Skip to main content

Senator Dick Durbin said some really dumb and unhelpful things on Sunday.

Sadly, he has been saying some really dumb and unhelpful things for years.

Thankfully, with Sen. Bernie Sanders sitting on board, and Sen. Dick Durbin sitting on the sidelines, and in this exciting time where Sen. Elizabeth Warren has joined the Senate and Rep. Alan Grayson has re-joined the House, it's going to be even harder than it was before to end up with Simpson and Bowles greatest dream as our new nightmare. The wretched Grand Bargain. (Not that this means we should let down our guard. Or stay silent about how we feel about Social Security and Medicare when we call our Senators and Representatives offices in the coming weeks and months ahead.) We have options we didn't have in the past to say "Hell no!" and I have seen no evidence that rank and file Democrats are willing to trade anything related to the social safety net because of some 'they stood firm' fantasy mojo that only a Chuck Todd could believe in. So. Dick Durbin pissed me off, but I didn't lose any sleep over it.

What, exactly, does make me lose sleep at night these days, after the shutdown?

The derpishly daft logic that is the wet sand foundation beneath the Grand Bargain Theory.

Or, why I think a Senator Dick Durbin said some really dumb and unhelpful things on Sunday.

He thinks, in the end, the Grand Bargain will be such a good thing it will justify saying things like this on a conservative propaganda channel that helped shutdown the government that the Democrats just fought tooth and nail to re-open.

"Social Security is gonna run out of money in 20 years," Durbin said. "The Baby Boom generation is gonna blow away our future. We don't wanna see that happen."
He knows this isn't true. He knows it. But he went on television and said it anyway.

Why? He sees passing a Grand Bargain as a noble act. A restorative act. His belief?

The idea that, once such a deal is agreed to and done, everything changes in US governance.

What the proponents of a Grand Bargain believe would be accomplished would be, by the Republicans final grudging agreement to the terms of that Grand Bargain that they would not care for, a historically important armistice. Not forever, but certainly for a long enough time to make it worth the Democratic pain. That, by agreeing, the Movement Conservative Right's endless war on 'Big Government' would be over for maybe many years. Maybe a decade. Maybe more. This staggeringly naive thinking is thoroughly baked into the entire idea. It's not the money, it's the idea that something that is impossible to do now would be possible to do once the deal was sealed and the ink was finally bone dry on the paper.

Once the Democrats have given the Movement Conservative Right what would amount to permanent Social Security and Medicare cuts in exchange for what would surely be temporary new tax revenue streams and closed loopholes, then kumbayah will break out in DC, because once that agreement has been made, it will be a tacit admission that government works, good governance is important, and Democrats can then govern effectively and in ways that were impossible to consider before because the age of obstructionism and Rightwing extremism will be over and a new age of cooperation will have dawned.

And this brings me to Senator Dick Durbin, and the dumb and unhelpful things he said.

He is a Grand Bargain Theory Fan. You cut the deal, and magic things will surely come.

Where was Senator Dick Durbin between 1993 and 2013? In Washington DC.

In fact, he's been in DC a lot longer, predating the 'Contract on America' crowd that came in 1994. He was first elected to the US House in 1982. He has been a US Senator since I believe 1997. He has no excuse to believe in the idea of a magic deal.

That should, bluntly, enrage you. This is the sort of 'noble lie' shit that Bill Kristol engaged in during the run-up to the Iraq War. It's okay, if it is for the greater good.

He has seen it all. Heard it all. And yet he believes there is a magic deal to be made.  

And if he has to look you in the eye and lie to you about it? He will do it. He just did.

It's not just about new taxes, or additional revenues, or closed loopholes, or tax reform. These are the top-tier Grade A 'get' conditions that a man like Senator Durbin thinks gives him credible cover to put his name on something that would be a complete disaster for the party but he thinks would trigger a new golden age. His passion for Chained CPI is about more than backing the policy. It's about the grand motivation behind the grand bargain:

Once the Democrats have given the Movement Conservative Right what would amount to permanent Social Security and Medicare cuts in exchange for what would surely be temporary new tax revenue streams and closed loopholes, then kumbayah will break out in DC, because once that agreement has been made, it will be a tacit admission that government works, good governance is important, and Democrats can then govern effectively and in ways that were impossible to consider before because the age of obstructionism and Rightwing extremism will be over and a new age of cooperation will have dawned.

Dick Durbin is not talking about how instituting a Chained CPI in exchange for tax increases, new revenue streams, or both simply as a good deal for the American people in the context of that deal. Although he may sincerely believe that as well. But as a moment in time that changes the political culture of Washington DC and heralds in a new age in getting things done. It might be one thing to believe that if you have been working since 1982 as a columnist for the Washington Post, but as a US Senator in the Democratic Party?

If you have been in DC since 1982, in office, and you believe in unicorn breeding programs?

Worse, if you are knowingly willing to say things about Social Security that aren't true to chase the adoption of the unicorn breeding program you believe is for the greater good?

You really should be a serious candidate for being replaced by a much better option.

At this point in time, even if we have to fight to be sure that nothing that could have been a part of a Grand Bargain agreement doesn't end up being a part of any budget solution to come in the negotiations to come post-shutdown, the likelihood of a Grand Bargain being struck are not nearly as viable as they have been in the past. Thankfully, we may have been saved from that outcome by the GOP refusing to take 'yes' for an answer. But what lingers, what remains, is that people in our party could be in Washington DC believing in things that you'd have a hard time accepting from a small child who believed that a giant magic bunny was leaving chocolate eggs for them to find, or that a magical creature gives them money under their pillows at night for lost baby teeth.

Criticizing Dick Durbin is not liberal pique. He's lying about Social Security, and doing it on a rightwing propaganda channel that eats that kind of shit up because it would love to see the social safety net get slashed for it's rich white and powerful masters.

This is about being, frankly, as stunned by a seasoned pols lack of an ability to see what is staring him right in the face as disgusted by the stupid and unhelpful things he has been saying. In terms of what America actually wants passed as policy, in terms of survival instincts in regards to his party and its brand, and the ability to recognize the actual party of the opposition that exists rather than the one that a Sen. Dick Durbin might wish existed. It's a little scary to be honest.

What is more likely to happen if the Democrats cut Social Security benefits?

A golden era of good governance?

Or.

"The Democrat Party gutted Social Security, took what was rightfully yours, and gave it to somebody else. They stole your hard earned cheddar. The GOP won't let it happen again. Ever."

What? The Village is going to help the Democrats clear up what happened?

Or are they going to help the GOP?

PolitiFact rates "Democrat Party Stole Your Cheddar" ad... Mostly True!
Even if you have more options to fight a Grand Bargain. Or it's less likely to happen.

You have to take stock of something as, well, really damned derpy as the thinking behind why a Grand Bargain is such a bang-up great idea for Democrats to get behind. It's still there to fuck things up in the future if you don't acknowledge it is something that is there.

There is no magical point where the GOP stops trying to destroy what you have built to help the poor, the old, and the sick. I don't know how bad, or obvious, the Movement Conservative Right will have to get before every Democrat inside the Democratic Party is on the same page with seeing the GOP as the party it is, rather than the party that we might wish it would be. If the New Unhinged Right holds true to form, the ACA will be like Abortion and not like Medicare. Maybe like Head Start. Never fully funded or implemented due to some form of Rightwing undermining. It will always be under attack in any way the Right can. Why would you think you would be rewarded with Rockefeller Republicanism for giving them SS cuts?

If you raise the SS age to 70 and then 75 in 20 years they will say "why not 80 now and 90 in 10?" next time, not take attacking SS off the table. This is our reality today. No tax increase, loophole closure, or new revenue stream, temporary all, is worth that kind of deal or justifies that kind of thinking.

It is frightening to think of somebody who is eyeball deep in DC who can't see this.

Or who does see it, clearly, and doesn't care enough to let it inform his decisions and allow him to change his course, because he coldly rationalizes his belief in the pain that he would willingly bring to lots of people, many of whom put their time and money and efforts into his sitting in that Senate seat, never dreaming he would do such a thing, because "it was/is for" what he chooses to see as "the greater good".

Just imagine the 2014 election cycle if the so-called "Grand Bargain" had passed. The GOP would be running ads trumpeting how the "Democrat Party" had "gutted" Social Security and Medicare. They telegraphed this when one of the key House Republicans denounced the floating of Chained CPI before being shouted down by the House GOP Leadership because they were supposed to wait until it was the law of the land before attacking the Democrats. Not tip their hand.

The Democratic Party has a brand. It has to be maintained and built. It's not magic. It's not immortal. You can destroy the Democratic Party brand. You have to have credibility to do things that rely on you having credibility. The GOP was largely unsuccessful in portraying the Democrats as the party of the Shutdown because they have zero credibility on being the party of good governance. But as we saw during the 2010 election, the Democrats have taken their brand being so air-tight rock solid on Social Security and Medicare that they don't have to worry about it.

The GOP ran in 2010 as the party of defending Medicare.

That is insane, but it's also a sign that you are no longer thought of as 100% rock solid as you think you are on the Social Safety net. When the GOP can bamboozle the public on the Social Safety Net, you have let your brand go, and you need to get a clue about that and do the things you need to do to get that brand back to where it should be again.

Not noticing that you can lose any edge your traditional political brand has given you in the past, not understanding your brand is magic and you have to maintain and build it, not seeing the truly vile and untrustworthy nature of the political foes you face even after their most extreme attempt to govern via political terrorism?

That is the sort of thing that makes me lose sleep at night.

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

  •  To those who complained (6+ / 0-)

    in the previous diary, note the pronounced lack of brillo pad bearing hand to violated goat type vulgarity.

    I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

    by LeftHandedMan on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 04:12:32 AM PDT

  •  We've seen this movie before (12+ / 0-)

    I saw it up close and personal when I volunteer staffed a couple of DLC meetings during the 80s.

    The entire premise of the DLC was based on reaching some "Grand Bargain" on governing consensus on anything and everything. Foundational principle was always sacrificed for shorter term "policy detente." And it never mattered what the impact and implications of the particular "truce" was so long as there was a "truce." On such assumptions are one way sliding Overton windows constructed en masse.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 04:30:28 AM PDT

    •  It's frustrating (0+ / 0-)

      because it's 2013, and there should be no more magical thinking in regards to the impact that this school of thought had on the Democratic Party, the nation, or the American Right. The verdict is in.  

      We got through an idiotic government shutdown that was only thwarted by not cutting a bad deal for magical and wishful thinking about the future.

      Following the Lanny Davis model for Democratic dominance was, sadly, chic in the past because it was sold to people as a cure-all for how you win without having to resort to nasty mean partisanship. But it didn't work as advertised. It made promises. Huge Big ones. It said Trust Us. And today it is harder than ever to govern.

      It was almost entirely a faith-based enterprise.

      The art of telling heartbroken people who have spent some serious time in the weeds, and professionally risk-averse people who thrive when people are beaten down and desperately looking for answers exactly what they want to hear. Either 'this will make all the pain go away' or 'this will get rid of those awful, awful people who you never want to hear from again'.

      But in 2013? The age of they Great Very Serious Person Model of Centrism, and its many big promises and predictions, has reached a point where it can be judged based on the promises that were made about it.

      Movement Conservatism is not only not in the weeds but dominating people's lives on a policy level that is dragging the nation like an anchor.

      The GOP has not become more reasonable for fear of losing elections to Evan Bayhs.

      Everything, and I mean everything, those sorts of pols and strategists assume and assumed was true about how to "win" by essentially making a show of losing in American politics has proven to neither check, nor roll back Movement Conservatism or Movement Conservative policy, nor has it broken the Right, nor has it made the Democratic brand stronger.

      The GOP looks bad, but the individual GOPers who commit the extremist acts are disposable. They get radioactive, and, new ones are found to replace the old ones.

      Yep, we have seen this movie before.

      But the person who keeps buying a ticket to see Gigli hoping that, this time, it's the Godfather Part 2 kind of freaks me out.

      I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

      by LeftHandedMan on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 03:32:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  unfortunately, the Democrats are dedicated (12+ / 0-)

    to their particular brand of magical thinking. They've sold a shockingly large proportion of their own base on the idea that if only we change the kind of magical thinking in our government from the Republican kind (smash! kill! destroy!) to the Democratic kind (let's cut cut cut, but in "sensible, balanced" ways) that things will work.

    But the problem is not the particular brand of magical thinking--it's the fact that we're relying on magical thinking, period.

    Come next November, the Republicans are going to beat every Democratic congressional candidate over the head with Obama's 2014 budget, which contains a request for chained CPI.

    Every Democratic candidate will be forced to waste time and energy explicitly repudiating that request, and it will divide the party because any time you have to run against a president of your own party, it hurts you. That already makes it an uphill battle.

    Now it seems that Obama and Democratic leaders are committed to giving the GOP even more hostages to fortune. Perhaps we'll see the White House push for an actual vote on chained CPI in Congress. That would be an even better weapon for the Republicans to use against the Democrats.

    It's going to be a bloodbath if the Democrats insist on their "sensible cuts." The shutdown will be a distant memory by the time people actually vote and Democratic voters will desert the party in droves if they come anywhere near SS/Medicare. The GOP base will come out as it always does, and the result will be a Republican win in both houses.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 04:36:28 AM PDT

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      and it drives me crazy because the only thing that can save the GOP from the blowback of the shutdown is if the Democratic Party squanders the opportunity that standing firm gives them.

      You can't not make an argument, against the Right and in favor of yourself, in the most partisan era of Movement Conservatism.

      I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

      by LeftHandedMan on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 03:35:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  durbin's right about SS running out of money (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster
    He knows this isn't true. He knows it. But he went on television and said it anyway.
    it's absolutely true.  SS is meeting its obligations now by dipping into its trust fund.  but that will dry up eventually.

    http://www.ssa.gov/...

    Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

    ...Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP.

    ...The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

    boomers = 79 million or so
    gen x = 53 million or so
    millennials = 70-some million
    gen z = less than gen x

    millennials are, so far, not having children at the same rate as their boomer counterparts.  so boomers retire; gen x and millennials already in the workforce replace them.  no new net jobs.

    the rest of the millennials will be in the workforce within 10 years; gen x will start retiring within 20.  still no new net jobs, as the boomers will have finished retiring in 10 years.

    then gen z starts working, only they, so far, don't have the same numbers as gen x.  net loss of workers, and payroll tax revenue, for the millennials' retirement.

    the population drop from boomers to gen x wreaked havoc on SS; the drop between millennials and gen z will be worse.  

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 04:59:44 AM PDT

    •  But, that's the way it's supposed to work (18+ / 0-)

      The Boomers paid in twice as much as they needed to, to cover their parents and themselves. The surplus is supposed to be drained down.

      The reason the Republicans especially want to cut benefits is because they borrowed from the surplus to give tax cuts, and they don't want to have to pay it back.

      The easiest way to change it so the surplus is not drained is to raise the cap on the amount of wages that are subject to SS taxes. It's too low. It could be raised by a couple hundred thousand, and there would continue to be a surplus.



      Women create the entire labor force.
      ---------------------------------------------
      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 05:42:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the solutions are myriad (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        but the fact remains:  durbin's statement is true.

        SS is currently paying out more than it takes in from FICA and what not.  it's meeting its obligations by dipping into the surplus fund.  that's not sustainable, no matter what.

        and why is the surplus "supposed to" be drained down?

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 06:09:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course it is sustainable (10+ / 0-)

          My ignored generation (Gen X) is small.  It will be supported by the extremely large Millennial generation, and the surplus will build up again, or at least it will if they ever get any jobs.

          The surplus only has to last until the python lump of Boomers die.

        •  LOL! (11+ / 0-)

          Create some jobs and lift the cap to something more realistic.

          "Problem Solved"

          Dispense with the rest of this nonsense, please. There's nothing "wrong" with Social Security that a goddamned five-year-old couldn't fix with one little hand tied behind his little back.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:17:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is absolutely zero reason (13+ / 0-)

          for Durbin to have said this on national right wing television.  I am appalled that any self respecting Democrat could publicly say this misleading statement which may contain a small grain of truth, but is blatantly misleading nonetheless.  

          The truth is that current monies coming into the Trust Fund are not enough to ensure that the Trust Fund will be able to pay out at current rates in the long term.  But a large part of this problem is due to several factors including high unemployment and under employment along with a minimum wage that has not kept pace with the cost of living in this country.  All of these factors limit the amount of monies being collected by the Trust Fund. The cap on the maximum taxed under Social Security is also too low.  

          For Durbin to frame it as a battle between age groups is incredibly wrong.  He is using a Republican frame of pitting various groups against one another. In this case, it is youth versus older Americans.  Divide and conquer is a very ugly way to treat the American public.  

          The proposed solutions of cutting benefits via chained CPI and raising the eligibility age do little or nothing to ensure the long term stability of Trust Fund. They do not bring in more and new revenues.  The only things they do is to ensure the impoverishment of those who are already on the edge of poverty.  

          What angers me as much as anything is that this issue along with the issue of the debt is always being discussed based upon Republican framing.  Democrats talk of cutting programs and cutting budgets but never talk of increasing revenues.  The real problem in this country is not spending, but decreasing revenues.  

          "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

          by gulfgal98 on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:00:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I want to emphasis this part of your comment (8+ / 0-)

             I see it as the short answer to the whole argument for chained CPI and/or raising  the eligibility age.

            The proposed solutions of cutting benefits via chained CPI and raising the eligibility age do little or nothing to ensure the long term stability of Trust Fund. They do not bring in more and new revenues.  The only things they do is to ensure the impoverishment of those who are already on the edge of poverty.
            It does nothing to address anything Durbin argued as SS problems, real or imagined.
            Nothing but drive more people into poverty and many more even deeper into poverty and absolutely no tax increase of any amount on the incredibly wealthy makes it right.

            Hey you Seniors sitting with all your possessions over there on the curb cheer up, the wealthy are said to be paying more in taxes! HOORAY!
            For what? would be the likely response.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 12:15:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  All I expect anymore from you (12+ / 0-)

          is to tell us bad things aren't bad, and anyway there's mitigation.  If the dems decided clubbing baby seals was a good idea, you can be relied upon to regale us with the warmth benefits of seal fur and the magical burning properties of seal fat.  You are a parody of yourself.  

          It puts the lotion on its skin

          by Nada Lemming on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:18:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he's right, raise the cap. (5+ / 0-)

          Easy peasy.  

          PS:  Chained CPI IS A FRIGGIN CUT.

        •  It was originally designed to be "pay as you go" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming, poligirl

          With no surplus.

          The surplus was created by Reagan to make sure there was enough to cover the Boomers, by forcing the Boomers to pay for themselves ahead of time, while paying for their parents too. The SS tax was doubled at the time.

          That built up a surplus that had never existed before that, which has been "borrowed" from to cut taxes on the wealthy, who do not want to pay it back.



          Women create the entire labor force.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 06:07:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Cherry-picking. (6+ / 0-)
      Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow,
      SS dipping into the reserves now is a falsehood.
      •  talk about cherry-picking (0+ / 0-)

        here's the rest of the sentence you partially quoted:

        but not by enough to prevent the ratio of reserves to one year’s projected cost (the combined trust fund ratio) from declining.
        and just for funsies, here are the next two sentences:
        (This ratio peaked in 2008, declined through 2012, and is expected to decline steadily in future years.) After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033
        here is durbin's quote:
        "Social Security is gonna run out of money in 20 years," Durbin said.
        contrary to the diarist's assertion, it is a true statement.  

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 06:53:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, these are obfuscations from Durbin and you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheMomCat, LeftHandedMan

      The Trustees are political appointees and they always pick the intermediate instead of the best projection as there are always 3 projections. The trustees have a record of being too pessimistic. Not to mention why the trust fund was built up in 1983 which was for the boomers. Not to mention the trust fund, in reality, has no bearing on whether we are able to fund benefits at all, and was really a political protection for the program per what FDR said.

      That being said, we could raise the minimum wage, because the reason social security had financing problems in the seventies was because of the assumption that wages would raise, as they did for most of the post WWII boom. Indexing wages to inflation is a no brainer, but it hasn't been done like indexing social security for inflation. If we wanted to, we could have those special issue securities pay out more interest as Robert Pollin suggested as well. That and spending the money we need to create jobs and not listen to deficit terrorist like Dick Durbin and his enablers who pretend to understand social security.

      Those who deflect debates about the issues with complaints about tone usually have a lot to atone for.

      by priceman on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 02:03:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope those of you springing to "Defend" (11+ / 0-)

    DICK Durbin and these other austerian turncoats understand that you are not going to wear us down.

    Get it. Now. Because this shit isn't going to get swept under the rug. Democrats are not going to steal our fucking retirement money. Not. Going. To Happen. If they persist in trying, they are going to lose the midterms.

    It is That. Simple.

    Ignore that or belittle it at your own peril.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:20:44 AM PDT

    •  I suspect Obama won't be too unhappy (8+ / 0-)

      with losing the midterms.

      The lame-duck Congress will be ideal for passing the Grand Bargain including chained CPI and "restructuring" of Medicare. Then he can force Dems and defeated "moderate" Republicans to bear the brunt of voting for slashing the New Deal, while relieving the incoming, far more extreme Republicans in Congress of that political albatross. Then the GOP can run in 2016 as being the party that fought to preserve SS and Medicare against Obama.

      See what a nice, bipartisan guy he is! Always considerately looking out for the Republicans.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At this point (4+ / 0-)

        I don't care which pol is happy or unhappy about it. They all need to STFU about it.

        The idiotic bullshit mantra about "fair and balanced shared sacrifice" needs to cease. That's Dog Whistle for Chained CPI and it is unacceptable now and in the future.

        If I could ever get through to my congresscritter this morning, I'm happy to reiterate it. Maybe I'll just try the White House again...haven't talked to them today yet anyway...

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:50:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site