Toothless Progressive Caucus "Deeply Opposed" to Social Security cuts.

 

Recent history suggests that this Progressive Caucus is a toothless tiger that
issues empty threats: and that when it comes time to cast a vote, these representatives
do not have the cojones to stand up to the President and their party.

By Frankly Speaking

In an otherwise fine article on Salon.com today entitled "Liberal groups threaten primaries over Obama budget", contributor Alex Seitz-Wald writes:

Over 100 Democratic House members — more than half of the caucus — have already signed a letter pledging to vote against any bill that includes entitlement cuts, meaning Obama may well have to rely on Republicans to pass his budget.

This is actually a mischaracterization of the contents of the letter.

The letter itself only states strong opposition to these proposed cuts. In no place do they pledge to vote against them, they merely offer to work with the President on an alternative.

Here's the strongest statement they make on the issue:

...we remain deeply opposed to proposals to reduce Social Security benefits through use of the chained CPI to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. We remain committed to making the changes that will extend solvency for 75 years, but Social Security has not contributed to our current fiscal problems and it should not be on the bargaining table.

In a related article, "107 Dems try to take entitlement cuts off the table", Seitz-Wald writes:

Ellison and his colleagues are hoping to head off that possibility (switching to the Chained CPI) with this letter. “I think it’s a big deal. There’s a consistency in the Democratic Caucus and I wouldn’t be surprised if we get even more,” he said. “We’re hoping that it’s enough to stop it. But if a bill comes on the floor, there’s probably enough Republicans, and even some Dems, who might still favor cuts to these vital programs. But at least consistently within the Democrats, I’m hoping our caucus won’t participate in that.”

Wow. That's pretty inspiring rhetoric, is it not? Ellison is "hoping our caucus won't participate", there's "consistency" and they’re all also “deeply opposed”. Oh yeah... and they’re “committed”.

The President must be shaking in his boots.

I can’t say that I’m impressed. These are many of the same people who threatened  to vote against the Affordable Healthcare Act if it did not include a public option.  Well, guess what? They almost all voted for the bill. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times Progressive Democrats have “deeply opposed” something or  made a “committed” stand and then caved under pressure and vague promises from party leadership.

There's no telling if the House GOP will even allow this to the floor, but I wish I could believe that if it does make it to the floor of the House, these people will stand up for their values and for the American People and vote against cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it would signal to the President that he cannot take the House Progressives for granted anymore: and perhaps in the future he would not be so quick to sign on to right-wing Bush era thinking on Social Security, healthcare or any number of issues. 

Recent history suggests, however, that this Progressive Caucus is a toothless tiger that issues empty threats: and that when it comes time to cast a vote, these representatives do not have the cojones to stand up to the President and their party.

The numbers are there. Over 100 representatives signed this letter. That's a sizeable bloc of votes. Now if only they had the strength of their convictions to follow through on these issues, we might have a strong Progressive Caucus in Congress that could influence legislation and votes. Then, and only then, they could take a real stand and make a meaningful difference in the fight to reverse the ongoing dismantling of the New Deal and its related programs.