47 members of Congressional Progressive Caucus won't promise not to cut Social Security and Medicare

[unrepentant progress]

Unbelievable. Exactly what does it take to be called a Progressive today? Not much, apparently.

As of today, after many weeks of progressive lobbying and pleading and petitioning nationwide, 47 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have refused to sign the letter, initiated by Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, pledging to “vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/10-1

[forestpath]

1. Frauds. Just like Obama.

[MotherPetrie]

39. +1

[LiberalFighter]

56. Obama was never a progressive

[michigandem58]

108. Obviously progressive doesn't mean unrealisitc

And these folks, like the President, are both.

[SamKnause]

2. Shysters

Sickeningly infuriating !!!!!

[99Forever]

3. We need a list of these traitors.

Time to start prepping to primary each and every one of them.

[unrepentant progress]

5. The link to the list is in the article, but I'll reproduce the list here

From: http://www.rootsaction.org/news-a-views/601-progressive-caucus-members-who-havent-stood-up

1. Karen Bass
   
2. Xavier Becerra
   
3. Earl Blumenauer
   
4. Suzanne Bonamici
   
5. Michael Capuano
   
6. Andre Carson
   
7. Donna Christensen
   
8. Judy Chu
   
9. Yvette Clarke
   
10. Steve Cohen
    
11. Elijah Cummings
    
12. Rosa DeLauro
    
13. Donna Edwards
    
14. Sam Farr
    
15. Chaka Fattah
    
16. Lois Frankel
    
17. Marcia Fudge
    
18. Janice Hahn
    
19. Jared Huffman
    
20. Rush Holt
    
21. Sheila Jackson-Lee
    
22. Hakeem Jeffries
    
23. Eddie Bernice Johnson
    
24. Joe Kennedy III
    
25. Ann McLane Kuster
    
26. John Lewis
    
27. David Loebsack
    
28. Ben Ray Lujan
    
29. Jim McDermott
    
30. George Miller
    
31. Gwen Moore
    
32. Jim Moran
    
33. Eleanor Holmes Norton
    
34. Frank Pallone
    
35. Ed Pastor
    
36. Chellie Pingree
    
37. Mark Pocan
    
38. Jared Polis
    
39. Charles Rangel
    
40. Lucille Roybal-Allard
    
41. Linda Sanchez
    
42. Jan Schakowsky
    
43. Louise Slaughter
    
44. Bennie Thompson
    
45. John Tierney
    
46. Mel Watt
    
47. Peter Welch

[magical thyme]

9. oh my effing dawg. Chellie Pingree is on that list.

Never in a million years would I have expected to see her there. She will be hearing from me.

[Jackpine Radical]

58. Gwen Moore & Mark Pocan too. Arrrgh!

[PeaceNikki]

70. they both signed the CPC letter though.

I trust them with this.

[Jackpine Radical]

73. I most certainly hope you're right.

Gwen has never pissed me off; Mark is a somewhat unknown quantity.

[PeaceNikki]

75. Gwen inspires me.

She and Jan Schakowsky are amazing. I know Mark thorough people I trust and love in Madison.

[Lifelong Protester]

104. Wow! That shocked me too.

I hope PeaceNikki is correct. I was flabbergasted to see their names on this, but hoped that maybe they know something about this we don't.

[SheilaT]

19. I see my Rep is on that list.

I'll be calling his office tomorrow.

I'll send an email right now.

[PeaceNikki]

20. You should, but also see if he's signed this statement:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/press-releases/progressive-caucus-cochairs-statement-to-president-obama-social-security-benefit-cuts-hurt-our-economy1/

[SheilaT]

25. Nope.

His name is not on the signature list.

He's a terrible Representative in my opinion. Unfortunately, his family is very political in this state (New Mexico) and his father was in the State House of Representatives for many years, and had been Speaker of the House for several terms.

Lujan, the younger, became our Rep when the previous one, Tom Udall, successfully ran for the Senate in 2008. I think Lujan's main problem is that he feels entitled to his job and needs to be primaried.

[PeaceNikki]

29. Oh, boo. :( Only 10 of the 47 didn't.

2. Xavier Becerra 
24. Joe Kennedy III 
25. Ann McLane Kuster 
3. Earl Blumenauer 
30. George Miller 
32. Jim Moran 
34. Frank Pallone 
38. Jared Polis 
5. Michael Capuano 
6. Andre Carson 

Lujan did sign the CPC letter that stated, in part:

We write to affirm our vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits in any final bill to replace sequestration. Earned Social Security and Medicare benefits provide the financial and health protections necessary to keep individuals and families out of poverty. Medicaid is not only a lifeline for low-income children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and families, it is the primary source of long-term care services and supports for 3.6 million individuals. We cannot overstate their importance for our constituents and our country.


That is why we remain deeply opposed to proposals to reduce Social Security benefits through use of the chained CPI to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. We remain committed to making the changes that will extend solvency for 75 years, but Social Security has not contributed to our current fiscal problems and it should not be on the bargaining table.

[gateley]

79. Then why not sign that Grayson thing?

[PeaceNikki]

80. you know very well I cannot answer for any, let alone 47 of them.

I can tell you that I would not sign a Grover Norquisty pledge.

[HiPointDem]

85. it's not a grover norquisty pledge. it's a pledge not to cut social security.

"to vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”

[PeaceNikki]

87. I agree

With Honeycombe below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2657671

[HiPointDem]

88. I don't. The norquisty pledge is working for the pubs. Too bad our team can't even take a stand

on basic social benefits and is instead proposing republican shit like selling off TVA.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but after a while people wise up. And they are.

"Taxpayer Protection Pledge"

In which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

[graham4anything]

96. I am taking a stand. Most of the 47 are civil rights heroes. I will 100% back those 47.

[graham4anything]

90. Alan and Ron Paul seem to have a lot in common.

[neverforget]

92. Are equating Alan Grayson with Grover Norquist?

[graham4anything]

93. Blood oaths? How Ron Paulish.

[neverforget]

94. You can't even answer the question

[graham4anything]

95. Alan Grayson voted twice as the only democratic officeholder with Ron Paul FOR austerity.

said people should live within their means.

I wouldn't sign anything with someone who agrees with Rand or Ron.

What is interesting is-
most of the 47 on that list are black.
This reminds me of Rand Paul.

Joe Kennedy is on the list.
Elijah Cummings in on the list.

Sorry, I won't sell them down the river to agree with Ron and Rand Paul.

In fact, it might be time to primary Grayson himself.

[sabrina 1]

97. You didn't answer the question.

Never mind, in a way you did, thank you!

[graham4anything]

99. 47 -most are civil rights heroes which is far more important issue to the Democratic party.

over one Alan Grayson who I never heard of who keeps getting mentioned by the same crowd that hates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I will back Elijah Cumming any day.
And go against anyone who threatens him.

Of course he has been threatened many times in the past.

[HiPointDem]

98. so do you & the boggers.

[magical thyme]

103. phew! Chellie signed it.

Thank you. I've linked to it. I think I will email it to her this weekend and ask why she won't make that promise.

She has made exactly one vote that left me appalled: NDAA. And that was shortly after a personal visit with Michelle Obama. I wrote to her and asked about that and got an form email answer (expected) about a totally different topic (:wtf

So I was left seriously wondering about what she and Michelle talked about, aside from organic gardening (Chellie is a small organic farmer).

[Samantha]

45. That is truly a show-stopper

I can't believe some of those names.

Sam

[tblue]

59. Wtf?????

Who do they think they are?

[graham4anything]

71. I am going to call them and thank them for not caving to the 5%.

Some of the finest people in the house are on that list, and the 5% is going to sell them down the river?

What is very interesting is, the rightwing tea party hates with a passion, so many on this list.

They must be doing something great.

I won't sell any of them down the river.

BTW-I still don't understand and not one person has attempted to explalin-
why did Alan Grayson vote twice with Ron Paul and against all the democratic party people to vote FOR austerity?

Is Alan actually allgined more with the libertarian feeling?
He voted TWICE with them against the democratic party.

Why?

[DJ13]

82. No surprise

[gateley]

76. Shelia Jackson Lee?? Joe Kennedy III??? Jim McDermott??? Charlie Ragel??? WTF????

[graham4anything]

91. 47 heroes. 47 people Ron Paul would love to get rid of.

[quakerboy]

102. Would never have guessed 3.

Time to send some letters and ask some questions.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

111. Well, mine is on the list but doesn't require a stern talking to...

It's a BFD when Jan Schakowsky (Chicago) has to split from Barack Obama!

Washington, D.C. – In response to the inclusion of chained CPI in the president’s FY 2014 budget, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), John Conyers (D-MN) and Donna Edwards (D-MD), and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka held a press conference declaring their opposition to cutting benefits earned by America’s working families.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/hot-topics/senate-and-house-leaders-aflcio-president-richard-trumka-stand-against-chained-cpi

[magellan]

6. +1

[ChangeUp106]

4. .

I don't know...we hate Norquist's pledge so much. Don't think we need to be making one ourselves.

[unrepentant progress]

7. I think it's fine as a one-off tactic

There's nothing wrong with pinning down a politician on a particular issue, and the list is useful to bring pressure on the others. Where I'd have a problem, is if this became SOP. If it becomes a litmus test that any candidate who wants to run as a Democrat must pass, then it's as bad as Norquist's pledge.

[ChangeUp106]

8. .

But wouldn't we pretty much be saying that if/when you vote against SS we will primary you? That would pretty much establish a "test" to run.

I'm of course all for getting these people to defend SS, I'm just saying it reminds me of the GOP tax pledge.

[unrepentant progress]

10. We've never had to really worry about Social Security being cut before

I think the stakes warrant the use of the tactic this time.

[Squinch]

62. But if they vote against SS, we WILL primary them.

[99Forever]

13. It's called having a boundary...

... of that which you will tolerate. All issue aren't equal to all voters, but this one comes close. If you want call it a litmus test, I don't mind, but consider that this is a matter of life and death, actual survival for many, I won't bend on this one. Support Social Security and Medicare or be primaried, it's just that simple for me.

[unrepentant progress]

16. Exactly

[woo me with science]

49. Well said.

Some issues are fundamental to our core values and basic human morality. These are far too important to be reduced to bargaining chips.

[99Forever]

67. Thank you Woo...

.. that means a lot to me coming from you.

[quakerboy]

100. Why not?

Politicians should have things they say "never, no, in no form" to.

And then we should be free to vote for them or not based on our knowledge of their actual policy stands.

Far better that than they have these squishy sorta positions that they abandon at the turn of a hat, positions mostly inferred on based assumptions due to political party or minor comments.

I disagree with the topic of Norquists pledge, not the concept of a politician pledging to support or fight a particular policy.

[octoberlib]

11. Mel Watt? Oh hell, no.

His office is getting a phone call tomorrow( whether it does any good or not).

[magellan]

12. The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:

1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all; [font color=red]FAIL[/font]
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence

From About CPC - What is CPC?

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Someone got to them

[valerief]

38. anthrax, anyone? works every time. nt

[choie]

61. I think many of them don't want to do anything

that appears to be against Obama.

[tblue]

63. Oh please let it not be that.

It does look like many members of the Congressional Black Caucus have yet to take a stand against Pres. O's cuts. I hope they just haven't moved on it yet. They're usually good on the issues. Really. If we don't have them then we really really need to do done serious housecleaning.

[indepat]

15. Hopefully no one on this board is still under the delusion that this is

not a right-wing government which was bought and paid for by the uber-wealthy, large corporations, and oligarchs, and is operated almost solely in and for their interests and at the detriment of all of the rest of us.

[raouldukelives]

54. If it isn't apparent to anyone yet, it never will be.

I think the only delusion is that you can assist those corporations for self-gratification and still not self-identify as part of the problem.

[PeaceNikki]

17. Before everyone freaks out on some of these FINE Democrats, read the CPC statements on CPI

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/hot-topics/senate-and-house-leaders-aflcio-president-richard-trumka-stand-against-chained-cpi/

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/hot-topics/progressive-caucus-cochairs-statement-to-president-obama-social-security-benefit-cuts-hurt-our-economy/

[magellan]

21. So why won't 47 of them sign the letter?

Does it mean those 47 aren't opposed to "any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need" as the letter states, only Chained CPI?

[PeaceNikki]

22. I am not sure, we should ask them. But I do not believe for a second that many of those would

support cuts. Read the letter that they DID sign their names to:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/press-releases/progressive-caucus-cochairs-statement-to-president-obama-social-security-benefit-cuts-hurt-our-economy1/

4/5/13


Washington, D.C. – Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) released the following statement today responding to reports that President Obama will include chained CPI in his annual budget.

“Republicans have been trying to dismantle Social Security ever since President Roosevelt proposed it during the Great Depression. We should not try to bargain for their good will with policies that hurt our seniors, especially since they’ve been unwilling to reduce tax loopholes for millionaires and wealthy corporations by so much as a dime.

“One hundred seven Members of the House of Representatives, a majority of the Democratic Caucus, have already stated our vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. Americans all over the country depend on every single dollar they get from Social Security to put food on the table and pay for housing. Using chained CPI will shift more costs onto already struggling American families, seniors, veterans – including our 3.2 million disabled veterans who also depend on the Social Security calculation for their Veterans Affairs benefits – individuals with disabilities, and children on survivors’ benefits.

“This week, a new study from the New America Foundation finds that proposals to cut Social Security benefits could be disastrous for our economy because the recession has led more seniors to rely to Social Security for income. Cutting benefits now, when people are already struggling to make ends meet, will mean unnecessary hardship for millions of people. It is unpopular, unwise and unworkable.”

The text of the Feb. 15 Schakowsky-Conyers- Grijalva-Ellison-Edwards letter opposing chained CPI is below.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



February 15, 2013



Dear President Obama:



We want to thank you for standing strong in the American Taxpayer Relief Act to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from benefit cuts that would jeopardize the well-being of millions of Americans.



We write to affirm our vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits in any final bill to replace sequestration. Earned Social Security and Medicare benefits provide the financial and health protections necessary to keep individuals and families out of poverty. Medicaid is not only a lifeline for low-income children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and families, it is the primary source of long-term care services and supports for 3.6 million individuals. We cannot overstate their importance for our constituents and our country.



That is why we remain deeply opposed to proposals to reduce Social Security benefits through use of the chained CPI to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. We remain committed to making the changes that will extend solvency for 75 years, but Social Security has not contributed to our current fiscal problems and it should not be on the bargaining table.



Similarly, we oppose proposals to increase Medicare cost-sharing requirements or to raise the age of eligibility. Half of all Medicare recipients live on less than $22,000 a year – yet they spend, on average, three times as much of those limited incomes on health care as other Americans. Raising their already heavy cost-sharing burden or increasing the age of eligibility doesn’t lower health care costs, it just shifts them to those who can least afford more financial burdens – seniors, people with disabilities and their families.



A commitment to keeping the middle-class strong and reducing poverty requires a commitment to keeping Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid strong. We urge you to reject any proposals to cut benefits, and we look forward to working with you to enact approaches that instead rely on economic growth and more fair revenue-raising policies to solve our fiscal problems.



Sincerely,



Schakowsky, Jan

Ellison, Keith

Grijalva, Raúl M.

Conyers, John

Edwards, Donna

Barber, Ron

Bass, Karen

Bera, Ami

Bonamici, Suzanne

Brady, Robert

Braley, Bruce L.

Brown, Corrine

Brownley, Julia

Bustos, Cheri

Butterfield, G.K.

Capps, Lois

Cardenas, Tony

Cartwright, Matthew

Castor, Kathy

Christensen, Donna M.,

Chu, Judy

Cicilline, David

Clarke, Yvette D.

Clay Jr., William "Lacy"

Cleaver, Emanuel

Cohen, Steve

Conyers Jr., John

Courtney, Joe

Cummings, Elijah

Davis, Danny K.

DeFazio, Peter

DeLauro, Rosa L.

Deutch, Ted

Duckworth, Tammy

Edwards, Donna F.

Ellison, Keith

Eshoo, Anna G.

Faleomavaega, Eni F. H.

Farr, Sam

Fattah, Chaka

Frankel, Lois

Fudge, Marcia L.

Garamendi, John

Grayson, Alan

Green, Al

Green, Gene

Grijalva, Raul

Gutierrez, Luis

Hahn, Janice

Hastings, Alcee L.

Hinojosa, Rubén

Holt, Rush

Honda, Mike

Huffman, Jared

Jackson Lee, Sheila

Jeffries, Hakeem

Johnson, Eddie Bernice

Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" Jr.

Kaptur, Marcy

Kildee, Daniel

Kirkpatrick, Ann

Langevin, Jim

Lee, Barbara

Lewis, John

Loebsack, David

Lofgren, Zoe

Lowenthal, Alan

Lujan Grisham, Michelle

Lynch, Stephen F.

Maloney, Carolyn

Markey, Ed

Matsui, Doris O.

McDermott, Jim

McGovern, James

Meng, Grace

Michaud, Michael

Moore, Gwen

Nadler, Jerrold

Negrete McLeod, Gloria

Nolan, Rick

Norton, Eleanor Holmes

Pastor, Ed

Payne Jr., Donald

Pingree, Chellie

Pocan, Mark

Rangel, Charles B.

Roybal-Allard, Lucille

Rush, Bobby L.

Ryan, Tim

Sablan, Gregorio

Sanchez, Linda

Scott, Robert C.

Serrano, José E.

Shea-Porter, Carol

Sinema, Kyrsten

Sires, Albio

Slaughter, Louise

Speier, Jackie

Takano, Mark

Thompson, Bennie G.

Tierney, John

Titus, Dina

Tonko, Paul D.

Vargas, Juan

Veasey, Marc

Velázquez, Nydia M.

Waters, Maxine

Watt, Mel

Waxman, Henry

Welch, Peter

Wilson, Frederica



cc: Speaker John Boehner

House Minority Leader Pelosi

Senate Majority Leader Reid

Senate Minority Leader McConnell

[magellan]

24. I did read it

It only mentions their opposition to cutting SS via Chained CPI, not other cuts.

I'll just ask my rep, Congressman Grayson, what excuse they gave. If any.

[PeaceNikki]

27. Only 10 of those 47 didn't sign the CPC letter. They are:

2. Xavier Becerra 
24. Joe Kennedy III 
25. Ann McLane Kuster 
3. Earl Blumenauer 
30. George Miller 
32. Jim Moran 
34. Frank Pallone 
38. Jared Polis 
5. Michael Capuano 
6. Andre Carson 

[magellan]

30. Even more interesting

Joe Kennedy III wouldn't sign either letter? Funny how we associate certain names with certain ways of thinking. Wrong to do but I did.....

Well, since it's late now I shot an email off to Grayson. If I get a response I'll share it.

[PeaceNikki]

32. Thanks, that would be cool. Or ask him to reply here!! :)

I was glad to see some of my favorite Democratic warriors on both and some on just the CPC letter. There are at least 3 that are not on the Grayson pledge (but on CPC letter) that I personally hugged and have great trust in.

[magellan]

35. Drats, I wish I'd thought of that

...asking him to reply here!

I'm afraid my trust in any politician is now exactly where it should be: zero. Deeds, not words. And eternal vigilance. But I do feel very fortunate to be able to call Grayson my Congressman.

[PeaceNikki]

36. I have severe "Representative envy" of you and many others.

I am in an infamous red red county in WI. I live vicariously through you all and work to further the strong progressives nearby. We have some great Democrats here in WI. Tammy Baldwin is the only one I can call my own but it makes me smile ear to ear to do so.

[magellan]

46. Oh my

I don't envy you a bit, but I feel some of your pain: we've got Voldemort for a Governor. He's bad, but I don't think I'd trade him for Walker.

[dflprincess]

55. I had the same reaction

and I don't think his great-uncle Ted would approve of him not signing.

[SheilaT]

47. Ben Ray Lujan

is my Rep, and his name does not appear on the list of those who signed.

[PeaceNikki]

48. Oh, thanks for clarifying!!

[haikugal]

68. Let us know what he says...

I'd like to know what they have against Grayson.

[Faryn Balyncd]

18. These Representatives need a MILLION telephone calls a day until these cuts are DEFEATED.

[SheilaT]

23. Okay, here's the text of my email:

Dear Representative Lujan,

I understand that you are one of the Democrats who has not signed the letter which was initiated by Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, pledging to “vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”

You need to sign the letter. You need to commit yourself to protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Social Security itself does not contribute at all to the deficit, and it can be funded into perpetuity by raising the cap on earnings that pay into Social Security.

As for Medicare and Medicaid, since we are the ONLY first world country that does not provide universal health care, those two need to be more fully funded than they are. We should have Medicare for all, rather than any plans to cut back or to raise eligibility requirements.

Far too many of us do not have paid-for health care. Unlike, say, a U.S. Representative. And many of us have no pensions, thanks to changes that encouraged companies to stop funding their pensions and putting the burden on employees to save and invest.

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position, and will sign the letter soon. If not, and if you actually vote to change or cut those programs, I will work very hard for any Democrat who will support them, and who will run against you next year.

Thank you for your time.

[magellan]

31. Nicely stated

[villager]

26. The Ides of April is definitely here

We're just a pretend "republic" after all.

[spanone]

28. the whole pledge thingy is bullshit...

[jsr]

33. By their fruits ye shall know them

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

34. Wait a minute...

We rail against "no compromise" Conservatives, and think it is absolutely ridiculous when the far-right mounts a primary challenge against a member who is at least willing to CONSIDER compromising on an issue like taxes (an opinion that is just as strongly held on the GOP side as SS is on our side), but we are witnessing the same thing here on our side.

Something that DRASTICALLY helped our party in 2012 was the mindset that our party was the one who was willing to "compromise" and "make the tough decisions" for the "overall good of the country"...as much as we might not like it. And if it wasn't for that belief held among voters in 2012 about the OVERALL Democratic Party, we very well could have been here today railing against President Romney's plan to privatize Social Security, something that would be much worse than anything Chained CPI would do (which is something that will not go through anyway).

[Bluenorthwest]

66. I do not agree with your unsupported assertion that willingness to compromise and

make cuts helped our Party. I think only a slack jawed idiot would declare that compromise in and of itself is any sort of goal at all, a deal is only good if it is a good deal, only a good compromise is popular, not compromise at any cost not compromise just to compromise. And yet you claim that making any old crumby compromise is what Americans want, why we won. Do you have anything to back up this crazy claim? Americans don't want jobs, secure futures, economic security, they want compromise. They don't want excellence, they want compromise. Crazy talk.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

72. Well, A Gallup poll backs up my claim about the GOP and the notion of "compromise"

From Gallup: American's Top Critique of GOP: "Unwilling To Compromise" - http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx

I was just trying to make the connection that looking at the overall view of the Democratic Party, we are more willing to "compromise - and yes, that does mean putting something that we don't like on the table, like Chained CPI, just like we want the GOP to put additional revenue on the table. That sort of attitude helps our image as a party.

Plus, even though simply cutting Social Security is not supported by many at all, what IS supported by a large majority of Americans is deficit reduction in a balanced way, including taxing upper income people (In the President's budget, Chained CPI is only on the table with $580 billion in new revenue, something that has gotten overlooked a lot in this debate.)

[duffyduff]

106. You don't compromise with destroying 80 years of Democratic policies, period.

You hold the president accountable, not kiss his right-wing, neoliberal ass.

[daybranch]

78. point taken

but what you are really saying is that when democrats seem to be doing what the majority wants, they win. In this case, the majority is against the chained CPI. Supporting this cut is so scary that the republicans leaders themselves would never suggest it aloud for fear of losing large numbers of supporters. Have you not noticed the unwillingness to open discussions with the President now that this has been put into the budget?
The republican leadership are still trying to sell us on an alternate universe- a universe that says benefits earned or unearned should all be looked at as unearned and even worse undeserved. In their facade world anything going to anyone other than tax cuts for the rich are to use their words undeserved entitlements. The way they want us to see it is Debt is evil,Government has debt, paying beneficiaries keeps us from paying debt, beneficiaries are evil, it is okay to steal from them. It is all so evident in their cognitive dissonance, but now Obama has laid out a straight forward decision for them and us to make. Are we going to refuse to refund the social security payments that have been made as promised for over 70 years or are we willing to steal directly through the chained CPI to serve the rich, while labeling it necessary reduce our debt? Obama has brought the decision front and center. Those that support the chained CPI will suffer at the polls, no matter their party. The American people are demonstrating their opposition to it across the nation, regardless of party. The resentment of the people is showing. Obama has raised the activism of the country to include far far more than the Tea Party ever consisted off. Seniors, health advocates, veterans, government retirees, the Unions, AARP, activist progressive organizations such as Moveon and DFA, as well as local democratic parties are just some of the organizations speaking out on this. Further many many republican voters and independent voters are now being forced to take a stand on what is now a clear issue and they stand against the chained CPI as well.
President Obama has no future election. He is the leader of the democratic party and he does that in the way he chooses. The chained CPI discussion has so far been a great blessing as a method to focus the people. Now democrats congressmen and women and republican congressmen and women have the responsibility to demonstrate whether they are governed by the loudly expressed and highly visible will of the people or the large payments made as silently and as invisible as possible. I appreciate the dialogue the president has forced upon the country.

[cheapdate]

86. You seem to be in the minority here...

and I believe I'm in it with you. Republicans have a thirty-three seat majority in the House. The choice is either concessions and compromise or continuing stalemate. The consequences of continuing stalemate are easy to predict -- two more years like the last two years.

Which means we continue the endless, mindless, lurching from one crisis to the next. We continue to grant the House Republicans at least two more years to play their dangerous game of chicken. We continue to grant Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan outsized, prominent, positions on center stage and allow them to repeat their spurious and fallacious "arguments". We continue to have the people's business held hostage by the House Republicans. We continue to see our government funded by one "emergency appropriation bill" after another, which is a horrible way to do business and gives the Republicans great opportunities to create all sorts of mischief.

I believe there is a substantial risk in continuing in this manner. We could go back into recession. We could see all sorts of public good eroded and destroyed in these "devil's bargain" emergency appropriations bills.

(Note: I'm sure there are some people who might say, "how much worse could a recession be? It couldn't be worse than this." All I can say is, yes it can.)

I'm not diminishing the importance of reduced SS benefits to many people, but something has to be conceded or there will be no agreement, i.e. stalemate, with the consequences being as described above. I think that many members of the Progressive Caucus understand this, as difficult as it may be.

[AllyCat]

37. Time for me to call Marc Pocan.

Did not work for that guy to do this kind of damage. He's going to hear it from me.

[PeaceNikki]

41. He signed the CPC letter...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2657366

[stupidicus]

40. they need to be primaried in 2014 then if they're up for election

and that's that

[woo me with science]

50. +100000

[Demo_Chris]

60. At a minimum, yes

I will not vote for anyone who votes in favor of cuts to social security.

[PeaceNikki]

83. ridiculous. how many of those representatives do you know anything about?

Just because they didn't sign The Pledge doesn't mean they support SS cuts. Most of them signed a letter to Obama firmly against. Many are strong progressive Democratic warriors and you want to toss them aside?

Terrible.

[stupidicus]

107. I'll leave that up to their constituents to determine

if they are willing to support BHO's budget with that (and things that aren't in it, which is another story) in it then yeah, not supporting them is what democracy is all about.

Just because they are firmly against it as a single item hardly means they are willing to prevent the passage of the entire budget with a no vote, does it?

[Honeycombe8]

42. You mean like the Norquist pledge? That's a stupid idea, to sign a promise against some future event

no matter what economical emergencies or situations may exist or arise. And semantics may mean that something is called a cut when it's not, or vice versa.

IMO, it's not wise for a politician to sign ANY pledge, as a matter of principle. Stating his philosophy and intention should be enough.

[randome]

65. I didn't see your post before I posted my own.

You are absolutely correct.

[unrepentant progress]

89. But it's not some vague future event

It's here. Now. This was the White House's formal budget proposal as required by law. From here it goes to the House and Senate Budget Committees. What's wrong with pinning down your Congressperson's position on an imminent issue?

[Honeycombe8]

110. I'm against the Norquist pledge, and anything like it. Which this would be. For one thing...

as I said...semantics gets in the way. What you might call a cut, I may not....and vice versa.

We also want politicians who do what's best, under whatever circumstances may arise. We don't (or at least I don't) want them signing pledges for this, pledges for that. They campaigned on their philosophy, made promises already...and we voted based on that. If they reneg on their campaign promises, they would betray a pledge...so what's the point, anyway.

I would say that Obama would say that the chained cpi is NOT a Social Security cut. So even if he had signed a pledge, he wouldn't consider it broken.

It's meaningless and unnecessary and a sideshow.

[hog]

43. jerks

[jerseyjack]

44. Of the N.J. names, Holt is the biggest surprise.

[99th_Monkey]

51. WTF? I thought double negatives (..WON'T promise to NOT cut..) are supposed to be positive??

Not so much in this case

[valerief]

52. I guess 'Progressive' doesn't mean what it used to mean. nt

[winter is coming]

53. I'm more interested in action than in loyalty oaths.

Whether they've signed a pledge or not, I'm going to primary anyone who votes to cut SS or Medicare.

[PinkFloyd]

57. This is why I'm pondering giving up on voting at all...

It seems these days BOTH PARTIES are the same road to hell. Just one gets you there faster than the other by not offering any illusion that it doesn't care about anyone but millionaires. When so-called progressives are for cutting SS and Medicare, it's time to hang up my "chad".

But honestly...If Democrats vote for this "grand bargain", I hope and pray they lose their shirts in 2014. Yes, it'll be hard to take years of hearing idiots discuss the merits of rape and rape babies or homosexuality being like drinking and global warming denial...But I'm so sick and fucking tired of every election I ever vote in being about voting for the perceived lesser evil. Frankly, about now I'd just as soon replace Pelosi herself with a Rand Paul clone. At least then there's a chance that someday THEY might get replaced with an actual liberal.

I am so tried of being sold out.

[randome]

69. * Sigh *

1. Health care that addresses pre-existing conditions and contraception.
2. Gay rights going forward.
3. Gun control going forward.
4. A consistent push for more equitable taxation.

And you say there is no difference between the parties?

We don't have nearly the amount of progress we SHOULD have but, no, the parties are NOT the same.

[randome]

64. They should no more promise this than Republicans should pledge not to raise taxes.

It's ridiculous. No one knows the future.

[mountain grammy]

81. Of course. Congressmen take a pledge to uphold the Constitution..

they have no business signing pledges on the side to NEVER do something. I didn't like the Norquist pledge and I don't like this one.

[diabeticman]

74. Great Now we have PINOs Pregressives In Name Only

[Hoyt]

77. Maybe they are being realistic about the big picture.

[ReRe]

84. Congressional Progressives for/against the SS cpi gimmick!

K&R

...marking so I can refer back to!

[Scootaloo]

101. So the question needs to be asked; what, exactly, do they see their "progress" leading towards?

[duffyduff]

105. I have been telling you we have a government run by and for gangsters

The billionaires and Wall Street want that money.

Those 47 people aren't Democrats.

[PeaceNikki]

109. You think they "aren't Democrats" because they didn't sign this? Bullshit. How many do you know?

Just because they didn't sign The Pledge doesn't mean they support SS cuts. Most of them signed a letter to Obama firmly against. Many are strong progressive Democratic warriors and you want to toss them aside?

They haven't voted on anything. Unless and until they do or make any statements OTHER THAN the one they already have - firmly against and and all SS cuts, then we'll talk. Until then, you're being ridiculous.