It's time to support a candidate who says that she won't cut Social Security and Medicare. And it's time to fight against one who promises that he will.
Let's start with Republican House candidate Mark Sanford. Go to the eponymous website marksanford.com. You'll find a slew of "talking points" that right-wingers use to rationalize cruel cuts against seniors. Mark Sanford wants to rob Social Security for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks: because that's where the money is. "Mark believes that entitlement reform is key simply because that is where the bulk of all federal spending takes place." (Isn't it funny how the phrase "entitlement reform" always means cuts? What was Hurricane Katrina -- "urban renewal"?)
Here's more: Sanford "believes that programs like Social Security and Medicare represent a promise to our citizens that must be kept for existing beneficiaries, but that we have to modernize these programs for future retirees...." So if you're under 65 -- and you've been working hard and paying into the program for your whole adult life -- Mark Sanford is ready, willing and able to break that promise to you. As far as Mark Sanford is concerned, if you're under 65, then you can jump in the lake, tell it to the Marines, kick the bucket, shut your face, pound salt, pound sand, suck eggs, buzz off, get lost, clear out, stick it, stuff it, and pack it in. All of the above, and all at once.
Help stop Mark Sanford from cutting Social Security and Medicare.
Now here is what Sanford's opponent, Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, has to say. "I believe that our seniors earned their Social Security by putting money away [in] every single paycheck for a lifetime -- knowing that they could count on Social Security when they retired..... Simply put, Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit, and politicians should keep their hands off the trust fund."
And here's the clincher. Colbert Busch says that she "respectfully disagrees" with the President's budget -- not an easy position to take, when you might need his support in your campaign -- because "it would cut benefits for our seniors, which is wrong."
You go, girl.
So we have one candidate, Mark Sanford, who would cut Social Security, and we have one candidate, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who would not. Whose side are you on? And what are you willing to do about it? To help Elizabeth Colbert Busch beat Mark Sanford, click here.
Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson
I'm trying my best. But there is a limit to what I can accomplish when there are 232 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives (a/k/a “the Comatose Caucus”) and only 201 Democrats.
If we're going to win more votes, and pass more good bills, then we need more Democrats. Democracy is like that.
Tomorrow, there is a special election in South Carolina to replace Tim Scott, who was the last remaining African-American Republican in the House. (There are 42 African-American Democrats in the House.) The Republican nominee is former Governor Sanford. The Democratic nominee is Elizabeth Colbert Busch. Despite the fact that President Obama lost this district last year by 18 points, in the latest poll, the two candidates are only one point apart.
I'm not going to make fun of Governor Sanford. That's just too easy.
Nor am I going to ask you to support Colbert Busch because her brother is Stephen Colbert of the Comedy Central Channel. By the same token, I will not ask you to support Warren Beatty for Congress just because his sister is Shirley MacLaine. Same thing with Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Also Peter Graves and James Arness. And Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine.
I could ask you to support Colbert Busch because, according to one report, she is pro-choice, she backs marriage equality, and she supports immigration reform. So I could ask you to support her without feeling my gorge rise. But I won't do it for that reason alone.
No, I'm going to ask you to support her campaign because the last thing that we need in the U.S. House of Representatives right now is another Republican. And the thing that we do need is more Democrats. Seventeen more Democrats, to be exact.
We've established a contribution page to help her campaign. Click here, etc., etc. Let's take back the House.
Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson
P.S. Please help elect another Democrat by sharing this with your friends on Facebook and Twitter.
Our subject today is Congressman Grayson's recent bold statement that Medicare should cover glasses, hearing aids and dental work, because, as he put it, "most seniors have eyes, ears and teeth." But before we get to that, we just want to remind you that today is the last day to qualify for a chance to join Alan at Disney World next month by contributing $25 or more to his re-election campaign. We now return to our regularly scheduled commercial programming.
A couple of weeks ago, key progressive officials joined a conference call with grassroots leaders about how to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from Republican benefit cuts like the so-called "chained CPI." Earlier this week, we shared Congressman Grayson's statement on that call with you. Now, here is some of the Q&A:
Adam [PCCC]: We have a question from William Packson's e-mail [address], in Congressman Grayson's home state. He says:
"I am receiving $11,208 per year [in Social Security], out of which I must pay medical bills, rent, food, utilities, transportation, and prescriptions. As it is, there is not enough to pay for all necessities. What is Congress planning on doing to the cost of living adjustments?"
Congressman, would you like to take that first?
Alan: Well, sure. Unfortunately, there are Members of Congress, who are called Republicans, who are planning cuts to cost of living adjustments. The "chained CPI" is fakery that will recalculate the cost of living adjustments – basically with the idea that if the cost of gasoline doubles, that [somehow] doesn't represent a doubling in the cost of living, because some people will have to walk to work, not being able to afford gasoline. So they put more shoe leather into the calculation, and less gas. It's just cheating. I laid this out in an email I sent around, in a blog post a few weeks ago. [As I said,] they are just trying to baffle us with "you-know-what." It's not fair. It doesn't fully reflect the increase of the cost of living. And it's a shame, because as the caller points out, right now the money you get from Social Security isn't even enough to raise you above the poverty level. We are not giving our seniors enough to live above the poverty level. Imagine what it would be like if they got less. (And I'm saying "less" in some real sense.) So I think it's unconscionable.
I don't know exactly why Republicans feel the same way about cutting Social Security and Medicare like the way a moth feels about a flame. I don't understand that, but we have to deal with it.
The Sequester is in danger of becoming the latest excuse for giving rein to this desire to hurt old people, hurt poor people, hurt sick people -- and we just can't allow it. We've got a system that accurately assesses cost of living increases, and we have to protect it from attacks by the other side. . . .
Peter King [CBS News]: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm actually based out of Orlando, which is Congressman Grayson's home state. And you know this is obviously a very partisan position, and the message here is very much Democrats versus Republicans. . . . [I]s there anything here that you would be willing to compromise [on] at all? I mean Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all really broad programs. And there is arguably a lot of waste in some of these programs. Just wondering to see if there is anything you could move an inch or a foot on here, to get rolling? . . .
Alan: Well first, it used to be that there was consensus on this. It used to be that Democrats and Republicans agreed that there should not be cuts to benefits for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare – and that's changed. People used to regard Social Security as the "third rail" in American politics. You've probably heard that phrase before. [The "third rail" is the subway rail that carries electricity, and can electrocute you.] But now, Republicans are not only touching the third rail, they are dancing on it. And that's unfortunate. You know, Reagan used to say 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.' I think there are probably a lot of Republicans in the country, particularly seniors, who are scratching their heads and saying, 'I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.' By this unquenchable thirst right now to hurt the needy. To hurt seniors, poor people, people who need medical care and just want to see a doctor when they are sick. It's not consistent with the original conception of Republicanism, of conservatism. We are trying to conserve these programs -- you'd think that "conservatives" would be with us.
But to get to your question, I will tell you this: I think you can eliminate fraud [without breaking the "No Cuts" pledge]. You can eliminate waste, you can eliminate abuse – and in no sense would you break this promise. This is a promise that is very clear. It's that we are going to "vote against any and every cut against Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits." Benefits – that's what the recipients actually see. If they're in Medicare and they go to a doctor that means there are major procedures that are covered, and those are not going to change.
If we can eliminate or reduce waste, fraud and abuse of these programs, that doesn't change their benefits. If we can run the program more efficiently, that doesn't change their benefits. If we change the [taxation] payment plan, the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, that doesn't change the benefits. If we change what doctors get paid for procedures, that [change] doesn't change the benefits, either. It's what the recipients see [that matters].
You know, we can't ask people to pay into these programs year after year, decade after decade, and then when it's their turn, we say to them, "Well, you know, the law was that you had to be sixty-five [to qualify], but now you have to seventy-two." That's not fair. It wouldn't be fair if the private entity did it. It wouldn't be fair if the government did it, either.
So the answer to your question is 'yes.' Of course you can make changes [that are not benefit cuts] to the program, and then make the program better. I'd like to see Medicare cover eyewear. I'd like to see it cover hearing aids. I'd like to see it cover dental work. As far as I know, most seniors have eyes, ears and teeth. [Laughs.] I think these things should be covered. I'd like to move in that direction. That would improve these programs. But in terms of cutting benefits, no – that's not fair.
Isn't it about time that someone said that we should be perfecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not cutting them? Well, someone just did.
If you would like a chance to join that special someone in Orlando, then please click here. Last chance, last dance, last romance.
Like 434 other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, if I want to keep the job, I have to run for re-election next year. Unlike 434 other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, I can't count on lobbyists and special interests to pay for my campaign with their $10,000 checks. Because I won't offer them anything in return.
So it has been our practice to turn to The People, and appeal for support. But to be honest, it has always irked me that when the lobbyists put out, they get their tax breaks and their no-bid contracts and their bailouts and their deregulation in return. Quid pro quo. An eye for their eye, and a tooth for their tooth. A tit for their tat. You know, a personalized gift. And what do you get for your contribution? What quid do you get for your quo? Nothing but fearless leadership and good government. Nice, but not personal.
I would like to call every single person who has ever contributed to our campaign, say "thanks," and just have a nice, long chat. But I can't do that, because there are 100,000 people who have contributed to our campaign. There just isn't enough time.
So I have wrestled with this question of how I can do something personal for the people who make all of this possible. And I have concluded that I can't do something personal for all of you. But I can do something personal for two of you. I can invite you to Orlando, where I live, I can pay for you to get here, and I can spend some time with you at Disney World. Payback doesn't have to be a mofo.
Now, again, I wish that I could do the same for everyone who supports our campaign. You certainly deserve it. I would enjoy it. But we can't. So instead, we will choose from among the people who contribute $25 or more to the campaign this week, and two people will become the designated hitters for all the rest. Designated hitters for all of the equally deserving remainder. Not democracy, but randomocracy.
So I respectfully request that you fork over your $25 or more today. Or do it again, since each time you do it this week counts as a separate entry. To help our campaign, but also to set up two people for a very nice time with me, knowing that you might be one of them. If it's you, great. If it's someone else, then you are giving me a chance to thank them personally, on your behalf. On behalf of all of you.
Doesn't that seem fair?
Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson
P.S. It's the end of our FEC reporting period today, and blah-blah-blah.
P.P.S. At some point this week, we realized that this offer, as announced, would end on the Sunday of a holiday weekend. Which is ridiculous, because a lot of people don't read their e-mails on the weekend. So we actually are going to keep this going until tomorrow at midnight, just to give everyone a fair chance. But don't keep us waiting; we hate that.
President Obama is in the midst of a slow-motion Cabinet shuffle, so many Cabinet positions have been up for grabs. Comedian Julianna Forlano of AbsurdityToday.com has given this a lot of thought. She has offered this excellent advice to President Obama:
Environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr. for head of the EPA.
Nobel Prize-winning Economist Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary.
Former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer for head of the SEC.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren for head of a Department of Consumer Affairs.
Mayor Cory Booker for head of the Department of Homeland Security (because Booker saved a dog, so he's good at it).
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich for Secretary of Defense (Amen to that!)
Paul Ryan for Secretary of Agriculture ("given his demonstrated ability to constantly spread manure").
Forlano says that there is one public figure who is qualified to do all of these jobs – Congressman Alan Grayson. But she has something special in mind for him. Forlano wants Grayson to serve as White House Press Secretary, on the strength of this Grayson audition on Jennifer Granholm's TV show "The War Room":
Gov. Granholm: "Do you think that the Republicans are blowing their majority by appearing too extreme on this [comprehensive gun control]?"
Rep. Grayson: "No, they're blowing their majority by being callous, bigoted tools."
(You can see more from Julianna Forlano on her YouTube channel "Ironic News Report".)
We here on the Grayson Campaign appreciate Julianna Forlano's suggestion, but we would like to see Alan Grayson remain in Congress. Because if not, then we all lose our jobs.
Speaking of which, you can help to pay our salaries by contributing to the Grayson for Congress campaign. You wouldn't want to see us go hungry, would you? And if you contribute at least $25 today or tomorrow, then you will have a chance to join Congressman Grayson at Disney World, expenses paid.
Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
Candidate for Congress (D-FL)
Contributions to the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson
are not tax deductible.