Skip to main content

Received this e-mail today from Congressman Ed Markey (D. MA) who is running for Secretary of State John Kerry's (D. MA) Senate seat on June 25th:
"I was shocked to hear that the President's newest budget proposal would cut $100 billion in Social Security benefits...'chained CPI' is just a fancy way to say 'cut benefits for seniors, the permanently disabled, and orphans.'"
-- Senator Elizabeth Warren

In President Obama's latest budget, he proposed to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated to something called a "chained CPI" system -- which effectively cuts benefits for seniors and veterans.

Now, I agree with the President on a lot. Reducing gun violence. Tackling climate change. Investing in our schools and infrastructure. But on this I'm with Senator Elizabeth Warren -- I was surprised, and frankly disappointed, to see chained CPI changes to Social Security in the President's budget.

Social Security is a guarantee. Seniors have worked hard all of their lives to earn their benefits. Chained CPI is nothing more than "Cutting People's Benefits." Pursuing a progressive agenda should not come at the expense of our seniors' financial security.

We're still building a grassroots effort to stop chained CPI -- and I need your help. Tell the President: No chained CPI. No cuts to Social Security. Click here and add your name right now:

http://www.edmarkey.com/...

Thank you for your support.

Ed

Click here to add your name to Markey's petition:

http://www.edmarkey.com/...

Markey will be going up against buisnessman Gabriel Gomez (R. MA) who supports cuts to Social Security.  PPP's latest poll for the League of Conservation Voters now shows Markey leading Gomez by seven points:

http://www.scribd.com/...

Public Policy Polling’s newest survey of the US Senate election in Massachusetts finds Ed Markey’s lead over Gabriel Gomez growing to 7 points at 48/41, up from a 4 pointmargin right after the primary election 2 weeks ago.

PPP interviewed 880 likely voters from May 13th to 15th with a margin of error of +/-3.3% on behalf of the League of Conservation Voters.

If you would like to get involved with the Markey campaign, you can do so here:
http://www.edmarkey.com/

Originally posted to pdc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Pushing back at the Grand Bargain, Massachusetts Kosmopolitans, In Support of Labor and Unions, The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, Boston Kossacks, and Social Security Defenders.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That fits on a bumper sticker (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stewarjt, SouthernLiberalinMD

    And makes for a confident intro spiel for for canvassers.

    Just sayin'...

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:03:54 AM PDT

  •  that makes 3 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stewarjt, raboof, musiccitymollie

    38 to go

    Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

    by Nada Lemming on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:28:47 AM PDT

    •  Warren, Sanders and Markey? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musiccitymollie, poopdogcomedy

      How about Brown, Whitehouse, and Harkin?

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Begich, Hagan, Pryor, Shaheen, Hirono, Schatz (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        and Reed.

        Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

        by poopdogcomedy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:21:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So we've got thirteen. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          87 to go. Jeez Louise.  I can't believe this crap even of the Republicans.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:34:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We're getting there. I know Mark Udall & Michael (2+ / 0-)

            Bennet's reactions to Obama's budgets were not good.  They said we can't balance the budget off the backs of the poor and middle-class.

            Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

            by poopdogcomedy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:41:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm liking the Udalls more and more. n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poopdogcomedy, Nada Lemming

              "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:33:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Me too! Oh I forgot to mention Debbie Stabenow as (0+ / 0-)

                one of the Senators against cuts to Social Security.

                Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

                by poopdogcomedy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:32:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  SL, you might want to check out Senator Udall's (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                divineorder, Nada Lemming

                website.  It is not very encouraging.  

                Frankly, I go by their policies as they present them to their constituents, more than 'what they say' when they sign a letter, or simply issue a "Press Release," whose target is the Democratic Party Base (which is not to say that you are doing that).

                Neither Senator Udall nor Senator Bennett even list 'Social Security or Seniors' on their 'issues list.'
                 . . .
                Here's an excerpt on "Fiscal Responsibility" from Senator Udall's own website;

                Fiscal Responsibility

                . . . As the economy recovers, most economists believe it would be premature to dramatically slash federal spending.

                But we must rein in massive deficits, which threaten to saddle future generations with debt that could trigger disastrous inflation and further cripple our economy. . . .

                And finally, we need to take up and pass recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was headed by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, for how to set our nation on a path to long-term fiscal sustainability.

                (My words, here:  The statement below, intended to innoculate himself from the wrath of 'the base,' does not 'fly' with me.  It is standard 'corporatist Dem' doublespeak.)

                While I don't agree with all of its recommendations, the Bowles-Simpson Commission’s report is a serious, bipartisan plan that I believe deserves consideration and an up-or-down vote by Congress.

                To the statement that Bowles-Simpson's report is a serious, bipartisan plan that I believe deserves consideration and an up-or-down vote by Congress . . .

                Here's what IL US Rep Jan Schakowsky had to say about that in her Reuters Op-Ed late last year (an excerpt and a link):

                The sham of Simpson-Bowles

                By Rep. Jan Schakowsky
                October 24, 2012

                It has been nearly two years since the commission they chaired, which I served on, finished its work. The duo’s proposal has attained almost mythical status in Washington as the epitome of what a “grand bargain” should look like.

                . . . . But everyone look again. They will discover that it is far less than meets the eye. . . .

                Have Simpson-Bowles’ champions read it? Given any real scrutiny, this plan falls far short of being a serious, workable or reasonable proposal – from either an economic or political analysis. . . .

                In one of its few specific points, for example, Simpson-Bowles mandates a top individual tax rate of 29 percent “or less.” . . .

                Somehow, being willing to cut “entitlement” benefits has been called a “badge of courage” for those who purport to be serious about deficit reduction– despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one thin dime to the deficit.

                Under Simpson-Bowles, long-term solvency for Social Security is achieved mostly by cutting benefits. Seventy-five years out, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is 4 to 1.

                They propose raising the age of full Social Security benefits to 69 – claiming that everyone is living longer. But a sizable percentage of Americans, mostly lower-income workers, especially women, are actually living shorter lives, and a large chunk of other Americans just can’t work that long – even if they can find a job. Their plan cuts benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost-of-living adjustment.

                For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent. . . .

                I guess everyone has to assess this information for themselves.  

                Personally, I would have to see a Senator's name on an actual pledge (that he would not cut Social Security or Medicare) before I would feel confident in his/her intentions in regard to 'entitlements.'

                [Folks may want to read his views on "Taxes," as well.]

                Also, here's a link to Senator Michael Bennett's website, which is very similar in policy and 'tone.'

                Here's an excerpt from his website entitled 'Fiscal Commission':

                FISCAL COMMISSION

                In the Senate, Michael pushed for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal commission to make serious recommendations to reduce the deficit. When it did not pass, the President created The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. While Bennet does not agree with all aspects of the Fiscal Commission’s report, he believes that its work represents an important foundation to reduce our national debt. He has therefore pushed for the recommendations to come to the Senate floor for a full debate.

                Bennet, along with Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), led a bipartisan group of 64 Senators urging the President to include deficit reduction negotiations in budget discussions, specifically including discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform. To read a Washington Post editorial on this letter, click here.

                Here's an excerpt from the letter to the President, and a link to the WaPo piece:
                More than 60 senators call on Obama to join deficit-reduction talks

                By Lori Montgomery,March 18, 2011

                More than 60 senators from both parties are calling on President Obama to lead them in developing a comprehensive plan to rein in record budget deficits, a powerful sign of bipartisan willingness to abandon long-held positions on entitlement spending and taxes.

                In a letter sent Friday to the White House, the 64 senators urge Obama “to support a broad approach to solving our current budget problems” along the lines of recommendations issued last year by a presidentially appointed commission. That plan calls for sharp cuts in government spending, elimination or reduction of dozens of popular tax breaks and an overhaul of Social Security that would include raising the retirement age to 69 for today’s toddlers.

                “While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt,” the senators wrote. “By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues.”

                [Note:  Apparently these 64 Senators believe the evoking the following line, "“While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations," they can avoid any negative blowback.  I believe that this is a major miscalculation.]

                Maybe 'pdc' can land an interview with these two Senators, and 'get them on record.'  I hope so.  ;-)

                Mollie

                "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                hiddennplainsight

                by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:49:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe. I like Udall on a number of issues, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musiccitymollie

                  especially the environment and civil liberties, but he is a fiscal moderate.  I know he said he liked aspects of the Simpson Bowles plan and you can take that as double speak, me I would like to know more about what aspects he likes.  If he was referring to the original Simpson-Bowles plan that also called for taxes increases, I can see eye to eye with him on that.  I think Udall does want to balance the budget but I think he's coming around on this issue.  See here's the thing I want people to understand in this community.  States like Colorado are Libertarian leaning where they can be socially liberal and value civil liberties but they want fiscal responsibility.  Hence why states like Colorado are swing states.  Now I'm all for keeping the pressure on Senators, they need it.  But some need more persuasive pressure while others like Durbin and Warner need to fear the wrath of these cuts.  I don't view Udall as a corporatist.  You can't view all Democrats who aren't Jeff Merkley, Tom Harkin or even Bernie Sanders (Indie who caucuses with the Dems) as corporatists.  You want better Dems in D.C. you need better Dems voted in on local level first.  Turn the blue states bluer and the swing states solid blue and you will have the best Democrats.  Guys like Udall need to stay in the Senate but they also need more persuasion.  See I think some of these Dems feel caught in a tough predicament.  They want to end the sequester but they're fearful of agreeing to a Grand Bargain.

                  Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

                  by poopdogcomedy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:19:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  pdc, your points are well-taken, but I guess I'll (4+ / 0-)

                    still have to 'agree to disagree,' on a couple of them.

                    I truly think that he's a 'fiscal' conservative, by most measures.  Here's a blurb from his website on his stance on "Taxes," which sounds like it came straight off 'The Club For Growth's' website, LOL!

                    I do believe that many folks, after a reading of his fiscal and tax policies, would consider the Senator to be a corporatist Democrat (by that I mean very 'business-friendly or -oriented').

                    But there is no doubt that some of this is a 'subjective' judgment.

                    Taxes

                    . . . For these and other reasons, I would like to see Congress tackle tax reform.

                    Many provisions in the tax code actually discourage American innovation and job growth. And the sheer complexity of the tax code is a barrier to an efficient economy. Let's simplify the tax code to create a more business-friendly environment. . . .

                    Here are some of my principles:

                    I believe we need sensible estate tax reform so that families can leave their farms or their businesses to their children. To that end, I've introduced legislation that would preserve family farms and the heritage of our rural communities by helping families avoid the pressure to sell, break up or develop their properties when they're handed down from one generation to the next.

                    That conservative 'family farm myth' was debunked years ago.  

                    Here's an excerpt and a link to a St Petersburg Times piece from 2001:

                    Debunking the myth: Estate tax doesn't kill family farm

                    Bush vowed to save the family farm by repealing the tax. In fact, almost no working farmers owe estate taxes anyway.

                    ©New York Times

                    © St. Petersburg Times, published April 9, 2001

                    WELLSBURG, Iowa

                    . . . Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never learned of a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said.

                    Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.

                    The estate tax does, of course, have a bite. But the reality of that bite is different from the mythology, in which family farmers have become icons for the campaign to abolish the tax. In fact, the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate. . . .

                    And, regarding corporate tax reform, he goes on to say:
                    Finally, I believe that we in Congress must seriously evaluate our current corporate tax structure, which has grown into an unfair, complicated and inefficient system that costs businesses hundreds of billions of dollars each year just to stay in compliance. By consolidating, reducing and eliminating complex or outmoded tax provisions, we could give our businesses the advantages they will need to lead in the global marketplace.
                    I'll stop with those excerpts.  Here's the link in case anyone wants to read more.

                    pdc, I do appreciate the fact that you bring much information to the table.  Some of it I agree with--some I don't.

                    It has been my observation that there are many folks here at DKos who are VERY frustrated with the conservative fiscal policies adopted by the Democratic Party (I'm specifically referring to 'the Grand Bargain,' which would trade-off so-called 'entitlement cuts' for tax revenue.)

                    So I'm simply trying to point out what I consider to be very conservative stances among some Democratic officeholders.

                    After all, the time to sort that out is BEFORE we elect them, LOL!

                    Since cutting basic structural social insurance and pension programs, while raising taxes, is the very essence of 'austerity,' and is essentially exactly what the 'Grand Bargain' proposes, please allow me to link to another diary here at DKos.

                    It is exactly what has happened in Greece, etc.  Here's a link to Joe's [joe shikspack] May 10 diary, featuring videos and articles on record unemployment in both Greece and Portugal due to 'austerity measures.'

                    And, BTW, I am not suggesting that the measures implemented here would be as severe.  Just that in my opinion, now is not the time to impose any austerity measures.

                    For the record, I probably would not vote for a very conservative Democrat, anymore.  But if they are candid about their policies, I can and will respect their views.

                    What I do have a problem with is a political figure  invoking a silly and/or misleading myth in order to sell their policies.

                    Hey, again thanks for the very informative diaries.  They are a good read, and you do a very valuable service here.

                    I really do try to 'throw my hat in the ring' with kudos, on occasions when I'm in agreement.  ;-)

                    Mollie

                    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                    hiddennplainsight

                    by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:20:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A very well written argument I must say and thank (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      musiccitymollie, Nada Lemming

                      you for the kind words.  It really means a lot, especially this part:

                      Hey, again thanks for the very informative diaries.  They are a good read, and you do a very valuable service here.
                      This is why I write these diaries and thank you for helping keep the Kos community engaged and informed :)

                      Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

                      by poopdogcomedy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:27:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are most welcome. Back atcha. ;-) N/T (0+ / 0-)

                        Mollie

                        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                        hiddennplainsight

                        by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:37:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I ditto Mollie's thanks. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        musiccitymollie

                        You are providing a valuable service.
                        I'd like to talk to you more about it, sometime, if I can ever finish this damned move that never ends (have you ever tried to move 4 adults' belongings with only 2 adults doing it full-time? I swear to God this move has been harder than any I've done in my life--though better organized).

                        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:18:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  PDC, that's all true, but the fact is we don't (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    musiccitymollie, Nada Lemming

                    have to turn blue states bluer to get ordinary folks, or even voters specifically, to support preserving Social Security without cuts. Almost everybody supports that--outside the Beltway.  In fact, majorities support paying higher taxes, if necessary, to preserve Social Security uncut.

                    This isn't about traditional politics, where we have to worry about the conservatism of the American electorate. This is about something very different. The American electorate is way, way to the left of Washington politicians on earned benefits, and on spending on jobs and education and infrastructure. On benefits for the truly poor, not as much, on the environment, not as much as I'd like. But on the core economic issues, yes.  Hell, on Social Security 50-60% of Republican voters (depending on the poll) are to the left of President Obama.

                    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:16:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Disconnect (0+ / 0-)
                    States like Colorado are Libertarian leaning where they can be socially liberal and value civil liberties but they want fiscal responsibility.  Hence why states like Colorado are swing states.
                    This sounds like two reasons to run like crazy from the Republican Party rather than why states like Colorado should be "swing states." The Republicans haven't been for "fiscal responsibility" in over 30 years. Reagan and the Bushes, particularly the younger, blew up the national debt. The budget moved toward balance under Clinton, and the deficit has been lower each year under Obama even though austerity-based fiscal policy is the absolute wrong thing to do right now.

                    I really do wish voters, or at least some of these morons in the media, had a clue about basic macroeconomics and recent fiscal history. It's a travesty that anyone can call the GOP a party of "fiscal responsibility" with a straight face. They're all for reducing deficits when they don't hold the White House, except they categorically reject things (like undoing the Bush tax cuts or eliminating oil subsidies) that would help in that quest.

                    Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

                    by fenway49 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:22:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Ugh. Actually, mollie, what I was going by was (3+ / 0-)

                  the Udalls' actions on things like the filibuster, civil liberties, things that very few Democrats seem willing to stick their necks out on. I had no idea he'd swallowed the koolaid on Simpson-Bowles, etc. There are so many ways for them to screw up, nowadays, because political discourse as a whole has gotten so extreme. Twenty years ago nobody but a right-wing extremist would have even discussed cutting Social Security. Now that that's the new normal, every politician is going to have to do a gut check in order to take the right position on it. and that's true on practically every issue, because the wrong people are in charge of politics:  the ultra-wealthy--and a particularly nasty faction of them, in particular.

                  "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:11:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Spot on, SLinMD! You say . . . (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SouthernLiberalinMD
                    This isn't about traditional politics, where we have to worry about the conservatism of the American electorate. This is about something very different. The American electorate is way, way to the left of Washington politicians on earned benefits, , , , But on the core economic issues, yes.  Hell, on Social Security 50-60% of Republican voters (depending on the poll) are to the left of President Obama.
                    You've expressed perfectly the conumdrum that we're in regarding this issue.  

                    BTW, I certainly agree that Mark Udall has some good points, and is 'on the right side of' some issues.  

                    OTOH, any officeholder's or candidate's support for a 'Grand Bargain,' and by extension support for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, are pretty much deal breakers for me at this time--rightly or wrongly, LOL!

                    Mollie

                    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                    hiddennplainsight

                    by musiccitymollie on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:31:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Deal breaker for me too. It' s wrong in too many (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      musiccitymollie

                      ways. Like I said, I hadn't looked into his record on that.

                      Used to be, if someone was left-leaning on civil liberties, you could count on them supporting Social Security, because only a foaming-at-the-mouth right wing moron would be in favor of Social Security cuts.

                      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:33:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  franken too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie

        Sheesh.  This is the real scandal.  While we chase shiny keys, this shit is still going on behind the scenes.  

        Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

        by Nada Lemming on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:43:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  thank God, thank God (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fenway49

    He needs to hammer Gomez on this. Let people know Gomez is likely to be another vote in the Senate for cutting Social Security. Run pro-Social Security all the way. If people feel their benefits depend on who gets in in this election, they might turn out.

    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:12:28 PM PDT

    •  Especially (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musiccitymollie

      because PPP's latest poll has Markey up 7, and leading in every age group EXCEPT over 65, where he's down 50-42.

      I really don't understand people sometimes.

      Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

      by fenway49 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:37:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, they don't know about Gomez (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fenway49, musiccitymollie

        or at least don't know much about him. Right? So it's Markey's campaign's responsibility to hammer Gomez mercilessly on this issue. Never let it die.

        It's not just for over 65 folks, either, lots of people don't like it. Including independents.

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:30:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're not undecided (2+ / 0-)

          The 65+ demographic in Massachusetts consistently shows the lowest number of undecided and the highest support for Republicans. Frustrating.

          I agree that there's plenty of room for Markey to win votes on this issue.

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:47:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Truthfully, with all the talk of 'austerity,' (0+ / 0-)

        and especially the Administration's constant harping on cutting Social Security and Medicare for years now, I'm not that surprised.

        I am a Boomer.  This topic is very personal to me, since I'm not that many years away from being eligible to file for Early Retirement (Age 62) Social Security benefits--which I plan to do.

        And while I'm a life-long Democrat who knows that Republicans have long wanted to see Social Security dismantled, I must say that I have very little faith (at this point) in the Democratic Party's will, or ability (whichever) to 'protect' Social Security and Medicare, when the 'Titular Head of the Party' has frantically attempted to strike a 'Grand Bargain,' which is designed to cut both Social Security and Medicare.

        Heck, since they Catfood Commission was appointed,

        For Immediate Release
        February 18, 2010

        President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

        Names former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson as Commission Co-Chairs

        WASHINGTONToday, President Obama will sign an executive order establishing the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and announce that former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson will serve as the Commission’s co-chairs.

        this Administration has been almost singularly obsessed (aside from Obamacare the first year or so) with 'the deficit,' and by extension implementing 'austerity measures.'

        Bear in mind, seniors as a group are amongst the most 'atuned' folks in the electorate as a whole, on many topics--let alone on Social Security and Medicare.

        So, I sort of understand how many seniors would 'distrust' the Democratic Party on this issue.  

        Heck, I'm a life-long Democrat, and I've lost faith in the Democratic Party to keep our social safety net intact.

        There is really no evidence at this time, IMO, on which to base the opinion that an individual will be any better off with Democrats in charge--regarding the issue of Social Security, that is.

        And what folks need to realize is that there are 'backdoor' ways to turn both Social Security and Medicare into 'defined contribution' type programs, some of which so-called 'left leaning' policy wonks, etc., from Brookings are very much behind (i.e., Alice Rivlin, Isabel Sawhill, Ron Haskins, and the list goes on and one).  And remember, Rivlin actually worked with and produced a Medicare 'reform' plan with Paul Ryan.

        Anyway, it's really sad.  

        You know, I have one relative (and I'm certainly NOT bragging about this) who has what I would consider a 'Tea Party' mentality (although he's not in the organization, nor does he even participate in any Republican Party activities, etc.).  

        And even though we disagree about EVERYTHING POLITICALLY, we are both equally furious about the proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

        Luckily for him, he's already receiving his Social Security and Medicare benefits.  So, except for the Chained CPI, he will not be affected by most of the impending cuts.

        Anyway, it's really quite ironic.  

        We haven't agreed on anything political for at least thirty years, but now, this Administration has now given us 'common ground.'

        If the Administration and the Democratic Party does not want a major debacle ('loss') in 2014 and 2016, they had better wake up.

        And fast.

        Mollie

        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:29:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site