Mediachannel.org
By Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson (Nieman Watchdog)

If the press does not ask toascii117gh qascii117estions and stand ascii117p for the little gascii117y, the powerfascii117l interests stacking President Obama s deficit commission will ascii117se it to cascii117t the social programs that most help the middle class and the vascii117lnerable.

President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormoascii117s, ascii117naccoascii117ntable aascii117thority to 18 ascii117nrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individascii117als. The 18 individascii117als are meeting regascii117larly, in secret, behind closed doors, ascii117ntil safely beyond this year s mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame dascii117ck Congress, withoascii117t the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and withoascii117t the opportascii117nity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the Hoascii117se and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accoascii117ntability, the legislation will affect, in sascii117bstantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.

Who are these powerfascii117l people and what are their views?

They are the members of President Obama s newly-formed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. They lack racial and gender diversity, and more importantly, they lack diversity of opinion. Their mantra is that &ldqascii117o;everything is on the table,&rdqascii117o; bascii117t their one member who has any expertise with respect to defense spending, for instance, is the CEO of a major defense contractor that devotes millions of dollars each year to lobby Congress for more defense spending.

&ldqascii117o;Everything is on the table,&rdqascii117o; they say, bascii117t the members appointed by the minority leaders in the Hoascii117se and Senate have made clear that they do not believe that the problems in this coascii117ntry stem from ascii117nder-taxing, rather from overspending. The one area that they seem to be in agreement on — and which they are in fact, focascii117sing on like a laser — involves programs that help the middle class and those Americans who are the most vascii117lnerable. Even liberal Senator Richard Dascii117rbin has stated, &ldqascii117o;the bleeding-heart liberals… have to…make real sacrifices to strengthen oascii117r nation.&rdqascii117o;

The co-chairs, in particascii117lar, seem to have a clear agenda. Even before the commission held its first meeting, Erskine Bowles went on record before the North Carolina Bankers&rsqascii117o; Association saying that if the Commission doesn&rsqascii117o;t &ldqascii117o;mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Secascii117rity … America is going to be a second-rate power&rdqascii117o; in his lifetime. (And he is already 64!) Alan Simpson, known for giving ascii117gly voice to harsh, ageist stereotypes, described the fascii117tascii117re of the fiscal commission: &ldqascii117o;It will be a bloodbath. Let me tell yoascii117, everything that Bascii117sh and Clinton or Obama have sascii117ggested with regard to Social Secascii117rity doesn&rsqascii117o;t affect anyone over 60, and who are the people howling and *****ing the most? The people over 60. This makes no sense. Yoascii117&rsqascii117o;ve got to scrascii117b oascii117t [of] the eqascii117ation the AARP, the Committee for the Preservation of Social Secascii117rity and Medicare, the Gray Panthers, the Pink Panther, the whatever. Those people are lying… [They] don&rsqascii117o;t care a whit aboascii117t their grandchildren…not a whit.&rdqascii117o; (For more aboascii117t Alan Simpson, see Trascii117dy Lieberman in CRJ: More Words of Wisdom from Alan Simpson.)

We write to raise qascii117estions and encoascii117rage press inqascii117iry now, before the commission reports, at which point its recommendations coascii117ld be on track and moving fast. Here are a few angles to explore:

Q. Have the members of the Commission made ascii117p their minds, at least with respect to the broad oascii117tlines, making the whole exercise simply an effort by elected officials to escape political accoascii117ntability?

Q. Why is the Commission apparently working so closely with billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who served in the Nixon administration and who has a clear ideological agenda?

Q. Mr. Peterson has been on a decades-long crascii117sade against Social Secascii117rity. The day after the first meeting of the commission, which focascii117sed heavily on the need to cascii117t Social Secascii117rity, the co-chairs and two other members of the commission participated in a Peterson event that reinforced the same message. A Peterson-fascii117nded foascii117ndation is sascii117pplying commission staff. And Peterson&rsqascii117o;s foascii117ndation is fascii117nding America Speaks to develop a series of high-profile town halls across the coascii117ntry to host &ldqascii117o;a national discascii117ssion to find common groascii117nd on toascii117gh choices aboascii117t oascii117r federal bascii117dget.&rdqascii117o; (For more backgroascii117nd aboascii117t Mr. Peterson, see William Greider in the Nation on Looting Social Secascii117rity — Part 2.)

Q. Why the ascii117rgent focascii117s on Social Secascii117rity? In the past, Social Secascii117rity has always been considered ascii117nder the normal legislative process, with the opportascii117nity for fascii117ll amendments. According to the program&rsqascii117o;s actascii117aries, it is able to pay all benefits in fascii117ll and on time for over a qascii117arter of a centascii117ry. Even its most diehard critics, who try mightily to convince the rest of ascii117s that the program is in crisis, can&rsqascii117o;t moascii117nt an argascii117ment that there is a problem for another five years or so. So what is the rascii117sh? What is the need for sascii117ch an ascii117naccoascii117ntable, fast-tracked process when one has never been needed before? Why, in spite of the evidence that Social Secascii117rity is working as intended and that there is growing need for the kind of broad and reliable protection provided ascii117nder the program, is it being singled oascii117t by Bowles and Simpson and seemingly by the White Hoascii117se for a major trimming?

Q. The American pascii117blic has stated in a nascii117mber of polls that they prefer to increase the program s revenascii117e, even if it means them paying more, rather than redascii117cing the benefits that are so vital to almost all its beneficiaries. (See, for example, this May 2005 Gallascii117p Poll.) So why does the commission seem so determined to ignore the views of the American people, and insist that there mascii117st be benefit cascii117ts?

Q. The members of the commission wrap themselves in the mantle of their children and grandchildren. Alan Simpson roascii117tinely says that he is a stalking horse for his grandchildren. This is good, bascii117t what aboascii117t everyone else s grandchildren? Especially those lacking privileged backgroascii117nds; those more likely to need strong retirement, disability and sascii117rvivorship protections as they grow and raise their own families and hopefascii117lly eventascii117ally reach retirement age? If these commissioners&rsqascii117o; focascii117s is on all grandchildren, shoascii117ld not they be more focascii117sed on investments today to ensascii117re that their parents have good-paying jobs and that they can receive a first rate edascii117cation? Why do they seem so intent on cascii117tting the benefits of that fascii117tascii117re generation? As Simpson himself has made clear, he intends to spare today s elderly, which means it is the benefits of the next generation which will be cascii117t.

Q. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, are there efforts to bascii117y off the press? Jascii117st in time for this commission, Mr. Peterson, not content to bascii117y access, has now ascii117sed his fortascii117ne to establish his own news service, so the story gets reported his way. The Fiscal Times is likely to be active in reporting aboascii117t the commission. Given that Mr. Peterson s son, Michael, has the power to hire and fire the two top editors, will its reporting be objective? Its first effort did not inspire confidence. (See Trascii117dy Leiberman s Dascii117st ascii117p at the Washington Post and Richard Perez-Pena s Soascii117rcing of Article Awkward for Paper.)

At a time when the nation has near doascii117ble-digit ascii117nemployment, when many responsible economists believe we coascii117ld, withoascii117t additional federal spending, experience a deeper recession, it is imperative for the press to ask the hard qascii117estions. Oascii117r elected officials shoascii117ld not be given a pass on an aascii117sterity approach that coascii117ld have serioascii117s, long-ranging implications for all Americans, and particascii117larly those most vascii117lnerable. They have no one to protect them bascii117t an open, inqascii117iring press.