I don’t think that the Obama people were smart enough to know that putting Alan Simpson on “Deficit Commission” would lead to a melt-down that defanged the commission (EDIT: or even would have wanted the melt-down to happen), but that certainly is how things are playing out. Everyone’s second-favorite firebagger:
That’s why Commission co-chair Alan Simpson — with his blunt contempt for Social Security and and other benefit programs (such as aid to disabled veterans) and his acknowledged eagerness to slash them — has done the country a serious favor. His recent outbursts have unmasked this Commission and shed light on its true character. Unlike his fellow Commission members, who imperiously dismiss public inquiries into what they’re doing as though they’re annoying and inappropriate, Simpson — to his genuine credit — has been aggressively engaging critics, making it impossible to ignore what the Commission is really up to.
Most everything about the commission, especially the secrecy, sucks, and I’m sure it will make Village-friendly pronouncements about how we need to dismantle Social Security. Having the public face of the commission scream about “310 million tits” for a few months will help minimize the damage the commission is able to do.
Corner Stone
Some people backed Simpson after this outburst.
Just saying.
DougJ
@Corner Stone:
When Washington Post columnists write their “so and so was right columns”, that means that so and so really fucked up politically.
Maude
This is OT, but could you do a post sometime about NYS wine making? Your post on the % of sugar that makes a dry wine was interesting.
DougJ
@Maude:
Sure, I would love to. I would do it all the time but I’m always afraid people aren’t interested. I’ll do something later today or more likely tomorrow.
fasteddie9318
Not buying it, sorry. If more than 15% of the public is paying attention to crazy shit that Alan Simpson says, such that he could be really discrediting this commission with the public at large (most of whom almost certainly don’t even know that the commission itself exists), I’ll be shocked.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
This ties in with the post below, about the extent to which Reaganism is embedded in our political establishment. Simpson was babbling about who veterans, with their selfish “pensions” and “heatlh care” are standing in the way of America’s greatest struggle: The Debt! It’s stupefying, actually, that in this time of sentimental militarism, where Barack Obama had to twist himself into a rhetorical pretzel to explain that the great cock up in Iraq wasn’t the fault of ourbravemenandwomen (“the steel in our ship of state”? I always thought that was the Constitution), the only conceivable context in which you can criticize the military is in within the collective obsession with “austerity”, but in that context, a vile old political legacy who inherited personal wealth and political position can call vets selfish for expecting healthcare, and get away with it.
Beam me the fuck up, indeed.
Corner Stone
@DougJ: You are confusing the absolute fuck out of me today DougJ.
The WH backed Simpson after this incident, and to this point thereafter.
Are you saying it’s all 11D?
Maude
@DougJ:
Thank you so much. It is fascinating on how they grow, pick and ferment the grapes. I bet commenters will like the topic.
Zandar
Because Obama will get every ounce of blame for it and the Republicans will disavow it the instant the election’s over, just like they did with the health insurance mandate.
Best part: “Obamacare is costing you your Social Security. Don’t you think we should repeal the whole law NOW?”
DougJ
@Corner Stone:
Let me say this: this commission scared the fuck out of me a few months ago and now it doesn’t. I think we all got lucky on this.
The 11D stuff is always a joke.
General Stuck
Of course Obama is not smart enough to figure a guy who has compulsively run his mouth his whole life like an open fire hydrant spewing rank wingnuttery would keep quiet for this one thing. DuH!
Brien Jackson
This doesn’t really make much sense to me; even if in jest, why would it be a good thing that a deficit commission was a joke, rather than an actual serious attempt at addressing long term fiscal problems.
Allison W.
defang the commission? I’m sorry, I always thought commissions were toothless, at least that’s what I was told for the past several years. Now this one was supposed to have me pulling out my hair? don’t think so. And sorry, I don’t think for one second that the larger public is paying attention to this.
DougJ
@General Stuck:
I think they might have been smart enough to know Simpson would say dumb stuff, but he’s gone above and beyond.
MikeJ
@Brien Jackson: Because it was never an actual attempt to do anything about the deficit. If it had been we would hear about how Boeing and Lockheed-Martin and CACI are feeding off 300 million teats and cut the Depart of “Defense” to about one third its size.
DougJ
@Brien Jackson:
I don’t think a commission has much value for something like addressing long-term fiscal problems. I’ve never heard of anything of this sort ever working. Maybe on some issues, a commission can do something but not on something that (1) involves issues politicians live and die over and (2) involves possibly inaccurate projections far into the future.
AhabTRuler
No one has yet explained to me why the ‘Deficit Commission’ is even talking about Social Security.
Something, something about ‘right-wing framing,’ but fuck it, it’s Chinatown.
arguingwithsignposts
This is just a question, but Paul Fucking Ryan is also on this commission. I am assuming that at least half of the membership was from a list the GOP gave them. Is that correct? I can’t see Obama pulling Simpson’s name out of a hat.
ETA: And the secrecy *really* sucks.
david mizner
My prediction is that Obama will be forced to distance himself from the CFC’s recommendations, and that the whole thing will amount to a victory for liberalism (and a defeat for neo-liberalism.)
Brien Jackson
@DougJ:
Probably not, certainly not without clearing some procedural hurdles. Still, it would be nice if, at some point, David Broder would get all excited about something like this and they laid out point blank that the defense budget has to come down and taxes on rich people have to go up.
60th Street
Outside of all the “Obama is clearly [insert cuckoo 11D o-bot/firebagger chess fantasy here] dot dot dot, ad infinitum” drivel, I have quite enjoyed watching Alan Simpson splashing gas all over himself and the commission and handing the matches over to the public.
More please Mr. Simpson. A Dubya-styled whistle stop tour, perhaps?
NR
@AhabTRuler: Because Obama stacked the commission with people who have been wanting to cut Social Security for decades. That’s why.
Anne Laurie
Alan Simpson is a bloated tick, decrying the very existence of ‘your so-called dairy farmer’. As the chosen representative of the powerful bloated-tick constituency — which prides itself on advocating for the needs of all branches of the parasite class — he is more than happy to demonstrate that without the drag on the bovine economy of 310 million tits wastefully pumping lacteal fluid for unknowable (but certainly frivolous, not to mention thankless) recipients, an already prosperous parasite community would achieve even greater heights of prosperity. Surely it is an insult to the Tick Lord who put well-nourished cows into fields of lush pasture for the benefit of the fortunate beings at the top of the food chain (namely, the bloated ticks) that His bounty should be diverted by some welfare-demanding ‘dairy farmer’! Simpson demands that this uncultured, illiterate ‘dairy farmer’ be removed from the bovine equation, as the simplest solution to the continued prosperity of bloated ticks and all their parasite colleagues!
DougJ
@60th Street:
Me too. But I also can’t help but wonder a bit if some people saw this all coming.
Allison W.
@david mizner:
Forced? why would he have to be forced? The American people aren’t going to think that the commission’s ideas are Obama’s ideas.
Kristine
@Allison W.: I can’t find a source, but I remember one remark made during the ’08 elections with regards Obama’s community organizer background. The remark was to the effect that if someone keeps bitching to you about something, you put them on a committee to address the issue. So now we have this committee populated mostly by People Who Bitch, and they may or may not come up with anything useful, and some of what they’re saying is scaring people, and nothing they come up with needs to be enacted.
Maybe I’m completely off-base, and will be fighting my dogs for their dog food in ten years. But I’m not yet convinced that anything this committee comes up with will end up anywhere but the circular file drawer.
NR
@Allison W.: So then, Obama is going to come out and say that he doesn’t agree with his own commission’s ideas, and the whole thing was just a big waste of time and money?
How is that going to play with the public?
Corner Stone
@david mizner:
I agree with the first part, but not the second.
Even giving breath to SocSec discussions only hurts the liberal brand.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Didn’t Nancy Pelosi commit to an up-or-down vote on the commission’s recommendations, as a whole, take-it-or-leav-it? As I recall, that prompted a lot of “Nancy Pelosi is dead to me!” keening, but I saw it as a way of torpedoing the whole thing.
Anne Laurie
@arguingwithsignposts:
“Bipartisan” means that half the members were chosen by Democrats as those least likely to offend the Republicans, and the other half were chosen by Republicans as those most likely to offend the Democrats. Business as usual!
General Stuck
@DougJ: What, that Simpson hates SS and wouldn’t mind cutting it into oblivion, he has been saying that all his life. As have other appointed wingnut firebrands like Hensarling, Ryan, and assorted other highly ideological wingnuts. Why would he do this? And then appoint several fairly hard core liberals like Sanders and Schakowsky.
Of course these wingnuts are going to come out for big cuts and likely privatization, and the liberals will be there to object. Now if you really believe Obama seriously wants to gut SS, then it is not a long jump to believing on face value people like Simpson and the others. But if you believe the purpose was to give a showcase of the intent of the two parties, then Obama’s intent would have to be political. But I agree that Simpson has likely gone too far, but only as a matter of degree, but speaking his mind has always been this guys MO, so the perfect pick to highlight want wingnuts really want to do with SS.
It’s hardly complicated in the 11 d chess way, and gives Obama some temp cover for being, or looking serious about cutting the deficit.
Allison W.
@NR:
So the 6 Democrats appointed by the Democrats and the 4 people personally appointed by the president all want to dismantle Social Security? I can understand the disagreement with the 6 Republicans chosen by Republican leadership, but they were chosen by Republicans not Obama.
david mizner
@Allison W.:
Actually a bipartisan commission under Reagan resulted in Social Security reform.
DougJ
@Kristine:
Very interesting. It is certainly a tried-and-true tactic in local politics.
jeffreyw
@DougJ: How about a post on hot tips on dough shaping?
fasteddie9318
@david mizner:
Unfortunately it will also be a defeat for Obama, which makes it a victory for Republicans, which means that the whole process of putting this commission together was a win-win for the Republicans.
david mizner
@Allison W.:
Forced because he will initially be supportive; then the tsunami of opposition will rise.
AhabTRuler
@DougJ: And I can’t help but wonder if selling out to the idea that SS is a large part of our deficit problem won’t boomerang.
But, no, I am sure that the American populace will totally understand the nuanced argument to be made after SS’s ‘problems’ have been demagogued to hell and back.
@Corner Stone:
This.
Leisureguy
I’m amazed at how deftly you sneak in labels and insults (“everyone’s second-favorite firebagger”). Why not try avoiding that and sticking to the point you’re attempting to make? Or are the insults and labeling the point?
DougJ
@Leisureguy:
That was not an insult.
Allison W.
@david mizner:
Sorry, that’s still not a good enough reason to lose my shit over this commission.
James E. Powell
Would a Republican president, say George W. Bush, appoint a retired Democratic senator with a history of hostility toward defense contractors to a deficit commission?
And assuming he did, what would happen if that retired senator went very public with the statement that in order to save the Republic from the horrors of endless debt, we will have to cut off the many corporations that receive billions without doing anything to improve the security of Americans, and specifically names Blackwater, Halliburton and General Electric?
ricky
@Leisureguy:
If this is not your second favority firebagger just go ahead
and say so. And name names.
General Stuck
And on the secrecy aspect, the members have all been made public, and whatever they end up coming out with, that will almost certainly not be unanimous given the widely varied ideology of it’s members, will not have any power other than what Obama and the dem congress gives it. This is how it has always been done except when Cheney/Bush wouldn’t even tell us the names on commissions. Should we fit everyone in government deliberations with headcams and microphones.
morzer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I seem to remember the House Democrats recently drawing a line in the sand and saying “Don’t mess with Social Security” pretty loud and clear. Of course, I might have been dreaming.
AhabTRuler
I mean, surely it can’t be a net loss to further blur the line between insurance and welfare, can it?
david mizner
@Corner Stone:
I don’t think so. I think this will strengthen the hand of liberals — labor, House progressives. etc. — and will generally deal a blow to would-be deformers. I’m not saying Pete Peterson will take his ball and go home, but I think it’ll make it that much harder to go after SS in the future. Remember when Bush, cocky at the outset of his second term, tried to privatize and Dems stopped him cold? This issue is like no other.
On the other hand, it’s possible that the degree of opposition from the right and left, plus the general opposition to doing something like this in a lame duck session, will lead to a relatively quiet death of the commission’s recommendations.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: She promised a vote on it as long as the Senate votes on it first.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@General Stuck: 14 out of the 18 have a record of advocating for Social Security cuts.
Omnes Omnibus
@NR: The response from the White House would go something like this: “Thank you for all your hard work. We will read your report and give careful consideration to the proposals it contains.” Then the report could be filed somewhere. A couple of ideas from it could be introduced as legislation. Soon it would be forgotten.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@morzer: The Progressive Caucus, IIRC. I imagine there a number of Blue Dogs who would love to cut SS. But for those of us in Blue Dog held districts, this is a good time to write to your Blue Dog and ask if they support the letter.
General Stuck
I think you can argue whether this was a good, or bad political move by Obama, but carrying that out to he must really want to gut SS is absurd and brings echoes of all the corporatist blather over the PO and bailouts. It has surprised me the degree of traction the wingnuts have gotten out of the big spending libtard argument with the country, but I think that is likely just new code for presidenting while black. Obama may have just over reacted to that by reforming this commission.
david mizner
@Allison W.:
I don’t think you should lose your shit. If you’re fan of SS and liberalism generally, you should welcome the commission’s recommendations, which will die.
That said, I hope it’s not primarily tax-increase opposition from the right that’s seen as the primary killer.
Corner Stone
@david mizner:
And you know what’s funny about that? Here we are 2 years later and there’s a Commission with SocSec right in its sights.
Funny how that happens, isn’t it?
Even though SocSec doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and is solvent for some 30 years.
My point being, once it’s been given life it’s not going to stop.
Allison W.
@david mizner:
Supportive of what? You don’t know what the final report will say – other than the worst case scenario being pushed by the FDL crowd. The report is not binding. Obama does not have to support anything. The commission will present its findings and Obama could easily say “I like this, that, scratch that, forget that, keep this, don’t like that, this is garbage, this is a keeper” – he is not obligated to endorse the entire report. And neither is Congress.
This tsunami of opposition that you speak of is exactly why I am not worried. Raising the retirement age to 70 or dismantling SS(IF that’s their recommendation) will not go over well (to put it lightly) with the American people no matter what the Village says. ANY member of Congress AND the WH knows that. They have always known that. Any Joe Schmuck on the street knows that.
Chad N Freude
@Allison W.: Commission? There’s a Commission? Is it run by Commissioner Gordon? Oh. It’s about Social Security? You mean the Social Security with the trust fund that has been consistently looted and filled with IOU’s instead of actual money? If it’s that Social Security, I’m OK with whatever the Commission recommends about cutting or eliminating it for people who aren’t me.
Signed, The Larger Public
Chad N Freude
@morzer: Yes, I heard it, too. But having just seen “Inception”, I doubt that it wasn’t a dream.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
And speaking of the Catfood Commission … did anyone realize it’s composed of 16 men and 2 women?
General Stuck
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: If you are referring to the FDL analysis, then I would disagree, as that list took more than a few liberties in definition as to wanting to cut SS. Though when it comes time for making corrections to SS, which is many years off, there will likely be small cuts to SS. One thing about SS history, pols are scared shitless of touching it with leg, even most wingers, until the 11th hour in an emergency. What could be likely as one purpose of this commission is getting a feel what it would take to get the wingnuts to raise taxes, especially the FICA tax ceiling to help out medicare which is the one in near term trouble. But when it comes down to it, the only way SS will be gutted or privatized is if the wingnuts get sixty votes in the senate of pure distilled wingnuts, Demint quality, and the WH. And that seems very unlikely in the near term.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone:
It’s a golem.
Chad N Freude
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: Affirmative Action.
david mizner
@Corner Stone:
Yeah, and billionaire businessmen and their political allies are going to keep coming after it because, like Willie Sutton (?) said, that’s where the money is, and we have to continue to beat them. All in all, I like the make-up of this particular fight, with a commission headed by a drunk uncle who talks about tits and formed by an unpopular president whose party just took a drubbing. Wins are good. They make more wins more likely.
Mike in NC
My favorite snippet:
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Allison W.: Why would Obama go against the recommendations of a Commission he alone created? I think you are forgetting something. The Senate(and House) can only vote on the recommendations made. They have no power to vote piecemeal on separate parts.
Allison W.
@david mizner:
I’ve been waiting for someone to talk about this because I’ve had the same thoughts.
listen, I just hope that good parts of the report aren’t killed off because of the more controversial findings. We don’t have to accept everything.
burnspbesq
@arguingwithsignposts:
Actually, the secrecy does not suck. It’s much easier to float and vet outside-the-box ideas when every bit of the deliberative process isn’t immediately dissected by linguists and bloggers.
If you disagree, file a FOIA request.
david mizner
@Allison W.:
Actually there will be a big push to vote for the proposals en masse.
That’s the whole idea, a package deal that a majority of “statesmen and women” can get behind. Once you start cherry picking, the whole thing falls apart. So if Obama were to say yes to the tax increases and no to means testing, that’s the ball game.
Corner Stone
@Allison W.:
As I understand it, it’s not presented to the WH, and the Congress is obliged to give it an up or down vote. Not dissect it.
Chad N Freude
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
Do they have to vote on accepting the report? Seriously, if that’s true, I didn’t know it.
Jamie
Gotta say, I do think that Mr. Tits is there to provide contrast for when Mr. Reasonable stands up in December and Very Reasonably says we don’t have to go as far as Mr. Tits wants to, but the Very Reasonable small cuts will Save Social Security Forever.
I do think Obama wants to help gut SS. What I don’t know is why – it makes no sense, either for policy or political reasons.
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude: Like the one in The Simpsons? Then I suggest we make a clay girl Golem and marry them off.
That’s my only understanding of the golem process.
Allison W.
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
Where is it written that he should have to endorse (all of) the findings? And where is it written that the Senate has to accept or vote on all of it? AM I forgetting something here? doesn’t legislation have to go through a committee, negotiated and all that before it comes to a vote? Is the commission writing legislation or making recommendations?
Seriously I’d like to know.
maus
@Brien Jackson:
Yeah, let me know when they triage that instead of fucking the poor to middle-class.
david mizner
One more thing then I’ll stop yapping. A couple times for the sake of argument I’ve talked about tax increases but it’s very hard to see how any tax increases get 14 votes. And if the recommendations include nothing but benefit cuts, I can’t imagine Andy Stern, Becerra, etc. standing behind them.
Allison W.
@Jamie:
what?
KG
Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid… that’s something like 60% of the budget. Throw in unemployment/welfare/other mandatory programs, and you’re talking 75% of the budget. I think if you really want to balance the budget, then you’re going to have to talk about cutting or restructuring those things. The fact that the Department of Defense gets almost as much as every other department combined cannot be ignored, but I’m sure it will be.
Chad N Freude
@Jamie: Jeebus, more 11-dimensional chess.
General Stuck
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: The only way for this to happen is if the House and Senate have passed a law already, saying they have to vote on the recommendation. They haven’t of course. The congress can choose to vote on anything, or part of any outside report it wants, it is a separate branch of government. If you have contrary information to this, I would like to see it.
Otherwise, please quit spreading myth.
Anne Laurie
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
Well, according to Simpson, even when us womens is capable of understanding graphs, we’re not interested in “honest work”, such as advocating to shred the last remaining supports for the least prosperous Americans to further enrich Bloated Ticks like Alan Simpson.
susan
When in Congress, how did Wyoming resident Alan Simpson vote on farm subsidies? Does he own subsidized farmland?
Is he involved with Wyoming’s coal industry?
This is from a piece published by the New York Times in 2007:
“Even as Congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming, a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels…
Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years…”
Omnes Omnibus
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
Link please.
KG
@Corner Stone:
Perhaps I need to drink more/less, or go back to watching football, but I have to ask:
Then what the fuck is the point of having a Congress to begin with?
General Stuck
@KG: You might consider a pie filter. I don’t believe in them, but sometimes wish I did.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone: Wasn’t aware of the Simpson’s episode, must investigate. I’ve seen one of the silent movie versions of the Golem story. Years ago, and I can still remember some of the visuals.
KG
@General Stuck: can I get a pie filter for Congress? Because that would be worth it.
Corner Stone
@KG: I’m assuming so the Congress can vote up or down.
Why this was agreed to by both Pelosi and Reid respectively?
I can’t honestly say. But I’m sure it has to do with 11D optics.
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude: It’s a Halloween episode as I recall.
They create a clay Golem and stuff paper in his mouth. He goes around offing people as requested.
He can’t be stopped so they eventually create a female Golem, they get married and I believe she proceeds to nag him and otherwise make the Golem’s life miserable.
Bob Loblaw
These aren’t “little” cuts to the program that have been offered by both sides in the past.
Even if you just raise the full eligibility age another two years to 69 over the next two decades (1983 all over again), that represents a real 14% median cut in lifetime benefits. That’s kind of a big deal.
Slashing SS by a seventh usually wouldn’t fly with the voters, were it made clear that’s what this would be, that’s why they have to dress it up in bullshit.
Bill Murray
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: or to make any amendments. and of course there were a grand total of three public meetings, with nothing else of their discussions open or available to the public, which despite the protestations of General Obama Stuck is not transparent. I pretty much agree with this statement to the commission from James Galbraith
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/07/noted-economist-james-k-galbraith-to.html
1. Clouds Over the Work of the Commission.
Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. In this respect, there are four major issues.
First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. Nothing you say will affect financial markets. Congress long ago — in 1975 — reformed its procedures to hold far more sensitive and complicated meetings, notably legislative markups, in the broad light of day.
Secrecy breeds suspicion: first, that your discussions are at a level of discourse so low that you feel it would be embarrassing to disclose them. Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public. Please do so.
Second, there is a question of leadership. A bipartisan commission should approach its task in a judicious, open-minded and dispassionate way. For this, the attitude and temperament of the leadership are critical.
I first met Senator Simpson when we were both on Capitol Hill; at Harvard he became friends with my late parents. He is admirably frank in his views. But Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission. This is very clear from the abusive response he made recently to Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who was asking important questions about the substance of the commission’s work, as well as calling attention to the illegitimate secrecy under which you are operating.
A general cannot speak of the President with contempt. Likewise the leader of a commission intended to sway the public cannot display contempt for the public. With due respect, Senator Simpson’s conduct fails that test.
Third, most members of the Commission are political leaders, not economists. With all respect for Alice Rivlin, with just one economist on board you are denied access to the professional arguments surrounding this highly controversial issue. In general, it is impossible to have a fair discussion of any important question when the professional participants in that discussion have been picked, in advance, to represent a single point of view.
Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions. Quite apart from the merits of Mr. Peterson’s arguments, this act must be condemned. A Commission serving public purpose cannot accept funds or other help from a private party with a strong interest in the outcome of that Commission’s work. Your having done so is a disgrace.
In my view you also should not have accepted help from the Economic Policy Institute, even though EPI’s positions on the merits are substantially closer to mine.
jeffreyw
@Chad N Freude: You might want to check out Michael Chabon on golems-google chabon + golem.
NR
@Allison W.: The problem is that most of the Democrats on the commission are just as bad as the Republicans. It’s not even remotely balanced. This piece details Obama’s picks for the commission. We’ve got Simpson and Erskine Bowles (the Democratic co-chair) who called the debt a “cancer” and said that “we need to go after spending first.” Then there’s Alice Rilvin, who is on record as favoring Social Security cuts; David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell (a major defense contractor); Ann Fudge, a Wall Street insider; and finally Andy Stern, president of SEIU. Of Obama’s six picks, Stern is the only one who’s likely to oppose Social Security cuts.
The rest of the commission’s members are current members of Congress. The six Republican members of Congress are all wingnuts. On the Democratic side, you have Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Dick Durbin, John Spratt, Xavier Becerra, and Jan Schakowsky. Only two of those are liberals – Durbin and Schakowsky.
So this commission has only three people from the left on it. The rest run the gamut from center-right to crazy fringe right. They most certainly do not have a “widely varied ideology,” and we can expect their recommendations to reflect this fact.
Jamie
@Allison W.:
What what?
I’d place a wager on Obama announcing support for somewhat “modest” changes on SS – upping the age a bit, cutting rates a bit, that sort of thing – at some point during his term.
Allison W.
@Corner Stone:
As you understand it. Where is it written? ’cause that makes no sense to me. What I read is that the House will vote or not (something about ‘Sense of the House’) vote on whatever the Senate passes. I have seen nothing that says the Senate has to accept the entire report. And I have seen nothing that says the president has to accept the whole thing. That makes no sense whatsoever, sorry.
The ‘Sense of the House’ explanation was provided by a diarist at Dkos. If you have not sworn off the site here is the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/28/111617/454
I will just say this and leave this discussion. I have two concerns. The fate of the 99er bill and the mid-term elections. The report comes out in December and no one knows whats in it. If I’m needed (petitions, calls, etc.) then I will be there. Right now its all speculation and I’m the type of person that needs hard proven facts before I start yelling. Since I don’t trust the left media, the MSM and the right wing media, that might take a while.
Chad N Freude
@Bill Murray: Thanks for that link. The statement is dated June 30, 2010. It certainly has had a powerful effect over the last two months.
Sharl
@david mizner: Trivial point (probably) – some months ago Andy Stern announced his departure from SEIU, and more recently announced that he would be joining Georgetown U.’s Public Policy Institute [1,2], from whence he can presumably become part of the easy life as a member of the media commentariat. Does that enhance or reduce his ability to influence events? I’m guessing the latter, though maybe not by much. Hopefully his successor at SEIU will be as good on the issues.
[1.] Politico link, found in Stern’s Twitter-feed – presumably he is OK with the Politico piece. His responses to the questions posed are encouraging, at least.
[.2] Following in the footsteps of greats like Doug Feith!! {/jk_mostly}
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Allison W.:
I for one hope that the left keeps throwing this pre-emptive shitfit. Don’t let the thought even cross their minds.
Uloborus
Am I the only person who remembers that the commission can’t submit any recommendation that doesn’t reduce the deficit according to the CBO? And the CBO said when it started that they’ll laugh at any suggestion to cut the things Republicans call ‘entitlements’ because they’re essential to the economy and we lose more tax revenue cutting them than we gain in savings?
Not to mention that this commission could somehow produce a recommendation to cut SS and Medicare to the bone and the Senate would ignore it, the House would fail to pass it in their much-vaunted ‘up or down vote’, and Obama would send it back to congress with a very, VERY polite ‘Just try and overcome my veto’.
Guys, this thing is utterly toothless and makes Republicans look bad. That’s not 11 dimensional chess. That’s being a a decent checkers player.
NR
@Uloborus:
How does this commission make the Republicans look bad? Any recommendations it produces will have to be agreed to by a majority of the Democrats on the commission as well.
General Stuck
@Allison W.: The blogosphere is a sea of bullshit. But there are some islands of enlightenment amongst the wretch. Navigation is often difficult, but what’s a body to do?
Uloborus
@NR:
Because it leads to exactly this situation, Republicans yelling about cutting entitlements. Hardcore wingnuts eat this stuff up. Everyone else gets a bit antsy at the thought of having unemployment, social security, or medicare taken away from them.
EDIT – Which is why none of this is new and Republicans have been demanding the same heads for as long as I can remember, and they’ve never gotten it. When they’re really dominantly in power they can make tiny cuts or rearrange things to make the system a bit less useful. In general, cutting ‘entitlements’ is political suicide. But hey, the 27%ers love it.
Corner Stone
@Uloborus: Explain the positives of its existence then please. It, after all these year, finally uncovers the {GASP!} Republicans’ desire to cut or privatize SS?
Shocked! That will be a shocking 11D revelation!
If it’s all farce to begin with then why even put it into motion to begin with? Where is the benefit in having a hell of a lot of D voters wondering WTF?
Expose R hypocrisy? Yeah, that’ll sting.
There is zero benefit to this commission existing. 11D optics and all.
NR
@Uloborus:
Okay. But why would people get pissed at the Republicans about this when a commission appointed by a Democratic president, with a majority of Democrats on it, just came out with recommendations to cut Social Security?
The Republicans yelling about cutting entitlements will be able to say “Look, Obama’s own Democrat-controlled commission agrees we should cut entitlements!” What then?
Uloborus
@Corner Stone:
It lets Obama say ‘I will create a bipartisan commission to explore reducing the deficit’. It lets Republicans rant about reducing entitlements, which does not sell to the masses as well as they think. If creates exactly zero threat of actually cutting social security, medicare, or anything else important. You don’t need a big benefit to justify zero risk.
It’s not like this is creating the ‘we need to cut entitlements to protect the deficit!’ debate. That’s been going on since Reagan. Maybe earlier, but before that I was too young to remember.
Seriously, who thinks a President who put unemployment extensions in his stimulus, rags on Republicans for trying to hold up unemployment, and pushed and got passed a massive upgrade to the insurance safety net WANTS to cut social security?
NR
@Corner Stone: Exactly. Given that there are only three liberals on the 18-member commission, there is zero chance that the commission will come out with recommendations that might actually address our debt problem, like raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting military spending.
So at best, the commission is totally useless. And at worst, it’s a vehicle for beginning the dismantling of the New Deal. I can guarantee you that I am not the only Democrat wondering just what the hell Obama is up to here.
Uloborus
@NR:
Because, as is happening right now, a Republican is standing up and loudly yelling about how we need to cut Social Security, yadda yadda yadda. More Republicans are likely to join him. Assuming anybody notices, that is what there is to notice.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone:
Ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, we now present [drum roll] the TSA!! And The Baker-Hamilton Commission (aka Iraq Study Group)!!
Dude, it’s all theater all the time.
patrick II
@<a h@david mizner:
Also, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, from Wiki:
Commissions can be effective — or dangerous depending upon your point of view.
J sub D
Medicare, Social Security and Defense.
If you won’t talk about cutting all three you are not serious about deficit reduction.
Means testing, raise the retirement age and remove our force from place where people can defend themselves. I could talk defense waste for hours but it isn’t enough to fix the problem.
Chad N Freude
@NR:
Hmm. What did Glenn Beck say about FDR? Oh, yeah. It’s one-dimensional chess. Simpson and Company would dearly love to return us to the halcyon days of Herbert Hoover. This is certainly a scene-setter for that.
NR
@Uloborus: A Republican appointed by a Democratic president. Don’t think that fact is escaping people’s notice.
And when the commission’s recommendations come out, they will have the Democratic stamp of approval, as well, since Democrats have a majority on the commission. People will recognize that fact, as well. If the commission’s recommendations include Social Security cuts, as they likely will, the Democrats will own that just as much as the Republicans.
bago
@NR: It’s a commission that exists purely at the whim of the executive branch. I don’t think there are any guarantees that it exists beyond the whims of the executive. (fact check me here)
If true, then you have created a vehicle for representatives to vent their true “hard” conclusions, while giving it no actual power. It’s a commission.
Corner Stone
@Uloborus:
But people on the D side actually are concerned about its existence. They are mobilizing against this commission. And I don’t think it has escaped them that it was set in motion by a D President.
No one who would ever vote for Obama will look at the behavior of this commission and say, “Whew! I’m glad to gain a little clarity on where everyone stood on SS!”
No. You have some number of people on the D side, and call them gullible fools if you like, who are actually, really wondering WTF?
And you have people on the R side doing exactly what they always do – demagogue and push for disastrous results.
This commission isn’t providing anyone any cover and it certainly is not damaging the R brand in any way. Do you think people in the middle or on the left didn’t know Simpson was an asshole? Do you think people on the R side have taken a pause at Simpson’s assholish attitude? Hell no. They are laughing their asses off.
Chad N Freude
@NR: I think you’re right. The Obama administration has finally achieved true bipartisanship.
mcd410x
Does Obama think this could be his “only Nixon could go to China” moment? Even if there is some grand plan, I can’t help but think that we’re fucked.
I shouted out? Who killed the Kennedys. When, after all, it was you and me.
Corner Stone
@mcd410x: Well, I don’t know about that. I did shoot the Sheriff. But not his deputy too, also.
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude: I don’t know why FYWP keeps eating my post on this, but Fran Drescher played the voice of the female golem in Treehouse of Horror XVII
bago
Uhm, given the popularity of SS, I think that giving politicians the chance to say that “old people should suck it and die” is kind of useful.
Sharl
I don’t think this adds anything new, but… there are many different powerful constituencies that have an interest in this discussion about who gets to play with all this SS money. It may well be that the most powerful of those blocs – especially when acting in alliance – can no more be successfully fought on an open battlefield (so to speak) than the Taleban or Al Queda can successfully defeat U.S. forces in a direct armed confrontation. But if you throw a bone to those doggies, and let the most rabid mouth-frothy hound be the alpha, then the community can look and see, then presumably/hopefully have their ‘oh, shit, we gotta stop that’ moment.
Or, you can take take Mel Gibson’s Braveheart costume that Jane Hamsher managed to snag from some of her old Hollywood buds, put it on, go out and make a totally righteous, inspiring and bitchin’ speech, and then take a spear in the chest and/or shiv in the back. Then you can go to your grave reassured that your noble visage will be worn on t-shirts for generations to come, and admirers will lovingly tend to your grave. How awesome would that be!
Kristine
@DougJ: I recall the statement clear as day. Unfortunately, I can’t remember who said it or the context beyond the reference to Obama’s background and how he might go about dealing with folks who were opposed to him.
I also recall August ’08 as a time of much hand wringing. Then matters improved, and by the end of October the links to “Calm the Fuck Down–I’ve Got This” photos were making the rounds again. Hoping that proves the case again.
John Bird
I take it with your sarcastic use of the term here along with an approving quote of Glenn that “firebagger” is on its way out. Thanks. To those of us that missed two blogs’ little high school Star Wars turf battle out here on the Internet, I have no idea who thought that was a good idea.
arguingwithsignposts
@J sub D:
Funny you didn’t mention removing the $110,000 cap on SS tax on income. Or taxing capital gains like income. Or repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent. Or even increasing the tax rate on income above a certain level to 1990s levels.
Means-testing is shit, as is raising the retirement age. You might as well get some ice floes set up off the coast of Alaska to put all those useless old people on.
ETA: Social Security is self-funding, and isn’t adding shit to the deficit, either.
Bob Loblaw
@Kristine:
I think it’s fairer to say matters got a whole hell of a lot worse, and that was what propelled Obama to such an easy victory.
Omnes Omnibus
@arguingwithsignposts:
Dude, global warming.
Corner Stone
@bago: I live in the deep dark heart of wingnuttia. I can not tell you how many people have railed against SS and want it gone, abolished.
It doesn’t matter what that would mean otherwise, if they had a champion for that cause they would absolutely rally to his side, and be happy when he accomplished that goal.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone: Do they have any clue as to what SS is? And why we have it? I suppose I can answer that myself.
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude: They know what it is. And they hate it. I can not tell you how many times I have heard, “SS is a horrible return on your investment!!”
And not going into the whole deal about SS, I just ask them, “Please show me what facts you’re using to determine this.”
They never respond but it doesn’t matter.
They hate it and want it gone. If it went away they would pee themselves in joy. And then blame the D’s when their grandma couldn’t afford heating fuel, etc.
ETA – and funnily enough, they may have a chance at being right about that.
FlipYrWhig
I seem to recall that the 9/11 commission came up with a series of recommendations, some of which were implemented (wasn’t that where the Homeland Security cabinet post came from) and others left to languish. I think I remember John Kerry talking about how he would push to enact more of the commission’s recommendations than Bush had or would.
So I can imagine that the deficit commission’s report would play a part in future discussions of what to do about the deficit; but I really don’t see that it would _determine_ those future discussions, or that whatever the commission recommends would go into effect without a secondary or tertiary political process to make it happen.
Kristine
@Corner Stone: Do they say why? Are some of these people already receiving benefits, or are they that well off that they don’t need them?
SS was all my folks had, thanks to bad luck, bad health, and a series of bad choices. They couldn’t afford to live on their own, so they lived with me until their deaths. The ability to contribute to the household meant a lot, especially to my mom.
I’ve seen an overweening urge to hang people out to dry in some of the conservatives I know. This need to punish for making mistakes. For not being rich. One co-worker, whom I didn’t learn until later was a Republican, told me that my parents had made their choices and that I was under no obligation to help them. The fact that she didn’t get along with her own mother played into this, I’m sure, but so did the underlying attitude. You fuck up, you’re on your own. You have no right to expect help, and no one is obligated to help you. And these are people who go to church every week. I just don’t know what to say to them, other than asking whether their kids feel the same way and would treat them with similar disregard if they became ill or disabled.
But Family Is Important. As long as everyone is healthy and doesn’t cause any trouble.
I don’t get it.
DougJ
@John Bird:
I’m kind of sick of it, but I don’t think John was wrong to torch Jane Hamsher when she talked about making common cause with the Tea Party.
Corner Stone
@Kristine: They are all working people. Some professionals, some service providers.
They don’t need to have a reason. They know it goes to the undeserving out of their paycheck. And they hate it.
Leisureguy
@dougj: Sorry, my mistake. But sometimes the Firedoglake group are the enemy, sometimes they’re okay. I lose track.
Kristine
@Corner Stone: Everyone’s undeserving but them. Yeah.
RSR
Still love that Steve Martin bit: “Look at the tits! There must be…57 tits up there!”
FlipYrWhig
@Kristine: I think their thinking goes like this: there’s a lot of lazy people out there who’d rather get a handout than apply themselves, and I don’t want to help them. But I know I’m not lazy and I do my damn best, and it’s not like I want a handout, so I deserve a little help. The thing seared into their brains is the idea that someone else out there is cheating/mooching/looting, but, of course, _they_ aren’t like that.
Thus they have no problem with the government helping them or People Like Them; they take issue with the government helping Those People.
(Also, I find it telling that the kinds of people who complain along those lines _invariably_ see themselves as footing the bill for Those People, and _never_ see themselves as the recipients of other people’s generosity. The classic case is the oldster on Social Security and Medicare who will _insist_ that he worked his whole life paying into the system, so he’s not coming out ahead or being funded by you and me. But the money that goes to Those People under HCR, well, that might as well be coming out of his own narrow pocket. They feel themselves being stolen from, never being cared for. Such bullshit.)
Sharl
@FlipYrWhig: Actually, DHS came first, by two days. From a couple quick Wikipedia searches:
~vs.~
I recall that slimebag Sen. Lieberman playing a big role in setting up DHS (he was lead Dem. on the relevant committee at the time). That’s why that whole process was suspect to me from the get-go.
As regards the 9/11 Commission, I think might have become just another typical DC sweep-our-sins-under-the-rug panel, but for the clamoring of the Jersey Girls and other righteously angry and politically savvy next-of-kin groups.
FlipYrWhig
@Sharl: OK, thanks for the correction on the link between DHS and the 9/11 commission.
I guess my larger point was that high-profile commissions might make findings and recommendations that later get manifested as policy, but it’s not like their work converts into policy instantaneously.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone: And they are all managing their retirement funds so well that they will never need a safety net. Ask them to invest your money for you so that you will be able to forgo SS when you retire.
A related thought: Do they also resent being taxed to provide fire fighting in poor neighborhoods, schooling for other people’s children, police who protect honest poor people from criminals, streets in poor neighborhoods, body armor for soldiers from poor neighborhoods, etc. etc. etc.?
Batocchio
On the one hand, Obama never had to take the advice of the committee anyway, and only Congress could enforce it. (The Iraq Survey Group gave Bush cover for pulling out of Iraq, but he sure didn’t take it.) On the other, if you go down the committee list, almost all of them are rich plutocrats and thus serious assholes. If the committee is a farce to distract Beltway assholes, fine, but why bother; if it’s a farce to give cover to the assholes who want to gut Social Security, that’s another matter. Either way, Simpson and his fellow asshole plutocrat Randian ubermensch should be criticized thoroughly and relentlessly.
Anne Laurie
@Chad N Freude:
__
Well, duh… anything the government does that doesn’t directly benefit Me and My Kind is theft! And the definition of ‘my kind’ is subject to shrinkage when exposed to the cold water of fiscal reality…
Forethought does not figure largely in the equation here. I have three little dogs who sit and watch me, every evening, put the same amount of the same kibble into three identical dishes… and if I didn’t separate them, all three would fight to try and keep the other two away from the other dishes. Half the time, the cats would come & steal some of the kibble, just to demonstrate that they could, while the dogs were busy fighting over who got first choice of all the bowls. Your ‘keep tha gubmint outta my social services’ associates are noisily incapable of thinking any further ahead than my dogs — all they can see is that their kibble is gonna be wasted on dogs who are not them.
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude:
Yes. They would eliminate public education if they could. They know they’ll never need police because they are packing, and they love the troops in the abstract. Right up til they are asked to do something to improve their lives.
Also, what Anne Laurie said.
They never need help from anybody for anything. Until they do, and at such a time either their slightly wealthy family can give them money (not loan), or they sign up for unemployment because all the shiftless blackies are, why shouldn’t they? But then it’s not a loan or assistance, it’s money they can take and use to fail at any of several endeavors. All while living in a rent free house their family owns.
I could go on and on. Hypocrisy, she is dead.
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude: The Iraq Study Group was formed for a purpose. To provide cover for Bush to pivot. He chose not to.
What is this commission formed to provide cover for?
Chad N Freude
@Anne Laurie: Have you read anything by Dan Ariely? Your shaggy dog story reminds me of what he’s written about irrational market behavior.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone: I was going to write that hypocrisy is alive and flourishing, but you’re probably right. These people have no concept of community or common interests beyond their economic tribalism. The sound you hear is the gurgle of my deepening despair.
Chad N Freude
@Corner Stone: I dunno. Maybe to provide cover for Obama claiming that he has to cut SS to manage the deficit?
Bill Murray
@Chad N Freude: well it’s not like anybody with power has a desire to push it. The MSM is run by conservatives and like the Republicans they want to push the idea of gutting SS and Medicare, it’s Obama’s commission he has to back the idea of it. Pelosi and Reid don’t really have the time or likely the desire to go against the commission.
In a similar vein, recently new numbers for Medicare’s future obligations came out and were small over the 75 year interval and positive for the infinite timeline. While these numbers from previous years were plenty to good to fluff up hysteria, they suddenly disappear when the numbers could reduce the hysteria.
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/09/medicare-headline-you-didnt-see-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FHzoh+%28Angry+Bear%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Sly
@Corner Stone:
There was a “Sense of the House” resolution passed about two months back saying that the House should vote for it in an all-or-nothing matter. At the time, there was much ballyhooing among the leftier-than-thou crowd who did’t know that Sense of the House resolutions are completely non-binding. Those who eventually understood the meaning of the resolution never spoke about it again, but never corrected anyone who continued to believe it to be true.
So, no, the House isn’t obligated to do anything with the commission’s report and recommendations.
Corner Stone
@Sly: So both Pelosi and Reid did not agree to give the outcomes an up or down vote?
Corner Stone
@Chad N Freude: Well, as SS has nothing to do with the current deficit that would be a unique pivot point.
Church Lady
I’m late to the party, but my two cents are:
Raise the cap. Have everyone pay on every cent of wage income. If the working poor have to pay on every dollar of wage income, so should those making in excess of the current cap. I don’t mind paying more if it helps to keep the program solvent.
Means test. If your income and assets are past a certain threshold, you just don’t need it. Grandparents on both sides of our family relied on Social Security to make ends meet (unfortunately, all retired at 60 and lived into their mid-80’s and all ran out of savings). However, our parents are pretty well off and don’t really need it. As it stands, however, they are like most and would not voluntarily give it up. They have the attitude that they paid in and, by God, that is their money and they deserve to get it back.
Raise the retirement age for those that don’t do physical labor. Sitting behind a desk at age 70 is easy, digging a ditch is not.
Give everyone under a certain age (say 40 or so) the option to partially opt out and put those funds into mandatory investments in IRA’s or something else like that, something that could be deemed safe, like long term Treasury bonds. Speaking only for myself, I’d love to be able to augment the retirement saving I do for myself with part of the funds I pay into Social Security annually.
Given the number of unemployed in the country right now and the general consensus that it will be a long, long time before our economy will be back at full employment, tied together with the coming baby boom retirements, if something is not done, I think Social Security will run out of money sooner, rather than later.
fasteddie9318
@Church Lady:
Sorry, but raising the retirement age at a time when the low measure of unemployment is around 10% makes pretty much zero sense. Means testing, again something that threatens to keep geezers working at the expense of younger workers, is a bust too.
As far as allowing those under 40 to take their money out of the system and play around with investments instead, well, that’s called the end of Social Security. The money you pay into the system now isn’t socked away for your retirement; it pays for current retirees. If you get to pull your money out of the system, then that puts the kibosh on the whole package.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
I don’t understand why they made Obama create this commission and defend Simpson.
goatchowder
It was a common technique when I was in Corporate America, to create a “special executive task force team” of the biggest, most unproductive losers and posturing blowhards, and task them with something idiotic like “rationlizing our product line” or “strategic vision statement update”. This would help get them the hell out of the way of the rest of us who were doing actual work.
In one case, a particularly brilliant executive found a way to create a whole project team full of such prattling, troublemaking, showboating buttheads, and then SPUN THEM OFF as a separate company, thus effectively conducting a purge of all the morons from our balance sheet, our meetings, and our lives. Hero move.
This may have been exactly such a move. Take all the bipartisan corporate sellout idiots– Baucus, Nelson, etc.– and get them the hell out of the way. Whether the Simson meltdown was expected or not is still not relevant. Instead of these bozos obstructing progress, they could be sent off to Siberia for a while, and when they come back with nothing, that will be painfully obvious to everyone, but an obstacle to no-one.
Corner Stone
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
It’s a mystery. An 11D optics mystery.
fasteddie9318
@goatchowder:
This is a good idea, but it wasn’t executed properly. What he should have done was to appoint every Republican politician in the country to a new commission to explore the possibility of colonizing other worlds, then shoved their asses in a rocket and launched it toward parts unknown.