I Don't Like Obama's "Bipartisan Deficit Commission"....

[Junkdrawer]

Addressing action taken by the Senate on Tuesday, President Obama said he would proceed with plans to create a commission to reduce the federal budget deficit.

“Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans,” Obama said.

The failed proposal would have required Congress to accept or reject the commission’s recommendations without making changes, a provision designed to prevent lawmakers from dodging the most politically risky proposals.

...

Obama noted that the commission was modeled on a proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, and Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota.

...


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address--6.html

This commission will still most likely target Social Security and Medicare. The difference is that Obama's commission, unlike the infamous Gregg/Conrad commission, will not require a vote.

HOWEVER...

If we get, thanks to the new flood of corporate political spending, a Republican congress this fall, I'm sure they would LOVE to pass Social Security and Medicare cuts if Obama's name could be put on them.

Not Like.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DJ13]

2. Thanks, I hope that holds true

[Junkdrawer]

3. The Freeze and The Commission are two different things...

...

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html?pagewanted=7

[FreakinDJ]

5. BULLSHIT

[Junkdrawer]

8. I quoted the speech. Did you read it? n/t

[FreakinDJ]

9. He was talking about RAISING TAXES

To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

What makes you think the ONLY way to FIX some thing is to curtail benefits

[Junkdrawer]

10. Republicans on the "Bipartisan Commission" will have enough votes to block tax increases.

The Commission will call for phased in entitlement benefit reductions. Bet on it.

[FreakinDJ]

25. You might be "Pissing in the Wind" on that 1

Bush and the RATpubliCONs (sounds like the name of a Punk Band) couldn't touch Social Security even with all the supposed "Political Capitol" they thought they had after the 2004 elections.

The DEMs have been proposing "Raising the Cap" on SSI for years now as a means of Fixing Social Security. And if they tried to "Reduce Benefits" or alter these programs in any way they would meet even greater opposition then was used to flounder the "Bush and his Tour America Social Security Privatization Plan".

So NO - I don't think either party can curtail or significantly alter those programs without HUGE Public Outcry and lingering ramifications from Political Suicide

What the RATpubliCONs have been doing to "Undo Social Security" is absolutely NOTHING.

They want to do absolutely NOTHING and wait until the "Shit Hits the Fan" and scream and cry "Oh we told you so". I feel Obama is addressing that scenario BEFORE it happens. He is going to force the RATpubliCONs into providing a solution before it melts down, and with the American Tax-Payer's extreme opposition to curtailing these programs that only leaves the obvious avenue of "Raising the Cap on SSI" - raising Taxes on folks making in excess of $250 per year

[Mass]

6. No, he did not. He said that when talking about the budget freeze on discretionary spending.

The commission is explicitly to deal with these three issues.

Listen to the speech and get informed.

[Me.]

4. I Doubt That It Will End Up Having Any Effect

Too many members against it and too many hoops for it to jump through

[amborin]

7. nor i; ny times article on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7583169

[Make7]

11. If only there was some way for a President to prevent a bill from becoming law.... ( n/t )

[Junkdrawer]

12. Congress killed the Gregg/Conrad Commission. THEN Obama created....

a presidential commission to take its place.

[Make7]

16. Yes, I not only listened to the SOTU, I also read the quote from it in the OP.

 

“Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans,” Obama said.

I was referring to the fact the Congress is the branch in charge of spending, as alluded to in the following excerpt from the OP:

If we get, thanks to the new flood of corporate political spending, a Republican congress this fall, I'm sure they would LOVE to pass Social Security and Medicare cuts if Obama's name could be put on them.

If the President signs a bill into law that negatively impacts Social Security and/or Medicare benefits, his name would be on it. On the other hand, if he vetoes such a bill, then his name wouldn't be on it.
 

[Junkdrawer]

17. You bring up an excellent point....

Obama, by Executive Order, creates a commission...

A Republican Congress passes into law severe SS and Medicare cuts recommended by said commission.

Now....

Would Obama veto the findings of his own commission?

If he does, he gets trashed by Republicans as a someone "not serious about the deficit."

If he doesn't, he gets trashed by boomers (like me!) who paid our fair share and more into FICA only to have our benefits cut.

[Make7]

18. So he is not allowed to disagree with any recommendations if he creates the commission?

He wouldn't be vetoing "the findings of his own commission", he would be vetoing whatever bill Congress passed based on the commission's report - which may include some, all, or none of the recommendations of the commission.

As an adult, he is probably allowed to conclude whether ideas have merit or not, regardless of where those ideas originated.
 

[Junkdrawer]

19. Sure...but do you think that's how the media and Republicans would spin it?

Don't get me wrong. I'll be among those DEMANDING he veto it.

But since he chose to go down this road, I'm just saying how I see it playing out....

[Make7]

24. No matter what he does the Republicans will try to make him look bad.

And the media will be right there to give the Republicans air time and dutifully repeat what they say regardless of how misleading it is.

There are financial issues with Medicare right now and with Social Security in the not too distant future. Any changes are going to be unpopular with large segments of the American people, so Congress is unlikely to even seriously look at these issues. But there should be an in depth look at the problems to see if there are actually workable solutions to enhance the long term financial outlook of those programs. Small changes now will be easier than drastic changes when the problems are unavoidable.

Personally I think a very small revenue increase now is better than the drastic benefits cuts in a few decades that is likely to happen if nothing is done. There are a lot of problems in this country right now that could largely have been avoided if the political will could have been marshaled to tackle them earlier. A notable example would be Health Care Reform.

I'm not saying that this commission is not going to recommend cutting benefits in the very near future as a solution to a long term problem, but I think the long term problems do need to be looked at and I don't foresee Congress willing to even debate the issues anytime soon. The commission might turn out to be a huge mistake, but I cannot fault the notion that someone should be trying to study the problem and then recommend steps to improve the status quo.

Perhaps the President would have been better off not setting up a special commission, but rather have his own staff or the administrators of the various agencies look at things with a more limited scope. But he seems insistent on trying the bi-partisan approach even though it hasn't worked for him so far and definitely looks like it isn't likely to work in the future.
 

[mmonk]

13. I don't either. The DLC uses the word bipartisan to mean

they will approach entitlments in the same manner as the Republicans. It is essentially language of a lie. It is the lie that the deficit problems in this country are caused by too much spending on the welfare of the people instead of tax cuts and breaks and unchallenged spending on the MIC.

[Junkdrawer]

14. When Reagan increased my FICA taxes, they KNEW two things...

1.) The additional revenue would make up for the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy.

2.) Redeeming the "Trust Fund" would cause deficits in the out years.

Well, it's now the out years. So, of course now they're SHOCKED to find that Social Security and Medicare are "causing deficit spending".

[mmonk]

15. Yes although they don't mind deficit spending on the military

even taking it off the books. I'm tired of it all. This country needs at a minimum, a two party system. Despite what many call themselves, Democrat or Republican, the two parties are Reaganite parties and we are trapped.

[laughingliberal]

27. +1000 nt

[hfojvt]

23. agreed

that's a nice, concise summary of the problems with this proposal.

[Green_Lantern]

29. more money is spent on mandatory spending

So it's not a lie that the largest part of the budget goes to Medicare and SS. I'm not saying they should be blamed for the deficit, I just think any viable deficit reduction plan would have to deal with spending on these programs. Unless we can come up with over $1 trillion in govt. revenue.

[Green_Lantern]

20. I like this commission idea....

Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and defense are the biggest part of the budget and few politicians are willing to cut wasteful elements of these programs without fear of ticking off corporate lobbyists or being soft on defense and wanting to ration health care It'll take crafting of a deficit reduction plan out of the hands of spineless politicos.

[Junkdrawer]

21. I'm a boomer and for 30 years, I've paid more FICA taxes than any generation....

I've paid to support my parents and grandparents...

--- AND ----

I've paid to build up a "Trust Fund"

And now it looks like I'm going to be told "Aw shucks, the cupboard is bare" when it's my turn to collect.

And, as far as military cuts, dream on if you think the commission will touch that.

[Green_Lantern]

26. not benefit cuts...

I wasn't saying benefits should be cut but cutting things like Medicare part D and instituting the same reforms in the health care reform bill.

As far as defense cuts we don't know they won't do it until they don't do it.

Congress can still reject the commission's recommendation if they recommend something too radical.

[laughingliberal]

28. They're certainly going to tick me off after my FICA funded tax cuts for the wealthy all these years

if they start screwing with my already pitiful SS benefits.

[Green_Lantern]

30. they can't cut your benefits

Without changing the law, it'd never pass.

[deaniac21]

22. It would have no power over congress so it really won't matter.

[laughingliberal]

31. Bright spot is they failed in the attempt to force an up or down vote on the rec's

Now, they will be able to debate the individual proposed cuts. Conrad (and I assume Gregg) were pushing for the commission's recommendations to have to be voted up or down with no changes. We have a fighting chance since they will be debating the recommendations before voting. And, I'm not certain they will, necessarily, have to vote on it at all.

[Green_Lantern]

32. the bad thing is

The GOP can just filibuster the individual elements without the repercussions they'd receive by filibustering a balanced budget plan.

[laughingliberal]

33. Perhaps but I am not comfortable with this commission sending out their proposal

and Congress just voting up or down while a lot of what is in it is obscured. In that way, they avoid fingerprints on cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Add this thing to Bernanke starting in on Congress about entitlement reform and all I can see is privatization of Medicare and SS on the horizon.

[Echo In Light]

34. G.Carlin: "Bipartisan = a larger than usual deception is being carried out."