Pelosi caves on Chained CPI: “I consider it a strengthening of Social Security”

There’s news on the Chained CPI catfood front, starting with Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi has drunk the kool-aid. It looks like one bold “progressive” has hit the dirt, caved, collapsed, gone the way of all DC flesh. Nancy Pelosi now favors benefits cuts to Social Security as part of the President’s personal Grand Bargain. Talking Points Memo, citing a Pelosi press conference on Dec 19 (Wednesday; my emphasis and paragraphing):

Though Chained CPI would reduce lifetime benefits relative to the current cost of living adjustment formula, Pelosi said she does not consider it a benefit cut. “No, I don’t,” consider it a benefit cut, she said. “I consider it a strengthening of Social Security.”

This after much big talk just last year:

Pelosi digs in to the left of Obama in debt battle

Nancy PelosiIssuing an ultimatum to a president of her own party, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is betting that she can recapture the speakership in a high-stakes game of brinkmanship over raising the $14 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2. The San Francisco Democrat has told President Obama that House Democrats will not vote for any trims to future benefits in Medicare or Social Security, even a tweak to the cost-of-living index to restrain benefit growth. Obama has made clear that he is open to cuts in entitlement programs.

But after being dismissed in Washington as largely irrelevant following the Democrats’ loss of the House in November’s elections, Pelosi now controls the precious Democratic votes Obama needs for a deal that would prevent a U.S. default that his Treasury secretary warned could be catastrophic. Pelosi has framed her stand as “no benefit cuts in Medicare or Social Security” and emphasized that she has made that position known with “full clarity” to the White House.

Nice “ultimatum” — but that was when talk was just talk, you know, pre-election.

■  The Hill says there’s a battle in the Dem caucus over this:

[M]any rank-and-file members are up in arms over the White House offer. Emerging from a Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday morning – where they were briefed on Obama’s plan by top White House adviser Rob Nabors – the Democrats pushed back hard against the president’s proposal to reduce future cost-of-living raises for beneficiaries of the popular retirement program. The change — known as the chained consumer price index (CPI) — is said to cut $130 billion in federal spending over a decade, and would include safeguards to protect the most vulnerable seniors.

“I don’t like it at all,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “A terrible idea,” said Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “We don’t like the chained CPI,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) “We don’t like it,” said Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.). “Why are you hurting the vulnerable seniors?”

Both [caucus leaders] Hoyer and Pelosi said changes to Social Security updates would be much easier for Democrats to swallow than proposals to raise Medicare’s eligibility age. “The age limit is much more sensitive,” Hoyer said.

I bolded the names of some of the good guys. Those are people you should be calling, so they … well … stay good. And here’s a wobbly one:

Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), vice-chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has for weeks attacked efforts to cut Social Security as part of the fiscal cliff talks — including the move to chained CPI. And while he reiterated that position Tuesday, he was also careful not to attack Obama’s chained CPI proposal directly.

House phone numbers here.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is holding strong, so far. This from a letter from Keith Ellison to Speaker Boehner:

We are writing to inform you that we will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package.

That letter has 102 signatures, some of them “New Dems”. If you click, you can see the signatures. In addition, lots of members of the CPC are making strong public statements against Chained CPI (click to see who), and the clock is ticking.

Again, House phone numbers here. Keep them strong — sometimes they “forget.”

And then there’s this, from

Defiant House Progressives To Nancy Pelosi: We Will Not Vote To Cut Social Security Benefits

Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she would support President Obama’s proposed Social Security benefit cuts — even arguing that using the “chained CPI” would not be a benefit cut after previously telling President Obama “that House Democrats will not vote for any trims to future benefits in Medicare or Social Security, even a tweak to the cost-of-living index,” according to her hometown paper.

A defiant Congressional Progressive Caucus — which has 75 Members in the House — pushed back …

Click through to see who and how. Looks like a fight to me. And thank god for that; my personal bottom line has always been — January 1 with no damage done. Please god please.

Where we are so far

Who knows? I can’t find anyone who’s tried to work out a whip count — a list of who’s in and who’s out based on taxes (Tea Partyers supposedly hate them, but Norquist is for them now) and social program cuts (like Chained CPI, a former Dem care-about).

Will House members — progressives and “progressives” — defy Hoyer and Pelosi, now that Hoyer and Pelosi speak with one Obama-bot mind? This could come down to the wire.


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

63 Responses to “Pelosi caves on Chained CPI: “I consider it a strengthening of Social Security””

  1. BeccaM says:

    Anybody who thinks Pelosi wasn’t going to do this all along hasn’t been paying attention for the last four years.

    She talks a tough ‘hold the line’ game — then inevitably not only switches her position, but her rhetoric as well.

    Sadly, the reasons behind my decision to resign my Democratic party registration continue to be confirmed: They are not the party of the common people.

  2. dula says:

    But you’re so good at it.

  3. dula says:

    I’m pointing out the obvious for those obliviously wrapped up in Obama worship. Waking them up is quite constructive, and the necessary first step in holding our “leaders” accountable. What did you have to add??

  4. lynchie says:

    Nyquill, Amerato and dr. Pepper. Nyquill for my cold, scotch because i Love it and Dr. Pepper to confuse my stomach. Actually a single malt scotch that I buy from the Single Malt Society.

  5. hollywoodstein says:

    I did feel pangs of conscience while driving seniors to vote at the polls, when they would say they were voting for Obama since he would defend Social Security. I knew better, but also knew it was better than Romney. Maybe.
    Maybe it would be better to have Republicans exposed wanting to dismantle the safety net rather than have our fierce advocate do the job for them. Sad that after all the phone banking needed to elect Dems, now we are dialing, dialing, dialing fighting to get them to not betray us.

  6. hollywoodstein says:

    What are you drinking?

  7. ezpz says:

    With cuts to SS, and perhaps raising the eligibility age for Medicare – just for good measure, I don’t think there will be too many 90 year olds – ESPECIALLY if they become homeless.

  8. ezpz says:

    Cringe inducing. That was right up there with Bush looking under his desk for those WMDs.

  9. Sweetie says:

    Yes, that is what it “indicates”.

  10. ezpz says:

    What did “memorable” accomplish?
    Hint: Nothing.

  11. condew says:

    I keep wondering how Obama could be so “lucky” that his opponent was Mittens; How Obama was so “lucky” that all that corporate money was spent so ineffectively; So “lucky” that the 47% tape surfaced.

  12. condew says:

    It makes us so much more powerful when we start fights among ourselves. /snark

  13. condew says:

    The man did what he could, it was a publicity stunt, a call to arms. He knew it was not part of the legislative process. Obviously it was memorable, because you remembered it.

  14. condew says:

    Are you saying it’s “Checkmate”, or do you have something constructive to suggest?

  15. condew says:

    How do you spell “DIVIDE AND CONQUER”? Ralph Nader showed what third parties can do, as did Ross Perot; both made the candidate with views closest to their own LOSE.

    The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a force to be reckoned with within the Republican Party. If so many liberals did not waste their energy on lets-pretend third party candidates, then liberals would be a force within the Democratic Party; but they are not, because they splinter off to support “candidates” who sound great because they are spinning fantasies about policies they know they will never implement.

  16. condew says:

    “Not a benefit cut”? It’s obviously a benefit cut, and a big one, or it would not be worth the political risk. Who does she think she’s fooling? The only reason to push this particular cut is that it is obscure enough that many voters might not catch on until it’s too late, when they are 90 and homeless.

  17. ezpz says:

    Using the words “caved” and “collapsed” indicates that this IS a surprise to GP.

  18. QUALAR says:

    In the 1980s Corporate Raiders began targeting companies with retirement account surpluses intended
    for cost-of-living increases. The initial reaction of the Justice Department was to indict these hostile
    takeovers, but the legal staffs were basically told by the Reagan Administration to stand-down thus permitting the thievery to continue.

    Then they targeted the Savings & Loans with the help of several U.S. Senators and stole the life
    savings of thousands of Americans. One person went to a penal country club and, of course, the politicians avoided any real accountability. Once again, the Justice Department failed to follow the money trail.

    Then company and government guaranteed retirements were replaced with systems that required the employee to contribute significantly more towards retirement and absorb increased risks by gambling on the stock market and paying increased fees for the privilege to do so. Millions of Americans have been ripped off by this system and it will continue as long as Wall Street and the big banks are
    allowed to funnel millions of dollars to influence and control the three branches of our government.

    Then came the Dot Com bubble and Enron collapses – both were avoidable with regulation instead of collusion. Unbelievably, some state legislatures even provided desk space on the legislative floor to lobbyists who wrote the laws that permitted open thievery of state resources.

    We then had the mortgage crisis which could have been prevented by regulations passed during the Roosevelt years, but politicians on both sides of the aisle have introduced numerous pieces of legislation that have chipped away until the law no longer has any meaningful teeth. Any remaining
    regulatory authority was weakened further through the misconduct by those directly responsible for enforcing existing laws.

    Now there is a concerted attack on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid with the help of a complicit
    Democratic President, who is being bankrolled by huge corporations and maintains an unsavory relationship with Pete Peterson who’s committed to eliminating entitlement programs. This is being done under the guise of reducing the budget deficit even though Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. In the long run, corporations and the well-connected will reap trillions of dollars if Medicare and Social Security are gutted while leaving no safety net for countless Americans. Disgusting does not adequately describe this charade!

    Money has corrupted the entire political process and tilted legislative, executive, and judicial actions overwhelmingly in favor of the wealthy or well connected. Therefore, I agree with former Speaker Pelosi that it is now time to “Drain the Swamp” and that includes many Democrats. In order to restore dignity and stability to our social structure, we should faithfully challenge in primary and/or general elections any candidate for national office irrespective of party affiliation who has voted or expressed a willingness to compromise the Nation’s Safety Net. Apparently, Minority Leader Pelosi must be targeted for defeat in 2014 if she continues to support Obama’s Grand Bargain.

    How to spell relief: T-H-I-R-D P-A-R-T-Y

  19. Sweetie says:

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  20. Sweetie says:

    You can’t destroy the Democratic party by helping the Republicans any more than you can destroy the Republican party by helping the Dems.

    Because they’re the same party.

  21. Sweetie says:

    She hasn’t changed. She has just shown her true colors more lately.

  22. Sweetie says:

    They’ll introduce you to the LRAD for starters.

  23. Sweetie says:

    Obama Jokes About Killing Jonas Brothers With Predator Drones

    Obama thinks blowing up kids is funny, and so does his audience. Listen to the warm approval his “joke” received.

  24. Sweetie says:

    GP clearly knows this. It’s not like someone who claims we need to enter an “era” of austerity is somehow a surprise.

    That was two years ago.

  25. lynchie says:

    If SS is fucked with i wlll vote republican for ever.

  26. NCMan says:

    No, it is nothing like that. Social Security is funded through payroll taxes known as FICA. Individuals DO NOT pay into Soc Sec while they are working and then get paid back from the funds that they paid in when they retire. Current workers pay their payroll taxes into Social Security and those current taxes are used to pay benefits to current retirees. Up until the recent economic collapse with so many people losing their jobs, the taxes being collected were always more than was needed to pay the current retirees. That is where the surpluses came from. Those surpluses have been being invested into government securities that do earn interest. These investments into government securities that pay interest is what many people call the government “stealing” from social security. But, nothing has been stolen at all. Those surpluses and interest have built up over the years to amount to over 2 trillion dollars. People claim that it has been stolen because they don’t believe the government can afford to pay the investments back because when social security needs to use any of that invested money to cover its current payments to retirees, the government has to borrow money from somewhere else in order to pay some back to social security. But, social security has never lost one penny of what it has invested in government securities and has always been paid the interest due on those investments as well. Nothing has been stolen. When you hear people claiming that Social Security is going “broke”, they just mean that Soc Sec isn’t currently collecting enough in payroll taxes to cover all the payments it owes to retirees. And, they also believe that one day soon, soc security will not be able to get what it is owed from its government investments and will therefore run out of money all together. OF COURSE, THIS ISN’T TRUE. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER MISSED A PAYMENT IT OWES TO ANYONE. And, Social Security has enough money to cover 100% of its payments to retirees until 2037. And, even after 2037 Social security (with no changes at all will be able to pay 75% of its payments to retirees FOREVER. One change is needed to make sure Soc Sec can pay all its obligations forever. That change is to eliminate the cap on FICA taxes that fund soc sec. Right now, any money anyone earns over $110,000 is not taxed for soc sec. Sp, anyone who earns less than $110,000 per years pays FICA taxes on 100$ of their earnings. But, a person who earns one million a years only pays FICA taxes on 10% of their earnings. This is not fair. They should pay on 100% like everyone else. If they did, Soc Sec would NEVER run out of money.

  27. FunMe says:

    If the CORPORATE WHORE Pelosi does that, SHE will be the one responsible for the Dems losing more elections in 2014. I’m beginning to think Pelosi is a republiCON and is doing her best to destroy the Democrat Party. What a fraud!

  28. Drew2u says:

    I guess my question is where is that extra money coming from? Is it like a bank that gives an interest rate bonus on the money in one’s savings account? If so, isn’t it like putting your money into a bank that gives you, say, 1.5% interest rate. As long as the bank takes no more than 1.5% from your account, they can claim that you still have 100% of your money?

  29. ezpz says:

    No, not all, but enough, which is too many, voted for D or R.

  30. Ford Prefect says:

    Thank you.

    But given the results this year, I’d say the Democratic base has been conquered by fear of Teh GOP Bogeymen. If Dems lose, it will simply be due to low turnout. But they don’t care about that.

  31. Ford Prefect says:

    Cave? Heh. I should think not. No, she is very much in favor of slashing SS because she thinks granma deserves to dine on cat food. It’s really that simple.

    That said, well done on laying out the Order Of Battle in the House. As you can see, anyone who is still committed to not kicking the elderly and disabled in the groin are outnumbered by the ones with dollar sings in their eyes. So this will end on very predictable terms.

    In the end, the “progressives” will make it look like a “fight”, so the Dems can once again use them for window dressing in 2014.

    That’s no reason not to make noise, however. The Dems are going in for the kill and they will be successful. But that doesn’t mean people can’t find an appropriate level of outrage at them and their reactionary ways.

    Lastly, a hearty slap on the back to the Dems who voted for Obama. Good job on killing Social Security!

  32. Butch1 says:

    Exactly! They all know that but they will not do it. They want that money. It is OURS and they will do anything to get their hands on it. They have created this “emergency” so they can “fix” it.

  33. Butch1 says:

    She’s a rich, 1%er and thinks just like the rest of them in the Congress. This benefits HER not us.

  34. Butch1 says:

    No, not ALL of us have been voting for the democrats. ( or the republicans for that matter )

  35. Butch1 says:

    I have been saying this from the very beginning that this woman was lying to us about protecting Social Security. Now she is finally telling the truth. She and Steny Hoyer are going to jump on board with this lying president who said he was going to protect Social Security as well and they are going to slash the hell out of it.

    What about that big Defense budget, Mr. President? None of you are talking about it. Why Social Security that has nothing to do with the budget or the deficit? Why? Why now of all things? These democrat traitors make me sick.

    The only person that is standing with us and willing to protect us is Bernie Sanders and he is an Independent. Third Party. Perhaps this is a wake up call to every one to start voting third party.

  36. NCMan says:

    There were surpluses because up until recently Soc Sec brought in more in revenue than it had in obligations to pay out. Because of the economic downturn, social security now doesn’t bring in enough in revenue to cover what it has to pay out. So, now social security is “cashing in” (being paid back) enough of its investments each month to cover what it needs to meet 100% of its obligations. This is the part that makes the republicans mad. They don’t want social security to be paid back. That is why they want to cut benefits so that social security will not need to cash in any of the investments.

    As far as your question about “why the surpluses weren’t being given to retirees?” All retirees have received 100% of the benefits they are entitled to to date. They haven’t been denied anything that they were due (so far). So, I don’t understand your question.

  37. basenjilover says:

    I’d gladly drive up to San Francisco and along with others protest at Pelosi’s cushy and lavish mansion. Pelosi has gone downhill ever since she declared Bush impeachment was off table and she lost the House to Republicans.

  38. Drew2u says:

    Why were there surpluses? And why weren’t those put back into social security and given to those retirees instead of purchasing stuff with it?

  39. dula says:

    So, Nance is on Step 2 now in Glenn Greenwald’s 6 steps to Liberal self-disempowerment.
    They are always so goddamned transparent:

    STEP ONE: Liberals will declare that cutting social security and Medicare benefits – including raising the eligibility age or introducing “means-testing” – are absolutely unacceptable, that they will never support any bill that does so no matter what other provisions it contains, that they will wage war on Democrats if they try.

    STEP TWO: As the deal gets negotiated and takes shape, progressive pundits in Washington, with Obama officials persuasively whispering in their ear, will begin to argue that the proposed cuts are really not that bad, that they are modest and acceptable, that they are even necessary to save the programs from greater cuts or even dismantlement.

    STEP THREE: Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama’s second term before it even begins.

    STEP FOUR: The few liberal holdouts, who continue to vehemently oppose any bill that cuts social security and Medicare, will be isolated and marginalized, excluded from the key meetings where these matters are being negotiated, confined to a few MSNBC appearances where they explain their inconsequential opposition.

    STEP FIVE: Once a deal is announced, and everyone from Obama to Harry Reid and the DNC are behind it, any progressives still vocally angry about it and insisting on its defeat will be castigated as ideologues and purists, compared to the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, and scorned (by compliant progressives) as fringe Far Left malcontents.

    STEP SIX: Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making “tough choices”, any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party’s chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition – are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House.

  40. ezpz says:

    Haven’t heard much about what, if anything, Bernie Sanders is saying. Either he’s not saying much, or it’s just not being reported. Or maybe both.

    Perhaps he’ll hold another fake filibuster.

    Sorry for the cynicism; I know Bernie is (was?) one of the ‘good’ guys, but when it mattered, he ended up falling in line via his votes, e.g.: obamacare. And yes, his phony filibuster:

    “…As fun as the comparisons to the filibuster mounted by heroic do-gooder Sen. Jefferson Smith in the Jimmy Stewart-starring Mr. Smith Goes To Washington are, however, it’s worth pointing out that Sanders’ speech isn’t actually stopping any particular Senate business from happening today.

    There are no votes scheduled today, nor are there other senators wishing to speak.

    If it were a true filibuster, he would be blocking Republicans from conducting business or speaking. And those Republicans would be angry.

    But Republican senators aren’t even in the chamber today. Not one has been or the floor or sought time to talk on the floor.…”

  41. NCMan says:

    I just heard the best talking point for speaking against the Chained CPI proposal.

    The President raised the amount of income being protected from a tax increase from $250,000 to $400,000 and he has proposed paying for it by cutting Social Security benefits for all current and future seniors. So, cuts to seniors benefits to pay for tax cuts for those earning between $250,000 and $400,000.

  42. mirror says:

    Yeh, this’ll teach people who keep insisting on getting old!

  43. ezpz says:

    So now they’re making it another ‘lesser evil’ false choice: either raise the Medicare eligibility age or cut Social Security benefits. And as Blogvader pointed out, they are counting on the masses being too dumb, or maybe too blindly partisan, to notice, and yes, alas, they’re right in that assumption.

  44. ezpz says:

    Yes she is.

    Shades of Orwell — ‘We’ve ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.’

  45. NCMan says:

    “Both [caucus leaders] Hoyer and Pelosi said changes to Social Security
    updates would be much easier for Democrats to swallow than proposals to
    raise Medicare’s eligibility age. ”The age limit is much more
    sensitive,” Hoyer said.”

    Here’s a thought…. Chained CPI only saves 130 billion over 10 years. Negotiated drug prices for Medicare would save MUCH MORE than that…..

  46. nicho says:

    Anyone who is registered as a Democrat needs to change their registration to Independent ASAP. Once they see their numbers dropping like a stone, they may sit up and take notice.

  47. Jim Olson says:

    Fuck them all.

  48. Blogvader says:

    Translation: “We’re going to call it a strengthening of social security because you all are too dumb to notice, and even if you did, you’re still going to vote for us anyway.”

    …and she’s right.

  49. How ironic to strengthen the system by impoverishing the members. This is how they ‘strengthened’ welfare.

  50. ezpz says:

    But the problem is that they don’t want to ‘eliminate the problems’. The just want to eliminate the safety net for the 99%. That’s all.

  51. ronbo says:

    No, we know it is true. We are just trained by the media to ignore it. The media is a concentration of money that in a few weeks will call any kind of weapons legislation “communist”.

  52. lynchie says:

    You are right, but, that money belongs to the investors and not one swinging dick in washington is prepared to represent us. Not one.

  53. Kelvin Mace says:

    You are correct, but it is a distinction lost on the majority of the populace.

  54. Kelvin Mace says:


    Removing the FICA caps would pretty much eliminate all the “problems”.

  55. Kelvin Mace says:

    Even now Obama apologists are REFUSING to see we are getting fucked and have gone from saying that SS and MC would be untouched, to adopting the talking points now coming out of Pelosi’s mouth.

  56. Kelvin Mace says:

    Let me if I understand this:

    For 70+ years we have been paying into Social Security.

    In the past few decades, the Federal government “borrowed” the money by investing it in Treasury Bills.

    Now, they are declaring that Social Security needs to be cut?

    I say we foreclose on their ass!

  57. ezpz says:

    Oh, for goodness sake, this is NOT a cave. Not by Pelosi. Not by Obama. This is their agenda.

    Once again:

  58. NCMan says:

    You thought wrong. Soc Sec SURPLUSES were INVESTED in US Government securities (the safest investment in the world) and they earn interest. This investment currently is valued at over 2 trillion. That amount is owed to Soc Sec just as much as the investments made by China, Japan etc are owed to them. You don’t hear anyone suggesting that we make “cuts” to what we owe to other US Treasury debt holders do you?

    What did anyone expect Soc Sec to do with its surpluses? Hide them under the nation’s mattress? If they hadn’t been invested and earning interest can you imagine just how much the conservatives would be yelling and screaming about the money just sitting there earning nothing. Fer gawd’s sake, the small interest it gets is what was causing the Repugs to suggest that we should privatize it and give it to Wall St to earn bigger dividends. No one ever suggested the money should just sit there idle.

    You are right though that the government spent money it didn’t have on wars and prescription drugs. If they hadn’t done that, then they wouldn’t have had to borrow so much from China, Japan etc to boost our own Soc Security investments.

  59. nicho says:

    She didn’t cave. She’s in on the plot to destroy the middle class.

  60. lynchie says:

    Pelosi was never a Progressive. She was all about Pelosi. Can’t someone in the media ask one politican to explain why SS must be tampered with when it is not part of the budget or the deficit.

    How come no congressman is prepared to offer up cuts in their Healthcare, Pension, wages, etc.
    It is so easy to target the weakest among us. Those who can’t fight back, those with no representation, How about taxing banks and Wall Street and putting the people who caused the financial collapse in jail.

    It took Obama 1 month to totally turn his back on his campaign promises so a big fuck you to him and the rest of the Dem party. Pelosi and Reid a big fuck you, you represent yourselves first and the banks and wall street second. I say we vote out all dems in 2014 the republicans would be no worse and then we can start over (yeah, right I am drunk and it only 9:26 am)

  61. Drew2u says:

    I thought ever since Regan, the SS Trust Fund has been raided in order to pay for the deficit, thus making it relevant in the sense of raiding the cookie jar and calling it dinner.

  62. NCMan says:

    First, you don’t strengthen Soc Sec by cutting the benefits. You strengthen it by increasing its revenues. Eliminate the cap on FICA taxes.

    Secondly, Soc Sec has NOTHING to do with the deficit, the debt or the fiscal cliff. So, it has no place in this conversation.

    If the Dems do this, 2014 midterm elections will be a repeat of the 2010 midterms.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS