I'm truly curious to see how SS is going to be dealt with. It's not something that, as a young man, I include in my retirement planning. I'm just not convinced it can stay solvent, given the disparity between the population of soon-to-be retirees and the workforce needed to cover those costs.

Soc. Sec. is fully solvent until 2037. After that, even if no adjustments are made it is 78% solvent. That said, there's an easy fix, which is popularly supported. Raise the FICA tax limit above $100 thousand.

However, Soc. Sec. is not contributing to the deficit so it shouldn't even be considered by this commission. In fact the draft report specically states Soc. Sec. adjustments will do nothing to help the deficit.

But no worries.. this thing is DOA. No one is going to sign on to this idiocy. The real roadblocks are not policy but political. The GOP will never support any revenue increase, or cuts to the military, and the Dems are going to defend Soc. Sec., Medicare, and Medicaid to the last person. I'm doubtful that the commission will find the votes to pass on a majority report. The Dems are already giving it a thumbs down.

In the meantime if anyone in Washington were serious about the deficit, the Clinton tax rates would be reinstated without argument.

I haven't heard Republicans say much about cuts to SS. Their biggest issue is de-funding, or repealing the healthcare bill, and starting over. That's been their theme since election night.

Paula, I don't want to be accused of arrogant academic elitism, but I have to ask if you read the report at all? (The HuffPost link does not work by the way, but it's just a short story wondering if tea party folks will object to cuts in SS and medicare.)

Your glib description seems more designed as a set of talking points and not as a way to resolve the long term debt trap that this nation faces as the baby boomers retire.

Contrary to Paula's description, the Commission report:

It suggests dramatic cuts in defense spending (100 billion).

It suggests changing the FICA formula to capture a greater proportion of income (currently none after 106k). This will reduce inequality.

It proposes a wage indexed floor benefit and an income pegged formula, so wealthy retirees don't get the same benefit as poor retirees. This will reduce inequality.

It proposes an earlier retirement age for those in labor intensive occupations, who cannot reasonably wait until 67 to retire. This is a benefit directly targeted at working class laborers. This will benefit the working class.

It proposes an increase in the Federal gas tax which will wean us from our dependence on foreign oil.

And the Medicare savings reflect changes to the program already included in the health care reform.

I fixed the link.

I am encouraged by the report. I think the US needs to get its long term deficit under control (after more short term, deficit increasing stimulus to get the economy booming again). We need to make a lot of hard decisions. This report has put them before us.

I understand that it proposes $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. I'd probably prefer slightly less cuts and slight more taxes.

Although defense budget cuts are included (yes), funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq war was not. We should, of course, end those wars and gain those cost savings.

Social Security is not causing our deficit problems. It should not included in these cuts. An increase in the retirement age is a cut. Try getting a job when you are in your 60s! Also eliminating the COLA for Soc. Sec. is a cut.

Dems won't support the Soc. Sec. Medicare cuts and the Rs won't support the military cuts. Cutting upper income tax rates is a non-starter. Initial reactions from both parties indicate this is not going anywhere.

Paul, using means testing on Soc. Sec. is a great GOP talking point. Soc. Sec. is not a welfare program. It's an income insurance program for all Americans for retirement, for disability, and for orphaned children.

As for the treasury notes that the Soc. Sec. fund holds, why should those be any less honored than what the Chinese holds or any investor holds. I frankly don't buy what you're selling. And I don't find it the least bit progressive.

I repeat, Soc. Sec. is not responsible for the deficit, and its sustainability is not dependent on cuts. If the govt. exchanges treasury notes to borrow money from the Soc. Sec. trust fund to fight wars, then by God the govt. can pay it back, just like it does other debtors. Retirees, the disabled, and orphans don't have to go to the back of the line when it comes to honoring commitments.

You might be buying this piece of crap from the co-chairs of this commission , but the Dem. leadership won't buy it, and neither will the GOP leadership. There won't be the 14 votes to even get it to the Congress. This draft proposal is DOA.

So much for President Obama's bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, the budget experts they listened to, the 75 groups, think tanks, policy experts and individuals they solicited testimony from and the enormous and extremely serious proposal they came up, noting:

"The Problem Is Real –the Solution Is Painful –There’s No Easy Way Out –Everything Must Be On the Table –and Washington Must Lead."

Most of what I see here is a quick toss in the trash.

So goeth the country.

I would simply add that what Paul Gronke is so enthusiastic about, cuts in Social Security and increase in the retirement age is universally opposed by large majorities of polling, who also prefer increases in taxation to maintain current levels of benefits. Any party who cuts social security is going to feel the full wrath of the American people. And they should.

I would repeat what I said in a previous comment. Social Security is not a welfare program. It is an income insurance program for everyone, regardless of income. That's what makes it popular. And it was instituted and enhanced over the years to make sure that in old age you would have an income, or if you became disabled you would have an income, or if you died, your children would have an income. Woe unto anyone who wants to tamper with it! It is the most popular and most sustainable safety net we have in this country.

This piece of garbage will be a non-starter according to this Commission member: http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-local/19826-rep-schakowskys-statement-on-fiscal-commission-co-chairs-proposal-to-address-deficit-reduction-.html

Cut Medicare and Soc. Sec. - Not so fast! The senior population will really support larger co-pays when they already pay 30% of their income for health care?? That's progressive, Gronke???

This is what the American people think of cutting Social Security, recent poll by PPP:

(Short version- tax the wealthy and cut the military before you cut Social Security. The Soc. Sec. cutting enthusiasts here, take note!)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-voters-would-rather-tax-the-wealthy-than-cut-social-security.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpmelectioncentral+%28TPM+Election+Central%29

So, extending the Bush tax cuts cost $7 Trillion over 10 yesrs. Why aren't the R's screaming about that? I agree with Mitchell. The cap on SS needs to be raised or eliminated. And Kurt's comments about the retirement age and means testing have merit. IMO, we must rein in military spending. I am reminded of Eisenhower's warning in his last speech as president about the military-industrial complex. I respectfully disagree with Bill. It is my understanding that most folks withdraw everything they paid in to SS within 4 or 5 years. So after that, it is an "entitlement" program. However, I do agree with Bill that SS is not part of the deficit problem. My understanding is it has been borrowed against. And I believe the R's want to access whatever is left and privatize it to benefit special interest groups (i.e. Wall Street). Just like some businesses have taken private pensions from their employees. I agree we need to get the deficit under control (Thanks for the legacy, GWB!) but with the likely hood of more gridlock the next 2 years and enough poison pills in the commissions report, so far, it is not likely this will create any real reform or common ground.

More on Social Security.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/11/09/Even-Liberals-Cant-Agree-On-Saving-Social-Security.aspx

This report shows that the political divisions on Social Security are as much a product of Democratic unwillingness to consider any changes to the benefits as they are to Republicans inability to consider tax increases.

It's also important to note, I think, that the last time we studied Social Security in 1983, the same set of suggestions were made as are going to be made by the bipartisan commission.

And they were rejected then as well. The can was just kicked down the road for 27 years.

Here we are again, lining up the kick....

More evidence that no one, except for Paul Gronke, is for cuts to Social Security, and a small minority of Republicans.

From Survey USA: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/poll

Even Republicans 2-1 favor raising the taxation limit to making cuts or raising the retirement age.

Is poverty rising? Is it rising at a rate higher than other developed nations? I'd like to see some hard statistics.

What is the official definition of poverty? I've seen poverty in third-world countries and they seem to be significantly more impoverished than people here who at least have access to clean water.

If poverty is increasing, could it be due to unemployment? Is it due wealthy people not caring? Is it due to Americans asking what their country can do for them rather than asking what they can do for their country?

Bottom line, this draft proposal was not serious. It didn't address the revenue side of deficits, and it doesn't address the real problem, that the American people want an oversized military, and the services and safety net of government, but they've been convinced by the GOP that they don't have to pay for it.

It most definitely did address the revenue side as long as one took off their punish the rich lenses. There is a reduction in several tax deductions that high income earners derive greater benefit from along with a means to get greater over all revenue reported as US revenue through international operations. Then there is the $0.15/gal fuel tax.

I would call a $100BB cut in military defense spending significant along with a 1/3 reduction in overseas military bases. An additional savings is found in the massive cuts called for in defense contractors as well as the 3 year freeze in pay for defense employees (along with the rest of the federal government).

As I understand our long-term budget dilemma, it is largely caused by the ever increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid and by two wars we have never funded. Our primary choices, other than when to end the two war, are to make cuts or savings in those medical programs beyond what health care reform will accomplish, to raise taxes, or to cut other programs (like Social Security). The soundness of Social Security can be fixed by tinkering, but, as a large program, small additional changes in it can save large amounts of money (which could be shifted to pay for health care or our current wars).

I think the co-chairs reports puts a lot of specific choices out, plus proposals on tax reform. I like much of it and don't think we Democrats can just walk away from the issues. We can only hold Social Security harmless if we are willing to find money in additional taxes or cuts in other programs.

David, you and I agree but the political lines on this one are pretty clear.

Our children will thank us.

Not.

Just to show that Paul is not the only one saying we should give these deficit reduction ideas a fair shake, here is Oregon's very own Congressman Earl Blumenauer saying the same thing on the House floor yesterday: "Democratic Congressman Defends Debt Commission (NY TIMES)".