Catfood Call To Action

I think TheMomCat was half kidding when she said that we should cover this like gravy on a waffle (not from the South?  Try Syrup) but I’m up early so why not?  First, from Atrios, your action agenda-

To The Phones

White House


Your senators

Your House member.

No cuts to Social Security.

Gaius Publius @ Americablog offers this helpful digest-

What are we protecting?

We’re protecting three social insurance programs. These are:

    ■ Social Security

    ■ Medicare

    ■ Medicaid

What are we protecting them from? Anything that:

    ■ Reduces benefits

    ■ Turns the program from insurance to welfare (which only the “deserving” have access to)

How are these programs being threatened?

As near as I can tell, these are the threats. Note to foxes – this is the hands-off list. Each of these seven items is a benefit cut:

Social Security

    1. Raising the retirement age

    2. Chained CPI instead of current COLA

    3. Means-testing benefits


    4. Raising the eligibility age

    5. Increasing Part B premiums

    6. Increasing “cost-sharing”


    7. Shifting costs to the states by any means, such as “federal blended rate,” etc.

Now today’s installment, from Robert Reich (contrary to a rumor I just made up, there is NO indication he has a cameo in The Hobbit)-

Cliff Hanger: The President’s Unnecessary and Unwise Concessions

Robert Reich

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

These concessions aren’t necessary. If the nation goes over the so-called “fiscal cliff” and tax rates return to what they were under Bill Clinton, Democrats can then introduce a tax cut for everyone earning under $250,000 and make it retroactive to the start of the year.

Social Security should not be part of any such deal anyway. By law, it can’t contribute to the budget deficit. It’s only permitted to spend money from the Social Security trust fund.

Besides, the President’s proposed reduction in annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustments would save only $122 billion over ten years. Yet it would significantly harm the elderly.

It defies logic and fairness to give more tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting benefits for the near-poor.

The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Hands off Social Security. If the Republicans are willing to raise tax rates on high earners but demand more spending cuts in return, the President should offer larger cuts in defense spending and corporate welfare.


Skip to comment form

  1. ek hornbeck
  2. tahoebasha3

    to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Trust Funds is one of a Fiduciary.  The government’s duty therefor is to uphold and protect those Funds to the highest level of integrity and trust and having no conflicts of interest.  The Trust Funds are not there for the disposition and use as the government sees fit.

    Reich is right.  The Defense Dept. budget could be cut in half.  We have enough everything, military-wise, to blow up the planet several times over.  The oil subsidies make totally no sense whatsoever.  The oil companies don’t pay taxes, have been making enormous profits, and receive subsidies from us for doing so!  Disgusting!

  3. Lasthorseman

    Unemployment benefits end and not sure I even qualify for food stamps.  Real unemployment numbers vs what they publish as feel good unemployment numbers.

  4. terryhallinan

    Pennies for the poorest?  

    Have to wait and see, I guess.  First gotta take care of the poor millionaires and billionaires trying to scrape by on $400K.

    Money for Yankee hurricane relief? Sorry. Reserved for southerners who don’t live in New Orleans.

    Best,  Terry

  5. terryhallinan

    Reich is right.  The Defense Dept. budget could be cut in half.  We have enough everything

    Who this “we,” draft dodgers?

    There may not even be catfood for the veterans, widows and orphans.

    Not much need for veterans, especially unofficial non-war veterans, unless they were generals.

    The only time in my life I was in a veterans club, I was taken by an even more non-official non-war veteran. Though Irish too, he was even classified as an official aborigine because his mother admitted being AmerIndian while my mother denied being Saami.  Who wouldn’t?  Birch Bayh did but his misbegotten son didn’t.  Hell I don’t know.  Maybe Junior wasn’t his son at all.

    My one day friend had been in Special Forces.  They are special because they officially never fought in wars that never happened and therefore their war wounds have to be all in their heads.  Head cases never did get much, especially if they are women or dogs, even if they were in official non-wars.

    We whinos never stop whining until we are certifiably dead.

    Just step over us when we are on the street and hurry on by if you can’t drop off a can of catfood or a bottle or something.

    Best,  Terry

  6. tahoebasha3

    I want to correct that to read “defense-wise,” which is really what I meant.

  7. tahoebasha3

    “House approves bill authorizing $633 billion in defense spending”

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives approved the final version of the annual defense policy bill on Thursday, authorizing $633.3 billion in defense spending for 2013, easing limits on satellite exports and providing more Marines for embassy security.

    The Republican-controlled House approved the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 315-107. The measure must still be approved by the Senate before it can go to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.. . . . Defense Spending. . .

    The government’s priorities, you know . . . !  The hell with the people!

Leave a Reply