Feingold To Press Dems To Abandon Any Unbalanced Super Committee Deal

[highplainsdem]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Former Sen. Russ Feingold and his new group Progressives United are petitioning the six House and Senate Democrats serving on the joint deficit Super Committee to walk away if Republicans don't budge ton tax increases, and insist on cutting entitlement benefits.

"If we don't get our policy priorities, Democrats need to be ready to walk away from the deal," Feingold emailed his supporters. "You can guarantee extremists on the other side will continue to push relentlessly to give even more to corporations and put even more of the burden on the middle class. We have to fight harder than they will."

He lists the bright lines:
1. Ensure millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations pay their fair share of debt reduction,
2. No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits,
3. No giveaways to corporate interests,
4. Or no deal.

His concern -- which progressives widely share -- is that Republicans will refuse to raise a penny of revenue, particularly from wealthy Americans, and leave the Committee's Democrats to pick between significant entitlement cuts or the trigger penalty, which would fall most heavily on Medicare providers and national defense.

-snip-

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/feingold-to-press-dems-to-abandon-unbalanced-super-committee-deal.php

---

The TPM article has the complete text of Feingold's letter, in which he says that the super committee could "fundamentally reshape our society and our values" and progressives "need to make sure that we are part of the debate as well."

[Mojambo]

1. Given who has been named from our side, I'm afraid Feingold is going to be disappointed

Hope not, though.

[tblue]

34. Anybody want to wager that the Dems won't cave?

I got $5 says they will.

[SteveM]

37. On my SS; $5 is a fortune. The GOP has broken through the gates.nt

[sofa king]

48. I would take that bet.

And so will the President. That committee is designed to fail. We've got their voodoo doll, and now all we have to do is poke them with tax hikes for the rich to get 'em to dance for us.

We'll dangle tax hikes along with a wide array of sensible and reasonable choices, which they will be forced to reject because their masters don't give a shit about sensible and reasonable things.

And when they do, the Department of Defense gets slashed by half a trillion dollars, in a general election season, without a single Democratic vote. Swish.

If things get, you know, ugly in the ways I don't even want to consider, that's gonna be the reason why, too.

[peace frog]

49. Oh goody! Medicare, Medicaid and SS will get slashed too!

Yeppers, that's showin' them thar GOPers, alrighty! USA! USA! USA!

O' course, GOPers don't give a gosh-darn about slashing Defense, as long as Medicare, Medicaid and SS get slashed in the process. USA! USA! U,,,never mind,,,

[sofa king]

53. Now, now.

Let's be clear about the deal that was reached. If the trigger gets pulled, only Medicare providers take a 2% cut.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade recipients, along with all government employee pay and veterans' benefits, are exempted and will be untouched.

The President also gets to give himself pretty much all the cash he wants, subject only to a Congressional "vote of disapproval," which he can veto and which is a practical impossibility to override. In other words, he got everything he wanted, unless the Republicans learn how to behave, which is highly unlikely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-debt-talks-20110801,0,3461991.story

[peace frog]

54. Well golly-gosh, that makes it a win-win, don't it

O' course, they's only just gettin' started on breaching our entitlements, doncha know. Once that line is crossed they ain't no turnin' back, which means, in the long run we's all f*cked. That's us'n little folks that's f*cked, o' course. The Committee members along with the rest o' Congress 'n' the WH is jes' settin' back countin' they campaign contributions from the big folks they's lookin' out fer.

[sofa king]

95. Uh, yes, it does.

Clearly you haven't noticed yet, but you're already f*cked. You pissed your future down the drain ten years ago, as did I, when we chose to stick with a system we knew was corrupt from the top down, and which we should have known would be turned against us sooner or later.

What this President is trying to do is fight for what little you have left. Your reluctance to inform yourself is not helping.

[peace frog]

98. Clearly I have noticed

and your smug superiority is entirely predictable. Go peddle your self-satisfied condescension elsewhere. NO SALE.

[sofa king]

99. You don't have to believe me.

Just watch, and stop spreading bullshit disinformation you pulled from your ignorant ass.

[peace frog]

100. Add "high and mighty scold" to the growing list

Smugly superior
Condescending
Scold
Know-it-all
...?
and you haven't laid a glove on me yet. You're a cushion or two short of a sofa. :rofl:

[indy legend]

64. Yep. We got em right where we want them. (Sarcasm)

[GOTV]

88. Why doesn't it go down this way...

* We'll dangle tax hikes along with a wide array of sensible and reasonable choices
* they reject because their masters don't give a shit about sensible and reasonable things.

then

* They (GOP) offer legislation changing the triggers to exempt defense
* They dare Representative and Senate Dems to vote against it
* Dem cowards vote to exempt defense

Where are we then? Obama veto?

[sofa king]

96. I doubt it will come to that.

By what mechanism do you think such a legislative move on the part of the Republicans will be passed in the Senate... in time?

Because if just one honest Democrat decides to filibuster, the trigger gets pulled. One anonymous hold can stop consideration of the bill until the deadline passes. One procedural trick in any of at least three committees can kill the process. One letter from the White House threatening a veto (or whatever you call it in this strange case) would do it, too.

As I suggested before, the "compromise" takes full advantage of the fact that it's astonishingly easy to make sure that nothing gets done in Congress, and that a lot of that nothing can get done without anyone having to take the blame for getting that nothing done.

It's a dog and pony show designed to piss you off and motivate you to go vote for your wallet--and by the time this circus ends, seven out of ten Americans will be smart enough to know which side that is.

Edit: And, I should add, any Teabagger Senator will probably happily do all of that for us, anyway.

[GOTV]

101. I appreciate the explanation. It sounds plausible.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

91. Baucaus will be fellating corporate cock.

That's a minus on our side.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The capitulation was baked in with the selection of the "D" team.

The majority of the new 12-person national legislature represents the Plutocracy party.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

31. Obama and the Dems not capitulate? That's a joke, right?

[defendandprotect]

77. Feingold I'm sure knows that .... this is minimal opposition and would prefer t to see him

standing up to oppose Obcama by announcing a challenge --

Don't think Feingold is going to do that --


We need to get more serious, imo, about a challenger to Obama for 2012 --


http://www.stophoping.org

[Fantastic Anarchist]

93. I am down with not hoping anymore.

Thanks for the link! :hi:

[Fantastic Anarchist]

92. Precisely.

None of the masses are represented.

This is as undemocratic as it gets while the majority will get ass-raped.

[Fuddnik]

3. Republican Ace-in-the-Hole (A-Hole?) Max Baucus.

Thanks Harry Reid and Mr. President.

Feingold for President!

[DJ13]

4. +10000

[JDPriestly]

15. I would like to see Feingold run.

[INdemo]

18. He would be a reason for Democrats to go to the polls

[SusanaMontana41]

28. He'd get me there.

Wouldn't mind walking down the aisle with that guy, either ... well, back to our regularly scheduled programming! :P

[Dollface]

57. Rats! You called dibs.

:fistbump:

[SusanaMontana41]

71. I did. That is, I DO! n/t

[Fuddnik]

29. He was my first choice in 2008, before he decided not to run.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. I think I still have a Feingold 2008 bumper sticker lying around.

They were a hot item back in 2007 at the Wi State Dem Convention.

[SusanaMontana41]

72. Lucky you. Wish I had one. nt

[Dollface]

42. I love RF. I'd vote for him.

[wordpix]

55. +1000--I would work for Feingold and running would at least move O to the left

[robinlynne]

68. I would work like hell for that man to become president. I will not lift a finger

again for the current candidate. No way. Don't think I can vote for him even if he wins the primary. And I have voted for some bad democrats in my lifetime. but the least worse is not working anymore. our country is in serious danger. Already past the serious danger, actually. Our country is dying.

[Le Taz Hot]

78. I worked 18 hours a day for Dean.

I'd do exactly the same for Feingold.

[Samantha]

51. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK

He was put there for a reason, and he was willing to negotiate with Bush* of all people on entitlement cuts.

The fix is in.

Sam

[indy legend]

65. Are we still playing chess?????

[robinlynne]

69. in some DUers dreams maybe. Reality is quite different. He handed it over

to the rich, the banks, and the big corporations. We were well on our way to ruin under BUsh. Now the deal is sealed.

[robinlynne]

67. NO way Baucus is on that committee. Is he? Jesus. I didnt look becuase I knew we were

already royally screwed by the formation of the committee. but Baucus is bad, very very bad.

[bullsnarfle]

84. Same Here

I thought "no effing way!" when I heard Max of all people was in... we are so screwed. The only one on the BOHICA committee worth a rat's ass is Xavier Becerra and I got a bad feeling he is going to be eaten up & spit out.

[HereSince1628]

5. I wish this effort by Progressives United well

in this effort. Doing nothing certainly isn't in the interest of protecting the national social safety net.

[Myrina]

6. I love you Russ, please run for President. We need a Democrat in the race.

:patriot:

[No Elephants]

7. +1, but, sadly, he said he will not run for any office in 2012.

[cascadiance]

59. Yep, he'll just have become governor of Wisconsin at the beginning of 2012 then!

I do think his best bet is to run in 2016. That doesn't take away the need for someone to run in 2012 to give us a voice then.

[indurancevile]

8. knr

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Signed the petition early this morning.

[Enthusiast]

20. Me too

I don't expect this to have any effect. This was all planned before the 2008 election.

[placton]

10. ANY deal the super-facist committee comes up with

will be shit, and totally against the interests of most citizens of this fair country.

[GreenTea]

11. Cheers to the Russ Feingold!

[russspeakeasy]

12. Our fate was sealed when the panel was picked...

:evilfrown: Welcome to the Dark Ages..

[cstanleytech]

16. Perhaps, perhaps not. The way its setup is if they dont agree on what to do then its cuts across the

board so it makes sense for the dems to walk out if the republicans insist on keeping their heads shoved up ass (which explains really why they cant think clearly.......lack of oxygen and all you know) and again refuse to compromise in good faith.

[truedelphi]

19. Except, when in recent history have Democrats ever walked

away from a bad deal?

They might whine a bit, but they always sign on to it.

Always.

[cstanleytech]

22. Except if the republicans bargain in bad faith yet again the dems have nothing to lose

because it will be the republicans fault if the cuts hit both defense spending and social programs.
In other words..............defense cuts = the republicans support terrorists campaign can begin.

[truedelphi]

26. Before that happens, we will have

Nine Eleven Redux.

There isn't any way that defense cuts will occur.

Even when the Pentagon used to ask for defense cuts in the nineteen eighties, like closing down bases that were of no use, the Congress people in those districts kept them open.

[Dragonfli]

58. You are forgetting Max, all the R's need is his one vote, you don't think he will give it?

He agrees with most of their ideas, might as well have just picked one extra Republican and one less "Democrat".
It will only take one traitor, a rather easy task for the Republicans if history is any indication.

[SusanaMontana41]

30. Pelosi's picks could muck up the deal. I hope. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Obama won't like that, not one little bit.

[midnight]

14. I just posted an email that I had received this A.M. But your

statement is much more to the point about abandoning the unbalanced approach by this committee deal....

[yurbud]

17. this battle was lost before the stupid committee was even selected,

but I like the ideas.

It's about 99% certain that the outcome will be a neoliberal wet dream of austerity, and if Dems don't rubber stamp it, the automatic cuts will be on our neck as well.

We need to figure out how to break this process or get it undone through legislation after the 2012 election.

[karynnj]

25. I agree

The committee, even if the Democrats would have been Sanders, Feingold(yes I know he is not there) and Franken, Kucinich, Grayson (yes I know), and Weiner would NOT be able to get a deal meeting those requirements.

So, if they followed this, there would be no deal period.

If that meant nothing happened, it would be great. However, that's not the case. It activates the triggers. Given that this is irresponsible - and the Democratic equivilent of the Norquist pledge.

One BIG question is whether there are enough people in both parties who dislike the agreement made to disable the triggers - which would, in effect the forced nature of this.

[yurbud]

41. I like your idea of disabling triggers

Its probably overly optimistic, but maybe that's why Obama got the cuts split between domestic and military.

[karynnj]

45. I have been curious about whather they can be voted out and if so

do they require more than 50 votes in the House. I assume any legislation needs 60 in the Senate.

The word was they were designed to be unattractive to both parties - so they would be forced to deal - and I do see how they would be a lever. However, if all reasonable things are blocked - and they might be and a majority see the triggers worse than the status quo - why not eliminate them.

My concern is that while I do think that there are things that could be fixed in the tax code - eliminating special deals, the Republicans have already called them "tax increases" and they are against them. It would seem that anything that eliminated waste would also have a problem for the same reason.

[yurbud]

94. at all levels, legislators seem more loathe to roll back their own work than just about anything

else.

[Cool Logic]

21. Same ol', same ol'...nothing new on that list.

Likewise, it is the same ol', same ol' on the other side.

[a2liberal]

23. K&R but I predict

no deal and a last-minute bill to eliminate the triggered defense cuts (only) in the name of national security.

[Eric J in MN]

33. I hope so.

I'm worried that the Super Congress will say to cut Social Security by changing the inflation-calculation, and Obama will pressure Democrats to vote for that.

[a2liberal]

44. Unfortunately that's also a distinct possibility

Supposedly "minor" cuts to Social Security, etc. and no tax increases... passed urgently because we can't have the "crisis" of the defense cuts.

Also, as someone else mentioned below, the offshore corporate profits "tax holiday" will probably be in there as supposed "revenue" and the apologists here will say "see there was revenue" even though it's actually a bad thing just encouraging more of the off-shore profits tax sheltering.

[karynnj]

24. IF there were no triggers that will happen if no agreement, this makes sense

The question may be is whether the committee can get a deal that is better than than the trigger which will:

- Not raise taxes
- will cut Medicare
in addition to other cuts.

As I don't think a compromise could follow all of these criterion - any more than a compromise could accept the Norquist pledge, I think this is grandstanding by Feingold, who does not have to create a deal or vote on any deal created.

You might want to go back and look at the fact that Feingold was a deficit hawk, who voted against some of stimulus bills.

[Jefferson23]

27. K&R for Feingold. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

32. Good. The automatic cuts will probably be better than the Super Congress plan.

We shouldn't agree to lower Social Security for decades (changing inflation calcuation).

[Jim_Shorts]

36. The Trigger will never be used

Is Feingold going to MAKE all the dems go along with him? LOL Just watch, the dems will show some real unity - AND ALL CAVE.

If I have to guess on the deal, I would agree with these guy's, cuts to SS and Medicare and maybe bring back some offshore corporate profits at reduced tax rates on the revenue side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoKf08E-6vk

[SteveM]

39. Another reason: Requires cuts in the military. nt

[Supersedeas]

86. too many Dems who have powerful Defense Contrators as constituents

[swilton]

38. I don't think they'll listen to Feingold

but at last there is someone besides Sanders who'll speak for the Democratic Party's base....Feingold is number 2 (behind Sanders) in the straw poll of progressive candidates that could challenge Obama...

www.stophoping.org

[swilton]

40. Correction

Feingold is # 3 in the straw pole behind Sanders and Kucinich.

But I thought Feingold ruled out a run in 2012.

[karynnj]

52. He did - and he long ago ruled out running for President against Obama

That straw poll is rather silly. Kucinich never got more than about 2% nationwide in years where we had no incumbent and Sanders is not a Democrat. Feingold tested the waters - in both 2004 and more seriously in 2008 - and stayed out. He absolutely hated raising money for his Senate run - and that alone would likely keep him out of the Presidential contests - in any year.

[ObaMania]

43. Good luck with that one, Russ

:eyes:

[Firebrand Gary]

46. Thanks Russ.

[customerserviceguy]

47. What Feingold is saying is

"Give us everything our way." That's so Repuke.

Either we will have tax increases and benefit cuts, or we will have only targeted spending cuts. And if either deal is unacceptable to majorities in both the House and the Senate, we will default to the benefit/military cuts.

[hulka38]

56. Either way the New Deal becomes the Old Deal.

Thanks "Democrats".

[customerserviceguy]

61. Yep, the damage was done

when the debt ceiling was lifted in this way. A deal was struck whereby each party thought it could take advantage of the other one down the line.

[hulka38]

66. More strong evidence that

the Democratic Party's interests have deviated from the interests of the middle class and poor.

[sulphurdunn]

50. Apparently federal taxation and spending

decisions are too important to entrust to all 100 senators elected by the American people. It takes real genius to reduce the number of representatives who are permitted to formulate $$$$ policy so the rest can dodge accountability for fucking over their nominal constituents. :evilgrin:

[earcandle]

60. Thank you Mr. Feingold. Aren't compulsory taxes levied by congress without favor? This is what my

government accounting book tells me.  So why is Congress
derelict in its duty, making loans in steady of collecting
revenues on all?

[Necronomiconomics]

62. But if we don't give Republicans everything, then Obama might lose 2012

Sadly, many of you are conditioned by certain elements here at DU to read a subject line like that and believe that real Democrats are capable of saying that sincerely, rather than as corrosive sarcasm

[orbitalman]

63. K & R

[Jakes Progress]

70. "His concern

-- which progressives widely share -- is that Republicans will refuse to raise a penny of revenue, particularly from wealthy Americans, and leave the Committee's Democrats to pick between significant entitlement cuts or the trigger penalty, which would fall most heavily on Medicare providers and national defense."

I'm a progressive, and I share that concern. Actually it is less a concern than a dread feeling of certainty that this is exactly what will happen. And the Democrats that don't cave immediately will be hounded by the third way centrists in the congress and the administration to fall in line.

[Major Hogwash]

73. Wow, I'm so impressed!! I can hardly believe it!!! This is hugh!!!

Feingold whiffs.

[Pholus]

74. Whiffs? I think not.

Oh wait, you're right. The third wayers definitely are not in favor of the following:

>He lists the bright lines:
>1. Ensure millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations pay their fair share of debt reduction,
>2. No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits,
>3. No giveaways to corporate interests,
>4. Or no deal.

[karynnj]

80. Relooking at this list, I notice that it actually says little that most Democrats have not said

On the first, I think every Democrat on the committee has said that the wealthiest should pay and have spoken of closing loopholes that give big breaks to the oil companies and allow companies like GE to pay nothing. The wiggle word here is "fair".

On the second, it depends what is meant by cuts to benefits. That would mean that they could - as Obama spoke of cut payments to doctors/hospitals. It also means they could trim costs in other ways.

The third one is just verbiage - no one is speaking of giveaways to corporations. This is grandstanding - any pork added would require more cuts elsewhere to accomplish it.

[Pholus]

82. Do you then think it's a "whiff" for Feingold to issue a statement reminding them of their values?

As the previous poster did? My comment was directed at someone who seems to think it crass that a statement like that is even made.

After that, however, I contend that a statement of values can be less firmly written than say, a campaign pledge. I've gotten VERY used to having to scrutinize the exact wording of those.

Anyway, how would you have rephrased those points to give them more power?

[karynnj]

83. No - I was actually rethinking my earlier comment that the list was impossible

and seeing that Feingold obviously made an effort to create the strongest list that had any possibility of being met. My initial comment had been that the list was outside of what could be gained by the committee. I now think it is a description that should be taken - with all the words that keep it from being the equivalent of Norquist - as a model of the best we could hope for. (I likely should have placed the comment elsewhere, but it was in reading that post that I stopped to actually parse all the words written.)

You say - "I've gotten VERY used to having to scrutinize the exact wording of those." That was what I did not originally do, but did this morning. I do not think I could improve on the very carefully written wording. They actually are good and serve a very needed purpose of getting our values out clearly and succinctly.

Though I still have concerns that expectations may be too high on the left in terms of what could be done, changing that is not the purpose - nor should it be of this. I was wrong in my earlier comments. (By expectations being too high - the most extreme example was the idea that as it would greatly save money the HCR system could be converted to single payer - an idea that we could not have gotten if the 60 Senators we had would have been joined by 10 new Democrats in 2010!)

[Pholus]

97. Very cool. Sorry I didn't grok what you were saying... nt

[myrna minx]

75. K&R n/t

[tomp]

76. you mean he is not outright opposed...

...to obama's supra-constitutional bullshit?

as usual, dems don't go far enough and encourage unrealistic expectations.

[Hubert Flottz]

79. Feingold was one of the last politicians in Washington that I trusted.

And the unlimited corporate money took it's toll on him for being a patriot.

I had hoped he wouldn't take it laying down!

I wish he'd run for president.

[pam4water]

81. Feingold for Pres! K&R

[Roger Floyd]

85. Kick!

[ProfessionalLeftist]

87. Did everyone sign the PETITION? (may not help, but can't hurt)

http://www.progressivesunited.org/action/lets-fight

[Major Hogwash]

89. Feingold's up to bat, he's coming to the plate -- and oh, it's a big swing and a miss!

Oh, that's gotta hurt.
He's only got 2 more strikes to give and then hesouttathere!!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

90. What progressives need ...

What progressives need is the will to win this battle. Sadly, I don't see the 6 Democrats on the committee having that kind of will, especially if Obama is in their ear telling them to get a deal done.

And the wild card that I'm definitely not thrilled on is Baucaus, who is not a friend to progressives by any stretch of the imagination.