32 Senate Dems Sign Letter Urging Obama to "Look at" Entitlements

32 Senate Democrats, along with 32 Senate Republicans (64 total), sent President Obama a letter urging him to take the reins in deficit reduction talks and negotiations.

What concerns me the most about this letter? This paragraph:

"Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform."

Source: http://johanns.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=ca17e6fe-0d78-4523-91a0-45fd9d6636a0

So basically, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are going to be "reformed" with the help of Republicans. GOD HELP US. First of all Social Security is NOT in crisis and allowing it to be "on the table" in deficit reduction talks is morally, politically and economically stupid.

The second thing I am concerned about are some of the Senate Dems who signed this: Sherrod Brown? (Member of Sanders SS Defenders Caucus) Ben Cardin? Al Franken? John Kerry? What...the...fuck.

Here's the full list:

Democrats:

John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Mark Udall (D- CO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) , Kent Conrad (D-ND) , Mark Warner (D-VA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

I would urge anyone who has these people for Senators to call and complain. I can't even imagine why we are letting the Republicans own the debate on deficit reduction. Are we really going to give away our best social programs for some phony deficit crisis the Repukes cooked up? Where were they when they insisted on extending deficit-causing tax cuts for the wealthy?

it is Obama's fault that dems and repub senators are asking Obama to reform entitlements....

I didn't mean that I was talking to you....I was talking to the majority of DUers who blame the faults and weaknesses of congress on Obama for everything!

The choice is to have sane minds finding and cutting waste, or do nothing, lose elections for doing nothing, then have absolutely insane right-wingers perform cuts. Your choice, there is NO third way. If there is a third way, explain it and defend it's merits, and explain how we get people elected to carry it out.

Just STOP.

it is clear you have no concern for the lives involved. Take it somewhere else. There are people here on DU suffering and DYING because of attitudes like yours.

STOP.

:-)

This is a joke. I wrote Durbin about the inclusion of S.S. in "entitlements" and our reckless defense spending. I wonder if anyone will grow a set like Harry Reid and say, "Hands off S.S."

(you' re right, SS is fine, and the people you quote have all said that. I would feel less certain about people like Lieberman or Mark Warner, though). How they are reformed is the issue. And taxes need to be reformed, if anything to tax rich people appropriately, the how is the issue there to. But the point is that you can have this discussion that behind closed doors or you can do that in the open. Seems to me the letter asks for the discussion happens in the open.

What bothers me is that military spending is not in the list.

sold in the countrt!

Yes, force price control down their fucking throats!

It's not that hard, read the letter

Somehow I doubt that they want to get rid of Social Security.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/149825-left-seeks-to-outflank-reformers

Something stinks here. Either they are unaware they are shooting themselves inthe foot by requesting entitlements (a.k.a. Social Security only) to be on the table or they know and don't want anyone to find out.

to create the detailed plan.

Now, look at the people signing this - many Brown, Harkin, Durbin, Kerry, Wyden etc who are people who are most likely to defend social security.

By bringing SS to the table, they are ensuring it gets cut in some fashion whether it's means testing, changing COLA, or raising the retirement age. I highly doubt raising the cap will be the only solution offered. Republicans will not go for that.

are two possibilities. They are really the most likely. Are you suggesting the Republicans will like means testing? Uhm, I don't think so. (Here, in NJ, many of us think Corzine lost because he eliminated the property tax rebate for people making over $75,000 - essentially means testing that - in my county even Democrats in the wealthier area were mad at him for that.)

uses Pete Peterson Fiscal Commission mumbo jumbo language. This isn't good.

But, these 64 Senators and others are ready to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other important programs that benefit working people, the poor and the elderly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x632235

Or watch Kerry's speech of a few weeks ago which speaks in similar words, but then expands in more detail. I suspect that Senators like Dubin and Kerry have been focusing on this for months - and Kerry's speech details a lot of that. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660300 continuing on http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660302

and dear. In addition, he has been championing the removal on the "cap" that the wealthy pays into SSN. I think there's more than meets the eye here. I'm at an all time high for cynicism when it comes to politicians, but the reforms Al has been advocating are for the benefit of the people not the top 1%. Now Amy Klobuchar...milquetoast seems apropos...:D

FED and healthy.

as long as they mean corporate welfare and farm subsidies and pentagon boondoggles.

It only says there should be discussions.

It shouldn't even be discussed. It didn't cause the deficit, why are we even allowing them to discuss it? It will not end well.

this ends any SS issues. It's a no-brainer solution.

It's simple and would be effective.

2nd being Corporate Welfare
3rd being Personal tax loopholes for millionaires
etc etc etc ...

What the hell, contact your Senator and Reps anyway. Couldn't hurt.

sigh.

unreccers notwithstanding.

So I don't think this is an attack on Social Security.

Putting social security in a deficit reduction talk just opens it up to be cut. We can raise the cap through regular Social Security committees and legislation separate from deficit reduction.

I'm thinking they want more tools than are being offered to deal with the budget. And someday they are really going to have to deal with it.

proposes axing the mortage interest tax deduction and cutting SS...I really don't think reform means increases.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/is-your-mortgage-interest-deduction-doomed/1589/

My mortgage has never been anywhere near $500,000 and I live in one of the 10 wealthiest counties - where property is expensive.


Do you think that there is a social good in letting people deduct all the interest on mortgage's above $500,000?

post on the topic here.

to loser. They have handed the GOP another win.

Just when the Unions are pulling them out of the
loser's ditch these 34, they scream --let me lose
let me lose.

Sherrod Brown's numbers have gone up 10 and 15 points
in the Ohio points, now , does he really want to win.

Press Release by Senator Mike Johanns (Republican-Nebraska).
March 18, 2011
Bennet, Johanns Lead Bipartisan Call for President to Support Comprehensive Deficit Reduction
32 Republicans, 32 Democrats Sign Letter

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today led a bipartisan call for President Obama to support a comprehensive deficit reduction package in any negotiations on the budget.

In a letter to the President, 64 Senators ask him to engage in budget negotiations beyond FY2011 that include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform, to create meaningful deficit reduction. The letter notes that a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission, and that the group’s work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt.

“By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues. This would send a powerful message to Americans that Washington can work together to tackle this critical issue,” the senators wrote.

The full text of the letter is included below.

Dear President Obama:

As the Administration continues to work with Congressional leadership regarding our current budget situation, we write to inform you that we believe comprehensive deficit reduction measures are imperative and to ask you to support a broad approach to solving the problem.

As you know, a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission. While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt. The Commission’s work also underscored the scope and breadth of our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges.

Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform.

By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues. This would send a powerful message to Americans that Washington can work together to tackle this critical issue.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

In addition to Johanns and Bennet, the letter was signed by the following Senators:

Republicans:

Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R- MA), Richard Burr (R -NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH),? James Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Democrats:

John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Mark Udall (D- CO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) , Kent Conrad (D-ND) , Mark Warner (D-VA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

The total number of signers is 64.

http://johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=0d51f950-96e2-4c03-9d09-f9814d76898d

"Social Security and Medicare "Solvency" Is Not Part of the Commission's Mandate."
"As a Transfer Program, Social Security Is Also Irrelevant to Deficit Economics."



from James K Galbraith's Scathing Testimony to the Deficit Commission Sham

There Is No Economic Justification for Deficit Reduction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=569194&mesg_id=569194

Hypocrisy writ large.

with a lot of help from Obama in setting up the "Cat Food" Commisssion and

appointing the notorious Alan Simpson repug to it -- !!




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it on -- !!

:)

(or whatever they're calling themselves these days) on "entitlements". None of this should be surprising people.

Testimony to the Deficit Commission

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=569194&mesg_id=569201

Tax reform could easily mean moving it back to a more progressive structure. That would have a deficit reducing effect whereas continuing on the path of moving the overall tax burden onto the backs of the middle and lower classes would increase the deficit.

There is no specific mention of Social Security and Medicare.

In the letter, it clearly states they are looking at Fiscal Commission proposals. The Fiscal Commission raises taxes on the middle class (i.e. removing mortgage interest deductions) and doesn't raise taxes on the rich or capital gains at all. It's innocuous on the surface, but once you dig, there are some pretty bad ideas and people behind this. You never EVER want Social Security discussedin the context of deficit reduction. All it does is open it up for cuts.

Think about it. "...discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform."

That is not saying "let's cut, cut, cut." It could just as easily be saying, "whoa Nelly!" though perhaps not in those words. I'm not necessarily seeing anything to be alarmed about...yet.

to passing the real budget. My view is that we should have done this last year - with a Democratic House and a near supermajority in the House.

Here is the far superior Prosense from which the letter that puts this in perspective. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x632235

Looking at the names, you have a good sample of liberal and progressive Democrats as well as the more conservative ones. (You have the only two liberals on the Finance committee - Kerry and Wyden. Significantly, there are some people not here - Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, the chairs of Finance and Budget respectively. It may be that they prefer everything happen through their committees.

For the logic of why this needs to addressed, watch John Kerry's floor speech - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660300 and it continues on http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660302 In it, he says that SS needs nothing over than "small tweaks" to make it solvent for the CENTURY. He does say that there are problems with Medicare and Medicaid. (He points out that they gets worse if the HCR bill is overturned.)

Looking at the list, you might note that Preident Obama's two most consistent allies have signed thie - Durbin and Kerry.

Not only that, they are two of the most serious Senators - in terms of really looking at how to really deal with this. The point he makes is that entitlements AND revenues have to be looked at as well as discretionary spending. By revenues - he is speaking of all the loopholes - he says that the fairness of the tax code needs to be looked at. He speaks of how the revenue is at low just as much as spending is at a high. BOTH contribute to the deficit.

Tell me another Senator suggesting that more tax revenue need be collected.

He also speaks of the need to invest on infrastructure (internet as well as transportation) - as that expands the economy - raises revenue and cuts the deficit.

You have to recognize that bringing Social Security into a deficit reduction debate is a death sentence. The future Social Security shortfall should be addressed separately from the deficit reduction debate (and only fixed with a revenue increase). Putting SS in the debate in the first place assumes the false premise that it contributes to the deficit and that Dems are willing to allow cuts in SS to gain revenue increases elsewhere. Starting from the Bowles Simpson deficit reduction proposals in the first place is a bad idea. These proposals focused heavily on spending cuts (even eliminating the mortgage interest deduction from middle class home owners)and didn't raise any revenue from the wealthiest tax payers.

I watched this long budget statement hoping for some clarity and I found absolutely nothing to answer the core question: WHY must Social Security be a part of any "serious" deficit conversation? Although I physically cringed from hearing a good Democratic parrot insulting GOP talking points "having an adult conversation" (please tell Senator Kerry to stop doing that.) Even Paul Ryan acknowledges "reforming" SS does nothing to improve our current economic crisis or cut our deficits. Why? because the American people fund SS through their payroll taxes...not the federal government. And since no one, not even Republicans, are proposing cutting today's benefits, all that's on the table is proposals that will do absolutely nothing to address this current deficit crisis.

So again, Senator Kerry, WHY should cutting (call it reforming if you must) SS be a part of this debate? The answer is because that's exactly what fiscal hawks and conservatives want. They're using the economic crisis they created to sell cuts in programs they despise. They do not want to honor SS's fiscal committments in the out years and the only way to do that is to sell the American people on accepting cuts for "the greater good" now. All the rest is just smoke and mirrors which the Democrats seem to be accepting willingly.

You want to address the deficit...do it, and do it now...just don't regurgitate Pete Peterson's 30 year old entitlement talking points and pretend that SS caused this mess and therefore should solve this mess. You want to address long-term solvency for SS then fine do that too but take it out of the deficit cutting debate where is absolutely does NOT belong as a bargaining chip for Democrats to give away to get tax hikes from Republicans. This is a grand bargain that the Democrats will regret for generations.

Cutting Social Security isn't fiscal responsibility, it doesn't show political courage, and you're not a coward (or a juvenile) if you support the nation's most successful government program. I just wish Democrats could find one issue they'd be willing to truly stand-up for...SS used to be it.

It's no wonder so many Americans now actually trust the GOP more on Social Security???!! This speech illustrates why.

the POTUS...I kid, they need the money.

Dupe dupe.

oh well, making extra sure you get replaced in your next election! toodles, Diane! :hi:

:hi:

We need to make extra sure all 32 of these assholes get replaced in their next election.

but barbara boxer did not vote on this, good on her!

Democrats look at entitlements, or have them not look at them, lose their seat and have republicans with ultimate power look at entitlements? What the OP displays is the very mindset that burns me about some DU progressives. THERE IS A MUCH WORSE OPTION THAN HAVING DEMOCRATS AND THE FEW SANE REPUBLICANS LOOK AT ENTITLEMENT CUTS. DO YOU WANT WHATS BEHIND CURTAIN #2?

Nowadays, bipartisanship means Democrats voting for Republican ideas. Not exactly the kind of "reform" I want to see. What bothers me is not entitlement reform per se, but the fact that is is brough up in the mantle of deficit reduction. Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit, therefore should be looked at separately and only revenue increases should be considered, as that is the most popular option that does the least amount of harm.

So they can keep "looking", but they better not touch. Not significantly.

WSJ/NBC Poll: Hands Off Medicare, Social Security

WASHINGTON— Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s mounting deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs.

A new WSJ/NBC poll shows Americans do not approve of the government slashing Social Security and Medicaid to reduce the nation’s deficit. They also have a bleak economic outlook for 2011, but feel President Obama is handling the economy well.

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was “unacceptable” to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security “unacceptable.”

March 3
http://www.healthcare-now.org/wsjnbc-poll-hands-off-medicare-social-security/

before we "look at..." screwing over people who need these entitlements

Kay Hagan will NOT be getting my vote next time around after this.