PoliticsEat The PressPoliticsfiscal-cliff-negotiations

Deficit Hacks Urge People To Call Members Of Congress And Yell Vague Fiscal Cliff Nonsense At Their Interns

Deficit Hacks Urge People To Call Congressmen And Yell Vague Fiscal Cliff Nonsense At Their Interns
Open Image Modal
By 

Eat The Press Editor, HuffPost

|

According to an email I just received, a major player in the deficit-hack industry would like Americans of all ages to contact their Congressional representatives and shout some maddeningly vague nonsense at whatever person answers the phone, because that will help us "avert" the "fiscal cliff," which is a metaphor and not an actual thing.

The email comes from the good folks at Fix The Debt, who are part of the whole Pete Peterson-funded gut-the-entitlement-programs complex that brought you, among other things, Alan Simpson doing the Gangnam Style dance, because let's remember, fixing the debt is a serious matter that demands all of our strategic reserve of gravitas. (In related news, "Alan Simpson doing the Gangnam Style Dance" is what Winston Smith's tormentors at the Ministry Of Love would have resorted to if the rats hadn't done the trick in Room 101.)

Fix The Debt's motto is "inaction is not an option," which is fully in keeping with this latest "call up your representative and shout some mad crap at them that you read off the Internet" initiative, because it is technically "action" in the same way that the corpse of a frog might jump if you direct a strong enough electrical current into its tissues.

Their email reads:

Our founders Erskine Bowles and Al Simpson asked us to write our leaders in Congress to let them know that we have their backs to do the right thing and make the hard decisions when it comes to averting the “fiscal cliff” and stabilizing our national debt.

Together, we sent more than 8,000 letters in a matter of hours.

Now it’s time to pick up the phone and call.

We’re coming down to the wire in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and every single voice counts.

Okay, so presuming that Fix The Debt is actually serious about fixing the debt, I would expect them to instruct me on what the targets of a sensible, "fiscal-cliff averting" deal are, so that I can tell my Congressperson something like, "You need to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire" or "Don't settle for less than $2.6 trillion in revenue" -- which were both major components of the "Simpson-Bowles Plan" that was created by the "founders" of Fix The Debt. If this is not serious, then I expect that the only thing I'll be instructed to do is to shout some mad crap at my Representative.

Let's find out what my talking points are:

Hi, my name is ____________ and I am calling from [YOUR city/town], State.

I’m calling to urge the Represntative to pass an agreement to tackle our nation's debt crisis that is supported by members of both parties that both raises revenue and cuts government spending in order to pave the way for a strong economic future.

This matters to me because ______________.

Examples:

--I am a parent and don’t want to kick the can down the road for my kids’ generation to deal with crippling national debt or a double dip recession.

--I am a small business owner and my success and the jobs of my employees depend on a strong economy.

--I am a veteran, and I know that our nation’s fiscal strength is a matter of national security.

Can I count on the Representative to support a deal to avert the fiscal cliff?

Thank you for your time. Congress must work together to find common ground to avert the fiscal cliff and pave the way for a strong economic future.

Yes, I feel I might have spoiled the surprise! Of course there is nothing serious here. This is just a call to lend your voice in the service of re-enunciating some dull bromides. Instead of using "inaction is not an option" as their motto, Fix The Debt ought to use "activity masquerading as achievement." (Though adopting that catchphrase may just give away the fact that they are part of a huge political racket.)

So what are all of Fix The Debt's idiot donors getting for their money? They are getting a totally general, nonspecific round of calling-and-yelling-at-my-congressman's-intern. Merry Christmas!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

What Could Fall Off The Fiscal Cliff
Military Health Care - $16 Billion(01 of14)
Open Image Modal
In his last offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), President Barack Obama lobbied for $16 billion in cuts from the military's health care program, TRICARE. In 2012, the president also proposed hiking fees for military personnel and veterans who receive benefits under the program in an effort to help cut the defense budget. His proposal drew significant fire from Republican lawmakers and veterans' groups. (credit:(Mark Wilson/Getty Images))
Military Retirement Program - $11 Billion(02 of14)
Open Image Modal
Both sides agreed to cuts from the military retirement program. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) claimed during July 2011 talks that lawmakers had reached a tentative deal to slash $11 billion. Under the current system, military personnel receive immediate retirement benefits after serving for 20 years. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, the appropriation cost per active military service member has increased at a higher rate than either inflation or the total pay package of private-sector employees. Given the budget constraints looming before the Defense Department, the CBO floated the idea of transitioning the military retirement program to a matching-payment model. (credit:(AP Photo/Matt York))
Federal Employee Retirement Program - $33 -$36 Billion(03 of14)
Open Image Modal
Cantor claimed that Republicans and Democrats had agreed to $36 billion in savings over 10 years from civilian retirement programs. The president proposed a marginally more modest figure of $33 billion in his final offer to House Speaker John Boehner. Just this year, Republicans in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also looked to find savings from the Federal Employee Retirement System by requiring employees to pay more of their salary into their pensions, which Democrats opposed as a pay cut that would make civil service less attractive for top talent. In September 2011, the federal government employed over two million individuals, either through the cabinets or independent agencies. Many Republicans have complained that the federal workforce has ballooned during the Obama administration, and while the raw number of employees has risen by 14.4 percent between Sept. 2007 and Sept. 2011, the percentage of public employees out of the total civilian workforce has remained fairly constant around 1.2 percent since 2001. Much of the raw growth has been concentrated in the Department of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Homeland Security. (credit:(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster))
Agricultural Subsidies - $30 - $33 Billion(04 of14)
Open Image Modal
Democrats and Republicans agreed to cut as much as $30 billion from agricultural subsidies; the main opposition fell along geographical lines rather than partisan ones. Hailing from an agriculture-heavy state, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) threatened to pull out of talks entirely if a deal included that much in subsidy reduction. The president ended up pushing for $33 billion in cuts, but that figure also included reductions in conservation programs. Baucus now tells HuffPost any cuts should be made through the farm bill, not fiscal cliff talks. (credit:(AP Photo/Danny Johnston, file))
Food Stamps - $2 to $20 Billion(05 of14)
Open Image Modal
Cantor pushed hard for significant cuts to food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. He charged that the federal government could save as much as $20 billion over ten years by eliminating waste and fraud, but the White House countered that the real number was closer to $2 billion. Instead, those cuts would force the program to scale back on the number of enrollees and the level of benefits it could offer. (credit:(AP Photo/Matt Rourke))
Flood Assistance - $4 Billion(06 of14)
Open Image Modal
Obama proposed cutting $4 billion from flood assistance funding in his final offer to Boehner in July 2011. But Hurricane Sandy straining the National Flood Insurance Program; The New York Times reports that thousands of claims are being submitted daily, which could send the overall cost upwards of $7 billion for a program that suffers from a ballooning debt problem. And with climate change promising future flooding disasters along the eastern seaboard, cutting the program looks unwise. (credit: (AP Photo/ John Minchillo))
Home Health Care - $50 Billion(07 of14)
Open Image Modal
The president offered to cut $110 billion over the next decade from the government's health care spending, excluding Medicare. Among the programs that could lose crucial funding is home health care, where Democrats and Republicans agreed to $50 billion in reductions over ten years. Cantor pushed for closer to $300 billion in spending cuts to health care, but Democrats appeared to stand firm. (credit:(AP Photo/Tony Dejak))
Higher Education - $10 Billion(08 of14)
Open Image Modal
The president proposed cutting $10 billion from higher education over the next decade, mostly from Pell grants. Over nine million students relied on federal subsidized loans to afford college during the 2010-2011 school year, and the skyrocketing costs have continued to diminish the purchasing power of the Pell grant program. Obama has actively worked to make college more affordable for lower-income students. Key Republican lawmakers have attempted to cut funding for student loans; most notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) slashed the maximum award from $5,550 per student per year down to just $3,040. (credit:(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong))
Medicaid And Other Health- $110 Billion(09 of14)
Open Image Modal
The original funding levels proposed by Cantor and the GOP leadership would turn the entitlement program for America's poor into little more than a block grant program, Democrats claimed during the 2011 debt ceiling talks. Under such a program, they argued that states would then drop more people from enrollment and scale back on health benefits. In fiscal year 2009, over 62 million Americans -- many of them children -- depended on Medicaid for their health care. But the president did agree to $110 billion in cuts from Medicaid and other health programs. (credit:(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer))
Medicare - $250 Billion +(10 of14)
Open Image Modal
Republicans pushed for a drastic overhaul to the entitlement program for America's seniors. Ryan infamously proposed turning Medicare into little more than a voucher system in which seniors would receive checks to purchase their own health care on the open market -- a plan that would ultimately force individuals to shoulder more of the burden for their health care costs. Democrats refused to accept changes similar to those in Ryan's plan. The president, however, was more open to other GOP suggestions on Medicare. In his final offer to Boehner, he agreed cut $250 billion over the next ten years -- in part by increasing premiums for higher-income seniors and by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 (although over a longer time frame). (credit:(AP Photo/Bill Haber, File))
Tax Reform - $800 Billion - $1.6 Trillion(11 of14)
Open Image Modal
Republicans have again and again decried any attempt to raise taxes, either on the highest earners or on corporations. (A Democracy Corps/Campaign for America's Future survey shows that 70 percent of voters support raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans.) Instead, Boehner has pushed for a comprehensive tax reform bill that would lower the marginal tax rates while closing loopholes and eliminating deductions in order to raise around $800 billion in additional revenues. For many Democrats, that figure simply isn't enough. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced Tuesday that the president was aiming for as much as $1.6 trillion in new revenues, and the president told reporters on Wednesday that it would be practically impossible to raise the amount of revenue he wanted simply from closing loopholes and lowering rates. (credit:(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak))
Social Security - $112 Billion(12 of14)
Open Image Modal
Social Security isn't driving the deficit, yet Republicans have pursued drastic changes to the program. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised that Social Security would be off the table in the on-going negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff, but Obama did concede to tying the benefits to a recalculated Consumer Price Index that would ultimately provide less money to retirees. Sen. Bernie Sanders claims that, under such a measure, seniors who are currently 65 years-old would see their benefits drop by $560 a month in 10 years and by as much as $1,000 in 20 years. The Moment of Truth project (led by the two former co-chairs of the president's deficit reduction commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles) claims that the recalculated CPI could save as much as $112 billion from Social Security over the next ten years. (credit:(AP Photo, File))
Tax Loopholes And Deductions - Up To $180 Billion(13 of14)
Open Image Modal
Although Cantor and other GOP House members demanded that any deficit-reduction deal brokered in 2011 be classified as revenue-neutral, they were open to closing particular loopholes in the corporate tax code and limiting itemized deductions for individuals -- given that they were offset by other tax cuts. Out of the $50 billion in savings to be found over the next decade from closing loopholes, Cantor proposed getting $3 billion from eliminating the break for corporate-jet owners and another $20 billion from voiding the subsidies for the oil and gas industries.On the individual earner side, he proposed eliminating the second-home mortgage deduction for $20 billion, as well as limiting the mortgage deduction for higher-income households to rake in another $20 billion. He also offered to tighten the tax treatment of retirement accounts. But Democrats wanted to see even greater action taken on itemized deductions. In June 2011, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) proposed raising $130 billion in new revenues by capping itemized deductions at 35 percent for the highest income brackets. The GOP response to his proposal at the time was a resounding "no." (credit:(Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/GettyImages))
Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy - $950 Billion(14 of14)
Open Image Modal
Set to expire on Dec. 31, 2012, the Bush tax cuts represent one of the most controversial elements of the so-called fiscal cliff. They added over $1.8 trillion to the deficit between 2002 and 2009. Yet Republicans argue that an extension is necessary to create jobs and spur economic growth. But a study from the Congressional Research Service found that tax cuts for the wealthiest earners had little economic effect. The White House is pushing for a renewal only of those tax breaks for the lower- and middle-class Americans in order to save the average middle-class family between $2,000 and $3,500 next year. Letting the cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 a year -- or the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- would haul in $950 billion in savings over the next decade, according to the CBO. Obama stressed how much the country stood to gain from such an approach Wednesday during a press conference. "If we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up — 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up," he said. "If we get that in place, we're actually removing half of the fiscal cliff." (credit:(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds))
Suggest a correction
|
Submit a tip