Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

Earlier this week, President Obama offered 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.

There has been an intense backlash among congressional Democrats, but two members of the Senate Democratic caucus — Joe Lieberman (CT) and Kent Conrad (ND) — have indicated that they would be supportive of this cut to Social Security benefits.

The two share one common trait — they’re both retiring. They do not have to face accountability to voters, and they both will have the option of taking lucrative lobbying jobs Ai??which will pad their retirements. Earlier this year, Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) office specifically refused to disclose any job negotiations he’s having for his post-Senate career.

As The Atlantic’s Molly Ball argues, Conrad and Lieberman’s retirements clear the path for a new class of Democratic Senators who are more progressive: “North Dakota’s old Democratic senator was the moderate Kent Conrad; its new Democratic senator, Heidi Heitkamp, campaigned on a platform of ending tax cuts for millionaires and protecting Social Security from cuts.” As she notes, “Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is out; Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, is in.”

Our polling in key swing states and President Obama’s home state of Illinois showed that voters overwhelmingly opposed cuts to Social Security benefits, and that they support Elizabeth Warren’s “balanced approach” of cutting military spending and corporate welfare while making the rich pay their fair. Voters gave these new Members of Congress a progressive mandate.

One would only hope that Lieberman and Conrad do not want their final legacy in the Senate to be one of helping hurt America’s retirees and veterans.

We set up an ActBlue page …

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)

In an interview with the Washington Post’s Suzy Khimm, North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said that it would be “fair and balanced” to raise the Medicare age, which would require a huge cut in benefits to American seniors:

KHIMM: Obama has already suggested raising the retirement age for Medicare. Should that be the starting point for thinking about entitlement savings?

I wouldnai??i??t want that to be the starting point, but as part of an overall package, thatai??i??s balanced and fair. Given that we now have exchanges to purchase insurance because of the presidentai??i??s health-care reform law, it makes it much more acceptable, much more reasonable, over a long period of time to gradually increase the age given that people are living so much longer.

As ThinkProgress’s Igor Volsky writes, raising the Medicare age would create an enormous burden on seniors:

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, raising the eligibility age to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare. Seniors in Medicare Part B would also face a 3 percent premium increase, the study found, since younger and healthier enrollees would be routed out of Medicare and into private insurance. Beneficiaries in health care reformai??i??s exchanges would see a similar spike in premiums with the addition of the older population.

Medicare isn’t the driver of our budget deficits — two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and Wall Street’s recession are responsible for most of our debt. It’s simply unfair to ask American seniors to pay for a problem they did not cause.

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren has an alternative, truly “balanced” approach. During a campaign debate last month, she laid out a popular, credible …