'If Obama Opposes Ryan’s Social Security Plan, Why Did He Appoint Him to the Catfood Commission?'

[seafan]

Jane Hamsher analyzes the White House's public response concerning Republicans who are again pushing to privatize Social Security (video of President Obama's statements at the link).

She also scrutinizes the members of the president's Debt Commission, tasked to examine Social Security.



August 14, 2010

The Democrats have decided to once again go on the attack against Republicans for wanting to privatize Social Security. Even Steny Hoyer is banging that gong. They’ve apparently remembered that they kicked the GOP’s ass in 2006 on the same issue, and thought it might be a good idea to revive it on the eve of the election.

President Obama devoted his weekly radio address today to Social Security, saying the Republicans were “pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.”

Per the AP:

Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.

Ryan’s idea is similar to a proposal pushed unsuccessfully by former President George W. Bush. It’s not been endorsed by party leaders and has attracted only a small number of GOP co-sponsors.

If Obama thinks Ryan’s privatization plan is such a bad idea, why did he appoint Ryan to the 18 member Catfood Commission tasked with dealing with Social Security? In fact, why did he stack the commission with privatizers and budget hawks in the first place?

Obama’s campaign/transition team advisers on Social Security, Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, have called the commission “a Social Security death panel.” As they have pointed out, raising the retirement age to 70 (which Hoyer supports) is a 20% benefit cut. So if you “add” private accounts on top of that, it is in fact privatization. These “trims” to “save” Social Security are nothing more than a sneaky sleight-of-hand to trick the public into accepting something they very much oppose, giving the “unprofessional left” (i.e., the Jon Chait JournoList set) some nonsense to shove down their throats to pacify them.

If the President truly is interested in protecting Social Security from the privatizers, and not just demagoguing the issue for political advantage, he sure assembled a strange crew for the job. Extra points for appointing defense contractor CEO David M. Cote of Honeywell to the commission. It was recently reported that Cote opposed cutting defense contracting to reduce the deficit, and instead wanted military personnel to pay for their own healthcare.

No wonder the commission doesn’t want their deliberations open to the public:

.....

(See link for extensive, detailed table of commission members and their positions on 1) whether they are open to cutting benefits, 2) whether they have expressed support for privatization, 3) whether they have conflicts of interest)

Update, 3pm ET: DDay points out that in the Executive Order establishing the Catfood Commission, Obama granted the right to the Minority Leader of the House to appoint three members, and that’s how Ryan made it on to the commission.

However, here’s Clinton’s Presidential Order establishing the Danforth Commission. As it shows, the precedent is for “30 members to be appointed by the President.” Granting that authority to the Republican leadership for the catfood commission was, yes, something the Obama was responsible for. You say technically he didn’t appoint Ryan himself, but if you choose to set the parameters like that, of course that means Ryan will be on. Privatizing Social Security is his baliwick.

You can’t tie your own hands and then say “they made me do it.”

(emphases added)


From the Executive Order:

(a) six members appointed by the President, not more than four of whom shall be from the same political party;
(b) three members selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate;
(c) three members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate; and
(e) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives.

It's most interesting that the president continues to give Republicans as much power to choose commission members as that given to his own party in majority power. This, after the voters repudiated Republicans and threw them out of control of the Senate, House and White House in November of 2008.


It's not only "The Professional Left" who are being slapped in the face.




And it is quite lovely that two of the most damaging choices sitting on this commission now examining Social Security are Max Baucus (D-MT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND). I suppose it's because they managed such a stellar job for the industry on health insurance reform.




What is ultimately most distressing about all of this is that while Obama and many Democrats are correctly pointing out the Republican overt threats to privatize/cut Social Security benefits, it seems it is being done in a way to exploit it as a political weapon in the upcoming election. So, what's the problem, you might ask?


The problem is that the very commission Obama has empowered and stacked with Social Security enemies, will likely bring to us the same outcome after the election.





The pain of betrayal is now a constant companion.

[Skittles]

1. don't pay attention to what is going on behind the curtain

just listen to the purty speeches

[amborin]

3. the prettier they are,

the more nefarious the back stage proceedings.....

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Obama wants to cut the debt

Because the Republicans are calling for it, and triangulation uber alles, baby.

Doing it on the backs of the working class is fine. (Doing it by restoring already-too-low taxes on the rich looks like it may require some moderate lifting, so that's on the way out.)

The Catfood Commission will call for raising the age to 70 and for privatizing part of it; Obama will allow the age to raise but, if very easy to achieve, he'll stop the privatization part. Then he'll make a speech where he'll say:

"make no mistake: this is a historic opportunity to save Social Security for today's working Americans."

[fogonthelake]

5. that word historic is starting to bug me.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Whenever Obama says "Make no mistake"

or "let me be clear", he's about to say something to misdirect the audience's attention; something designed to sound really, really good, but careful upon careful parsing reveals how he'll do something dreadful.

[another saigon]

21. thank you

sometimes I think I am the only one around here who sees that too.

[Hannah Bell]

6. everytime they mess it up worse they make the same speech.

reagan:

This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have our pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.

These amendments reaffirm the commitment of our government to the performance and stability of social security. It was nearly 50 years ago when, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American people reached a great turning point, setting up the social security system. F.D.R. spoke then of an era of startling industrial changes that tended more and more to make life insecure. It was his belief that the system can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts. Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#1983


what a fat liar he was, little mafia-sponsored climber.

[dionysus]

10. make no mistake, your agenda is transparent as glass manny.

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

13. And what would my agenda be?

Thanks in advance for your efforts.

[nashville_brook]

12. my sense of it, exactly.

[Poboy]

24. When will people wake up to this?

[dflprincess]

4. I figure what will happen is the the Catfood Commission will come back with all sorts of

recommendations. Many, maybe most, will have nothing to do with Social Security and some might even be good ideas. Buried in all these will be the destruction of SS & Medicare. As Pelosi has promised an up or down vote our poor, beleaguered (:sarcasm:) representatives will have no choice but to vote for the whole package.

But I'm sure they'll promise to "fix it later".

[MisterP]

8. "but if you can't be excited by the Dems (and obviously the fault is the critics' side), isn't the

joy of disappointing Teabaggers enough?"

that's all the Loyalists can come up with, I bet

[Marr]

16. After listening to Gibbs, Marshall, and the local booster club...

I'm starting think I'd get more enjoyment from disappointing the Democratic Party's right wing than the Republicans' right wing.

[undeterred]

9. Paul Ryan is an idiot. A dangerous idiot.

[Autumn]

11. As long as we have a "constant companion"

we won't be alone. This is really beginning to worry me. The more I read about these people on Obamas "commission" the worse I feel about it.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnaries]

18. Jane Hamsher lies again.

At least she does point out that Obama DID NOT appoint Ryan. But then she tries to spin it that he did it indirectly (implying that it was on purpose) by allowing Republicans to select half the members.

The truth is, Obama wanted a bi-partisan commission, chosen as fairly as possible.

But Hamsher doesn't care about the truth. She only cares about getting more attention.

[TheKentuckian]

27. Even granting that, Obama's picks fucking suck ass. Stern is the only decent selection

Reid's picks are craps on average. Pelosi was FAIR & BALANCED. Of course the TeaPubliKlans are all awful with Ryan being the "brain" for the puke vision.

If Obama has some reason of value to be even handed (which he wasn't, he leaned corporate right) then Reid and Pelosi absolutely could not be allowed to take the same approach because the Republicans don't play that game and now couldn't if they desired because of how radical their caucus is.

Hamsher didn't lie as you admit. You may not feel her perspective is fair to yours but she is under no obligation to make your case. What facts are in dispute?

I don't think you can look at the indivduals and expect solutions that are good for working people.

This deserves to be hammered and should be derailed. I'd love to chow down on some crow on this one but I see nothing to indicate I will be pleased with what they come up with. It is a very conservative group. Very. Who the hell does anyone think is that 5th vote to stop anything that is utterly radioactive? Between Beccera, Durbin, and Stern it isn't hard to imagine one falling off at times.

Looks shitty to me, you can't raise too much of an alarm. The worst thing is to be asleep for a debacle. If nothing much happens then they'll be back for more in a few years. When these people are talking deficit they are almost exclusively talking Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Obama appointed both co-chairs, both SS slashers

Both have long records of trying to slash Social Security - Bowles even cut a deal with Gingrich to do this under Clinton, but Congress balked,

[EFerrari]

38. And that's why Grover Norquist was invited to testify before the panel.

Right?

[Ramulux]

19. Oh WTF

I didn't know Ryan was on the deficit commission. That is fucking horrible news. I made a post the other day talking about how dangerous this guy is, not just because his ideas are incredibly bad, but because he is respected by members of the media.

Hearing that he is on the commission and was appointed by Obama makes me almost lose the tiny amount of respect left I have for Obama. In all seriousness, I would love to hear what sort of excuses the Obama apologists will come up with for this.

[ipaint]

20. The catfood commission is billionaire Pete Peterson's brainchild

Peterson bought the washington post to run scary deficit pieces, he put money into a campaign against social security on MTV to pit younger and older generations against one another. He's been pushing a commission on cuts to entitlements for a while in Washington.
The commissions purpose is to get the elite in this country out of paying back their gov. loans of our retirement money they used to finance 30 years of tax cuts and resource wars.

The elite borrowed the fund they can damn well pay it back.


"The first TFT "dispatch" to appear in the Post--"Support grows for tackling nation's debt"--made no mention of Peterson's crusade. But it featured the same devious gimmick the financier has been peddling around Washington. Congress should create a special commission of eighteen senators and representatives empowered to to make the "tough" budget decisions politicians are loathe to face--slashing benefits, raising payroll taxes or both. Other members of Congress would be prohibited from changing any of the particular measures, and would cast only an up-or-down vote on the entire package, no amendments allowed. Supposedly, this would give them political cover. Look, no hands. We just cut Social Security but it wasn't our fault.

This "reform" is profoundly antidemocratic because it would strip ordinary citizens of the only leverage they have in Washington--the ability to lean on their elected representatives and exact retribution if they get sold out. Peterson has two advocates in the Senate--Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire--who are self-righteous fiscal hawks. The TFT story describes the rising federal deficits as a threat to the republic, yet fails to explain why deficits on rising. The billions have been devoted to bailing out major banks and Peterson's old chums in Wall Street or to turning around the failed economy or fighting two wars at once.

...But the assault on Society Security, we knew, would come back sooner or later because many of Obama's lieutenants are devoted to Peterson's fiscal logic. Budget director Peter Orszag once co-authored a "reform" plan that would raise the payroll tax on young workers and cut benefits for older people near retirement. Isn't that clever? Pinhead economists evidently think that workers won't notice. Now the billionaire is cranking up another fight. We should finger him again, big-time, and all those who willingly collaborate in his plot.


...Here is what really worries the fiscal hawks: as the Social Security trust fund built up the huge surpluses, the federal government borrowed the money and spent it. The time is approaching--maybe ten or twelve years from now--when the federal treasury will have to start paying back its debts to Social Security. The accumulated wealth does not belong to the US government, any more than the money it borrowed from China. The beneficial owners are all those working people who faithfully paid their FICA taxes for all those years. If Washington stiffs them now, it will be a bait-and-switch swindle larger than Wall Street's"

http://www.thenation.com/article/looting-social-security-part-2

Much of what Greider writes about in this article from last january has come to pass.

Why did Obama adopt a right wing, anti-social security, billionaire's idea and allow it to be staffed with anti social security right wing hacks? Why are the meetings closed to the public and why is congress only allowed and up or down vote on the recommendations?

Why are we leaving to a bunch of millionaires and billionaires to decide what they want to do with our money in secret?

There is no compromise position. Pay it back.

If anything we need the age lowered to help folks in their mid fifties and above survive without jobs. Time for the elite to use a little of the "personal responsibility" they like to throw at the working class and honor their debts. After receiving trillions in non deficit neutral bailouts and guarantees using our money it is criminal that they think they can sleazily back out of what they owe us.

[seafan]

22. The assault on Social Security will be the last straw.

Many thanks to you, ipaint, for bringing this January, 2010 article from The Nation back to the forefront.


What it continues to expose to us is the premeditated assault that this small group of very blindingly wealthy, right-wing ideologues are pursuing to ravage Social Security, the last protection of the elderly and disabled.

It is all quite methodical.



Note the date on this piece below: January 4, 2010.

On February 18, 2010, Obama signed an Executive Order creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka the Debt Commission), and directing that there be equal power given to minority Republicans as majority Democrats to assign its own members to it, notwithstanding earlier precedent (Clinton's Danforth Commission) that the president choose all members.

*Bipartisanship again* with a party that wants to destroy everything in its path?

Another bitter lesson goes unlearned. Or, more ominously, perhaps it is the cynical means to achieve a desired end.




So, with this Executive Order, Obama gave himself cover as he chose only 6 members to sit on the Commission of 18, while delegating the choice of 12 others to a dysfunctional Congress, and we've now ended up with the likes of Paul Ryan, Judd Gregg, Kent Conrad and Max Baucus. Again.


It's all quite methodical groundwork. There is no credible reason this is occurring in this manner, except by design.




Here is that important piece in The Nation:


Looting Social Security, Part 2

By William Greider
January 4, 2010

He's baaack--the Wall Street billionaire who wants to loot Social Security. This time, Pete Peterson has invented his own "news network" to promote his right-wing rants about shrinking the only retirement security system available to millions of working people. Peterson styles himself as a patriot saving the nation from fiscal insolvency and has committed $1 billion to that cause (a chunk of the wealth he accumulated at Blackstone Group, the notorious corporate-takeover firm). His efforts might be dismissed as ludicrous--except money does talk in Washington, and Peterson is now buying Washington reporters to spread his dire warnings.

The retired mogul has created a digital news agency he dubs "The Fiscal Times" and hired eight seasoned reporters to do the work there. ..... With his great wealth, Peterson could have also bought a newspaper to publish his dispatches, but he did better than that. He hooked up with the Washington Post, which has agreed to "jointly produce content focusing on the budget and fiscal issues." (This media scandal was first uncovered by economist Dean Baker <1>.) The newspaper is thus compromising its own integrity. It's like buying political propaganda from a Washington lobbyist, then printing it in the news columns as if it was just another news story.

.....

As a candidate, Barack Obama said all the right things about Social Security and described the modest adjustments that would solve any long-term problems. But we learned during the last year not to trust fuzzy expressions of good intentions. We need to bang on the president right now and demand explicit commitment to oppose the sleight-of-hand proferred by Peterson, Conrad, Gregg and others.

Likewise, people need to confront Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi immediately. It has been reported the two Congressional leaders are prepared to go along with this ugly ploy. I find that hard to believe, but we need to find out--now--because Conrad and Gregg and their rich friend intend to demand the "commission" legislation be included later this month when Congress votes to raise the federal debt ceiling. That's clever timing designed to stampede members of Congress since, if the debt-ceiling measure is not enacted, government in theory might be shut down.

Maybe progressives should recruit some Democratic senators who will stage a progressive filibuster. Let's see how Harry Reid deals with that. Or maybe progressives in the House can recruit some bipartisan support in Republican ranks. Above all, people need to make a lot of noise, because this issue represents one more fleecing for people already struggling. If the Democratic party and the Democratic president decide to go down this road, arm-in-arm with the billionaire and the Washington Post, they may find themselves in a civil war much like the one tearing up the Republicans.

The assault on Social Security will be the last straw.

[ipaint]

25. The health ins. give away was my last straw.

More info on Peterson, the administration and "America Speaks"-

"In June, according to the Washington Post, Obama’s deficit commission will be participating in a 20-city electronic town hall meeting, put together by an organization called America Speaks. It is financed by Peterson, along with the MacArthur Foundation and Kellogg Foundation. This is a truly unusual event because it marks the first time a presidential commission’s activities are financed by a private group that has long been lobbying the government on the very subjects the commission is supposed to “study.”

Today's Peterson summit is crammed with luminaries in finance and government. First there’s the keynoter, Bill Clinton. Then there’s Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman widely credited with getting us into our current economic mess, and Paul Volcker, his conservative predecessor at the Fed. Robert Rubin, Clinton’s secretary of the Treasury, and another pillar of the current economic debacle, will speak. So will Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, a leading GOP guru, who among other things wants to replace Medicare with a system of vouchers and tax breaks. Judd Gregg, the senior and probably most important conservative senator when it comes to finance, will be featured as well; he is a keen proponent of Peterson’s entitlement cuts.

The heavy hitters are all to be interviewed by big names in mainstream media: ABC’s George Stephanopolous will question his old boss Clinton; Leslie Stahl will speak with presidential commission co-chair Erskine Bowles, one of Clinton’s a White House chiefs of staff. Ranked below the big guys are a slew of lesser lights including some liberals like Lawrence Mischel of the Economic Policy Institute, Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, John Podesta of the Center for American Progress (and another former Clinton chief of staff), and former Congressional Budget Office head Alice Rivlin.

All-in-all, it seems to be dominated by Clinton-era officials, who oversaw much of the Wall Street deregulation that nearly drove the country broke. These are the people who will now try to make up the losses on the backs of the poor and the old by rewriting the hard-won entitlement programs created during the New Deal and the War on Poverty."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/pete-petersons-anti-entitlement-juggernaut-gets-fueled-obama



It's absolutely incestuous. The fix is in.



As Joe Bageant explains in his latest essay-

"You hear it all the time these days: The top one percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 45% of the rest of Americans combined.

I have seldom met an American who thought this is a good thing, and seldom met one who understood how the ruling class got so rich. Simply put, it was through constant cultivation of bigger and more labyrinthine government, creating legal and technical complexities to sluice money nationally and globally in their direction, and to cover their asses in the process. The results are such things as 3,000 page health care bills (defining which corporate elites get which parts of the cake), or the 2,000-page NAFTA and its 9,000 tariff product codes.

Once the public was buried in such a maelstrom of legal paperwork, computer transactions, modeling, etc., it was easy to argue that the world had become so complex that the skills and brains to operate it were extremely rare and those who had them were fucking geniuses. These are people who dwell in such airy realms that we should pay them vast amounts of money and never question their decisions. That's how we got such oblivious duds as Timothy Geithner (who never held a nongovernment related job in his life) running the Treasury, and tens of thousands of the Empire's pud whackers, ranging from petty legal commissars, on up to the Alan Greenspans of this world -- a bumbling arrogant old fart who never had a clue but understood the rules: Look enigmatic and blow whichever administration is in power."

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/08/understanding-america.html#more


Parasitic, wealthy, mediocre assholes are currently setting up the mother of all heists.

[seafan]

30. We can either look away from the truth or we can embrace it.

This piece by Joe Bageant should be mailed to every household in America.


(With a hat tip to ipaint)



More from Bageant in Understanding America's Class System:


August 16, 2010

Screw the proles, just count the money


This political class stands between all of us down here and the tiny minority in the ruling class waaaaaay up there, wherever the hell up there is. No use to squint. You can't see it from where we are. That comes in mighty handy in denying the existence of a ruling class.

.....

On the other hand, you do not need to see an egg-sucking dog in action to know what to expect -- or not to expect. The track record of the political class is an open book. As the layer of millionaires buffering the elites who pay for their campaigns, they've done their jobs. They approved the Bush administration's massive tax cut for the rich. They dropped the per-child tax credit for families with incomes less than $20,000. They "reformed" prescription drugs right out of Medicare. They reformed health care into hundreds of billions of increased profits for the insurance industry.

However, the American political class' finest moment came in September 2008 when the financial greed machinery of American investment houses went tits up. The Republican and Democratic parties, major corporations, and manufacturers of US opinion came together in one of the greater bipartisan efforts in modern US history. There was nothing to do, they all agreed, but buy up $700 billion in "toxic asset" investments. "Otherwise," they prophesied, the world would end. Meaning that the ongoing national Ponzi scheme they have always sold to the American people as the US economy, would finally crash.

.....

In an unusual display of common sense, the American public said "Bullshit," by margins of three or four to one, depending upon region. That did not bother political and economic elites much. What the fuck do the proles know anyway?

Then, in midstream, the political and economic owning classes switched horses, after realizing there was more gravy for the kingpins in buying up banks and big industries. It was unconstitutional, but what the hell, that's what Supreme Courts are for. The proles mumbled and peered into their TV sets for explanations that never came.

.....

America has always had a ruling class, and it has always bullshitted the world that it doesn't. But at least the ruling class of the past was interesting and varied, because diverse sorts of Americans were getting rich.

You had Texas wildcatters in the "oil bidness." You had Southern cotton and tobacco aristocrats guzzling bourbon, fondling their stock portfolios and their black maids. You had industrialists and California and Florida real estate hotwires, Boston Brahmins and New York financiers. There was the bootlegging inside stock trader Joseph P. Kennedy, not to mention Prescott Bush moving financial assets around for the Nazis during WW II. They were products of varied educations, or in some cases, no education. They came from many regions, back when America still had distinct cultural regions, before it was completely homogenized and stratified for maximum capitalist efficiency.

.....

You never hear them say it, but neo-conservatives understand that they have a mean streak down inside. They also know if they want to share in the national plunder, they must win hearts and minds. They must look pious and sound right while lying through their teeth and picking our pockets. In other words, they have an astute grasp of American politics and business -- which are the same thing, of course.

.....

So when educated liberals look up from their copy of The Nation or the Jon Stewart show, they behold a chilling sight: Beefy mobs waving teabags and demanding tax cuts to help pay for new schools and bridges, Sarah Palin emerging from the ashes of the McCain campaign to become the high priestess of the uncurried tribes, with a Mormon named Glenn Beck exhorting millions of fundamentalists to seize the country. They feel that something has gone terribly wrong with America.

.....

The higher truth is something we recognize when we encounter it. We may not have the right words, or all the facts, but we can feel it in our bones. Intuition is the first glimmer in the distance. It goes unsaid that we always have the choice of not looking in truth's direction, or not looking for it at all. Seldom is it a pleasant sight, which is the chief sign that it is truth. Even the best of it arrives to the sound of ominous bells.

I think about that young reader, Brent B., who takes time to email me now and then. Today he wrote, summarizing the only thing of which I am certain:

It's a hard thing to know the truth in this world, it's like something inside of you dies, but sometimes you still have to know it.

Our government, THE PEOPLE'S government, after decades of functioning to assist and protect the people, has been commandeered by a small, incestuous group of obscenely wealthy ideologues, methodically stripped of its assets, beaten down and infected with diseased-pocked criminal minds.



You know, there comes a point of no return when people realize en masse how grievously we have been deceived by those in power.


I will welcome that time. Because only then will we be able to change it.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Sarah Palin knows Russia exists because she can see it from her porch.

She has no clue about the existence of the ruling class. Obama, however, does. And he's pretty much doing their bidding.

The ruling class doesn't give a shit about Muslim v. Christian, gay v. basher, or any other of the "social" issues. They care about the big money issues. Health insurance, banking regulation, privatizing (i.e. capturing) Social Security, privatizing Medicare, etc. Tame Democratic politicians are free to score their points (or not) on the social issues, but are not permitted to significantly challenge their bosses on the big money things.

That is why you won't see a Feingold, a Grayson, or a Franken candidacy. They will be Deaned, Kuciniched, or Wellstoned, as needed, to preserve the interests of the rulers.

[Poboy]

23. The question has to be rhetorical, as the answer is self evident. -nt

[ipaint]

26. Just a reminder to democrats who think cutting entitlements is necessary to reduce deficits

86% of Americans Would Not Reduce Social Security
82% of Americans Would Not Reduce Medicare
77% of Americans Would Not Reduce Medicaid

http://www.scribd.com/full/34378791?access_key=key-1s7hgkg8r6saw5c0g1zr

Think again.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Yes, but that sample is biased.

Many more lower-class people (incomes under $100k) were sampled than upper-class (incomes over $1 million). and the former are much less likely to own or lease their own politician than the latter, so their opinions are irrelevant.

[AtomicKitten]

29. "The pain of betrayal is now a constant companion."

Lordy me (clutches pearls) the drama is thick up in here.

[nightrain]

31. knr. painful and truthful post. Thanks.

[ipaint]

32. More on the conservative smoke and mirrors campaign against our social security.

"To ensure that all benefits will always be paid in full and on time, Social Security’s Board of Trustees annually reports to Congress on how the program is projected to do over the next three-quarters of a century. Obviously, projections extending so far out in the future will sometimes show deficits or, for that matter, unintended surpluses. The simple, mundane truth is that the actuaries refined some of their assumptions and methodologies in the 1990s and began, as a consequence, forecasting a manageable deficit over the 75-year valuation period. These constantly-evolving long-run projections, part of the program’s prudent, conservative management, demonstrate that Social Security is closely monitored, a fact which could and should reassure the American people about Social Security’s reliability. Instead, the fact of a projected manageable shortfall, still decades away, has been used in exactly the opposite way, to convince the American people, against all evidence, that Social Security will not be there in the future.

The shaken confidence produced by hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding every release of quite ordinary trustees reports has been exacerbated by the cavalier tone of today’s deficit hawks toward the legal requirement that Social Security’s revenue be used exclusively for paying benefits and related expenses. Today, there is talk about cutting Social Security to reassure the bond market. Indeed, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, among others, has explicitly invoked the name of the notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton, to assert that Social Security should be cut “because that’s where the money is.”

These arguments are stunning. Reassure bond holders by defaulting on government obligations purchased with funds deducted from the pay of workers and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States? Act like a bank robber and take money that is paid by, and is held in trust for, hardworking Americans and their families?

Today’s effort by policy elites in Washington to raid Social Security will simply result in greater anger by the electorate against Washington - as well it should. Poll after poll has made clear that a large majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents, young, old, tea partiers, and union members alike — are united in support of Social Security. The American people overwhelmingly want the deficit hawks to keep their hands off Social Security. They want policymakers who value Social Security to restore it to actuarial balance without benefit cuts and without raising the retirement age, as a number of policy experts have advocated. The deficit hawks should listen to the people they have been elected to serve. On the subject of Social Security, they just might discover that it is the people, not the politicians, who know best."

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

[geek tragedy]

34. Shorter Jane Hamsher:

No Republicans should have been allowed on bipartisan panel.

[seafan]

36. We question why Obama bestows so much power back to the GOP after voters repudiated them.

We did not vehemently vote to strip Republicans of control just to have a Democratic president give it back to them disproportionately.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

39. The Commission's proposals are not going to be enacted. nt

[Kat45]

40. Not only that, but when the republicans were in charge they totally ignored the Democrats

The didn't give the Dems squat. If I remember correctly, they wouldn't even give a Dem subcommittee a room to meet in, never mind listen to anything a Democrat had to say.

[ipaint]

41. Bipartisan is a pretty meaningless word when one more tiny step to the right and

your sitting in Newt's lap.
Maybe 50 years ago there was something that we could afford to negotiate down to. Not today.

[blindpig]

42. Real good question

Obvious answer. And no, it ain't 3-d chess.