Carol Shea-Porter And Mike Honda Make The Case For Not Balancing The Budget On The Backs Of Seniors

Many progressives fear that conservative Democrats are working with Boehner, McConnell and the Republicans to undermine the inviolability of Social Security-- the Third Rail aspect-- by including Chained CPI in a so-called "Grand Bargain" which would see the GOP give a tiny bit on taxes-- raising taxes on the rich slightly which could be easily lowered as soon as they regain power-- in return for forever decoupling Social Security from the Third Rail. Will the Democrats bargain away hard-won social insurance policies for bullshit compromise from the GOP? Wall Street whore Paul Ryan has a plan conservative Democrats seem to like.

Democrats have begun to telegraph a possible path forward in the coming budget conference, suggesting a possible compromise that would include trading a relaxation of the sequester for "permanent structural changes to mandatory programs," according to a Senate Democratic aide. The thinking goes: Republicans could argue that they traded budget cuts that last only until 2022 for permanent changes. Just what Democrats would accept in terms of changes to mandatory programs is still murky, though; Democrats are being deliberately vague about what they might be willing to swallow.

"I know that Democrats are willing to compromise to get a deal, and I’m hopeful Republicans will as well," Murray said recently.

That's one bad deal. When Blue America vets candidates, we don't just ask them about Choice and Equality; we also asked them about Chained CPI. You may have read what our most recent endorsee, Eloise Reyes, said last week:

I grew up in a family where everyone did their part to make ends meet. My brothers, sisters and I all worked the onion fields alongside our parents to help pay for our school clothes. I understand what it means to work your whole life, pay into Social Security and expect to live out your final years without having to make critical choices between food or medicine or rent.

It’s simply wrong to try to balance the budget on the backs of our seniors, veterans and the disabled. I’m running for Congress to make sure that never happens to anyone in San Bernardino, Upland, Redlands or anywhere else in America. Whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat who proposes it, "chained CPI" is just another way of saying "benefits cuts"-- and I will always hold Congress accountable when it comes to keeping the promises we have made to our seniors.

The families here in the Inland Empire will always come first for me, before anyone in Washington or anyone on Wall Street.

It's in line with what the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been saying, what we keep hearing from tribunes of the people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison… the handful congressmembers we can trust. So far this year, Blue America has only endorsed two incumbents who have tough races. Both are running against opponents who are eager to tamper with Social Security and both are solid as rocks against anything that would reduce benefits for seniors, veterans and the handicapped who depend on Social Security for their live. One of them, Carol Shea-Porter (NH), did an OpEd for the Concord Monitor Monday in which she explains her position.

Last week, reasonable Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together to end the government shutdown and eliminate the threat of default. It was not a perfect solution, but I voted for it because it was a necessary compromise in the face of an unnecessary shutdown.

As part of the compromise, Congress agreed to try to focus on the budget. This means Republicans and Democrats will try to negotiate a plan to boost job creation; make key investments in infrastructure, education and housing; reduce the deficit; and protect programs vital to middle class security. This will be extremely tough since there are four budgets floating around: President Obama’s budget, the Senate budget (known as the Murray budget), House Republicans’ budget (known as the Ryan Budget), and the House Democrats’ budget (known as the Van Hollen budget).

Before these talks even begin, there is chatter about ways to balance the budget on the backs of seniors by making dramatic changes to Social Security and Medicare.

In past years, House Republicans passed Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, which eliminates the Medicare guarantee and puts Social Security at risk. The Senate refused to go along.

I strongly oppose the Ryan budgets. America faces real problems. Too many people remain unemployed. Wages have been stagnant for too long. And our deficit, though falling, is still too high. But targeting seniors and other vulnerable populations is not the answer.

New Hampshire seniors have worked for, paid into and earned Medicare and Social Security benefits through a lifetime of hard work. We must keep our commitment to them, and to future generations.

Together with Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security embodies the moral fabric of our country. These programs are the foundation of economic security for seniors and for the most vulnerable. While I am open to proposals that make Social Security stronger and extend its solvency, I will not accept a budget that takes from Social Security beneficiaries without first asking America’s millionaires and multibillion-dollar corporations to pay their fair share. Keep in mind that in 2008, nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68 percent of foreign corporations did not pay federal income taxes, and Wall Street profits have soared while workers’ incomes have been flat.

For six in 10 New Hampshire residents who are 65 and older, Social Security makes up 50 percent or more of their income. As of December 2012, the average monthly benefit for those receiving Social Security was $1,215. Over the course of a year, this averages out to $14,581. It is immoral to balance the budget on the backs of seniors with incomes under $15,000, when those in the top 1 percent have seen their incomes skyrocket over the past 10 years.

More than one-third of Granite Staters over 65 would be living in poverty if they did not receive Social Security. And it’s not just seniors who benefit. Over one-third of beneficiaries in New Hampshire are spouses and families of workers who become disabled or die prematurely, including over 20,000 children. These benefits should not be used as a budget bargaining chip.

We do need to find ways to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I am proud to have cosponsored legislation to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security. The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act would create long-range solvency while improving benefits, and it would ensure greater economic security for America’s seniors. There are also a number of efforts to keep Medicare strong and root out fraud, waste and inefficiencies.

I am ready to support a balanced plan to grow the economy and protect children, seniors, families and veterans. We know that Congress must work out a long-term budget to reduce the deficit, invest in job creation, upgrade our infrastructure and strengthen the middle class. But I will not ask seniors or the most vulnerable to carry the burden when we can take other measures. For example, we could end outrageous farm and oil subsidies, close corporate tax loopholes, and do tax reform so our system is fair.

There’s a saying that if you don’t sit at the table, you will be on the menu. There are always too many seats at the table for the most powerful and influential. There must be a seat there for the rest of our citizens.

And, by the way, the other incumbent we've endorsed is Mike Honda (D-CA) who faces a primary from a conservative Wall Street shill posing as a Democrat, Ro Khanna, who advocates wrecking Social Security in true New Dem style. From a local paper:

When asked where he stood on cutting social security benefits, Khanna danced around the question.

“I don’t think we ought to be cutting benefits that have been promised to current seniors,” Khanna said.

A popular talking point, “keeping promises to current seniors” is what most Democrats say when they don’t want to be held accountable for wanting to cut social insurance benefits.

A majority of the country favors preserving social security and trusts the Democratic Party more with entitlement programs over Republicans, who want to severely privatize them at the expense of society’s most vulnerable.

If you think that the Social Security issue does not affect you because you are far from retirement, think again. If you are a wage earner, you are paying into the system and basically putting money into a fund that will hopefully be there for you in the future.

…Honda believes that the new calculation “lowers earned Social Security benefits and would institute compounded benefit cuts that would hurt future retirees harder as time goes on,” according to his Facebook page. “We should be working together to make Social Security stronger not weaker.”

Honda has exhibited the type of leadership the Democratic Party needs on one of its core issues. His proven track record on the social compact is consistent, not compromising.

Mike Honda's own statement on strengthening Social Security is right in line with Shea-Porter's and the polar opposite of her opponent's and his own opponent's. "I believe, as millions of other Americans do, that our deficits are a problem that deserves our attention, but Social Security spending is not the cause of our deficits. Any attempts to draw down our debt should be done in a sensible, responsible way, and not on the back of those who can least afford it-- struggling American families, seniors, veterans-- including our 3.2 million disabled veterans, individuals with disabilities, and children on survivors’ benefits.

"I’m eager to see what protections the President’s proposal has for vulnerable populations, but I am wary because every chained CPI proposal I’ve seen would affect veterans, people with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, and would institute compounding benefit cuts that would hurt future retirees harder as time goes on. The average annual Social Security benefit for retirees amounts to a very modest $15,000, yet one-third of seniors rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their income. These seniors cannot afford any reductions. As we face a looming retirement security crisis, with the majority of our workforce lacking private pensions and over one-third of all workers unable to save any money at all for retirement, we should be working together to make Social Security stronger, not weaker, to make our future retirees more secure.

"Americans all over the country depend on every single dollar they get from Social Security for the food on their table, and the roofs over their backs. At a time when so many of our Americans are already struggling, I strongly oppose benefit cuts to Social Security and will work with my colleagues to ensure that our government fulfills its promise to its future retirees."

Yesterday, an old friend, Jim Dean, chairman of DFA, wrote an OpEd for The Hill, Democrats, Don't Screw This Up, warning congressional Democrats not to surrender to Wall Street and the GOP on Social Security. which is what Obama is trying to force them to do.

While Democrats can and do disagree on the short-term necessity of strengthening Social Security and Medicare programs, agreeing to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits after the failure of the Republican shutdown would be nothing short of seizing electoral disaster out of the jaws of victory in 2014 for three reasons.

First, cutting earned benefits is tremendously unpopular with voters across the ideological spectrum.  This summer, along with a number of our progressive allies, Democracy for America released polling conducted by PPP showing the tremendous unpopularity of the White House-supported Chained CPI Social Security cuts in red states like Kentucky (74 percent against), blue states like Hawaii (64 percent against) and purple states like Iowa (70 percent against), among others.

Moreover, because of a growing retirement crisis caused by decades of declining wages and the 2008 economic collapse, wide majorities of Americans in those same Red, Blue and Purple states actually think we should be expanding Social Security benefits, not cutting them.  The truth is, while cutting benefits that working people earn over their whole lives might be popular in the salons of Georgetown and Dupont Circle, it’s expanding Social Security that would shore up the opportunities created for Democrats in House Districts that are now in play thanks to the GOP’s shutdown.

Second, most Republicans know just how deeply unpopular cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are and are likely to use the mere talk of cuts to confuse voters and stem losses at the polls in 2014. Following Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) infamous Wall Street Journal OpEd in which he proposed using the GOP shutdown to go after earned benefits rather than Obamacare, the National Review’s Andrew Stiles reported via Twitter that, “Conservative aides I talk to are flummoxed as to why Ryan, et al, want to shift focus from Obamacare (unpopular) to Medicare/SS (v. popular).”

Remember, many of the most strident Tea Party members won their seats by running misleading ads attacking Democrats for making “cuts” to Medicare to pass Obamacare.  In 2010, those false attacks cost long-time protectors of earned benefits, like Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), their seats. If Democrats go along with the White House’s plans to cut Social Security via the Chained CPI, just imagine what those same ads will look like in 2014, when they are actually factually accurate.

Finally, for Democrats who feel they shouldn’t be swayed by public opinion or petty politics, there’s no reason to believe that coming out firmly against benefits cuts and for Social Security expansion requires making “compromise” a dirty word.  There would still be plenty of room to work with reasonable Republicans to strengthen Social Security and Medicare over the long term by, for example, eliminating the antiquated income cap on the payroll tax and implementing health care delivery systems reform that could save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade alone.

Make no mistake, the electoral dividends Democrats have seen emerge following the GOP’s government shutdown and debt ceiling debacle are real and have the potential to be lasting.

However, to avoid screwing up the tremendous gift Republicans have given them, Democrats in Congress need to stand up and make clear that they will reject any deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits and instead deal with our growing retirement security crisis head-on by expanding Social Security.

In this morning's NY Times there was a defense of the social safety net:

“I’m concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor,” he said, sitting at the head of a burnished table as members of his cabinet lingered after a meeting. “That if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”

“You know what?” he said. “The very people who complain ought to ask their grandparents if they worked at the W.P.A.”

It wasn't from Obama or a New Dem or Blue Dog. It came from Ohio's anti-union Republican Governor John Kasich. Believe me, if Obama's backs the congressional Democrats into another conservative GOP idea-- Chained CPI-- Republicans will campaign against Democrats for taking away Social Security benefits, just like they're clobbering Democrats for screwing up health care with conservative ideas in Obamacare now. If you'd like to contribute to the reelection efforts of Carol Shea-Porter and Mike Honda, here's a handy page with both incumbents on it.