Three-Quarters of Progressive Caucus Not Taking a Stand Against Cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Norman Solomon
For the social compact of the United States, most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has gone missing.
While still on the caucus roster, three-quarters of the 70-member caucus seem lost in political smog. Those 54 members of the Progressive Caucus haven’t signed the current letter that makes a vital 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.”
More than 10 days ago, Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano initiated the forthright letter, circulating it among House colleagues. Addressed to President Obama, the letter has enabled members of Congress to take a historic stand: joining together in a public pledge not to vote for any cuts in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
The Grayson-Takano letter is a breath of fresh progressive air, blowing away the customary fog that hangs over such matters on Capitol Hill.
The Progressive Caucus co-chairs, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, signed the letter. So did Barbara Lee, the caucus whip. But no signer can be found among the five vice chairs of the Progressive Caucus: Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Michael Honda, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Jan Schakowsky. The letter’s current list of signers includes just 16 members of the Progressive Caucus (along with five other House signers who aren’t part of the caucus).
What about the other 54 members of the Progressive Caucus? Their absence from the letter is a clear message to the Obama White House, which has repeatedly declared its desire to cut the Social Security cost of living adjustment as well as Medicare. In effect, those 54 non-signers are signaling: Mr. President, we call ourselves “progressive” but we are unwilling to stick our necks out by challenging you in defense of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; we want some wiggle room that you can exploit.
In contrast, the House members on the short list of the letter’s signers deserve our praise for taking a clear stand: Brown, Cartwright, Conyers, DeFazio, Ellison, Faleomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Kaptur, Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velazquez and Waters.
If you don’t see the name of your representative in the above paragraph, you might want to have a few words. (For a list of the 54 Progressive Caucus members who haven’t signed the letter, click here.)
It’s one thing - a fairly easy thing - to tell someone else what you hope they’ll do, as 107 House Democrats did recently in a different letter to President Obama: “We write to affirm our vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits ... We urge you to reject any proposals to cut benefits.”
It’s much more difficult - and far more crucial - for members of Congress to publicly commit themselves not to vote for any cuts in those programs, which are matters of life and death for vast numbers of Americans.
Even a signed pledge to do or not do something, in terms of a floor vote, is no guarantee that a member of Congress will actually follow through. But in a situation like this, the pledge is significant - and even more significant is a refusal to make such a pledge.
As of now, 54 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken a historic dive. We should take note - and not forget who they are.
Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is the founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org.
- callen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send by email
Everyone wants to protect Social Security and Medicare; but it would be reasonable to raise the age of retirement a bit--say to 67-- and also deduct some benefits from the wealthy.
Medicaid/ Medical is too expensive and needs a major overhauling. We don't want to flout the poor; but, as it is now, low-income people end up having better coverage than the average person. The poor can get their health care at public hospitals or clinics. They can easily forgo expensive insurance policies--that only enrich the insurance companies who continously and continually contribute to the elections of the pols.
American workers are working longer and later in life than ever before and it isn't doing anyone any good. Labor market data show forcing workers to work longer just adds to an already flooded labor market allowing employers to force wages down and cut worker benefits in order to pocket more and more profit. It is time to stop this unhealthy cycle. Workers who have logged thirty years of work deserve to retire with a living income and health care. They need to clear the way for America's youth to bring fresh talent and the most up todate educations to the workforce. And the wealth of the rich needs to be redirected back to the people who really created it in the first place - Americans workers. Raising retirement age is a step in the wrong direction, but increasing social security benefits levels and equalizing them at a level that ensures everyone a livable income in retirement is a great goal.
What is it about "liberals?" Way too often they sell out the American public in order to "reach a compromise." Compromises that hurt Americans shouldn't be the goal! Obama says he is willing to cut "entitlement programs" (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare???) to avoid the sequester that he and Congress enacted. And Congressional democrats are now signaling they are willing to go along. How does that serve the best interests of Americans?
I am a member of the "baby-boom" generation. It is arithmetically obvios that there is a demographic bulge of older people who are going to go on social security and medicare. I would love to believe that this wave could be accomodated in the system just as those before us were. However, I am an adult (and also a conservative which means about the same thing). There is not enough money to do this. So, the options we have are as follows: raise taxes or trim benefits.
Raising taxes is, from my position, the best solution. But, is it fair to our children? They are getting hit by 15.3 % FICA today (counting company match). Do we have a right to hit them with 20%? I have four children. Do I want them to be hit with 20% for the rest of their working lives?
I do not. Therefore, I think there has to be a trimming of benefits. In addition, we need to look long and hard at the doubling of social security disability rolls in the last four years.