It's here: National Call Joe Lieberman Day!

[Teaser]

Starting today at noon, make sure you drop Shaky Joe a line, letting him know you oppose all bill's to phase out social security, whether the bill is *'s or Lindsey Grahams. Also let him know that weak rhetoric on Social Security and private accounts is *not* appreciated, as it provides cover for Republicans. This can be a Democratic victory, if only people like Joe will help us.

Here's the contact info:

706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
[phone] Voice
[phone] Fax

One Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
[phone] Voice
[phone] In CT
[phone] Fax
[phone] TDD

He's out of Washington Today, so a call to his Connecticut offices might be in order. Especially if you are a Connecticutie.

Post the message you left Joe in here!




(on edit: Atrios suggests we ask the following:
Is it true that Lieberman:

a) Opposes diverting payroll taxes out of the Trust Fund and into private accounts, making the program less solvent
b) Opposes cuts in promised benefit

And, if a) and b) are true, ask him why he is currently "is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts." And, if a) and b) are not true, why is that in 2002 he said:

We understand Social Security's economic value and appreciate its moral value, and that we won't let it be diluted, dismantled or dissolved ... Simply put, Social Security privatization would take away the safety from the safety net, and turn the idea of a rainy day fund into a sink or swim proposition. If you don't choose wisely, you lose badly. And the government's response to bad luck would be to say, "tough luck."

)

[pansypoo53219]

1. but

will joemental listen?

[Willy Lee]

2. Great idea. I'll call. eom

[theboss]

3. Lieberman's on the record as against Bush's plan

Are we badgering him to stay against it?

[Teaser]

4. He made some weak statements on Friday

See Josh Marshall's blog for details. I've posted about it extensively here. Basically saying he hadn't made up his mind yet on "carving out" private accounts from social security.

That's rhetoric we don't need. It helps Republicans.

Also, Joe is meeting with Lindsey Graham over his phase-out bill, which is as bad as Bush's, just more honestly accounted.

[Teaser]

5. edited to include some comments by Atrios

Please check out.

[Teaser]

6. Heh...got the run around...

I think I pissed off the staffer. They must be getting a load of calls. Atrios headlining this at his site was probably a big deal.

[regnaD kciN]

21. I got Joe's voice mail...

...they must be getting lots of calls. The receptionist(s) can't even keep up!

[Skinner]

7. I'm going to put this at the top of the homepage.

Everyone, please take a moment to make a polite phone call to Joe.

[Teaser]

16. Thank you!

A true gent, you!

[Rose Siding]

8. kick

:dem: Use those minutes!

[racer-x]

9. huh?

I called 18605498463 and told her my thoughts, and when i asked about Lindsey Graham, she went "huh?"

she seemed confused, so i just kind of let that go.

[Callboy]

10. Save Social Security

[Callboy]

11. Joe is moving to the middle, even past the middle

hes becoming a war hawk and now this....

[jchristy2001]

12. Lieberman/Social Security

Just sent a fax to his office in DC and in CT...thanks for letting me know about this...hope a lot of people respond.

[Al-CIAda]

13. done!

[joeybee12]

14. Thanks for posting this...Holy Joe needs to know who butters his bread...

...it has always been the Democratic Party, although he seems to bending over for every Repuke who walks by these days.

Ooops...better not mention that graphic in my call to his office!

[dandrhesse]

15. done

[Teaser]

17. Something new to worry about!!!

Josh Marshall:

The question is out there: which Senate Dem might be ready to cut a deal with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina on Social Security?

Pretty much all of them have issued strong statements which appear to place them in opposition.

But entertain this hypothetical.

What if current payroll tax revenues are left in place for now and private accounts are funded in whole or in part from new payroll tax revenues generated by raising or even lifting the payroll tax cap? Even in the medium-term it makes little difference which slice of the payroll tax pie phase-out begins with, for reasons we'll describe. But such a maneuver could allow some straying Dem to argue that what they were signing on to was not in fact a carve-out.

I would judge any Senate Democrats' pledge with this hypothetical -- let's call it the 'Graham hypothetical' -- in mind.

And let's also ask this question: Why the deep-seated urge to cut a deal when support for phase-out is fading, the president is stumbling and we may be on course toward a national consensus and reaffirmation in favor of preserving Social Security rather than going down the incremental phase-out road?

Once that happens, once the door is closed on phase-out, it will then be possible to make sensible changes to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. But there's really no sense in looking for points of compromise with folks whose aim is phase-out.

[annabanana]

18. Called and got a VERY heartening response...

The aide read for me the statement on Joe's website (sorry, don't have link) wherein he states that he's ONLY interested in programs that will strengthen and shore up SS, NOT those that will divert funds.

[Teaser]

19. That's good...my response was confusing...

and led me to send the following fax:

Dear Senator Lieberman,

It is with a great deal of worry that I am writing this message to you regarding your stance on social security. Recently you have made statements that you support an add-on benefit to social security in the form of private, investable accounts. While this is not, in and of itself, a problem, the approach your office takes to this issue seems increasingly dubious. Having spoken with staffer in your office who have indicated that you might favor using an increase in the FICA tax cap to fund these accounts, I cannot express my distress with this information strongly enough. Adopting this approach is as much a step on the path towards the phase-out of social security as is support of the president’s proposal. Anything that cuts into current or future benefits supplied by the trust fund is damaging to the future of social security, and can be adapted as a means of defunding the system. Surely you are aware that defunding the crown jewel of the New Deal is the ultimate goal of all conservative proposals, even those you are discussing with Senator Lindsey Graham in his social security working group.
Leaving aside for a moment the perils of the Graham proposal, it is still not entirely clear why you are so adamantly intent upon providing the Republican right with rhetorical cover on this matter. The president and the Republican party are self-destructing on this issue, and the so-called Senate “moderate” Democrats keep throwing them life preservers. The politically intelligent approach would be to wait for any talk of privatization has fizzled out into the bottomless pit of unpopular proposals and then attempt to tighten up social security with the merely modest changes the program needs to shore it up. Even a kind of add-on account wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea, as long as it was not funded from the FICA taxes. Down that path, as I have pointed out, lies the ultimate demolition of the greatest legacy of FDR.
So, Senator Lieberman, I ask you to do the right thing. Support your party, support your caucus, support the nation’s seniors and support an intact social security. Oppose the president’s privatization scheme and oppose Lindsey Graham’s scheme. We can do better. Democrats around the country and in Connecticut are depending on you. And they are watching you.

[sellitman]

20. I called

I live in CT and it was REAL HARD being polite. (But I was)

:crazy:

[louis c]

22. Joe LIEberman

is the biggest piece of shit in the entire Senate.

I'd vote for a Repuke ahead of Asshole Joe (D-Fox News), at least you know the Repuke is the enemy.

I'll call Joe, I'll call him the worst I've ever seen.

[Callboy]

23. joe really doesnt seem to care about our ss future

[kiteinthewind]

24. Email to Lieberman

Sen. Lieberman,
We are hopeful that you will stand with the Dems to stop the Bush administration from privatizing SS. This is not "reform", it is robbery. Please know that the grassroot Dems, in particularly on the Blogs, are watching your vote very closely. It is our hope that you will remain loyal. We do not need another Zell Miller. Thank you for your time.
:kick:

[connecticut yankee]

25. Welcome to DU

I just spoke to Lieberman's office and left a message, after being put on "Hold" for about ten minutes. The woman I spoke to said they're being inundated with phone calls (it's now about 9:14 am).

She also said Lieberman has posted a message abaout Social Security on his website at:

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/health/html

It says he's opposed to privatization, but thinks the system needs reforming.

Obviously, I'm one of his constituents, although I can't stand him.

[Cadence]

27. The webpage won't come up

it says file not found.

[Larkspur]

26. At my Dem Town Committee meeting last night, my chair said that

many Dem Town Committees in Eastern CT are uniting behind a single petition to send to our US Reps and Senators advocating opposition to Bush's privatization scam.

If Lieberman supports anything about privatization, he will be running counter to most Dems in CT.

It is good to hear that Lieberman is getting pelted with calls. I'll fax him tonight. I don't have time to call him during the day.

[NicRic]

28. Seanators retirement benifits ?

Iam curious what kind of oppertunity to save toweards their retirement being a senator ,would recieve ,and since its paid by the tax payers ,perhaps thats the very frist thing that should be cut! They give themsleves a raise every year,just about. Why dont we use their plan as the ginee pig for any future changes in S.S. ? I bet that idea would would have a hard time getting thru the seanate !