Keith and Jeff Madrick, economist and author of “Age of Greed,” examine the proposal that members of Occupy D.C. sent to the congressional Super Committee to reduce both the deficit and the wealth divide while creating jobs. Madrick especially likes its proposal that Medicare be extended to all U.S. citizens.
KEITH OLBERMANN: The Congressional Super Committee may not be able to produce a viable plan to save our economy. But that’s okay. Occupy D.C. may have just done it for them.
In our third story on the “Countdown” — while the committee founders on the rocks of Republican partisanship, the movement proposes cuts of $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit. Less than a week before the Super Committee’s deadline to vote on debt reduction, Democrats still can’t dislodge the GOP from suicidal cuts to the safety net in order to protect the rich.
But Occupy D.C., which held its own hearings last week, today sent the 12-member congressional committee some other ideas. The plan — titled “The 99 Percent’s Deficit Proposal: How to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending” — includes proposals aimed at “creating a fair tax system that shrinks the wealth divide,” “cutting spending for economic security,” “creating jobs and restarting the economy,” “protecting and improving Social Security,” “Improving Medicare and expanding it to provide health care to all in the United States” and “Democratizing the economy, shifting economic power, wealth and ownership to all citizens in the United States.”
We sent the Occupy D.C. proposal to noted economic journalist Jeff Madrick, who joins me now to discuss its ramifications and dimensions. Good to see you, Jeff.
JEFF MADRICK: Nice to see you.
OLBERMANN: What’s impressed you, if anything, about this proposal?
MADRICK: Well, the comprehensiveness, the seriousness, the sincerity, the intelligence. They documented it well. They researched it well. I have only a couple of issues, here and there, that I thought were mistaken in it. So, I applaud them. They have to be given credit. They have come forward. They’ve answered some of the critics who say, “You guys don’t stand for anything.”
And probably, this plan will bring some attention to some of these issues and to a new audience, but it is not novel in any particular way. It’s probably too comprehensive to have any sticking power, any glue. I would like to have seen them narrow in on a couple of issues and put all of their power behind those.
OLBERMANN: What, in particular — that we would understand — do you like?
MADRICK: Here is what I like — I more than like this, I love this — Medicare for all. People love Medicare, those who are over 65. It is not the most generous plan in America. In fact, it’s slightly less generous than a typical private employer plan, but it works. Administrative costs are low. You can buy a medi-gap to cover the gaps in payments — the 20 percent deductibles and so forth. It should be applicable to all Americans. And then, the government should be able to negotiate on drug prices and start to establish better medical practices.
If I were Occupy Wall Street, or Occupy in general, and wanted to talk about one reform in America, it would be that, because — for all of the talk about the budget deficit in the future — health-care costs will drive the budget deficit. It is our biggest fiscal problem, and — in a real sense, except for defense spending — it is our only very big fiscal problem.
OLBERMANN: I think this is a softball question, how come Occupy –
MADRICK: I appreciate it.
OLBERMANN: You’re welcome. How come Occupy did this and the committee can’t?
MADRICK: Well, the committee is talking about a narrower issue, but — obviously, Washington is paralyzed.
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
MADRICK: Republicans on the committee, basically, don’t want a plan. They don’t want to give in, give any tax increases in a compromise. It’s extraordinary. Why don’t they want to give any tax increases? One reason is obvious — they want Obama to fail.
Maybe they are also ideological. They signed this sophomoric agreement with Grover Norquist, a pledge — on a little piece of paper — that they would never raise taxes, as if it were some kind of religious statement. Which, maybe for some of them it is.
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
MADRICK: It’s hurting America badly. They are simply not — it’s political paralysis, pure and simple. The other issue is, of course, Obama joined this argument too early in his own administration. He started talking about deficits and government spending much too early.
OLBERMANN: Uh-huh.
MADRICK: When we needed fiscal stimulus, when we needed infrastructure investment, industrial investment. That’s what will get us jobs back and he gave in. So there really weren’t two sides to this debate.
OLBERMANN: Right.
MADRICK: There were one-and-a-half sides.
OLBERMANN: Just degrees of it. After Bloomberg kicked Occupy Wall Street out of Zuccotti the other night, he said, “Protesters have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags, now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments.”
Is that not — is this not exactly what this is and, once again, shouldn’t Mikey have just let them stay in the park? Because you’ve got 30 — maybe 35,000 — on the streets of New York tonight and a comprehensive plan to settle the issues of the national debt and job creation.
MADRICK: I don’t think I would make the Hall of Fame with my batting-average predictions, but the one prediction I made was — a bad day for Bloomberg, a good day for OWS. He shouldn’t have made them the enemy. And that idea — about living on the power of their arguments — what got Bloomberg elected, the power of his arguments? Or — I double-checked this — $250 million in personal campaign spending.
OLBERMANN: Yes, to say nothing of an illegal election for a third term that was prohibited by law — until he cut a back room deal with Christine Quinn, the head of the City Council. The economist Jeff Madrick, the author of “Age of Greed,” thank you for analyzing it and bringing it into — into non-economist terms for us as always.
MADRICK: Always good to see you.
OLBERMANN: Thank you, sir.
