Great article. I agree 100%. The problem is that it’s quickly become wisdom that A) Dems are going to lose in the fall.Even though evidence is saying the opposite might be true. B)Dems would do much better if they’d just go out and announce all the good things they’ve accomplished while in power. That that would somehow fire up the base. I keep trying to make the point to everyone I can, and it doesn’t seem to be getting thru, that it’s not that the base doesn’t know. It’s that the base, particularly the liberal wing, sees the people at the top(Obama, Reid and Pelosi for a start)as weak and too compromising.We haven’t seen Obama take a stand and hold his ground on anything. He gave away the Public Option before the game even began.Same with financial reform and energy. People followed George W. Bush, no matter how foolishly, because he stood his ground. He said “This is how far I go. No Further.” even when he eventually capitulated. Obama doesn’t do it and neither do Reid or Pelosi. Heck, they both took investigating Bush off the table the second they were in power.

I suggest that in addition to fighting to get rid of the Catfood Commission and saving Social Security, every one tell their Dem Reps and Senators to grow a spine or they will lose everything they think they’ve gained. If that message doesn’t get thru to the leadership, we’re doomed.

Excellent.

… and we’ve had stranger bedfellows, certainly.

Sure, Van Hollen sounds like a weasel. But what can he, and other Democrats, do?

Stop serving the President, and start serving the American people, as the powerful, self-governing federal legislators that they were intended to be.

Why is that obvious, healthy, democratic option “off the table” in our Congress?

The very existence of the Catfood Commission forces Democrats on the campaign trail into a position where they either have to engage in double-speak like Van Hollen, run against Obama on the issue, or avoid it altogether.

The following assumption, it seems clear, applies only to a future Republican House, unless the current Democratic leadership chooses to let it apply this year:

The only way the Catfood Commission recommendations can pass is if John Boehner gives his stamp of approval, and that’s why he has been making so much noise about what he wants and doesn’t want out of the Commission.

As Jane notes later in the post, Nancy Pelosi and her Rules Committee have more than a little to say about this matter this year – the cards are certainly not all in Boehner’s hands so long as Pelosi is Speaker. By simply pledging and choosing not to bring Catfood Commission recommendations to the floor for a lame-duck vote, Speaker Pelosi can in fact block them and Obama/Emanuel/Boehner so long as she remains in power. Enter here, of course, the “Sense of the House” Resolution that Pelosi herself carefully concocted and shoved through the House attached to a war-funding vote, stating that she “should” bring Catfood Commission recommendations to the floor of the House post-election – an excuse which she obviously intends to use to decline to use her immense power as Speaker to block floor action on an omnibus deficit package that includes undermining Social Security.

Speaker Pelosi should not be allowed by her Congressional followers to wield her power when she deems it expedient and easy, but to decline to wield it when she finds it personally uncomfortable or displeasing to the powerful.

The text of any privileged resolution should reverse or restate Speaker Pelosi’s “Sense of the House” resolution, and otherwise reflect the actual realities of the modern House – as in, honestly recognizing who wields the power, and who doesn’t, while working to hold the former to account.

I think Jane hid the lede here somewhat, but her closing is where it’s at, and it’s what’s desperately needed, on issue, after issue, after issue, and to reform, reawaken, and re-establish our invisible, sleepwalking Congress:

Because until [the] willingness of [Democratic/Republican Members of Congress] to shake up the party over this issue becomes the story, nobody is going to care.

The power of our Representatives will remain unaccountably concentrated in Pelosi’s or Boehner’s hands unless and until individual legislators begin to reassert and reclaim their power from the dictatorial modern Speaker. In today’s House, that’s almost certainly going to require some rule changes, and it will absolutely require seriously ruffling the feathers of the current Party leadership, and those of their chosen masters, Mr. Obama and Mr. Emanuel.

Bravo.

Powerful post.

Change typo “loose” to “lose” two paragraphs above your bolded “What A Real Fight..”

Thanks, powwow.

Any help you could give on how to bring a privileged resolution to the floor without running afoul of the parliamentarian would be appreciated.

But the Democratic Party he is talking about doesn’t really exist any more . . .

Yep, and that’s why, after 41 years of being a registered Democrat, I have changed my declaration to Unaffiliated. I refuse to be identified with what remains of the Democratic party any longer. They’re taking us in the same direction as the Republicans, just in a sneakier, more roundabout way. And I’m damned if I can see what any of us can do about it.

The embarrassing lack of conviction they have shown for ending the war, fighting for a decent health care bill, standing up to the banks or the pharmaceutical industry or any other issue they fought for fiercely when it didn’t matter is just not going to cut it.

If the Democrats want to win their seats back in November, Social Security could very well be the ticket. But they will need to fight hard and fight smart, and ruffle a whole lot of feathers. Because until their willingness to shake up the party over this issue becomes the story, nobody is going to care.

There’s no doubt in my mind that they will just lay down and roll over. After health care, I have as little faith in the Democratic Party as the Republican Party to do the right thing on any important issue.

It’s clear they do not work for the people.

Jane,

I’ll second that “I agree 100%”.

In a similar vein, I have posted a Seminal diary and titled, “Jimmy Carter Cared and Barack Obama Didn’t”. The crux is that the Chicano Veterans Organization has taken it’s official position that if Obama does not address “On-the-Job Training Contracts” when he unveils his legislation for Small Business, the CVO will commence in January of next year, to commence pursuading Chicanos and Native Americans for distancing ourselves from Obama’s re-election efforts for 2012. As such, we survived Bush and Cheney for eight years, so it will be a piece of cake to survive Obama and Biden for the next two years, and if necessary, another six years.

Jaango

Another thing about this administration and its commission is that it leaves much the grass roots paralyzed, or worse, complicit (witness any number of dailykos posts berating people for criticizing Obama). I remember one of the most effective efforts of the left blogosphere was TPM’s resistance to Bush’s attempt to “privatize” Social Security. Where’s TPM now? Co-opted.

It’s win/win either way. The longer he stays on, the more of an albatross he becomes. If they kick him off, it’ delivers a severe blow to the legitimacy of the Catfood Commission.

I know a few people on the wingnut side of the spectrum and (of course), they are clueless about the fact that these gangsters are coming for their SS. To really gain traction with this movement, we need narratives that completely avoid any partisan references. Makes it much easier to circulate among everyday people who lean right, particularly in light of the fact that the commission is appointed by the current president (a proven Marxist Kenyan Muslim, etc.). As was clearly demonstrated in the “Audit the Fed” fight, a true trans-partisan (thanks, Jane) coalition has some real juice. Congress just hates a broad-spectrum attack, but they really can’t do much about it once it gets rolling. It’s worth the effort just to watch the furious tap-dancing.

It’s really time to start talking about a primary challenge in 2012 to this moderate Republican now in the WH. He and Rahm will not change and they expect everyone else to change and fall in line. It’s time to feed these snake oil salesmen to the cats, metaphorically speaking.

hehehe – looking more and more like TPM was merely doing DNC’s bidding and not necessarily activist journamalism, aint it ?

and I was more than a little unhappy with Beutler’s ‘sampling’ of Jane Hamsher’s previous work profiling the Commissioners without so much as a tip of the cap

Wow, Jaango, did not know that.

Can you send me any more information on the “On-the-Job Training Contracts” issue?

I don’t think comparing the House (and Senate) kabuki and bad faith with the HRC bills is apt. Health care can continue to be reformed, and probably will be improved over time. But cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age are amputations that will never be re-visited. HRC wasn’t do-or-die, but this will be.

Very compelling political calculus.

Here’s what I still don’t understand: how can someone who can give some of the speeches Obama has given, replete with progressive principles and values, actually have concluded his presidency will best be served by a Republican House?

Surely this must be his conclusion–nothing else remotely explains his behavior. Even acknowledging that deep down Obama is a centrist and not a progressive, I still don’t understand how he could possibly be defining “successful” as something his presidency will be with a Republican House. I just can’t figure the guy out. The one thing I am sure of, he’s no progressive.

Someone must primary Obama. Who will do it? What are they doing now? How can I help?

Peter DeFazio of Oregon. A progressives progressive.

http://www.defazio.house.gov/

Even looks a little like Adlai Stevenson.

I second that.

“I hope you wouldn‘t say what you‘re going to do on something you haven‘t even seen yet?” Not “over my dead body” or “when hell freezes over?” That’s the barn-burning conviction to defend Social Security that’s going to save the Democratic Party in November?

Yes, well, the last time a bunch of them said “over my dead body“, it happened anyway and they were very much alive.

At least this time they had the decency to dissemble and obfuscate. ;)

All this makes Obama’s ‘make me do it’ truly pathetic bovine excrement. And Jane is absolutely correct that the ‘stakeholders’ (AARP,etc.) do need to be camping outside the doors of the commissars.

BUT AARP -which is really a reseller for insurance companies- has this to say about the cat food commissars: ““We’re prepared to be quite supportive of a real engagement on the issue,” said John Rother, director of public policy for AARP. Acting sooner allows for changes to be made gradually, he said, and will reassure younger workers that the program will be there for them. He dismisses those who said they can never support benefit cuts. “I know all these people personally and they’ll say we have to be hard line now to influence the debate…I kind of take it with a grain of salt, these emphatic statements.”

It’s membership and directors do seem to have the “I got mine, good luck to you’ mentality.

whether or not the cat food commission’s belt-tightening (for some) recommendations are crafted into policy, it serves to signal to wall st that the duopoly is prepared to do whatever it takes to appease the ruling class.

Great post.

Too bad there’s no chance that any Dems will step up to the plate before the election.

Osama bin Laden will become the Pope before Dems pass a privileged motion or force Obama to dismantle the Catfood Commission.

Where do I go to cause a ruckas? My representative is Lungren. (good reason to vote in November to oust that bastard)

.. how can someone who can give some of the speeches Obama has given, replete with progressive principles and values, actually have concluded his presidency will best be served by a Republican House?…

Sociopathy explains it nicely.

Simpson has got to go. Then we have to kill this commission.

At some point all of us old farts are going to have to go all tea party on their asses.

Stop serving the President, and start serving the American people, as the powerful, self-governing federal legislators that they were intended to be

some of us are coalescing around the idea that WH/DNC is doing/not doing everything with an eye to run against a Do Nothing Republican Congress™ in 2012 – if that is the case (and I welcome attempts to disabuse me of same) that means they are throwing boatloads of ‘em (including some very reliable footsoldiers facing tough re election bids) to the electoral wolves – all the more reason to stand against this

Not sure about that. When the reality of Obama’s health care plan begins to poke its ugly head, and people see it did nothing to reduce the runaway costs, only now they are mandated to purchase it, the first thing you’re going to hear from the political right is:

“The Democrats had their chance with their ‘government takeover’. A Democratic President and two Democratic Houses put the plan they wanted in place, and it failed miserably. Let’s put an end to all this government meddling and let the free market take care of itself. This is America, we’re not a socialist country.” – crap….

And the dumbed down public — who can’t afford these crappy mandated plans — will agree with them.

Obama had his window of opportunity on HCR and he punted to the entrenched interests. And now the travesty that will ensue (which will be referred to as Obamacare) will be reframed by the opposition as a colossal failure.

And that’s why I no longer belong to AARP. They sold out.

What we all know is that the Dems could take this issue to the bank, IF THEY WANTED TO. They don’t, clearly. Another thing we know is that there really is nothing they can do between now and the elections to change this inevitable outcome because no one is going to believe their promises any longer, especially independents who gave the Dems the ball and told them to cram it down the plutocrats throats, which they didn’t. It is possible, however, that Obama could change the course of the election, but he would have to make sweeping changes in his cabinet to do so. Not only appoint Elizabeth Warren (which he may do in a fit of cowardice), but he would have to also fire Geithner, Summers, Liz Fowler and Salazar and appoint recognized progressives in their place. He would also have to shut down oil production offshore. Oh, yeah, and tell Rahm to hit the road. These actions might make believers of enough people to stave off huge losses. But, what do you think the chances are that Obama would bring such big changes to his Administration? We all know he has been nothing more than chump change. And he could promise to establish a public service jobs program to hire 5 to 10 million people to work on infrastructure and green energy within the federal government. But it looks like his answer to our economic woes is to give businesses huge tax cuts instead. So, again, what are the chances he’ll do the required dramatic gesture? I for one will view the Democratic Party’s destruction in November as a positive development. Then maybe we can get at least a few real Democrats back into leadership positions (I think this might be be over-optimistic though).

Yes, well, the last time a bunch of them said “over my dead body“, it happened anyway and they were very much alive.

Yes. And those following lesser-evilism will help ensure that they feel free to do so again.

Prolly best not to use the word Ensure on a Social Security post.

What the Dems need to learn is that they are there to do our bidding not the other way around. I don’t know when we no longer became a democracy.

Democrats will need to convince the base that this effort is not just another half-hearted replay of the health care fight. The embarrassing lack of conviction they have shown for ending the war, fighting for a decent health care bill, standing up to the banks or the pharmaceutical industry or any other issue they fought for fiercely when it didn’t matter is just not going to cut it.

Far too late for that I’m afraid. The party has destroyed any semblance of credibility. They have done so openly, to the point where you’d almost swear it was by design. I don’t think that is the case. I believe the problem is that members of the Millionaires Clubs which are the House and Senate have zero empathy for average Americans.

There used to be a day when social security was untouchable. No politician wanted to lose the older vote, so they just steered clear of it.

It’s just hard to believe that all this is happening under Obama and two Democratically controlled houses. Why should anyone ever vote Democratic?

Exactly.

Barack Obama’s primary goal as President of the US is to make the rich even richer. And the more successful he is at making the rich richer, the richer the rich will make him after he leaves office. So there is no way in hell that Obama is gonna propose raising taxes on the rich as the most sensible way to reduce the deficit.

I can see how some may have failed to see that Obama is using the office of the presidency as a launchpad to the Land of The Rich even after he hired Alan Simpson, a card-carrying whore for the rich, to co-chair his deficit commission. But I don’t know how anyone — right, left or center — could possibly fail to see this filthy moneygrubbing side of Obama when he didn’t fire Simpson for first referring to social security recipients as “lesser people” who are getting fat and lazy by sucking on Uncle Sam’s cow tits and then for saying to disabled vets that they can best serve their country by giving up their military benefits.

This gives clear indication that a class war is taking place in America, and our president is clearly on the side of the rich. But I have yet to figure out why so many progressive Democrats fail to see this.

There is no reason that SS has to be in the mix of the final recommendations of the cat food commission. The only reason that anything else will be there is to give cover to a weasel like van hollen. That way he can say I wanted to get the other parts of the recommendation enacted so I had to accept the part about beginning the gutting of SS. If the SS part had been on its own, he certainly wouldn’t have voted for it. Why he has to see the whole package to make a decision is pure weasel talk.

All of these actions (every one of which I agree with and have promoted) requires one thing this president seems incapable of: acknowledging error. He likes to say he’s not perfect and makes mistakes, but in fact, like any sociopathic office-holder, is incapable of admitting error.

Therefore he can make no changes to his team or his lineup except when The Owners demand it. Gates, for instance, he even held over from the Previous Guy. Bernanke, too. I mean, what kind of Change is that?

In the end it comes down to money and the political arms race. Republicans, as better friends of Corporate America, get more arms in the form of direct and indirect aid than do the Democrats, especially where the media and how issues are framed is concerned.

http://www.publicampaign.org

They’re working to level the playing field.

Good points all. It’s impossible to know what will happen. However, Social Security itself has evolved from being limited (racist and sexist) to becoming a near-universal insurance; and Medicare has also evolved from being scarcely accepted by physicians to being accepted by most (although there seems to be a rubber-band effect taking hold).

I posted my comment mainly for all the Congressional folks who read here: HRC wasn’t absolutely final, reformers could live (godwilling) to fight another day. But this vote will be final.

We started to hemorrhage freedom when Ronnie showed up with his scalpel and took it to the tax code. Our democracy was moribund until the Citizens United decision. Democracy has coded, the crash cart is on the way but I fear it may be too late.

This is an excellent analysis of the issues that will kill Democrats this fall. They’ve thrown their base under the bus. Once they did that, no one with any sense would trust them to do right by us.

When Obama refers to mistakes he has made, he probably means his not having used Predator drones to silence the professional Left (yet).

Frankly I hope the batshit pukes do impeach Prez Rahm. At this point we’d be infinitely better with Biden.

“Losing Congress” doesn’t mean what it used to, alas. Win, lose, it’s ALL gravy to their personal asses, which is all they give a fuck about.

Now, don’t start talking like a nihilist nutty person. We’ve had quite enough of that already.

Well said.

(((Sharkbabe)))

Oh. Gawd.

The repugs are going to impeach Obama for being black.

I wrote to my Congressman Steny Hoyer and echoed the points of this article. I don’t trust the CATFOOD COMMISSION and I know that Pelosi tied the legislation to the results of the commission, so the dems would not have to make the HARD DECISIONS. This kind of stuff really bothers me.

Misery loves company. ‘Nuff said. I’d be crying, if I weren’t laughing.
I almost prefer those days when Jane showed up to yell at us.

Good, Jane.

FYI– AARP, like every other major employer in this country, is an insurance on-ramp and they totally sold out seniors behind their backs regarding the Medicare Part D: “The $80 Billion Medicare Sellout,” March 01, 2006, TomPaine.Com

OT– “Goldman Sachs said to be disbanding principal strategies unit,” Sept. 3, 2010

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is shutting its principal-strategies business, a group that makes bets with the firm’s own capital, to comply with new U.S. rules aimed at curbing risk, two people with knowledge of the decision said.

Wall Street’s most profitable investment bank plans to hold off on announcing the wind-down while the 65 to 70 members of the global unit seek new jobs

More GS related headlines …

pres clinton pushed for SS privatization until his own personal weaknesses got in the way. he was working to do what bush tried and obama flirts with.

neoliberalism is not our friend. and neither are neoliberal democrats.

They’ve thrown their base under the bus.

It’s gone beyond throwing us under the bus. They ran over us, backed up over us again, and then ran over us, backed up again, proceeded forward, backed up again, …

There is no reason that SS has to be in the mix of the final recommendations of the cat food commission.

You are correct. The SSTF has no more to do with the deficit than Goldman, Citibank, China, Japan, or any other large creditor.

The PTB are working overtime to convince people, especially younger people, that there is an insurmountable problem. Why? Because they don’t want Treasury to have to redeem any of the notes held by the SSTF. This is something they would never dream of doing to China or Goldman, but they think the SSTF is an easy target.

I don’t know. Maybe. Depends.

Jane wrote:

3) Whip on removing Alan Simpson from the commission, not some feeble “promise” nobody believes anyway

Alan Simpson is an embarrassment. He’s also a gift. His presence on the commission de-legitimizes everything they do. Everyone running for Congress should be asked to call for Simpson’s removal from the Commission. Use his outrageous comments to drag the issue into the news, and most of all, force the White House to keep defending him.

It’s win/win either way. The longer he stays on, the more of an albatross he becomes. If they kick him off, it’ delivers a severe blow to the legitimacy of the Catfood Commission.

Simpson is an embarrassment and a gift. It might be a better idea to call for Simpson to debate a well-known, knowledgeable, respected Social Security supporter. He’d take a verbal beating if he participated in this debate. But he and the Commission would take a beating if he refused the challenge.

Transparency, after all, was once an Obama campaign pledge.

Still, Obama firing Simpson might produce a bit of short-term political gain. It would not be much, however, because Obama would merely appoint another of his ilk to replace him. Moreover, the fire Simpson option would also allow the Commission supporters to defend themselves and the Commission to which they belong by scapegoating Simpson. The effective patch for Social Security would be to demand Simpson account for himself and for what the Commission is trying to do.

And as far as I’m concerned, Obama with this commission has declared war on the American people. This shit is total scorched-earth Rogue. He is totally in with the very, very worst, and all but comes out and says it.

How dare you acknowledge a class war in America? you DFH.

Every time one of the right wing talking heads charge a liberal with wanting a class war to redistribute wealth, I want to reach into the tube (or flat-panel) and ring their neck and show them the data on the redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years. Denying the ongoing class war is of course a winning tactic for the rich in the ongoing class war.

Similar beef over the free-marketeers who decry progressives for advocating an “industrial policy”–”don’t they know government bureaucrats can’t manage the economy better than the free market?” I’m always disgusted that the immediate retort is not “We have a fucking industrial policy today–it’s called the military industrial complex and corporate welfare for all of the entrenched industries like agribusiness, oil, coal, pharma, etc.” We’d have to first level the playing field to get to the point at which we have no industrial policy. The question is do we want an industrial policy that serves the 99% or one that serves the 1%.

Sorry, your talk of class war just got me wound up.

hey ratty – mwah

Well, why not? He is, after all.

It’s really starting to look like the Democrats are going to lose the House, no matter what progressives do. They’ve screwed up too badly. The only people who can stop that are the Republicans, and while they’re doing their best, I don’t think it will be enough.

What progressives ought to be thinking about is what to ask for if the Democrats decide they want us back as equal partners, and what to do if they don’t. Because frankly, at this point, the die for this fall is cast.

It didn’t take me even one year of belonging to that group to figure out that they only exist to sell drugs and insurance to their members. So I dropped them. I don’t know why they haven’t lost a lot more people.

Democrats stand with ordinary Americans? Fight for them? It’s just not who they are or what they do? I tend to take a somewhat longer view on this and the healthcare sellout. Next year the economy looks like it will go into serious depression. It’s a combination of bad policy so far and even worse policy come the new Congress. Anyway the likelihood is that things will get so bad that the slashing of Social Security and Medicare won’t happen. Our elites will either cave in order to forestall revolution or they won’t, there will be revolutionary upheaval, and they will be replace by people who will protect us and our seniors. Or everything could just go to hell.

I think it’s time to tell the Democrats in Congress (and the alleged party leadership) that they can lead, follow, get out of the way (and do it quickly), or be run over by the oncoming train of History.

Highball, Jane!

I’m following the logic. Couldn’t hurt. Me likey!

“Kiss right, kick left,” seems to be his mantra.

Cheney let people like Ken Lay draft national energy policy. Obama lets the mega-capitalists draft ALL his policies.

According to what I have read, social security will eventually go bankrupt because of rising medical costs. The social security “reform” that is needed is health care reform.

Amen powwow. Obama and his henchmen have staged a coup within the Democratic Party, which has been quite successful thus far. Under their leadership, the party no longer supports the platform established by the rank and file party members (h/t Rayne).

This begs the question, will Democratic members of Congress rise up and revolt and bring an end to the coup. Or will they acquiesce to the Republican leadership of their party? So far it has been the latter.

Presumably, each member of Congress has done a personal calculus trying to balance their desire to retain political power (i.e., hold their seat) v. cashing in and selling their wares on K Street. It will be interesting to see, how that breaks down.

I don’t think we have a single honorable Dem member of Congress, but I would love to be proven wrong : )

You mean in the remake of The Graduate, instead of “Plastics”, the guy’s one word of advice to Benjamin will be “Cat food”?

Eugene Robinson says this coming election is not an electoral wave but a temper tantrum. Couldn’t have said it better.

I don’t think we have a single honorable Dem member of Congress, but I would love to be proven wrong

Depends what you mean by “honorable.” Some like Kucinich still talk a good game but in the end he’ll vote with the rest of the party to pass a bill that reduces the deficit by harvesting our organs.

Just to be clear, the EO which created the commission specifically targets entitlement programs:

the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government

I have said in the past that Obama signed this EO on the day Coakley was defeated. That is incorrect. He announced he would create such a commission on January 19, 2010, the day Massachusetts’ Democrats and independents stayed home and Coakley was defeated. It was not, however, until February 18, 2010 that he signed the EO creating the commission. All this from item 136 of my Obama scandals list.

Srsly, at least 90% of what this bastard has done is pure evil. We’re supposed to give him props for the other 10% and not care that his entire puke-fellating administration is, well, .. fuck, i’ve run out of words for this BEYOND INSULTING CLOWNSHOW

There is near universal contempt for incumbents from both parties. Since Dems currently hold the most seats they have more to lose. If the November ballot included a choice to “throw ALL the bums out” it would win in an enormous landslide.

forgot to add INFURIATING

Next year the economy looks like it will go into serious depression.

I take issue with this only to this extent – we’re in a depression right now. We’re somewhere near seventeen percent real un/under-employment right now. It’s just going to get worse next year, and maybe by a lot. The GOP will completely stop things from happening, and thus there will be no stimulus or added benefits.

What that means politically for 2012, I’m not sure. The reason the GOP is looking so good right now is apathy on the part of the Democratic base. ISTM that the only cure for that is lots of new candidates, and some serious attempts to do something by either the Senate or the President. The latter two things seem most unlikely. 2012 isn’t going to look much better if Democrats can’t get over their credibility problem with their base.

I’ve written to my congressperson (again) to say that I will ACTIVELY work to defeat any congressperson who does not stand up ACTIVELY for Social Security, for Veterans, for all of us ‘lesser people.’ I’m still waiting to see my congressperson speak out…….how’s yours doing?

Our elites will either cave in order to forestall revolution or they won’t, there will be revolutionary upheaval, and they will be replace by people who will protect us and our seniors. Or everything could just go to hell.

I’m betting on the “go to hell” scenario.

Absolutely and I would like to see them ALL gone. Can’t think of a single one that we couldn’t live without.

Hah! And you can bet there will be reverse means-testing in place. The “lesser” you are the greater the chance you lose your organs.

Dubya made every one of his predecessors seem better by comparison. I’d have thought it an impossible act to follow but turns out it is yet another Bush policy Obama has retained and expanded.

All this from item 136 of my Obama scandals list.

Hugh, is your list available as link?

Obama’s counting on a resounding defeat of Dems in Congress. He and Rahm can then say they have to govern from the right because the people have spoken. He thinks he can work with these guys. Look how he praised the Decider. He’ll find out the Republicans are going to make his last 2 years in Washington a living hell. He and Rahm deserve it.

It is. Just click on the link that is Hugh’s name. The amazing thing is that there are 184 items, and he hasn’t updated it since last November.

plainly intends to propose Social Security cuts.

Of all people to just say it like it is…Shrum. The typical weasel Dem response is “everything is on the table” or “won’t rule anything out.”

When it’s over, it will be spun to the low-information voter like this: The Dems lost big in the fall elections, and the first thing the Repubs did was slash social security. I live in southeast Michigan, and believe me, they’ll buy it. They won’t notice that the deed was done by a lame duck Congress and not the new hires.

1) Force a vote on the floor before the election in the form of a privileged resolution.

2) Demand progressives vote against Pelosi if she allows the Catfood Commission recommendations to come to the floor in the lame duck session.

3) Whip on removing Alan Simpson from the commission, not some feeble “promise” nobody believes anyway

Alan Simpson is an embarrassment. He’s also a gift. His presence on the commission de-legitimizes everything they do. Everyone running for Congress should be asked to call for Simpson’s removal from the Commission. Use his outrageous comments to drag the issue into the news, and most of all, force the White House to keep defending him.

It’s win/win either way. The longer he stays on, the more of an albatross he becomes. If they kick him off, it’ delivers a severe blow to the legitimacy of the Catfood Commission.

4) Challenge the validity of the commission

5) Microtarget stakeholders in key districts with online ads

6) Get senior citizens out there confronting members of the Catfood Commission
Groups whose memberships have a stake in this issue should organize sit-ins with cat food, and take lots of pictures. They should be challenging Pete Peterson and David Walker at their public appearances with members of Congress like Jim Himes.

Flip cameras, flip cameras, flip cameras.

What the hell happened to wake up Bob Shrum…!? That came out of left field.

Relevant facts: The US government failed to regulate derivatives and swaps, which meant that $600 trillion in notional value of completely unregulated derivatives blew up the financial system.

We had a Treasury Secretary who oversaw (and helped devise) a backdoor bailout of AIG that was worth around $80 billion.

We had commodities speculation two years ago, via all those derivatives, that led to massive volatility (which is good for derivatives traders, and no one else).

We had banks (WaMu comes to mind) with as much as 70% fraudulent loans, while the FBI was sounding alarms for more fraud investigators, and Congress sat on its ass.

We have never seen perp walks.
All we’ve seen is bullshit like filibuster threats, limp-wristed excuses for FinReg, and Obama handing his political ass on a platter to Pete Peterson in the name of this Catfood Commission.

Anyone have recommendations on WHAT TYPE of catfood I should buy?

Flip cameras, flip cameras, flip cameras.After all, they beat the hell out of violence, and with any hope some witty progressive will invent a “Kiss Float” icon for the Catfood Commission hearings.
All this craziness makes me overdue for a few good chuckles, but a “Catfood Float” might do it.

Hugh’s List is a phenomenal public service.
It’s remarkable.

ROTFLMAO — you got me with that one ; ) Thanks!

This thing has run right past the commission. Today’s floater is to have a new stimulus the centerpiece of which is to suspend the payroll tax, ie FICA, ie. SS contributions.

Watch years of funding in the trust fund disappear every few months and significant new deficits as the Treasury pays out of the trust fund, finally. Which would be sort of a victory but then too a defeat. I don’t suppose most get what I am talking about.

The key to the SS argument is the exact nature of the Treasury liabilities to the SS Trust Fund. They have always been conceptually murky even if clear legally, but the latter could always change. Well I digress.

Thanks, Cujo.

You JUST noticed? They sold out 25 yrs. ago, maybe before that. Keep sending them your $ so you get that 10% discount when you eat at all those cheap all-you-can-eat buffets. ROFLOL!

Every “accomplishment” by Obama seems to help corporations, including mandated health insurance, phoney mortgage foreclosure programs, bank payments, business tax cuts, even unemployment compensation, which keeps the public marches down, the torches out and nobody looking for tar and feathers to punish the businesses that lay you off and send your job to India/China/Mexico/Vietnam.

In the screen grab I’m seeing for the video link, van Hollen looks like Steve Doocy, eww….

So, Dems will cut SS/MC and because the could also have been privatized, this will be a progressive ‘win’.

Great post — too bad this battle is already lost. The part of the strategy dealing with actions that Congress can take simply won’t happen. The “Progressives” in the House are nothing but a pack of opportunistic lap dogs. They’re not even smart lap dogs since they’ll roll whenever Rahm tells them to without even getting a gnawed bone tossed their way. I watched Raul Grijalva et al in action during the health care debate; all hot air promises, then at the critical moment, complete sellout. Fuck him and all the other members of the so-called Progressive Caucus. Nancy P. thinks her ass is adequately covered and will most definitely bring the Catfood Commission’s proposal to an up-or-down floor vote during the lame duck session. Regardless who wins/loses in November, or if Alan Simpson stands buck naked at high noon on the steps of the Capitol spewing curses on everyone over age 65, Social Security is toast. They will gut it to the extent that they believe they can get away with it, saving the rest for another day when the opportunity is right.

Real Progressives need to wake up and quit fantasizing about winning their causes through one of the existing corporate parties. Both Dem and Rep are slimeball scum who will sell any and all of us out for another round of cash and job offers. You need to accept the fact that neither party give a flying rat’s ass about you, your aging grandmother or the kids. Rahm’s “Fuck the UAW” outburst is really meant “Fuck ________”, just fill in the blank for whoever is perceived as being in the way of the Masters of the Universe owning everything. Including the air you breath, the water you drink and every fucking minute of your pathetic, worthless lives.

If there will be one positive thing to come out of the fascist capture and dismemberment of Social Security, it will be the recognition that Progressives need their own party with their own candidates who are truly committed to changing this criminally corrupt system. Until then, it’s gonna be one hell of a ride folks, and I don’t mean that in a fun way.

I did the same. NY 20th, Scott Murphy. I asked him to take a public stand on three issues: 1) To promise to make no benefit cuts, 2) To promise not to raise retirement age to 70 ( which is a benefit cut), 3)To eliminate the cap on FICA so that persons with incomes greater than 106,000 can pay into the system in proportion with their incomes.
I will let you know when I hear back from him.

He’s declared as a “centrist” this August on his election website. He has not listed Social Security as one of his ISSUES he is running on. He voted against the House HCR bill and for the Senate’s insurance company guaranteed support healthcare bill. He has come this far by never advancing his opinion on anything.

So where is this list?

I’ll plan to poke around a bit then, Jane, to see if I can offer any helpful tips on the privileged resolution/parliamentarian front.

Meanwhile, it occurred to me that some context for this ‘lame duck’ Democratic scheme might be in order:

Although the many quaking moral cowards populating the modern House argue against a re-emergence of independent thought and action by our Representatives, perhaps a few (and/or their challengers) might take heart from a bit of a history lesson given by one of their predecessors who “shook up” the (Republican) Party, and ruffled its Congressional leadership’s feathers, over and over again on behalf of the American people.

That Representative and Senator (who directly and successfully challenged the power of a Speaker of his own Party) was George W. Norris of Nebraska.

In the fall elections of 1922, the American people overwhelmingly defeated Congressional candidates favoring a “ship subsidy bill,” which was a major focus of the campaign.

Norris recounted, years later in his autobiography, what followed that election defeat – events which soon lead Norris himself to draft the “Lame Duck” (Twentieth) Amendment to the Constitution:

Still President Harding favored, and was committed to, ship subsidy legislation. It followed, therefore, that if the advocates of ship subsidy were to salvage anything, it had to be rammed through the old Congress before the new members elected in November took office.

In order to accomplish this, Mr. Harding called a special session of Congress to meet on November 20, 1922. The short special session continued until the [beginning of the] regular session of the old Congress in December. In this fashion, the advocates of ship subsidy had all the time from November 20 to March 4, 1923 [which is when Congressional sessions, composed of the pre-election membership, then ended], to enact ship subsidy legislation against which the American people had spoken emphatically.

The lamentable, illogical, repellent condition was brought graphically to the attention of Congress and the American people by Senator Thaddeus Caraway of Arkansas. He introduced a concurrent resolution in the Senate directing attention to the fact that the question of a ship subsidy had been one of the material issues of the preceding congressional campaign, that many advocates of it, who were members of the present Congress, had been rejected decisively by large majorities of their constituents, and that the President had called Congress in extraordinary session for the purpose of passing legislation which the people in the general election by “imperative and unmistakable mandate repudiated.”

One of the provisions of Senator Caraway’s resolution stipulated that no member of Congress in either branch “has the moral right to support or vote for any measure which the people by their votes have repudiated.”

The resolution concluded that it was the sense of the Senate and of the House of Representatives that “all members defeated at the recent polls abstain from voting on any but routine legislation, such as necessary supply bills, etc.” Going one step further, it proposed “that chairmen of committees not in sympathy with the people’s wishes expressed at the polls, and who have an important effect on legislation, resign from their respective chairmanships.”

It is true Senator Caraway’s resolution did not suggest a remedy to the difficulty; but it was revolutionary in its language, and it outlined clearly one of the evils long existent in American legislative machinery. Without suggesting an amendment to the Constitution as a cure it turned the light in striking fashion upon a condition that had been the subject of grave abuses.

I assume that Senator Caraway wished to call the attention of the country to the deplorable enactment, about to take place, of important legislation by men who had been defeated for election, while their successors, duly elected but unable to take office, representing the sentiment of their constituencies, were helpless to prevent it.

Senator Caraway requested his resolution be referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry [which Norris then chaired].

[...]

When I reported back to the committee, I expressed the opinion that in my judgment it would require an amendment to the Constitution to remedy the abuses so clearly projected by the resolution. I told my colleagues I had prepared, in lieu of the Caraway resolution, a substitute amending the Constitution of the United States.

The Agriculture Committee, by unanimous vote, directed me to make a favorable report to the entire membership of the Senate on the substitute I had drawn.

Thus, what now is known as the Lame Duck Amendment came into existence. And thus was born the first resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to do away with the Lame Duck Congress. Under the direction of my committee associates I reported the resolution to the Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

[...]

Then when a sufficient number [of States] had approved [the Constitution] to make it effective the Congress of the Confederation by act of September 13, 1788, provided “that the first Wednesday in March next be the time. . .for commencing proceedings under the said constitution.”

This act of the Congress of the Confederation therefore fixed the date when the new American government should commence to operate as the first Wednesday in March, 1789.

The first Wednesday in March of 1789 happened to be the fourth day of March, and thus by accident for more than one hundred years the terms of President, Vice President and members of Congress began on the fourth day of March.

[...]

Men elected to the House of Representatives in November could not enter upon performance of their duties until the fourth day of the following March. Yet the date fixed for the beginning of Congress was the first Monday in December, so that, unless a special session was called, members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the members of the Senate elected in November were not sworn into office until approximately thirteen months after their election. It created the abnormal condition of members of Congress holding office and performing their functions after they had been defeated for office.

[...]

It was on December 5, 1922 that I filed the report on the Lame Duck Amendment. For the first time the amended resolution, with all reference to the Electoral College stricken out, was taken up in the Senate on February 12 and 13, 1923, and, well towards the close of the 13th, passed by a vote of 63 to 6. Yet, in the opposition of the years ahead, that Lame Duck [20th] Amendment was not adopted finally until 1933, and for ten years a simple, common-sense reform of the Constitution was defeated and nullified openly and under cover.

[...]

Such is the slow march of progress.

- George Norris, writing in 1944 of his years in the Senate

On a different front of the fight to maintain a representative democracy, here’s Republican Representative George Norris’s assessment of Republican House Speaker Joe Cannon, whose rule Norris challenged to democratize the operations of the House, despite the obstacles that then existed:

It was the abuse of the [House] rules, and not the purposes for which they had been drafted, which was at fault. [...]

I doubt if any Speaker in the history of Congress was as ruthless as Joe Cannon sometimes was.

Through his domination and control of the Committee on Rules, he likewise had a formidable lever to dictate the action of the House itself. Speakers chosen from the ranks of both political parties had had the same power, but no one could have made more effective use of it.

Inevitably members knew they would be pleading on bended knee before the Speaker for favors to perpetuate themselves in office.

Specifically, these obstacles made the path of reform difficult: [...]

I have always been deeply regretful that the Democratic members of the House took this position [insisting on a key change to Norris's proposed resolution] at that time. Many of the Democratic members were sympathetic with the position the [Republican] Speaker had taken. They were expecting confidently to control the House in the next election, and they wanted to acquire the great power for a Speaker of their own choice which we were endeavoring to take away from Joe Cannon.

Late in the afternoon of the next day Speaker Cannon announced he was ready to rule, and the debate came abruptly to an end.

The Speaker began to talk in matter-of-fact tones of the rights of the majority. In the deep silence of the floor and the galleries, men listened intently. At the end of ten minutes, he announced his ruling, sustaining the point of order against the proposal I had presented.

Promptly an appeal was taken, this time by the Democrats, and a vote ordered, which resulted in Mr. Cannon being overruled, 182 to 160.

Thus, my amended proposal for the selection of the Committee on Rules by the House came to a vote, was accepted 191 to 156, and the long dynasty of the all-powerful Speaker came to an end.

[...]

I have never ceased to regret that the original resolution had to be sacrificed in order to terminate an unbearable condition in American government. I felt and still feel the original resolution would have strengthened the institution of Congress.

While the overthrow of Joe Cannon awakened rejoicing, and represented a great victory for democratic control of the House, it did not place the power where it would be exercised in the most practical and democratic way.

It left appointment of the standing committees largely to the partisan machines.

It left the deliberations largely to powerful monopolies.

That night I returned home triumphant in a decent fight, and disappointed that its fruits could not have been greater. That is the struggle which the people of democracy face.

- George Norris, writing in 1944 of his years in the House

The struggle, that is, that people committed to representative democracy face. A struggle that people – whether legislators, presidents, corporate officers, members of the media, or authority-enamored, status quo-protecting citizens – indifferent or hostile to the concept and practice of representative democracy simply cede to the ever-present opposition without a fight.

Something George Norris probably couldn’t envision, even in 1944, is that we would someday soon have a House of Representatives whose membership would entirely cease fighting to democratically progress the interests of the people of this nation – choosing instead to collectively walk away from the “struggles” (against abusive Party bosses, against self-serving vested interests, against the undemocratic power of money and privilege) that George Norris knew from long, hard legislative experience to be essential for any self-governing free people to remain self-governing and free.

why do many writers assume that the president has “bought into” any of his decisions that have brought such angst and unhappiness? All the stuff that has happened BP, hit squads – all of it he owns. He’s so smart, right? I assume he is aware of what he is doing. Im not a rebug, not a tea-bagger just a very dark and cynical working person who feels she’s been had.

Moreover, the fire Simpson option would also allow the Commission supporters to defend themselves and the Commission to which they belong by scapegoating Simpson.

I agree. Short of scrapping the commission altogether, it’s better to keep Simpson on as the embarrassing, delegitimizing gift that keeps on giving. Better that than give them a chance to pretend that he was the problem and now it’s fixed. I put it this way last week:

I do worry that … Simpson will be made the sacrificial lamb, and the warped mission of the commission will persist beyond his announcement that he’s returning to Wyoming to spend more time with his dentures.

Apart from which, I completely support the thrust of this post. In some ways, Shrum is no less strange a bedfellow for Jane than Grover Norqvist was regarding…oh, crap…whatever it was they were strange bedfellows about.

Shrum says that “what is needed—urgently—is a counterforce”

There’s really only one counterforce that will work. Some D with balls — I know, I know, that’s a contradiction — has to threaten impeachment if SS is cut in any way. Millions of Ds who voted for Obama would support such a move.

Amazing what one principled member of Congress can do. One.

Funny how big fact majorities in both houses can’t manage to tie their own shoes.

Thanks for the history lesson powwow.

Teddy,
What kind of change is that? It is the kind of change that creates a new majority. Sad as it is, that new majority is possibly even more craven than the Dems, but the difference is so marginal that the Dems meme that their base must get to the polls to prevent the disaster of a Republican majority rings as hollow as any claims they might make about instigating the change we can believe in. I second your assessment of Obama, he is too proud to change. Isn’t that interesting? In order for Obama to pull his rear out of the fire, he must actually instigate meaningful change. There is a fable for Aesop in that story line and I don’t think it will turn out well.

There really isn’t any and as long as we continue to go round and round with the dems are spineless, let’s fight to elect some good progressives bullcrap we will continue to witness the decline of our country. It sure as hell didn’t slow down under O, the greatest disappointment in American history (of Prez’s).

It’s also hard for the Dems to trash the GOP for wanting to cut Social Security when the Dems themselves want to do it as well.

The GOP is at least upfront about it. Obama has to hide behind the Catfood commission because he isn’t man enough to admit it.

Great list!

It will be great counter-point to the Lilly Ledbetter list favored by apologists.

When you’re pissed off about politics, a little kick ass rock and roll helps a lot….

Bob Seger, Ramblin’ Gamblin’ Man, live version…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI16HV2TLuc

Or this

Progressives need their own party with their own candidates who are truly committed to changing this criminally corrupt system.

They already have one – it’s known as the Green Party. Sign up. Better late than never.

typical Obama non-speak. Just like with health care (insurance).

We never know what he values, what he will unequivocally stand for.

I hope progressives give him hell about his New Democrat coalition approach.

Apparently I see this issue of class warfare a bit differently from you, bobash. I see the rich paying loud-mouthed Astro-Turfers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to stir up a culture war coupled with a race war among the non-rich in order to keep them from joining together as a single force in a class war against the rich. So unlike you, I don’t see a class war will result in the non-rich losing even more of our nation’s wealth to the rich. If anything, pitting the non-rich against the rich in a class war will result in the non-rich regaining most, if not all, of this wealth that they’ve lost to the rich over the past several decades or so, especially since the Reagan years to the present.

I’m starting to buy in on this, at least there’s hope. I have NONE for the democratic party anymore (nobody should based on what we’ve seen since they’ve had POWER).

Maybe Obama can make us vote for him, because we know it does no good to try to make him do progressive things.

Mary, I’ve been sending emails to every dem organization that emails me, targeting expecially those who ask for money. I set out the facts about the CFC and tell them to either cease and desist or go ask Pete Peterson for a contribution. Cuz they sure won’t get one from me.

Thank you, Jane, for keeping on this case! I agree with you 1000% that defending SS would be a way for Democrats to win elections. The only way I can make sense of the Democrats’ “position” is that the WH is only afraid of an attack from the right in 2012 and does not care whether the House and Senate go Republican. Some may say the WH prefers a Republican Congress, but to me it looks more like apathy.

They already have one – it’s known as the Green Party. Sign up. Better late than never.

I will just as soon as Jane agrees to chair their national committee. Until then, what I’ve seen of them looks clueless and incompetent. They’re not winners, at least not in the US.

The schadenfreude is going to be delicious when the Dumbocrats have their asses handed to them in November. Then the circus will really begin.

Pow, there is one big problem with the old Norris comparison. He didn’t have to contend with internet, 24 hour news, TV, etc. etc.

If the coming storm materializes, and the Dem’s get swept out, the hurricane that would ensue should they try something like that would finish them up.

Schrum, bless his heart, is grabbing at straws.

The Dem’s in Congress had their chance. They blew it in a million ways. their only hope is an individual race strategy.

The commission is not going away. #1 reason: Obama wants it.

Thanks, Jane.

If they (Obama included) manage to break or weaken Social Security, the Democratic party will be broken and weakened for a generation. It’s that simple.

I hadn’t considered that. You’re probably right about that.

Well, not only have I signed up, I’m running for Congress as a Green, MI, US District 12. Here’s my “introductory” flyer:

http://juliawilliamsforcongress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/gpmi_ff040_proof1.jpg

It is disheartening to see and hear people rail against the legacy parties, and beg, grovel, and plead for some semblance of recogniton of their needs, be denied and disenfranchised,(and yes even derided), and then return to vote for more of the same. I believe I am running a campaign that speaks to the people of my District, who want more from their Representatives than collusion with big business and the MIC, dusted with sound bites that pay lip service to populist memes. It is extremely difficult for a third party candidate to get press, volunteers, donations, and I struggle daily to get the word out. I’m not a politician, I work for a living, (as do most, if not all of the Greens I know), and I am surrounded by the horrific results of our fiscal policies, so I understand the daily pains of my constituents, but it would be a tremendous boost for me to get more support from the “blogosphere” (which may result in press, then donations, volunteers, etc). So, if anyone here can help, I would be thankful for any effort you can extend!
Please check out my website:
http://juliawilliamsforcongress.com/

After a second reading, I’m not sure I understand what you are proposing.

Since Norris went against his party bosses in getting a law passed that would prevent lame duckers from passing laws the voters had rejected in November, what are you proposing?

Since the Dems are very likely to get rejected, along with their policies, in November, the Norris point doesn’t seem to apply. Unless, you are saying Dems should not do anything after November as Norris strenuously advocated.

I had thought originally that you were advocating for a lame duck session to do something the Dems had not done during the normal session.

Now, I’m not clear on it.

I guess you could be saying they should not pass something changing Social Security during the lame duck. But, I think that is so remote a possibility it’s not worth arguing.

Any action taken from what the commission recommends would take months to enact if at all.

A great post as always Jane Hamsher. But we need more than you suggest i think. I love this blog especially and left blogs generally. I get the truth here that is withheld or obscured everywhere else. Information is where it starts. Fundraising is also good, but we need to spend a lot more of our time and resources off the internet. I think were seeing the limits of internet activism. part of our grassroots fight needs to return to boots on the ground, demonstrations and picket lines. persons whom Obama, Rahm and company cant see, dont exist for them. they think we are full of shit and im beggining to think so too. DONT GET ME WRONG, what you and the other bloggers are doing is crucial but we cant all be amatuer bloggers, pundits and armchair campaign managers in the comments section. I love to spin my theories as much as anyone else. Its cathartic and, i hope, contributes 2 cents worth of potential ideas and perspective. but 2 cents isnt enough.they are waging total class war against us and we arent fighting back in the time proven ways, the ONLY ways we have to fight back against them. by getting asses out on the street. we need to build solidarity and we arent doing anymore of that by anonymously carping and sniping at each other. a national march or a series of large demonstrations would be a start. when is the last time anyone saw a major strike by a major labor union? we need to turn it up.

Zero chance anything regarding SS will be done in a lame duck session. Zero.

Bravo. One of your best. Sending to candidates in Iowa.

public service jobs program to hire 5 to 10 million people to work on infrastructure and green energy within the federal government.

And he’ll never do that because he’s scared sh*tless that the Republicans will scream “huge increase in size of the government” or “socialism”.

Isnt that a crock! i dont think most Americans under 45 even have a clear idea of what socialism is, or looks like, if many of them ever did. I’d like to show them 500,000 demonstrators in washington on vote day to remind them of what it might look like. let it be a very inclusive march, with a very singular message, “hands off social security”, to show some class solidarity.

I just read his piece. If Democrats run on “we’ll only raise the retirement age for people who have physically demanding jobs,” they might as well not bother.

In reference to your comment @ 117, don’t overlook or discount the power and effect of biased local newspaper reporting and editorializing that Members of Congress had to contend with in spades, pre-TV and pre-Internet. Norris was also sabotaged by the RNC, which surreptitiously found and funded a Nebraska candidate for Senate with the same name to run against him in the primary – not expecting the other Norris to win, but hoping to invalidate votes for both candidates, to let a third Republican running come out on top and take Norris’s seat. A corporate lobbyist also tried to lure Norris into running for Nebraska Governor, in an apparent attempt to prevent him from running for the U.S. Senate. There were dirty political machines then, and there are dirty political machines now.

Since Norris went against his party bosses in getting a law passed that would prevent lame duckers from passing laws the voters had rejected in November, what are you proposing?

Senator Norris proposed a Constitutional amendment in 1922, which eventually became the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, in 1933. That amendment wasn’t necessarily opposed by the Republican President, Warren Harding, but the accompanying 1922/1923 publicity surrounding Harding’s effort to pass the ship subsidy bill would not have been welcomed by Harding.

Since the Dems are very likely to get rejected, along with their policies, in November, the Norris point doesn’t seem to apply. Unless, you are saying Dems should not do anything after November as Norris strenuously advocated.

So, yes, for the same democratic reasons that Norris thought the ship subsidy bill should not have been acted upon by the Lame Duck Congress in 1922/1923, it seems to me, at a minimum, that any defeated Democratic Congressional majority this year should likewise not help this President to defy the will of the American people, regarding Catfood Commission recommendations, or anything else, in the (much shorter) lame duck period between the election and the new Congress taking office, even though no direct parallel between the Catfood Commission and their defeat may be evident (since the national media is carefully avoiding discussing the matter).

I had thought originally that you were advocating for a lame duck session to do something the Dems had not done during the normal session.

Any time and every time a Democratic or Republican Member of Congress decides to think and act for him or herself, as a matter of principle and conscience, in defiance of platform-hostile Party dictates, is the right time, in my opinion. But I’m not clear which lame duck session action, in particular, you thought I was advocating.

I guess you could be saying they should not pass something changing Social Security during the lame duck. But, I think that is so remote a possibility it’s not worth arguing.

Any action taken from what the commission recommends would take months to enact if at all.

I think I can guarantee you one thing, cregan: If and when we have indisputable proof of Democratic intent to imminently do what you dismiss as too “remote a possibility” to bother discussing (in this case, to enact harmful changes to Social Security as part of a “deficit reduction” package, which the formal, recorded majority “Sense of the House” already proclaims the House “should” act upon in lame duck session this year), it will be too late to stop them, as events have proven over and over again, in today’s Party-dominated, public debate-suppressing Congress – where Party leaders do their deals behind closed doors, and then privately push them through Congress as quickly and quietly as possible.

What about a class action suit against the government. Nearly everyone will at some point be affected… AFTER paying into the system for years and years and years. Would this be feasible?

Not just for one generation, but for several, maybe forever.

Agreed gesneri-the only diff between the dimwits and pugs is the dems lube it up.

I think that’s a great idea. What they are proposing is theft, pure and simple. I’ve been paying into SS since 1978, paying extra since Alan Greenspan decided I should in 1983. AND NOW these SOBs decide they’re going to keep my money??? Uh. Uh. I want what I am owed. I don’t put money into a savings acount at the bank with the expectation that the banker will later tell me he’s keeping it. That’s not just outrageous, it’s a crime. And that’s what Senator Senile is saying. He is planning to steal our investment. I’d take him court, but Obama will just declare the federal budget a state secret and Roberts will tell me I don’t have standing anyway. Bastards.

the Dim-0-Crap $ell 0ut Party which exists IS the fault of DLC scum like Schrum.

Fuck him. I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.

rmm.

There is ZERO chance of anything being done about Social Security during the lame duck. I doubt ANYTHING from the commission will be enacted during the lame duck.

It’s like saying we are going to play a complete baseball game in 5 minutes. Theoretically possible, but not likely.

Now, having said that, and having seen this Congress enact a number of things that the general public opinion was against (why their ass is going to get kicked), I wouldn’t put it past them if they had the time to do it.

Yes, they rushed through an ill thought out “stimulus” bill that resulted in nothing.

The deficit is a big, complicated issue. Nothing is going to get formulated and passed in a few weeks.

Be prepared if you’d like, but I wouldn’t waste a lot of time on it.

I don’t like Schrum, but I’d at least piss on him if he was on fire (or even if not on fire).

There is ZERO chance

I respectfully disagree.

Congress is alarmingly efficient at passing things at the end of sessions. In fact they pass things so fast, law makers complain they didn’t have time to read the bill. So then they can feign shock to learn that one of the staffers tucked something in the language that “they didn’t know about” wink, wink, nudge nudge.

Given that lawmakers don’t even write legislation anymore — their staffs get walked through the language just as the lobbyists have typed it out for them, this bill could appear in full form like Zeus the day after the election. Heck it could be passed by Christmas.

So I wouldn’t bet your future returns on anything “big and complicated” slowing anyone down. There is nothing big about raising the retirement age, nor is there anything big about partial privatization. Those are Obama’s “minor tweaks” and technically he’s right, they are minor tweaks from a legislative point of view. They also seriously endanger the entire program.

Cynical?
It’s fraudulent.

If the truth were known, the bill has probably already been written and has been since January just waiting for the lame ducks.

They don’t even have any commission report yet. And won’t until after the election.

Zero chance.

Pelosi is stupid. Pelosi is venal. Pelosi is full of herself.

But, she isn’t that stupid or egotistical.

I’ve read lot of the postings here, and they are by and large very good.

Here’s the sad part; Once SS and Medicare are gutted they will never come back. These cretins are gutless political cowards. They are not made of the same stuff as the people that created SSec in the first place.

I agree with the posters here that question why BHO is behaving as he is. He seems to be rubbing his hands in anticipation of destroying the future of SSec. Does he think that act will finally gain him acceptance into the upper reaches of the oligarchy?

Further:
BHO is like a naif wandering in the political wilderness with deadly monsters nipping at his ankles unbeknownst to him, always JUST avoiding the worst possible outcome.

I think, no matter how deeply he bows to the right wing, they will impeach BHO once they have congress again. They did it to Clinton and they will do it to him. He doesn’t seem to realize this.

Right you are.
From loaded guns in the National Parks, to torture, Gitmo, 4th Amendment destruction, environment, you name it, BHO has continued many of the policies of GWB.
Thanks for pointing that out.

One more, then I’ll get off the soapbox;

There is talk one of BHOs ideas for stimulating the economy will be ‘payroll tax’ holiday. He may announce it later this week? That means no collections for SSec/Medicare for a certain period. How long? Once it’s in holiday status will it come back? This could be the fast track to immediate destruction of SSec for everyone but those already on it.

Thanks Jane for fighting for our country and in my opinion we need to reach willing Republicans too. They have a bigger stake than Democrats in my opinion. Most of them are businessmen and businesswoman and if the country experiences depression in the absence social security which has made the country Depression Proof irrespective of anything wall street might do they will have to just remove the prefix of business from their occupation labels and get on to the streets along with everybody. If one reads Depression articles it was the bankers, managers & investors who were affected the most since their life-long earned assets could become worthless and liabilities hit them in the face. Zimbabwe is a good recent example of what happens when market crashes and depression like conditions take hold.

Our troops are willing to make their children possible orphans by taking huge risk and going to war to fight for our country and constitution. Here in DC we have people as listed above like Rep Van Hollen trying to pooh-pooh the noble and wonderful concept like social security which keeps our economy Depression Proof forcing Americans to save 12.4% every paycheck and take care of the most vulnerable section of the society in a responsible way so that they can keep or get a trivial leadership position. If one cannot do a progressive action then it is better to take a happy retirement instead of doing harm to our generation and next generation by going along with illogical suggestions for sake of trivial positions and eat hors de oveures as I read in one blog these commission sponsors provide.

Jane all of your recommendations are extremely good and I am looking forward to see how my representative will vote on the privileged resolution. Please keep on bringing the light to our congressmen and congresswomen on how they are undoing all the great things of America unknown to them under the influence of these lobbyist opinion with some part of paid MSM playing along. Once again thanks for trying to do the right thing for all Americans both Republicans and Democrats.

Congress is alarmingly efficient at passing things at the end of sessions. In fact they pass things so fast, law makers complain they didn’t have time to read the bill.

I am really hoping and sure it will not be the case due to progressive effort and the importance of social security in every americans life this time around.

Jane et. al. our congressman and congresswoman need to know that for example by passing Glass Steagall Repeal to favor Citi they actually put Citi which was a thriving company till that point on the path to its failure in the market place and Citi ended up on the Government bailout support. Nobody including wall street won by doing that and all the Americans lost close to 50% of stock market wealth when the markets crashed including those congressmen and congresswoman.

If they tweak Social Security to gut it down within a generation we could have Depression instead of Recession in future whenever wall street makes bad investments. Everybodys investments will become worthless and everybody will have to undergo lot of pain and make totally unnecessary effort to get things going again. In the current lobbyist driven climate I do not think we can make social security even better and the best thing to do is leave social security as it is (gridlock in senate and congress as David put it recently) which will keep 30% to 40% of our economy humming no matter what.

I am starting to think the Republicans and the Tea Party are right.

What good is a program that takes your money for thirty years, all the while telling you that you are contributing to your retirement pension only to find when you are seven years from collecting your benefits a President creates a panel of people determined to default on your promised benefits.

If the Democrats don’t stand for Social Security they stand for nothing.

If Obama wants to make a deal to cut Social Security benefits … it will be his last deal.

Wanna bet?

I don’t. This one’s too important to gamble with, or to idly ignore until an unamendable finished product is served up on a silver platter after election day by a bunch of powerful Members of Congress (see the membership of the Commission) who’ve been meeting in secret all year to decide how the public financing of this nation should be handled in future. It’s a travesty on multiple fronts, but forewarned is forearmed.

Some preliminary points (which are probably already understood by those House members involved in this issue) about presenting a question of privilege to the House, that I’ll probably add to before this thread is closed in a couple of days (or else add to in a then-current thread).

The pertinent rule for “questions of privilege” (which, confusingly, are different animals than “privileged questions” – motions, bills, reports, etc.) is current House Rule IX:

RULE IX
QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE

1. Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.

2.

(a)

(1) A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn only at a time or place, designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two legislative days after the day on which the proponent announces to the House an intention to offer the resolution and the form of the resolution. Oral announcement of the form of the resolution may be dispensed with by unanimous consent.

(2) The time allotted for debate on a resolution offered from the floor as a question of the privileges of the House shall be equally divided between (A) the proponent of the resolution, and (B) the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or a designee, as determined by the Speaker.

(b) A question of personal privilege shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn.

On August 10th, 2010, a question of privilege propounded by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia was presented to the House. Price wanted consideration by the House of a resolution whose aims seem similar, except for its partisan Republican slant and proposed blanket ban on a 2010 lame-duck session of Congress, to one of the proposed courses of action for the pro-Social Security forces in the House:

Whereas the 111th Congress has failed in its promise to be the most open Congress in history, but has instead lost the public’s trust by engaging in unprecedented political procedures to advance a partisan agenda;

Whereas on January 18, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated in prepared remarks, “Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.”;

Whereas on November 7, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated, “The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”;

Whereas on November 16, 2006, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, “This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”;

Whereas on December 6, 2006, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, “We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open Government and we will.”;

[...]

Whereas on January 5, 2010, while at a press conference during the health care debate, Speaker Pelosi stated, “There has never been a more open process for any legislation”;

[...]

Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64 total, in the 110th Congress under Democrat control, than in the previous Congress, 49, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10 total, in the 110th Congress under Democrat control, than in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control;

Whereas zero bills have been considered so far in the 111th Congress under an open rule;

Whereas 26 bills have been considered so far in the 111th Congress under a closed rule, under Democrat control;

[...]

Whereas in spite of House Budget Committee Chairman’s 2006 statement that “if you can’t budget, you can’t govern”, the Democrat leadership has failed to introduce a budget resolution in 2010 as mandated by law, but instead self-executed a “deeming resolution” that increases nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2011 by $30 billion to $1.121 trillion, setting another new record for the highest level in United States history;

[...]

Whereas Democrats have recently insinuated that significant legislative matters would deliberately not be addressed during the 111th Congress until after the midterm elections in November 2010;

[...]

Whereas the Hill reported on July 27, 2010 that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, at the recent Netroots Nation conference of liberal bloggers, in reference to Democrats’ unfinished priorities, “We’re going to have to have a lame duck session, so we’re not giving up.”;

Whereas the Hill reported in the same piece on July 27, 2010 that the lame duck session will include priorities such as “comprehensive immigration reform, climate change legislation and a whole host of other issues”;

Whereas the Declaration of Independence notes that governments “[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed”;

[...Etc...]

Whereas under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority, and largely due to the current trends of Government expansion and freedom retrenchment, the American people have lost confidence with their elected officials, and that faith must be restored: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) reaffirms the principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence that governments “[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed”;

(2) recognizes the fundamental importance of trust existing between the American people and their elected officials;

(3) confirms that adhering to the will of the people is imperative to upholding public trust;

(4) states that the American people deserve to know where their current elected officials stand on key legislative issues before Election Day;

(5) states that delaying controversial, unpopular votes until after the election gives false impressions to voters and deliberately hides the true intentions of the majority, while denying voters the ability to make fully informed choices on Election Day; and

(6) pledges not to assemble on or between the dates of November 2, 2010 and January 3, 2011, except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=H6597&position=all

Does that sound like it qualifies under Rule IX?

According to the House Parliamentarian, it does not. As explained through the Speaker pro tempore in response to Price’s argument on the floor that his resolution qualified as a question of privilege:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.

The resolution offered by the gentleman from Georgia declares a variety of facts and circumstances, expresses certain opinions, prescribes principles by which to schedule or conduct the constitutional session of the House, and proposes a special order of business with respect thereto.

In evaluating the resolution under the standards of rule IX, the Chair must be mindful of a fundamental principle illuminated by annotations of precedent in section 706 of the House Rules and Manual, to wit: that a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House or their interpretation, nor to prescribe a special order of business for the House.

The averment that this resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX embodies precisely the contrary principle, under which each individual Member of the House would constitute a virtual Rules Committee, able to place before the House at any time whatever proposed order of business he or she might deem advisable simply by alleging an insult to dignity or integrity secondary to some action or inaction. In such an environment, anything could be privileged; so nothing would enjoy true privilege. With every question having precedence over every other question, the legislative attention of the House would be managed ad hoc by the presiding officer’s discretionary power of recognition.

Accordingly, under the long and well-settled line of precedent presently culminating in several rulings during the first session of this 111th Congress, the Chair finds that such a resolution does not affect “the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings” within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX and, therefore, does not qualify as a question of the privileges of the House.

The Chair therefore holds that the resolution is not privileged for consideration ahead of other business. Instead, the resolution may be submitted through the [House Clerk's] hopper for possible consideration in the regular course.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=H6599&position=all

A ruling that Price immediately appealed, which appeal was then tabled by the Democratic majority:

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

MOTION TO TABLE

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I move that the appeal be laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1606; and adoption of House Resolution 1606, if ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were–yeas 236, nays 163, not voting 33, as follows:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=H6599&position=all

So Price’s effort resulted in a recorded vote, but technically only a vote on upholding House precedent about its rules, as understood and relayed by the House Parliamentarian. [If Price's resolution had been ruled a legitimate question of privilege, a maximum of one hour of debate could have been held, under the rules, provided the Democrats didn't move to table the resolution before that debate could take place.]

Price’s disqualified language aside, I think a lot could probably be done by way of protest of the underhanded, misleading tactics employed in the Special Rule used by Speaker Pelosi to sneak through the supplemental war funding along with the “Sense of the House” resolution about Catfood Commission recommendations (plus the wholly-undebated semi-Budget Resolution), if reform-minded Representatives would buck their Party leadership (preferably on a bipartisan basis) to protest such methods (which Democrats admitted not understanding at the time – Alan Grayson even wrote a blog post about that rule being bad practice). A resolution about that could not only help prevent any similar special rule in future, but retract and repudiate the “Sense of the House” resolution passed in that misunderstood, byzantine Special Rule generated by the House Rules Committee at Pelosi’s direction. In case no debate were permitted to take place on the floor, the wording of such a resolution would have to be carefully written to try to make it meaningfully register as a roll-call vote, even if the vote was to table it rather than to directly address the resolution’s merits.

As one example of the legitimate genre of such Rule IX resolutions, Nancy Pelosi, as House minority leader, successfully submitted the following resolution (including her own Whereas-laden preamble) as a question of privilege in 2003, in response to the held-open floor vote on Medicare Part D:

Resolved, That the House denounces this action in the strongest terms possible, rejects the practice of holding votes open beyond a reasonable time period for the sole purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and directs the Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent any further abuse.

[The resolution was debated for an hour, after which the majority Republicans moved to table it, which the House proceeded to do by Party line vote.]

“6) Get senior citizens out there confronting members of the Catfood Commission

This is perhaps the most important recommendation. Until there are some compelling visual images for TV news to seize upon, they just aren’t going to get excited about this issue.”

But don’t you think that the Teabaggers were astro-turfed into existence, given top billing in the NY Times, demonized as a mob of angry and violent thugs on the “liberal” blogs, declared “OLDER, whiter, and richer” than your typical American (isn’t this the Simpson line on why we can cut?), and called “greedy” about their Medicare as well as stupid–”keep the government’s hands off my Medicare”–in order to DELEGITIMIZE senior citizens as political protestors and as political actors, period?

I know I don’t need to point out how many so-called “liberal” useful idiots took that bait, even as “keep the government’s hands off my social security” is EXACTLY what many liberals will now want to accomplish–not that I don’t think there ARE so-called “liberals” who would love to punish that “older, whiter, richer” demographic because the only politics they come out for is the culture war and because they think SS will be bankrupt by the time they hit 67.

“Apparently I see this issue of class warfare a bit differently from you, bobash. I see the rich paying loud-mouthed Astro-Turfers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to stir up a culture war coupled with a race war among the non-rich in order to keep them from joining together as a single force in a class war against the rich.”

Really? Because all I see are legions of “liberal” puppet troupes too stupid not to take the bait when this hokey FOX sideshow gets top billing in the NY Times.

Egalite, fraternite, naivite…

Obama probably does not mind to loose Congress. The Democrits, collectively, prefer to be off the hook to have easier elections for the rump, they just don’t want to loose their personal perch. So the fight, if any, is about which ones of them have to bite the bullet for the greater good – the greater good being that post-partisan deadlock of one party congress, other party executive.

Message to Jane, NOBODY CARES! Reread Lawrence Lessig’s Huff. Post Commentary. You work way too hard to make nice with corrupt politicians who’s objectives have been shown all too clear.
The HCR vote said it ALL. EVERY Dem. who voted for its passage and EVERY Dem. who didn’t fight to the death for REAL HCR reform should be run out of office this Fall.
This election is NOT about our fearing what the big, bad boogeymen Republicans might do to us, it’s ALL about what the Dems we elected did do to us! For you to suggest otherwise is worse than nonproductive, it’s just what our Dem. Party Leaders are hoping you’ll do.

“If Obama wants to make a deal to cut Social Security benefits … it will be his last deal.”

I agree with this. Last straw. If he buckles here he loses my vote. Period.

The comments about ‘depression proofing’ the country is well taken also. Cons and T-Baggers like to pretend all these great reforms of the past were imposed by liberals on a whim, just to grab power, to control people, to take away freedom when in fact all these actions were the result of DIRE NEED!!! SocSec, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, EPA, all of it was the direct result of the failure of the ruling class oligarchy to provide even basic private solutions.

Now, SocSec is even more vital to the GenX and younger people. Why? No more ‘defined benefit’ pensions. It’s all 401k or nothing. (And we older folks know what happens there; Every 7-10 years the Wall St. criminals short your portfolio to oblivion.)

BTW, the return on a $100k income annuity that you may buy from a bank on regular money now pays about .8% annually. Yes, you read that right! $100k pays you about $800 PER YEAR! (A 401k annuity would pay a little more, but the principle would be drawn down.)

Thanks powwow. If Dem members of Congress have any hope (assuming of course they have the desire to begin with) of saving their seats, they need to start using every Parliamentary tactic at their disposal to shame the party leadership into behaving much much better than they have been. Alas I have seen little evidence of a simmering rebellion, but maybe the upcoming election will provide their come-to-Jesus moment.

Every 7-10 years the Wall St. criminals short your portfolio to oblivion.

That is the best one sentence description of how Wall Street currently functions that I have ever seen. Thanks for that.

Send a note to BHO @

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Here’s mine:

SOCIAL SECURITY!! Alert! Alert!

Mr. Obama (Get used to that prefix)

Social Security IS YOUR LAST CHANCE, SIR!

If you ‘down low’ the American people on this one, like you did by eliminating the ‘robust public option’ you touted, and we need desperately, we will NOT vote for you again, ever.

Let us review:
1. Loaded guns in the parks, grace period for banks to raise rates and eliminate card holders. Thanks

2. Health care reform that does almost nothing until 2014, doesn’t prevent private insurance companies from raising rates as high as they wish. Thanks

3. Now you seem eager to cut SocSec in an effort to appear bipartisan, I guess. Let me give you a clue; Those Republican cretins are going to IMPEACH you as soon as they snatch the reins of power in November.

Good luck,

name name (Real Democrat)

Just how many last chances do these Dems WE elected deserve? When is enough, enough? Importantly, WHY wasn’t the HCR Bill the last straw?

From my post, “Obama Put Social Security On The Table“:
Again, what was the (immediate) main target of Bush II after the 2004 (second stolen) election? Social Security. Since 1935, what has been at the top of ongoing goals for the conservative elite, as far as dismantling programs? Social Security. What was one of the main safety nets we Believed Obama would never allow to be Changed (gutted, step by step)? Social Security. As another domino is set to fall because of his administration’s continuous sellouts, there are no doubts of (progressive) betrayal remaining. The “collective good” they promote is a fascist focus as a guarantee for chosen corporations – and bootstraps as the only guarantee for the masses.

Point well taken.
I may not vote for him/them regardless, but it’s a bit of leverage to apply right now.
The ‘we’ referred to my spouse but could be taken as libs/progs/Dems in general.

Re: Labor Day Irony: The People Who Want to Cut Social Security All Have Great Retirement Plans

More Labor Day reflections: The robber baron Deficit Commissioners crowd – the “elite” that Bush II referred to as his “base,” the group that President Obama allowed to be purposely stacked into a predetermined place – would have us forget, or evolve from (as in Social Darwinist Commission recommendations) certain history. What are the origins of the Pullman Strike? Why did President Cleveland want to “reconci[le]” with the labor movement? Who was right – the oppressed workers being gouged to early deaths, or rampant, soulless, corporatists? What was right – taking the side of “the least among us” while they were under endless siege, or emboldening the assailants further by placating their ongoing looting mentality? Further, where did the eight-hour work day/five-day work week come from? Vacations? Pensions/retirement? Child labor and Safety regulations? Minimum wage? When corporate marauders crashed the (bubbled) system in 1929 (causing the Great Depression), who eventually stood up to Hoover’s status quo – while providing a mutually benevolent renewal of the rules (and opportunities)? FDR.

Now, under the most similar of circumstances, ask yourselves: Which president, Hoover or FDR, would have set up a Deficit Commission (selectively biased for the bourgeoisie’s desires)?
In relation, what would Bush II have done? Final question: Who presented a populist campaign based on Hope and Change – then went in the opposite direction once at the helm?

Obama Put Social Security on The Table

Cannot understand the political calculus behind all this. Dismantling Social Security has been a Republican wet dream since it was introduced. Why on earth would any self-respecting Democrat lend his/her name to this?

Are the Republicans conducting some kind of advanced chemical warfare? Is there something in water in D.C. that make Democrats behave like scared mice?

Are there any ‘true’ Democrats left that haven’t succumbed to this malaise?

we had better luck stopping the Republican majority from doing stupid things
than we are having trying to stop the Democratic majority.
So when the Republicans are back in charge, we will be more successful
in saving Social Security.
Obama and the Democratic Party power structure are stealth for ”privatize everything” corporatism.

I think any disagreement we have is over semantics, not substance. I believe we have been in a de facto class war since the Reagan administration, when significant wealth distribution away from the middle class to the upper 1% picked up momentum, as I understand the data. The plutocrats have been winning big ever since. That they do not acknowledge upward wealth distribution was a conscious goal is merely a tactic. Class war–what class war? That’s something the liberals want to start by taxing the rich.

I absolutely agree that the 99% have not united in fighting their side in the war.

The government borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund for war, contractors, agribusiness tax breaks, big oil tax breaks, hedge fund tax breaks, on and on and on….

Now it wants to cut benefits and raise the retirement age so it can weasel out of paying that money back. This is something they would never dream of doing to other creditors.

Where are all the Dem pols on this? From what I’ve seen so far, the majority of the Dem PTB are either cowering in silence or supporting the admin outright or with weasel words. If the Repubs were in power and trying this, the Dems would be screaming bloody murder. Can someone explain to me just exactly what makes the Dems the lesser of two evils?

Meanwhile, the “librul” MSM marches to the tune.

So when the Republicans are back in charge, we will be more successful
in saving Social Security.

You got it right. Without Democratic support no Republican corpotarist will dare to touch Social Security how compromised they might be with lobbyist money. Last time Republican President and Republican Corpotarist group tried 6 years back it was dead of arrival to quote senate minority leaders actual words and it turned out to be the case actually.

We need to worry with Democratic majority and Democratic Corpotarist group i..e the bipartisan bunch who will do the stupid thing of dis-mantling the only thing which will prevent Depression in the country by avoiding a huge amount of American Savings from wall street grubby hands in super safe treasury bonds which by the way is held by every country of the world and preventing total control of the American economy at the hands of wall street whims.

In 1935, FDR and the Democrats improved their numbers. Think that under Obama they will?

This guy SOUNDS like a Democrat, but he is the current Republican Florida governo, and a Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate.

FROM THE CRIST WEBSITE
http://www.charliecrist.com/issues.html

Governor Crist is steadfast in his opposition to increasing the eligibility age or restructuring the formula for determining benefits.

Marco Rubio is on record in support of raising the age of eligibility as well as restructuring the formula for increasing benefits to account for inflation. Kendrick Meek has punted entirely on this issue and says Congress should refer it to a commission. The last time there was a commission was 1983 and as a result of its actions, the eligibility age was increased.