Super Committee Dem says he has to say Social Security MUST be on the table.

[madfloridian]

I am getting very nervous about this so-called Super Committee which meets soon. I feel even more leery to hear a Democrat say such things. There is just something wrong with the whole idea of a "super" committee. That is why we have Congress, to vote and make decisions. We do not need a "super" committee. Especially not one with Democrats who talk like this.

So why does a Democrat have to go on TV and talk like a Republican? Who is forcing them to put Social Security on the table?

From the transcript of a Tavis Smiley interview with Rep. Xavier Becerra. Thanks to alp227 for posting the video and transcript in the video forum.

Tavis Smiley interview with Xavier Becerra

It is hard to post excerpts, but this one really stood out for me as being absolutely wishy washy and wavering.

Becerra: Well, Tavis, remember there is a guillotine waiting for us if we don’t get this done. If the 12 members don’t come up with something that Congress can support and the president can sign, then the guillotine makes $1.5 trillion of automatic cuts. You can’t decide, oh, I want this to be cut and this not to be cut – comes down.

Secondly, I think more importantly, the public has finally said what you’ve just said. We just elected you to do a job. If you’re not going to do it, then why are you there? It’s time for us, whether you’re a D or an R, to prove that we can get it done. That does require – it says Ds and Rs. As I said, to not come to the table to negotiate, saying, “You can’t touch this” or “You can’t touch that.”

Why the hell not? Why can't Democrats just come out and say NO you can not touch that. Why must we be so tentative and fearful?

More from Becarra:

I have to be ready to say, even though I don’t believe this, that Social Security has to be on the table. Social Security has never contributed one single penny to these deficits or the national debt. Some people want to cut Social Security. I’ll say all right, let’s put it on the table. I hope that I can prevail by defending it on the merits, but if we can walk in and say, “That’s off the table,” then all of us are going to walk in saying, “That’s off the table,” and then we’ll never get it done.

Why does he have to say that it must be on the table? Is there pressure from the president? Last I heard the vast majority of people do NOT want Social Security on the table....yet he is saying he has to do it. Makes no sense.

I love Tavis Smiley's answer to him.

Tavis: Two things – when you say that guillotine is waiting for you if these cuts aren’t made – and I hear that – I say again this respectfully, I’m trying to figure out how members of this committee are impacted if these cuts kick in. Put another way, pardon my English, ain’t none of y’all broke, ain’t none of y’all poor, ain’t none of y’all unemployed. None of you are without health insurance.

Amen to that.

There was an article earlier this month about lobbyists expressing pleasure in his role on the super committee. It's fundraising time, and the members will keep fundraising. This makes them targets of the lobbyists.

Lobbyists tout Xavier Becerra's new super-committee role

A little over two hours after Becerra was named to the powerful panel, Investment Company Institute’s Jim Hart sent out an email encouraging attendance for the trade group’s upcoming $1,500 per person fundraiser based on Becerra’s new found status as one of the elite 12.

“We will host an event for Congressman Xavier Becerra, not only Vice Chairman of the Democratic Caucus but also who has just been named to the new deficit reduction commission,” Hart, political affairs officer for ICI wrote. “This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group.”

Hart added, “This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

..."In a statement after the story broke Thursday afternoon, Becerra denied responsibility for the email.

The Sunlight Foundation has expressed concern that committee members will be fair game for lobbyists if they campaign while performing their committee duties. After all, ordinary people can't afford to be in the game with such people.

Super Committee Members Plan Fundraisers During Deficit Talks

WASHINGTON -- The super committee created by the debt limit deal to plot $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts is set to begin hearings in the next two weeks. Members of the super committee are also set to continue fundraising -- despite calls from campaign finance watchdogs to stop seeking donations while negotiating the proposed cuts.

According to a release of fundraising invitations gathered by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group promoting transparency in government, super committee members have scheduled at least 14 fundraisers during the first two months that the committee will be holding hearings. The foundation rounded up no fundraising invitations involving four of the 12 members -- Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

..."The list of those super committee members holding the most fundraising events highlights the congressional leadership's decision to stack the committee with lawmakers who are both adept at raising and required to raise a lot of money for their respective parties.

The situation is more acute for the Democrats. Their super committee members include Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the top fundraiser for the Senate Democrats; Rep. Jim Clyburn (S.C.), the third-highest ranking Democrat in the House; and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Xavier Becerra (Calif.), both rising House Democrats who must raise money to move up the leadership ranks.

Unless we believe that money plays no role in decisions made by politicians, then this is a bad idea.

The White House spokesman feels that concern over the fundraising is "silly."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that President Obama doesn't believe Murray or other members of the super committee need to stop fundraising. Carney said the White House expects the members of the committee to take seriously their responsibility to serve their constituents and the country.

"I think that it's just silly criticism," Carney said of the argument that serving on the committee while fundraising might be a conflict of interest.

White House: Request for "super committee" to stop fundraising is "silly"

I am nervous they are putting Social Security on the table. I am also furious about it. The majority of people do not want that. They are placating the right wing extremists by putting it on the table....trying to be so hip and bipartisan.

They should be standing up and firmly saying that Social Security does not need to be on the table, and that it won't be. They are trying to compromise with extremists who have no intention of giving an inch. It's just infuriating.

[kdmorris]

1. So... is reversing the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich off the table?

Because last I heard, they still were. As long as they are just talking cuts without talking increasing revenue, we are all screwed. And those among us who NEED the services the propose to cut (disaster victims, unemployed, poor, the very young, the elderly) will suffer the most (as usual).

Is cutting the gluttonous amount we pay to the defense contractors off the table? We cannot compete on a personal level with the amount of money a corporation can raise/pay to a politician. I can maybe swing $100-500 in any given election year (many can't even afford that). $1,500 per plate... I'll never come close to that amount of money.

[TheWraith]

5. The end of the tax cuts is already figured in. nt

[Autumn]

21. I think that Obamas tax cuts will continue.

I am sure that there is no way in hell they will allow them to end. All these people think of is cuts.

[karynnj]

26. The assumption is that the tax cuts will NOT be extended

- in fact to extend them the committee would need to find MORE cuts to balance them.

[lark]

133. Repugs have said that tax cuts are off the table

They were only willing to look at closing loop-holes to lower the tax rates for the rich even more. Of course, raising taxes on working poor is also one of their big agenda items.

Why can they take a stand, but Dems can't? I'm really getting sick of this wishy washiness from memebers of our party. When will they grow a pair and negotiate based on the good of the country? I don't think that will ever happen during the Obama administration due to the example of ALWAYS letting the other side do exactly what they want and giving away the store to get nothing in return for the working class.

[bjobotts]

147. REPUB MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SIGNED A PLEDGE VOWING NOT TO ALLOW TAX INCREASES TO NORQUIST

[asjr]

2. I do not like the idea of turning over our

country's future to a jury of 12 Congresspeople. And the Democrat who said this obviously doesn't really understand Social Security.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Anything they come up with must be approved by the House, Senate, and the President

Just like any other bill.

[Lasher]

110. No, not like any other bill.

The legislation must be brought up for a vote. Amendments and procedural roadblocks such as the Senate filibuster, are prohibited.

[lark]

134. They've already locked up 2/3 of the votes

for their reich wing proprosals which will drive the middle class into extinction while the uber rich further entrench their domination of this country's policies.

[TheWraith]

7. And I'm thinking you don't understand the committee.

They don't pass anything. Any recommendations they make go through the full Congress.

Also, the guy you're slapping around is one of the more prominent members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and also on the Subcommittee on Social Security.

[madfloridian]

10. Becerra did not sound very progressive when he said those things.

[TheWraith]

11. That would be because you're reading things in which aren't there.

This is Becerra:



http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Xavier_Becerra.htm

[madfloridian]

13. Why does he have to put SS on the table? Who is making them do it?

"I have to be ready to say, even though I don’t believe this, that Social Security has to be on the table."

Why does it have to be on the table?

[woo me with science]

16. +1000000

Because they are Third Way, corporate shill, faux Democrats who want it there.

People need to WAKE UP and throw out these thieves.

[TheWraith]

18. It's called a polite fiction.

Translation: "I have to say Social Security is on the table, even though it's really not."

[woo me with science]

29. ...

:wow:

[Rex]

59. Right!?

WTF!?!

So wishful thinking is all we got to go on!?

YIKES!

[former9thward]

49. That is your hopeful (very) translation.

[OnyxCollie]

90. It's like saying, "This is a quote from Russ Feingold."

Even though it's really not.

[woo me with science]

92. ...

That certainly does illustrate the level of argument we are dealing with, doesn't it.

[OnyxCollie]

96. Third tier hacks

who might be lucky to convince a few neophytes to buy their bullshit.

So fucking transparent.

[hulka38]

94. I'm hearing McEnroe in my head screaming

"You cannot be serious!"

[Enthusiast]

113. If there is anything certain

in this world it is that social security is on the table.

[karynnj]

30. The triggered cuts - as he clearly said

My interpretation of what he said is that if everyone comes in with rigid views, there will be no space for any compromise to be created - leading to the triggered cuts.

Would you have them all take pure, principled stands - on both sides - and nothing be agreed to? Would you then expect the Congress - in both Houses - and the President to repeal the triggers? If you think that won't happen, the fact is that the deal IS the triggers, unless it is changed - putting people like Becarra in the position that they want to fix it as much as they can.

[TheWraith]

31. Yep, pretty much.

The reality is that although people say "everything's on the table," the reality is that it won't be that way. Democrats aren't going to give up Social Security, Republicans aren't going to agree to more tax hikes on the rich (beyond the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which is already assumed in the basis of the deal).

Personally, I think there's likely to be no deal from the committee. Either they can't reach an agreement, or else whatever they do come up with gets voted down by Congress. Frankly, that wouldn't be such a bad outcome: 50% of the triggered cuts then come out of the defense budget, all the low-income programs are protected, and the Bush tax cuts are expired.

[Recursion]

126. The triggered cuts are meaningless but nobody wants to admit that

Obama kept entitlements out of the triggered cuts (except for some Medicare cuts that were already part of health care reform), so the "trigger" just implements future discretionary spending cuts. Which is meaningless, because the next Congress will just ignore it.

[Recursion]

125. Because its long term payouts and revenues should be brought in line

That's what "putting it on the table" means. Particularly if we're looking at a "new normal" of unemployment, the structure will need to be changed.

[karynnj]

28. You misread what he said - and added your own concerns

[jtown1123]

62. Becerra is not the one to worry about. Look at the Dem Senators, Van Hollen and Clyburn

if you're concerned about a Democrat caving. Becerra is the least of our worries. He voted against catfood commission. Because he says it's on the table, doesn't mean he will vote for the finished product.

[Alcibiades]

101. I trust Jim Clyburn to do the right thing

There are few Democrats in Congress I would trust as much as him, in fact. Kerry, Murray and Van Hollen aren't bad, either. Max Baucus, however, is a terrible choice for progressives.

[jtown1123]

143. I don't know. Clyburn said he would raise the retirement age before. Not

the safest bet in my book. Of course, all it takes is one Dem to cave. We can count on Baucus probably.

[999998th word]

97. He's not saying them-the f*^&*) lobbyists are.

[snooper2]

131. Oh jesus..

:eyes:

Come on....

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

17. Your rewriting of reality is no longer amusing.

Even after all the lies and fearmongering about how Obama was going to end Social Security got absolutely destroyed when the debt deal was announced, people are still pushing the same ridiculous crap.

[woo me with science]

23. Social Security will be CUT.

What you just wrote is 180 degrees from reality, and, frankly, people are growing utterly sick of this disingenuous crap we keep getting fed by our own Democratic representatives. The "debt deal" you reference slid this bullshit committee into place, to make it easier to CUT Social Security and Medicare. That was the plan all along. How utterly ludicrous to use as an argument that Social Security has not yet been cut, when a committee was slid into place that is on track to do exactly that.

I notice you completely ignored my little question. Of course you did, because that is exactly where you will be next January: defending this right-wing shit.

[TheWraith]

33. You've been saying that for months, and it's STILL false.

Despite the magical belief that this bill will do it, which is just the most recent goal-post moving, after the debt deal failed to do it, after the deficit commission failed to do it, after the unemployment extension deal failed to do it...

Someday, you're going to have to give up and admit that no, there is no super secret conspiracy among Democrats to destroy Social Security that only you can see.

[woo me with science]

34. It is on track to happen.

What will your response be when they put in the chained CPI?

[TheWraith]

37. Uh huh. Keep saying it long enough, and maybe someone will believe you.

You've been saying it's about to happen for months. You're still wrong.

[woo me with science]

40. Not answering, huh.

How surprising.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1717174

[fascisthunter]

43. it's getting beyond weird at this point

the Thrid Way is nuts if they think their messaging is going to confuse or fool us all here on DU.

[woo me with science]

47. The messaging

is surreal and irreconcilable, for sure.

Trying to get people to believe you stand for one thing while you are consistently moving toward something else only works for so long...

[woo me with science]

51. Self delete. Wrong place. nt

[lark]

136. See, Wraith, that's the problem

You are obviously part of the "faith" based Obama community, not part of the reality facing community. Catfood commission had major cuts to SSI as part of the proposal, Obama put SSI on table during debt raising "deal" (yech), then when he couldn't get changes to SSI as part of a "grand bargain", he formed this committee. Keep on the blinders, close your eyes tight and keep wishing and wishing that Obama would not cut SSI - it won't change a thing. Reality will still happen, the rich will still get theirs and the working poor & elderly will get fucked - just as your darling president intends.

Ever heard the old song - Cult of Personality?

[SharksBreath]

150. Do Obama supporters realize that debt shouldn't be any part of the

discussion unless it's about cutting or recouping the 7 trillion that the Bush policies cost.

Every time the GOP wants to cut something they are free to do it.

They can choose any Bush policy they voted for that cost us 7 trillion with nothing to show for it.

Have at it.

[Enthusiast]

116. You're right. There

is no super secret conspiracy among Democrats to destroy Social Security that only HE can see.

The rest of us see it too.

It is perfectly clear.

Personally, I believe it was one of President Obama's primary missions, the very reason TPTB put him in place. Protect Wall Street, keep the wars going and cut entitlements.

[Hoyt]

121. I agree. Heck, some guy here bet me $20 Obama would slash SS during StateofUnion Speech. He didn't.

Plus, the guy never paid either.

Further, SS is going to mean a lot to me in just a few years, but if there are things they can do to make it better, make the economy better, give young people some hope, etc., I'm for it. I'll be better off in the long run in a country not in rapid decline.

[indepat]

68. I'm with you woo me: when RW reality slaps us squarely in the face, you don't hem and haw about

calling such right-wing shit for what it is: right-wing shit, pure and simple. :applause: :patriot:

[Enthusiast]

117. It's right wing SHIT........nt

[Joe Fields]

109. Any person who cannot see that is just fucking stupid.

[karynnj]

32. This is not the committee's fault - it is the fault of the debt ceiling deal setting

those parameters.

Not to mention, the Democrats on the committee are ALL ones who have strongly defended SS - and that includes Max baucus, who when a committee like this was being legislated in 2009, added an amendment requiring 60 votes if there were any changes to SS - an amendment that would have prevented any changes to keep the 50 votes rule.

Look at the list:
Are the House members blue dogs? - NO - Becarra and Clyburn are progressives

Did the Senate put in either Nelson, McCaskill, Pryor or Conrad? Not that I can see. Kerry and Murray are clearly in the liberal half.

[woo me with science]

35. "It's not the committee's fault."

Don't you see, that is the POINT of having the committee. You act as though Democrats don't talk to each other, and Republicans don't talk to Democrats. Corporate factions in BOTH parties want to cut SS and Medicare. They NEED to cut it, because they have been borrowing from the fund for their lucrative war machine and tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy, and they do not want to have to pay that money back. By putting this super committee into place, they can fast-track cuts that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose, while sidestepping those members of Congress who would still filibuster and put up amendments.

And because of the trigger mechanism, Republicans and, yes, *Democrats* who vote for this crap will be able to say, "It wasn't my fault."

I get so tired of the constant attempts to portray seasoned politicians as victims of the system and helpless babes in the woods. They designed this thing precisely BECAUSE they want to remove responsibility from members of Congress as much as possible.

As for Democrats standing up against cuts, we should have ALL Democrats in Congress who oppose cuts able to weigh in on this legislation. We should not have to rely on a hand-picked few. The Congress was designed so that important legislation would be accountable to ALL representatives from ALL parts of America, and to use a supercomittee for something as important as cutting the BUDGET, our SOCIAL SAFETY NETS FOR SENIORS, THE POOR, AND THE DISABLED, is beyond unconscionable. We get only SIX representatives, and six automatically on the other side. Given the Third Way presence in our party, that is not a fair setup. And you need look no further than the language in the OP to see that that is the case.

[karynnj]

55. I am not naive and I am not saying that ANy of the elected politicians are

victims or helpless.

The fact though is that what you said WILL NOT WORK. Even if EVERY Democrat in the House and Senate opposed any cuts BEFORE any were even proposed, the result would be 1.2 trillion dollars worth of cuts - including to Medicare.

All representatives will vote on any bill that results. What is different is not that the bill will be largely the work of 12 legislators and staff, but that the bill is being written by a committee that is half Senators and half Congressmen and NOT a standing committee.

Did you have a problem when the healthcare bill was written in the HELP and Finance committees?

The budget committee in the House and the committee in the Senate ALWAYS mark up the budget bills.

[lark]

138. Kerry & Clyburn have both come out in favor of SSI cuts

Both have argued on Meet the Press that raising the retirement age is fine. Clyburn did throw in adjusting the cap, but Kerry didn't even mention that. While they may be progressive on some things, this isn't one of them.

This is rigged, same as with catfood commission.

[woo me with science]

52. So why have the committee,

if it is exactly the same as having the regular Congress? :eyes:

No, the point of the committee is to fast-track this legislation. It shuts out those who would defend SS and Medicare from the process of crafting the legislation and prevents amendments and filibustering. Then they get to present their shit cake to Congress, where we are again held as hostages, because the only alternative will be this trigger mechanism they have put into place.

This is the new politics: hostage taking. And they will find a way to chip away at the safety nets, while using them as hostages for a very long time.

There is a pattern here on the part of this President and Third Way Democrats, of claiming to support the same values and goals as other Democrats, but of then pressuring through Republican policies and saying "That is the best we could do."

People get offended at being taken for fools, and they are sick of the pattern. The defense of this committee and the continued Shock Doctrine politics it will employ is taking exactly that form.

[JDPriestly]

100. Becerra is as strong a defender of Social Security as there is in the Congress.

I understand his statement to be an admission that everything is on the table in this small group -- not because he wants it that way -- but because the majority on the committee will want it that way.

I heard him speak about Social Security within the last two months. He strongly supports it. He is probably the strongest supporter of Social Security on the committee, and he probably is painfully aware of it.

He is just being very honest.

[asjr]

53. Thank you for your advice. I didn't understand

the committee properly, but I did not slap around anyone.

[alp227]

104. with this kind of statement the best thing would be a deadlock?

either through no consensus by the supercmte or opposition votes from the majority of either body of congress

[karynnj]

27. Yes he does - and he said SS has not contributed one penny to the deficit

He is a strong liberal and it is ridiculous to smear him.

[woo me with science]

38. If he says that, why does he then put it on the table

and argue strongly that the cuts should be accepted?

Bullshit. A strong liberal does not offer up 650 BILLION in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during debt ceiling negotiations.

[karynnj]

56. where does he argue even weakly that cuts to ss be accepted - much less strongly

The committee did NOT create the deal - the Republicans and the President did. When did Becarra - or anyone on that committee offer anything like that?

[woo me with science]

91. He has repeatedly pushed for cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Repeatedly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

[karynnj]

151. I was not speaking of Obama - but Becarra

"When did Becarra - or anyone on that committee offer anything like that?"

That seems pretty clear to me.

[woo me with science]

103. And also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www.leftyblogs.com/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1467146&mesg_id=1467146

This in his comments stressing the importance of accepting his SS and Medicare benefit-cutting "deal."

He not only pushed for the disgraceful Medicare and SS-slashing deal, but he lied to the American people that deep cuts to these programs and benefits would be good for this economy. We know, and over 300 economists had previously warned him, that that is crap.

[jtown1123]

63. You are not familiar with Becerra. He is incredibly strong on Dem issues. He voted against Catfood

Commission.

[woo me with science]

89. I hope you are right.

You are correct - I don't know him. However, statements like those in the OP make me extremely uncomfortable.

This whole process, beginning with the faux debt ceiling emergency and "deals" created before a faux deadline, makes me very uncomfortable.

And the pushing through of this Super Congress with triggers, after a drummed up crisis and a bunch of closed door meetings, makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable.

This has all the smell to me of the beginning of a long, corrupt process of more Shock Doctrine politics. Social Security, Medicare, and other important programs are going to be held hostage again with these triggers, and we will be pushed to accept much more draconian cuts than would be politically possible otherwise.

[jtown1123]

144. YOu have every right to be concerned. A lot of Democrats are not to be trusted

Becerra, however, is a home run, kick ass progressive. He always sticks up for SS, Medicare and Medicaid and was the most vocal for the poor and middle class, along with Jan Schakowsky, during the Catfood Commission proceedings.

You should be more wary of Clyburn, Kerry, Murray and Baucus. Clyburn has said he would look at raising the retirement age. Which is a major benefit cut.

[Enthusiast]

112. Bought and paid for Congresspeople. nt

[Brickbat]

3. Oh, don't worry. We should just wait and see what actually happens, and then react to it, rather

than try to make clear what our concerns are now.

[dkf]

4. If you leave social security as is benefits will be cut anyway.

Social security taxes will only fund 75% of benefits after the trust fund runs out.

What's the point of ignoring that fact?

[sudopod]

9. Decades from now. If the extrapolations are correct. nt

[dkf]

20. Hello that is what they are going to be discussing and what the proposals are about.

It's all the stuff in the out years. Does anyone pay attention?

[sudopod]

22. So why does it have to be done RIGHT FUCKING NOW?

Doesn't that unnecessary rush make you a little suspicious?

[0rganism]

57. So privatization plans can make use of trust fund monies, natch

Yeah, long term the trust fund runs out. Short term, it's 2.6 Trillion greenbacks wall street crooks would love to be using for gambling -- err, investment capital.

The banksters are making a big play for the whole enchilada this year, but if it falls through they'll look for better terms under president GoodHair.

[sudopod]

64. It's that repetition thing again, I suppose. :/

If the Republicans (and some Democrats) keep on grinding on it, repeating that SS is welfare, that it is unsupportable, etc. etc., it will eventually stick. That is human nature, a part of it that I can't help but see as a flaw. I wish our side would counter it, even if it were just a token effort. The Dems shouldn't be saying "it's on the table, but not really." They should be enraged and indignant. Stealing what little our seniors get now in order keep those tax cuts safe is just plain evil, and that inarguable fact should be repeated over and over, loudly, and with feeling.

[dkf]

66. Because the budget plan for the US is supposed to be addressed over a 75 year span.

Or do you want them to make a sudden change 30 years from now? How do you plan for retirement like this?

[sudopod]

69. I'm not sure what you mean.

It it easier to "plan for retirement" when you have less or no SS income?

Look, we've seen this problem coming down the road for decades, and it could be safely postponed for decades more. There is no other reason to hack at SS right the fuck now. It can wait a couple years for the economy to get out of the shitter, certainly.

Let's also touch on the foolishness of planning based on such long term projects. No on in 1981 had any clue what the nation's economic outlook would be in 2011, and no one has any clue what the economy, tax structure, government income, or political landscape will look like in 2021, much less 2041. There is no reason to mix it in with the deficit talks unless Congress means it harm.

Surely you remember how only a decade ago SS was the "third-rail" of politics. Even W couldn't touch it, and the Republicans suffered in the 2006 elections for threatening it with their idiot privatization scheme. The only reason I can see to mess with it now (by mess with, I mean cut) is because public perception is mutable due to the falsely hyped debt "crisis." It is a classic example of a Shock Doctrine-style attack on the social safety net. If they don't do it now, they may not get another chance for decades, depending on how the elections go.

Let's not even mention the long view of things. it may not even be in trouble by that time due to changes in lifespan, new technology, or some other revolution that would make the whole hateful debate moot, then where will their dreams of drowning the government in a bathtub be?

[dkf]

73. They aren't going to change benefits for people who receive SS right now.

They are talking about future beneficiaries...kids who are 2 years old rght now. How do people not know this?

[sudopod]

76. How does that impact the thrust of my argument?

It's as wrong in the future as it is now.

[woo me with science]

102. If we get a chained CPI (which has already been on the table, courtesy of Obama),

it will most certainly affect current beneficiaries.

[Jim_Shorts]

88. wow, you need to understand the debate

#1, The repugs have ALWAYS wanted to undue the New Deal.

#2, this debate is all about reducing the national debt, so why add SS to the debate now?

If politicians were sincere about the "out years" of SS they could simply suggest raising the cap at some other point in time.

(sorry, had to vent)

[saras]

36. Same point as ignoring any other wildly unsupported political opinion passed off as "fact"

[savannah43]

80. The trust fund will not run out if they replace what

they've taken out. And, they can raise the cap. If he admitted that SS does not contribute one penny to the deficit and they apparently all know it, then what is the reason it is on the table? Anyone?

[madfloridian]

8. A guillotine waits if they don't do it. There appear to be no consequences ....

for them if they do put all of it on the table. We are told and expected to just go ahead and vote D anyway no matter what they do. There are no consequences for doing the wrong things, the things that will harm the people. I think that because the extremists are in power in the GOP that our party has excuses to cave to corporate masters.

On edit, to be very clear, I will not vote for any Republican extremists. But I crave a party that is bold and brave and unafraid of confrontation. I long for it.

[LongTomH]

12. There should be a guillotine waiting for them if the DO cut Social Security!

Voters are going to hold them responsible if they cut benefits!

[woo me with science]

15. You have it exactly.

This has been the plan all along. Many of us tried to warn about this Super Theft Committee when it was first proposed.

Pick a bunch of corporates from both sides, craft vicious legislation while shutting out those who would protect Medicare and Social Security, prevent filibustering and amendments, and attach a trigger mechanism so that we are all held hostage.

And it was all crafted and pushed through during the faux debt crisis, behind closed doors.

Shock Doctrine politics, again. :puke:

[xchrom]

19. recommend

[karynnj]

24. Thank you for the nice collection of articles

I disagree with many of the points you raise. I think Becarra was very well spoken and he made it clear what was forcing them to at least consider looking at things that never would have been even investigated in the past. It is not President Obama applying pressure, nor is it related to their fundraising. The reason is failing to find a solution triggers the automatic 1.2 trillion in cuts - including to Medicare.

That was in the agreement that created this committee - an agreement that most of the Democrats hated, but backed due to the consequences of rejecting it.

This committee, for Democrats is the most lose/lose committee I have ever seen. If they manage to get agreement on a deal that is better than the automatic cuts - they will all still take hell from the left because - BY DESIGN - anything that meets the criteria will be disliked. But, if they fail to reach an agreement, they will be blamed for that by many people. One article I saw referred to it as career suicide.

Your article on fundraising exasperates this by implicitly besmirching the character of the members of the committee - implying they could be bought. In particular, it harms Patty Murray, who is chairing the SDCC, which raises money for Senate races. It also eliminates Clyburn, who is - as noted - a top fund raiser for the Democrats in the House. (Not mentioned is John Kerry, who in all post 2004 elections has done a great job raising money for Democrats. This cycle, I assume that MA Democrats want him raising money to help elect a better MA Senator.)

In an environment where corporations are people and can secretly fund whatever they want, an attack on Democrats (and note they were the ones mentioned) raising money through the legal process that identifies the person and limits the donation seems silly and very unfair to the Democrats. Do you really question the integrity of Murray, Clyburn and Kerry - or want them to take a vow against raising money while on the committee?

[Major Hogwash]

25. This doesn't mean it will happen.

I don't know why he is talking about a guillotine, he's in a safe district.
He'll be re-elected no matter what he does on the Stooper Committee.
This is all hot air and speculation at this point.

But, at least it's not about Palin.

LoL

[sabrina 1]

39. This is so wrong. To set it up so that Congress will escape blame

for anything they do, is simply not Democratic. I know they think they are brilliant to come up with these draconian ideas, but this 'Super Committee' is clearly set up so that they can cut the Social Safety Net without spreading the blame to the Republicans who are the ones who would support it if it were before Congress. It's simply a cover for Republlicans and it is a disgrace.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Could it be that the threats to SS will be used as a cover for other cuts?

"We're cutting education funding, medicare, food stamps, poverty programs...but, we had to do that so we didn't have to cut SS..aren't we great?"

Just saying.

[woo me with science]

44. I think this is EXACTLY what they are doing.

I think we will get some cuts, but not before more draconian cuts are held over our heads and we are "saved" from them by our benevolent leaders.

Social Security and/or Medicare may be a sharp pendulum that they hold over our heads for some time. I think it is very possible that they would dramatically "save" them at the last moment in order to slash other things, or that they would pass cuts to one but not the other, so as to keep that leverage. At any rate, I think you are exactly right that we are seeing just the beginning of a long process in which the social safety net will be used as a hostage for a very long time.

What you describe is exactly what they already did with the debt ceiling negotiations, after all: We got promises of massive cuts, but they "saved" SS and Medicare...while creating an unprecedented deal of trillions in cuts to zero in revenue, and sliding into place a supercommittee to make even more draconian cuts.

You are onto something here: permanent Shock Doctrine.

[bvar22]

54. Exactly. ANOTHER contrived "Hostage Situation".

That is the "CON" in the Super CONgress.

The Committee's proposal will NOT be subject to changes or amendments.
It will be an "Up or DOWN" vote on the WHOLE Package.

Like the Health Care Bill or The Extension of the Bush tax Cuts, the "package" will contain some small morsel to some small minority,
but the MAJORITY of the "package" will be a HUGE BONUS PLUM to the Top 2%.

"Democrats" will be "forced" to Vote FOR it using the excuse that "they just HAD to protect" the small crumb...
exactly like they did for the Tax Cuts for the Rich (the 1 year crumb to some of the unemployed,
and the Mandates with NO Public Option (a small crumb to the very small minority with PECs AND enough MONEY to BUY IN).

This is another SCAM.
BOHICA



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The Super CONgress will NOT!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sudopod]

71. This too! nt

[Bryn]

105. Great Animated Toon of "Up & Down" by Miami Herald's Jim Morin

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/jim-morin/index.html

[Safetykitten]

42. Well, so there we have it.

[closeupready]

45. No. If you say it, YOU OWN IT.

Don't put it on the table at all.

[blindpig]

46. You are insisting that Democratic politicians be something they...

are not, representatives of the common people.

This is the nut of so much contention, depression and dismay around here, unrealizable expectations.

Do you really think the ruling class would allow it any other way?

edit: can't spell.

[woo me with science]

48. This blind pig

finds a hell of a lot of acorns.

:thumbsup:

[blindpig]

50. Snort! n/t

[Octafish]

58. Social Security is about the last money most Americans have left.

All the rest has been transferred to that class of individual who can better use it, the ultra-rich.

Thank you for the heads-up, madfloridian. We are so far past the entranceway through the looking glass it isn't even funny.

[Rex]

60. They steal from SSI and never planned to pay it back

because the GOP wants the program destroyed along with Medicare and Medicaid.

[jtown1123]

61. I wouldn't worry about Becerra. He is extremely progressive. He won't vote on SS cuts, he didn't dur

during the catfood commission. The others are who you have to worry about...

If you watch the Catfood Commission hearings, Becerra was always the one to vehemently speak out against SS and Medicare cuts. Just because they were "on the table" doesn't mean he voted for the final package. on the contrary, he voted against it because of the SS provisions. You do a lot of good work. I would focus your energy on the other Democrats who may cave. Becerra isn't the one.

[madfloridian]

65. My point is he said it had to be on the table....that he had to say that.

My question is why? We Democrats have the WH and the Senate, yet we act like the minority when we say it has to be on the table.

[jtown1123]

145. I don't know why he said it. Maybe Pelosi told him to. I have no idea.

I know from his previous actions, I follow his career very closely, is not the Democrat that will cave.

In all fairness, this whole commission was set up from the get go to cut SS. It's not that surprising he acknowledged it will be discussed, and in great detail.

Fortunately, Becerra is something of an expert on SS as he serves on that specific SS Committee.

[savannah43]

82. Could this be his way of telling us what is going on in

that committee? Getting the news out? Why would he say that even though SS contributes not one cent to the deficit, it must still be on the table. Why? Seriously? Now I'm on a quest,

[jtown1123]

146. This whole committee was set up to cut entitlements. He's stating the obvious

he knows Social Security will be looked at for cuts. There is nothing he can say that will take it off the table.

He wants us to start getting pissed and start calling and writing letters.

I have never EVER heard Becerra even hint he would be willing to vote for benefit cuts. EVER.

I can't say the same for a lot of other Democrats, unfortunately...

[mdmc]

67. ain’t none of y’all broke, ain’t none of y’all poor, ain’t none of y’all unemployed. None of you are

without health insurance

[closeupready]

70. There it is.

+1.

[madfloridian]

74. Exactly. They are playing political oneupmanship games with our futures.

And it is disgusting.

Tavis Smiley said it well.

[karynnj]

140. This is just demogoguery

The fact is that having skills and being successful - at least to some degree are things that people want to see before they are willing to elect anyone. There may be a few exceptions - but the closest you get are people, with the education, skills and connections, who use them to take nonprofit jobs to help people. However, even these people, if they ran and won, are tarred by that statement - they are not broke, not poor, unemployed or without health insurance - by definition.

That does not mean that they do not know the problems that face the people who are. It is simply cynical to suggest that they can't represent the people they worked to help.

[mdmc]

148. there is no doubt that the affluent can represent the poor and

represent the poor well.

I would never say "You don't know" to Charlie Rangle or Bernie Sanders. I know they know.

[femrap]

72. How is this

f*cking Committee even CONSTITUTIONAL?????????????? Shit.

[Rex]

75. I am against this super-committee idea and think it screams

desperation on both sides of the isle. The up and down vote is sad, nobody wants to take responsibility for the horrible condition of the country - but they all want to run for office and make money. WTFeva.

[trud]

77. OP: how much of this is real and how much is stuff you've made up?

You know, like your other "news" made up out of whole cloth.

[Faygo Kid]

78. We are in very deep trouble with this supercommittee. Takes just one to flip, and the Kochs win.

I have never recovered from the appointment of Alan Simpson to the Catfood Commission. That told me Social Security and Medicare are absolutely on the carving table.

[placton]

79. prediction: we will be screwed

cuts in social security and Medicare/aid

no tax increases on the rich, but some on the rest of us

NO change to, and in fact an increase in, military and FATHERLAND SECURITY spending

finally: NADA for jobs

[DeSwiss]

81. K&R

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

~Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother Edgar, November 8, 1954

[lark]

139. EXACTLY!!!

The Repugs are doing this so they can have cover. They could NEVR cut SSI on their own - but that is the top of their wish list - stealing the money from the trust fund. So, TPTB put Obama in White House with orders to cut SSI so Repugs can blame Dems and end the party's viability forever. I would prefer the triggers to happen, but Repugs won't allow that. Even if triggers incurred, you know they will change it before that happens so the whole load falls on "us" and the military-industrial complex gets to continue it's obscene & totally unnecessary growth while US becomes a banana republic.

[blkmusclmachine]

83. Chop, chop, chop:

They want to steal everything you got, til you got no more ..

[SusanaMontana41]

84. More of the effing same!

Damn your capitulations, Obama!

[Jim_Shorts]

85. SS is probably the strongest and best run government program that we have

I hear you mad. For those of us who have followed politics for a long time, we know weasel words when we hear them. I don't know if xavier will be the one to cave, but at this point I don't accept any language that suggests a waffler is in the house.

When the White House says that fund raising doesn't affect a politicians judgment and is silly, give me a break, the congress is a bunch of bought and paid for whores. Would it matter if say a politician had to raise, say, a billion dollars?

And for those who say, don't talk about this stuff until after "politicians" decide on the bill - I say fine, how about we start a fire in the basement of your house and we all can wait and see if we really need to call the fire department.

I think Sam Sedar and Cenk Uygur probably have a good guess at the outcome of the super committee but I would add some cuts to defense because they look good and there are ways around them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoKf08E-6vk

[bowens43]

86. there was never any doubt that Obama

was going to give up social security and medicare.....

this is nothing but a scam. Obama LOST big time. He was played like a cheap fiddle.......

Make no mistake, this committee will give the cons everything they ask for and probably more.

[deadinsider]

87. I told my mother they are going to cut social security a year ago...

If Wall Street can get away with what it did to people with impunity, it can do anything.

They want to get that money; and they will.

I can foresee some type of plan akin to the Health Care one, where Wall Street benefits, somehow, someway.

They won't take everything. The Dems will complain after the Repubs try to take everything, and then they will 'compromise.' Some will feel we've won because they'll be too focused on losing everything, but luckily social security will still be there; but in name only.

It is the same with civil rights etc. Take a ton and give back a little. We'll forget what we had in the first place. Then we can proclaim "VICTORY, VICTORY!!"

For those that do not fall for the grift and graft, the apologists will say "but we were held hostage!!" Again. And again. Ad infinitum.

Really, who's to stop them? Honestly?

They've co-opted the political and justice system, which is quite apparent by the lack of any heavy weight financial players in Con College. The only guy put away ripped off rich people.

I know some will dismiss this. Watch and see.

In summation: akin to the debt ceiling debate, all these so called 'problems' are manufactured to make them look like they need 'solutions.' Like war, health care, energy, etc.

[Lorien]

93. If he wants to talk about guillotines, then lets talk about lining up the multi-millionaires

and billionaires who won't pay their fair share in taxes yet control our government and let THEM face the Guillotine as they did in France a few short centuries ago. If they persist that's what will happen; the people can only take so much!

[Deep13]

95. Which is why he was picked for the supercommitte in the first place. nt

[earcandle]

98. Cuts are what happens when you don't raise revenue. Do your job. Levy compulsory tax Revenue now.

ON everyone, without favor. This is settled constitutional law. Instead we have this fraud and poor money management. Social Security is the people's bank account for their retirement. This is not part of the general fund and does not take from anything. It builds interest. Take off the cap and charge everyone FICA and MEDICARE, especially those with big bonuses. Then start putting liens on the property and bank accounts of every business and personal bank accounts of people who have not paid their tax bills over the last ten years and keep going into the future. You want to see respect restored to government? Do your fucking job, derelicts. We'll have plenty of money to fund everything and grow jobs. This is what we do. Why is everyone not talking about the only real solution to our problems? Is it because we are under a coup d'etat that has already lost our constitutional law? Fine, then bring back our military and take the country back under rule of law. Stop being fucking greed beasts and cowards. And stop fucking with the Treasury. Federal Reserve Bank is a business making money on us, paying their shareholders 6% dividends on the money they are loaning us with interest. When we raise revenue we are not debt financing. Stimulus is debt financing. What a crock.

[JDPriestly]

99. Becerra is my congressman.

He has solid support in this district. Nobody is ever going to unseat him no matter how much money they put into it.

He is a solid supporter of Social Security and Medicare although he acknowledges problems with the funding of Medicare, he is quite aware that Social Security's funding is solid for a long, long time.

He has a low-income constituency including a lot of immigrants and Spanish-speaking constituents.

He is a persuasive speaker. And he holds meetings with his constituents regularly. A kinder, stronger, better man cannot exist in the entire Congress. We are fortunate to have him represent us and we know it.

Becerra does not need to lower himself to cater to lobbyists. No other candidate could touch the support he has in his district. Some have tried. No way.

[BrightSideOfLife]

106. More of the "Shared Sacrifice" of the Neodemocrats

Thank god the President is here to save us! --Total and complete sarcasm. I have lost all hope.

[StarsInHerHair]

107. remember there is a guillotine waiting for us if we don’t get this done-he has it backwards

but oh well...

[Joe Fields]

108. Anyone who can't already see the handwriting on the wall is blind.

Our country has been co-opted by corporations, and we have become insignificant and expendable.

Question: have there been any serious talks about cutting out corporate welfare or tax breaks for the rich?

NO.

What does that tell you?

[Enthusiast]

111. It doesn't matter what you want.

Get that through your head.

We no longer live in a democracy.

Every living breathing politician knows that the American people are against cutting medicare and social security. Guess what? It doesn't matter. Most Americans also want to end the wars. Most Americans want a single payer health care system. Most Americans want Wall Street investigated for their crimes. A huge majority of Americans want to return taxes to 1990s levels.

It simply does not matter. And in the 2012 election it is going to matter even less than it did in 2010.

No democracy for you!

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
— Frank Zappa

[Shining Jack]

114. K&R

That super committee is a smokescreen to hide and protect the ones who really are behind this. :puke:

[Beartracks]

115. If "X" never contributed to the deficit or debt, then "X" is off the table.

See? That was easy.

Rep. Becerra, it's a deficit-reduction super-committee, isn't it? Budget-neutral stuff is not in your purview. Things that actually contribute to deficits are. Things that weren't around during the boom years, for example, like large wars and costly tax cuts. If history and math aren't your strong suits, then maybe you're in the wrong political party.

============================

[deadinsider]

118. Damn straight. NT

[sofa king]

119. I wish you folks wouldn't worry so much about this.

The first thing to note is that this bicameral committee does not have the power to pass legislation. All they can do is make recommendations to Congress as a whole. There are at least half a dozen major ways that committee can be stalled, delayed, or otherwise prevented from doing any harm. (I personally am convinced that this body was intentionally created to fail, but that's another story.)

I think there is a low probability that the recommendations of the committee will actually meet their objectives, in which case the President wins and his automatic cuts go into effect. I think they will either fail to find the monetary value of cuts and revenue needed to proceed, or they will miss the deadline.

But say they do succeed, and the recommendations are passed on to the House and the Senate. The Republican-controlled House will gut the recommendations, load their version of the bill with further pain and suffering for the poor and middle class while sheltering the rich, and further piss voters off. If they do manage to put together an actual bill and pass it, the Senate will simply laugh and kill it.

In the meantime, the legislation will have an even harder time in the Senate. Again, there are at least half a dozen major ways the legislation can be killed before it even comes to a vote. An anonymous hold can be placed on the bill, causing the Senate version to miss the deadline. It can be filibustered, also missing the deadline. And so on.

But again, say they do succeed to pass through both houses. Then a single version of the bill has to be agreed upon in a conference committee. That won't be easy because the Democratic Senators will have done their job while the Republicans in the House will have turned it into a cash-cow for their greedy interests.

The Republicans have yet to have a single major issue they wanted pass in conference this year. So that plan isn't going to work for them, either.

But pretend that somehow, the GOP plays ball and passes something close to a real, working bill. Then the final version has to be passed by the House and Senate again, again with all the potential for procedural delay and non-passage.

So pretend that happens, and then guess what? The President gets to look it over and either sign it into law or veto it. But here's the thing: the President's plan is the plan that falls into place if the legislation fails, so unless, after all that work and all that handling by greedy criminals, the Congressional plan meets or exceeds the President's own objectives, the President gets to kill it and revert everything back to his original plan.

There is simply no way for the Republicans to advance their own goals in this process. They've already been headed off at every pass. Any early success on their part will inevitably lead to ultimate failure. In fact, the entire process appears to be designed to allow the Republicans to act as they normally do, without the repercussions that usually result, causing them political damage without any political rewards. And at the end of it all, if the President does not get more of what he personally wants, the process dies and the President's plan is the one that goes forward.

So now would be a good time to sit back and marvel at how clever this plan is. It reminds me very much of a "consequence net" that is tossed over a misbehaving child: only good behavior can be rewarded, while the expected behavior will be punished.

[Hoyt]

122. I'm tired of worrying about it too and want something done that improves things long-term.

I think this so-called super committee has a better chance of coming up with something that will actually help than the full Congress with a bunch of loonies posing as leaders.

Even the so-called catfood commission had some good recommendations -- like a public option.

Now, if the super committee recommendations fail to produce anything, I have no idea where we go from there -- other than down the tubes again.

[sofa king]

142. If the committee fails, we win.

The big kahuna, the prize of prizes, will be peeling off half a trillion dollars from the Department of Defense over ten years, in an election season, without a single Democratic vote.

Nobody had found a way to curb the DOD's profligate ways prior to the President's "trigger mechanism," because any time someone suggested cutting defense, out would come the flying monkeys and the person suggesting would be shouted down, good idea or bad.

But this time, the cuts go into effect if the Republicans act as we all expect them to act: like a-holes. I don't think they can help themselves, and they will be the ones to take the full brunt of the blame while they unintentionally advance the President's agenda.

That single cut, along with the half-trillion dollars in revenue that will be generated if and only if the President is re-elected (whereupon he can veto any further extensions while protecting the January, 2013 expiration date), should be more than enough fiscal belt-tightening to allow the United States to begin focusing on other important things.

What amazes me the most about President Obama is his uncanny ability to force the outcome he desires from dishonest, unscrupulous people who have no interest whatsoever in cooperating. There is a leviathan-like finality to the agreements he secures, and he never secures that sort of agreement without making the other guy pay for it in ways they're not clever enough to fully envision when they agree.

[4dsc]

120. This is what WEAL leadership gets ya!

[obxhead]

123. You can't say you can't touch this or that... unless your an R.

I'm sick and tired of these piss poor spine free Dems. Right from the Pres on down.

[paparush]

124. It's an absolute end run around democracy and I can't believe it's constitutional.

[dotymed]

127. I just received an e-mail from Obama's people.

They were talking about a jobs program that President Obama is about to unveil. Also, a "new" type of citizen feedback that will keep us in the loop and even allow us to petition our government (lol..1st amendment already does that). They said this "new" jobs initiative was written with bi-partisan language to make sure it gets the support it deserves.

I responded that Americans do NOT want bi-partisanship, we the CHANGE we were promised, headed by a progressive who would not back down to the "party of no." I bet that really made a difference, just like the hundreds of e-mails I have already sent.

[Javaman]

128. Goodbye SS, welcome the poor house!

welcome to the new reality, it's a lot like the old reality, only it sucks a whole lot more.

[WinkyDink]

129. Bush tried in 2005. Back to the Future articles:

http://seniorjournal.com/SocSecReform.htm

[Aerows]

130. This sounds like a politician

that doesn't want to be re-elected. People are pretty apathetic when it comes to politics, but whoever causes the axe to fall on Social Security shouldn't be using the word guillotine, particularly as Tavis points out "None of you are broke, unemployed or without health insurance."

[on point]

132. SSI is a DEBT to the budget. If this is dicusseed then so too not paying Tbills!

Social security is part of the budget only because it is about paying off the debt that was borrowed from the ssi trust fund. If this is on the table then so too must be paying say 80 or 50 cents on the dollar of other debts like T-bills!

[begin_within]

135. Well, Xavier, there is a guillotine waiting for you if you put Social Security on the table.

[dash_bannon]

137. What we'll see...

I suspect what we'll see are the following:

They'll raise the eligible age for SSI and Medicare to 67. They'll cut a few military programs, maybe cancel a new super stealth bomber that fires photon torpedoes, and talk about how they'll save a few hundred billion over the next ten years.

Then they'll pat each other the back.

Obama will make a speech about how bipartisan he is, and they all can claim a victory.

We have the politics of looking good, and not the politics of effective leadership and responsibility.

President Obama has been a bummer. If the GOP wasn't insane, I might stop voting altogether.

What's it going to take for us to get candidates who will work for We the People?

[Liberty Belle]

141. what's his phone number? Let's all call and demand these things be OFF the table.

[SharksBreath]

149. Be nervous. The first words out of his mouth were a Republican TalkingT

point.