My, how the times have changed. Here's a "Save Social Security" rally in 2005, when Steny "Let's Raise the Retirement Age" Hoyer and Dick "Bleeding Hearts Should Be Open To Cuts" Durbin were defending the program from any possible threats. Now they're falling over each other in their eagerness to cut.

Somehow, I just knew it would be the Democrats that Wall Street finally lured into cutting Social Security - because they needed that "Nixon goes to China" cover. But could I just remind you that it's the wealthy who are living longer, not us? (They're the ones with the good health insurance.) So the next time they tell you they need to raise the retirement age, remember that.

Via Talking Points Memo:

It's the Democrats who have progressives feeling queasy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer explicitly put the idea on the table as well in a speech last month. "We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan," Hoyer said.

He echoed House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who put it this way: "With minor changes to the program such as raising the salary cap and raising the retirement age by one month every year, the program could become solvent for the next 75 years." One month a year may not sound like much, but if you're 30 years away from retirement, that adds up to almost three years.

In the House, though, Nancy Pelosi is the linchpin, and she's not nearly as enthusiastic as her colleagues. But, notwithstanding the enthusiasm gap, she also left the possibility of raising the retirement age on the table. When asked about it by TPMDC at her press conference last week, she criticized the plan, but mainly to say she disagrees with putting Social Security on the chopping block ahead of other measures. "Why they would start talking about a place that could be harmful to our seniors -- 70 is a relative age," Pelosi said. "Around here, there's not a lot of outdoor work or heavy lifting. But for some people it is, and 70 means something different to them. So in any event let's talk about growth, let's talk about how we can reduce spending, let's put everything, those initiatives: promoting growth, tightening the belt, looking at entitlements. But let's not start on the backs of our seniors."

There's one catch, though. Last week, Democrats included a rider to the supplemental war spending bill that will likely force the House to vote on a forthcoming fiscal reform plan, if the Senate passes it first. That package is being put together by President Obama's deficit and debt commission, and will be ready to go after the midterms. Pelosi had already pledged to give the package a vote, so perhaps nothing has really changed. But in a way, she also tied her own hands: if the Senate passes a broad tax-and-entitlement reform package at the end of this Congress and her own caucus is willing, she'll be hard-pressed to stop the Social Security reforms she thinks should come last.

Of course, that puts the onus on the Senate, which can't pass much of anything these days,especially if it includes tax hikes -- and any serious effort to pull the country back from the brink of fiscal crisis will have to include some of those. But if there's a fluke, or an unexpected decision on the part of 60 senators to hold hands and jump together, it could happen swiftly, with very little notice.

Don't get mad, get organized! And call your congress critters every single time you read a story like this to tell them you don't support any cuts in Social Security -- and you won't vote for anyone who does.

Protesters riot yesterday in Toronto at the G20.

It's really, really simple. The rich crashed the world economy. They were bailed out, with their wealth having almost entirely recovered and corporate profits likewise have pretty much recovered. Now, at the G20, the world's leaders are discussing how to make regular people pay for the rich's follies.

The world's developed countries have built extensive public health systems, promised citizens a paycheck for life and erected a welter of protections around some industries and types of jobs. Now their leaders are conferring over a singular dilemma: how to take some of it back without undermining the economies they are trying to sustain.

You notice that somehow, no one is talking about going back to 1950's levels of progressive taxation, with a top rate around 90%. No, what they're talking about is making the middle class and the poor pay for the sins of the rich.

The key thing here to understand is this: there is no crisis for the rich or corporations anymore, therefore as far as they are concerned, there is no crisis.

Dick Durbin once said, ""And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

It's not just the banks, of course, they are just one of the apex predators of the current court system, along with the Pentagon, pharma and various other predators. The systems is simple enough — they take care of Congress, staffers and everyone else who matters, and those people take care of them. Even if a congress member is not reelected, if they went down doing the bidding of monied interests, they are taken care of. If they don't do the bidding of their masters, on the other hand, their post-Congress career will be much less pleasant.

At the G20, today, what is being discussed is how to take away what's left of your economic future. Ordinary Americans didn't see a pay raise in the last decade. Not only won't they see one this decade, they'll take a loss, and now even the European experiment in taking care of the population is on the chopping board.

This is your future being decided, and no, they don't think you have a say in it.

Dick Daley Santorum

via Atrios Santorum says Rove doesn't speak for him.

Isn't that a surprise, old "man on dog" himself is the first to jump ship. The Rude Pundit probably thinks Karl will have to send Rick to the basement. Actually I don't see a parallel because Durbin didn't do say wrong, while Rove smeared every liberal in the country. Duncan has a great sense of humor. Santorum said the right thing for a change, while the White House backed Rove's rant. John thinks tricky Ricky is someone desperate for re-election.

Meanwhile Sadly, No! has: Dick's Dream Vacation

Oh, darn. I was really looking forward to getting on my horse and going cross-country with my trusty six-shooter. Oh well!

Personally, I think the idea was a great one. In a time of constant right-wing hate directed against an African-American president, why wouldn't you want those patriots to take their guns across state lines? Why, a teabagging party, anti-abortion rally or a revolution might break out:

An amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines fell just short of passage Wednesday in a vote that revealed deep divisions among the Senate's Democrats.

Supporters included all but two Republicans and 20 Democrats, but the vote of 58 to 39 in favor fell two short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

Despite its defeat, the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), demonstrated the continuing power of the National Rifle Association and the gun rights issue in Congress. Rather than a setback, those backing the effort consider the vote a sign of strength for the Second Amendment and are planning more gun-related amendments to other legislation throughout the year. Afterward, Thune said he hopes the Senate will "reconsider this important issue" later this year.

It split not only Democrats, many of whom got to the Senate by supporting gun rights, but also the caucus's leadership: Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), campaigning for reelection in 2010, voted yes, while his top lieutenants, Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), led the push by liberal Democrats against the measure.

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence" they "are entitled to do so." It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.

DOWNLOADS: (1985)

PLAYS: (2468)

Embed

Former Bush State Dept official Philip Zelikow testified today about the closing of Guantanamo Bay. He compared it to the former prison known as Alcatraz, which was closed because of its horrendous reputation. He also feels that the U.S. could easily hold any prisoner from Guantanamo Bay, while Republicans are trying to claim otherwise with their usual fearmongering.

Zelikow: Guantanamo, in world public opinion, had become a toxic problem for the United States of America, and so we needed to address that as an issue in our foreign policy.

Dick Durbin asked if we could hold any transfers from Gitmo to federal correctional facilities in the United States safely, Zelikow answered:

Zelikow: Sir, we hold people who are far more dangerous in such institutions including quite dangerous terrorists like Ramzi Yousef, who's currently residing in a maximum security facility inside the US now. I'll also add that I've had the opportunity on behalf of one of the federal judges who have been working through the habeas petitions to be asked to examine classified files and provide expert advice on holding these folks and one of the things that strikes me now and struck me then is we have a vast amount of experience in how to judge the continued incarceration of highly dangerous prisoners since we do this with thousands of prisoners every month all over the United States including some really quite dangerous people. We routinely make these decisions...

I think the United States knows something about prisons, since we hold the most prisoners in the world. Sen. Jim Webb is setting his eyes squarely on reforming the prison system in America. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on Webb's proposal. Good for him.

And by holding Guantanamo detainees here, it would create more jobs for corrections workers wherever they are held.

Harry S Bush...This country is run by children.

Durbin said he challenged Bush’s analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that’s what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now - work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.

Bush, Durbin said, “reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response” and emphasized that he is “the commander in chief.” ...read on

This is just obscene. Durbin is much kinder than I would have been to him.

RaisingKaine has the rest of the story including more video from the floor with Allen--who looks and sounds guilty as sin while not even realizing that he had changed one word in the amendment...

Jane tells us about Dick Durbin's frustration:

"It's been reported that Dick Durbin was just on CSPAN deeply upset by this latest revelation and no wonder. It was Durbin who wrestled with his conscience, who couldn't tell the public during the run-up to war what he well knew because it was classified: that there was serious dissent within the intelligence community about whether or not WMDs actually existed...read on"

Booman Tribune has some great posts up today, but this one about Judy Miller's role in all of this is excellent.

Digby: This is not an honest administration and the idea of trusting that they are limiting their illegal national security activity only to "terrorists" is ludicrous, whether it's the NSA spying, Guantanamo, war profiteering or anything else.

Apparently to Pam from Atlas Shrugs- John and Jim Zogby are the same person, well not really, but who cares. The comment section is a hoot. (correction)- "Go Pamela!!!!" She is one of the big catches for Pajamas Media.

(Or should I say as Sen. Durbin did-Pajamaline-great video)

Incomprehensible demoralization says: "Oh, Pam, keep this up and no one's ever going to buy you that (*cough!*incredibly tacky!*cough!*) Cartier watch on your Amazon Wish List."

(Lynne sent me this clip)

Durbin tried to get Specter to challenge Bill Frist's assertion that Bush's wiretapping of US citizens was constitutional and legal.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Specter: I don't know. I don't have any basis for knowing because I don't know what the program does.

Isn't that great. Wouldn't he like to know what the program does? To Specter-not knowing what the administration is doing is obviously just fine with him.

That's odd coming from the man behind the "Magic bullet theory." You remember-the one he put forth to explain what happened to JFK during the Warren Commission. One would figure he would like to do a little more investigating on this issue with a past like that.