If you have "no place to go," come here!

Video and Transcript From President Obama's "Fiscal Cliff" Speech (11/09/12)--Please Put In Your "Two Cents" [2nd Revision]

Alexa's picture

Grand Bargain Watch - Save Social Security
Grand Bargain Watch -- Save Social Security
DonkeyHotey photostream, flickr

Here's a link to the video of President Obama On The Economy And The Deficit [November 9, 2012].

Here's a link to the transcript of the speech.

Here's one a couple of excerpts which are perfect examples of "Kabuki Theater" IMO:

OBAMA: I’m not gonna ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit, while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes.

Notice the parsing of words in the first paragraph of the excerpt: "not gonna ask . . . , while . . . ." Talk about "qualifying."

No where in that sentence do I hear any guarantee that he won't "slash" entitlements, only that he won't do it without asking those making more than $250,000, to pay more taxes. Jeeeeezzzzz!

OBAMA: While there may be disagreement in Congress over whether or not to raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody -- not Republicans, not Democrats -- want taxes to go up for folks making under $250,000 a year.

This "noise" about raising the marginal tax rates on the wealthy is posturing. Bowles-Simpson's The Moment of Truth calls for reductions in all the marginal tax rates, especially for the top brackets.

And, here's an excerpt from a piece in the Business Section of the Washington Post, "Obama, Boehner Again Prepare To Tackle National Debt.":

In Boehner’s view, aides said, the starting point should be the deficit-reduction deal that he and Obama were close to sealing in secret talks during the summer of 2011. With Congress locked in a bitter battle over the federal debt limit, the two tentatively agreed to slice $2.4 trillion from future borrowing in part by trimming Medicare and Social Security benefits and generating $800 billion in new revenue by overhauling the tax code.

Under the terms of the emerging agreement, the rewrite would reduce the top tax rate paid by the highest earners from the current 35 percent, although a precise target was not specified. In return, Republicans agreed to drop demands to preserve preferential rates for investment income such as capital gains and dividends — by far the most lucrative break in the tax code for the very wealthy.

On entitlements, Obama has offered significant changes to Medicare, including letting the eligibility age to rise from 65 to 67. He has also supported applying a less generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits. But he took fire from liberals for those concessions, and he dropped them from his latest budget request.

But William Daley, Obama’s former chief of staff, said the president must be prepared to offer some concessions to get a deal.

“I don’t think you can just stick with the plan [Republicans] rejected and hope they change their mind,” Daley said in an interview. “I think they start with the outline from a year and a half ago. It would be easy going back to that deal, which we got fairly close to doing.”

And lastly, here's an excerpt from the Matt Bai's "Obama vs. Boehner: Who Killed the Debt Deal?". It outlines the tentative agreement for a Grand Bargain reached in July of 2011.

The Grand Bargain Within Reach

For all the talk since last July about who blew up the deal, it has been difficult to get a clear sense of what specifically the agreement was supposed to include. And so the three-page counteroffer that Rob Nabors sent to Barry Jackson and Brett Loper that Tuesday night, which turned out to be the last set of numbers exchanged between the two sides, represents the most detailed picture yet of what a grand bargain might have looked like. It’s a remarkable snapshot of the moment, not for the points of contention it exposes, but rather because it illustrates how much agreement Obama and Boehner had actually managed to find.

They had agreed to reduce discretionary spending — meaning both the defense budget and money used to finance the rest of the government — by about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; it would be up to Congress to figure out how. They also agreed to a list of programs from which they could cut at least $200 billion more in the coming decade. These included an estimated $44 billion from pensions for civilian and military employees of the government; $30 billion from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $33 billion from farm subsidies and conservation programs; and $16 billion from reforming the Postal Service.

On entitlements too they had moved closer to a final deal. The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015. (The White House had rejected Boehner’s bid to raise the retirement age.) This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner, nor was it as extensive as what the Gang of Six had proposed. But the speaker’s team didn’t consider the differences to be insurmountable, assuming the two sides could also settle on a revenue number.

Just heard 30 minutes of Jay Carney "jockeying" with the Washington Press Corp. Now, Carney's talking about the "Buffet Rule," as opposed to raising the marginal tax rates on the wealthy back to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6%.

Stay tuned.

No votes yet


Submitted by YesMaybe on

Same old story. My guess is, since Boehner wants to wait for the new congress for a big agreement, the lame duck session will extend the bush tax cuts for a year and pass a small increase to the debt limit. Once that's done, the only serious leverage Obama had will be gone until December 2013, and he'll be free to reach a compromise where Boehner gets 90% (or maybe 120%) of what he wants.

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

Everybody's assuming the lame duck session will nudge it forward into next year, as you say. But then, everyone assumed it would be increased automatically last time. It's certainly a useful excuse to pass unpopular austerity policies, as well as tax cuts for the very rich.

Submitted by YesMaybe on

They might just extend the bush tax cuts and not raise the debt limit until later.

Plus, there's also the sequestration cuts to the military, which Boehner and Obama are both eager to prevent.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

that "sequestration" can be taken care of, in several ways.

One way is to literally pass a law, nullifying it. Also, Obama can take some actions to mitigate the effect of it for several weeks into January, while they deal with this issue. Just what I hear (on XM).

I personally don't know (or follow) the details of the sequestration issue, as closely as I do "entitlement and tax reform." So in the end, I'll defer to you on this one, YM.

Submitted by YesMaybe on

What I know is:

1. Republicans naturally want to avoid any cuts to the military.

2. What Obama said in the last debate: "First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen."

So, yes, a good bet is that they'll prevent it from actually coming into effect, one way or another. Not that Obama's words in a debate are to be trusted. But the glove fits since he's also a servant of the military-industrial complex.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

will DEFINITELY PASS during the lame duck.

The Obama Administration will never allow legislation that contains the degree of cuts that they are getting ready to enact, to "lie around" and be talked about for several months.

I think that we'll see action so fast, that it will literally "make out heads swim."

I clearly get some things "wrong," (I thought that the conservative evangelicals might save the day for Romney. Apparently, the white vote was down quite significantly from 2008. I just heard that yesterday on POTUS. That would, of course, depress the conservative evangelical vote.)

But, honestly, I believe that I'll be right on this one. And, it's not based on my knowledge, so much as what so many of the Washington insiders are saying. And yes, there are folks who disagree. But the argument for "sooner rather than later" is more logical and persuasive to me. Particularly, if you're petrified of the details of the Social Security cuts getting out.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

don't think they're going to be able to do it. A lot of people are mobilizing and writing against it now, and some have good leads into Congress. I don't see defeated tea partiers wanting to stay in session to fight over this; and I don't see Reid willing to block any filibusters by people like Patty Murray who will really want to defend SS and Medicare. His statements indicate that he may do something about the filibuster next year; but not in the lame duck. Anyway I think the progressive village in DC is already going crazy about the possible cuts; and the recent study by Fed operatives debunking CBO's medical cost increase projections is adding fuel to the fire. All the ferocious debt projections are primarily due to the fictitious CBO projections or others extending them out 75 years. So, now the Peterson types are rapidly losing credibility about the debt, and the progressives will try their best not to let anything pass in lame duck, figuring their leverage is best next year.

Btw, there's an important fact about a newly re-elected President; and that is: with every passing day after the re-election the President loses leverage with his Party. After all, what's his/her leverage over them if they go their own way. Of course, the effect is worse in the President's final two years. But even in the first full Congressional Session after he's re-elected, he has less and less influence in domestic policy as time passes. In particular, if Congresspeople who don't want to vote with the President on a key vote turn down the President's blandishments by saying that, unlike him, they have to run again, what's his comeback? That his constituents will thank him for cutting SS and Medicare? I don't think that's going to work with D officeholders this time around, either in the lame duck, or in the new session. He may think that his "grand bargain" is his place in history; but they know that it's their ticket and the Democratic Party's to oblivion.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

You know, I'm not by nature, pessimistic. But seriously, all the reporting I hear on the the 24/7 POTUS channel out of D.C., the forums/panels on C-Span, etc., etc. seem to point to a "framework" being pushed through. The particulars of the tax reform, will most likely be left to committees, to be completed in 2013.

And it makes sense. During the Holidays, people are not paying that much attention. Sort of like I mentioned earlier, too--hard to believe that they'll stretch out anything that has to do with cuts to Social Security. After all, the lamestream media can get away with stalling and talking process for several days. But how on earth can they do that for weeks to months? That's why they'll get that off their plate, ASAP.

I hope more than anybody that you're right on this. But honestly, I just don't see that happening.

Remember, they've got more than a few "retiring lawmakers" who would love to vote for eviscerating Social Security--can anyone say: Kent Conrad? There's Jon Kyle and Steve LaTourette, etc., all probably chafing at the bit for a lobbyist job. I guess time will tell. But liberals would be foolish, in my estimation, to count on a delay.

Just heard a few minutes ago on AP news that there will be a "mini-conference" on Wednesday, and a bipartisan meeting at the White House this coming Friday.

Submitted by jawbone on

in both 2010 and 2008, why would DC Dem pols put themselves on the line for Obama's desire to out St. Ronnie Ronald Reagan? What's in it for them? Fear that the black voters will be angry they haven't supported Obama on austerity measures? Possible, but I think most will recognize that austerity will bite them, hard.

Big question is what we, the voters, can do to impress on elected DC Dems that what Obama seems to be leaning toward can very likely mark the end of the Democratic Party.

If Obama undercuts SocSec/Medicare, I don't believe the Dems will have legs to stand on, much less run on, in 2014 or 2016 or going forward.

There may be the Lesser of Two Evils effect, but how long will that be a winning approach?

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

The DTS says that there's still $44B in the operating balance, and a $188 B or so to borrow until we hit the debt limit, and there likely will be tax collections to add to the operating balance as well. I think it's likely that through juggling, borrowing, and taxing, the Treasury won't run out of money until March 31, 2013.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

talks in a much more conciliatory tone, than many of the newspaper articles indicate.

I know this, because I keep C-Span or the POTUS (Politics of the United States) channel playing all the time, unless I'm listening to music. I hear so many reporters and analysts bet on the two sides at least reaching a "framework" (read as some version of Bowles-Simpson) in the lame duck session).

It will come within a couple of days of us hearing of an agreement. IOW, the vote will be taken immediately, so that none of the details leak out.

The avoidance by Obama (and Jay Carney, and all the Administration officials) of even the mention of Social Security, tells me that it will be slashed.

The will say "entitlements" and they will mention Medicare and Medicaid, but they absolutely will not let the words "Social Security" pass their lips.

We're in for it, I'm sure. :(

Submitted by lambert on

Is there a way to RAPIDLY get CSPAN clips and transcripts intp place? We if so, we could set up a permanent live blog....

I don't know anybody else who is doing this.

Let's talk offline, you have my mail. This could be an emergency, we should seize it now.

Submitted by lambert on

1. I think the entitlement frame is problematic (we are talking social insurance, not entitlment, a right wing meme);

2. Need to be integenerational. We have twenty years less Goebellsian propaganda on this, and we know what the New Deal is. Maybe "... you're entitled" or "... we're entitled."

The Catfood frame suffers from the same difficulty; remember, when you are young, "it will never happen to me, I am immortal."

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

I've always been surprised that the Entitlement frame works for Social Security and Medicare. Because in any rational discussion, we ARE entitled to it. Why is the HUGE lifetime investment of our payroll taxes dismissed as if it's nothing? Even dismissing my employer's contribution (which no employer does) it's the biggest expense of my life.

I've been paying into it since I was 15 and I've NEVER taken cash under the table to avoid the obligation.

When I was still in my 20s, the contribution was doubled. Doubled! I can still remember the blow to my paycheck.

And I'm supposed to think that I'm NOT entitled to the US Gov. feeling OBLIGATED to they're part of that bargain?

But, you are correct, the phrase leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

I don't actually care what the Graphic says. I just think "we who care" should share an index of articles and posts screaming about this issue.

I DO believe it is intended to be slipped through before we notice.

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

That SS & Medicare are social insurance, not a pension. That doesn't mean we aren't owed what they promised.

Submitted by lambert on

... "I paid for it, I'm entitled" buys into the idea that taxes "fund" spending. But from your MMT studies you know this is wrong.

I know that there is a moral obligation but the "entitlements" meme is a real trap for the unwary in the debt/deficit frame.

(Of course you understand I'm not telling you what to do, just making what I consider to be a strong case...)

UPDATE I care. I want to do everything that can be done....

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

But, we're going to be lucky to stop this thievery in it's tracks. Are we going to attempt convincing people of the logic of MMT by then too?

I think it will take multiple frames. Not everything will click with everyone.

Submitted by lambert on

Repeating myself then -- Yes, one has to start from where people are (though one should also try to avoid painting one's self into a corner with the wrong paradigm.

Suggest "We're entitled" or "you're entitled" which is "social" and affirming, as opposed to the "I've got mine" of "I'm entitled."

My generation should never have let the tiered system in, where young people get a worse deal than older people. So, "we" or "you" rather than "I" as we attempt to make some sort of redress....

The demand should be lower retirement age to 60 and age-neutral benefits, not "no cuts!"

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on


The "We", the tiers, the "You" and especially moving the fucking Overton window.

One key to THAT is to point out the craziness of raising retirement for people who can't find jobs in their 50s!!!

Thank you!!

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

is right! Why? Because SS and Medicare for All are part of the second, economic bill of rights of FDR! Let's go back to that and fight for it! Especially because we've now got fiat money and MMT on our side.

I agree that been trying to screw us on entitlements for ages. So, now that the election distraction is over. We need to make it clear that we know what he's about and that his justification, that we are running out of money, and need to impress the bond markets, and need to lift the burden from our grandchildren, and have a limited credit card, is so much BS 6 ways from Sunday. So, we're going to fight him and the Dems tooth and nail, and any Congresscritter either D or R who votes for any cuts in any entitlements, and who raises taxes on middle class Americans may as well say good bye to their House or Senate seat if they're up in 2014.

We also need to make it clear that if this lame duck Congress passes any Grand Bargain; we're going to work to end it by 1) getting SS benefits increased by 50% in 2013, and the age of eligibility for full reduced to 63; and 2) also getting Medicare for All passed in 2013 as well, and woe be unto any Congresscritter who votes against these things, because they kiss their seats goodbye.

Submitted by hipparchia on

We also need to make it clear that if this lame duck Congress passes any Grand Bargain; we're going to work to end it by 1) getting SS benefits increased by 50% in 2013, and the age of eligibility for full reduced to 63; and 2) also getting Medicare for All passed in 2013 as well, and woe be unto any Congresscritter who votes against these things, because they kiss their seats goodbye.

1 and 2. double the ss benefits, lower the retirement age to 55 [you can always negotiate from there]. :)

3. definitely agree with medicare for all 2013.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm a Johnny-Come-Lately to the policy detail on this (just as I was and in fact am on the single payer stuff).

But one thing that leaped out at me in what Romney and Obama were putting on the table was the "two-tier" approach -- that is, current elders would not have to worry about their benefits, but benefits would get shittier and shittier as you got younger. It is exactly like the union deals where current members keep the $35/hour and the younger get $15 (and what a recipe for a harmonious shop floor....)

But... That's been the approach to "tweaking" for years. (My benefits are probably a bit better than than KB's, for example.)

To me, the POTB have induced the elders to betray the young (and I include myself in this). So we have to make amends for that and make the two-tier policy go away with "age neutral" benefits. There should be a guarantee of dignity as far as the eye can see, and for our (notional, in my case) children as well.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

are you referring to? I can't reply unless I know what the difference is between your benefits and hers.

From what she said about her age, when the Greenspan Commission doubled the payroll tax, etc., on Boomers, I believe that I'm probably just a very few years older than she. But not yet old enough to draw Social Security at age 62.

And from what I've read, katiebird and I will receive benefits according to the same benefit table or schedule. So, would you please clarify a little?

This is a very important issue. One that might warrant an entire post. (Which I might volunteer to write. But I've got to have a grasp on which differences you're referring to.)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

done a lousy job of "connecting the dots," with my blogs on Social Security. And I apologize to all for this.

I am going to try and "retool," and see if I can do a better job of tying together some of the points that I've tried to make.

As I understand it, this FRA chart pertains to the "staggering of the implementation" of the FRA (Full Retirement Age) increase.

It also pertains to the difference in benefits in relation to one's age at the time one files to receives benefits (bottom table).

Under the current law, which is still being implemented, the FRA increase applied to EVERYONE born in 1938 FORWARD.

[So, if my math is correct, folks who in 1983 were 46 years and older, were "shielded" from the effect--both having to wait past age 65, and the 12-14% "monetary loss in monthly benefits" that this age increase implemented.]

At any rate, the effect of this 1983 law on a 30-year-old blogger here, is the same in "monetary loss," as it would be for me.

The only difference is that under current law, I am eligible to receive full retirement benefits at age 66--the 30 year old, would have to wait until age 67. But, again, we'll both have equally lost the 12-14% in the monetary value of our benefits. And that's regardless of which age either of us decide to retire. (Again--'up and down the line," as Ms. Gregory states.)

I hope this makes sense.

Please, if it doesn't folks--tell me. I'm getting up some material now to illustrate several points, and am willing to try and find more material to clarify this point.

I run around here with my "hair on fire," for this reason: In 2010 Ms Janice Gregory, President of the National Academy of Social Insurance stated at the Greenspan Panel of Former Staffers, that "the lowest 4 quintiles" of Social Security beneficiaries depend on Social Security for their "primary source of income."

If President Obama has his way, and gets all 3 cuts to Social Security that Bowles-Simpson is recommending, approximately 60 to 63 million "Boomers" (alone) could be plunged into poverty overnight, upon their retirement, if the PtB choose not to delay any of the benefit cuts, for those at or near retirement age.

I am against ALL CUTS to Social Security. None of them are necessary at this time. There are increases in revenue that would mitigate any stress on the Social Security system, as Boomers retire.

I can't think of a more pressing matter than this one. I'm almost certain that once an agreement has been reached, it will be slammed through the lame duck session.

We all need to be "screaming about this, to the top of our lungs," demanding that none of these cuts be enacted.

nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

I've had almost complete success in discussions of the looming bankruptcy that social spending will cause with this: "They say we're the richest country ever. (Everybody always jumps in here to convince the looney lefty me that we are indeed, and if I believed in America as I should I'd know this was true.) Then why can't we provide a decent retirement to working people? Why can't we make sure our sick get health care?" There will occasionally be some argument about whatever apparent factoid demands cuts in social spending, but a repetition or two of "None of that matters. If we are a rich country, we can take care of our people. We may not want to but we can. Unless we are in fact a poor country."

There are hundreds of mistaken facts out there about economics, demographics, and the like to keep an argument going forever, but the focus on America Number 1 undercuts all those details.

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

We need a revitalized Netroots (or whatever is left - left, get it?) to hammer on this multiple times a day.

Maybe it's faster to continue using Catfood Commission but, it's never grabbed me.....

Submitted by lambert on

... but it's not intergenerational.

"We're entitled" is, "You're entitled" is.

Young people think they will never need to eat catfood because they are immortal as I said somewhere above....

Clonal Antibody's picture
Submitted by Clonal Antibody on

What about a dynamic database of each congresscritter, and how they voted on a bill along with the impact of that bill if passed, coupled with a (free subscription) e-mail list that lets people know how their congress person voted on each version of a bill - and the impact each version would have. This is resource intensive, but well worth the effort imo

Submitted by jawbone on

that we must work together to make any progress, to have any protection from the whims of the market.

"I'm entitled" sounds waaaay too Republican. Seriously. Romney lost most voters because he was an "I" cadnidate, a One for One sounding guy. People felt he did not understand at all what life is like for those in the lower economic quintiles, for "people like them." Romney actually believes, based on his religion, on "taking care" of the flock, but he also wants that to come with the right to tell the flock, women especially, just what they can do.

Voters want personal freedom but social responsibility, on both individual and societal levels. And, no, corporations are not people.

Please, get your motto changed to the plural first person, maybe alternating with the second person plural.

Submitted by lambert on

I just stickied it. It's gold (or some more suitable horticultural adjective, like saffron.)

* * **

More on house style:

1. Paragraph-level quotes take a blockquote (like the excerpts from the transcripts introduced by "OBAMA"). This is to help the reader distinguish between you, the author, and the material that you the author are quoting. (I violated this rule in Campaign Countdown, but that is an exception, since CC was an aggregation of snippets and not a long form post like this.)

2. All quoted material must be linked (I added the links to your two excerpts). The only exception is quoted material from typed in from a printed source not available online, not even in Google Books, in which case a standard bibiliographic cite with author, title, and page number(s) should be given. (This also applies to videos, tweets, etc.)

These policies are here for several time-tested reasons:

1. Enlightenment values demand that evidence be checkable by readers, so they do not have to take information on authority. Footnotes and other scholarly apparatus were devised for that purpose. Links fulfill that purpose today.

2. Propagation is easier if links are included. Posters may want to recirculate your information. If so, they will have an easier time doing this if the links they may need are already in your content. For example, suppose another poster wants to trash the Washington Post while including your critique. That will be easier for them if the WaPo link is already there. (And posting is very, very time sensitive.)

3. Long form blogs like Corrente serve an archival function; some free press material from 2004 is only available in the blogosophere. The link to the original helps authenticate such material.

4. These practices reinforce the Corrente brand ("lambert may be an asshole, but at least he doesn't make stuff up"). Fully sourced material is important to keep reinforcing that. Indeed, the new site redesign reinforces that archival function...)

* * *

Needless to say, I hope, I'm not trashing the work, I'm seeking to propagate it as rapidly and effectively as possible.

twig's picture
Submitted by twig on

or Medicare. He didn't say why there was none and none of the "reporters" asked. That must be how you get press credentials these days, by promising never to ask follow up questions.

Also too he went on about how those damn baby boomers are retiring (the nerve!) at the rate of 10,000 every day, "and it's not like there's revenue for Social Security and Medicare." He also lies about how raising tax rates would hurt the economy and kill jobs. No one bothered to mention that these tax rates have been in effect for what, a decade? So where are all the jobs that should have been created? No one asked that, either.

So basically, it's 11 minutes of him lying, or you might call it business as usual. If anyone's feeling masochistic, here's a link to the sideshow.

(I tried copying the embed code, but it kept coming up as Mitt's meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board. Alexa, you know your way around C-Span, so if you have any suggestions, they are welcome!)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

link for everyone. (I thought about doing that for him and Reid last night, but got sidetracked).

And, BTW, it's not your fault about the embed code--it happened to me, also. Clicked on Harry Reid, and a panel of folks came up yesterday. From time to time, this happens. I think that happens when they do "upgrades." It screws up their system for a while. I can't even use my usual browser to browse the C-span Archives. Google Chrome is somewhat functional viewing C-Span, but not a 100%.

None of which helps you any, I know. LOL! Sorry that I can't offer a better explanation, much less a solution.

What gets me about Boehner, is how "conciliatory" he sounds. I truly think "we've been done for. Heck, I was praying that the "Tea Party" folks wouldn't lose seats, hoping that would obstruct some more, especially during the lame duck. Now that's pitiful!

Submitted by lambert on

A year ago I never would have imagined the arab spring, the capitol occupations, or occupy.

but they happened!

tomfoolery's picture
Submitted by tomfoolery on

All of the issues mentioned in the various comments are great, but we're going to be worried about sheer survival four years from now if he doesn't address the climate change issue. Though i think it's far too late and that anything we do now will be futile (and liable to make things worse), he could at least acknowledge that all of humanity will be dead inside of 20 years the way we're going and start steering us toward a world without a lot of resources and species we rely on for food.

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

... include Tom Udall (NM), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Al Franken (MN), Tim Johnson (SD) and Kay Hagan (NC). Also Rockefeller (WV), Levin (Mich), Lautenberg (NJ) and Begich (AK).

Link to those low on money (from May.)

Full list of twenty Dems up for reelection.

Some of these will be more amenable to pressure from the left than others, but I'm guessing they'd be good to focus on. Klobuchar just got reelected here in Minnesota, so I'm shifting my aim to Franken, who's already started sending out fundraising pleas.