Twenty Ohioans came to Washington D.C. this week to urge their junior senator to focus on creating jobs in his work on the Super Committee. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) is one of twelve members of Congress who sit on the Super Committee tasked with reducing the federal debt by $1.5 trillion.

In order to meet that goal, polls show that 63 percent of Americans want the Super Committee to raise taxes on the wealthy and avoid any major changes to Social Security and Medicare.

These 20 Ohioans brought that message to Portman’s office Wednesday, urging the senator to help pay down the debt by taxing millionaires without cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They also implored Portman to make creating jobs a top priority of the Super Committee.

Watch it:

A number of the proposals floated by Republicans thus far would unfortunately make major cuts to the social safety net. They have proposed repealing health reform, raising the Medicare eligibility age, and even eliminating Medicaid recipients’ access to health insurance.

This week, GOP leaders named their six appointees to the newly-minted fiscal “super committee.” A cursory look at their “not-so-super” resumes will leave the majority of Americans who want to see tax rates on the wealthy raised less than enthused. Indeed, all six members signed anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes under any circumstances.

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R), who oversaw the tripling of the U.S. deficit as President George W. Bush’s OMB director, actually ran on the idea that “any tax increase would hurt the fragile economy” However, Portman indicated on Monday that he’d be open to raising revenue by “getting rid of tax ‘preferences’” and “stuff that doesn’t make sense”:

Portman said tax increases, particularly while the economy is ailing, should not be part of the deficit fix, but he did not oppose raising revenue by getting rid of tax “preferences,” including certain loopholes, credits, deductions and exclusions. Some conservatives see eliminating them as backdoor tax hikes.

Calling himself “a hawk on tax reform,” Portman said the supercommittee has an opportunity to reform the tax code, “get rid of the stuff that doesn’t make sense and lower the rates.”

“Tax reform ought to be done,” he said. “It will generate more revenue.”

Indeed, there is more than $1 trillion in wasteful “preferences” hidden in the federal tax code which, if cut, is far less harmful to the economy than gouging the social safety net. Closing frivolous or unnecessary loopholes for the oil and gas industry, for hedge fund managers, for corporate meals and entertainment, for corporate jets, for vacation homes and yachts, and for horse breeders could save taxpayers billions. In another positive move, Portman also signaled again that defense cuts “need to be on the table.”

Whether he stays open to closing loopholes during negotiations, however, remains to be seen, since anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist is effectively dictating to Republicans that they cannot close a single tax loophole, even if it it would entice Democrats into agreeing to much larger spending cuts. Indeed, after learning of Portman and the five others’ appointments, Norquist said “your wallet is safe.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced today their picks for the fiscal super committee created by the debt ceiling deal, naming Sens. Jon Kyl (AZ), Pat Toomey (PA), Rob Portman (OH), and Reps. Jeb Hensarling (TX), Dave Camp (MI), and Fred Upton (MI) to the body. The committee is tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November, and one of the key issues will be whether revenue increases are included. Basic economics and the American people call for increasing revenues, with a new CNN poll showing 63 percent of Americans want the committee to raise taxes on the wealthy, but several of the GOP picks are hard-right conservatives who likely oppose such a “balanced approach.” Other critical issue will be entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and whether the committee makes cuts to military spending.

Here’s what you need to know about each of the GOP super committee members: Read more

Earlier this month, former Bush administration budget director Rob Portman, who is running on the Republican ticket for Ohio’s open Senate seat, denied that he favored privatizing Social Security, despite his long record of statements in support of doing just that. “I mean, this is what Einstein talked about, the magic, the greatest force in the universe, the power of compounding interest. That’s what we’re talking about here,” Portman said of private Social Security accounts.

But now Portman has added a new quirk to his privatization plan, in a pretty clear attempt to calm the nerves of those who rightfully worry about their Social Security being subject to the whims of the markets:

During the debate and in the “spin room” with reporters afterward, Portman insisted he has pledged not to cut benefits for retirees. Instead, he said he supports allowing young people to take a small portion of their Social Security taxes to set up personal accounts to invest as they see fit. But he insisted if they lost money, the government would step in to make them whole again.

This idea is simply absurd. In addition to the substantial costs associated with a traditional privatization scheme — which would force the government into trillions of new borrowing — Portman would add the cost of bailing out the accounts of those investors who lost money.

Obviously, this sets up a huge moral hazard problem. If investors know full well that the government is going to “make them whole again,” no matter what they do, then the incentive is to make risky investments and hope for a big payoff. After all, why not take the risk if the government has guaranteed that you can’t lose money? “If the government guaranteed to bail you out in case of losses, then investors would make riskier investments and the number of people who need bailing out would rise,” wrote Matthew Yglesias in reaction to Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) promoting a similar idea.

Of course, there’s a simple way to avoid creating this sort of cockamamie scheme and the assorted problems that come along with it: don’t privatize Social Security. But Portman has been in thrall to this idea for so long, he seems willing to say and do whatever it takes to make it look like a responsible plan.

There’s been an ongoing campaign amongst supporters of President Bush’s 2005 Social Security privatization scheme to rewrite the history books and claim that they were never in favor of such an idea. Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), for instance, asserted in August that “I’ve never said I favor privatizing Social Security. It’s a very misleading — it’s an intentionally misleading term.” But when Bush released his plan, Toomey reacted like this: “I have been arguing for many years in favor of Social Security personal retirement accounts…I’m thrilled that the President is taking up this critical issue.”

Another advocate of privatization who is now running away from the term is former Bush budget director Rob Portman, who is campaigning for the open Senate seat in Ohio. During a debate last night, Portman claimed that it’s “just not accurate” to say that he supports privatization:

In terms of the attack a moment ago, another partisan attack by my opponent that’s just not accurate. I do not support privatization of Social Security. What I do support is strengthening Social Security for the future.

Watch it:

Following the debate, Portman’s spokesman said that those claiming he supports privatization are “clearly lying.” But if anything is clear, it’s that Portman was an unabashed supporter of privatization, calling private Social Security accounts “the greatest force in the universe” and lauding Bush for his “political leadership and courage on this issue”:

“There’s also Social Security ideas there, including private accounts…which over the long haul results in a higher rate of return for that program. So that’s something that does actually over the long haul deal with the solvency issue.” [Human Events Online, 4/9/08]

“I mean, this is what Einstein talked about, the magic, the greatest force in the universe, the power of compounding interest. That’s what we’re talking about here.” [House Budget Committee Hearing, 2005]

“President Bush has demonstrated political courage and leadership on this issue. We must develop sound policies now, to reduce the rate of growth and put these programs on a sustainable footing for the future.” [OMB swearing-in ceremony, 6/6/2006]

Contrary to Portman’s pronunciations that privatized accounts are safe and will certainly result in a higher rate of return, such accounts impose new risks on seniors, create new administrative costs and benefit reductions, and won’t even set the Social Security system on a path to solvency. And instead of trying to fashion a workable proposal, Portman simply denies that his idea is what it is.