Ezra Klein: There is no report from the fiscal commission

[cal04]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/there_is_no_report_from_the_fi.html

Here is the most important fact about the proposal released by the co-chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform: It is not the commission's report. And here is the second most important fact to remember: The commission itself does not have any actual power. So what we're looking at is a discussion draft of a proposal to balance the budget authored by two people who don't have a vote in either the House or the Senate. In a town thick with proposals for balancing the budget but thin on votes for actually passing such proposals, it's not clear what the purpose of this one is.

It's worth taking a moment to consider how we got here: The fiscal commission we have is not the fiscal commission we were supposed to have. The fiscal commission we were supposed to have was the brainchild of Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the two senior members of the Senate Budget Committee. "The inability of the regular legislative process to meaningfully act on couldn't be clearer," they wrote. Their proposal would have set up a commission dominated by members of Congress and able to fast-track its consensus recommendations through the congressional process -- no delays, no amendments. But that proposal was filibustered in the Senate, mainly by Republicans who worried it would end in tax increases.

(snip)
Reading the report makes clear why the members of Congress are so ambivalent: It cuts Social Security benefits and raises taxes. It slashes discretionary spending without sparing defense. It eliminates the employer-tax exclusion for health care and the mortgage-interest deduction, and does nothing in particular to deal with the resulting chaos in the employer-based health-insurance market or the housing market. A "yea" on this package would not be an easy vote to cast.

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.

[lamp_shade]

1. A voice of reason. Thanks. Kick and rec.

[SidDithers]

2. K&R...nt

Sid

[gratuitous]

3. No, but the trial balloons are being floated, and the narrative is being set

If I hadn't seen it about a gazillion times already, I'd be in the "Now just hold on a second" crowd. But considering the full scale assault on the middle class, leading to the ever-burgeoning poverty class over the last 30 years, I have to say I'm more than a little suspicious whenever I hear people in power not dependent on social security identify it as the root of all our fiscal problems, final report or not.

A little reaction from those being robbed might be a good expedient in turning aside another theft attempt. We were told to just sit tight in 2005, too, and we didn't.

[johnaries]

4. Thank you. And remember that several members of the

commission have already come out against these "suggestions".

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[quiet.american]

6. Thanks for posting. Hard to remember when most analysis was "grown-up' like this. nt

[treestar]

7. I knew this was a tempest in a teapot

Hyperbole at its finest.

[MadHound]

11. And you'll be saying the same when the Dems seize your SS benefits and drop Medicare,

Loyal to the end, loyal beyond all reason.

[Spazito]

8. Thank you for this...

I remember not so long ago when people actually checked to see what the facts were before setting their hair on fire and working to persuade others to do the same, those were the good old days I guess.

Recommended.

[Scurrilous]

9. Indeed. n/t

[Swede]

10. K&R

GD overreacts of course.

[EleanorR]

12. K & R

Thanks for the article.

[Scurrilous]

13. Kick

:kick:

[Jakes Progress]

14. If the administration feels the need

to float trial balloons, we have the right and the duty to comment on them. We were told all during the hcr affair to hold our powder and wait for the final bill, that the administration wouldn't allow the PO to be dropped. Now we are often told by the same group to wait on this too.

Sure the commission is just a commission, but if we have an opinion about the things they are talking about we need to express those thoughts. You can be sure that the conservatives on the commission will be hearing from their knuckle-dragging fans.

We've sat on our hands too much already.

[madfloridian]

15. Our party is letting them float the idea of cutting SS for present retirees.

I find nothing acceptable about that.....they should speak the minute those words are even suggested.

That is scary to seniors, and it is time to stop excusing such things.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Wait till your throat is slit to scream. No dice.