President Obama has endorsed a tax deal that would give individuals up to $400,000 an extension of the Bush tax cuts. The plan would also reportedly allow the rich to keep a lower estate tax than is currently planned for 2013 (55% for estates worth more than $1 million). This is a tax cut for many rich Americans.

Because the payroll tax cut is expiring and the Make Work Pay tax cut is not coming back, most working Americans will also see a tax increase. The most galling thing is that 98 percent of Americans will actually see a larger tax increase than some of the richest Americans. Working with our friends at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, we compiled the following chart to demonstrate this:

Our polling of swing states shows that a large majority of voters want to see taxes raised on incomes above $250,000.

The White House is moving towards strikingAi??a deal that would only end the Bush tax cuts on incomes above $400,000 while enacting a watered-down estate tax. These measures offer a major tax cut to the rich over what is currently set to take place in 2013.

Major progressive groups denounced this proposal in statements and emails today.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC):

Ai??On behalf of nearly a million progressives nationwide, we wanted to emphasize that this is a moment to stand on principle.

There has always been room for negotiation, but throughout this debate progressives have had 2 bright-line positions: Tax rates on those making $250,000 must go up to at least the Clinton rates and there must be no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits.

The president ran on and won on $250,000 twice. Voters across the country overwhelmingly agree with the $250,000 threshold (seeAi??http://2014polling.com). And in real human costs, the billions lost by raising the threshold to $400,000 will come out of the pockets of grandparents and working families across the nation. Meanwhile, individuals making over $30,000 per month would get a tax break.

Democrats hold the cards, and our leverage increases in less than 10 hours if we hold strong.

The public is paying attention, and we urge all Democrats to stand on principle at this moment.Ai??The current deal violates progressive principles.Ai??It should be opposed. — Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founders

MoveOn (excerpt from e-mail to members):

MoveOn members have consistently stood behind President Obama’s campaign pledge to return the tax rates for the wealthiest Americansai??i??those making more than $250,000 a yearai??i??to what they were under President Clinton. A last-minute deal like the one reported in the press could make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for those making $450,000 a year.

When Republicans tried to cut …

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee sent an email to Democratic senior staffers in both the House and Senate at 3 p.m. ET Monday, after word trickled out that a deal in the works would only raise taxes for households making $450,000 and above (or $400,000 for individuals.) The email, obtained by TPM, argued that Democrats have no practical reason to cave on taxes and would actually have increased leverage if Congress blows through the midnight deadline to avoid the cliff. “Democrats hold the cards, and our leverage increases in less than 10 hours if we hold strong,” the email, signed by the group’s co-founders Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, read.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)

There are reports that the White House is preparing to offer a deal that would only end the Bush tax cuts on incomes above $400,000 while enacting a watered-down estate tax. These measures offer a major tax cut to the rich over what is currently set to take place in 2013 — tomorrow.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) took to the floor just now and denounced this sort of deal:

HARKIN:Ai??Mr. President, I was disturbed to read in The Washington Post this morning that some kind of agreements are being made here. Somehow that democrats have agreed to raise the level of, from $250,000 to $450,000, and that somehow there’s been an agreement reached that we would keep the estate taxes at the $5 million level, at 35%. Mr. President, this is one Democrat that doesn’t agree with that at all.

[…]Ai??Again, if we’re going to have some kind of a deal, the deal must be one that really does favor the middle class, the real middle class, those that are making $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year. that’s the real middle class in america. As I see this thing developing, quite frankly, as I’ve said before, no deal is better than a bad deal. and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up.

Watch it:

Editor’s note:Ai??If you like what you see below…We have a tiny staff, but we fight hard and think big.Ai??Consider being a $3 monthly donor to continue our effective activism in 2013.

#1. Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren!

Doesn’t that feel great to say? PCCC members held “Draft Warren” house parties across Massachusetts, and tens of thousands of us signed a petition urging Elizabeth Warren to run for Senate. Then, we made 574,000 calls for her campaign and contributed more than $1.15 million dollars (through 69,000 grassroots donations) to help her win! As she said right after the election: “PCCC members were with me before there was a beginning. Thanks to you all.” Now we’ll stand with her as she holds Wall Street accountable from her position on the Senate Banking Committee!

#2. We Won…A Lot. Ai??

In 2012, over 30 of our endorsed candidates won races for Senate, House, Governor, and State Legislature. We supported these candidates with deep staffing and infrastructure help, phone calls, and volunteer hours. Over 1,000 media stories were written about our work this cycle. And through 250,000 small-dollar donations, we donated $2.7 million to candidates. PCCC members got a whopping 73% return on our investment. Compare that to Karl Rove, who got a 1% return on his investment. You are more politically savvy than Karl Rove. Congratulations!

Please consider being a $3 monthly donor to continue our effective activism in 2013.

#3. Call Out The Vote!

Over 3,200 volunteers made 2 million phone calls for progressive candidates through Call Out The Vote, our national phone program. Our ambitious goal was 1 million calls, but we doubled …

Preserving Social Security should never have been all that difficult.

But it took Harry Reid to settle the issue —at least as regards the miserably long and absurdly inappropriate debate of 2012.

“We’re not going to have any Social Security cuts,” the Senate majority leader said on the floor of the chamber Sunday. “It’s just doesn’t seem appropriate at this time.”… The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which did so much to strengthen the backbones of Reid and other Democrats, responded in with the proper mix of celebration and resolve. “Democrats stood firm — and Harry Reid declared from the Senate floor that no deal would pass this year that touched Social Security,” declared PCCC co-founders Stephanie Taylor and Adam Green in a message to the hundreds of thousands of PCCC members who contacted Congress with messages opposing any cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. “Today’s victory shows that activism works. In 2013, we’ll keep fighting any proposed cuts to these benefits.”

Social Security was worth fighting for in 2012.

And because activists prevailed—with an assist from Harry Reid—it will be worth fighting for in 2013.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Two weeks ago, President Obama put major Social Security benefits cuts on the table by endorsing the “chained CPI.” This policy wouldAi??lower cost-of-living adjustments for seniors on Social Security.

Hundreds of thousands of Progressive Change Campaign Committee members took action to defend Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In the past weeks, thousands of them called congressional offices demanding that these benefit cuts be taken off the table.

Now, it looks like we’ve succeeded. Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) denounced the inclusion of any Social Security benefit cuts in a short term agreement and flatly ruled them out after Republicans demanded them:

Earlier Sunday, negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suffered a ai???major setbackai??? after Republicans demanded the inclusion of a new method for calculating entitlement benefits as part of the cliff package, according to Democrats. […]

ai???The one thing I do want to mention is weai??i??re not going to have any Social Security cuts at this stage. That just doesnai??i??t seen appropriate,ai??? Reid said. ai???Weai??i??re willing to make difficult concessions as part of a balanced, comprehensive agreement, but will not agree to cut Social Security benefits as part of a smaller, short-term agreement, especially if that agreement gives more handouts to the rich.ai???

Today, in an email to PCCC members, we wrote, “Today’s victory shows that activism works. In 2013, we’ll keep fighting any proposed cuts to these benefits.”

We have a tiny staff, but we fight hard and think big. You can help continue our work in 2013 by making a $3 donation — or $3 monthly donation — here. Thanks so much!

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is urging Democrats to hold their “bright line position” on taxes and entitlements ahead of a meeting Friday in which President Obama will reportedly offer congressional leaders a scaled-back deal to avert the fiscal cliff.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Unemployment benefits for two million Americans are set to expire this year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refuses to allow a vote on the extension because he wants to see the benefits coupled with the extension of tax cuts for the rich as well as certain spending cuts.

Last month, the Democratic staff of the House Ways and Means Committee Ai??released a report looking at how many Americans would lose their benefits if they unemployment insurance was not extended. According to their research, as many as 24,000 Kentuckians will lose their benefits this week because of McConnell’s obstruction.

The state’s unemployment rate remains a very high 8.2 percent, and there simply aren’t enough jobs for everyone who is unemployed.

If the sequester goes into effect on January 1st, we will see over time a $500 billion reduction in security spending (which includes the Pentagon and State Department) over a ten year period.

In Politico this morning, defense lobbyists who make their money from large military spending are sounding increasingly worried about these cuts becoming a reality.

But remember that Pentagon spending is the largest portion of discretionary spending, and that the United States spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

In fact, leading defense experts from the right and left have actually recommended that we Ai??cut military expenditures by twice the amount that the sequester reduces spending. In 2010, Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) assembled the Sustainable Defense Task Force (SDTF) to look at the Pentagon budget.

They brought together experts from the right-wing Cato Institute, the fiscally conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Center for American Progress (which was represented on the commission by Reagan Pentagon official Lawrence Korb), and other organizations to look at what America’s real defense needs in the 21st century are.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force concluded that the United States can and should safely trim its military budget by $1 trillionover the next ten years. It ends its report by writing, “Our military budget should be sized to defend us.Ai??For this end, we do not need to spend $700 billion aAi??year ai??i?? or anything close. We can be safe for much less/”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

Ever since President Obama put Social Security benefit cuts via the “chained CPI” on the table last week, there has been an uprising from progressive groups and Members of Congress opposed to this change.

On Friday, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) protested the proposal on Facebook, saying he has never supported it in his 20 years ofAi??serviceAi??and that he is “not about to start now”:

We set up an ActBlue page to highlight and reward bold progressive members of Congress who are speaking out publicly today.Ai??Check them out and donate $3 to them here.

Click hereAi??to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable.

Click hereAi??to call your Member of Congress and demand that they oppose this bad deal.

Photo credit: Flickr user Cherrysweetdeal

With six days to go before January 1st and both Clinton tax rates and the spending sequester takes effect, some in Washington are desperate to cut a deal, even if it’s a bad deal that involves painful cuts to Social Security benefits.

CNN reports that Starbucks CEOAi??Howard Schultz has written a letter to his chain’s 120 stores in the Washington, D.C. area to ask employees there to write “Come Together” on coffee cups on Thursday and Friday.

“Rather than be bystanders, you and your customers have an opportunity — and I believe we all have a responsibility — to send our elected officials a respectful but potent message, urging them to come together to find common ground,” Schultz wrote in his letter to the stores. He also apparently cited Fix The Debt, the powerful corporate front group that has been pushing for an agreement to cut Social Security benefits and lower corporate tax rates for months.

In a statement to CNN, the company stressed that these messages are voluntary.

But by even asking employees to voluntarily influence lawmakers to reach an agreement, Schultz is inappropriately pressuring them to take a political stand they may not agree with. For example, some of these employees may benefit from veterans or Social Security benefits that are at risk of being cut in a bad deal.

Starbucks employees should be able to decide for themselves what politics they endorse and should not be asked to write these messages as a part of their employment.

UPDATE: Read the full letter from Schultz here. It claims, without evidence, that the United States is experiencing a debt “crisis.” Schultz also pivots from sympathy for the Sandy Hook massacre to the need to come together to address this so-called “crisis.”

UPDATE …

Join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign.

They say that the most important thing to a Member of Congress is getting re-elected. But many care much more about what they do after they leave office — which often involves getting a well-paying lobbying job. Approximately half of retired Members become lobbyists.

There is currently a law that bars departing Senators from becoming registered lobbyists for two years. In an interview released today, former Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett complained about this “cooling off” period and said it’s a “really bad idea” designed to suppress his “constitutional rights”:

He now calls the two-year ban a “really bad idea” and part of the “let’s-punish-politicians-for-being-politicians attitude.”

“Lobbying is a constitutionally sanctioned activity, right in the First Amendment next to the freedom of the press,” Bennett told the Tribune. “I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t exercise my constitutional rights.”

He went on to say that the “whole notion that there is somehow inappropriate influence” exerted by former lawmakers becoming lobbyists “is a myth.”

First of all, no court in the nation has attempted to strike down cooling off periods. There is no constitutional right for a former lawmaker to be able to register as a lobbyist whenever they want.

And Bennett hasn’t been waiting, anyway. He hasn’t registered as a lobbyist, but he has set up his own consulting firm,Ai??Bennett Consulting Group, and works for Arrent Fox, a D.C. law and lobbying firm. Through these channels, he’s already been influence peddling.

Lastly, it’s difficult to imagine that it’s simply a myth that former lawmakers have the most influence as lobbyists. There is a reason corporations like UnitedHealthcare and BP sought out former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and why the for-profit college industry has

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Following the failure of the House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) “Plan B,” it’s clear that any plan that passes the House will not be able to pass with only Republican support.

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) made this clear in a statement that re-iterated that House Progressives have leverage and should use it: “With Republicans in Congress unable to even ask millionaires to pay their fair share, any agreement to meet our year-end deadlines will now need the support of progressives to pass.”

Recall that Congressional Progressive CaucusAi??released a statement earlier this week saying that they will believe that “Social Security to chained CPI is a benefit cut and members of the CPC will not vote for a deal that cuts the benefits that millions of Americans rely on.”

We set up an ActBlue page to highlight and reward bold progressive members of Congress who are speaking out publicly today.Ai??Check them out and donate $3 to them here.

Click hereAi??to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable.

Click hereAi??to call your Member of Congress and demand that they oppose this bad deal.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee says a majority of House Democrats have pledged to vote against any budget deal that includes the “chained CPI” Social Security cut. The PCCC’s conclusion is based on a count of signatures on a 2011 letter and a statement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus this week.

(Photo source: Flickr user DonkeyHotey)

Defiant House Progressives and progressive organizations have been speaking out against Obama’s proposal to cut Social Security and veterans benefits with a “chained CPI.”

In 2011, 66 House Democrats who still serve today signed a letter saying “cutting Social Securityai??i??s already modest benefits is unacceptable and we will reject any legislation that extends the chained CPI to Social Security, veterans and disability, or childrenai??i??s benefits.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which represents 75 Members,Ai??issued an official statement this week saying that “tying Social Security to chained CPI is a benefit cut and members of the CPC will not vote for a deal that cuts the benefits that millions of Americans rely on.”

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), the incoming chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, is on both lists, and issued her own powerful statement yesterday against these cuts.

At the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, we did a cross-check of the two lists and found that 96 sitting and voting Members (we excluded non-voting delegates) of the House Democratic caucus have signed onto statements either last year or this year saying they would not vote for legislation that uses chained CPI to cut benefits. That’s a majority of the caucus, which includes 191 members.

Here are the names of these 96 Members:

Ed Pastor (AZ)
RaA?l Grijalva (AZ)
Lynn Woolsey (CA)
George Miller (CA)
Barbara Lee (CA)
Pete Stark (CA)
Janice Hahn (CA)
Michael Honda (CA)
Sam Farr (CA)
Xavier Becerra (CA)
Judy Chu (CA)
Karen Bass (CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
Maxine Waters (CA)
Laura Richardson (CA)
Linda SA?nchez (CA)
Jared Polis (CO)
Rosa DeLauro (CT)
Corrine Brown (FL)
Frederica Wilson (FL)
Hank Johnson (GA)
John Lewis (GA)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Bobby Rush (IL)
Luis Gutierrez (IL)
Danny Davis (IL)
Jan Schakowsky (IL)
AndrAi?? Carson (IN)
Dave Loebsack (IA)
Chellie Pingree (ME)
Donna Edwards (MD)
Elijah Cummings (MD)
John Olver (MA)
Jim McGovern (MA)
Barney Frank (MA)
John Tierney …

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)

In July 2011, during the debt ceilingAi??negotiations, Ai??70 House Democrats signed a letter saying the following: “Cutting Social Security’s already modest benefits is unacceptable and we will reject any legislation that extends the chained CPI to Social Security, veterans and disability, or children’s benefits.”

Here’s a copy of that letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD):

SS Medicare Letter to Obama July 2011 

Here are the 66 Democrats who signed that letter who still serve:

Reps. JoeAi??Baca (CA), Robert Brady (PA) , Rep. Corrine Brown (FL), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Andre Carson (IN), Kathy Castor (FL), Judy Chu (CA), Donna Christensen (VI), Yvette Clarke (NY), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Mark Critz (PA), John Conyers (MI), Elijah Cummings (MD), Danny Davis (IL), Peter DeFazio (OR), Rosa DeLauro (CT), Ted Deutch (FL), Keith Ellison (MN), Eliot Engel (NY), Ai??Sam Farr (CA), Barney Frank (MA), Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), Alcee Hastings (FL), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Mike Honda (CA), Rush Holt (NJ), Al Green (FL), Gene Green (TX), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Dale Kildee (MI), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (IL), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Jim McDermott (WA), Ed Markey (MA), Doris Matsui (DA), Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Jim McGovern (MA), Brad Miller (NC), Gwen Moore (WI), Jerry Nadler (NY), Grace Napolitano (CA), Elanor Holmes Norton (DC), John Olver (MA), Frank Pallone (NJ), Jim Pascrell (NJ), Chellie Pingree (ME), Nick Rahall (WV), Silvestre Reyes (TX), Laura Richardson (CA), Steve Rothman (NJ), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), Bobby Rush (IL), Gregorio Sablan (NMI), Jan Schakowsky (IL), BobbyAi?? Scott (VA), Louise …

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH)

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) is no fan of Obama’s proposal to cut Social Security and veterans benefits with a “chained CPI.” Here’s what she said on FacebookAi??late yesterday:

Letai??i??s call it for what it is; the chained CPI index is a reduction in Social Security benefits over time, a benefit older Americans earned through a lifetime of hard work. The notion that seniors need less of an increase because they can reduce their living expenses is out of touch with reality. Health care costs consume a disproportionate share of their meager income and those costs continue to rise faster than inflation. Ai??Moreover, since Social Security benefits do not contribute one dime to the national debt, they have no place in deficit reduction negotiations. I will not throw Americaai??i??s seniors over the cliff to avoid the fiscal cliff.

We set up an ActBlue page to highlight and reward bold progressive members of Congress who are speaking out publicly today.Ai??Check them out and donate $3 to them here.

Click hereAi??to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable.

Click hereAi??to call your Member of Congress and demand that they oppose this bad deal.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) opposes President Obama’s proposal to cut Social Security and veterans benefits with a “chained CPI.” In fact, he says that making no deal at all before January 2013 would be preferable. Here’s why:

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) was even more terse. He warned it is better to go over the cliff on Dec. 31 rather than reach an agreement that includes the Social Security cuts. DeFazio said the current CPI, though imperfect, is better than the chained CPI. He asked what motivation there is for Democrats to fight for what, in their eyes, is the worse deal.

“On Jan. 1, if we do nothing, seniors get a full COLA [cost-of-living-allowance] ai??i?? and Lloyd Blankfein pays more in taxes,” DeFazio said, referring to the head of Goldman Sachs. “If we do nothing, seniors don’t get stuck with this deal.”

We set up an ActBlue page to highlight and reward bold progressive members of Congress who are speaking out publicly today.Ai??Check them out and donate $3 to them here.

Click hereAi??to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable.

Click hereAi??to call your Member of Congress and demand that they oppose this bad deal.

Congressman-elect Alan Grayson (D-FL)

Bold progressive Congressman-elect Alan Grayson (D-FL) just publishedAi??a long Facebook note protesting Obama’s endorsement of the chained CPI to cut Social Security and veterans benefits. He labels the proposal as “undeserved, unwise, unfair.” Read the full note:

Let me get right to the point. I’m against the proposed “chained CPI” cut in Social Security because it substantially undermines the protection against inflation that Social Security recipients enjoy under current law. The existing cost of living adjustment (“COLA”) already understates actual increases in the “cost of living”; the chained CPI would exacerbate the problem.

I understand that the vast majority of Americans — including, quite possibly, most people reading this – have no burning desire to learn anything about the chained CPI. It has, however, become a major part of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, and so it has become one of those things that people have to learn about, for their own protection.

Where we are now in the fiscal cliff negotiations is that Speaker Boehner is talking about reducing the federal deficit in the exact same way that Governor Romney did – Boehner says that he wants to, but he won’t tell us how. President Obama, boxed in by the poll-driven sense that he must-must-must propose something “balanced,” is “balancing” the reduction of tax breaks for the rich against the reduction of the protection that seniors have against inflation. On the merits, however, reducing that protection is undeserved, unwise and unfair.

Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted each year to reflect increases in the cost of living, as determined by the consumer price index (CPI). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the CPI each month.

Here is how the “chained CPI” would change things: Let’s say that the cost of gasoline tripled, from …

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) just went to the floor of the House of Representatives and denounced President Obama’s proposed Social Security benefit cut, saying that it would induce seniors into having to eat “cat food” to survive:

KUCINICH: Will Seniors be pushed off the ai???fiscal cliffai??i??? Social Security did not cause the deficit, but the White Houseai??i??s plan to lower Social Security cost-of-living benefits could eventually reduce Seniorsai??i?? annual benefits by hundreds of dollars. The gimmick is called the ai???Chained Consumer Price Index.ai??i?? The Chained C.P.I. works this way:Ai?? As the cost-of-living goes up, seniors inevitably turn to cheaper alternatives.

ai???For example, if seniors usually eat steak but then canai??i??t afford its higher price, they can switch to something cheaper, like cat food- – and the cost-of-living calculation would be ai???chainedai??i?? to the cheaper item – -Ai?? cat food. So, the less you pay for food the less benefits you get. The ai???chained CPIai??i?? benefit cut will chain aging seniors to a poverty of choices, a lower standard of living, with cheaper products.

ai???The chained CPI formula doesnai??i??t take into account seniorsai??i?? rising health care costs. If it did benefits would go up. There is no justification to cut Social Security benefits. No to throwing seniors off the fiscal cliff.Ai?? No to a Cat Food Christmas.ai???

Watch it:

We set up an ActBlue page to highlight and reward bold progressive members of Congress who are speaking out publicly today.Ai??Check them out and donate $3 to them here.

Click hereAi??to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable.

Click hereAi??to call your Member of Congress and demand that they oppose this bad deal.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)

President Obama has agreed to a fiscal deal that enacts a so-called ai???Chained CPIai??? to calculate Social Security and veteransai??i?? benefits. Under this plan, beneficiaries would get cuts in their cost of living adjustments.Ai??Last night, a defiant Congressional Progressive Caucus ai??i?? with 75 Members in the House ai??i??Ai??vowed to voteAi??against such a deal, calling it a definite ai???benefit cut.ai???

It’s important to remember that leading House Democrats — Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Vice Caucus Chair Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) — actually denounced chained CPI in 2011 during an event on June 22 in HVC Studio A of the Capitol Visitors Center.

Becerra [Federal News Service, 6/22/11]:

So at a time when seniors are depending more and more on Social Security, at a time that their basic income goes primarily towards basic needs, the COLA change through the chain CPI would take away more of their Social Security benefits. And so it’s not only a backdoor way to make cuts to Social Security, it’s an underhanded way to make cuts to Social Security.Ai??And when you put it in the context of deficit reduction, when Social Security has contributed not a dime to the deficit, it’s unconscionable. And so we’re here to say, hands off of everyone’s Social Security. Let’s strengthen it, not privatize it.

Crowley [Federal News Service, 6/22/11]:

I hear about it every day when I’m home from the seniors and veterans that I represent. And now, we’re seeing a push by some in Washington to put a permanent cut on any possible future cost-of- living increase for Social Security and veterans’ benefits through an only-in-Washington idea known as chained CPI. This should — more accurately called the “chainsaw” CPI. Now, this may all sound like funny …

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

There are now multiple press reports that President Obama will agree to a fiscal deal that enacts a so-called ai???Chained CPIai??? to calculate Social Security and veteransai??i?? benefits. Under this plan, beneficiaries would get cuts in their cost of living adjustments.Ai??Outraged Congressional DemocratsAi??have been speaking out for days against these cuts. A defiant Congressional Progressive Caucus — with 75 Members in the House — vowed to vote against such a deal, calling it a definite “benefit cut.”

During an interview on The Young Turks’ Cenk UygurAi??last night, Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) reiterated his opposition to chained CPI and benefit cuts, saying that his caucus will not vote for a deal that has them:

ELLISON: Well the first thing that we can do is to let them know that we will not be voting for any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We’ve already fired off a whole number of missives on that exact point, we’re making our position very clear, we’re organizing caucus members, we’ve got a letter with 102 people on it, saying that we will not vote for anything that cuts Social Security, communicating that to our leadership and the White House. We’re firm on that. We’re talking internally to make sure the people are going to stay strong. And that’s what we’re doing, we’re letting folks know where we stand so they can go back and recalculate and come up with something else. Because we’re not going to solve these fiscal problems of the backs of the seniors, of the disabled, of the survivors.

Watch it:

There has been intense unity among progressive organizations on this point of opposing a deal that cuts Social Security benefits. The AFL-CIO said Congress should ai???reject any cuts to …

There are now multiple press reports that President Obama will agree to a fiscal deal that enacts a so-called ai???Chained CPIai??? to calculate Social Security and veteransai??i?? benefits. Under this plan, beneficiaries would get cuts in their cost of living adjustments. Outraged Congressional Democrats have been speaking out for days against these cuts.

The cuts to Social Security benefits under such a recalculation would amount to about $112 billion over ten years.

Let’s put this in perspective. In the offer Obama gave to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), he also put $100 billion of Pentagon spending cuts on the table for the same period.

That means that Obama offered to cut a program that doesn’t add a penny to the deficit — Social Security — by more than the single largest drain on discretionary spending, the Pentagon.

We did polling in the swing states of New Hampshire and Virginia and found that voters overwhelmingly oppose cuts to Social Security benefits while they support cutting defense spending.

Obama should listen to the people.

We set up an ActBlue page to highlight and reward bold progressive members of Congress who are speaking out publicly against Social Security benefit cuts.Ai??Check them out and donate $3 to them here.

Click hereAi??to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable.

Click hereAi??to call your Member of Congress and demand that they oppose this bad deal.

CPC Co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) made clear he will oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits and vote against a deal that includes them.

Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she would support President Obama’s proposed Social Security benefit cuts — even arguing that using the “chained CPI” would not be a benefit cutAi??after previously telling President Obama “that House Democrats will not vote for any trims to future benefits in Medicare or Social Security, even a tweak to the cost-of-living index,”Ai??according to her hometown paper.

A defiant Congressional Progressive Caucus ai??i?? which hasAi??75 MembersAi??in the House ai??i?? pushed back, releasing a statement declaring:

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are standing up against a proposal to cut Social Security benefits by changing the way we calculate inflation…Tying Social Security to chained CPI is a benefit cut and members of the CPC will not vote for a deal that cuts the benefits that millions of Americans rely on.

This Progressive Caucus statement follows similarly bold statements from individual Caucus members in the preceding 36 hours. Some are below (emphasis added):

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), CPC co-chair:

“Chained CPI makes life harder for millions of retirees, weakens Social Security and doesnai??i??t reduce the deficit by a penny. Itai??i??s a Beltway fig leaf that I will never support, and I call on my colleagues to make their feelings known as soon as possible before this becomes yet another piece of conventional wisdom that makes things worse.”

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI):

“I will vote against any agreement that imposes cuts to already modest Social Security benefits and does not ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.”

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA):

“Reducing cost of living adjustments is a Social Security benefit cut. Any deal that cuts Social …