[Ed. note: This memo was co-written by American Progress CEO John Podesta and Senior Fellow Robert Gordon.]

In the past, some in Congress have viewed “bankruptcy reform” as an easy “pro-business” vote that won’t really hurt working families and won’t matter to Americans anyway.

That’s wrong on all accounts. Proponents say the bill will stop bankruptcy abuse, but the bill lets the biggest and wealthiest abusers off the hook. Even more important–and this is the point proponents are hoping to obscure–the bill does nothing to address why millions of middle-class Americans are going broke in record numbers. In fact, the bill makes life tougher on families who have done everything right but suffered because of structural problems in our economy.

If progressives press these points, Americans will see the fight over bankruptcy reform for what it is: a struggle between progressives defending families who play by the rules and conservatives standing with wealthy individuals and corporations that break those rules. Read more

The more you think about FactCheck.org’s recent attack on Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) for suggesting Wall Street would profit handsomely from Social Security privatization, the more ridiculous it becomes.

Let’s set aside for a moment that FackCheck’s entire criticism is based on an entirely false comparison between Bush’s plan and the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Let’s also set aside that the numbers CAF used came from an organization that supports Bush’s plan.

It still makes absolutely no sense.

FactCheck admits “TSP had previously refused to say how much it paid financial companies,” the key figure they use to attack CAF’s advertisement. FactCheck.org only obtained the info in a recent conversation with a TSP spokesman. In other words, FackCheck.org is criticizing CAF for not taking into consideration data that didn’t exist when they made the ad.

So even if the data was relevant (which it isn’t), FactCheck.org’s complaint would still be invalid.

For years, the Bush administration resisted efforts to increase the “death benefit” paid to the families of U.S. troops killed in duty. Then, just a few days before the White House released its full FY06 budget (a surefire political bomb), the administration reversed course. The White House suddenly proposed “a dramatic increase to $100,000 in government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,” which would be “part of the 2006 budget proposal submitted to Congress.” At the time, ThinkProgress likened the attention-grabbing move to jumping in front of a crowd and calling it a parade.

Apparently — though it hardly seems possible — we weren’t being cynical enough.

Turns out the Defense Department never included the “death benefit” boost in its ’06 budget. Now, says Military.com, the Army is being forced to go to Congress itself, “asking for an extra $348 million to keep the administration’s word.” As DefenseTech’s Noah Shachtman explains…

…maybe the death benefit lack this year was just a simple oversight on the Pentagon’s part. Maybe the Defense Department’s PR machine spun a little faster than its financial wheels could turn. But given the cynical games the Pentagon has been playing with soldiers’ paychecks — holding them hostage, essentially, as a back-door way to inflate military spending — I’m inclined to believe the worst.

Sounds like our troops need to have another chat with Sec. Rumsfeld.

No one has spoken much about President Bush’s other proposed reforms to Social Security, particularly changing the formula by which benefits are calculated. And when President Bush tries to address the suggestion, it comes out something like this:

“Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”

Still don’t get it? Right now, Social Security benefits are calculated through what is called “wage-indexing,” which adjusts a worker’s earnings based on wage growth during the worker’s lifetime. President Bush is proposing switching to a “price-indexing” formula, which essentially adjusts earnings based on inflation. That means huge benefit cuts since wages always increase faster than prices. For example, if today’s retirees benefits were calculated using price-indexing their benefits would be cut by 60 percent. And the picture for future retirees doesn’t look much better.

For the sake of future generations, we need to call attention to all the questionable parts of President Bush’s Social Security overhaul, not just to private accounts.

Factcheck.org takes issue, specifically, with Campaign for America’s Future’s statement in newspaper ads that the securities industry will benefit “to the tune of $279 billion” from Social Security privatization. But Campaign for America’s Future was quoting a figure from a study by the Securities Industry Association (SIA), which stands to benefit from privatization, has campaigned for it in the past and lists an agenda almost identical to President Bush’s.

Factcheck says CAF “should have used” a figure closer to SIA’s low estimate of $39 billion. But that claim is based on Factcheck’s erroneous assumption that administrative costs for President Bush’s plan would be the same as those for federal Thrift Savings Plans.

In fact, CAF was already giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt. A truly independent study published in September by University of Chicago business school professor Austan Goolsbee predicted Wall Street management companies would receive $940 billion or more over 75 years from the President’s plan. Even if that number is inflated, Factcheck admits private accounts could lead to “the possibility of huge profits being on the table” for Wall Street, should Congress allow owners of private accounts to choose from a wide variety of managed funds. And that option, like so many other, is still “on the table.”