House progressives to Obama: "Hands off Social Security"

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 18:00


Obama doesn't seem very big on listening lately, but that's not stopping House progressives from speaking up anyway.  Good for them, because if Obama comes out for cutting Social Security in his State of the Union, it may well turn out to be the biggest blow the Democratic Party brand has ever taken for doing something wrong.  (They lost a lot by standing against segregation, but that was the right thing to do.)

Historically, one can point to the sweeping loss of power in the 1994 mid-terms--due in large part to abandoning some campaign promises, but passing NAFTA without promised strong protections for labor & the environment. It took 12 long years after that for Dems to win back the House, another 2 to gain the presidency and look about as strong as they did in the 1992 election.  The mid-terms undid most of that hard-won progress in a single swoop--particularly in the state legislatures.  

But abandoning Social Security as a Democratic signature would put every Democratic candidate in the country at a needless disadvantage, and make the collective effort to rebuild and come back even harder to envision, much less fight for.

From TPM:

Dems Press Obama: Hands Off Social Security!
Brian Beutler | January 21, 2011, 2:40PM

Ahead of the State of the Union address, House progressives want a word with President Obama about Social Security.

In a letter delivered Friday to request a meeting with President Obama, 33 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus seek assurances that he will not work with Republicans to cut or privatize Social Security.

"[T]here is no Social Security crisis," the members write.

"We believe that cutting Social Security benefits, beyond the already scheduled increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67, will create even greater hardship for our most vulnerable citizens.... We urge you to send a clear message in your State of [the] Union Address: Hands off Social Security!"

The letter comes amid reports that, in his address, President Obama will embrace bipartisan calls for changes to Social Security that would likely include benefit cuts.

Letter here.

Paul Rosenberg :: House progressives to Obama: "Hands off Social Security"

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

House progressives to Obama: "Hands off Social Security" | 24 comments
sucks (4.00 / 5)
More Americans now trust the Republican party to protect Social Security than the Democratic party.  What a freakin' disaster Obama is.
Ooo, a letter. Step back, everyone. (4.00 / 2)
When they issue a more "strongly worded" letter, that'll be even better, and when Obama goes ahead and talks about cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age in the SOTU, they'll have a wonderful and blunt reply about how "alarmed" they are, and the subsequent signed petitions will be even more efficacious and brave, and then, without a doubt, the House Progressive Caucus will cave like a soggy card table in a typhoon.
Yet another Sternly Worded Letter™ (4.00 / 10)
I wish I had anything other than dread over this.

I just received a call from the DCCC raising money over the HCR repeal. Apparently, that's the primary fund raising kabuki for the entire party. It strikes me as a "shiny object" at this point.

So I engaged this intelligent fellow with the tack, "Look, the Democratic Party doesn't care about anyone that isn't in the richest 1 percent. That's why Nancy Pelosi put Steve Israel in charge of the DCCC. He's great at coddling corporate interests and getting money from them. That's the whole point, now, isn't it? So at this point, I don't even understand why the D-Trip is even interested in calling people like me. At the State of The Union, OUR president is going to talk about 'shared sacrifice,' except that no one in his SES (yes, he understood the argot) and argue austerity, deficit cuts and Social Security has to be cut. This guy and the rest of the party elites think people who have physically demanding or dangerous jobs should work to 67, just so they can put even more money in their deep, deep pockets...."

The response at first was cute: "That's only 15% of the speech. I think you'll be impressed with the rest of it."

To which I said: "Yes, rousing militarism and bulging defense budgets are always impressive, aren't they? Look, the bottom line here is that you want me to give money to people who have nothing but contempt for me and the rest of the bottom 95% of this country's population. Please, enlighten me some more as to why you think I should give money to people who's only real concern is still shoveling more money at rich people.

"Look, I've been a registered Democrat since the late 70s. I've never once voted for a Republican. There are a lot of reasons for that. I've held paid positions, including management ones,  on five Democratic campaigns. I've done lots of field work, training and so on. But now I'm looking at a Party that wants to gut punch me and millions like me in our standard of living. Just look at Obama's 'job guy,' Mr. Immelt."

He knew about him. He doesn't like him either... at all. So deflection ensues. His persistence was admirable, if a real time waster.

At any rate, this is where Leadership is. Bloody wankers. Oh yes, by all means, let's raise money on an ultimately failed effort to repeal whatever it is. Let's pass around the shiny objects so Dems who aren't rich will be blindsided properly when SOTU comes around.

But as long as the entire Democratic Party Wank-O-Sphere is engaged in this silliness, most of you will be receiving calls. And if there's one thing I do know from campaigning, it's that the fundraisers have the keenest ears as to what matters to people and their reports are more valued than anyone else's.

So by all means, let them bloody well have it!

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

It's hard for me to give a coherent response (4.00 / 4)
when they call me because I feel traumatized by the betrayal of the Democratic Party.  That so far has made it difficult to do more than tell the person calling that I will never support the Democratic Party as long as it pursues these rightwing agendas and then I have to hang up.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
I understand. Fully. (4.00 / 5)
The only thing I would ask you to consider is that if you're being called on these things, do make the effort to make your point forcefully. In whatever terms suits your tastes, of course.

These are fund raising calls. That matters a lot more than any other calls. So your feedback in those instances will matter more than say, a GOTV call in the heat of the election cycle--seroiusly, I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. No one keeps good records of those. But fund raising matters a lot to the party, and they pay REAL attention to their numbers on that.

If they see their pledges drying up because people are telling them exactly what you just said, that will count more towards their record keeping than anything else. In the end, sadly, they just care about the money.

From the grassroots fundraisers' perspectives, as opposed to the corporate (crap, how do I avoid evoking  the prostitution metaphor here? HELP!) types, a person who gives a mere $20 is still going to be counted as "loyal." In other words, anyone who gives money will vote along those lines. If you say "No" then you are saying to them essentially, "Go (bleep) yourselves."

They actually do hear that.

So do tell them, even very succinctly, why you think that way--it also burns into their time in which they could be talking to others... do the math. Indeed, this is the one time in which the Party Apparat is actually interested in what you think. So that's one minor moment in which you have a teensy weensy bit of POWER. If only for a moment.

Anyone as eloquent as you could burn 15-20 minutes of their time, all while telling them "NO!" That's what I did and my adversary was pretty talented, even very sympathetic. Actually, I found him quite respectable on several levels. All the more reason to engage, eh?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
If they keep actual records instead of just names, which I'm sure they do, (0.00 / 0)
they know that I was a "loyal" Obama supporter in '08.  I was one of those who set up a recurring, automatic contribution of $50 every month.  I, the naive person I was then, wanted to be a part of a grassroots movement where small contributions by the many would make a difference.  

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Okay. I just now got an email from OFA. (4.00 / 2)
Here's what it said:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Bird, BarackObama.com [mailto:info@barackobama.com]
Sent: Sat 1/22/2011 11:40 AM
To: Miranda M. Keefe
Subject: Tuesday: State of the Union watch party in Bellingham

Miranda --

On Tuesday, January 25th, President Obama will deliver the annual State of the Union address, sharing his vision for job creation, health care, and more -- issues OFA will continue to organize around all year.

This is an important speech for the nation and for this movement. That's why supporters in Bellingham and across the country will be attending watch parties -- and sticking around after to craft the strategy we'll use to support the agenda President Obama will lay out.

Can you make it?

http://my.barackobama.com/page...

Here are the details:

   What: State of the Union watch party

   Where: Home of Mark Kuo (The Event Room)
   455 Westerly Rd
   Bellingham, WA 98226

   When: Tuesday, January 25th
   5:00 pm

RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page...

If you can't make that watch party, see if there's another one that's more convenient: http://my.barackobama.com/SOTU...

Folks at the Bellingham watch party won't just hear from the President and connect with fellow supporters -- they'll also help plan the next steps for OFA WA. After the speech, volunteers will participate in brief strategy sessions to plan local action, and we need your ideas.

The steps we take this year in Bellingham and beyond will be a vital part of helping enact the President's agenda. We're determined to make 2011 a year of job growth and remarkable progress, and that starts with all of us on Tuesday.

Attend a watch party and strategy session, and tell us your ideas for the new year:

http://my.barackobama.com/page...

Thanks,

Jeremy

Jeremy Bird
Deputy Director
Organizing for America

------------------------------------------------
Here's my response:

You OFA people need to know that a lot of us who were supporters for Obama will NOT be working to support the agenda Obama sets in the State of the Union if it includes:

1. Cutting benefits of Social Security.

2. Cutting regulations.

3. Flattening tax rates.

4. Cutting corporate tax rates.

5. Continuing to "reform" education by teaching to the test, busting teacher unions, promoting charter schools and the rest of the horrid education policy of Arne Duncan.

6. Making more "free trade" deals that might create a few jobs in the U.S., but send many more overseas.

7. Investing in Green technology while doing nothing to keep it in the U.S. instead of being a boom to China's economy, like the last set of Green investments were.

8. Continuing his wrong headed, LBJ-like pursuit of a military solution in Afghanistan instead of just getting OUT.

9. Saber rattling against Iran.

You guys at OFA need to wake up and realize we are not sheep who will march in lock step with whatever compromising, sell out, Neo-Liberal agenda that Obama tries to sell us just because we're supposedly loyal supporters.  MY SUPPORT IS CONDITIONAL and I see no evidence so far that Obama is interested in meeting his campaign promises and meeting the conditions that will earn my support.

I know I speak for hordes of others who will just delete this email from OFA and not respond or show up at the event.  Tell Obama to stop trying to win over the Tea Party folk.  He never will.  Stop playing nice with the Republicans and compromising with them.  He is in danger of not even being renominated at this point.  Right now I'd vote for anyone but him in my caucus.

Sincerely from someone who worked for and contributed to Obama in 2008,

Miranda Keefe, MS, NCC

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Right on! (0.00 / 0)
There are many like you, including me!
[ Parent ]
Save HCR (4.00 / 4)
I hope no one at the Democratic party thinks I'm going to donate to defend that piece of %@$# health care bill Obama signed.
[ Parent ]
I think I will print out your response to the caller... (0.00 / 0)
...so I will have some talking points when they call me.  The sooner this party is crushed out of existence, the better we all will be.  It is time to start work on something more meaningful than the Democratic Party.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

[ Parent ]
You ain't just whistling Dixie, (4.00 / 1)
my friend.

Do tell:

(They lost a lot by standing against segregation, but that was the right thing to do.)

Or should I do my own research? whatever.

But abandoning Social Security as a Democratic signature would put every Democratic candidate in the country at a needless disadvantage, and make the collective effort to rebuild and come back even harder to envision, much less fight for.

By "collective effort to rebuild" you obviously mean the Democratic Party brand.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the Dem Party brand. Since there's no good alternative out there, I guess we have to give a damn. Darn, we're damned if we do, but to get to the point: we're damned if we don't.

Social Security is one fight I, personally, can not afford to lose. I'm not at retirement age yet, but I'm not that far away. So, talk about Social Security attracts my attention. Social Security is not an entitlement. I've paid in my entire working life for my SS benefit, which is the genius of the program, and dammit I want every penny I'm owed. I'm a baby boomer, so you know I'm not alone.

I, for one, have agreed to join the fight against Obama and the Corporate Democrats. Hands off my social security! I saw it here on Open Left -- Bruce Webb, a commenter, has an active effort going to fight the onslaught to SS. Here's a link to some of his prep work:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2...

He introduced his effort in a post here on Open Left recently, but I can't find the link. If you know it, or see it, join it!

Ok, right now I'm watching Olbermann's Countdown (4.00 / 4)
and he's talking about this very subject and letting Jonathan Alter, whose new nickname from me is "Fart Face."

Fart Face started off by saying that Obama will "Come out strongly" in the State of the Union in defense of Social Security but will also say, "Everything is on the table."

Fart Face then gave this long convoluted explanation about how a serious discussion about entitlements HAS to say everything is on the table because we're talking about something happening in 2040 and we can't say that raising the retirement age then is off the table because "Social Security will be a hundred years old."  He finished up his argument that you can't take anything off the table by remarking that for FDR the only thing that was off the table was not having a guaranteed return.  So you can't take something off the table because FDR took something off the table.  (huh?)

Oh, Fart Face also bashed the actblue.com add where a 59 year old woman asks LIndsey Graham to not raise her retirement age because she won't make it that long.  Fart Face said she was wrong and that working longer makes people healthier.  When Olbermann said that might be true for the wealthier, that the facts disprove that for those in the bottom half of wage earners, Fart Face said it wasn't so, and didn't bother proving his assertion.

What really bugged me, though, was that Olbermann brought on someone to argue for cutting benefits instead of bringing on a powerhouse to argue against it.  Why have Fart Face on to make this terrible argument instead of having Raúl Grijalva on to explain the letter?

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

I saw that. (0.00 / 0)
What an ass.  He makes a living and a good one at a desk with with a computer.  Let him try stone mason or working on oil rigs.  

My new voting strategy is like Obama's new campaign slogan.  I said last time I wasn't voting for Democrats ever again, but "this time I really mean it".    

[ Parent ]
MSNBC liberal hosts are dictated to (4.00 / 1)
by the powers to be, to not invite certain people on as guests. So, a guy like Mourning Joke could have veto power over Rachel's guests, for example. The power in the back will soon be Comcast, so expect the entire editorial function to be outsourced to India, where their customer service for cable has been so successful. Saves money.

Look for the entire progressive lineup at MSNBC to be eliminated or replaced with altered Third Way corporate lackeys, who boast of their invites to meetings of the Trilateral Commission, where they kiss the ring of Kissinger, that is Henry, not his daughter, the morning newsy hostess.

[ Parent ]
NO mention of SS or Medicare cuts in the Repug Plan! (4.00 / 4)
The dems are heading for a brick wall, the repugs have built. Not a single mention to SS or Medicare cuts in the repug plan, but it is front and center on Obama's cut/slash commission with the dementia. Obama has to leave hands off SS.  
Done Deal With Me If Obama Goes After SS - Goodbye Dems (4.00 / 2)
It's a done deal that I WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRATIC for President, Congress, Senate, dog catcher, etc in 2012 if Obama puts SS on the table in the SOTU address.

I mean, what's the point?  We can all see the handwriting on the wall at this point. It would be time for me to find political party which represents my views.  I had rather naively assumed that WAS the Democratic Party for the last thirty or so years.


Exactly (4.00 / 2)
And I see that upthread with Emocrat and LibWing too everybody here who is saying they're about to be through with the Democratic Party if SS is kneecapped are all people who have been voting exclusively Democrat for decades (myself included). That's why we're all getting calls...because we've all donated money (and sometimes much more) in previous campaigns...

Historically, we're supposed to be the solid base, the backbone. This has got to be a huge problem for them, right? Or is Obama and company such a bunch of self-involved mercenaries that they doesn't care if they leave a pile of rubble in their wake...

The MSM has tagged Independents the party of swing-voting 'centrism.' If Democrats no longer represent your liberal values, show America there is still a Left by registering for another left-aligned party.

[ Parent ]
I told them to stop calling me and to (4.00 / 1)
take me off their suckers' list.  It is our fault for supporting them - because they weren't Republicans.  It's like picking Alzheimer because it isn't cancer when we don't want either.  
[ Parent ]
conservative -- not progressive -- sternly worded letter (4.00 / 3)
ok, not very stern. but it was most certainly NOT progressive -- or even very pragmatic. sad when the best we get from dems is conservative (against change).

there is something simple we can, and imo should, do: call it what it is (conservative policy) and stop giving  the so-called progressives in congress cover. they can be "house progressives" when they have something progressive to offer. until then the word "progressive" should never been used as a descriptor of them or their positions. not until they've earned it.

bleah. the progressive position should be at least something along the lines of LOWERING the age for full SS benefits (including medicare) to 55.

"At least something" - call it what it is (4.00 / 4)
I'd add bringing the Social Security benefits up to the OECD average (at least)-right now it's about 2/3 the OECD average.

You're completely right, selise-it's important to call it what it is-conservative policy-and contrast that with progressive policy.

[ Parent ]
"bringing the Social Security benefits up to the OECD average" (4.00 / 2)
excellent point. thank you.

upon reflection,  i'll change my prior statement to:  the progressive position should be at the very least:

1) LOWERING the age for full SS benefits (including medicare) to at least 55 and
2) INCREASING the benefits at least 50% and
3) making SS benefits available to all  (not dependent on prior working, income and/or marriage).

[ Parent ]
It's Part of a Pattern (4.00 / 1)
...abandoning Social Security as a Democratic signature would put every Democratic candidate in the country at a needless disadvantage, and make the collective effort to rebuild and come back even harder...

That's the idea: It's part of the President's systematic effort, begun when he was elected, to disarm the progressive forces in the Democratic Party and to neutralize the remaining legacies of the New Deal.

The situation is beyond hopeless.

Citizens United (4.00 / 1)
As quoted in a Digby post yesterday about the appointment of GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to Obama's jobs council:

This is not about jobs, but political money - the White House knows that after Citizens United, it will need to raise about a billion dollars - that's right, a billion - for its reelection campaign. That's the context in which this and its other recent appointments need to be judged.

Destroying Citizens United needs to be a primary goal/first principle of any progressive politician from here forward (and any liberal/left political party). Top of the check list.

The MSM has tagged Independents the party of swing-voting 'centrism.' If Democrats no longer represent your liberal values, show America there is still a Left by registering for another left-aligned party.

just give them a ride on air force one (0.00 / 0)
they'll fold.  It's what they're good at.
House progressives to Obama: "Hands off Social Security" | 24 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox