Democrats On Super Committee Want To Cut YOUR Social Security

Jon Walker of FDL:

It was clear from the inception of the deficit reduction Super Committee that it was designed for the purpose of cutting entitlements, especially Social Security benefits. The Super Committee proposal was given the same protection from a filibuster as debate on a reconciliation bill, but the Super Committee proposal is not subject to the same Byrd Rule (PDF) that prevents the Senate from using reconciliation to fast track Social Security cuts. The procedural rules governing the Super Committee couldn’t have been more purposely designed to make cutting Social Security as easy as procedurally possible. So the latest report confirming that the members of the Super Committee are actively trying to cut your Social Security benefits isn’t surprising. …

Walker goes on to tell us what we already know, that the proposal was offered in the Super Committee by Democrats, and that Republicans are rejecting it (only) because other parts of their proposal contain tax increases on the wealthy.

So congressional Republicans do not represent us, and congressional Democrats… well, they don’t represent us, either. We should have known this was coming.

Maybe it’s time to vote the whole bloody lot of ’em out!

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • upyernoz  On Tuesday November 1, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    it is very weird that the only thing protecting social security right now might be the republican’s crazy no-tax-increases-for-wealthy-people-under-any-circumstances ethic. if the supercommittee fails to come up with a plan by the end of the month, we really could say that social security was saved by the GOP

    • Steve  On Tuesday November 1, 2011 at 4:47 pm

      ‘noz, that oddity has not escaped me. (I think I mentioned it a couple of posts back, when leaks first started emerging about the Super Committee.)

      After being very sure of myself politically for a couple of decades, I suddenly haven’t a clue how to proceed. No use voting R or D now, and it’s kinda hard for an aging cripple to take to the streets, which is what I feel like doing. This whole business really sucks.

      • upyernoz  On Tuesday November 1, 2011 at 7:48 pm

        i’m going to do what i always do: vote for the least bad candidate. which usually means a dem. but it could mean a green if the seat is unlikely to fall into republican hands.

        • Steve  On Tuesday November 1, 2011 at 8:03 pm

          “Lesser evil” is a slippery concept. I’ve decided already that I’ll vote for all the state-level and local-level Dems, and probably even Dems for my members of Congress (that’s harder now). But Obama? That’s really difficult for me. His commitment to civil liberties is, um, Zero. And that’s one of my signature issues. The only things that seriously trouble me about voting against Obama (e.g., for a Green) are
          – women’s issues and
          – the Supreme Court.
          I am comforted that I don’t have that much influence on who wins anyway.

Leave a Reply (NB: I'm not responsible for any ad!)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: