Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet Tuesday participated in a conference hosted by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget entitled “The Debt Ceiling, Fiscal Plans, and Market Jitters: Where Do We Go from Here?” The conference, which was moderated by CNBC’s Steve Liesman, featured national budget leaders including Rep. Paul Ryan, Alan Simpson, Gene Sperling, Larry Lindsey, David Brooks, Maya MacGuineas and others.

Bennet has been one of the Democrats most active in seeking common ground with Republicans on the budget.

U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, appearing on NPR’s Weekend Edition, said that while agrees that the federal government has to cut spending, it also has to raise the debt ceiling to avoid defaulting on its loans.

A full transcript of the interview follows.

SCOTT SIMON, host: Republicans drive the budget debate in the House; Democrats, of course, have a majority in the Senate. For more, we’re joined by Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.

Mr. Bennett, thanks for being with us.

Senator MICHAEL BENNET (Democrat, Colorado): It’s good to be with you. Thanks.

SIMON: Representative Huizenga says he isn’t convinced that refusing to raise the debt ceiling will have quite the catastrophic consequences that Sec. Geithner has suggested. Says he’s talked to people in the New York financial community who say the same things. What do you feel?

Sen. BENNET: Well, I guess I’d say two things about that. One is that it’s very clear to me that people in the financial community, if they actually believe that the debt ceiling was not going to be lifted would react very badly and our economy would have a tremendous downturn. And that’s from people in the financial community in New York, many of whom I’ve worked with over many years in the private sector. What I worry about is that we’re going to get to a point where either by accident or on purpose we actually do find ourselves failing to raise the debt ceiling and therefore, defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States, which would be I think a disaster.

Raising the debt ceiling or not raising the debt ceiling is not like cutting up your credit card. I had somebody in Colorado the other day say, my neighbors are having to readjust because the economic reality. Washington needs to readjust because of the economic reality. And I said I totally agree with that. But failing to raise the debt ceiling is like having your neighbors say I’m not paying this month’s cable bill, even though I owe them money. Or I’m not paying my mortgage, even though I owe them the money. We should raise the debt ceiling. We also need a comprehensive plan that addresses the horrific deficit and debt that are on this country and threatening our kids future.

SIMON: Of course, as we noted, Moody’s has said it might downgrade the nations AAA bond rating if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling. Do you regard this as a serious admonition as opposed to a threat? And does it help focus the mind?

Sen. BENNET: I hope that it helps focus the mind. And, you know, from Colorado’s perspective, and it’s a complicated state – we’re a third Democratic, a third Republican, a third Independent – I think people are pretty clear about what they want, which is they’d like the problem materially addressed. They want to know that were all in it together. They want it to be bipartisan because they don’t have a lot of confidence in either parties own positions on this. And I’d add a fourth corollary to that, which is that we need to make sure the capital markets know that the paper that they’ve bought and that we have borrowed from is not at risk.

You know, it’s too bad that Washington can’t respond to that sort of common sense or hasn’t been able to. I do think when you start to see things like Moody’s threatening to lower our rating it should sharpen the mind and we ought to do a deal along the lines of what the debt and deficit commission said.

SIMON: So what happened to the Gang of Six that’s now the Gang of Five, because Senator Tom Coburn left the group? This was a group that you were hoping could broker some kind of compromise.

Sen. BENNET: Yeah. And one of the reasons I was so supportive of it was, it was three Democrats and three Republicans trying to work together in a hyper-partisan environment to deliver some legislation that reflected the basic outlines that were in the debt and deficit commission report, which recommended that we find a way to take out about $4.5 trillion over 10 years.

I’m not sure what happened with one of the senators that pulled out but I do know they’ve done a lot of good work and my hope is that in the coming days we can all see the benefit of that work and be able to make some choices. A plan is better than no plan. And right now unfortunately, we have no plan.

SIMON: I gather Senate Democrats won’t be producing their own budget plan. Is that your understanding too?

Sen. BENNET: That’s my understanding.

SIMON: And why?

Sen. BENNET: I think it’s the reflection of the practical reality that the negotiation is really happening right now between the vice president on behalf of the president and the speaker of the House on behalf of the caucus there. I do think the Senate can provide, and I hope it’s the work of the Gang of Six, but it might be others, can provide some thoughts about how to move this forward. We’ve got a lot of important business to attend to, even beyond this if we’re not going to be the first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity not more to our kids.

SIMON: Michael Bennet, Democratic senator from Colorado. Thanks so much for being with us, Senator.

Sen. BENNET: Thanks for having me, Scott. I appreciate it.

Congressional Republicans need to “take Medicare off the table” and deal directly with the nation’s debt-ceiling, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Friday.

The attempts by national Republicans to connect discussions on raising the nation’s debt-ceiling and reforming Medicare is “absolutely responsible,” added U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (R-RI).

The two Democrats spoke to reporters on a conference call one day following a warning from Moody’s Investors Service that the nation’s credit rating is in jeopardy unless Congress acts soon to avert a default. Harkin and Reed indicated that productive discussions were being jeopardized by key Republicans who want to include “the GOP’s plan to dismantle Medicare.”

The GOP Medicare reform plan was approved in the Republican-controlled U.S. House as part of the budget developed by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Both Ryan, who serves as House budget chairman, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have insisted that the House-approved overhaul should be a part of ongoing negotiations concerning the debt-ceiling.

“Our message is simply: Take Medicare off the table,” said Harkin. “Let’s solve the default crisis, and let’s talk about fixing the system so that our middle class has a little bit better shape.”

Medicare is, he added, a “complicated, complex topic” that deserves its own discussion.

In essence, the GOP plan would replace Medicare with vouchers or subsidies that could be used to purchase private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “a private health insurance plan covering the standardized benefit would, CBO estimates, be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare.” The CBO estimates that by 2022 the cost of a Medicare-equivalent health insurance plan purchased from a private company for a 65-year-old would be $20,500. The same plan via Medicare would cost $14,500. Privatizing the system through the voucher system that Congressional Republicans have proposed would require seniors to pay an additional $6,000 per year in health care coverage costs (above the $6,500 out-of-pocket payments already required).

In the wake of widespread criticism for this and other aspects of Ryan’s budget plan — not to mention a resounding special election defeat in New York where the Republican budget served as a discussion centerpiece — Congressional Republicans have charged that they are at least trying to reduce entitlement expenses and that Congressional Democrats have no ideas or desire to address the issue.

No so, Harkin fired back Friday. Drug price negotiations, moving low-income Medicare recipients to the Medicaid program, and allowing time for recently passed health care reforms related to health care structure and prevention programs to kick in would all be cost reduction items that Democrats would find largely non-controversial, he said.

The Senate is considering four measures today on the 2012 budget. A simple majority (51) is necessary for any of the bills to advance. Despite electoral losses in 2010, Democrats still possess a majority in the upper chamber 51-47, with two Independents caucusing with the majority. The outcome of the Ryan plan was largely expected. In recent weeks, several GOP lawmakers have backed away from the extreme cuts the house budget called for.

Yesterday’s special election in New York, in which a Democrat won a traditionally Republican seat, was seen as an indictment on the party’s support for Rep. Ryan’s bill. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a one-time tea party favorite, voted against his party to cast a vote of no.

“Americans know Medicare didn’t get us into this financial pickle, yet the Republicans in Congress want to pick on Medicare because they’ve never liked the program. Medicare is not harming the financial success of this country, so why are we blaming a program that is working and helping seniors have healthier, longer lives?”

“We have to pay down our deficit. America pays it’s bills. We are in this together, and I know we will do this. The best way to pay our deficit is to get people back to work in our country. I will keep working to ensure we out-educate, out-innovate and out-build our competitors so we can maintain our promise to our senior citizens, strengthen American competitiveness, create jobs and ensure American workers can make it in America.”

A new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News reveals mixed messages from the American public over the country’s budget crisis.

With regard to fixing the federal deficit, trust in congressional Republicans edged out trust in President Obama by a slight margin, but on the issues, those polled were supportive of Obama proposals while rejecting Republican cuts.

Overwhelming majorities — 69 and 78 percent, respectively — oppose cutting Medicaid and Medicare. The budget favored by most Republicans, introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would overhaul both programs, ceding control of Medicaid programs to state governments and replacing Medicare with a voucher system. Even if a Medicare voucher program didn’t result in cuts to coverage — a notion championed by Ryan but thoroughly refuted by experts (PDF) citing rising health care costs — 65 percent of respondents opposed vouchers generally and said Medicare should remain as it is today.

A full 58 percent disapproved of Obama’s handling of the deficit. This is a smaller number than the 64 percent who disapproved of congressional Republicans’ handling of the deficit, but still a significant majority. Yet 72 percent were in favor of raising taxes on those earning $250,000 or more per year. As previous polls have demonstrated, most Americans felt that a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts is the best approach to tackling the deficit — in this case, 59 percent.

On the whole, there was slightly more trust in Obama to handle taxes and protect the middle class than there was in Republicans. Similarly, 56 percent said Obama’s views on the issues were either “about right” or too conservative — compared to just 39 percent who said they were too liberal, while 55 percent said Republicans in Congress were either “about right” or too liberal.

Also throwing a wrench into obtaining a coherent picture of the national political compass in the poll is the fact that more people — 46 to 42 percent — trusted Republicans in Congress to handle the national debt over President Obama. The upshot of the poll seems to be a picture of an American populace that is either deeply confused or simply misinformed about the current situation in Washington.

Elsewhere, the poll results showed dissatisfaction with Congress across party lines on a level similar to that which has been expressed for nearly twenty years. Of the Americans polled, 63 percent disapproved of Republican job performance in Congress, while 60 percent disapproved of Democratic job performance. These figures are within a few percentage points of the results of every poll since 1994 (barring a period of slightly favorable views of Congress in the late ‘90s), when the Post and ABC News first asked the question.

PoliticsUSA points out that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), whose 2012 budget proposal (PDF) presents significant cuts and alterations to welfare programs, put himself through college using, in part, Social Security benefits he received following the death of his father.

“Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people,” writes PoliticsUSA. “Without this benefit, his mother would have had to make even tougher decisions and Representative Paul Ryan may not have been able to pay for his college education.”

Ryan’s background with government assistance was revealed in a July 2010 cover story by Wisconsin Policy Research Institute magazine, which also noted that Ryan was born the day former President Richard Nixon unveiled a $200.8 billion federal budget proposal for the upcoming year, which included a large increase in Social Security payments.

The backstory from WPRI:

One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of his father’s death.

With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time bringing him and his mother closer.

Within months, Paul’s maternal grandmother moved into the house. She suffered from Alzheimer’s, and it often fell on young Paul to care for her, including brushing and braiding her hair. Ryan credits his father’s death and the care of his grandmother as giving him first-hand experience as to how social service programs work.

Ryan has frequently spoken about the need for reforming American entitlement programs throughout his political career, and he supports the Republican Study Committee’s proposed Welfare Reform Act of 2011 introduced in March.

Just as he wants to transform Medicare, Ryan also wants to redesign Social Security, transforming it into an investment rather than insurance program, wherein workers under 55 would have the option to move into a new system where they would contribute to personal accounts and then invest “a significant portion” of their payroll taxes into various funds managed by the U.S. government.

In his Roadmap for America’s Future, Ryan predicts that as the personal accounts accumulate wealth, they will eventually replace the current “pay-as-you-go system.”

The chapter in Ryan’s budget proposal on “Strengthening the Social Safety Net” reads:

There is a widely shared consensus in this country in support of a strong safety net for Americans who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times. However, the government programs that make up this safety net are failing both the citizens who rely on them and the taxpayers who fund them. It should not come as a surprise that a system designed in the 1960s is not equipped to deal with the unique pressures of the 21st century.

The safety net should never become a hammock, lulling able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency. Instead, the aim should be to empower individuals, putting them in stronger position to achieve.

The Associated Press has also pointed to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) as another former welfare recipient who now advocates for drastic cuts.

This week’s report that the S&P index has cut its outlook on America’s credit future from “stable” to “negative” was clouded by questions of the index’s credibility. But a more objective voice has entered the fray to underscore the S&P’s analysis.

Olivier Blanchard, chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, told French newspaper Le Monde in an interview that the U.S. has failed to provide a way out of its debt problems. The full interview is set for publication on Thursday, but Le Monde has printed some of Blanchard’s comments already. Translated from the original French, Blanchard told Le Monde:

The United States lacks a credible plan, for the medium term, to reduce its budget deficit. The debate between the two parties that concluded on April 8 with a savings plan of $39 billion was inadequate. President Barack Obama’s April 13 speech was a step in the right direction, but more concrete decisions remain to be taken.

Blanchard is well acquainted with American economic policy, having served as an economics professor at Harvard and MIT for over 30 years (PDF). His endorsement of Obama’s speech, in which the president blasted Republican cuts and championed tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans, may be a source of consternation for Republicans, who celebrated the S&P evaluation as a sign that their cuts are necessary.

Blanchard’s comments echo an official statement from the IMF last week asserting that the U.S. needs to make “major” adjustments to its fiscal policy, lest it suffer further deficits, hugely exacerbated by accompanying increases on U.S. Treasury bond interest. The IMF lumped in the U.S. with Japan, whose own tremendous national debt has been compounded by restoration costs following March’s devastating earthquake and tsunami.

Japan has since come out in support of its partner in debt. “The US is tackling fiscal issues in various ways, so I still think US treasuries are basically an attractive product for us,” Japanese Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda said this week.

As it turned out, Planned Parenthood did not lose federal funding for family planning and reproductive services in the federal budget for fiscal year 2011 passed Thursday by Congress — and in retaliation, the Susan B. Anthony List announced Friday that it is launching a campaign to target senators who voted for the budget bill.

In particular, the group is going after Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), “to educate constituents about their senators’ vote in support of taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood,” according to a press release. Once again, former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson is being used to attack her former employer, this time in radio ads, where she will ask constituents to call up the aforementioned senators and voice their disapproval.

“Votes have consequences, especially for politicians who say one thing at home and do another in Washington when it comes to protecting Life,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, in a statement. “As self-described ‘pro-life’ Democrats, Sens. Nelson and Casey betrayed their constituents by voting for taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. Claire McCaskill, a supposed ‘moderate,’ will have a hard time justifying to her constituents why she voted to continue giving their tax dollars to America’s largest abortion provider during a time of fiscal crisis. Funding an organization that flaunts federal law and cares nothing for the safety of women and young girls makes no fiscal sense, especially at a time when our country is in fiscal peril.”

Other anti-abortion rights groups have jumped on the senator-scolding bandwagon.

“For the first time the Senate was forced to go on record over whether they support using Americans’ tax dollars to support the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, a bloated, scandal-ridden abortion advocate,” said Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest in a statement. ”But today’s vote made clear which Senators care more about the interests of the politically influential abortion lobby than the lives and safety of American women and families.”

AUL has also announced it will be using senators’ votes for funding Planned Parenthood against them.

The SBA List claims to have spent more than $500,000 so far to defund Planned Parenthood, with television, radio and print ads, a bus tour and grassroots organizing, in addition to $11 million during the 2010 midterm election cycle.

But they’re not done yet, apparently.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Susan B. Anthony List spent more than $2.5 million total in the 2010 federal elections – $628,000 supporting Republicans (including $8,052 to Indiana Rep. Mike Pence’s campaign) and $1 million against Democrats, as well as $539,000 on electioneering communications.

The SBA List takes credit for helping to defeat 15 out of 20 “so-called ‘pro-life’ Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care reform bill” — and claims to have helped increase the number of pro-life women in the House by 70 percent, “filling the void of pro-life women in the U.S. Senate,” and increasing pro-life women governors from one to four.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told POLITICO he would “get there” on corralling Republican votes for the budget deal that averted a government shutdown last weekend, but since the details of the plan were made public, conservatives have grown increasingly agitated.

The National Review editorial board called the deal “fake” and urged Congress to reject it:

We’d vote “no,” even if we understand the impulse to move on to more important matters and to avoid a leap into the dark that might include a politically damaging shutdown. At the very least, freshmen and other conservatives should be frank about the deal’s shortcomings, refusing to exaggerate its merits as their leadership often has. The episode is strike one against the speakership of John Boehner.

RedState’s Erick Erickson is also warning House Republicans against supporting the deal:

If House Republicans vote for the bipartisan compromise, they should be driven into the street by the tea party movement and horsewhipped — metaphorically speaking. In reality, they should be primaried.

What started out as $38.5 billion in cuts, turned into around $14 billion in cuts and a bunch of accounting gimmicks. Each new day brings new disgusting revelations. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “total federal outlays will still rise by approximately $177 billion.” Yes, that says “rise” not “decrease.

A House vote is expected late Thursday.