WASHINGTON — Few people would question Sen. Patty Murray's liberal bona fides. The Washington Democrat ranks as one of Congress' most ardent champions of social programs for children, seniors, veterans, the unemployed and the poor.

Yet, as the congressional deficit-reduction committee Murray co-chairs gears up for its first hearing Thursday, progressive advocates are fretting over just how much zeal she will show in defending Social Security, Medicare and other safety-net programs.

Liberal activists seeking to pressure Murray have been parsing her words and actions for clues — and finding little solace in her steadfast refusal to declare specific cuts in benefits or higher costs for beneficiaries off-limits.

Murray's traditional supporters have been frustrated in their quest for a "listening session" sought by more than 60 Washington state organizations that want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security left largely untouched. Matt McAlvanah, Murray's spokesman, has said previously that such requests are considered based on scheduling availability.

USAction, a national coalition of progressive groups, organized a call-in to Murray's office last week to demand no compromises on cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as ending "tax breaks for the super-rich."

"We are very nervous about this [deficit] committee," said Robby Stern, president of Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans, one of the groups that asked to meet with Murray.

Stern noted that all six Republicans on the 12-member Select Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction oppose raising taxes. That stance, Stern says, would demand equal pugnacity from Murray and her fellow Democrats to ensure that $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years won't be borne entirely through spending cuts.

But since her pick as the panel's co-chair last month, Murray has studiously avoided any absolute pronouncements. That includes whether she would insist on letting Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy or would accept delaying Medicare eligibility until age 67, a proposal floated by President Obama.

In contrast, Rep. Dave Reichert of Auburn, a Republican who has voted to privatize Medicare, nonetheless vowed in an interview last year that raising the retirement age "is not an option."

Stern said he understands Murray's guardedness.

"She's in a position where she has to lead the committee," Stern said. "She has to make people confident that she's willing to negotiate."

Stern said he has "faith" that Murray will fight harder for liberal priorities than Obama, who Stern says has sacrificed progressive ideals for political expediency.

McAlvanah responded with a statement to complaints that she hasn't articulated her position in detail.

"Senator Murray's record is clear on who and what she fights for," he said. "And her charge as co-chair of this committee is to bring her perspective and priorities to bear on the difficult task of finding a bipartisan and balanced way to improve the economic future of Washington families."

Observers will be listening to Murray closely Thursday when the deficit panel holds its inaugural hearing at the Rayburn House Office Building, where committee members will deliver their opening statements.

The panel, created as part of the rancorous negotiations to lift the federal debt limit in August, has to identify how to shrink the government's red-ink spending by as much as $1.5 trillion by 2021. It must vote on a plan — spending cuts, tax increases or a combination — by Nov. 23. If approved by a simple majority, Congress would vote on the plan by Dec. 23. Otherwise, automatic spending cuts kick in for defense, Medicare and a full range of federal departments.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, is the other co-chair.

Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, said Murray has an unenviable job of steering a deficit-cutting panel at a time when he believes the more urgent need is new federal spending to create jobs.

"Job creation. That's the crisis we face," Johnson said. "It's unfortunate that [deficit-panel members] have been put in this position."

Johnson said it would be pointless to predict where Murray would compromise. Instead, he's staking his confidence on her record as someone "who's passionate about protecting the social safety nets."

The prescription that Murray and her fellow members ultimately adopt may depend partly on how far into the future they choose to peer. The committee has called Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), to testify Tuesday on the "History and Drivers of Our Nation's Debt."

The CBO as well as numerous economists have analyzed how the budget surpluses left by President Clinton turned into historic deficits.

Forecasts made in 2001 said the federal surplus would be nearly $800 billion in 2011; instead, the actual anticipated deficit this year is $1.3 trillion. The main culprits have been a recession that has decimated tax revenue, federal bailouts and other spending in response to the economic collapse, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But taking a generational view would put entitlement programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, squarely into budget-cutting cross hairs. That's because spending on those two health programs has climbed faster than the economy for decades.

By the time today's toddlers qualify for Medicare, the CBO says, Americans will be spending almost as much on Medicare and Medicaid as they do today on all federal programs and services.

But Stern and some of his fellow liberal activists argue that the deficit panel should keep its hands off Medicare and Medicaid for now. Instead, they say the new health-care law should be given time to show whether it will curb spending on health care.

Such pressure from liberal loyalists may well buffet Murray as much as push-back from conservatives.

"She's in a very tough spot," Stern said.

Kyung Song: 202-662-7455

or ksong@seattletimes.com