David Schweikert too Conservative even for GOP and Sacked from House Committee

[stephen431]

Schweikert was on Morning Joe today discussing his removal from the Financial Services Committee. He makes a pretty interesting statement about 2 minutes into the video where he says he has to choose between groups on the right that support him who want to "go to war" for ideology, or on the other side he has "issues like the fiscal cliff that are important to the survival of the country".
I couldn't find anything in the video where he mentions Arizona or his constituents.

Video is linked below.
GOP civil war? Ousted conservatives not going quietly

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by stephen431

Schweikert was on Morning Joe today discussing his removal from the Financial Services Committee. He makes a pretty interesting statement about 2 minutes into the video where he says he has to choose between groups on the right that support him who want to "go to war" for ideology, or on the other side he has "issues like the fiscal cliff that are important to the survival of the country".
I couldn't find anything in the video where he mentions Arizona or his constituents.

Video is linked below.
GOP civil war? Ousted conservatives not going quietly

He not only does not mention his Arizona constituents, but really slaps them into their face. We have higher poverty rates here combined with below-average wages. We also have less state or local programs for the old-age poor than in many states. Yet he cannot cut their medicare and social security programs fast enough. Talk about a politician in the pockets of his fat cat money donors, who couldn't care less about these programs with millions to spare while at the same time forcing the majority of his constituents to work until death.
And it could not be a worse time for these cuts than now. When 401ks were first introduced in the late 70s (I Think), 70% of American workers employed by large companies also had a pension plan. Now, it is down to 7%. So many many more people have to rely on 401ks and Social Security than a generation back. The 401ks of most workers are negligable. To top this off, Arizona is a small-company economy with large companies very scarce. Our small companies often do not even offer retirement plans at all, making Social Security even more important. Lastly, over the last 30-35 years almost all income gains went to the upper 10% - roughly 90% of the real-income gains since the mid- 70s went to the upper 10%, with the remaining 90% of us sharing just 10% (a huge contrast to the 45-75 period btw). That also means the median and average income households lost income in real terms in the last 30-35 years. Their ability to save for retirement -and again in our Arizona economy that largely means on their own without company benefits- has been steadily eroded, if it was there to begin with at all. How can any reasonable person, lest a politician, in such a situation talk about "entitlement reduction"? - The only explanation possible is if such a person would be hell-bend on completely destroying the American dream for the vast majority of his constituents by sacrificing it at the altar of the super-rich and special interest groups. Whatever scraps of the dream are still there for Average Joe and Average Jane - he wants to take it away. It is not enough that for more than a generation only the rich have real income gains, because the average constituent may yet still be able to retire at 67. Let's take that away asap as well. Take it all for the sake of the top 10%. It is never enough for them. Finally, Scrooge has found his true master.