Claire, Claire, Claire. Just a month ago you were teaming up with Republicans on a radical, (and "lazy" and "unrealistic") spending cuts bill. You said it was a "bold step" that might cost you your job, but "it's a price I'm willing to pay for my country. And it's a price I'm willing to pay for my grandchildren."

Just a reminder of what that proposal would do:

All the Corker-McCaskill plan entails is a cap on overall government spending at 20.6 percent of GDP. But how will we get from the current 24 percent of GDP down below the cap? McCaskill and Corker don’t lay out any ideas! Perhaps that’s because actually adhering to the cap would require massive cuts in Social Security and Medicare or else draconian gutting of the rest of the budget, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted. In fact, McCaskill and Corker’s cap would actually hold federal spending below the level at which it was under President Reagan, even though there are now tens of millions more seniors reliant on Social Security and Medicare than there were in the 1980′s....

But now this is what you're telling constituents in a fundraising letter: "I don't think anyone is going to propose cutting Social Security benefits—if they do, I'll vote against those cuts."

Hopefully this is a real conversion. Your letter says, "Last week I sent you a survey to get your input on budget priorities, and over 5,000 folks responded. I can't tell you how helpful your feedback has been—especially right now, as fellow Democrats and I are doing everything we can to avert a disastrous government shutdown." Hopefully that feedback from your constituents has changed your mind, and you'll end your participation in the radical and dangerous Corker-McCaskill proposal. It'd be good to know that you're listening to your constituents (and would-be financial contributors). Keep that part up. Ditch Corker.