A new poll by the Washington Post reveals that many people who support President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security are wildly misinformed about basic facts. The poll also found that if the president’s supporters knew the truth, they would consider switching their position. Among those who support Bush’s plan to carve out private accounts from Social Security:

- 56 percent would be more likely to oppose the plan if they knew the government would have to borrow $700 billion or more. (Fact: the government would have to borrow around $2 trillion to finance the plan.)

- 44 percent would be more likely to oppose the plan if they knew the plan does not by itself solve the financial problems with Social Security. (Fact: carving out private accounts does nothing to solve the financial problems with Social Security.)

- 41 percent would be more likely to oppose the plan if they knew investments would be limited to a few stock and bond funds. (Fact: investments will be limited to a few funds.)

- 38 percent would be more likely to oppose the plan if they knew workers who made poor investment choices would end up receiving less in retirement. (Fact: those who pick poorly performing investments will get less.)

It’s easy to understand why supporters of Social Security privatization are misinformed. The president keeps misleading them.

In a classic case of diplomacy for dollars, the $80 billion War on Terror supplement that President Bush sends to Congress next week will include a $400 million provision to reward those left on the dwindling, discarded “coalition of the willing” list. The White House is describing the list as funding for those who took “political and economic risks in order to act on their convictions.” The blind desperation and obvious agenda behind the move is made apparent by the fact that a quarter of the money is going to Poland, which was once a key ally but as of late has been strongly hinting at the possibility of pulling out its troops from Iraq.

Last week, we learned that President Bush’s “Clear Skies” proposal was essentially drafted by big polluters and that EPA distorted the science to reach predetermined conclusions about mercury pollution. Now another memo emerges showing that a coalition of eight utility companies dictated changes to the final bill.

Among the changes requested by the coalition were relaxing regulations for older power plants, further weakening the rules on mercury, and a tax subsidy for the companies’ cleanup costs. The industry got everything it asked for.

The revelations are part of an emerging pattern of manipulating and withholding scientific data to conform to industry positions.

Some examples:

EPA has repeatedly refused to conduct or release analyses of legislation related to global warming.

EPA was ordered to delay a workshop on the cardiovascular effects of mercury until after Congress issues new standards on mercury pollution. Agency sources said including the cardiovascular data in a cost-benefit analysis would have “bumped up the benefits side significantly” but will now not be included.

Scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been asked by their supervisors to alter or withhold findings that would have led to more protection for endangered species. They responded to a mail-in survey despite agency instructions not to do so “in the office or from home.”

The good news? Public pressure is building against this distorted science. The National Council of Churches spoke out against Clear Skies, saying it “delays the critical action necessary to clean up our nation’s air and fails altogether to address the real and present threat of global warming.” And because it lacks crucial Republican support, Clear Skies may not even make it out of the Senate committee.

– Erica Stephan

[Ed. note: This post by Rev. Romal J. Tune is the first of a new series on ThinkProgress.org featuring a diverse array of progressive religious voices.]

As an African American male and a well educated ordained Baptist Preacher, I have been appalled at the way President Bush has been promoting his Social Security plan.

As Americans, we believe that Social Security embodies a basic democratic principle — that government should act to promote the common good. As a minister, I believe it also responds to the prophets’ call for nations to care for widows and the poor. Social Security has protected millions of elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged Americans from dire poverty for 70 years. This is an honorable commitment, and a proven program. Read more

Cuts proposed in President Bush’s budget released Feb. 7 are actually three times as bad as they may at first appear. President Bush’s 2006 budget calls for $214 billion in domestic spending reductions over five years, but documents released so far omit all information regarding how these cuts will affect particular programs after the $18 billion that will be cut in 2006 (the first time since 1989 such info has not been included). Based on unpublished backup budget documents provided by the Office of Management and Budget to the Budget Committees of Congress, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has information on how the remaining $196 billion in cuts will affect programs in 2007-2010.

For instance:

The Department of Veterans Affairs loses 3 percent of funding in 2006, but veterans’ programs would be cut by 16 percent by 2010. These include programs that provide health care to veterans.

The Departments of Education and Labor had funding cut by 1 percent and 4 percent in 2006, but education and workforce development programs would be cut by 15 percent by 2010. These include employment and training programs, community college funding, and federal funding for K-12 education.

The Environmental Protection Agency is hard hit in 2006, losing 6 percent of its budget, but by 2010, natural resource and environmental programs would be cut by 23 percent, or nearly one-fourth. The five-year loss would cost the EPA more than $27 billion.

The Department of Health has its budget reduced by 1 percent in 2006, but health programs are set to be slashed by 14 percent by 2010. These include medical research, community health centers, and HIV/AIDS treatment funds.

Overall, domestic discretionary programs outside of homeland security are cut by 5 percent in 2006. By 2010, these cuts would reach 16 percent.

For more, check out CBPP’s breakdown.

This is my last day in Washington, D.C. before I make the long drive out to Helena, Montana where I will be living. In light of that, I thought this story shows that no matter how far you go, it is all the same sky. Because even though I am leaving the lobbyist-infested environs of our nation’s capital, it is hard to escape the sad reality that Big Money in politics is everywhere.

In this little piece from the Billings Gazette, we see that the pharmaceutical industry is fighting a proposal in the Montana legislature to help extend drug coverage to the state’s poorest residents, and create a drug discount card. Apparently, the drug industry’s tentacles stretch all the way to America’s small towns – and their zest to keep drug prices high now threatens even the most modest proposal to help the poor.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been working for years on efforts to allow Montana pharmacists to import lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from abroad. When President Bush visited Montana last week, the Missoulian reported that Schweitzer “questioned why the Bush administration is forbidding the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, while opening the border to Canadian beef as questions remain over its safety.”

For his efforts, Schweitzer has been a target of dishonest drug industry smear ads – and now, as governor, is sure to face opposition from the industry and its White House allies on importation. It will be interesting to see how the fight unfolds…