So Peter, you respond to criticism of your signing a “bipartisan” letter to the Super Catfood Committee by saying you are trying to “engage” them on the important issues they're dealing with.  Um, this really isn't engagement.  The letter is as non-specific and non-engaging as my sending you a letter saying:

We need you to be a good Congressman.  There are a variety of things you need to do, and should do all you can.  Kthxbai.

All you've done is waste some good Congressional stationery whilst reaffirming the worst possible aspects of this manufactured debate, to the exclusion of the more immediately important jobs crisis.  The justifications you present are less compelling than you and your staff clearly think:

1) Those of us concerned about ensuring economic security and maintaining vital human services programs need to step into the fray as the committee seeks consensus.  

Indeed, we should step into the fray.  Do that not by restating generalities but by staking out some ground, like…

For example, rather than cutting Medicare benefits, we should be urging the committee to adopt reforms that will make Medicare sustainable for current recipients and future generations.  We should empower the federal government to negotiate with big pharmaceutical companies over the price of Medicare prescription drugs.  Right now, due to a deal the Tom Delay Congress struck with Pharma, the federal government is explicitly forbidden from using its bulk purchasing power to get a better deal for seniors and taxpayers.  Doing so would save $160 billion over the next 10 years.  We should also root out widespread Medicare fraud by assigning a U.S. attorney to every congressional district to stop unscrupulous actors in the health care industry from taking advantage of seniors to illegally line their pockets.  Finally, we should adopt a more sustainable provider payment system pioneered by Vermont that rewards health care providers for good health outcomes rather than for the number procedures they can perform.

This sounds great!  Then sign a letter that says that, not one that says everything–which, you know, includes Rep Paul Ryan's plan to gut Medicare, Rep Ron Paul's fantasy of eliminating Social Security, Sen Jeff Sessions' modest proposal to “rein in” food stamps, etc–should be on the table.

2) The letter calls for the committee to take a balanced approach that includes sacrifice from those who can most afford it.

I'm squinting very, very hard, yet I can't seem to see anywhere in the letter that indicates sacrifice should come from those can most afford it.  Is that some classified stuff written with invisible ink on your fancy paper?

And let's talk about “balance” for just a moment.  Would that be anything like the 83% spending cuts vs 17% revenue increases that the GOP rejected because it wasn't exactly the 85:15 they proposed?  Or the 60:40 ratio of Democrats to Republicans who indicate some possibility of making burgers out of their own sacred cows?  That strikes me as the very definition of imbalanced.

40 Republicans signed this letter in the face of rabid Tea Party opposition.  That is a gutsy move that I hope will lead to far less pressure to slash vital human services programs.

Don't speak of anybody beholden to the Tea Party as gutsy until somebody actually says on the floor that the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest should expire, and votes accordingly (amongst other things).  Even then, I'm not sure I would call it gutsy to do what is the objectively right thing that also just so happens to had the support of most Americans in 2010 and still has majority support in 2011.

3) A failure of the Super Committee to reach agreement by November 23 will trigger automatic and indiscriminate across-the-board cuts in the very programs we have fought to create and fund over the years, including education, child care, child nutrition, health care, and the environment.  That is an unacceptable outcome.

I'm fairly certain there is nothing “automatic” about the process.  And of course, the whole deficit thing is a red herring anyway.  Jobs are job one, so you're simply continuing the charade by joining this chorus.

Look, I get you have to work with these people, cast votes that look weird to us outside the sausage-making process, do stuff behind the scenes, etc.  I get that things look simpler to your constituents than it looks to you at times.  What you need to get is that you send very loud signals to us when you sign such letters.  What we need from you is a loud, unequivocal signal that you will not be party to any “balance” or “consensus” amongst your elite colleagues that threaten 99% of your voters.

khxbai,

ntodd

PS–Reminder for constituents: emails aren't great, but can allow you to provide details that would be hard to communicate over the phone.  Calls are slightly better outreach because they require a little more direct personal engagement, but get filtered by staff quite a bit.  Letters tend to be the best of the three remote contact methods, but still fairly passive.  

Not sure this rises to need for occupation, but how about in-person lobbying of staff to get a phonecall with the Congressman and/or a meeting with Peter when Congress is in recess?  For starters, anyway.  The more skin we have the game, the more likely he'll understand our concerns and act appropriately.