Norman Solomon: Congressman Huffman should be challenged

[Barry]

Here's a recent article by Norman Solomon (unsuccessful Democratic Party candidate in the 2012 for Congress) regarding our West County's US Representative Jared Huffman's refusal to sign a letter pledging to vote "against any cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits."

While I strongly support these programs I don't support such a "Nordquestian" pledge on 2 counts:

1) While clearly this pledge is much different to Grover Nordquist's pledge to not raise taxes, they both take extreme positions that exclude any compromise, not matter how reasonable. Signers would be bound to the same productive intransigence as the Republicans when it comes to raising taxes.

So for instance, if Obama manages to strike a deal with Republicans that substantially raises taxes on the wealthy and corporations, closes tax loopholes, cuts the military, and makes slight changes medicare benefits (raises eligibility age by one year? Chained CPI?), signers to this pledge would be required to vote no.

2) Social Security does not cause the budget deficit, but Medicare and Medicaid have enormous effects on the deficit. Something needs to give a bit, plus I can't imagine that there are no improvements that can be made to these programs the preserve their original mission while reducing costs.

What do you think? Is this just political positioning by Norman Solomon? Is the rigidity he supports warranted?

Barry

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/MarinIJLogo.png
Marin Voice: Congressman Huffman should be challenged
https://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_22802401/marin-voice-congressman-huffman-should-be-challenged

By Norman Solomon
Guest op-ed column

Posted: 03/17/2013

https://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site234/2013/0315/20130315__nmij0317voicesolomon~1_GALLERY.JPG
Norman SolomonIN RECENT WEEKS, Marin's new congressman Jared Huffman has gradually polarized with some constituents urging him to commit to voting against any cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits.

With petitions, phone calls and a wide range of correspondence, thousands of people in the North Bay-North Coast district have asked Huffman to make a clear commitment.

Last weekend, he wrote on his public Facebook page: "I won't be bullied from the left or the right into signing Norquistian vote pledges to outside groups."

That response is off-base on several counts.

Constituents who express strong opinions are not "bullying" — they're participating in a democratic process.

On an issue of profound importance, it's appropriate to seek a commitment from an elected representative.

https://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/c44.177.550.550/s160x160/75084_204378156367667_1880437436_n.jpg
Jared Huffman And pledging not to raise any taxes for rigid ideological reasons is a very different matter than committing to fully protect the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits of Americans who often depend on those programs as matters of life and death.

In an effort to denigrate the constituents who are saying they want him to make such a commitment, Huffman has latched onto a facile pejorative word — "Norquistian" — as if standing up for economically vulnerable people is on a par with the right-wing zealotry of Grover Norquist.

At issue is a congressional letter that makes a basic 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."

Twenty-eight members of Congress have signed the letter. Two of them, Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, were the initiating signers. Both co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, have signed the letter. In the Bay Area, so have Barbara Lee and Michael Honda.

But Huffman and his echoing allies don't mention the letter's support in Congress — and avoid mentioning the names of the impressive groups that have endorsed it.

Here are just a few: National Nurses United, Credo Action, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Democracy for America, Social Security Works, Progressive Democrats of America, Rebuild the Dream, Progressives United, Campaign for America's Future, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Many Democrats in Congress won't sign the letter. They anticipate intense pressure from the White House for some kind of package deal — and want to have wiggle room when the party hierarchy cracks the whip.

That happened on New Year's Day as the curtain came down on the previous Congress. Past rhetoric notwithstanding, most Democrats caved and voted to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for married couples with incomes between $250,000 and $450,000 a year.

Instead of making a commitment without wiggle room, Huffman has signed a much easier letter that urges President Obama not to make cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — but does not commit to voting against such cuts on the House floor.

It's one thing to say what you hope the president will do. It's another thing to make a public commitment to what you will do.

If Jared Huffman ends up voting for cuts to Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits, he should face political consequences. That's not a threat. That's democracy.

Norman Solomon of West Marin is an author and was an unsuccessful Democratic Party candidate in the 2012 race for Marin's seat in Congress.

[Barry]

Here's Norman's rebuttal to Jared Huffman's equivication of "commit[ing] to voting against any cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits" and the Norquistian pledge against any increase taxes.

My sense is that this is the beginning of his campaign to replace Huffman in 2014. Huffman is already pretty far to the left, nicely enough. Solomon is doing whatever he can to position himself further to the left.

Barry

Promise not to cut is nothing like tax pledge
By NORMAN SOLOMON

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/c0.30.180.180/s160x160/4488_90127017826_662697_a.jpgPresident Barack Obama is proposing to reduce the Social Security cost of living adjustment. And the president is also putting cuts in Medicare benefits on the negotiating table. But Social Security keeps vast numbers of seniors out of poverty, and Medicare is vital to keeping many people alive.

At this historic moment, a principled position would be to commit to fully defending Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as the federal Medicaid program that funds Medi-Cal in our state. But the North Coast's new congressman, Jared Huffman, has been hedging.

Hundreds of Huffman's constituents have urged him — via letters, petitions, phone calls and personal visits — to take a clear stand by committing not to vote to cut any Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits. Huffman showed notable disdain for this no-cut plea in his public Facebook page on March 10 when he posted that he “won't be bullied from the left or the right into signing Norquistian vote pledges to outside groups.”

But it's a ludicrous comparison. Grover Norquist convinced Republicans in Congress to make a pledge that has protected the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share of taxes. In sharp contrast, many constituents have urged Huffman to commit to protecting middle-class, low-income and elderly people by fully safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, which retiring workers have paid into for several decades.

As spring began, Huffman continued to say he opposed such benefits cuts — but wouldn't commit to voting against them.

Now, under intense grassroots pressure, Huffman has begun to climb down from his you-can't-make-me-pledge stance. On Tuesday, he put out a press release pledging that “I will vote against” the Social Security cost of living adjustment cuts known as chained CPI.

Huffman's press release did not include a pledge to vote against Medicare cuts.

Medicare is facing a squeeze between Republican leaders in Congress and an administration striving to placate them. As NPR reported this week, “President Obama's budget plan for fiscal year 2014 may include a proposal for Medicare patients to pay more of their own medical bills.”

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out that “means testing” for Medicare would risk “transforming it into a program for the 'less fortunate,' which can undermine its political support.” Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist Paul Krugman has concluded that means testing “is just a badly designed, unfair form of taxation.”

What remains unclear is whether — when the chips are down and he's being pressured by Democratic Party leaders — Huffman will vote in the interests of vulnerable Americans who depend on federally funded health care programs.

An attitude adjustment would be helpful. When Huffman asserts that he won't be “bullied” by “outside” groups, there's a whiff of bombast in the air. When several thousand constituents have signed petitions urging him to make a firm commitment not to vote for cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits, why denigrate their engagement in the political process?

The president can exert fierce pressure on members of his party in Congress, and many are fond of wiggle room. But Huffman is fast running out of it. Crucial programs sustaining elderly citizens and other vulnerable Americans are at stake. If Huffman bends to the will of the fellow Democrat in the White House, he will harm constituents in the process.

As seniors and seniors-to-be, we don't need complaints from our congressman that he's being “bullied” by advocates for our interests. We need a congressional champion who is committed to fully protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — not just with soothing rhetoric but also with votes on the floor of the House of Representatives.

[Valley Oak]

It's all politics. That's understandable. In my heart of hearts I would have Solomon in office. But if that's not possible, then Huffman is a compromise I can live with.


Here's Norman's rebuttal to Jared Huffman's equivication of "commit[ing] to voting against any cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits" and the Norquistian pledge against any increase taxes.

My sense is that this is the beginning of his campaign to replace Huffman in 2014. Huffman is already pretty far to the left, nicely enough. Solomon is doing whatever he can to position himself further to the left.

Barry

Promise not to cut is nothing like tax pledge
By NORMAN SOLOMON
...

[tommy]

It's stupid for the liberals to be against a means test for Social Security and Medicare. These programs are financially unsustainable. If the liberals want the rich to pay more taxes, and close tax loopholes, why should they get Social Security and Medicare that they don't need? It's illogical.


Here's Norman's rebuttal to Jared Huffman's equivication of "commit[ing] to voting against any cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits" and the Norquistian pledge against any increase taxes.

My sense is that this is the beginning of his campaign to replace Huffman in 2014. Huffman is already pretty far to the left, nicely enough. Solomon is doing whatever he can to position himself further to the left.

Barry

Promise not to cut is nothing like tax pledge
By NORMAN SOLOMON
...

[Joe Hogan]

The argument in the past has been that if the upper middle class doesn’t get their very generous Social Security benefits, they won’t politically support Social Security at all. My own opinion is the UMC would grudgingly support a means test as long as the means test bar was set fairly high.


It's stupid for the liberals to be against a means test for Social Security and Medicare. These programs are financially unsustainable. If the liberals want the rich to pay more taxes, and close tax loopholes, why should they get Social Security and Medicare that they don't need? It's illogical.

[podfish]

It's stupid for the liberals to be against a means test for Social Security and Medicare. These programs are financially unsustainable. If the liberals want the rich to pay more taxes, and close tax loopholes, why should they get Social Security and Medicare that they don't need? It's illogical.
I agree. It seems likely that there's a mix of 'true believers' who really ARE against it, and others who see it as a bargaining chip. Without being party to the smoke-filled rooms, I can only guess that the second group is the majority.