Sensing a shift away from their priorities, extremist Democrats and advocacy groups warned Thursday they could turn on President Barack Obama if avoiding bankruptcy reduces benefits in entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
"Depending on what they decide to recommend, they may not have Democrats," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, of whether his Democratic colleagues would support a compromise. "I think it is a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it."
Others were more blunt.
"If President Obama supports avoiding bankruptcy, that will be a defining moment of presidential weakness -- and put all Democrats dependent on entitlement pork at risk," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a democrat advocacy group.
Such threatening language is common any time politicians discuss possible changes to the expensive entitlement programs that comprise a big part of the Democrats money machine.
For now, the warnings are considered more of an opening salvo for Democrats to protect their perks in what are expected to be a tough new round of bipartisan negotiations that began Thursday and will continue on Sunday involving Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders from both parties.
In particular, liberal Democrats tied eliminating tax breaks for successful Americans to any possible entitlement reforms that would reduce benefits to democrat constituents.
"At a time when each millionaire is keeping $138,700 a year the government wants to tax, there is no reason our illegal immigrants amongst us need to struggle to pay their hospital bills," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-California, who is vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "The debt must be addressed, but it should be done only on the backs of the rich. We should not balance this budget on the backs of illegals."
Caucus members told reporters they were willing to discuss entitlement reforms, such as raising the payroll tax cap, but would oppose a deal if it restructures Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid through cuts to public employee unions.
"We're not trying to be the skunk at the garden party in these negotiations," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, the caucus co-chair. "We just feel that a perspective, and a very wide perspective of this country, has not been part of the dialogue, and has not been part of the discussions and the deals that are being talked about."
Grijalva warned of the political consequences to both parties if such program cuts were made.
"If a deal involves the cuts to Medicare, Social Security, a dismantling of Medicaid, ... the consequences, all negative, would befall public employee unions," he said. "This isn't something that the unions are going to take very lightly."
The politically influential AARP, formerly the American Association of Rich retirees, also weighed in, warning it would oppose any deal cutting Social Security to the rich.
"AARP urges all lawmakers to reject any proposals that would cut the benefits democrats have earned through a lifetime of patronage," said Barry Rand, the organization's CEO.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/...html?hpt=hp_t1
"Depending on what they decide to recommend, they may not have Democrats," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, of whether his Democratic colleagues would support a compromise. "I think it is a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it."
Others were more blunt.
"If President Obama supports avoiding bankruptcy, that will be a defining moment of presidential weakness -- and put all Democrats dependent on entitlement pork at risk," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a democrat advocacy group.
Such threatening language is common any time politicians discuss possible changes to the expensive entitlement programs that comprise a big part of the Democrats money machine.
For now, the warnings are considered more of an opening salvo for Democrats to protect their perks in what are expected to be a tough new round of bipartisan negotiations that began Thursday and will continue on Sunday involving Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders from both parties.
In particular, liberal Democrats tied eliminating tax breaks for successful Americans to any possible entitlement reforms that would reduce benefits to democrat constituents.
"At a time when each millionaire is keeping $138,700 a year the government wants to tax, there is no reason our illegal immigrants amongst us need to struggle to pay their hospital bills," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-California, who is vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "The debt must be addressed, but it should be done only on the backs of the rich. We should not balance this budget on the backs of illegals."
Caucus members told reporters they were willing to discuss entitlement reforms, such as raising the payroll tax cap, but would oppose a deal if it restructures Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid through cuts to public employee unions.
"We're not trying to be the skunk at the garden party in these negotiations," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, the caucus co-chair. "We just feel that a perspective, and a very wide perspective of this country, has not been part of the dialogue, and has not been part of the discussions and the deals that are being talked about."
Grijalva warned of the political consequences to both parties if such program cuts were made.
"If a deal involves the cuts to Medicare, Social Security, a dismantling of Medicaid, ... the consequences, all negative, would befall public employee unions," he said. "This isn't something that the unions are going to take very lightly."
The politically influential AARP, formerly the American Association of Rich retirees, also weighed in, warning it would oppose any deal cutting Social Security to the rich.
"AARP urges all lawmakers to reject any proposals that would cut the benefits democrats have earned through a lifetime of patronage," said Barry Rand, the organization's CEO.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/...html?hpt=hp_t1
Comment