New Dems Vs Actual Democrats-- Chained CPI

The Blue Dogs are a discredited, spent force, essentially wiped out in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010 when Democratic voters in their districts stayed away from the polls and dozens of them went down to defeat on the same day. Today the conservative Blue Dog coalition is down to a motley crew of 14: John Barrow (GA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Pete Gallego (TX), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Mike Michaud (ME), Collin Peterson (MN), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Kurt Schrader (OR), David Scott (GA) and Mike Thompson (CA). The 3 co-chairs (Barrow, Cooper and Schrader) all joined the New Dems and at this point 6 of the remaining Blue Dogs are members of the New Dems, a corporately-oriented group of anti-family conservatives who aren't as reactionary as the Blue Dogs on social issues like Choice, guns, immigration and marriage equality. New Dems are like Blue Dogs without the KKK robes and hoods-- except for the Blue Dogs that have infiltrated.

But if the Blue Dogs are an irrelevant and spent force, the rising power among right-wing corporate-oriented congressional Dems is the New Democratic Coalition (the New Dems). Of the 47 Democratic freshmen in the 113th Congress, 17 are New Dems and another 9 consistently vote with the New Dems on all the crucial roll calls and work with them to undermine progressive initiatives in committees. These are the New Dem freshmen (along with their ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores) Steve Israel recruited last year and helped elect to Congress:

• Juan Vargas (CA- 82.61)
• Joaquin Castro (TX- 73.91)
• John Delaney (MD- 69.57)
• Derek Kilmer (WA- 69.57)
• Elizabeth Esty (CT- 68.18)
• Filemon Vela (TX- 65.22)
• Denny Heck (WA- 65.22)
• Suzan DelBene (WA- 60.87)
• Bill Foster (IL- 52.17)
• Joe Garcia (FL- 52.17)
• Brad Schneider (IL- 47.83)
• Ami Bera (CA- 47.83)
• Patrick Murphy (FL- 47.83)
• Dan Maffei (NY- 43.48)
• Sean Maloney (NY- 43.48)
• Scott Peters (CA- 43.48)
• Kryrsten Sinema (AZ- 43.48)

and the fellow travelers:

• Michele Lujan Grisham (NM- 56.52)
• Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA- 54.55)
• Julia Brownley (CA- 54.55)
• Pete Gallego (TX- 52.17)
• Bill Enyart (IL- 47.83)
• Cheri Bustos (IL- 43.48)
• Ann Kuster (NH- 43.48)
• Raul Ruiz (CA- 43.48)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ- 31.82)

When the Republicans and their ConservaDem allies realized that they wouldn't be able to privatize Social Security all in one shot-- that third rail of American politics thing still being very much in force-- Boehner persuaded a naive and befuddled Obama to help them take the electricity out of the third rail by taking a bite out of Social Security with a scheme called Chained CPI, which would lower the formula for calculating inflationary cost of living increases for retirees. The Republicans don't have the guts to pass Chained CPI on their own and be forever known as the slayers of Social Security, so Obama promised them he would deliver a requisite number of Democrats to make it look bipartisan. Although a few elderly Establishment hacks who were once actual progressives-- Henry Waxman and Mel Watt-- are now backing dismantling Social Security, it is the New Dems Obama and Boehner are turning to for support for their scheme. John Delaney, a multimillionaire New Dem freshman from Maryland who sent $2,370,556 of his own to buy his seat last November, wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post-- which was then pimped around DC by slimy New Dem Executive Director Adam Pase-- extolling the virtues of Chained CPI by insisting that Congress should be "reforming entitlements by adopting a form of 'chained CPI' to lower the long-term costs of these programs..." That seems to be the official New Dem position.

When you ask DCCC-recruits this cycle about Chained CPI, they clam up. Progressive running for Congress universally oppose Chained CPI. The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison have spoken endlessly about why it would be a disaster for the most vulnerable Americans. Yesterday Alan Grayson (D-FL) explained it on John Fugelsang's Current TV show, Viewpoint (video above).

John Fugelsang: You posted... that the President's offer, essentially to cut Social Security benefits for seniors, does break a promise to America's seniors. Some Republicans, of course, seem to like that.  So, will Democrats support it, or will they support cuts to other social programs?

Congressman Alan Grayson: Well, the President specifically said in September 2008 that he would not change the formula for calculating the cost-of-living adjustment. That [would] take $1,000 a year out of the pockets of 90-year-olds. As for whether the Democrats will support it, I don't know, but I know they shouldn't. We've lined up 35 Democrats here in the House already who say, in the “Grayson-Takano Letter,” that they will vote against any cuts in Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid benefits.

John: So let me ask you, is it worth keeping the sequester cuts and foregoing any new revenues, in return for keeping Social Security as it is?

Alan: That's not a choice that we should ever have to make. Social Security is not responsible for the deficit. The Social Security Fund has $1.9 trillion in it. It's the largest sovereign wealth fund in the entire world. The Social Security Fund has been operating at a surplus now ever since the fund was founded, ever since the program was founded. We are 25 years away from anything resembling a problem of any kind with the Social Security system. In the next quarter of a century, under current law, the beneficiaries can get all that they're entitled to. I don't understand why we're fretting over what might or might not happen in the year 2037, when we have 25 million Americans who are looking for full-time jobs [right now].

John: Well as you know, here on Viewpoint, we don't like to call these programs 'entitlements'--we call them 'earned benefits'. But is there no compromise to be had for the President, unless he offers something like that up?

Alan: That's just not the way you negotiate. The President has offered something up, in return for nothing. There's no sign that the Republicans have any interest in making any sort of deal with the President, and even if they did, we're not talking about things that are commensurate with each other. You can't equate cutting Social Security benefits, cutting Medicare benefits-- breaking the promise that we Americans have made to ourselves, the covenant that we make to ourselves-- you can't equate that with having millionaires and billionaires and multinational corporations finally pay their fair share of taxes.

John: With over 80% of the Bush tax cuts made permanent, I would add. So, let me ask you then, sir, for President Obama, is this an elaborate piece of political theater? Is he taking a page out of Dick Morris' playbook for Bill Clinton by triangulating against House Democrats on this issue? So he can put himself in the middle of the political spectrum, where they say most voters live?

Alan: He may think so, but he's making a terrible mistake. This is not a 'Sister Souljah' moment for the President. In fact, the President, I believe, is soon going to find through public polling that this is a terrible mistake. 90% of Democrats and 80% of the Republicans are against this specific proposal. If you're talking more generally about cuts in benefits, you find that 80% of the Democrats and 65% of the Republicans are against this kind of proposal. This doesn't make any sense, either from a policy point of view, or a moral point of view, or even a political point of view. In fact, the President is putting at risk all the progress that we've made in identifying the Republican Party as the party in favor of cuts for Medicare and Social Security benefits, and the Democratic Party as the party that will protect the public from the Republicans.

Many people voted for Obama (and the Democrats) because of this clear, simple statement below. Was he lying at the time? Henry Waxman, a supporter of Chained CPI, whose district is one of the most liberal in California, will have a primary next year if he follows through on his promise to screw with Social Security.