Only 19.3% of Senate Dems — 11 out of 57 — oppose cuts in Social Security, if signing onto Senator Bernie Sanders’ anti-cuts, anti-privatization, anti-raise-retirement age resolution is a good indicator. Bernie’s is equivalent of House member Raul Grijalva’s “No Cuts” resolution and, I think, a good indicator of Senate Democrat sentiments.
But as far as you should be concerned, take it a step further: that means 80.7% of Senate Dems probably will support cuts. Things are only slightly better in the House, where 43.9% of Democratic Party representatives have put it in writing, by co-sponsoring Grijalva’s resolution, that they oppose cuts, privatization, and raising the retirement age. Like Dean Baker says (emphasis added), both resolutions would commit
… members of Congress, or candidates, to oppose cutting Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age. It doesn’t get any simpler than this – even a member of Congress can understand it. … Given the simplicity of this statement, it is reasonable to assume that any member of Congress or candidate who does not sign on supports cutting Social Security benefits. There really is no other plausible conclusion.
So, harass your Congressperson into signing on to the damned thing! Find your House member here, and your Senators here.
And no matter what (and tell your Congressperson this), don’t vote for anyone who hasn’t signed on. No exceptions.
Because what does it mean, that so far feeble rollcall — faced with unified pro-cuts Republicans, “anything goes” Obama, and their own dependence on corporate support — if it stays that paltry, for post-November-election blues, progressive Democrats? Don’t even think of ignoring the impending doomsday till after the elections and after President “everything is on the table” Obama receives the catfood/debt commission recommendations. We know what they will be; I don’t need to remind you that the commission is packed to the rafters with Obama-appointed “open to cuts” upper-class mugs, and both of the co-chairs have explicitly advocated them.
By the way, here’s the latest idea filtering out from the secretive (remember Obama’s promises about transparency?) debt commission, tax decreases for the rich:
Get this: Republicans on the Deficit Commission aren’t just refusing to consider any tax increases. Now they’re proposing tax decreases designed to help the rich while taking benefits from everyone else. Dealing with people like that is like negotiating with somebody who’s high on drugs.
Most members of the Commission seem to want a deal–any deal–so they’ve decided not to address the real causes of current and future deficits: health costs, tax cuts, war spending, runaway bankers and the growing inequality between rich and poor. Instead they’re going after something that doesn’taffect the deficit: Social Security retirement benefits.
Yeah, these people are high on insider-ism and corporate money, but also on the 100% failure of whatever remains of the left to impose any price on far right policy pushes (if they’re associated with Obama, which the anti-Social-Security effort is (he invented and appointed the commission, after all, and has urged it to consider everything). Let’s change our ways, lefties and pwoggies, and start exacting a price for our support.
For those who need a refresher, Paul Van de Water gets Social Security right; so does RJ Eskow:
We’ll say it again: Social Security isn’t broken. Say it often enough and you might even stimulate a little more consumer spending. . . .
Does the deficit need to be addressed? Yes — at the right time, after the economy has returned to health. Is the groupthink Bernanke represents the right way to do it? Absolutely not. Health care costs need to be cut. And if you really want to know “where the money is,” it’s in the pockets of hedge fund managers and other ultra-rich Americans who, according to Beltway lore, will forever remain immune from significant tax hikes. And it’s in the pockets of bankers who are enriching themselves by playing games with low-interest money from the Fed — Ben Bernanke’s Fed — rather than lending it to get the economy moving again.
Sure, Social Security is where some money is. But that’s money that working Americans paid into a trust fund through their payroll taxes, in the expectation that it would be there when they retire. Raiding it would be the act of a bank robber, not a policymaker.
Again, don’t vote for anyone in Congress who hasn’t signed on to one or the pro-Social-Security resolutions. No exceptions. … Hell, better yet, disband the needless “Social Security Death Panel“.
