Only 11 Democratic Senators oppose cuts in Social Security?

[Better Believe It]

Fight the 80.7% of Senate Dems who wanna cut Social Security!
By: fairleft
October 11, 2010

Only 19.3% of Senate Dems — 11 out of 57 – oppose cuts in Social Security, if signing onto Senator Bernie Sanders’ anti-cuts, anti-privatization, anti-raise-retirement age resolution is a good indicator. Bernie’s is equivalent of House member Raul Grijalva’s "No Cuts" resolution and, I think, a good indicator of Senate Democrat sentiments.

But as far as you should be concerned, take it a step further: that means 80.7% of Senate Dems probably will support cuts. Things are only slightly better in the House, where 43.9% of Democratic Party representatives have put it in writing, by co-sponsoring Grijalva’s resolution, that they oppose cuts, privatization, and raising the retirement age. Like Dean Baker says (emphasis added), both resolutions would commit

.... members of Congress, or candidates, to oppose cutting Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age. It doesn’t get any simpler than this – even a member of Congress can understand it. … Given the simplicity of this statement, it is reasonable to assume that any member of Congress or candidate who does not sign on supports cutting Social Security benefits. There really is no other plausible conclusion.

So, harass your Congressperson into signing on to the damned thing!

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/76136

[Hannah Bell]

1. kr

[Gman]

2. Your subject and post is extremely misleading

if not flat out false.

[rhett o rick]

5. Your post is very inflammatory without any evidence. If you can refute the OP, please do. nm

[Better Believe It]

6. Only 11 have signed on to a non-controversial pledge. The rest haven't . Why do you think that is?

I'm listening.

Oh ....

They are against Social Security cuts, they just don't want to go public.

Sure.

That's the ticket!

[karynnj]

32. Because it is rare for every Senator for something to sponsor it

Not to mention, the Senate is out of session.

[Gman]

49. It doesn't matter what answer you give these people

they are going to want to slam Democrats regardless of what the facts are.

[TBF]

53. Define "these people" please. Do you mean those of us

who vote dem, donate to dems, etc... every time for DECADES? Only to have you young cheerleaders try to kick us out of our own party? THOSE people?

[Gman]

55. If you hate Obama, you're "these people"

young cheerleaders LOL!!

[TBF]

57. I don't think you'll find that many on this site who "hate" Obama -

it's not personal and he seems like a nice enough guy as far as politicians go. But he's also a "company man" and it's been business as usual for the first two years. I'm still naive enough to hold out a bit of hope that it may change with Rahm gone. But not very much hope - after all it seems like this has been entrenched for an awfully long time after watching the old Eisenhower speech on you tube.

[Gman]

62. Gimme a friggin' break.

Whining and complaining. You don't know how good you've got it with Obama.

[LWolf]

3. Who are the 11? nt

[BuelahWitch]

4. Here:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif),
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio),
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.),
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y),
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii),
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.),
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.),
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

[Better Believe It]

Where's Reid? The "leader" of Senate Democrats

[LWolf]

64. Thanks.

I think at least one, if not both, of my Senators might be open to signing on. I'll drop them a line.

[Suich]

7. I don't think signing, or not signing a resolution

means anything. Let's see how they actually vote.

[dflprincess]

10. I think Democrats being unwilling to sign a pledge to not cut Social Secuity is a very bad sign.

It doesn't surprise me that that tool, Amy Klobuchar, hasn't signed on, but I wonder what's up with Franken.

[Statistical]

26. Why would they refuse to sign it other than to leave the door open in the future.

11 Senators are willing to defend SS status quo. The rest may defend it or may not. It all depends on the political wins, how hard of a fight it is, and how much they can get for it.

Anyone thinking someone is 100% committed to defending SS at all cost and won't sign the resolution denial isn't only a river in Egypt.

[karynnj]

34. Not signing is NOT "refusing to sign"

In addition, that resolution was introduced on the last day the Senate voted before leaving. It is entirely possible that many Senators did not see it before the Senate adjourned.

[Statistical]

45. Good point. The timing may mean that "some" senators weren't able to sign.

Sadly I doubt regardless of how much time they get the total number won't rise much above the teens at best. I hope I am wrong.

[Better Believe It]

51. Ever Senator is aware of this resolution. Any of them can sign it at anytime without difficulty.

They do have staffs.

[Autumn]

8. I got to say I would think all of the Democrats

would jump to sign on that resolution, especially before an election. It bothers me that more haven't signed on.

[cliffordu]

9. OH NOES!!!!1111!!!!!111!!!!

Yet another completely bogus posit from the bogus posit brigade, who never misses a false conclusion, straw man or red herring.

I have to admire your complete lack of veracity, and, well your voracity.....

[karynnj]

35. [phone]

Has he had a single positive post yet?

[cliffordu]

39. Not in this epoch

[girl gone mad]

48. Yet another personal attack from the defend-at-all-costs brigade..

who never miss an opportunity to rebut facts and logical assertions with lame ad hominem rhetoric.

[cliffordu]

61. "...logical assertions..."

:rofl:

'nuff said!!!!

[jaxx]

11. 3 weeks before the election and FDL is doing the drama.

What is it with them and the hit pieces? We get a " " from nowhere, and it's gospel. No thanks.

[Better Believe It]

13. 3 weeks before the election and most Democratic Senators won't commit to defending Social Security?

Now what's that about?

I'm listening.

[jaxx]

14. Are they voting today?

No? That must mean this is hype against them because they aren't doing what the blogger thinks they should be doing. It also gave him his self appointed opportunity to bash Obama.

Once again....no thanks.

[Better Believe It]

16. Only 11 Democratic Senators have gone on the record against Social Security cuts. Why is that?

It appears you don't have a problem with that.

And why is that?

[jaxx]

18. They're in recess.

Plenty of time since the committee doesn't put out it's ideas until Dec.

[dflprincess]

22. At which time there will be a no debate up or down vote on its recommendations

(Klobuchar has said she supports that).

And, I'll bet it will be a voice vote. Not unlike that foreclosure scam bill they just tried to slip past us. Only this time Obama probably won't veto it as he appointed some of the biggest Social Security foes to his "deficit reduction" commission.

[jaxx]

24. I'd rather wait for the reality instead of second guessing the outcome.

It's far from a done deal.

[dflprincess]

27. Waiting until they've acted on the recommendations -

may be too late. Better we let them know we're paying attention.

[jaxx]

29. Like they don't know that.

[Better Believe It]

31. I don't agree. I don't think we should just sit around and wait without putting the pressure on.

[jaxx]

36. Who are they pressuring?

The committee? That would be the obvious choice since they're in there negotiating. Instead FDL wants to go after the congress...which really doesn't make any sense because signing a prospective bill like a petition isn't very effective.

[Better Believe It]

63. How are the Democratic Senators negotiating inside the commission on social security cuts?

1. There is nothing to negotiate in support of cuts.

2. How are those negotiations going?

3. Name the Senators who are negotiating at committee meetings and have publicly pledged to not support Social Security cuts.

4. What cuts in Social Security benefits would you support in return for a little crumb such as an increase in the SS tax cap?

[Better Believe It]

17. Are they fighting against possible cuts and making it clear where they stand?

I guess they just can't go way out on the limb to appease the "professional left" and seniors by publicly commiting to defend social security.

That would be so fricken radical and ultra-left wing. NOT.

[jaxx]

20. Most people know that Democrats have always stood for SS.

It's not a new concept. This frantic demand isn't very honest. And LOL at the quote, the 'professional left' now wants to be appeased?

[dflprincess]

23. Democrats always stood for labor and public education too

but they don't seem to object to attacking unions & public schools these days.

[jaxx]

25. Don't deflect.

[dflprincess]

30. The "new" Democrats have made it clear they are willing to abandon traditional Democratic values

in a number of areas. Don't assume they won't abandon Social Security if it is what they're corporate "donors" want them to do - especially if they think they can sneak it past us. It's not a coincidence that these recommendations are not due until after the election and that a lame duck session will deal with them.

Again, they need to know we're paying attention.

[jaxx]

33. Don't assume they will abandon SS.

When the 'corporate' bit and the 'new' Democrat stuff comes along as the reason for anything I figure this conversation is at an end. I really don't get into conspiracies.

[dflprincess]

42. So there is no reason to question the the timing of this vote?

If the whole thing was on the up and up not only would the committee's meetings be public (remember that transparency we were promised?) the recommendations would have been presented to Congress well before the election.

Obama called himself a "new Democrat" and if you want to believe that crowd won't sell out the working and middle classes you just go ahead and continue to delude yourself.

[NorthCarolina]

56. Todays Dems are largely controlled by the conservative DLC. The era of Dems who advocate

for the people is long gone. The Deficit Commission, created by a DLC New Dem, was not created just to make "busy time". It has a distinct purpose, including (and likely foremost) recommending changes to Social Security. So, you are either in a severe state of denial, or you are continually deflecting in the hopes of quelling dissent to aid in enabling such changes. Millions of our nations elderly depend on the promise of Social Security and Medicare as their only means. To me, it is un-American, and highly suspicious to boot, to even suggest that someones apprehension is unwarranted, and that they should just sit back and wait to see what happens before taking action.

[karynnj]

44. Are they in session?? All sources say - no they adjourned the day this was introduced.

[spanone]

12. i'm not sure that's the best indicator since bernie is an independent????

[WillyT]

15. They're Keepin Their Powder Dry For The 3 Dimensional Chess Tournament During The Lame Duck Session

It's all part of the Master Plan that us peon voter types are too dull to understand.

Come on guys... where's the Trust?

:shrug:

[unkachuck]

19. K&R....n/t

[Stevenmarc]

21. .

[karynnj]

28. Looking at the Senators who agree to sponsor something

as the number who would support it is ridiculous. There are things that ALMOST ALL Democrats vote for, yet which had maybe 5 sponsored it. (Look at the original SCHIP bill - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SP297: - The sponsors were Hatch, Kennedy and Kerry. ) Do you think that meant that only the three of them really supported it?

Here, this resolution was introduced on the last day the Senate was in session. It is highly likely that most Senators did not see or review it.

[Better Believe It]

38. This is not a legislation Senators are being asked to co-sponsor. It's a simple resolution to

oppose Social Security cuts.

Read the entire resolution here:

http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/senate_social_security_resolution.pdf

Here's the news release from Senator Sanders:

Release: Congress Steps Up to Protect Social Security
September 30, 2010

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - With a White House budget panel contemplating Social Security cuts, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced a Senate resolution to protect seniors and safeguard the program's surplus funds for future retirees.

The measure filed yesterday with 11 Senate cosponsors would put the White House commission on notice that raising the retirement age, privatizing the program, or cutting benefits would meet stiff opposition on Capitol Hill. The resolution called the worker-supported Social Security system, which has run surpluses for a quarter century, "America's most successful and reliable retirement program."

"Let's be clear," Sanders and others said in a letter to Senate colleagues. Social Security is not in crisis." The Social Security Trust Fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion by the year 2023, the senators noted. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits to every recipient until the year 2039. Even then at least 75 percent of promised benefits would be available if no steps are taken to strengthen Social Security. "It will not be bankrupt," the senators said.

In the House, more than 100 members have signed a letter urging President Obama to reject any proposals to cut Social Security benefits. "If any of the commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them," warned Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.), John Conyers (D-Mich.) and others.

Facing a Dec. 1 deadline, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will issue recommendations on ways to reduce the federal deficit and achieve long-term fiscal stability if 14 out of its 18 members can come to an agreement. Changes in Social Security benefits may be among the recommendations.

Raising the eligibility age for a full Social Security benefit would amount to a substantial benefit cut. According to the Social Security Administration, each year the retirement age is increased is tantamount to a 7 percent reduction in benefits. The minimum age to retire with full benefits already is schedule to go from 65 to 67 in 2022. Increasing the retirement age even more would place additional hardships on workers, especially those in physically-demanding jobs.

Privatizing Social Security would deny workers the guaranteed benefits and security that the 75-year-old system was designed to provide. With market gyrations eroding many investors' life savings during the recession, the senators said Social Security recipients "should not have to be dependent for their retirement and basic needs upon the ups and downs of the stock market."

"All of us believe the federal deficit is a significant problem that Congress must address, but Social Security should not be a part of that debate," the senators said. "Social Security is the cornerstone of our nation's retirement system and it should be supported, strengthened and preserved. Workers and employers have paid dedicated taxes into the system, and it belongs to every American."

Sanders' Senate resolution cosponsors are Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

[karynnj]

40. It was introduced the last say the Senate was in session

The fact is that it is rarely the case - if ever - that all Senators supporting something sign to sponsor it - and YES, it is sponsoring it that the people who sign on are doing.

[Dragonfli]

41. Umm this is not a bill they are refusing to sponser... Do you know how to read?

This is a commitment to defend social security. Not a bill.

[karynnj]

47. It is a bill - here is the record on it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.res.00664:

S.RES.664
Title: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate in opposition to privatizing Social Security, raising the retirement age, or other similar cuts to benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard (introduced 9/29/2010) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Finance.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
9/29/2010--Introduced.

Expresses the sense of the Senate to reaffirm its commitment to the Social Security program, without privatizing it, raising the Normal Retirement Age, or making other similar cuts to benefits under title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***
ALL ACTIONS:

9/29/2010:
Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7835-7836)

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

***NONE***

COSPONSORS(11), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 9/29/2010
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 9/29/2010
Sen Brown, Sherrod - 9/29/2010
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 9/29/2010
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 9/29/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom - 9/29/2010
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 9/29/2010
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 9/29/2010
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 9/29/2010
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 9/29/2010
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon - 9/29/2010

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
Senate Finance Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***
{/div]

Note that it was introduced the last day the Senate was in session. It is extremely likely that many Senators were in hearings (as my other Senator was - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=4cceed6b-5056-a032-5229-6a73904c7998 )

[OregonBlue]

37. Another negative post. Yawn................Don't these people ever get tired of being downers. It

would be so nice to come to DU and read some good news for a change.

[philly_bob]

43. Suspicious of the reasoning and the source. (nt)

[Better Believe It]

46. You're suspicious of Senator Sanders? Oh. He's one of thos lefty socialists.

I understand.

[karynnj]

50. No I think he means suspicious of FDL and you

I know I am - and for good reason.

[TBF]

52. They don't care about us - they work for the corporations. nt

[ProSense]

54. Al Franken didn't sign

There goes is campaign for President in 2016 (or for some, his challenge in 2012).

Always good to see the logic involved in spin.

[Ikonoklast]

58. I like Sen. Al, but under the bus he goes!

He can't convince me he isn't against Social Security now, the phony!


Franken almost had me fooled, but the OP made me see the error of my ways...anyone that hasn't signed this is a right-wing idealogue fake Democrat NAZI!!!!


Unrec for hysterical babble, and not all from me.

[sufrommich]

59. Good Lord, what a ridiculous thread title. nt

[MadHound]

60. Yep, that's why the whole SS debate has been put off for the lame duck session

If the voters knew just exactly how opposed to SS Dems are, they would be lucky to get a single vote in November.

But once the election is done, when the politicians extract from us the only thing they want, our vote, we're going to see SS getting eviscerated.