Tweet
Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA)
Now we know.
Every member of Congress has chosen whether to sign a letter making a crucial commitment: “We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits — including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”
The Democratic Party hierarchy doesn’t like the letter. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has said that cutting Social Security would “strengthen” it, and President Obama’s spokespeople keep emphasizing his eagerness to cut Social Security’s cost of living adjustments. The fact that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit is beside the austerity point.
Since mid-February, across the country, many thousands of people have sent personal notes, submitted petitions and made phone calls imploring members of Congress to sign the letter, initiated by Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano.
Twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives have signed the letter.
Here are their names: Brown, Cartwright, Castor, Clay, Conyers, D. Davis, DeFazio, Ellison, Faleomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Honda, Kaptur, Lee, Lynch, C. Maloney, Markey, McGovern, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velazquez and Waters.
If you don’t see the name of your Congress member on that list, you live in a House district without a representative standing up for economic decency.
Especially noteworthy are 49 members of the House who belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus but have refused to sign the Grayson-Takano letter. In most cases, they represent districts with a largely progressive electorate. In effect, their message is: We like to call ourselves “progressive” but we refuse to clearly stand up to an Obama White House that’s pushing to slash Social Security and Medicare benefits. To see the names of those 49 members of Congress, click here.
A case in point: As a freshman Congressman, Jared Huffman represents California’s North Coast district, stretching from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border. On the 2012 campaign trail, I often heard Huffman assuring voters that he opposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare. (As a candidate, I finished second to him among Democrats in the primary election last June.) When he got to Washington, Huffman joined the Progressive Caucus.
Now, refusing to sign the Grayson-Takano letter, Congressman Huffman publicly touts his disdain for “outside groups.” Days ago, deriding the pressure from organizations urging him to sign the letter, Huffman boasted on his public Facebook page: “I won’t be bullied from the left or the right into signing Norquistian vote pledges to outside groups.”
The pejorative word “Norquistian” is proving to be very handy for some Democratic politicians — eager to equate progressive pledges not to cut vital social programs with right-wing pledges not to increase any taxes — as if standing up for economically vulnerable people is somehow comparable to the ideological rigidity of Grover Norquist. This amounts to old-wine corporate centrism poured into a new rhetorical bottle. Subtext: basic progressive principles aren’t important enough to warrant a wiggle-proof promise.
As battles over key issues of economic fairness intensify on Capitol Hill, we’re very likely to see a lot of Democrats — led by President Obama — preening themselves as virtuously non-dogmatic while they rebuff the minimal humanistic demands of progressive constituencies. The Grayson-Takano letter, for example, has been endorsed by dozens of progressive groups such as National Nurses United, Credo Action, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Bold Progressives, Democracy for America, RootsAction.org, Social Security Works, Progressive Democrats of America, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, Rebuild the Dream, Progressives United, Color of Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for Community Change, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
In the real politics of the emerging struggle over Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, there’s a very big difference between expressing opposition to benefit cuts and promising not to vote for them. It’s only when members of Congress make a firm public commitment that Obama White House strategists may feel a need to recalibrate their deal-making calculus with Republicans.
Even firm commitments have eroded all too often on Capitol Hill, but at least the Grayson-Takano letter is a solid starting point. And as we look to the next election season, we should be searching for alternatives to the members of Congress who call themselves “progressive” but refuse to risk the wrath of an austerity-crazed Obama White House.
Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
40 Comments
Two things: 1) My Rep is Matsui (formerly Lungren until I got re-districted out) and she’ll only do what Pelosi tells her to do
2) “Norquistian”???????
It’s called a HUMANIST (not yelling, but sometimes you have to raise your voice) you two-faced sycophant, Jared Huffman. It’s called being a responsible, respectful member of the human race. How dare you equate progresssives with the manichean troglodytes that march step behind Grover Norquist
What a dick
My rep, Rob Andrews, won’t stick his head up far enough to cast Norquistian aspersions, but he hasn’t signed the letter and he’s not much of a Democrat, capital D.
Hell, with der leader of their party in charge the demorats have laid down as fast as the progressive organizations firmly in the veal pen.
This is not the party I supported for 40 years.
We have the best politicians money can buy.
Wow, reading this is giving me a huge sense of deja vu…
I am confused. I see a letter on Ami Bera’s site that it seems over a hundred representatives have signed. Are there two letters out there?
Here is the link.
Ami Bera is my representative.
Never knew until recently how many enemies Medicare and Social Security have. Was aware of the conservative long game with its objective of ending both but had no idea how many ‘centrist’ people and institutions and had signed on. I used to hear about the powerful old people’s lobby but now the old don’t seem to have any more friends than anybody else. Except the rich.
PS: Did anyone read the NPR position paper on allocation of resources, about how the olds should be left to freeze and starve in the dark? It was pretty brutal.
Rep. Huffman could say, “I won’t sign the letter, but you have my word of honor I won’t vote for any reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits>’
Yes, the Oregon delegation dumps on their constituents’ wishes all the time. De Fazio is in the toughest district outside of Eastern Oreganistan and he wins by being a hard-nosed and principled Progressive. There’s a lot of Debums in Webfoot Land. But with this letter we can start calling them PINOS after the whine, of course.
I just wrote to Huffman and told him I would work against his reelection. And I will.
Yeah, two letters, see that letter doesn’t specifically promise to vote against any bill with cuts to Social Security and/or Medicaid. It merely “urges” Obama to not include them and states that they oppose them.
Easy for them to sign that one, another case of saying something “I oppose it” and doing something entirely different (voting for it in the end).
But Grayson’s letter has a specific promise that the signers will not vote for any bill that includes cuts to Social Security and Medicare, including so called changing the way inflation is determined.
I am guessing you live in NJ. I live the South Jersey and my congressman is Frank Lobiondo (R) I called his office and spoke with his aide. I asked why didn’t Lobiondo sign the letter and the aide did not know. I requested to have Frank call me; that was 10 days ago and I am still waiting.
As for the Progressive C they are a waste of time. I guess money in your pocket makes life easier when you know you are a Judas.
Bernie Sanders will be on C Span tomorrow AM talking about SS Medicare and Medicaid. Obama will be having breakfast with Pete Peertsen and they will be talking about the same topics. Enough said
Servitude is being re-established in America. Incorporated servitude leveraged by economic policy against the governed. So much for the “age of reason” and democracy, when dealing with monopolies? As any older American will tell you, ripe with first hand experience, hence knowledge. “The baseline cost of transportation, the cost of a barrel of oil, diesel fuel and gasoline, has over the years decimated the purchasing power of the dollar.” With each increase in the cost of transportation fuels, trillions of dollars are extracted from the economy, in addition to the multi-trillions of dollars wasted, transporting goods and services, while the cost of living doubles and then triples, decimating a housing market again while again exposing the corruption and greed of “Wall Street.” This is getting to be an old scam. Americans are played for idiots while Wall Street finds another way to gut the republic.
The attack on entitlement spending does nothing to address a wasteful suck ass energy-transportation policy, tantamount to servitude, which drives the cost of living up all the “effen” time! Hell maybe a real energy transportation policy, would have prevented America’s bloodletting by monopolizers at $147.50 per barrel of oil, and helped to “stabilize the cost of living,” hence SS Medicaid Medicare?
In fact congressional failure to include “energy transportation cost” in inflation and COLA calculation, is proof, as Chained CPI and LIBOR Rigging go together, it’s a rigged system.
Austerity means protect oil’s monopoly, surely as abolitionists sought to end the slave owner’s monopoly on energy, human beings.
Corporate Sodomy is not new in America. It made America. America needs a leader.
Wow. My rep actually signed the letter. You go Kathy Castor!
I was confused too. I wrote to my congressperson and got a reference to the same letter. I think it’s different and serves as a smokescreen to conceal the fact that they’re not signing the more forceful letter absolutely guaranteeing a vote against any cuts in SS and Medicare.
Note that this letter contains no such pledge. And this makes all the difference. If I’m right, it makes these so-called progressives look even worse, putting a smiley face on their supposed position while avoiding any actual commitment. In the end, some of them will vote for the cuts if the Democratic leadership decides their votes are required for passage.
You are correct. More than 100 Democrats signed an easy letter urging Obama not to seek to cut those programs — but 28 signed the Grayson-Takano letter actually pledging not to vote for any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid themselves.
I worked to elect Matt Cartwright am delighted to see his name on this letter. We defeated a corporatist Dem in the primary. A nice thing to have all the work for Matt rewarded by him taking good positions.
I also live in Lobiondoland – Leesburg. Some of my neighbors actually fly confederate flags! Funny how a blue state can have such a red section.
I live in the LA Metro Area (Henry Waxman’s District) and noticed that of our local Dems, only Maxine Waters has put pen to paper.
What DID surprise me is that Henry Waxman is no longer part of the Progressive Caucus. He was in that group for years, now is not. I called his office, and while they couldn’t comment they were authorized to state: he agrees in spirit with the letter but declined to sign it. He wants to focus on the sequester at this point.
The staffer did not know when he exited the Prog Caucus. Or why. Or what this likely tells us about his approach to the sequester.
Rob Anderson is a master of stealth politics.
Got on the phones people.
The interns need to end each day with
Austerity means the international pillage of our personal and public assets by the global monopolists who comprise the ruling order.When nations are hobbled into impoverishment via austerity ,this occasions the opportunity of the establishment’s corporate-owned polity to privatize ,deregulate and eviscerate our public infrastructure and utilities along with earned benefits and safety-net security .
Austerity yields budget shortfalls that further constrict growth to yield even greater exploitative impoverishment for the self-perpetuating cycle of austerity to continue enriching a global oligarchy that rules defenseless masses via debt-conceived design its neoliberal agenda .
Austerity is corporate sodomy ,and the above analysis is not predictive ,it is clearly omnipresent,but must be viewed from a circular slant amenable to a feedback loop as with systems thinking .If the austerity scam is seen accordingly ,then it becomes apparent that it adheres exactly to the basic leverage buyout strategy from pump and dump to structured bankruptcy , while both require taxpayer underwriting to exist and devour .
Any politico who wouldn’t sign this anti-austerity tidbit ,is not even working for the nation’s agenda ,and is an absolute traitor to all things progressive .Punish this element or get worse beyond the next lesser-evil exercise in self-defeat .
Have the groups that “endorsed” this letter also endorsed not voting for any Democrat that votes for these cuts?
Thanks, Mary.
I’ve got a better idea
1) ask Congress critters to pledge
___ A) not to vote for cuts to SS
___ B) condemn the Democratic Party for looking to pick on Seniors, etc., instead of cutting the military and embracing a transaction tax
2) threaten for FIRE (i.e., primary) representatives who won’t do A) and B)
3) make good on those threats
This petition is weak tea. Didn’t we already see how weak even progressive pledges are by “progressive” Democrats, wrt the public option debacle? Did the “progressives” that took a dive get re-elected (rewarded), or were they primaried?
See my diary Twisting Your Congress Critters’ Arm – A Goldilocks’-Sized First Step In Domination by the Electorate (Short Version)
We need to stop enabling these “PINOs” who can’t even stick up for S.S. with our votes!! Maybe the only thing that could shake our political classes up would be a massive “none of the above” write-in-campaign. Wouldn’t it be great to see the corporate media try to spin results where the D. and R. candidates combined, receive less votes than a write-in “Mickey Mouse?” With congressional approval ratings barely getting into double digits, such a result would accurately reflect public opinion!!
This as a liberal is a big deal. republicans have no intention of giving anything. I will not tolerate President Obama giving away the store. If he involves SS, Medicare or Medicaid, I will give up on Obama. I will give up on politics. I will give up my activism. I will turn off the computer, and the tv, and use my time more productively for me. I am very disappointed this issue is in play.
In IL (and other states) the only write-in votes that by law are required to be counted are for candidates who filed paperwork to declare that they’re write-in candidates.
But I agree, as long as DINO’s and PINO’s know that people will vote for them no matter what, they’ll continue to serve the 1%, no matter whether they sign letters or not.
That’s what the two parties want. They want apathy, that way they can do what they want and you’ll pay for it.
Instead of washing your hands, help come up with an alternative to bad and worse.
but but but the Republicans would win then./s
Until the progressives say and mean they will hold the Democrats accountable for their actions we’ll keep on having Democrats that do what they want regardless of what Democratic activists believe.
Waxman want to focus on the sequester at this point, so he can’t address this letter? Huh? Sounds like double talk to me.
This is very much related to the sequester, which will remain in place unless and until there is a Grand Bargain. Obama put chained CPI on the table as part of the Grand Bargain. So addressing this letter is very much part of focusing on the sequester.
P.S. Besides, how does putting his signature on a letter that he supposedly agrees with prevent Waxman from focusing on the sequester?
1/ You could try to get that state law changed.
2/ I don’t know how anyone would count a “none of the above” write in anyway.
If a Green candidate runs for anything, from head of the library fund to pope, I will vote for him or her, just to make clear that I do not support either the Republicrats or the Demlicans.
Right on!
Never give up. I pledge to fight this till my last breath. If we don’t fight, we lose. I’d rather die fighting. PEACE
Makes me feel a little better about having a right wing Congressman who got knocked in the head so many times in the NFL that he almost can’t be blamed for being an idiot.
Hoffman needs to go.
The problem is that the majority of Dems are sellouts and we cant vote for Repubs cause they are even worse and there is no other viable alternative.
The only solution is for a true leader to emerge. Can’t be from an existing party IMO. Obama played the role of this leader but he was a deceiver.
If all the organizations listed in the diary that are “endorsing” the letter were to put their time, resources, and money where their endorsing is, there would be choices – primary challenges, and Green or other third party general election candidates.
Exactly!! Here in NYS we already have a ton of folks who self-identify as belonging to the Working Families Party. If we had a strong Labor or Green party in the state we could ally with them instead of holding our noses and voting for Wall St. water carriers like Chuck Schumer, and then trying to pressure him to see things our way. There are a few local races, way below the congressional level, actually won by WFP candidates that listen not at all to the statewide Dem “leadership.” It’s great to see how they actually work for the people and not the plutocrats!
Thanks Norman. Just Tweeted a link to my rep, Gwen Moore, Mark Pocan (Madison) and 700+ followers. Moore and Pocan are in super-safe Dem seats, no excuse for them not leading on this.