Alan Grayson: Social Security benefit cuts will prompt civil disobedience

>I don’t think the Bigs (and the congressional faces who do their bidding) understand the amount of rejection in the country for benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Benefit cuts to any of these programs is hugely unpopular. In fact, huge majorities support increasing benefits, not lowering them, even if it means that everyone pays higher FICA taxes (click to see the stunning data on that).
And yet Mr. Hope-and-Change Obama, his Robert Rubin–friends, and his billionaire partner-in-crime Pete Peterson persist in trying to ram some kind of benefits cuts bill through Congress — confusingly and misleadingly tying to the deficit, or the budget, or lost kittens, or something.
I’ve been warning for weeks that if they succeed in passing a bipartisan benefits bill, most of the Congress types who vote for it will lose … their … jobs. My message to them has been consistent:

I’m doing you a favor, folks. Think before you act. Thinking after you act will be too late.
There aren’t enough K Street lobbying positions for all of you, if all of you hit the resale market on the same day. I don’t want to say “I told you so.” I want to tell you now — this will not end the way Barack Obama (who will never face election again) and Steny Hoyer are telling you it will end. It will end ugly, for you.

Now here’s Alan Grayson to say it will get uglier than that. Benefits cuts will lead to real “civil disobedience.” And it won’t be just hippies with student loans and pup tents out there this time. It will be you and me — and also our parents, carrying walkers and two-by-fours, looking for congressional faces to talk seriously to.
Listen as Alan Grayson talks with David Shuster and Daniel Marans on WeActRadio:

Grayson (at 2:42 in the clip): “If they come through with cuts, people will come pouring into the streets … And what’s the point? Under current law, benefits will be paid out for the next 25 years. Minor tweaks would make that forever.”
Yep. And the most effective of those minor tweaks? Removing the salary cap — not raising it, removing it — so Pete Peterson’s salary is FISA-taxed at the same rate as his janitor’s. How simple is that?