It was a kitchen-sink proposal.

[ProSense]

It included a lot of ideas left and right, and serves no purpose. No one will agree to the package, and no Democrat should.

Think Progess: Three Good Ideas And Three Not So Good Ideas From The Chairmen Of The Debt Commission

<...>

Here are the good ideas:

– Defense Cuts...

– Agriculture Subsidy Reductions...

– Revenue: The chairmen’s mark has revenue going to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2015 and then eventually up to 21 percent of GDP. Again, this is an important step in the right direction. The president’s budget plan calls for 19 percent of GDP in 2015, and that assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the richest two percent, along with a host of other revenue raisers. That the chairmen’s proposal results in slightly higher revenues for 2015 is, at the least, an admission that revenue must be part of the solution. I think they’re still a little low on the revenue side of things, but it’s a start.

As for the bad ones:

– Draconian Cuts To Services And Programs...

– Raising The Social Security Retirement Age...

– Revenue: It’s good that the chairmen recognize the need for more revenue. It’s bad that they don’t really tell us how they plan to get it. Instead they say they’ll get $80 billion from tax reform, and then offer three visions of what that reform might look like. Now this is just their initial proposal, and I’m sure it’ll get fleshed out more in the coming weeks, but for now, while their spending cuts are pretty specific, their revenue plan is frustratingly muddied.

<...>

Good luck finding consensus on that package.

Suggesting defense cuts even brought war criminal Rumsfeld out of hiding:



From the PDF

Long-Term Health Care Savings

• Set global target for total federal health expenditures after 2020 (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, exchange subsidies, employer health exclusion), and review costs every 2 years. Keep growth to GDP+1%.
  
  
• If costs have grown faster than targets (on average of previous 5 years), require President to submit and Congress to consider reforms to lower spending, such as:
  
  
  • Increase premiums (or further increase cost-sharing)
    
    
  • Overhaul the fee-for-service system
    
    
  • Develop a premium support system for Medicare
    
    
  • Add a robust public option and/or all-payer system in the exchange
    
    
  • Further expand authority of IPAB

How many Repulbican votes will that garner?

Kevin Drum: Is the Deficit Commission Serious?

I've been trying to figure out whether I have anything to say about the "chairman's mark" of the deficit commission report that was released today. In a sense, I don't. This is not a piece of legislation, after all. Or a proposed piece of legislation. Or even a report from the deficit commission itself. It's just a draft presentation put together by two guys. Do you know how many deficit reduction proposals are out there that have the backing of two guys? Thousands. Another one just doesn't matter.

<...>

Ezra Klein: There is no report from the fiscal commission

<...>

Substantively, my impression of the report mirrors Hensarling's: Some of it I like, some of it I don't like, and some of it I need to think more about. But the report doesn't fulfill its basic purpose, which was demonstrating enough consensus among congressional representatives of both parties to convince the public and the political system that Congress is ready to make these choices. The reality is, we don't have a congressional fiscal commission, we don't have a report from the White House's fiscal commission, and we don't have a consensus on fiscal issues between the two parties. The co-chairmen have some interesting policy ideas for how to balance the budget, but as of yet, they've not made any discernible progress on the political deadlock preventing us from balancing the budget. And it's the deadlock, not the policy questions, that they were asked to solve.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. But we know where this is going

Working Americans will get sacrifice, the top 3% will get tax cuts.

It's inexorable (and execrable).

[de novo]

2. It serves no purpose?

It was just a waste of time and money?

Why did the President order it?

[ProSense]

3. The President

didn't order a draft from the co-chairs that the other members of the commission haven't approved.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[de novo]

7. ProSense answered the question I asked.

You just engaged in a petty personal attack.

[avaistheone1]

8. Bullshit. Actually the solution is simple.

Rollback the Reagan tax cuts and the deficit would be negligible. But that would take courage.

Thom Hartmann and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky were discussing this on his show today.

[ProSense]

5. Interesting point

by Kos

<...>

There's no indication that Obama supports any of this, of course. But his advisors told him that voters cared about the deficit and that he needed to do something about it. So, he decided to grandstand on the deficit with this ridiculous commission.

Well, he now owns everything in this draft report, including the stuff hateful to the left and the stuff hateful to the right. And for the "middle" that isn't paying attention to politics much? They get to hear about how Obama wants to take away their mortgage deduction and raise the retirement age.

Is this fair? No. But it was predictable. As predictable as the ads in 2012 accusing Obama of scheming to slash defense spending, cut medicare, screw seniors with a higher retirement age, and raise taxes.

What Obama currently owns is making a tough decision, which is going to be made this year. No one is going to remember this in 2012.

When the final report is issued, if the members can come to agreement, Obama will own the decision he makes.

[gkhouston]

6. He owned that decision even without this commission. The whole point of the

commission was to let a bunch of windbags flap their jaws and let people see how choices other than the ones that get chosen could be worse. And let's face it, almost all of those options suck mightily and the first thing they make you think is, "why don't we scrap the whole tax cut crapola"?

[avaistheone1]

9. There are no accidents like this in politics

This proposal went public to raise it up a flag poll, and see who would salute.


I hope the President and Congress hears our reaction loud and clear. The Commission so called "kitchen sink proposal" stinks and it will sink. I hope this whips everyone into action. Be angry, be very, very angry. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Raine1967]

10. What pains me is that people are actually angry at being asked to think.

I'm not kidding here. I love that you said -- and I quote: "It included a lot of ideas left and right, and serves no purpose. No one will agree to the package, and no Democrat should."

These are options being thrown out there. Many are and will be totally not acceptable.

That said NOTHING is set in stone -- nothing ever was. Things are in flux right now, and I strongly suggest that instead of throwing out the POTUS with that sink and the water with it... that people think. As of January, we no longer have the House. You really think the WH is going to become the branch of NO because of that? Elections have consequences. For now, this is NOTHING -- it is just a floater. Call the White House.

Thank you for putting these links out there for people to THINK. I would very much like to see more of that. this is the very most important thing to contemplate:

the report doesn't fulfill its basic purpose, which was demonstrating enough consensus among congressional representatives of both parties to convince the public and the political system that Congress is ready to make these choices. The reality is, we don't have a congressional fiscal commission, we don't have a report from the White House's fiscal commission, and we don't have a consensus on fiscal issues between the two parties. The co-chairmen have some interesting policy ideas for how to balance the budget, but as of yet, they've not made any discernible progress on the political deadlock preventing us from balancing the budget. And it's the deadlock, not the policy questions, that they were asked to solve. Read that again -- and again.

in the end -- this is going to require CONGRESS.

and the Senate. A Senate we still maintain control of.

It's a commision -- not a lawmaking body.