House Dems To Obama: No Cuts To Social Security

[t0dd]

Source: TPM

Democrats led by Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva are drawing a line in the sand before the White House's fiscal commission: If your report recommends cuts or other changes to Social Security, they will say, you'll lose our support.

In a letter to be sent to President Obama, obtained by TPM, House Democrats will pledge to vote against any legislation based on the commission's report unless Social Security is taken off the table.

"We oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age," the letter reads. "We also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part.... If any of the Commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them."

The effort is intended to tie the commission's hands, at least on this issue.

"It's up to members of Congress to pre-empt the commission," says Alex Lawson, communications director for the advocacy group Social Security Works

Grijalva's effort is a response to signals and reports suggesting the commission, riven over issues like taxes and defense spending, is reaching common ground on Social Security cuts.

Democrats and advocates are rounding up signers, and will deliver the letter to Obama once the numbers climb, likely after Congress returns later this month. The original cosigners are Grijalva, John Conyers (D-MI), Dan Maffei (D-NY), Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and CPC co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). They issued a "Dear Colleague" letter to House members earlier this afternoon and have identified dozens of potential signatories based on pledges and past statements.

Dear Mr. President,
We write today to express our strong support for Social Security and our view that it should be strengthened. We oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age. We also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part.

You have charged the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with proposing recommendations that improve the long-term fiscal outlook and address the growth of entitlement spending. It is our view that Social Security--which is prohibited by law from adding to the national budget deficit--does not belong as part of those recommendations.

By 2023, Social Security will have built up a $4.3 trillion surplus, and, without any action, can pay at least 75 percent of all benefits thereafter. Because Social Security is funded separately from the general treasury and has no borrowing authority, it has not contributed to the federal deficit. Despite these facts, some Commission members have repeatedly alleged the need to cut Social Security for budgetary reasons.

For 75 years, Social Security has been a promise to the American people that if they work hard and pay their fair share, they will have a financially secure retirement. In communities across this country, Social Security benefits are often the only source of income helping families maintain a decent standard of living. Social Security's benefits are modest, averaging less than $13,000 a year, but they are vital to the vast majority of Americans who receive them.

Cutting Social Security benefits further than they are already being cut by raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 would create needless hardship for millions of vulnerable Americans. This is especially true in the face of an economic downturn that has wiped out trillions of dollars that Americans were relying on for their retirement security and the increased dismantlement of the private and public pension systems.

If any of the Commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them. We urge you to join us in protecting and strengthening Social Security rather than letting it fall victim to a misguided attempt to reduce budget deficits on the backs of working families.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/house-democrats-to-obama-no-cuts-to-social-security.php?ref=fpa

[Sherman A1]

1. K&R Well Said

:kick:

[Art_from_Ark]

2. You tell 'em, Congressman!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Hissyspit]

3. Why in holy hell...

do they even have to write that letter?

Why is this conversation even going on?

[Sherman A1]

6. Precisely

However, it appears to be going on and I believe we all need to write our own letters to the WH, Our Senators & our Representatives.

We need to send an avalanche of communications on this topic.

If they want to cut the SS which I am expecting and was promised to me, by whatever means, then they can simply pay back the money that was taken out of my check through the years of working. I have paid in for some 42 years and Yes, I am entitled to collect.

[bobbolink]

147. In those letters you write, go further and pushh for DOUBLING the amount of SS paid to those who

receive it.

This time, we need to wise up, and go for MORE, rather than settling for just "holding the line", and having that compromised away,

Let 'em compromise with a higher figure!

Here are toll-free numbers for Capitol Hill Switchboard, to call the members of the Progressive Caucus, and push the idea of DOUBLING SOCIAL SECURITY!

Toll-free Capitol Hill Numbers:

1-800-828-0498 1-866-388-1015 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437

[TheEuclideanOne]

9. Sad that this is even an issue, eh?

[RedCloud]

169. Make the war profiteers restore the stolen SS money they used.

[EFerrari]

11. Because we live in a military kleptocracy.

[No Elephants]

36. Not to mention a Wall Street plutonomy. They have us coming and going.

[Lasher]

13. I've repeatedly asked myself the same things over the past year.

Our party leadership has changed meaningfully for the worse over the past few decades. Welcome to the age of the neoliberal Democrat. Still, it is encouraging to see there are at least a few New Deal Democrats left.

[Dr.Phool]

19. Leadership?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You'll find the Loch Ness Monster screwing a unicorn first.

At least Grijalva is showing some.

[florida08]

22. lol

you certainly have a way with words there Dr.

[No Elephants]

37. Yeah, he does that--only early on, though. Please see Reply 34.

[No Elephants]

29. Well, neo something, anyway.

"The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".<5><6> Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.<7> According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."<8> The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.<9><10> with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.<11> The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"<5> His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.<12> Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".<13><14> Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century."

<snip>

Great Depression and World War II
"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.

<snip>

Drift away from New Left and Great Society
Neoconservatives came to dislike the counterculture of the 1960s baby boomers, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War.

As the policies of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while becoming disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society domestic programs. Academics in these circles, many still Democrats, rejected the Democratic Party's foreign policy in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of anti-war candidate George McGovern for president in 1972. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by future television commentator and neoconservative Ben Wattenberg expressed that the "real majority" of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.<21>

Many supported Democratic senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, derisively known as the senator from Boeing, during his 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism (well worth reading entire article)




"Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more centrist orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.

He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."

He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

Prior to the founding of PPI, Marshall was variously a speechwriter for Lieutenant Governor Dick Davis of Virginia, Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina and Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall





"2003 invasion of Iraq
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left"<12>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."<13>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council




http://original.antiwar.com/tom-barry/2005/02/11/liberals-and-neocons-together-again/

http://progressiveindependent.com/shalom/pia/DLC_PNAC.htm

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0504a/liberalhawkpnac.html

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/Research/buzzwords.htm


Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[Lasher]

58. Neoliberals are a different kind of evil from the neoconservatives.

Neocons are warmongers with dreams of world conquest. Neoliberals (new liberals) are privatizing, deregulating trickle-downers.

Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximize the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

<snip>

The Administration of Ronald Reagan governed from 1981 to 1989, and made a range of decisions that served to liberalize (expand) the American economy. These policies are often described as Reaganomics, and are often associated with supply-side economics (The notion that, in order to lower prices and cultivate economic prosperity, policies should appeal to producers rather than consumers.)

<snip>

The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics", due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits, the U.S. trade deficit expansion, and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis, In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States

If your local government once owned your water works but then sold it to a private company, you have neoliberalism to thank for it. For-profit prisons and schools? Mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan? Deregulation of the financial services sector? Global 'free' trade agreements? Neoliberals love all that.

And it is neoliberals who are attacking our social programs because they want more money diverted to and retained by the supply side (rich people, pretty much).

[pattmarty]

61. While you are right and made an excellent post, what is missing............

........is your conclusion. It is confusing to most people when you talk about neoconservative or neoliberalism. They NOW come under the one umbrella of "conservatism". This is what conservatism is in the twenty first century. Interventionist foreign policy AND Milton Friedman's view of "free markets". Sounds like the definition of fascism, doesn't it?

[Lasher]

66. Yes, it does sound like fascism.

And you're right, these things can be confusing. But there's enough political junkies here, I figure at least a few can relate.

It's kind of funny, the way Republicans are still being called conservatives. Their economic and foreign policies are anything but conservative. But we do need our labels and as you say, most people recognize neoliberal ideologies as most embraced by the GOP - even if they never heard of neoliberals.

My problem, and the point I was trying to make, is that too many elected Democrats support at least some of their goals, at the expense of the middle class that my party is supposed to stand for.

[pattmarty]

68. No, I agree with you. Both neoliberalism (Milton Friedman style capitalism)......

.......and the original definition of neoconservatism (anti-communism, interventionist foreign policy) is what "conservatism" has morphed into. The problem is that there are very few of the old FDR type of "liberals" nowadays. I just like to keep it as "simple" as possible to as not confuse the people that don't follow this shit all that much.

[No Elephants]

92. Did you read the wiki on neocons?

[Lasher]

106. No.

I have had a close interest in the neocons for years now. I've probably read the article before, as well as several other similar ones, and figured I could opine without a refresher. But if you think I need to read it all I will do that.

[No Elephants]

113. You probably need it a lot less than I do. However, I think it does cover

your comment: "It's kind of funny, the way Republicans are still being called conservatives. Their economic and foreign policies are anything but conservative."

Right, IMO, they are neoconservative + neoliberal. Hence, as it became clearer and clearer to our Republican cousins that a Dummya debacle was about to hit the fan, they began insisting he was neither a con or a neocon. "Oh, no," said they. "He's definitely....a LIBERAL!!!111111!! And that was a refrain for at least the last year of his term.

And, IMO, {neoconservative + neoliberal} fits a lot of people in both parties today, but the Republicans are all scurrying back to paleocon, at least nominally, given how Bush sulled neocon (as he soiled everything else he touched). (McCain is a good example, and we heard a lot from them in 2006 and after that Republicans had suffered bc they had forgotten who they were--fiscally conservative, not "nation builders," etc. (IOW, both Parties in 2006-2008 ran against Bush, who was not running against anyone.

Democrats, however, do not seem to be hastening back to their roots. Not sure if Republicans really are, either or just saying they are. Sigh.

[Lasher]

126. I promise I will read it just because you asked.

Life is spinning around right now so I guess I'll do that tomorrow.

Lasher

[No Elephants]

129. No, no I appreciate your willingness, but you don't need to read it, honestly.

[Lasher]

132. Well OK then,

But you're pretty cool and I can't say no to you.

Lasher

[No Elephants]

96. My conclusion was there.

[No Elephants]

90. And you don't see elements of both in

our Party today? (Hence the Vulcan mind meld cartoon and some of the links.)

[Lasher]

121. Yes I do.

That's just what I'm saying. Not as extreme as in the GOP, but it's definitely infected our own party.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. Neocons = Neolib + militarism. nt

[No Elephants]

107. Neocons + Neolibs = ?

[TBF]

102. All that tells me is that the Neolibs are the ones financing the

bat-shit crazy Neocons. Lovely.

[No Elephants]

115. I'm impressed you can tell which is which. I'm not sure I can.

Hence the cartoon at the end of Reply # 29.

[Lasher]

125. Yes they are.

But the neocons want world conquest and don't really care if Social Security is privatized. However, that is a wet dream of the neoliberals.

[BrklynLiberal]

159. So exactly what is the difference between neocons and neoliberals???

[DeadEyeDyck]

166. This is so inverte....

I admit I am drinking but I am confused. I am not ku=ike so may in that I joined as result of school. But the preceeding posts are very confusing. I am kind of a keep taxes low and hold back liberal. Kennedy did this. But I don't expect much agreement here.

Maybe I am being "flusjed out" God bless!

[Lasher]

174. Sorry, it can get complicated I guess.

But there's lots of political junkies here, and many of us are interested in nuances of contemporary political philosophies.

Maybe you'll understand my comments a little better if you read it while there's not three of me.

Don't drink and ride. Ride to live.

Lasher

[pattmarty]

59. No Elephants, a fucking grand slam!! Thx for the research.

[No Elephants]

94. You're welcome. *Blushes*

[snagglepuss]

104. An excellent post. It deserves it own thread. Very informative. nt

[harun]

16. Corporate Representative Republic

If it doesn't help the biggest Corporations there will be pressure to get rid of it or cut it.

The fact we have a Dem House, a Dem Senate and a Dem President, and this conversation is even taking place is OBSCENE.

[whistler162]

32. Probably never saw School House Rocks......

HEY DUMMIES IN CONGRESS YOU CREATE LAW PRESIDENT SIGN LAW YOU CREATE. Get order?

[No Elephants]

40. Sequence? Like meeting with health insurers, big Phrma and big health first, fighting

the ACLU to keep the WH logs of those visits secret, refusing to meet with medical professionals for single payer who had trekked across the country, meeting with other health care professionals only for a photo op, calling the public option a "slivver' at town hall meetings, praising Baucus to the skies while refusing to meet with members of the House Progressive Caucus until after the Senate passed its "health" bill?

Sorry, your 7th grade civic class was nct reflective of how it works in the real world.

Thank God FDR and LBJ knew better and got Social Security and Medicare passed, among many other things, without blaming their era's conservadems, Dixiecrats and other Southern Democrats.

[whistler162]

42. ? attacked for actually pointing out that Congres creates

laws not the President nd like Congresscritters call to the President against DOMA or DADT meaningless since THEY are the ones that has to do the job.

But, heck if it makes you feel better to attack go for it!

[liberation]

60. Huh?

I don't think the previous poster was attacking you in the least. I read it as: in theory, practice and theory are the same, in practice they are not.

It just seems that no one in the Dem party is willing to take a stand on this issue, and they are simply passing that around as a hot potato. This move seems the Dems in congress putting said potato on the hands of this administration, who I am sure will find another creative way to pass it along back.

[No Elephants]

98. Liberation got my point.

It was NOT to attack you but to say it is not true that Congress passes laws (or not) and the President simply signs them (or not). We were taught that as kids, but it simply is not the reality. It's way too simplistic--so much so that it is a lie.

Presidents do a lot to write and/or shape legislation and get it passed (or not). And a Democratic President has many ways to influence and control public opinion about legislation and about Congress, both as a whole and individual members. He also has a lot of influence and control over Congress as a whole, individual members of Congress and Congress's agenda and calendar.

Reciting the sequence of events of health care legislation was to disagree with your version of how legislation is "really" sequenced and to illustrate some of the above points. It was not, however, to attack you personally.

I'm baffled as to why you brought DOMA and DADT into a thread about the Progressive Caucus' stand on Social Security. This thread does not seem the place for either of those discussions.

[lark]

112. Those Dems had spines

Most of today's do not.

[No Elephants]

120. Is it a matter of different spines or different goals/values? I have

trouble telling anymore.


If you listen to what they say they want and believe in, it's not all that different from what classic Democrats like FDR, HST, LBJ and RFK said they wanted and believed in. If you stop up your ears and watch what they actually do, though, it's a whole other story from classic Democrats like FDR, HST, LBJ and RFK. Is the difference less spine or less competence? Or is there just a big gap between what they say they want and what they actually want? I just can't tell.

[loudsue]

33. Thank you, hissyspit. It turns me inside out that this even has to be said.

Even WORSE, is that the white house/rahm emmanuel will make sure that each and every person who signs the letter will be told that they will receive NO HELP from the dem party if they don't get on board with the NEW REPUBLICAN, i.e., democratic, line.

Just watch: If rahm/obama want the social security curbs, the caucus will bend and break.

[Javaman]

46. Because...

as much as Dems like to think they control the message they do not. The repukes have been pushing this BS.

However, my tin foil hat is glowing a bit. Why? Because I have this feeling that this story was ginned up so Obama can come in and say, "no, SS won't be changed, because I said so. Period".

I say this because this whole controversy just reeks of political posturing. Trying to move Obama's ratings back up. Nothing wrong with that, but it just seems a little transparent to me.

He could do so much more to improve his ratings, other than something like this, but then again this is my just postulating. I have to stop paying attention to my glowing tin foil hat. :tinfoilhat:

LOL

[pattmarty]

62. Well, we should know for sure by new years day.

[Javaman]

64. True that. nt

[indy legend]

70. His poll numbers would be just fine if he would just act like the

f**king democrat we thought we elected.

[Javaman]

82. Very true. nt

[skyounkin]

144. Spot...fucking...ON!!

[Nay]

55. Indeed, why? All the players know the facts, so what in the hell is

going on here exactly?

[SomeGuyInEagan]

63. + 10000

That this president - that ANY DEMOCRAT - would even allow such discussion without publicly and repeatedly saying, "No ... there will be zero discussion about cutting Social Security in any way, shape or form" is a fucking disgrace.

[No Elephants]

127. Who created the Commission to begin with? Who appointed Simpson?

[Enthusiast]

170. Yes it is a disgrace. nt

[Vincardog]

72. Did you call your Congress Critter and tell him/her to cosign it? I did.

[Iowa]

91. I did more than that...

I told my Congressman that if I didn't hear him vigorously attacking Obama's cat-food-commission BEFORE the November election, he'd lose my vote. In other words, if he sits on his hands until November and lets the cat-food-commission continue to gather steam, he loses me, and the votes of my family. We've had it with faux/weak/wimpy Dems who behave like Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

78. Because ... as Pelosi told us ... "Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning ...

that he is no longer for" --

Presumably, it's obvious to them that Obama's taken a more right wing attitude

towards Social Security and Medicare!

We need a more liberal/progressive candidate in 2012 --

[ooglymoogly]

86. +1 And that's the scary nail to hit on the head.

SS has nothing to do with these huge deficits; But if those deficits cant be covered up by stealing from our last safety net, SS; Pug'nDino's and their theft by legislation, soley for the rich, will finally become all too clear to the voters of this country; As you can bet your bottom dollar, SS is perhaps the one thing that will wake them out of their "MSM" induced stuper.

And that is what Simpson, Rahm and the Dinos he recruits, are not going to let happen; Not when they are so close to getting away with the greatest robbery on earth.

Other than a big bag of money to steal to cover for the pugs'nDino legislated theft; SS has no business in the "fix of the Pugs'nDino theft crisis"; The fix we call the Catfood commission, recklessly playing with the trillions in peoples safety nets.

Just as we were forced to pay for the criminal and reckless Wall st. gambling fiasco.

The people of this country desperately need to know why we are in this mess.

This life altering scam of that government of the rich, and by the rich, and for the rich; Is trying to force us, once again to pay for with our last few dollars; Our last safety net;

It is not a stretch to realize, this was the plan all along.

[Enthusiast]

171. You can see it building

by listening to their talking points. "Oh, just look what is happening in Greece!" Among others.

Then, all the Tea Party talking/screaming points about government spending and the deficit. They are using the Tea Party the exact same way with Social security that they did with HCR. Seems somehow.......familiar.

[rhett o rick]

137. I totally agree. nm

[skyounkin]

143. Because Obama listens to the scared concerns

of troglodyte rethugs.

Fuck all those other "retards".

[HughBeaumont]

153. Somewhere along the way, some Democrats forgot about those whole "opposition' and "liberal" things.

They became DINOsaurs. Too many Nelsons, not enough Sherrod Browns.

K & R.

[BrklynLiberal]

158. A question that has been asked over and over and over during this administration.

[Mimosa]

4. Yay! I hope they mean it. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. About fucking time someone stood up to that damned

cat food commission.

Recommended.

[laughingliberal]

7. There's the statement I've been waiting for. Van Hollen et al have danced around & won't say...

they oppose cuts to benefits. President Obama says he'll oppose privatization but I haven't heard him say he would oppose cuts to benefits.

Kudos, once again, to the progressive caucus. Let's hope they fare better in this than they did in the HCR debate.

[Bryn]

8. Yay!

Horray for the democrats! K & R This is what I wanted to see.

Now Alan Simpson can go crawling away!

[DrDan]

10. Bravo! . . . . . K&R

[Lasher]

12. My House rep better get on board.

K&R

[Hannah Bell]

14. Good. What i don't hear them saying, though, is that they'll block tax hikes on SS.

I have no objection to keeping the cap at 90% of all income, the traditional benchmark.

Lifting the cap altogether is an abomination designed to destroy SS by stealth.

[Skink]

41. Don't lift the cap entirely. Tax capitol gains.

[florida08]

15. and that's why

they're called the people's house. Indeed he and they would lose support

[mmonk]

17. Good.

No folding this time please.

[Dr.Phool]

18. Awww, that's just another Chicken Little, internet conspiracy theory!

How did that Congressman buy into this fear-mongering rumor perpetrated by people who want to destroy Obama?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


--------------------------------------------------

Sarcasm (off). At least that's what some people around here keep trying to tell me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. heheh

:evilgrin:

[GOTV]

20. Thankfully they're not stupidly waiting to see the proposal before taking action ...

... as is often suggested.

[Syrinx]

21. ELIMINATE the cap!

[Ganja Ninja]

23. Thank God there's still a few real Democrats left in the Democratic party.

:applause:

[Iowa]

97. Let's hope there are enough of them to block Obama's efforts to cut Social Security...

Because that's what this is - an effort by a Democratic President to accomplish what Republicans have tried (and failed) to accomplish since the 1930s. Of all the crap he has pulled, this is in the top two, IMO (along with shielding torturers and war criminals).

[xchrom]

24. Recommend - thanks to those reps behind this. Nt

[Balderdash]

25. Go House Dems!!! nt

[bertman]

27. You mean the same Progressive Caucus that was backing the Public Option??!!

That's a tough bunch there.

:(

[No Elephants]

35. Sure is. I posted Reply # 34 before I read your post.

[NewJeffCT]

44. That was my first thought

which is pretty depressing

[Buns_of_Fire]

128. Oh, yes. The same crowd who stood up SO forcefully. Uh huh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4019013

"The public option is central to healthcare reform. Real reform, which lowers costs and ensures all Americans get the quality, affordable healthcare that they deserve, cannot be accomplished without a robust public option. As we have stated repeatedly for months now, a majority of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will oppose any healthcare reform legislation that does not include a robust public option. Our position has not, and will not, change. As Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop comprehensive legislation that allows all Americans to choose the healthcare plan that’s right for them and their families. But I will not support any bill that does not include a public option."

At least you know the rebubbalickins are going to screw you over if they get half a chance.

[BigD_95]

28. Thank You

and please hold true to this!!!

[bkozumplik]

30. at last, some real democrats

too bad you're having to fight the power against OUR OWN DAMN PARTY LEADER, but well done.

We were starting to think real democrats in Washington were extinct. Thanks for proving us wrong.

[northernlights]

31. YEAH CHELLIE PINGREE!!!!!!!!! My new rep from Maine

YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crystal Clarity]

114. I knew Chellie would do a great job

I wish she had managed to take out Susan Collins in 02, but at least you've got her in Washington as a Representative (I have Michaud). She's already done some great things, this included. Good for her! Woohoo! :-)

[No Elephants]

34. Been there with public option. This time, will hold off cheering until I see what actually happens.

"Caucuses Unite Behind Public Health Insurance Plan Option | Press Release

(Washington DC) – In an unprecedented initiative, the leaders of four prominent groups in the 111th Congress – the Progressive Caucus (CPC), the Black Caucus (CBC), the Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and the Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) – have sent a joint letters to President Obama (ATTACHED) and the Democratic Leadership of the House and Senate stressing that ‘our support for enacting legislation this year to guarantee affordable health care for all firmly hinges on the inclusion of a robust public health insurance plan like Medicare.’

Together, one hundred seventeen Members of the House and Senate belong to at least one of these four congressional caucuses. Hence, their unity in pushing for inclusion of a public health insurance plan like Medicare as part of comprehensive health care reform legislation is a formidable development in the unfolding policy debate inside and outside of Congress."

Much more at: Caucuses Unite Behind Public Health Insurance Plan Option | Press Release







"Blue Dog compromise: Congressional progressives say "no deal" (Updated)
by: Alegre
Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 00:07:01 AM EDT

"UPDATE: This article from The Hill makes it sound like everyone's on the same page now. I'm not so sure that's the case where the CPC goes. Letter now has 57 signatures.
~~~~~~~
"We expect that it will retain a robust public option. If it doesn't, we will vote against it."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey regarding the House health care reform bill.

The turnout was great for this afternoon's press conference and our ranks swelled considerably when the single payer advocates found their way over to our corner of the Capitol grounds. Joel Segal, Congressman Conyers health care aide & the guy who wrote HR 676, was in the crowd. Many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) were with Lynn Woolsey as she got things rolling. The chairs of the Cong. Black Caucus (Barbara Lee), and the Cong. Hispanic Caucus (Nydia Velazquez) - also members of the CPC - spoke as well. I was delighted to see Hillary's old friend Sheila Jackson Lee and one of our own Maryland Dems, Donna Edwards (both vice-chairs of the CPC) there and each of them said a few words about the reform effort and the need for a "robust public option".

The press conference was called to announce that members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have crafted a letter to Nancy Pelosi and the Chairmen of the three Committees with jurisdiction over this bill (Waxman, Rangel and Miller). The letter is signed by 53 Representatives who are opposed to the compromises worked out with the Blue Dog coalition. From the reports I've seen, this letter has not yet been delivered, as the coalition is still gathering signatures in the hopes of getting 60 signatures. If this group holds together, it will kill the bill.


http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3409

[LiberalFighter]

84. The Blue Dogs should be called the Blue Balls.

[liberation]

151. Not really...

... they get to fuck us every chance they get. :-(

[county worker]

38. They'll cave over fear of handing Obama a defeat.

Same same public option.

[harun]

48. Wrong. Difference is Health Insurance was broken and had to get

something done to it, Social Security isn't. There is no down side for them to vote against it and pass absolutely nothing.

[truedelphi]

110. Ah, but you see,once the Republicans got the "Drift" of what Obama's

Staff meant by reform (i.e. the handing over of a program to the very interests that made the reform necessary) then those Republicans became "reform" crazy.

LAst Summer, when C Span was filming some of the shenanighans related to the Health Care "reform" debate, several of the conservative Senators on the Baucus committee were discussing the HC reform.

"Once we finish up with the Health Care reform, we should move on to "reforming" Social Security."

the new meaning of the word "reform" had not eluded them.

So we have Obama's people and the DLC people wanting the Social Security Reform Act of 2011, and also all the neo cons are on board.

It's a shame we don't really have a two party system any more - just a One Big Money Party System.

[harun]

154. We have one party for Big Corporate and then about 5 normal people in Congress/Senate.

[MessiahRp]

167. This sadly is way too true...

Maybe 10 normal people.. but I must say I would struggle hard to find 10.

[Kingofalldems]

39. Keep the government out of my Social Security!-----

--A Teabagger

[florida08]

43. what a difference a presidency makes

from a senatorial one

WASHINGTON - Senator Barack Obama yesterday proposed raising Social Security taxes on the wealthier, saying the nation's "most regressive tax" needed to be revamped to increase revenues to the retirement fund and spread the burden of paying for the program more evenly.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/28/obama_proposes_increasing_social_security_tax_on_wealthy/

[T Wolf]

45. I know that it is a waste of my time to try and get my DLC Representative (Schwartz, PA-13) to

support any progressive legislation or position.

She is not much better than the rethug who squatted in that seat for (too) many terms. We had a good one (Joe Hoeffel) for a term, but he was thrown out as a sacrifice against Spectre which led to DINO-Allyson winning the seat.

[No Elephants]

49. She needs to hear from you. It's a waste of time to urge Grijalva to

do the right thing. He has already vowed to. She needs to know that her constituents are not all Republicans and conservadems. Hell, even Blanch Lincoln cast a liberal votes after Halter challenged her.

[T Wolf]

53. She does not care about the real Democrats in her district. She is too busy sucking up

the corporate money and supporting every corporatist initiative to worry about us fucking retards.

[NewJeffCT]

56. You still need to contact your rep's office

just so they can't say, "well, nobody in my district supported the idea of no cuts to social security"

[No Elephants]

88. Neither did Blanche Lincoln, until real Democrats in her state made clear they existed.

[mwfolsom]

164. time to join doormats anonymous!

how about just not voting for her?

You really need to join doormats anonymous - you really don't have to automatically vote for anybody that has a D after their name.

Seriously how many votes did she win last time by? Get together about 10 friends and drop by her office, sit down with the manager and express your concerns and tell them if she doesn't promise to protect Social Security the bunch of you ain't gonna vote for her. She takes your votes for granted - what would she do if she knew she couldn't count on them automatically?

I'd be willing to bet if you showed up with a petition promising that with 100 names on it you would get a personal response. A thousand names would probably get your promise.

[No Elephants]

47. Reagan wanted NAFTA, but it took Clinton to get it passed (tho Dummya signed it).

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm

After we helped Wall St and Big Health/Phrma, a prescien DUer whose name I don't recall (sorry) posted something like "Next up: Social Security."

Dummya wanted to "reform" Social Security, but maybe it will also take a Democratic President to actually "get 'er done," as with NAFTA.

[izzybeans]

50. Where's the like button.

Oh yeah K and R

[pinto]

51. Kick

:kick:

[gibby2433]

52. If Obama ignores this and goes ahead with cutting SS anyway...

he'll not only lose the progressive caucus's support but mine as well. This is ridiculous that it's even on the table for discussion, it's ridiculous that OBAMA is allowing it to be on the table. Fox News LOVES to fall back on unscientific polls to show how little the country supports Obama, but with 85% of the public AGAINST touching Social Security in any way, even THEY can't spin this to make us believe cutting the program is "the will of the people." On this issue, WE win, no matter what whack-jobs like Joe Miller and Sharon Angle say.

WE WIN. This will NEVER happen.

BUT, if hell freezes over and cutting Social Security does become a reality, I don't think it'd be wise to start a Tea Party-like group to protest it, because it would have to be called the SS Party ;)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

162. If anyone messes with social security they are dead meat!

[Bluebear]

54. How disgusting is this that Congress has to write this to a Democratic President to begin with?

[Skittles]

135. he'll treat them the way he treats us

[pattmarty]

57. A fucking men!!! As far as "cuts" or savings I recommend the catfood.....

........commission try some of these: Two wars, is it 800 bases we have throughout the world, cut defense spending by half, fix the tax system so the rich ACTUALLY pay their fair share, end ALL subsidies to corporations, a tax on financial transactions, my head is hurting but I surely can think of at least another twenty.





Edit to add: TAX THE CHURCHES!!!!!!!!

[mwfolsom]

65. Totally meaningless!!!!

Sadly, the so-called Progressive Caucus has a long tradition of caving-in when they draw a line in the sand - you might remember a from a few months ago when they promised they would vote against the Health Care Reform bill if it didn't have a public option. Well that promise turned out to be fairly worthless didn't it?

Same thing here - they will cave , they always do -

There is another problem with putting too much faith in them or their letter - Obama has the votes to pass a cut in Social Security, my guess is that all it will take is a few blue dog Dems and the Republican to do it so the so-called Progressive Caucus is meaningless once again -

Face it the Progressive Caucus is just another part of the Kabuki Theater that the Dems run in DC to make us think they are worth supporting.

[L0oniX]

67. SS CUTS = FEAR The catfood commission was all nothing but a low life repuke tactic that uses fear.

No wonder there are labels for Dems like "DINO" and "centrist". Keep leaning right ya mutha fuckas and see where it will get you! Not only will the Dems loose elections but the whole country will loose because both parties will not represent the peoples interests. Take your fear tactic and shove it up your blistering ass.

[grahamhgreen]

69. CRAP! At first I thought it read: "Obama to House Dems: No Cuts to Social Security". nt

[wryter2000]

71. My Barbara Lee will sign it

This one, they have to stick with. No compromise.

[Marnie]

73. SOSS to Dems in Congress

On this one most Americans do agree with the Tea Bagging hoard. Keep you hands off Social Security.

Not only is it attacking the one part of the Government that is solvent, cutting benefits of the workload class retirees will only increase the burden on welfare and Medicade. Both of which are paid by taxes ot by deposits directly to SS and Medicare.

So you hang in there Congressional Dems, this may be your life line.

[metapunditedgy]

74. Any "pragmatists" want to go on record saying that SS cuts would be unacceptable?

I've been asking for a while... I think I've gotten one pragmatic responder...

[metapunditedgy]

116. Any "pragmatists"? Anybody??? n/t

[Smashcut]

136. Once Obama expresses their opinion for them

they'll give it to you.

[metapunditedgy]

140. And anyone who does not hold "opinion-to-be-named-later" is a traitor! n/t

[Ignis]

75. K&R

Glad to see someone's standing up for us.

[SharonRB]

76. There is one thing in regard to SS that SHOULD be on the table...

the cap should be gone, or at least raised considerably. It will help save SS and won't hurt the people it will affect in any significant way.

[cascadiance]

80. remove the cap AND lower the rate!

... to the point that those making up to $250k don't see any changes in their payroll tax either, which would remove the excuse that Obama can't raise taxes on those under $250k as his election commitment. The rate then would be so that the same raw amount for what is now based on $106k is what comes from $250k. Then no frickin' stupid donut hole either, which would be a nightmare to administer and adjust to inflation over the years too, not to mention unfair to those making $106k vs. $250k.

We'd all under $250k get a tax CUT, which would help as a stimulus. Also, if both we and companies have to pay in less for us to the system, it makes us less of a liability versus their expensive execs towards being targeted for layoffs to "reduce costs", since we'd cost less then than we do now relatively speaking.

[SharonRB]

123. Excellent point.

If the cap is removed, it would make sense to also lower the rate. Even with the lower rate, getting it from more people with higher earnings would help keep it solvent.

[ooglymoogly]

101. Yes, that must happen and is the only acceptable change. nt

[defendandprotect]

77. Every dollar anyone had pre-Bush is now worth 50 cents... we should be incresing benefits, not

trying to knock them out -- !!

2012 can't come fast enough -- we need a new candidate who is more interested in

providing for the public welfare and less concerned with providing corporate-welfare!!

[AllyCat]

79. Call your rep and ask him/her to stick to this or sign up!

Man, someone needs to show and hold some spine here!!

[Kermitt Gribble]

81. Great! Hope they don't cave

like they did on the public option.

[cascadiance]

83. ANY Democrat, (including Obama!), that screws with SS should wear a "Primary me" sign for 2012!

The day that Obama tries to put through ANYTHING that screws up SS, he should be informed that the progressive caucus will be looking for a candidate to run against him in 2012 primaries. The line in the sand NEEDS to be set down now! We've waited way too long on too many other issues now!

[ooglymoogly]

85. +too many to count.

[Dragonfli]

87. The Progressive Caucus folded on Health Care, they sounded sincere then too /nt

[texastoast]

89. OH, I LOVE SPINE

Take yer calcium, kids. Stay strong!

[NorthCarolina]

93. What position are the Blue Dog and DLC New Dems taking on this issue? eom

[TBF]

103. You have to ask?

The DLC President set up the commission. That tells you all you need to know.

[Enthusiast]

172. I fear it will be

"Mission Accomplished" even if it costs Obama a second term. This shit could be planned many years in advance.

[No Elephants]

109. Please remind me:

Which Democrats in DC now are neither a Blue Dog nor a DLC/New Dem/3rd way/more other aliases than I can remember/usually only criminals have to change their names that much?

[TBF]

133. Maybe they can't remember their names ..

which brings us back to the cartoon in post no. 29 (which is awesome btw)

[No Elephants]

134. thank you

that was the first photo I saw after I googled "Vulcan mind meld pic photo image."

[valerief]

99. K&R

:kick:

[jwirr]

100. Finally. As I was reading the letter I wondered about something that

has happened in the past in my area. Railroad retirees here paid into the RR pensions and the Social Security Administration administered the pension. Was that a form of privatization? Did that happen because the fund went broke or was it always planned that way? I am sure some of our MN union people can tell me more about this.

[Axle_techie]

105. K&R

[Luciferous]

108. They caved on the public option, so I'm skeptical.

[earth mom]

111. Ha! These guys KNOW that ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE if Social Security is messed with...

which in turn will screw up chances for re-election.

Can't have it both ways ya'll.

:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

117. I hope to heaven you're right, but I have a very hard time believing it.

When people made excuses for the "health" bill and even praised it lavishly, I concluded the sheeplization of America had been completed and I had failed to note when it had happened. I pray I was very wrong, but I am not hopeful about that.

[earth mom]

119. Yeah, I'm pretty cynical too. I don't trust politicians, but I do have faith in the

the ability of the middle class/working class to recognize when they are being screwed over and to then fight back.

I don't know how this will all shake out, but I do know that this country is over-stick a fork in it-done if we lose Social Security.

[No Elephants]

122. Again, I hope like anything that you're right.

:fistbump:

[earth mom]

124. Gotta be optimistic about the will of the people or I would really get depressed!

We're all in this together! :hi: :grouphug:

[proteus_lives]

118. Good!

[SILVER__FOX52]

130. Wow. Some progressive backbone. Shit, I didn't think there....

was any, around. President Wall street, better "get it", soon or he is done and good riddance to him.

[russspeakeasy]

131. And next year our brave democrats will send a letter to the

President saying "do not under any circumstances start
charging us for breathing." Why in hell is this even an
issue???

[EmeraldCityGrl]

138. Perfectly worded. There is NO ROOM for negotiation.n/t

[rhett o rick]

139. This is where we draw the line. rec. nm

[skyounkin]

141. LOL-

Yeah...and I remember the line is the sand were no dem would vote for a Health Care Bill without a strong public option. Gimmee a break- if Obama wants to cuts social security the dems will fall in line and vote for it.

Remember folks- this prez only listens to the concerns of rethugs.

[WillyT]

142. HUGE K & R !!!

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick:

[Shining Jack]

145. Is it spine growing season ?

K&R !

[lordsummerisle]

146. K&R n/t

[provis99]

148. what a hollow threat that is.

They said the same thing during the health insurance reform debate, before the progressives caved in like the spineless weasels they are.

[leeroysphitz]

149. Senate to Obama: Neverind, here you go. n/t

[OnionPatch]

150. I want to believe this

but it seems the Dems have been playing good cop to the GOP bad cop, then when push comes to shove, "Oh, the Republicans just won't back down, etc. etc.....we don't have enough votes....bla bla bla..."

I hate to be so skeptical but this crap keeps happening over and over. If, in the end, any Dems are complicit in robbing us of our SS, it will be the last straw for me.

[Peregrine Took]

152. Wonderful stand but pathetic that its necessary among Dems to do so. n/t

[unkachuck]

155. "...cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them."

....thems is awfully tough words for even a progressive Dem to be speaking these days....I'll take a wait and see....

[dflprincess]

156. Good to read this - I hope they mean it

Isn't this the same Progressive Caucus that wouldn't support the insurance bill unless it had a strong public option?

[BrklynLiberal]

157. It is so heartening to see some signs of courage and principles in the Congress!!!!!

[dpbrown]

160. Isn't it sad that Democrats even have to "make a stand" about this?

Why does Obama continue to seem to forget what side of the fight he's on?

[johnaries]

161. I hate to say "told you so", ok, I love saying it!

But from the beginning of the "hand-wringing" and the misrepresentations of the Fiscal Commission as the "cat food commission" I've watched the meme go from "Oh, Noes, they're going to PRIVATIZE SS!" to "Oh Noes, they're going to cut (insert random benefit here)!".

And I kept saying, "Congress won't vote for it!".

Like I said - it's unlikey that the Fiscal Commission would even agree to major cuts in SS (it requires 14 of 18 votes of the Commission). But, even if the Commission reccomends it....

"Congress won't vote for it!".

But please enjoy chasing down strawmen and red herrings whenever possible. :)

[maritzasolito]

163. Would you mind sharing a link where the president said that

he was going to do/hint/intend cuts on SS?

[earcandle]

165. Yeah!

[ShamelessHussy]

168. We need the leadership onboard as well, where is Pelosi?

and Reid, etc.

[Enthusiast]

173. The plan could be to

use the old collective bargaining ploy. "Only the new employees will have their wages cut so you have nothing to worry about." But this effectively divides us.

[Doctor_J]

175. The Professional Left bares their teeth again

Hopefully they can hold the line this time.