided) at that time will solve the problem (with no need to raise FICA tax rates or eligibility ages at all, the next-most-popular options).

    But what, you may ask, of the need to repay that nearly $2.6 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds that constitute the Social Security Trust Fund over the next quarter-century to maintain the current level of benefits? The simple fact is (see reference above) that repaying those bonds (which represent past borrowing that used sleight of hand approaching outright fraud to obscure the fact that this borrowing INCREASED PAST DEFICITS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT BY THE AMOUNTS BORROWED) will simply entail replacing them with new bonds of the same value borrowed from someone else, leaving the net effect on the real (legally-defined) deficit and real (legally-defined) debt exactly zero.

    So Social Security really had no place whatsoever in any discussion involving deficits and the national debt. How then did it get included? Could it have something to do with the fact that dismantling Social Security has been a long-term goal of Pete Peterson and his foundation (a main sponsor of this event)? Hmmmm...

    2. By contrast, the misrepresentations involving health care were more subtle. Health-care spending (unlike Social Security) is indeed a real problem that must be addressed - but it is a societal problem rather than a budget problem (i.e., merely reducing government expenditures with respect to revenues will simply shift the burden to individuals without solving anything).

    But the options provided explicitly kept the kind of structural reforms necessary to solve this problem off the table. In fact, the instructions claimed that "the nation does not seem prepared to consider fundamental reform", despite consistent polling over the past year-plus by many organizations (including all the national networks) that indicated strong support for exactly that - in the 59% to 75% range for a strong 'public option' to help constrain both insurance and provider overheads and nearly as much support for "Medicare for All" to achieve even greater efficiencies. In other words, it's not 'the nation' that's not prepared to consider fundamental reform: it's the politicians to whom we're supposed to be giving advice on how to solve this deficit crisis. And perhaps the most important piece of advice would be to start doing their jobs rather than catering to their large contributors and making the rest of us suffer the consequences.

    What were we offered as options? Merely the choices of reducing net Medicare/Medicaid spending by 0%, 5%, 10%, or 15% (i.e., just shifting the burden to many who are least able to deal with that shift). To our credit, the option receiving the most support was not to reduce it at all (38%), the option receiving the next-most support was a 5% reduction (27%), reduction by 10% received only 16% support, and reduction by 15% received only 19% support. One of those last votes was my own, because the instructions did not PRECLUDE reducing expenditures by the kinds of structural changes mentioned above which made that choice acceptable to me, even though I suspected that it would be misinterpreted.

    My suspicions seem to have been justified. Note the interesting assertion above that "A majority of participants supported at least a 5% reduction in federal health care spending". This is technically accurate, since a total of 62% supported at least a 5% reduction. However, the statement "A majority of participants supported AT MOST a 5% reduction in federal health care spending" would have been true for even more (65%) of the participants. Could this choice of emphasis have anything to do with the fact that Medicare/Medicaid are also on Peterson's hit list? I can't know with any certainty but I have my suspicions, since it's otherwise pretty inexplicable.

    3. Similarly 'interesting' wording is used to report that "A majority of participants supported at least a 5% reduction in ... 'all other non-defense spending'”. The actual figures were 32% for a 0% reduction, 26% for a 5% reduction, 16% for a 10% reduction, and 27% for a 15% reduction, so indeed 69% favored at least a 5% reduction - but 68% favored AT MOST a 5% reduction. This time at least the former was 1% more popular than the latter, but emphasizing this marginal difference rather than calling it a wash is still a bit much - unless you've got an agenda that favors spending cuts over tax increases rather than a really neutral stance.

    4. As with the health-care side of things, discussion of defense spending was carefully limited by the options offered: 0%, 5%, 10% or at most a 15% cut, when in actuality the changed nature of the threats to our nation since the end of the Cold War (when G. H. W. Bush talked so much about the 'peace dividend' that somehow never materialized) could easily justify at least 50% cuts and possibly 60% - 70% cuts without materially impacting our safety (though it would certainly help curtail our tendency to throw our weight around, providing additional - though non-budgetary - benefit at least for those of the non-neocon persuasion). A majority opted for the 15% cut, with significant sentiment expressed for larger cuts (which, had they been on the menu, would have helped take pressure off cutting other less questionable programs in the effort to reach the $1.2 trillion goal).

    5. On the revenue side of things, the tone of the 'Preliminary Findings' above was more muted. For example, the words "A strong majority of" could easily have been prefixed to the sentence "Participants expressed support for raising revenues through increasing tax rates to those in the top tax brackets and to those earning more than $1 million a year", since 66% favored the former and 68% favored the latter. A near-majority (48%) also favored raising taxes on capital gains and dividends.

    And, yet again, we were constrained by the options that were offered. The combination of ALL the options for raising top-bracket tax rates brought them only to 47% on those earning more than $1 million annually. That may sound like a lot today, but top-bracket rates averaged over 90% during the 1950s, over 80% during the 1960s, and over 70% during the 1970s, and then fell from 70% to 28% between 1981 and 1986: since high-income individuals have benefited the most from the disastrous tax policies of the last decade (or more) that helped create our deficit crisis, it seems reasonable that they should bear the brunt of the load for getting us back on our feet and that the top bracket should rise back into the 60% - 70% range temporarily and then stabilize at about 50% after the worst of the crisis has passed to help ensure that it does not happen again in a few years.

    "Oh, no! That will stifle our economic recovery!" cry the trickle-downers (and indeed the 'options workbook' provided to us raised that fearsome possibility). But their theories in this area don't appear to be supported by our history since WWII. With top-bracket rates averaging 90+% in the '50s our GDP grew by 41%. With top-bracket rates averaging 80+% in the '60s our GDP grew by 51%. With top-bracket rates averaging 70+% in the '70s our GDP grew by 37%. With top-bracket rates averaging about 48% in the '80s our GDP grew by 38%. With top-bracket rates averaging about 37% in the '90s our GDP grew by 40%. And with top-bracket rates averaging about 36% in the '00s our GDP grew by only about 32% (April estimate). Perhaps high marginal tax rates just inspire our wealthiest earners to work all that much harder and thereby help BOOST economic growth - in any event, they certainly don't appear to suppress growth.

    Even the program materials stated that 2010 government revenues are only about 15% of GDP, down from typical levels of 17% - 20% over the past half-century: there's clearly room to grow them significantly more than the options which we were provided without bending, let alone breaking, any precedents.


    That about covers the 'biggies' to which I promised to limit myself. Many of the ways in which the sponsors attempted to influence the outcome of this 'town meeting' into something they could spin to their advantage were quite impressively subtle and effective, but therefore far more plausibly deniable than the more concrete actions described above. That they were considerably less than completely successful in this endeavor speaks well of the participants' willingness to hold true to their principles despite the attempts to stampede them with cries of "Crisis!" and appeals for 'shared' (rather than appropriately-targeted) sacrifice.
  • Ejdodson
    An unexpected commitment prevented me from participating in the town meeting held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prior to the meeting, I sent the following input to the local organizer, Mr. Goldman:

    I had intended to advance three measures I believe would materially improve the level of equality of opportunity in our society, while moving us toward sustainable economic activity.

    First, recognizing that the structure of the Federal income tax has lost its progressivity and fails to distinguish between "earned" and "unearned" income flows, a key reform would be to combine tax simplification with progressivity by eliminating all exemptions and deductions except a basic exemption for income level. All individual incomes up to the national median (i.e., in practical terms the income of most workers and lower-income retirees) would not be taxed. Above this amount, higher ranges of income would be taxed at increasing rates (the rates and ranges determined during the budgeting process to raise sufficient revenue to balance the budget).

    Second, because our tax system has created an investment environment that rewards speculation rather than production of capital goods, the way local and state governments raise revenue must be changed. States should consider adopting the above graduated tax structure as well as the Federal government, although the rates required would be much lower. To encourage new construction and rehabilitation of existing buildings and at the same time discourage speculation in land (which contributes nothing to the economy except rising prices), communities and school districts should begin shifting the rate of taxation off property improvements and onto land values. The ideal rate of taxation on buildings is really "zero." Regarding land values, assessments based on the sales value of land parcels should be replaced by an estimate of the annual rental value of the location, with the goal of public collection of this full annual rental value over time.

    Third, to gradually reduce and eventually retire our national debt, existing government bonds should be refunded with fully amortizing bonds (i.e., bonds that pay both interest and principle to bondholders). The amount required to service the debt -- including principal repayment -- would be factored in when determining the rates of taxation imposed on individual incomes.

    Sincerely,
    Edward J. Dodson
    Cherry Hill, NJ

  • Lynnrobb2
    I participated in the Columbia, SC Town Hall. There was an option which was overwhelmingly supported by the attendees which was not offered as a possibilitiy: Single payer health insurance. Although I am a fiscal conservative, I certainly support this option if it resembles the plans offered in Switzerland or Holland, but not if it duplicates those plans offered in England or Canada. We simply cannot let either the far left or right co-opt the health care debate--or anything else for that matter. Our elected representatives must start mirroring the mindsets of their constituents. Hopefully, this will begin to happen in November.
  • Brandlon
    As an octogenarian, I firmly believe that, under the present campaign financing structure, all the town meetings in the world won't count as much as a few million bucks for the next election.
    We have built a nation founded on the love of money. Our tax structure reflects this. I advocate an "insurance" type tax in which everyone pays on the basis of what they would lose if the government did not provide the armed forces, the FDA, the FTC, the FAA, etc. I.e., a flat tax on net worth.
  • Geoff Ball
    Following up on Maurice Abraham's comment on "why is this so hard."

    How we represent the choices has a big effect. I agree that the process was balanced. I did have some concerns about how our choices where presented to us. For example, the value choices offered used one scale as a choice on two goals: "Taking care of CURRENT generations" at one end of the scale and "Taking care of FUTURE generations at the other. This LEADS participants to see these as competing goals - an EITHER / OR choice. However, if the goals are presented on two scales at right angles to each other, it suggests that we can, with some effort, find solutions that take care of BOTH 'current' AND 'future' generations. We find solutions that are up and to the right on the diagram. In fact, solutions can be placed on this two axis picture, which provides the viewer an indication as to the extent that they address BOTH goals.

    This enables us to press politicians who are advocating for one goal on how well their solution addresses the OTHER goal as well. Then, we have both an UNpolarized conversation and a way of rating the quality of the solutions offered. This slight shift in how information is presented can profoundly affect what we see as possible

    Thanks for all the work you all did - it was a marvelous day. Geoff Ball, ghball@aol.com [Palo Alto]

  • Dave
    This was not a valid or fair process or however you want to describe it. The Social Security Trust Fund was misrepresented as part of the Federal Budget, which it is not. It has nothing to do with the budgeting process. It is a fund set up with a "pay go" rule.

    The Peter Peterson involvement in this whole affair should tell you something. Why did the spin coming out of this include a cut in Social Security (that is what pushing retirement to a later age is - a cut)? Why did this process result in a spin that participants want a cut in health care?

    I was there. I saw the slant toward conservatives, e.g. Conrad, Judd, and even the right wing extremist Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Don't fall for this sham. It is a cover for the so-called deficit reduction commission to cut benefits.
  • Debbie Aiona
    I have a concern about this paragraph taken from Carolyn Lukensmeyer's preliminary National Town Hall Meeting Report, dated June 26 and available on your website:
    “‘We The People’ have prioritized what is most important for America’s future: creating equality of opportunity for future generations, maintaining a free country where individuals can maximize their potential, guaranteeing children receive a quality education, securing prosperity for future generations and ensuring a stable economic environment.”

    The last point "ensure a stable economic environment" is not consistent with my memory as a participant nor is it consistent with the report we received as we exited the meeting. Here's what we were told "we the people" said on the 26th:


    * Equality of opportunity for future generations: "Future generations should
    have the same opportunities we have"
    * We have a "free country that allows individuals to maximize their own
    potentials"
    * "Every child has the opportunity to get a quality education"
    * Secure prosperity for future generations
    * That we have ensured a sustainable environment: "Leave the world in a
    better place"

    The last point is the issue. "Ensuring a stable economic environment" is not the same as "Ensuring a sustainable environment: Leave the world in a better place."

    I think most would agree that when people talk about a sustainable environment, they mean the natural environment. That we need to be good stewards of the earth. That's what our table meant by it. I hope you will correct this error on your website and in future reports.

    As I mentioned before, I participated in the town hall meeting. My biggest concern was the way health care costs were framed. Health care is around 17 percent of our economy and the federal government covers about half the costs. Unless we make a significant change in the way we take care of our population, it's going to continue to drag us down. Other developed nations spend about half of what we do and get better outcomes. I felt boxed in by the choices given to me last Saturday because I wanted to reduce health care spending significantly, but by choosing the high option (15 percent) it looked as if I wanted to reduce benefits and increase out of pocket expenses. That was not the case.

    Our table along with many others noted that we wanted a single-payer system in the "other" option in the computerized response form. It must have gotten a lot of mentions because it was projected on the screen when you reported back to us. I hope that sense of the group will be captured in your final report.

    Once we finally provide medicare-type coverage for all, we'll not only save a lot of money, but we'll also improve our health and quality of life. The "tough choices" we need to make about how we spend our tax dollars do not have to lead to more pain and suffering. There are ways to do it that will lead to better lives for all of us.
  • Interesting. As a member of the Tea Party, I would have loved to have been there and make some recomendations about the Federal Reserve which might ease the pain of the cuts. I believe we're going to need a little bit of everything to dig our way out of the fiscal hole, small tax hikes, entitlement cuts, discretionary and military spending cuts. Spreading the piain, if you will. But we can't have the Federal Reserve printing money hand over fist and devaluing the dollar at the same time, because then all those people on fixed incomes watch their buying power dwindle, and we're faced with more adjustments to make.

    Fred Pasek
  • Jim Burke
    The AmericaSpeaks Our Budget, Our Economy spark grows stronger every day. I participated in Dallas TX. We too enjoyed unusual openness and discussion with our table-mates of varied demographics. Our Table 11 surpassed our 1.2 trillion dollar goal (thanks everyone). Our local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News has had stories, letters to the editor, and an editorial just about every day since. Last night, two of us described our Saturday experiences at a political group meeting of 45 people. There in the audience were some elected officials. As Maurice said earlier, I hope Washington is listening and that Washington reacts as cooperatively as we did.
  • Lnewton
    It is worth noting there were significant percentages on individaul recommendations as well. These reflect results from the electronic Town Halls.
    a) Health Care: Medicare and Medicaid - 38% voted for "no changes".
    b) Defense - 51% voted to "Reduce overall spending in this catagory by 15%, worth $132 billion". Additional indicated that this could be more if it was done responsibly.
    c) Reduce Deductions and Credits - 51% voted to "Limit corporate depreciation for equipment, worth $100 billion".
    I would interpret this as a reponse to:
    a) stagnation of wages for the middle class over the last 10 years,
    b) tax cuts that have favored the wealthy which have created a significant shift in income by class, and
    c) a negative response to the many favors provided industry at the expense of the rest of the economy.
    I participated in Columbia, South Carolina
  • I participated in Palo Alto, CA. Found this to be a very balanced process, People expressed themselves without intimidation and recommendations were reached through open discussion. I'm left now with an agonizing question; why is it so difficult for our elected representatives to bridge differences and reach conclusions for the common good?

    I fear the answer lies in flaws within the political system itself. Public financing of political campaigns would be a good first step to reform the system; it would remove the need for massive fund raising efforts that divert time and attention from real issues. And public financing would eliminate the financial influence of lobbyists. Lobbyists would have to make their case on solid arguments rather than with large contributions.

    Message to elected representatives: Listen to what the public is saying. The level of fear, frustration and anger is growing. We are willing to collectively sacrifice to get the federal debt under control. We are changing, can you?
  • Ohio
    "The level of fear, frustration and anger is growing."

    The results of ignorance. Ignorance on the part of both the public and the elected representatives.

    There is no social security crisis. There is a general revenue crisis.

  • Martin Monroe
    Clean elections are working in Arizona and nearly passed in Iowa last session. I ran twice and nearly beat a powerful incumbent. Currently the GOP extremist have challenged it in court, as they have since the beginning. Funny these same extremist ran clean more than anyone else, while they are trying to kill clean elections public funding. I participated in Des Moines, Iowa. I am a candidate for Congress in Western Iowa running as a Independent and not even trying to raise money. I am spending all my time walking and talking directly to all voters as I have for 12 years now. The American people should be able to vote by initiative on the 2010 ballot on what we want Congress to do and they should do it. Term limits, limited lobbying, public funding, news time for all candidates and etc... have already been delivered to our representatives and they know what we want them to do, but they refuse to comply with the will of the people(so where is the Supreme Court?). I remember going to Chicago in 1997 to the National Political Science Convention where speakers said they don't know how to solve this 25 year old problem! In the 1700's these representatives would have been dragged from Congress, tar and feathered, then hung from a tree with a sign on their chest that simply read "traitor" My only personal recourse is to challenge them for their seat and get the revolving door of congress moving again!

    I am,

    Martin James Monroe
    Citizen
  • Macman2
    I think you missed the strong sentiment expressed for single payer, national health insurance as opposed to the 5% or more cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. At my table in Philadelphia, people agreed to the 5% health care cut under the assumption that we could save at least that much upon creating a single payer system.
  • harveyk400
    Three concerns:

    1. The emphasis on achieving the target reduction is a game that misdirects and limits the discussion to preselected choices - "making hard decisions" within an arbitrary boundary. This skews and obscures possible weighting of forced spending cuts against increased revenue to achieve the target level.
    One set of options that was excluded was borrowing for economic stimulus to maintain the level of economic activity, the flow of money through spending. Just what were and are the tax revenues and how would these project for the alternatives as well as for stimulus packages for extended unemployment benefits and neglected infrastructure maintenance and improvement? The pre-meeting on-line information might have included this material.

    2. What did the choice between government and personal responsibility hope to achieve? At our table, we were torn wanting to vote for both extremes and yet wanting to be neutral to support both concepts. Both are important; and both are largely independent of each other. The function of government is to serve and protect it's people, especially the most vulnerable.
    The government serves by affording justice, health care, social service, education systems, national infrastructure, and safety regulation for the welfare of all.
    It is the responsibility of the individual to take advantage of the government support for an opportunity to participate in the economy to the extent of their gifts.

    3. The percentage reductions were explained to be general goals for the multi-faceted categories. Most of at our table strongly supported maintaining, even increasing, funding in some areas such as social security where no change amounted to a reduction after population increase and COLA are taken into account. Conversely, some felt strongly that other programs should be sharply reduced or eliminated. The results should not be interpreted as a justification for an across-the-board budget reduction within the spending category.
  • Drguy0
    This was a Push Poll extravaganza. the only items America speaks pushed were Social Security and Medicare. alternative were give to cut long term deficit but the continuous push was to go back to Medicare and Socail Security. Peterson has created America SWpeaks for this purpose. Ihave attended, Ihave watched the process and recorded the audio. Ihave informed variousw senators as to the bogus approach and I have informed various activist groups as to the hidden (not so well) agenda. There are so many other ways to cut but not in Mr. Peterson's view
  • AS_moderator
    Hello, thanks to everyone for the numerous comments. Apparently some didn't come through the system quickly, so there's been a backlog.

    It would be difficult to answer all the great comments. So a general one here:

    AmericaSpeaks genuinely tried to present a balanced view and got input from a broad range of experts (see the advisors http://usabudgetdiscussion.org... ). However, the result was bound to be imperfect from all points of view. We appreciate your efforts to help us get this right and we'll do our best to integrate this and other feedback into the final report.

    Thanks!
  • Retsof
    Overall it was a good experience. It was a little one-sided. I question some of the summarization. For example, a majority of the people, I believe, did not support raising revenues via a "carbon tax". How did that get in there? Just lumping that in with ideas to "raise revenues" is just not right as it is a very complicated issue that the general public still does not understand completely! Also, what about the "other options" that were not in the printed agenda? Other options such as repealing the recently passed Health Care legislation, converting to a FLAT TAX, and deep tax cuts for businesses and corporations to stimulate the private sector and create jobs (and revenues) through investments and growth had no venue to be included in any organized way.
  • Billtodd
    You can, of course, believe anything that you want to believe - but the electronic voting results reported at the end of the session indicated that 64% of the nearly 4,000 participants nation-wide voted in favor of a carbon tax. ALL the issues discussed are considerably more complicated than the presentation materials described, this one no more so than most and less so than some. I suspect that its popularity arose from its combination of revenue-generation, potential to avoid adversely affecting the most vulnerable, and environmental responsibility.

    Repealing the recent health-insurance 'reform' legislation was likely not included because doing so would have no appreciable effect upon deficits (though CHANGING it in major ways might). Neither would simply converting to 'flat' taxation (it would instead depend upon the RATE of such a tax) - and since it would be far less progressive than the tax structures employed over the past century one might suspect that support for this change would be limited.

    Stimulating short-term economic growth was just not a part of the discussion (this was made clear at the start, along with the fact that increasing short-term deficits to stimulate growth was generally desirable and would not materially affect the long-term debt situation). That said, deep tax cuts for business have not historically proven as stimulating as leaving their tax rates alone and instead using the revenue generated to promote growth in other ways - though TARGETED exemptions for areas like R&D can prove valuable over the long term.

    Many of us would have liked to see options for greater reductions in defense spending (30% - 70%), restructuring to replace most private health insurance by universal Medicare, and a return to higher marginal personal tax rates (not perhaps to the 90% rates of the '50s or 80% rates of the '60s, but at least temporarily to the 70% rates of the '70s, followed by reduction to around 50% after we got our fiscal house back in order). So you weren't the only one dissatisfied with the breadth of options offered - and their limitations were far from 'one-sided'.
  • Don M.
    Your comments about social security are misleading.
    The first mentioned item should have been the 85% support for raising the limit on taxable earnings which is much higher than the 52% support for raising the age of receiving full benefits to 69. The other items received less than 50% support.
  • Ted Cloak
    A fair summary, IMO. I participated in Albuquerque.
  • Roylwade
    I thought the overall concept was good and enjoyed the opportunity to sit down and express my views. However, the process was flawed. We were asked to reach a 1.2 trillion dollar reduction in deficit spending by 2025 and then given very generic and canned solutions to choose from. There were very few combinations that would allow you to reach the goal, therefore the participants were forced into making choices that were not in the best interest of the country as a whole. The solutions appeared to have a very liberal leaning agenda and gives the left a "the public wants more taxes" hat too use. There are a couple of quotes that apply: "You cannot squeeze blood from a turnip" and "at some point you run out of other peoples money."
    The most salient point that the process neglected was that in order to decrease a budget deficit you must first reduce spending. The other fact that was ignored was that the long term fiscal health of our country depends on reforming our long term commitments to programs like social security and medicare. Both of these, coupled with the omissions to the debate, like illegal immigration, create a very biased and borderline dishonest discussion.
    HOPE you take my opinion and use it constructively.
  • Ben Sears
    President Lukensmeyer accurately hit the high points that leap out from the results of Saturday's meetings: attack the deficit by raising taxes on those in upper income brackets, especially those making over a million dollars a year and on corporate profits; raise the cap on Social Security payroll taxes; siginificantly reduce spending on the military (she might have added, as she informed us on Saturday, that sentiment was expressed for cutting military spending without harming the troops). Also, on the healthcare issue, it was reported a couple of times during the day that significant support was registered for "single payer" as an option for cutting healthcare costs. This report brought spontaneous applause and cheers from those gathered in Philadelphia (and maybe elsewhere). Given the straight forward nature of her initial report, I am hopeful that president Carolyn will transmit the full impact of our deliberations to the National Commission.
  • I notice that although a huge majority of the participants wanted to include a renewed call for a single payer system, that information was not included in this report. Such a shame.
  • Terry
    The target date for increasing the retirement was 2028 not 2025!
  • Kervick
    Dear America Speaks:

    Thank you for the process and sharing the testimony. This is a worthwhile effort.

    The testimony does point out the demographic information, that this group was much older and more liberal than the country at large. I would have preferred if there were a stronger statement in the testimony that said, the results gleaned are not representative of the population at large due to sampling error or something like that. I am sorry if my criticism is bombastic. I just do not want my participation at an event to be misused by political opportunists who will want to spin data for their own purposes, or for our leaders to get the wrong ideas about our priorities.
  • Probasco8
    the choices were extremely limited as to what can be done. The resolutions provided all pointed towards raising taxes and cutting benefits or military. The lack of real reform in 100 other programs and/or the size of government led me to beleive the questions and the answers were designed to arrive at one pre-determined destination. Maybe a broader scope of panelist to create solutions and paths would have
    legitimized the conference. As it was, I felt the outcome was obvious.
  • Michael Brennan
    In the survey, a Medicare-for-all plan was excluded from our health-care choices because "the nation does not seem prepared to consider fundamental reform of [that] kind." (Workbook, Page 8)
    Yet polls show most Americans support Medicare-for all!
blog comments powered by Disqus

stay in the loop

speak out

Cheryl Contee
Let's get this conversation started on our fiscal future. Give your opinion and ask for those of others.