Welcome to IBM Employee News and Links

New on the Alliance@IBM Site

• IBM Chile Union and IBM sign collective bargaining agreement! On Tuesday July 12th, the IBM Chile Union SNTI, and IBM negotiated and signed a union contract. The vast majority of IBM Chile union members approved the offer and a strike has been averted. Congratulations to our brothers and sisters in the IBM Chile union for this historic event! A copy of the agreement will be emailed to Alliance@IBM CWA Local 1701 members and associate members.
• Job Cut Reports
  • Comment 7/21/11: -RA's_a_coming-: Workforce REBALANCING? Where was the workforce balance in the first place needed to now do continuous rebalance acts? What a joke. Whatever happened to IBM job RETRAINING and REDEPLOYMENT? Now that would not be a joke but a good thing that would make a lot of sense to keep IBM strong for the next 100 years. -soBlue-
  • Comment 7/20/11: Sadly no one needs a friend in HR or a crystal ball to know RA's are coming. They come every year. Multiple times a year as more offshore sites come online. If anyone still is surprised when an RA happens shame on them. If they are only surprised that it happened to them then double shame on them. Reading this forum and archives should tell even the staunchest anti union IBMer that ratings and past glory count for nothing. One performers who exceeded quota and have multiple awards and are in the golden circle have been RA'd in the very year they accomplished these lofty goals. The only thing that will give anyone peace of mind and job security is a legally binding contract like all the Executives have. They even get bonuses for poor performance. Gotta pay em, Its in their contract! -Exodus2007-
  • Comment 7/20/11: ..Rumor has it GTS ESD is pulling back some RSD folks.....Looks like things are not going well.... -tired-
  • Comment 7/19/11: I agree with 'thywillbedone' – the Chileans proved that if you’ve got guts and go for it, you can win. So get out of blab-o-sphere and go for it! Randy Mac can get all the laws passed he wants, but what scares him the most is if his employees have a legally binding contract. So if the new FLSA says paying overtime is not required, but the employees’ contract says overtime is to be paid then too bad, Randy – pay up, because the contract is supreme. So why cast your fate to the wind, IBMers and leave it to corporate politicians who don’t represent your interests? Don’t agonize - organize, and get it in a contract! -GetItDone-
  • Comment 7/19/11: this Sunday night had dinner with a senior HR partner friend....... He confided to me that he has to work the whole month of September because there's a plan of another resources action. don't think that last may's RA was the the only one or the last one for 2011. -Gotta spill the beans for STG-
  • Comment 7/19/11: To -ANA- of course, Randy was a childhood friend of LouG and he was instantly hired when LouG took in charge of IBM. -Was here when LouG became IBM boss-
  • Comment 7/19/11: IBM has another glowing quarterly report. Wonder why they always pull this off?: Loughridge reported that the company's spending on "workforce rebalancing," or job cuts, was up by $160 million, mostly in Europe. Analysts questioned the expense. David Grossman of Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. asked, "Can you help us better understand the need to take another rebalancing action in Europe after a similar action taken in the first quarter?" Loughridge replied, "Our business is a business of resources and capability, and we're constantly refining that mix of capability through workforce rebalancing. That's simply a part of our business model in the ongoing equation, and that will continue through all businesses in all years, I think." So there you go. -RA's_a_coming-
  • Comment 7/18/11: To -ANA- who worked in HR: I was in HR for 12 years and always a very good performer. I had several jobs before that in IBM as well. Interestingly enough, when I hit my 25th year anniversary, my job had suddenly gone away--or was a least cut in half. What amazed me over the years was the change in HR from people who were typically employee advocates to a bunch of little cowards who bent over every time one of the execs told him or her to do so.

    I have no regrets about getting RA'd even though it took me a while to retrain and start a new career. Happily, now I am already 5 years into another retirement--which will be much better than the one from IBM as it is with a union that still believes in decent monthly pensions, not just 401K. What also amazed me during the time I was going through the '30 day' period of trying to find another job (yeah, right), that so many wonderful, employee advocate HR people who were very close friends turned their backs on me. I guess they were scared and also cowardly.

    I used to bristle at Randy McDonald's name when I first left--can't believe at one time when he was sick that I volunteered to give blood for him!!! I guess that at the time I didn't realize that he'd turn out to be such a greedy louse. Hang in there--you will find something better. My advice is to avoid corporate America for the time being unless it is with a really good company that respects its employees and values them. Otherwise, take civil service tests, or retrain to teach--if you worked at IBM you probably have a wealth of skills and knowledge.

    I'm making less money now but have a 15-minute commute, much better health and dental benefits, and a future that will include the same kind of retirement IBM told all of their employees they would receive years ago. Forget about Randy. What goes around, comes around... I think that one day when he realizes how many people suffered with his and Sam's great need to offshore in order to stuff their own pockets, he'll be sorry. Very sorry. -anon-

  • Comment 7/18/11: A bunch of contractors in Canada have been asked to take 2 weeks off unpaid between now and September. -Whatever-
  • Comment 7/18/11: Did you notice on the testimony witness list, that Randy represents Corporate America? And he offered to help write the law revisions? And there is no major labor - employee union - group represented? The only bright light I saw was the video on Rep. Kucinich asking the witnesses a simple question on what the minimum wage should be. Remember the bumbling and lying witnesses on tobacco harm or on the use of steroids by baseball players? -Anonymous- Alliance Reply: The Alliance was contacted by a member of the committee and we submitted information.
  • Comment 7/18/11: I worked in H/R for IBM and was recently RAed. Randy McDonald has no degree in H/R and is not SPHR certified. HE is only in that position because of political reasons. He should be not talking about unemployment insurance. Without his political connections and IBM management favoritism, he too, would be in the unemployment line or working a min wage job. IBM needs a union to stop all this BS. -ANA-
  • Comment 7/17/11: "The latest from IBM HR - Senior VP of HR Randy McDonald testified before congress Thurs. that we should do away with min. wage and overtime laws because they are a "job killer" and gives “U.S. employers another reason to invest elsewhere.” Really, folks, if you can't see where this is headed and join the union NOW, where do you think you'll be in another 5 years? "Do you want fries with that server?"-Anon-" Wow, I really don't know who is worse for IBM, Sammy or Randy. They are the ones killing jobs. They are the ones screwing loyal IBMers by laying them off in search of cheap labor overseas. They are the ones killing jobs in America. What a joke with Randy trying to pin the problem on the minimum wage law. I'm sure Randy has a nice big fat salary and is living the high life. What a no good for nothing slime ball. -No Like Randy-
  • Comment 7/17/11: http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/blog/2011/07/minimum-wage-overtime-protecti.shtml Actually, Mr. MacDonald, the real “job killer” is the out-of-control compensation that you and other executive managers are receiving. For example, during 2011 alone, based on publicly available SEC filings, you exercised IBM stock options on 17 Feb 2011 and sold this stock on the same day realizing a net profit of around $2.5M. Six days before that on 11 Feb 2011, you exercised options on 53,620 shares of IBM stock, again selling these shares the same day, which resulted in proceeds of around $8.8M. The granting of these excessive and exorbitant stock options dilutes shareholder value, and necessitates stock buybacks using money that should be spent on developing and acquiring new technologies, and “organically” growing IBM’s business, not providing further undeserved compensation for the minimal value you are returning to IBM.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/t/36/4114.html. Moreover, you provide compelling arguments as to why workers in other countries need the same protections as U.S. workers. Obviously, “U.S. employers [have] another reason to invest elsewhere” only because workers in many other countries have no safety, fair-labor, or environmental protections whatsoever, and sadly, in some countries are de facto “slave labor”. U.S. workers are among the most productive in the entire world. We can compete head-to-head with workers anywhere provided we have a “level playing field” – and the way to level that playing field is to provide reasonable and necessary protections for workers in other countries, not eliminate hard-won, long-held protections for U.S. workers.

    Lastly, you really should consider your own job security when making such uninformed statements. There are plenty of fat, ignorant, bald-headed HR Directors with delusions-of-grandeur in BRIC countries who would gladly do your job for a minute fraction of your present compensation, and who could undoubtedly perform at a level that is far superior to the appallingly poor performance you have turned in during your tenure at IBM. --Anonymous--

  • Comment 7/17/11: It used to be the "war for talent" was IBM HR mantra. Now it is the"war to stay competitive" (i.e. the race to labor bottom). IBM cares little about hiring the best employees. The best employees for IBM are the ones that are the cheapest. -labored-
  • Comment 7/17/11: Yep, That's our boy Randy ( so what's wrong with slave labor) MacDonald. Another one cut from the mold of 3 finger Lou, Slimy Sammy and If I want loyalty I'll buy a dog Moffat. How low does your buying power and standard of living have to slip before you step up to stop these users and abusers? -Exodus2007-
  • Comment 7/16/11: The latest from IBM HR - Senior VP of HR Randy McDonald testified before congress Thurs. that we should do away with min. wage and overtime laws because they are a "job killer" and gives “U.S. employers another reason to invest elsewhere.” Really, folks, if you can't see where this is headed and join the union NOW, where do you think you'll be in another 5 years? "Do you want fries with that server?" -Anon-
  • Comment 7/16/11: US IBMers have worked in fear, hopes dashed, distraction, belittlement, criticism, and attack; yet their fellow Chilean worker bees decided that they would end that abuse, in their workplace. They risked their jobs, their reputations, and maybe even their lives, and kept fighting until they won. It can be done! Join the Alliance and organize here in the US. IBM caved and now the Chilean IBMers have a contract. This is what you can have too, if you're willing to fight for it. I'd say the time has come for less talk about PBC's, raises, FHA, promotions, respect, bands, and mean, stupid IBM executives and managers and how they sleep. Now is the time to take some REAL action. You have a real chance to fight back and win. Yes, I said WIN. Just Do It. -thywillbedone-
  • Comment 7/15/11: Congratulations on a job well done to the Union Members in Chile. See? Collective bargaining does work. IBM didn't go out of business. The world didn't end but workers in Chile know exactly what they are entitled to under their contract. They can now say they are as smart as IBM executives because they have a contract also. -Exodus2007-
  • Comment 7/14/11: OK, everyone. Please follow my lead. I just joined the Alliance as a voting member. Let's organize and get what we need/deserve from our employer. It's time to stand up for what we believe! -Dave-
  • Comment 7/14/11: -Anonymous- Ahhhh, yes, the "what's in it for me" question. The real question is "what do you want, and how hard are you willing to fight to attain that?" The prize is not just a union it's having collective bargaining rights, and that is something that is ONLY available to members of an NLRB certified union. If one takes the time to browse various union websites, they often list the gains from collective bargaining contract negotiations. You can find things like limitations on layoffs, improvements in pay, retirement, medical coverage, better separation packages, etc. If IBM'ers organize and fight back, it's quite possible they can win improvement in their situation too. OTOH, if they continue to keep their heads in the sand and don't organize, there's no way they'll ever win anything at all. And the Alliance is right, UNION begins with U. -Dave- Alliance reply: Thank you, Dave. Well said. We appreciate your comment. It can't be said any better.

News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform

• Wendell Potter: Insurance Exchanges Tilted Toward Health Insurers, Not Consumers. Excerpts: The insurance industry made it abundantly clear this week that it is in the driver’s seat—in both Washington and state capitals—of one of the most important vehicles created by Congress to reform the U.S. health care system. The Affordable Care Act requires the states to create new marketplaces— “exchanges”—where individuals and small businesses can shop for health insurance. In the 15 months since the law took effect, insurers have lobbied the Obama administration relentlessly to give states the broadest possible latitude in setting up their exchanges. And those insurance companies have been equally relentless at the state level in making sure governors and legislators follow their orders in determining how the exchanges will be operated.

  When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the proposed federal rules governing the exchanges on Monday, insurance executives must have been doing high fives all over the country. ...

  Nowhere are consumer groups more dismayed by the Obama administration’s proposed rules than in Colorado, where lawmakers passed a bill that explicitly prohibits the state exchange from negotiating with health plans and where the governor and legislators have just packed the exchange board with industry executives and allies. I can’t say I’m surprised with most of these developments. During a visit to Denver in March, I heard a member of one of the legislative committees that helped draft the bill say at a public forum that Colorado’s exchange should offer the state’s residents “bad choices as well as good ones.” The state had no obligation, in her view, to inspect all the apples in the health insurance barrel and throw out the bad ones. A majority of her colleagues agreed with her. As the bill worked its way through the legislature, free market ideology trumped the real world need to protect the state’s residents from unscrupulous and profit-motivated insurers.

  I was surprised, though, when Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, joined Republican legislators in appointing industry executives to the exchange board. Hickenlooper got to appoint five of the nine board members, and several of his appointees, actually, tilted the board solidly in favor of insurers.

  Five of the nine board members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders have either direct or indirect ties to the industry. Of the other four, one is an accountant and another is a doctor who has been a vocal critic of health care reform and the very idea of state exchanges. (As you might guess, he was appointed by a Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, who also was opposed to creating a state exchange.) Only two of the nine have been active proponents of reform and champions of consumer interests.

News and Opinion Concerning the "War on the Middle Class"

"But dependency on government has never been bad for the rich. The pretense of the laissez-faire people is that only the poor are dependent on government, while the rich take care of themselves. This argument manages to ignore all of modern history, which shows a consistent record of laissez-faire for the poor, but enormous government intervention for the rich." From Economic Justice: The American Class System, from the book Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn.

• New York Times op-ed: Letting Bankers Walk. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: Ever since the current economic crisis began, it has seemed that five words sum up the central principle of United States financial policy: go easy on the bankers. This principle was on display during the final months of the Bush administration, when a huge lifeline for the banks was made available with few strings attached. It was equally on display in the early months of the Obama administration, when President Obama reneged on his campaign pledge to “change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes.” And the principle is still operating right now, as federal officials press state attorneys general to accept a very modest settlement from banks that engaged in abusive mortgage practices.

  Why the kid-gloves treatment? Money and influence no doubt play their part; Wall Street is a huge source of campaign donations, and agencies that are supposed to regulate banks often end up serving them instead. But officials have also argued at each point of the process that letting banks off the hook serves the interests of the economy as a whole.

  It doesn’t. The failure to seek real mortgage relief early in the Obama administration is one reason we still have 9 percent unemployment. And right now, the arguments that officials are reportedly making for a quick, bank-friendly settlement of the mortgage-abuse scandal don’t make sense. ...

  The big drag on the economy now is the overhang of household debt, largely created by the $5.6 trillion in mortgage debt that households took on during the bubble years. Serious mortgage relief could make a dent in that problem; a $30 billion settlement from the banks, even if it proved more effective than the government’s modification program, would not. So when officials tell you that we must rush to settle with the banks for the sake of the economy, don’t believe them. We should do this right, and hold bankers accountable for their actions.

• Wall Street Journal: Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Weak Hiring. By Phil Izzo. Excerpts: The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey. "There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be." ...

  A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates that concerns about demand remain a major obstacle to growth and hiring. When asked the single most important problem facing their businesses, 24% cited "poor sales"—a percentage that remains above highs seen in the recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s.

• New York Times: Cost-Cutters, Except When the Spending Is Back Home. By Ron Nixon. Excerpts: Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.

  They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.

  An examination of spending bills, news releases and communications with federal agencies obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.

• AlterNet: Why the Wealthiest Americans Are the Real 'Job-Killers.' The top 1 percent takes in more than twice the share of national income today than they did 30 years ago, and that's a big reason why consumers are tapped out. By Joshua Holland. Excerpts: That the wealthy are “job creators,” and therefore have interests that must be defended by the public at large, is a talking-point that, however facile, is so popular it slips effortlessly from the lips of conservatives every day .It can be deployed for any purpose – not only in calling for more tax breaks for the rich, but also when opposing public interest regulation, consumer litigation and worker protections. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, even used it to deflect attention from the "gay rehabilitation" services her clinic allegedly offers. When asked about it by ABC News, Bachmann merely acknowledged, “we do have a business that deals with job creation.” When pressed, she stuck with it: “As I said, again, we’re very proud of our business and we’re proud of all job creators in the United States.”

  It's also complete nonsense; the opposite of the truth. Sure, the wealthy create a few jobs – people who offer exclusive services or sell them high-end goods. But the overwhelming majority of jobs in this country are “created” by ordinary Americans when they spend their paychecks.

  Consumer demand accounts for around 70 percent of our economic output. And with so much wealth having been redistributed upward through a 40-year class-war from above, American consumers are too tapped out to spend as they once did. This remains the core issue in this sluggish, largely jobless recovery. The wealthy, in their voracious appetite for a bigger piece of the national pie, are the real job-killers in this economic climate. ...

  “If you’re looking for one overarching explanation for the still-terrible job market,” Leonhardt concludes, “it is this great consumer bust. Business executives are only rational to hold back on hiring if they do not know when their customers will fully return. Consumers, for their part, are coping with a sharp loss of wealth and an uncertain future (and many have discovered that they don’t need to buy a new car or stove every few years).” ...

  Paul Buchheit, a professor with City Colleges of Chicago, crunched some numbers using IRS data and found that “if middle- and upper-middle-class families had maintained the same share of American productivity that they held in 1980, they would be making an average of $12,500 more per year.” In other words, because the share of income going to the top has increased so dramatically, ordinary people have $12,500 less in their wallets today. Studies have shown that when wealthy people grab more post-tax income they're more likely to bank it than to spend it, so much of that $12,500 also represents lost demand, and hence less jobs. Wealthy Americans' avarice is a job-killer. ...

  None of this is particularly complex. In 1978, the top 1 percent of the ladder took in just under 9 percent of the nation's income, leaving a bit more than 91 percent for the rest of us. In 2007, the year before the crash, they took in 23.5 percent, leaving just 76.5 percent for the rest of the population to split up.

  They banked most of that income, whereas we would have spent it. The fact that we're broke means that businesses are facing less demand for their goods and services than they otherwise would, and have less need to hire a bunch of employees. And that dynamic explains why it's the wealthiest Americans who are the real “job killers.”

• The Smirking Chimp: Balance the Budget on the Backs of Billionaires. By David Swanson. Excerpts: The wealthiest nation on earth is not actually obliged to starve our senior citizens. We don't need a military 670% more expensive than the next largest one on earth. We don't need to fund health insurance corporations instead of healthcare. And we don't need tax breaks for billionaires. In fact, we don't need billionaires. That's the message RootsAction is taking to Congress.

  Forbes magazine has been listing the 400 wealthiest Americans every year since 1982. Thirteen billionaires appeared on the original Forbes list. Now all 400 rate billionaire status. These 400, collectively, possess more wealth than the poorer half of America's population put together. Sam Pizzigati explains how we got here. ...

  Only 1 percent of us are millionaires, with an "m". Each billionaire has a thousand times that much money, or more. Sixty-six percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members, but they aren't billionaires. They just work for them.

  Last year a list was leaked of attendees of an important rightwing planning conference organized by Koch Industries. This is an annual meeting at which the servants of plutocracy plot its further entrenchment. Eleven members of this year's Forbes 400 were on the list. These are the hardcore plutocrats. These are the people who personally take the time to destroy our political system for their own short-term gain -- and that of their families if their aristocracy of wealth is allowed to continue. These 11 people pay a fraction of the rate you pay on your income into Social Security and Medicare. They have no need for Social Security or Medicare. And they participate in a political movement that is trying to dismantle those programs. Meet your masters, fellow Americans.

• New York Times op-ed: Getting to Crazy. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask. Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye. ...

  Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting. President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

  Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable. ...

  Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy. ...

  But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility. So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

• truthOut: Six Ways to Liberate America From Wall Street Rule. By David Korten. Excerpts: Despite the financial crash of 2008, the financial assets of America’s billionaires and the idle cash of the most profitable corporations are now at historic highs. Their biggest challenge is figuring out where to park all their cash. Over the past 30 years, virtually all the benefit of U.S. economic growth has gone to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Effective tax rates for the very rich are at historic lows and many of the most profitable corporations pay no taxes at all.

  Corporations are using their stores of cash primarily to buy back their own stock, acquire control of other companies, invest in off-shoring yet more American jobs, and pay generous dividends to shareholders and outsized bonuses to management. Unfortunately, most of those who hold the cash and the corporations they control have lost interest in long-term investments that build and expand strong enterprises. The substantial majority of trades in financial markets are made by high-speed computers in securities held for fractions of a second. Business pundits still refer to this trading as investment. It bears no resemblance, however, to the investment required to put people to work rebuilding a strong America.

  Corporations are using their stores of cash primarily to buy back their own stock, acquire control of other companies, invest in off-shoring yet more American jobs, and pay generous dividends to shareholders and outsized bonuses to management. Unfortunately, most of those who hold the cash and the corporations they control have lost interest in long-term investments that build and expand strong enterprises. The substantial majority of trades in financial markets are made by high-speed computers in securities held for fractions of a second. Business pundits still refer to this trading as investment. It bears no resemblance, however, to the investment required to put people to work rebuilding a strong America.

  This system, which Wall Street interests dismiss as quaint and antiquated, financed the U.S. victory in World War II, the creation of a strong American middle class, an unprecedented period of economic stability and prosperity, and the investments that made America the world’s undisputed industrial and technological leader.

• Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): Congratulations Coburn, Crapo and Chambliss: Republican Senators Win Major Victory. Excerpts: Sen. Bernie Sanders today congratulated Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) on their very significant victory in negotiating a deficit-reduction plan which achieves their long-term goal of dismantling every major social program relevant to working families.

  The so-called Gang of Six plan that the Republican senators negotiated calls for massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and virtually every program important to working families, the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor. The package also would hurt American workers by giving U.S. companies more incentives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs to low-tax countries.

  "While I am sure that they did not get everything that they wanted, I think it's fair to say they won about 80 percent to 90 percent of what they fought for," Sanders said. "Despite President Obama's campaign promise not to cut Social Security benefits, the Gang of Six plan, which he apparently embraced, calls for massive cuts in that vitally important program."

  Under the Social Security proposal, a new formula for calculating cost-of-living adjustments would cut a typical 75-year-old's yearly benefits in 10 years by $560. The average 85-year-old would see a $1,000 a year cut in 20 years. Furthermore, the proposal demands that Social Security be solvent for a 75-year period, which could include additional cuts. The proposal also cuts Medicare by $298 billion over 10 years and makes massive cuts to Medicaid. ...

  Sanders, a member of the Senate Budget Committee, has advocated an approach to deficit reduction that matches increased revenue with spending reductions. "At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are becoming wealthier and are paying the lowest effective tax rates in modern history, when corporations are making billions of dollars and paying nothing in taxes at all, Sanders said at least half of a deficit reduction package should come from ending tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy and large corporations. With military spending having nearly tripled since 1997, we must take a hard look at cutting unnecessary and outdated military programs," he said.

• New York Times op-ed: Bonuses for Billionaires. By Nicholas D. Krisof. Excerpts: The first few times I heard House Republicans talk about our budget mess, I worried that they had plunged off the deep end. But as I kept on listening, a buzzer went off in my mind, and I came to understand how much sense the Tea Party caucus makes. Why would we impose “job-crushing taxes” on wealthy Americans just to pay for luxuries like federal prisons? Why end the “carried interest” tax loophole for financiers, just to pay for unemployment benefits — especially when those same selfless tycoons are buying yachts and thus creating jobs for all the rest of us?

  Hmmm. The truth is that House Republicans don’t actually go far enough. They should follow the logic of their more visionary members with steps like these:

  Republicans won’t extend unemployment benefits, even in the worst downturn in 70 years, because that makes people lazy about finding jobs. They’re right: We should be creating incentives for Americans to rise up the food chain by sending hefty checks to every new billionaire. This could be paid for with a tax surcharge on regular working folks. It’s the least we can do. Likewise, the government should take sterner measures against the persistent jobless. Don’t just let their unemployment benefits expire. Take their homes! Oh, never mind! Silly me! The banks are already doing that.

  Leftist pundits say that House Republicans don’t have a jobs plan. That’s unfair! Granted, the Republican-sponsored Cut, Cap and Balance Act would eliminate 700,000 jobs in just its first year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but those analysts are no doubt liberals. America’s richest 400 people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, and the affluent would feel renewed confidence if the Republican plan passed. We’d see a hiring bonanza. Each of those wealthy people might hire an extra pool attendant. That’s 400 jobs right there!

  Cut, Cap and Balance would go even further than the Ryan budget plan in starving the beast of government. Sure, that’ll mean cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other programs, but so what? Who needs food safety? How do we know we really need air traffic control unless we try a day without it? ...

  For that matter, who needs socialized police and fire services? We could slash job-crushing taxes at the local level and simply let the free market take over: “9-1-1, may I help you?” “Yes, help! My house is burning down!” “Very good, sir. I can offer you one fire engine for $5,995, or two for just $10,000.” “Help! My family’s inside. Send three fire engines! Just hurry!” “Yes, sir. Let me just run your credit card first. And if you require the fire trucks immediately, there’s a 50 percent ‘rush’ surcharge.”