Tweet
Romney is pulling ahead because of Obama’s bad debate performance, where the President decided not to attack Romney/Ryan on the main populist issue of the day, Social Security, commenting with gross foreboding to Romney, “I suspect that on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position.” Joan Walsh writes,
I am bewildered about why [Obama] embraced Mitt Romney on the issue of Social Security, and let the entire first section of the debate, which was supposed to be about jobs, get derailed into a discussion of taxes and the deficit.
I’m not so bewildered as conventional Demopundits like Walsh. I think it’s clear that Obama is hoping to win re-election without playing the Social Security card. The reason is obvious: Obama’s main financial supporters want to cut Social Security, and therefore Obama wants to cut Social Security. If he nonetheless plays the S.S. card now, he will then have a hard time next month telling us “everything’s changed” and now we ‘have to’ cut Social Security.
The President and his advisers I assume learned from his failed 2011 effort to put the program on the table (i.e., to cut it). The people made him back off then. So he’s being stealthy and hoping to squeak through to re-election with minimal populist lies and maximal Wall-Street-pleasing ‘responsible austerity’ non-specifics.
Right now, Bernie Sanders and 28 other Senators are asking Obama to “oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package.” If he doesn’t do that, Sanders and the Democrats are going to hold their breath till their faces turn blue. But they’ll still no matter what tell us all to vote for Obama. Lemmings and sell outs.
What I would love to see is Jill Stein sharpen her rhetoric and make ‘No Cuts to Social Security’ the center of her campaign, not just a sound bite. Here she is on Social Security (I deleted her ‘on the defensive’ verbiage as should she):
Q: How do you feel about privatizing Social Security?
A: Social Security needs to be protected. … we can hardly afford to trim back Social Security as would happen in a privatized system. We would challenge the very notion that Social Security is in crisis mode warranting messing with its foundations. It’s not in crisis at all.
Q: Do you support raising the cap on Social Security deductions, above the current limit of $106,000?
A: The cap could be lifted to ensure that Social Security should be solvent m without question forever.
NOW is the time for the Green Party to attack Obamney and his/their post-election plans to gut Social Security. Let Obama’s “I suspect that on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position” be his epitaph. And/Or, let Stein and Green Party attacks be the stimulus that makes Obama come out and promise to defend and not cut back Social Security. So, uh, C’mon Jill, fire away!
47 Comments
Excellent suggestion, fairleft, one that would resonate deeply with the reasonable and rational concerns of many human beings.
Social Security “concerns” are very widespread, out in the hinterland, that is, MANY human beings are suffering such concerns and would, very likely, respond very favorably to a party and a vision which does not toy with emotions and “push” fear-mongering or “play” the “you’re effin’ stupid” … card.
Recommended as both wise and practical advice for Jill Stein and those who would support her … for it opens wide the door to consideration of a better, more civil, and more genuinely realistic social contract and the likelihood of a far better and greener “new deal” than what may be rationally and reasonably expected of “standard bearers” of the, essentially united, legacy parties …
DW
I am starting to connect the dots between earnings income subject to Social Security and the reduced wages we have been subjected to since 1970. The surplus profits have gone to employers and their businesses and corporations. So the expected shortfall due to projected insufficient revenues to Social Security would seem to be more appropriately the responsibility of “those greedy geezers” we worked for all of those years. (Making current workers pay more and cutting their future benefits through the Diamond-Orszag plan referenced by President Obama’s election website link, would seem to be placing the burden on the wrong group of people.)
The Diamond-Orszag Plan HERE.
Ian Welsh wrote this about the Diamond-Orszag plan in 2009.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/20/social-security-the-diamond-orszag-plan-is-not-the-liberal-alternative/
Excellent comment, TomThumb, the absolute truth.
One hopes that such truth might become more widely understood.
DW
Here’s a more readable summary of the Diamond-Orszag Plan with benefits cuts on Page 33:
http://www.nasra.org/resources/SocSec/DiamondOrszag.pdf
The idea of paying a legacy tax from income to pay for past beneficiaries is absurd when you consider how little corporations pay current workers (e.g. Walmart) But the idea of making people pay for the projected future shortfall with benefit cuts is immoral and cruel.
I’ve recently diaried that Stein break out of the 2% (now 3%) polling ghetto by exploiting her volunteers access to the internet, personal printers, and neighborhood schools. I note that the meme propagation methodology I sketched out can be used for any meme, including protecting Social Security.
I expressed my willingness to pamphlet a local school if Stein adopted my idea, which involved focussing on the horribly tumor-ridden rats that were fed GMO’s.
However, I’ll state ‘for the record’ that I’d also be willing to pamphlet a closest school if Stein adopts my suggested methodology, but with a different subject, that of protecting Social Security. (Though in the case of SS, it might make more sense to pamphlet senior citizen communities, that is not “outside the box” enough for me.)
Well aware of how totally unpopular his changes to Social Security would be, Diamond advocates for an extra-legislative committee (as for closing military bases) to decide about changes to Social Security. (as recently as August, 2012) HERE is the link.
Not exactly what we do in real democracies. Sheesh.
SS trust fund is “invested” in GDP growth. Since A-merka’s economic future is dim, future value of SS declines.
Capitalism is immoral, cruel, and …
You guessed it.
Your diary was definitely an inspiration for this one. I’d be willing to leaflet anyplace age 40+ folks (everyone without the money and not much time to create an alternative to SS) congregate if Stein had some kick-ass leaflets.
Social Security has always been the safest, best, cheapest place to park our retirement savings, so it is crazy to kill/privatize it. Too cheap and efficient for Wall Street, so that’s why they attack it.
It’s also particularly crazy to slash Social Security NOW, when the economy needs to boost demand and the relatively poor elderly do what smart economists want, they spend their income.
Probably she is attacking, fairleft, only no one is covering it. I listened to Amy yesterday, and I don’t fault her for in particular hosting the expansion of the debate, a very important move, but she like mainstream media simply gives a daily account as if the only ones running are O and R. If she really wants to expand the debate, and bless her heart she puts herself out there constantly, surely some mention of others who are on the ballot and their positions could be made when she does that obligatory ‘O sez R sez’ but she doesn’t do it. Now, again I don’t fault her, because it may be part of a grand bargain she has had to make. I would strongly suspect this to be the case.
But it is a reason you don’t hear snappy comebacks from Jill. I think we have to make them, going along with what David Swanson said in his wonderful post. So, thanks very much for this one, fairleft. REcommended!
Glad to hear it.
Have you ever heard of schools being leafletted for a 3rd Party? Or for any issue not related to schools? I haven’t. (I did hear of a local teacher’s union pamphletting regarding some union issue.)
This underscores my complaint about populists and progressives not being very imaginative. In a suburb, there’s normally no other large gathering place. Even Main Streets are typically not large gathering places, and they got (shopping) malled, long ago. The malls are privately owned, so they’re not going to let you set up a table to spread your message, if the owners don’t like it.
It’s not like there’s lots of options.
If you’re really, truly trying to grow a reform movement – be it Greens, Tea Party, whatever – and the mainstream media is barred to you (in large part because you don’t have $$; also, even Ross Perot could not buy access as he desired, as he was not a product of the system), why would you not use dead trees, and leverage what members you do have, to inject reformist memes into your neighbors’ households? Pamphlets are very American, as in pre-Revolutionary War.
The Iraq invasion was largely a failure because the Iraqis were resourceful. They didn’t just throw up their hands in the air and say, “Gee, but the Americans have lots of fancy, expensive gear. We better just give up.”
Oh, and their aim was to negate us entirely, not just free 2-3% of their territory from American domination.
I do fault her because it’s part of a grand bargain she and Democracy Now have made. That bargain, to be a left wing of a very right-wing Democratic Party, is another huge blow to the real left.
Anyway, Jill Stein and the Green Party has to give the rest of us the word. They have a website (Social Security is unmentioned on the front page), they have a mailing list. There are lots of issues, her top story now is on being excluded from the VP debate, but she needs to wake up to the huge one. Tell us, her supporters, to hit hard with her pro-Social-Security message and we will leaflet, make noise on street corners, whatever.
Stein has the ability to create far more noise, and inspire far more noise, than a tiny NGO or the disparate masses rising up from these still lefty websites. She needs to take advantage of that fact, and obviously it will also be great for her campaign.
Anti-recruitment folks try to leaflet high schools. It is hard. They don’t let you in, you have to catch people on the ‘public’ sidewalk near school. Still, I agree. Jill Stein and the Green Party need to think about mass pro-Social-Security organizing. It wouldn’t have to be all that different from how people organized against the Iraq War.
I just peeked into Jill’s website to see if I could find a place for you to post this diary, and failed, but maybe others here know the site well enough to kn ow.
Clicking the Leaflets tab gave access to their present campaign leaflets, advising volunteers to print them, distribute them. A cursory poke through the comments led me to believe that they weren’t a way to ‘contact the campaign’, but no one said exactly how that was accomplished. You may want to poke around more fully.
But I *was thrilled* to see this: ‘First Jewish (goodness, I hadn’t even thought of it) presidential contender welcomes Russell Tribunal on Palestine findings’, which was the subject of my post from yesterday.
Included:
“Specifically, Dr. Stein reiterated that as president, she would require Israel, as well as other nations, to uphold international law and human rights as a condition for further U.S. aid. In particular, this would require Israel to end human rights abuses, and respect the rights of Palestinians and other peoples living under Israeli rule.”
Good on her! And rec’d, fairleft. ;o)
Yeah, but didn’t you miss something in the way of balance?
It would be so refreshing if those who are more than ready to condemn Israel for ‘human rights’ abuses would afford the same critical eye and voice to the state of ‘human rights’ in Islamic countries.
But, of course, who would do such a dastardly thing?
Surely none of the ‘usual suspects’ on FDL.
God forbid!
Do you have a link to anything substantiating your assertion that “social security is the main populist issue of the day?”
My understanding is that the economy and “jobs/jobs/jobs” remains by far the most pressing critical issue animating the electorate….and it’s not even close.
I’m also curious as to why you want to promote a Social Security payroll tax discussion without mentioning the more crucial-to-poor-people issue of Medicare. In the recent polls I’ve seen, Medicare is actually entwined with social security as an issue. Certainly, the status of the Medicare Trust fund is more dire than that of SS.
Perhaps you aren’t mentioning it because Obama/Democrats indeed have already passed legislation increasing the payroll tax and also increasing the capital gains tax rate on those earning more than $200,000. This is one of the tax increases, along with increases on Pharma and Medical Device makers (AKA “evil corporations”) that will fund the expansion of Medicaid across the nation to 17 million of the pooorest citizens amongst us.
Remember them?
Y’know. A program that Romney claims he will repeal. And Jill STein, god bless her silk scarfed soul, will never have to actually deal with if she lives to be 150 years old, and I fervently hope that she does.
In fact, I would very much enjoy watching Jill Stein go on the attack over the payroll tax, since her stated position is barely different from Obama’s, but for the reasons I give above (and others), I don’t believe it will have as much impact as you wish and hope it will.
And now I see too that both Metamars and you are already qualifying your support for Stein, offering to withhold working for her election IF and only IF she agrees to do what he wants her to do and she provides you some kick ass promotional materials.
Same as it ever was among the infantile left. Next will come ( only if Jill/you’re win the lottery lucky)the back pedaling and the cries of “sell-out!” that have met the Greens every time they have broadened their base of support enough to, y’know, actually win something and be forced to y’know actually govern in a western democracy.
RIOTOUS!
Israel is the number 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and therefore Americans have a right to say, “Take our money on these conditions.”
We should set the same conditions on the massive military aid we provide some of the worst Arab nations (why are we doing that, for those nations?) — the Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia dictatorships come to mind — but as for countries we don’t provide military support to, we should butt out of their sovereign business.
Even better, why don’t we stop giving military aid to any country, and only give financial aid to poor countries?
Correction:
You will work for her, IF and only IF…..
and Recommended!
Maybe Cheri, the juniour/minourity partner should go on the attack?
That’s the traditional role of the Veep candidate.
She might even be as effective as Spiro Agnew, the Veep for the “most liberal President of our lifetime” [fake leftist meme alert], Richard Jailhous Nixon.
Is it not instructive to you that only 29 Senators back the resolution to leave Social Security untouched?
Would FDR have been able to pass SS if he had only 29 Senators standing resolutely behind him?
Could LBJ have passed Medicare?
Civil Rights?
“Israel is the number 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and therefore Americans have a right to say, “Take our money on these conditions.”
As I trust we can both agree: Nothing, absolutely nothing on this mortal coil is free.
All pay a price for the largess of others.
But then again, if we saw all of the strings the puppet masters hold, all illusions would be shattered and reality would be unavoidable.
For it is myths and illusions which hold a society together and allow the sheep to be sheared.
By the way, thanks for the diary.
There it is. Society is obligated to mythmakers.
Bankrupt.
Ah, cultures come and go; civilizations rise and fall; but it is myth that is eternal.
You don’t have to like it, but it is reality.
And ain’t reality a bitch/bastard when you really get down to it?
What you call “reality”, doremus, is a human construct, a “cultural” myth, and the current “game” … and when it divorces itself sufficiently from the nature of being and from nature itself, then human beings, as a species, simply will no longer be here …
THAT is the reality which humanity, the human family, must now contemplate, and semantic evasion of that common, completely precarious plight, which is global AND “local”, shall avail us not in the least.
We might term that understanding, existential reality.
ALL of the rest is equivalent, in practical terms, to devoting such time as “remains”, to “seriously” counting the number of angels that may pirouette, together, on the head of a pin (while those angels gloriously sing, in four-part, electronically enhanced harmony, “Homo sapiens is the only species not subject to the laws of nature, for they are especially chosen by all of the gods, greater and lesser, and who hold a special and most unique place in all of the universe and through all of time, and that’s the whole truth without reason or rhyme, look at them now … who rose from the slime, beloved, exalted, and totally sublime … cha, cha, cha … ole!)
It’s been rather grand while it lasted, nicht wahr?
;~DW
You’re comparing Obama to FDR and LBJ. I think he’s the opposite, and very similar to one of the people he admires, Ronald Reagan. And just like in the 80s, our job as leftist citizens is to prevent a velvet-voiced right winger from doing harm.
The people have a good track record on this issue. We forced Obama to pull back in 2011, when he put Social Security “on the table.” We also forced Bush Jr. to pull back in 2005.
Now we’ll have to do it again, and I do mean now. One way to start doing it this time is to force Obama to make a choice between as many votes as possible of the pro-Social-Security voters and the money of his Wall Street backers. Post-election, we lose a helluva lot of leverage.
Hadn’t remembered that. Not sure how widespread it was/is.
As for not being let in, in no way was I implying that leafleters go into a school. The business of school is education. The public sidewalks, OTOH, belong to we the people. Students have to pass through a public area into the publicly owned, but privately-restricted school grounds. Those are the places to hang out.
I suppose a high school parking lot is a grey area. It belongs to the school, but leafleting there will not interfere with anybody’s education. I suppose leafleting there will depend on whether they let you get away with it, or not.
It’s very doable, we need a slogan and some leadership.
“No votes for Obama unless he says ‘No’ to cutting Social Security.”
I think it bodes a multifaceted attack, because of the war disasters, warmongering, and Human Rights lapses of Obama. Every day he does and says outrageous things.
It absolutely does mean a lot that FDR and the creation of jobs for the unemployed and Social Security for the impoverished elderly were never mentioned by Democrats. But I reach a different conclusion. We have to be the ones to remind everyone about FDR and the New Deal. Right now we are being told all that we can expect is the ‘bargain basement deal’. Even Dean Baker, economist, calls them out on Social Security:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/09-10
We have to start with Social Security and push back. We support those who are fighting for human rights too and who are trying to stop the wars and the violations of our civil rights, our privacy rights, our rights to due process and against the NDAA. This is just a starting point.
Obama’s stance on Social Security should be a dealbreaker, but nope: I don’t think it’s going to keep a significant percentage of folks from voting for him. The wimpy centrist types who like this president are far more concerned about tempest-in-a-teapot “issues” like the Romney/Big Bird nonsense than they are about Social Security or war or illegal assassinations.
It would appear that the countermove of the deficit hawks or should I say the deficit scolds, will be to invoke the really skeery deficit which ‘something must be done about’. That is supposed to be the impetus for the fiscal ‘cliff’ fear mongering. Obama/Biden should be then be confronted with the need to let the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts expire in their entirety. Otherwise, you are letting Obama-Biden suck all of the blood out of the middle class in his double-dealing with lame duck legislators after the election. He will complain that he refuses to tax the middle class, but he needs to be confronted that he is working hard to destroy the safety net for the middle class, their children and that includes everyone who does any kind of work, for any level of income within the 99%. If Obama insists on getting to TWEAK something, let the Bush-Obama tax cuts expire, then tweak them in 2013 for all they are worth to the R’s.
If Obama is defeated and Senate Democrats refuse to sign-off on another bad lame duck deal, Democrats can stop future President Romney from cutting SSI and Medicare.
The easiest way to solve the deficit problem is to let all the Bush tax cuts expire but Obama(R) is determined to destroy SSI and Medicare regardless of his statements to the contrary.
Seem like the “greater evil” is starting to reveal himself. And it isn’t Mitt Romney.
I’m starting to see signs of other people on my anybody but Obama island.
As Obama likes to say, “don’t boo, vote” for Romney.
Well, I can’t fault you at least, fairleft! A little would go a long way, especially with those of us ready to run with it, and it is a great pity that is not so far happening. I’ll agree with you on that, and maybe if someone who can get the ear of the campaign has a read of your and metamars’s posts they will realize it’s now or nuthin’ and it’s time to do the impossible. Limited resources there may well be, but time to get those track shoes on!
The silence is becoming demoralizing, and these last weeks are critical.
For crying out loud, he’s a war criminal! Not to mention he can promise anything and I wouldn’t believe him for a moment. This is not about getting deals right now, it is about conscience. Can you live with having voted in four more years of what we have just had?
I just admitted that Jill is not doing enough to be noticed. I’m still voting for her because she is the only choice as far as I am concerned. And that’s not about getting some last minute October surprise from Obama. He no longer has the capacity to surprise me enough to get my vote. (End of rant.)
fairleft, obama has no problem lying. He wouldn’t lose any sleep about saying no, knowing to himself he will cut it once elected.
If you’re poor and senior, as I am, Medicare is secondary: keeping food on the table and a roof over the table and yourself is FIRST. Not to mention, but I will, utilities, necessary transportation……….. Some of us don’t fancy living in shipping boxes, scavenging trash cans for food, and relieving ourselves wherever we can find minimal privacy. Tho I can tell you that back in the 60s and 70s in center city Philadelphia there were seniors living on the streets, because I saw some of them on my way to work. Bag ladies, we called them. It was a commonly used phrase, so you know the phenomenon was well known.
…X 2
Barack Obama is a war-criminal…this is the first red stop light that must be seen and obeyed at this point here in 2012 regarding any continued consideration of re-electing Barack Obama to be POTUS for four more years.
Failure or failing to see this red stop light or seeing it and running it anyway becomes and is the original act of electoral and political failure and fail that invalidates all politics that follow it. It is this simple. To fail to see this simplicity is willed ignorance. Or worse.
Plain to see letting Barack Obama blow by this first red stop sign is going to set very dark and bad precedent(s) for yet to come American Presidents. It is not difficult to see and know many Americans are now quite willing to ignore,push to the side or pretend this is a matter of partisan politics best set aside because it inconvenient or simply thwarts what D Party partisans want or seek for a D POTUS. This is the deep and very real error of the R vs. D nonsense and junk.
There are very real consequences in and with running this red light of war-crimes,killing innocents just because you can and can get away with doing so. The Germans found this out during 1930′s. Too late then becomes just that — too late. Then it takes massive destruction and death-dealing to get back to where this red light is seen again.
Letting G.W.Bush go free was Barack Obama’s first error as POTUS. Continuing ,expanding on what the American war-criminal G.W.Bush had been doing was and now is Barack Obama’s second error. These two errors should not allow Barack Obama to be POTUS now or be re-elected POTUS again.
This is a massive failure of American political,ethical and legal curbs and the role/rule of and by law/jurisprudence we are seeing firsthand.
Running Barack Obama political ads like the one gracing FDL these days is sending a big message too. It is a wrong message and is a message that one would have hoped FDL was able to see was wrong to do around a knowable warmonger,war-criminal and killer of innocents.
FDL seems to not be seeing any contradiction between what is being done to Bradley Manning by POTUS Obama and then turning around and running ads telling us to volunteer for Barack Obama — POTUS Obama is the POTUS who is trying to bury Bradley Manning alive.
The hypocrisy of this being so is what? Blatant? Ignorant? Arrogant? Indifferent? Shameless?
Just automated ad banners responding to whatever text is on the page without any input from FDL management.
Should FDL refuse the banner ad money because some ads might show Obama?
As long as the automated nature of the banners is understood then I think this is a non-issue.
Running pro Barack Obama ads around FDL’s Support Bradley Manning box is a non-issue?
For Bradley Manning who is getting the full Obama WH political and legal shut up/shut down/shut out this is anything but a non-issue.
I disagree with you regarding the nature of this being a non-issue.
If these pro Obama political ads are being done because of the money I get that. Why keep the Bradley Manning box up while Barack Obama is buying/gaming FDL ad space and fishing for political validation/$$?
If these ads are automated then where are the Romney ads? Mitt Romney’s name is being dragged around FDL nonstop these days. What is automated about Barack Obama ads showing up but not Romney ads? Editorial filtering? Partisan pre-selection? Decision(s) based on selling the Ds?
Take the money if that is the gig in all this but show Bradley Manning some respect and decency — Bradley Manning has earned — deserves — it.
Barack Obama — a knowable warcriminal/warmonger — is not Bradley Mannings friend.
So what is FDL letting Barack Obama tell and sell? That Barack Obama has/had nothing to do with what is falling down on Bradley Manning? The dots and dot connects around Barack Obama and Bradley Manning are plain to see. Barack Obama has shown Bradley Manning little or no decency.
Show Bradley Manning some decency is the point.
FDL can and should. Obama has not.
I like FDL as a politics site — the commets I am making about this are not to attack.
This is about integrity and substance of character. About being decent.
About putting substance into the claimed premise. Supporting Bradley Manning.
FDL does not approve ads. They come from 3rd parties. As zapkitty mentioned, it is all automated. By disapproving some ads, it would be an implicit recommendation on other ads. FDL went through this same nonsense when folks see pro-Rmoney/Ryan or McCain/Palin ads in previous election years or even the older pro-Bush ads.
Otherwise, are YOU going to provide the money necessary to keep FDL up and running?
Just consider the irony of Obama paying a site to point out his failures and faults.
The difficulty with slogans is that they have to mention one big thing and they have to be pitched to people who aren’t already on our side, to ‘regular people and non-leftists’.
I think a slogan targeting Social Security would make lots of ‘regular people’ stop for a second and think. “Huh, Obama’s thinking of cutting Social Security?” This is all we can hope for from a good slogan. The one I suggest doesn’t summarize or even represent my own overall opinion on why I’m voting for Jill Stein.
Of course you’re right, but why is he afraid to come out against cutting Social Security? He’s testing us, I think. And so far we’re as passive as he could have hoped for.
Especially if Obama loses cuz seniors and middle-aged folks refused to vote for him cuz he refused to say “NO CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY!”
Why he loses is critical going into what matters more than the election, the austerity battles.
You are correct, fairleft. How about a slogan such as this?
“Are you concerned about YOUR Social Security?
Jill Stein is.
Is Mitt Romney?
Is Barack Obama?”
Such a slogan is unambiguous, it does not suggest that Obama deserves anything except scrutiny … and it places Obama and Romney together as equally unconcerned about the well-being of individuals.
The same thing could easily be done with health care … “insurance”.
“Are you concerned about the quality and availability of health CARE for for family and yourself?
Jill Stein is.
She knows there is a difference between CARE and “insurance”.
Does Mitt Romney?
Does Barack Obama?”
Again, unambiguous and it encourages further considered thought than a typical “byte”.
Just some thoughts, fairleft. However, one hopes that Jill Stein has heard of your very important suggestions.
DW
Thanks DW. I do think the slogan needs to focus on President Obama, though, because that’s the guy who is benefiting from the big lie that he’s a liberal or ‘on the side of the regular guy/gal’. How ’bout this set:
“Did you know President Obama wants to cut your Social Security benefits?”
“Jill Stein won’t do that. Instead she’ll ask the wealthy to pay a little more.”
That’s excellent, fairleft.
Jill Stein should consider something along precisely those “lines”.
DW
That works.
;o)