Pelosi turning her back on defending Medicare and Social Security?
WASHINGTON -- Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.
But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.
During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, the California Congresswoman said that she would support what's known as the Simpson-Bowles plan, a budget proposal that was created by the co-chairs of a fiscal commission set up by President Obama (dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by progressives). The plan was rejected by members of the commission, failing to win the necessary votes to move to a vote in Congress. Yet the co-chairs -- former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Morgan Stanley director Erskin Bowles, a Democrat -- have worked recently to revive it, and the political class speaks of it as if it passed and is an official recommendation of the commission.
This is an absolute disaster if true. Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) have also said that large cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will always be on the table in budget negotiations.
Tell our leadership that this is NOT acceptable!
President Barack Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
202-456-1111 - ph
202-456-2461 – fx
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
309 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-2152 - ph
202-228-0400 - fx
Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Democratic Whip
http://www.democraticwhip.gov/content/email-whip
1705 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-4131 - ph
202-225-4300 - fx
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Democratic Leader
http://www.democraticleader.gov/contact
Office of the Democratic Leader
H-204, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100 - ph
Democratic National Committee
http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
= new reply since forum marked as read
You are taking all the fun out of the fear-mongering and shit stirring. Just an FYI. 
Julie
There's a whole cadre on DU who have made a profession of duping. 
into RW talking points and literally filling in blanks and making inferences as fact in support of some agenda. Boggles the mind.
Simpson-Bowles was a commission that generated a document that was rejected. Support of a committee to look at the deficit and make recommendations then suddenly gets juxtaposed into rote support of the rejected recommendations, which is nothing more than pure spin.
I agree that the party needs to move more and more left but that requires more progressives in congress and that is the essence of the problem. Nancy Pelosi is not my congressperson, Chakah Fattah is, so I am not as personally wrapped up in her as you appear to be.
...but goes a LONG way to explaining WHY there are always just enough defectors from the Party
to continually advance the Agenda of the 1%.
It also brings into question those election season claims of
"They voted with The Democratic Party 91% of the time.".
That is not enough.
The 9% (or even 1%) of the times they voted against the Democratic Party need to be examined and explained.
It helps explain those mysterious Out-of-Character votes that regularly stun DUers
and precipitate the traditional threads of,
"I can't understand that vote.
They are usually so reliable."
I used to believe that a politician's voting record was the End ALL Argument touchstone,
but not anymore.
After watching this game for several decades, my cynicism has been hard earned.
How many times have we almost had enough votes,
but had the agenda derailed by that inexplicable vote of somebody who "votes with The party 91% of the time?" 
Hey! You almost won that time.