Baucus caucuses more with the republicans than he does the Democrats

[Horse with no Name]

So, it is safe to say that we have lost Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

We've lost OUR party.

It's time for real change.

[MilesColtrane]

1. Please tell that to the Associated Press.

According to you, they have the story completely wrong.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SUPER_COMMITTEE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Murray, who is chairwoman of the committee to elect Democratic senators, is a longtime protector of Democratic priorities such as Medicare, Social Security and veterans' benefits, as are Kerry and Baucus.

Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement that Murray has "a depth of knowledge on budget issues and demonstrated her ability to work across party lines."

In naming the trio, Reid opted against picking Democrats like Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota or Dick Durbin of Illinois, who backed curbs on Medicare spending and Social Security benefits as members of President Barack Obama's deficit commission. Baucus also served on the commission but voted against the controversial recommendations put forward by its co-chairs, citing cuts to farm subsidies and a proposed increase in the gasoline tax.

"More significant to me is who (Reid) didn't pick," said Keith Hennessey, a longtime former Senate GOP aide, citing Reid's snub of Conrad, who's also part of a bipartisan Senate "Gang of Six" on the budget. "He didn't pick someone who might have been bipartisan." Hennessey is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

[Horse with no Name]

2. The Associated Press?

:rofl:
Now that is rich...

[EFerrari]

3. Yes, they do have it completely wrong. But what else is new. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

4. Shit, I'm just happy Conrad wasn't put on.

[EFerrari]

11. Or Warner. n/t

[Bluebear]

14. Now youre an AP fan? Another piece of the puzzle

[JDPriestly]

5. Appointing Baucus is a slap in the face to real Democrats.

Did Obama make the picks? If not, who did?

Because that person needs to be primaried.

Kerry is a nice guy, but as we learned in 2008, he is neither persuasive enough nor strong enough. He is just put there as a sop to liberals.

Kerry's job will be to let liberals down easy.

But the fact is that Kerry is so rich, he probably laughs at his Social Security assuming he gets it.

[Kat45]

6. Baucus is not a good appointment.

It said the only reason he voted against the committee recommendations was farm subsidies and gas tax issues; that leads me to believe that cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security might not bother him. We need all appointees who will absolutely protect those things.

[JDPriestly]

10. This is a nother betrayal of the millions of Americans who have

been paying into Medicare all their lives. It is utterly shameful. They are stealing from the poor to enrich the upper 4%.

[MilesColtrane]

7. Baucus, Kerry, and Murray's voting records on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid:

Baucus

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53315&category=53

Kerry

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53306&type=category&category=53&go.x=13&go.y=7

Murray

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53358&type=category&category=53&go.x=7&go.y=9

[politicasista]

8. Kick for facts

though still not a Baucus fan. :kick:

[MilesColtrane]

9. Me neither.

[JDPriestly]

12. Thanks. Well, none of them have a voting record against Social Security

and Medicare, but I do not trust Baucus because he sold out on the health care reform bill. I don't know much about Patti Murray.

[burrowowl]

13. Damn! Damn! Damn!

He votes more Repuke than Dem, what is wrong with Reid?

[Jim Lane]

15. There's more to this than Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.

Yes, the Republicans threaten those programs, but that doesn't mean that any outcome that protects those three is a big Democratic win.

The six Republicans on the Super Congress will vote in lockstep against any increase in revenues and against any meaningful cuts in military spending (let's stop calling it "defense" spending -- it isn't). If we had six Democrats who would hold firm, then the Republicans would have to choose: either begin actually negotiating, or live with the automatic triggers, including military cuts.

With Baucus on there, however, that won't happen. After the Republicans make their demands to attack the entitlements, abolish the Department of Energy, etc., they'll offer a "bipartisan compromise" of cuts to education, environmental protection, etc., etc. Baucus (at least) will go along with it. Thus our best case from the Super Congress is a 7-5 vote in favor of a Republican plan that nominally protects the Big 3 entitlement programs but moves the country significantly to the right (and costs yet more jobs). The Republicans in Congress will vote in lockstep in favor of it, and will pick up enough Democratic Senators of the Baucus-Conrad-Nelson-Nelson ilk to pass it (remember, no filibuster).

This will be a disaster even if there are no cuts to entitlements.