Democrats, Either Go Populist Or Face Shattering Defeats In November-- Yes, It's THAT Simple

Although most any Republican will do, let's go right to the bottom of the barrel: former Club For Growth president and Wall Street derivatives trader Pat Toomey, challenging Joe Sestak for the open Pennsylvania Senate seat. Toomey is one of the most aggressive advocates of dismantling Social Security in the GOP. Most of them are hiding their intentions; he's either too stupid or not skillful enough to do so. With over $1.7 million in "donations" from the Financial Sector so far-- and much more than that gushing into his current campaign, Toomey's most dominant message is letting his pals on Wall Street gamble with retirement money-- and take a hefty percentage for themselves in fees and commissions.

• Morning Call: Congressman Toomey was a "spokesman of sorts" for the Bush plan to privatize Social Security.

• Social Security keeps more than 700,000 Pennsylvania seniors out of poverty.

• Toomey's plan could have cost seniors $26,000 in one month alone.

• Toomey's plan would add $4.9 trillion to the debt.

• Republicans across the country are running from plans to privatize Social Security-- but not Congressman Toomey.

Well... they're just running from the appearance. Dismantling Social Security has been the #1 conservative dream for 75 years. And according to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, among other sources, conservatives don't only have the GOP on their side; there are also conservative Democrats-- and the ones who have sold their souls to Wall Street-- who are ready to go along for the ride. Remember, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid were smart enough to reject Obama's call for a deadly austerity commission, one that could only result in opening the door to anti-family solutions since the GOP members would never agree to anything without that. But Obama went ahead on his own and created a panel that looks like it is getting ready-- after the elections, of course-- to make some gruesome recommendations. Recall, George H.W. Bush failed Wall Street by being unable to pass NAFTA. Clinton and Rahm Emanuel completed the dirty job for them. George W. Bush failed Wall Street on Social Security privatization. Emanuel seems to have persuaded Obama this is a good political move. It isn't. As Digby pointed out yesterday, sacrificing Social Security on the alter of austerity is about as popular as human sacrifice (with the sacrificees). And her inspiration was Paul Krugman writing in the NY Times about appeasing the "Bond Gods."

As I look at what passes for responsible economic policy these days, there’s an analogy that keeps passing through my mind. I know it’s over the top, but here it is anyway: the policy elite-- central bankers, finance ministers, politicians who pose as defenders of fiscal virtue-- are acting like the priests of some ancient cult, demanding that we engage in human sacrifices to appease the anger of invisible gods.

...Late last year the conventional wisdom on economic policy took a hard right turn. Even though the world’s major economies had barely begun to recover, even though unemployment remained disastrously high across much of America and Europe, creating jobs was no longer on the agenda. Instead, we were told, governments had to turn all their attention to reducing budget deficits.

Skeptics pointed out that slashing spending in a depressed economy does little to improve long-run budget prospects, and may actually make them worse by depressing economic growth. But the apostles of austerity-- sometimes referred to as “austerians”-- brushed aside all attempts to do the math. Never mind the numbers, they declared: immediate spending cuts were needed to ward off the “bond vigilantes,” investors who would pull the plug on spendthrift governments, driving up their borrowing costs and precipitating a crisis. Look at Greece, they said.

The skeptics countered that Greece is a special case, trapped by its use of the euro, which condemns it to years of deflation and stagnation whatever it does. The interest rates paid by major nations with their own currencies-- not just the United States, but also Britain and Japan-- showed no sign that the bond vigilantes were about to attack, or even that they existed.

Just you wait, said the austerians: the bond vigilantes may be invisible, but they must be feared all the same.

This was a strange argument even a few months ago, when the U.S. government could borrow for 10 years at less than 4 percent interest. We were being told that it was necessary to give up on job creation, to inflict suffering on millions of workers, in order to satisfy demands that investors were not, in fact, actually making, but which austerians claimed they would make in the future.

But the argument has become even stranger recently, as it has become clear that investors aren’t worried about deficits; they’re worried about stagnation and deflation. And they’ve been signaling that concern by driving interest rates on the debt of major economies lower, not higher. On Thursday, the rate on 10-year U.S. bonds was only 2.58 percent.

So how do austerians deal with the reality of interest rates that are plunging, not soaring? The latest fashion is to declare that there’s a bubble in the bond market: investors aren’t really concerned about economic weakness; they’re just getting carried away. It’s hard to convey the sheer audacity of this argument: first we were told that we must ignore economic fundamentals and instead obey the dictates of financial markets; now we’re being told to ignore what those markets are actually saying because they’re confused.

You see, then, why I find myself thinking in terms of strange and savage cults, demanding human sacrifices to appease unseen forces.

And, yes, we are talking about sacrifices. Anyone who doubts the suffering caused by slashing spending in a weak economy should look at the catastrophic effects of austerity programs in Greece and Ireland.

Maybe those countries had no choice in the matter-- although it’s worth noting that all the suffering being imposed on their populations doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve investor confidence in their governments.

But, in America, we do have a choice. The markets aren’t demanding that we give up on job creation. On the contrary, they seem worried about the lack of action-- about the fact that, as Bill Gross of the giant bond fund Pimco put it earlier this week, we’re “approaching a cul-de-sac of stimulus,” which he warns “will slow to a snail’s pace, incapable of providing sufficient job growth going forward.”

It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites. Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.

So back to that report I referred to in the Wall Street Journal: "A White House-created commission is considering proposals to raise the retirement age and take other steps to shore up the finances of Social Security, prompting key players to prepare for a major battle over the program's future." Keep in mind, of course, that when our bipartisan political elites talk about "shoring up" Social Security, they mean dismantling it-- in the name of "austerity," which really means more tax cuts for millionaires.

The panel is looking for a mix of ideas that could win support from both parties, including concessions from liberals who traditionally oppose benefit cuts and from Republicans who generally oppose higher taxes, according to one member of the commission and several people familiar with its deliberations.

..."Are Republicans willing to sign onto a tax increase, and are Democrats ready to sign onto a benefit cut? I think the answer is probably yes in both cases if the other is willing to do it," said Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and former White House budget director. Some have suggested raising the retirement age to as high as 70, but Ms. Rivlin said she doubts there is support on the commission to go that high.

Some in the White House view a deal on Social Security as a confidence-building measure that could prepare the political system to tackle even tougher fiscal questions, such as the federal government's budget deficit. Asked about Social Security on Wednesday, President Barack Obama hinted of coming changes, saying: "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it."

...Liberal Democrats are already organizing to head off any proposal that cuts Social Security benefits, including any plan to raise the retirement age. They argue the program's finances can be fixed with tax increases alone and that benefit cuts would harm low-income seniors who have little savings.

"People would rather pay more or have revenue raised than cut the benefits," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), a commission member. She said she was fairly confident a proposal that included benefit cuts would not garner the needed 14 votes.

Many liberals are particularly opposed to any plan that would link cuts in Social Security to deficit reduction. They say that because the retirement program has long run a surplus, it is not to blame for the budget deficit. The commission's mandate is to examine ways to balance the budget and to address the growth of entitlement programs.

Outside the commission, Moveon.org, the Campaign for America's Future and other liberal groups are pressuring candidates for Congress to promise not to support benefit cuts, posting name-by-name results on a website. A coalition of 125 groups, called Strengthen Social Security, calls for closing the shortfall with tax increases alone.

The Journal then went on to lie about the AARP's position, trying to claim the biggest seniors organization in America supports cutting Social Security, a patent falsehood dreamed up in Rupert Murdoch's version of a newsroom. Here's AARP's own statement in response to the lies.

I voted for Obama in 2008-- with my eyes open. I knew what a centrist, corporatist voting record he had in the Senate and I already had a very clear understanding about how much of a compromiser (as in sell-out) he is. I voted for him for one reason-- he was much better than McCain. I would bet that my two partners in Blue America, Digby and John Amato, also voted for him. But Blue America didn't endorse him or ask our supporters to donate a dime to his campaign. If you still don't understand why, read the above again. Instead we were actively involved in electing men and women like Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Carol Shea-Porter and Jeff Merkley. If we get even a hint that a candidate might sell out to Big Business-- the way we seeing Robin Carnahan and Blue Dog Charlie Melancon doing this week-- they are automatically eliminated as potential endorsees. This year's crop of House candidates will stand up and fight for Social Security, even if that means fighting Obama. Even inside the Democratic leadership, we've seen we can't trust careerists and money-grubbers like Chris Van Hollen and Steny Hoyer. There are, however, populist candidates who will stand and fight on our side. One, who faces voters in a primary this Tuesday, is Doug Tudor who goes up against anti-working family Blue Dog Lori Edwards. Edwards was pushed forward by another Blue Dog, Allen Boyd, the only Blue Dog willing to sign on to Bush's plans to privatize Social Security. Edwards is further right and more dangerous than her mentor! And she was endorsed by the DCCC, of course-- their kind of candidate-- and, because of that, by a clueless editorial writer at NewsChief yesterday.

As longtime member of the U.S. military, Tudor's top priority is national security, starting with the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he is "progressive" on many issues but admitted, when pressed by the News Chief on the "progressive" label, that he has solid liberal views. He also is confident, forceful, opinionated and knowledgeable about the key issues of the day.

Edwards, meanwhile, has positioned herself as a moderate Democrat. In a recent interview with the News Chief, she wasn't as well prepared as Tutor or particularly up to date on several of the issues, particularly immigration and national security. But what she has going for her is her ties to Polk County, which makes up the largest slice of District 12, and her legislative experience, including eight years in the Florida House of Representatives from the Auburndale-Winter Haven-Lake Alfred area. Tudor lives in Riverview.

...Tudor not only supported the original stimulus package, he said it did not go far enough and that another stimulus is needed. He said he was disappointed with the health-care reforms Obama signed but only because the Democrats should have fought for a government-run, single-payer health insurance system.

Tudor is a strong Democratic candidate for the District 12 seat, but in what clearly is a parochial choice, we recommend that voters send Edwards on to the general election. We believe her moderate stance on the issues is more in line with the majority of District 12 residents, and we certainly would like to see the seat remain with a Polk County-based representative.

So... what they're saying is essentially that Edwards is ignorant but at least she's Polk County ignorant. Doug's rebuttal will run tomorrow:

I commend The News Chief for its honesty in its recent Democratic primary recommendation. Basically, the headline could have read, "She's Ignorant, But She's Our Ignorant."

When speaking of me, the recommendation stated: "He also is confident, forceful, opinionated and knowledgeable about the key issues of the day."

When speaking of my opponent, the article stated: "She wasn't as well prepared as Tutor (sic) or particularly up to date on several of the issues, particularly immigration and national security."

All in all, the article concludes the voters should cast their ballot on a candidate's residency in Polk County, even though the district itself covers 2,000 square miles and parts of three counties.
 
I will keep this residency recommendation in mind as I attend Saturday's services for District 12 resident, PFC Paul Cuzzupe, who was killed in action in Afghanistan. While my opponent may be ignorant on national security, and while the News Chief may feel that only Polk County matters, I beg to differ. PFC Cuzzupe was from Seffner in Hillsborough County which is about 16 miles west of County Line Road. He died some 7,000 miles away from Polk County.

The citizens of this district need a representative who is "confident, forceful, opinionated and knowledgeable about the key issues of the day." In the News Chief's own words, I am that candidate.

Doug was one of Blue America's first endorsed candidates this year-- and one of our very best. Please pray for him on Tuesday.