Will The SuperCommittee Offer Barack Obama His Neville Chamberlain Moment?
>
In a few hours Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison, co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, are convening an ad-hoc hearing with prominent economists that the SuperCommittee routinely and pointedly ignores-- Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and founder and co-President of the Millennium Promise Alliance; Dr. Julianne Malveaux, Economist and President, Bennett College; Dr. John Irons, Research and Policy Director, Economic Policy Institute; and Dr. Rob Johnson, Senior Fellow and Director of the "Project on Global Finance" at the Roosevelt Institute. They will be taking up the topics of not cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, creating jobs and taxing the wealthy. I'm going to guess that these panelists will ask the Progressive Caucus to accept NO deal that doesn't strictly adhere to those parameters.
There are conservatives on both sides of the aisle still eager for a "grand bargain" that will trade away the hard-fought, meager lifeline for millions of Americans in return for some table scraps-- temporary table scraps at that-- from the 1%. The SuperCommittee, could well turn out to be Obama's Neville Chamberlain moment and could cement his place in history as firmly as the Munich Agreements cemented Chamberlain's. There are no sensible Democrats who should tether themselves to Obama's tragic miscalculation and, thankfully, the Progressive Caucus is fully aware of this.
Yesterday, Grijalva moved to make sure another fully committed for real progressive, Norman Solomon, is part of his bloc in the next Congress by endorsing him for a newly created Northern California seat. Solomon, who has been a progressive activist and a stalwart advocate for the 99% for his entire life, is up against an array of garden variety "liberals" tied to business as usual corporate crooks-- his main opponent, for example, Jared Huffman, has been taking cash from PG&E, Gallo, Chevron and Wal-Mart. I'm sure Huffman is "against the war" or something, but no one whose political career is financed by Chevron and Wal-Mart is going to be a dependable ally against the unbounded greed and avarice of the 1% over time. November 23 is the deadline for the SuperCommittee to report its toxic findings and, if it does, there will be gigantic pressure from the White House and their corporate allies to tow the line. It will be a momentous decision for our political allies and what a difference having a Norman Solomon rather than a Jared Huffman in position to vote on something this important!
Yesterday, in his endorsement of Solomon, Grijalva stated, very clearly that Norman has shown with his entire life that he is "on our side."
This is a time for bold leadership. This is a time for activist solutions. This is a time to elect historical, not rhetorical, progressives-- in other words, progressives who have shown with their entire lives that they are on our side.
That's why I am so proud to take the unusual step today of endorsing my friend and progressive ally, Norman Solomon, in his campaign to win the primary for Congress from northern California.
Norman was one of the first challengers endorsed by Blue America this year and there isn't a better investment for progressives than to contribute to his grassroots, people-powered campaign. You can do that right here through ActBlue. Last night he shared his concerns with the way the SuperCommittee is moving.
"The current momentum of the Super Committee is plunging toward Super Betrayal. The bedrock of the social compact is under assault. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid-- these are programs of decency, not 'entitlements' to be treated as expendable items when the going gets rough. Unfortunately, the loud yearning for a 'Grand Bargain' begs the question of what the consequences would be in human terms if we fall victim to bogus renditions of 'austerity.' Our moral compass tells us that clarity is necessity: We do not throw children or the disabled or the elderly or the disadvantaged under the bus of expediency. That is not who we are. That is not who we are willing to be. Instead, we will continue to stand for-- and fight for-- what is right."
That's the guy we want in our corner... don't you think?
Labels: Norman Solomon, Raul Grijalva, SuperCommittee
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 6:00 AM
4 comments
|
Reddit
4 Comments:
"tow the line"? The expression is "toe the line." Please correct that silly typo/goofo in an otherwise excellent blog.
Think about your faulty reasoning for Solomon in CD2. It's fine to want the most strident progressive we can get. But you admit Huffman is a liberal who will vote the right way on the big items like saving Social Security, Medicare, etc. So your dramatic appeal about "what a difference" it will make to have Solomon, instead of Huffman, to "vote on something this important!" (slashing Social Security) is obviously wrong. It won't make a shred of difference on that vote, or any other big vote, because Huffman and Solomon would vote the same way. If you want to make the case for Solomon, it needs to be well reasoned.
Anon, what Howie also wrote was:
"Jared Huffman, has been taking cash from PG&E, Gallo, Chevron and Wal-Mart. I'm sure Huffman is "against the war" or something, but no one whose political career is financed by Chevron and Wal-Mart is going to be a dependable ally against the unbounded greed and avarice of the 1% over time."
Given this, I'd hardly call Huffman a liberal. A person may have some well-intentioned ideas, but when you're bought and paid for by the likes of Wal-Mart, Chevron and others, you naturally listen to them. Solomon's different in that he doesn't accept that money, and naturally in bills where actions taken by the likes of Wal-Mart etc are up for a vote, he's going to keep his constituency in mind. And it isn't going to be a constituency of corporations. So, difference there. Big one.
Round one goes to Brenesal, and if Anonymous doesn't respond, then it's a TKO. Now, just to beat a dead horse, not only are there big votes, there's also the writing of legislation. Whose water do you think the two candidates will be carrying then? You could ask them both about their stances on immigration and southern border security for one thing, and nuclear power for another. Then tell us if there's an important difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home