Catfood Commission Chooses Irrelevance

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:09:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The first reports on the the Catfood Commission Report indicate that it has chosen to be a silly vanity project with no real world impact at all. The reason I say this is because it appears ready to recommend pie in the sky "think tank" style proposals that are politically DOA. Let's look at some of the specifics:

The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks — including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments[.]

Forget the merits of this proposal, the chances of this happening are precisely ZERO. So everything that follows from this (across the board income tax cuts) have no chance of being part of a deficit reduction plan.

Most of the reported recommendations strike me as right wing nonsense wholly unrelated to deficit reduction, including a full out assault on Social Security. I can not imagine a politician in the country embracing it. Maybe I am too sanguine, but it looks DOA to me. And thank goodness for that.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Not A Blue Dog, He Is A Bill Clinton Democrat | Balancing The Budget By Cutting Taxes For The Rich >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Catfood Commission Chooses Irrelevance | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:15:42 PM EST

I hope you are right but with Obama you never know.

Counter argument (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:35:34 PM EST

IMO the chairs of the committee has made the initial recommendations so draconian that when they finally pass something slightly less harsh politicians will claim that they saved the entitlement programs. Of course, the things that they will be saving us from would not have existed if the commission had never been formed in the first place.

Obama and too many Democrats are on record as favoring reducing the deficit through "fixing" the entitlement programs of SS, Medicare and Medicaid. A major ad promotion is scheduled with Conrad and Bayh as major cheerleaders.

WASHINGTON -- In what may be the first major move of the forthcoming Social Security debate, the Peterson Foundation launched on Tuesday a $20 million TV ad campaign to promote the need for a major discussion on debt and deficit reduction.
...The Peterson Foundation, for one, has never shied away from its push to reform the entitlement program. And in introducing the $20 million effort, the organization's founder, former Nixon commerce secretary and fiscal conservative Pete Peterson made it abundantly clear that Social Security is in his sights.
Perhaps the most frightening part of the unveiling, however, is that Peterson -- long a scourge of progressives for having earned hundreds of millions in the hedge fund business while preaching financial sacrifice for others -- has prominent Democrats backing his latest campaign. Appearing alongside him at the Newsuem on Tuesday morning was outgoing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Budget Committee Chair Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D. link

can somebody please (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by mm on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:11:41 PM EST

tell these jackasses that SS is not part of the Federal Budget.

I don't for one second believe this is DOA. This is Obama's big moment.


By including the ending of the mortagage deduction (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:37:18 PM EST

They have made this DOA.

Bu insisting on slashing Social Security, they have made the DOa.

By insisting on cutting taxes for the rich, they had made this DOA.

It is a joke.


Yes (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:46:45 PM EST

it's a joke but how do you know it's DOA? I'm past believing that Obama or the GOP even would recognize a joke if they saw it.


I do not know (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:47:29 PM EST

But I do know any pol who take it up will be killed in 2012.


Obama is still talking about (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:58:38 PM EST

how the budget and entitlements has to be dealt with. I don't for one minute think this stuff is dead on arrival.


He wants to be reelected (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:03:05 PM EST

Not one pol will touch this with a 10 foot pole.

Simpson and Bowles completely screwed up here.


: Well, then one has to ask themselves why they (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by masslib on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:55:42 AM EST

were ever appointed? What did Obama expect, he stacked his commission with entitlement deform crusaders.

: Well (none / 0) (#23)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:15:43 PM EST

he thought HCR would help him get reelected and how has that one worked out so far? Obama seems to be in a bubble full of sycophants who tell him everything he does is wonderful.

: If you are right (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:19:16 PM EST

I love it. I wish he'd quit sending the balloon up though and I can't imagine what he thinks he's gaining doing it other than more voters unhappy even thinking about him.

: Not too Sure (none / 0) (#29)
by KLCarten on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:20:47 PM EST

I don't really think he wants to be re-elected, he has said its all such hard work being the president. Shades of W, aside, hearing nuggets of rumor from the State Democratic Party, I wouldn't count on him running again. Not wanting to spread the rumors, but if what I have been hearing is even partly true, this cr@p sandwich maybe shoved down our throats. I suppose if I hear more of the same after Dec., some of the Cat Food Commission recommendations will be on the table. Because once a pol decides he don't want to be a pol anymore, all kinds of things can happen. Depends on what kind of pay off is on the other side for him. Hope I am wrong but I have become pretty cynical the last few years.

Per Bowles "just a starting point. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:52:15 PM EST

They did not specifically call for eliminating or scaling back the popular mortgage tax deduction, but suggested such an option be seriously considered.
We're not asking anybody to vote for this plan. This is a starting point," Bowles said AP

Yes, the proposal by the co-chairs is a joke and DOA. But after everyone gets a look at how bad it could be, all 14 people on the committee have to do is make some benefits cuts slightly less harsh and remove any mention of eliminating the mortgage tax reduction etc. and many would sigh in relief that it wasn't as bad as it could be.

Personally, I hope you are right and the Cat Food Commission is dissolved without any action taken. I also hope the commission is not reactivated again when the Republican have even more control of our government. Unfortunately, I do not have faith that will be what happens.


It'snot a starting point (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:53:02 PM EST

It's not even worth mentioning ever again.


: I pray you are right... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by masslib on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:54:02 AM EST

I remember when Bush appointed some sort of tax commission with john breaux. They suggested the same elimination of the mortgage deduction and right there their proposal died. But I do resent the people who ever let Obama breath life into the faux ss "crisis" because they were too starry eyed and focused on Will.I.Am videos to pay attention to what the man was actually saying. This should not even be up for debate.

: O.K. I won't mention it again (none / 0) (#22)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:12:06 PM EST

I'll just wait and see were it all goes in the next year.

Not to mention (none / 0) (#31)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:15:20 PM EST

a 20% cut to defense spending- seriously does anyone with a straight face think congress is going to vote for that- even the quasilibertarian members of congress like the Pauls wont do that.


This is the conservative (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:43:25 PM EST

negotiating equivalent of what the Democrats should have done with respect to pretty much everything they have "reformed" over the last two years: start with the "in a perfect world" set of ideas, and then show how cooperative and sensitive you are by agreeing to reduce your expectations so that you can end up pretty much where you wanted to be all along.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous we all think this list is: recommendations are expected, and recommendations we are going to get, and I'm pretty sure whatever pain accompanies them will be felt by the same people who always feel it: those who can least afford it.

And let's remember: the recommendations will not get voted on one-by-one, but as a package, so beware the "the only way we could save X was to accept Y," and if I had to put money on it, I would guess that "X" will be the deduction for mortgage interest, and the "Y" will be benefit cuts to social safety net programs.

I hope I'm wrong.

Ths is overreeach (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:46:50 PM EST

No one will take this up. Not even Obama.


So, he's going to go (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:59:53 PM EST

all Emily Litella on us and say, "Nevermind?"

Why was it so important to him to begin with that he used an executive order to establish it after the Congress rejected it?

When I think of the ways in which Obama could have used executive orders for good, and then look at what he did choose to use them for, I want to throw up.

If you're right, he would get out his pen and relegate the entire commission to the trash heap before they can present their report; by my count, he has less than three weeks to do the right thing.


: Yep (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:01:51 PM EST

That's what he has to do.

Wasn't this commission Obama's (none / 0) (#17)
by observed on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:01:11 PM EST

idea in the first place? They're working under his imprimatur already.


Not really (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:02:07 PM EST

: Not really? It wasn't his idea? (none / 0) (#36)
by masslib on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:57:27 AM EST

He didn't appoint them?

Just FYI (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:46:46 PM EST

this is the "chairmen's recommendation." It has not been approved by the full commission, nor will it be, judging by the reactions from some of the commission members quoted in the early news reports.

I have no idea what the purpose of a "chairmen's recommendation" is or whether other staffers are beavering away on an official commission recommendation to be approved by the full commission or what the heck this is all about. It makes no sense to me.

14 of 16 (none / 0) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:05:26 PM EST

I just heard that the only way an official recommendation can come out of this commission is if 14 of the 16 members approve it. I think there was no actual practical point to having this commission because there's no way in hell you could get 14 of 16 people to agree on anything more controversial than whether the sun comes up in the east, and maybe not even that these days.

This "chairmen's recommendation" isn't even DOA because it was never anything alive to begin with. It's just a bunch of points the two jerks... er, distinguished somethingorothers more or less agree on. It's meaningless.


I think you should take a look at (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:23:51 PM EST

who those members are before being so sure they would never be able to agree on anything (and actually, there are 18 members):

Co-Chairmen:
Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton
Commissioners:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA 31)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI 4)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX 5)
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9)
Rep. John Spratt (D-SC 5)
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union

Also:

The final report will require the approval of at least 14 of the Commission's 18 members.

And take a look at the Working Groups and their leaders:

Working Groups
Discretionary Working Group
The Discretionary Working Group will research and discuss issues related to discretionary spending.
Discussion leaders:
Rep. Spratt and Sen. Coburn
Members:
Sen. Coburn
Dave Cote
Sen. Durbin
Ann Fudge
Rep. Hensarling
Alice Rivlin
Rep. Ryan
Rep. Schakowsky
Rep. Spratt
Mandatory Working Group
The Mandatory Working Group will research and discuss issues related to mandatory spending.
Discussion leaders:
Alice Rivlin and Sen. Gregg (on Social Security) or Rep. Ryan (on other mandatory issues)
Members:
Sen. Baucus
Rep. Becerra
Rep. Camp
Sen. Coburn
Sen. Conrad
Sen. Crapo
Sen. Gregg
Rep. Hensarling
Alice Rivlin
Rep. Ryan
Rep. Schakowsky
Rep. Spratt
Andy Stern
Tax Reform Working Group
The Tax Reform Working Group will research and discuss issues related to tax reform.
Discussion Leaders:
Rep. Camp and Sen. Conrad
Members:
Sen. Baucus
Rep. Becerra
Rep. Camp
Sen. Conrad
Dave Cote
Sen. Crapo
Sen. Durbin
Ann Fudge
Sen. Gregg
Andy Stern
The working groups are operating under 41 CFR 102-3.35(a) which permits subcommittees that do not report directly to a federal agency or official to meet without regard to FACA's open meeting requirements. The working groups will report their findings directly to the Commission at regularly scheduled open meetings of the Commission.

Feeling any better?


I am (none / 0) (#32)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:18:31 PM EST

Simpson and Bowles had a similar schpiel while working a Clinton era commission pushing the same thing- then as now the defense cuts basically self-abort it.


Oh, you could get 14 to agree (none / 0) (#33)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 12:20:41 AM EST

maybe on one or two ideas, but certainly not a comprehensive plan. And there certainly aren't 14 votes for the co-chairmen's pigmess.


O.K. lets say that the committee (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:04:24 AM EST

agrees on changing the way Social Security is calculated and reduces benefits on all seniors whose combined income exceeds $25,000 and raises the Medicare premiums and copays. They would not agree to any of the other "co-chairmen's pigmess."

The committee would have accomplished its task of cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Basically that is what Anne and I among others on other blogs are saying. That the committee would pick several items out of the list and say that prevented the more draconian ones. IOW praise them for only robbing you blind because they left you the the clothes on your back.


: Well, to be fair, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Anne on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:22:37 AM EST

in the example you offered, the commission would have been successful in making those recommendations, but it would then be up to the Congress to decide to accept or reject them.
But I am in agreement that the pressure will be on the commission to deliver something in the way of recommendations, and I think the only way they manage to find 14 votes for cutting the social safety net programs is to concede on other unpopular things like the mortgage interest deduction and the gas tax and the veteran-related suggestions.
And because it's a package deal that cannot be amended, debated or filibustered, I am not particularly confident that the Dems will be willing to reject the whole package just to save those programs if there are other recommendations that make sense.
I think what upsets me the most is the outright deception being pushed on the American people that Social Security is a budget issue that affects the deficit - it isn't, and it doesn't - and the questions I want someone to ask are why are they lying to the people, and why aren't they considering the best solution to strengthening it: lifting the ceiling on wages subject to the tax?

It is an 18 person commission (none / 0) (#25)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:15:39 PM EST

So 14 of 18 must agree on the final proposal. Basically your statement is true. Not 100% sure that these are exactly meaningless as that anything less draconian would appear to be an improvement.

This "chairmen's recommendation" isn't even DOA because it was never anything alive to begin with. It's just a bunch of points the two jerks... er, distinguished somethingorothers more or less agree on. It's meaningless.

Irrelevance? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:02:28 AM EST

I really hope you are right. but the only one currently giving them relevance is Obama. the democrats have trashed it and even the republicans have been cautiously critical.

not Obama. his comment was that "drastic measures are necessary" or something.
look, this is a pigf*ck. why in the world he would put someone like Simpson in charge of giving the republicans cover to gut social programs is absolutely beyond me. he is moving from impotency to antagonism. if he does not come out strong and clear and SOON with some democratic ideals he will be primaried from the left and he will be a one termer.

I definitely see a bipartisan response to this (none / 0) (#2)
by steviez314 on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:17:12 PM EST

<cough> plan.

And, btw, it's only the chairmen's plan. I doubt they could get any votes on the commission.

Scrapthe whole thing (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:24:06 PM EST

There is nothing these people say that is worth discussing.

There is not a pol in America that can support this nonsense.

Complete waste of time.


: Sometimes the Madman Theory is just a theory (none / 0) (#5)
by steviez314 on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:27:20 PM EST

about madmen.

can we just make catfood out of the commission? (none / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:18:17 PM EST

save a few rats and mice.

It's a pickle... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:30:39 PM EST

Benefit cuts...politically impossible.

Tax increases...politically impossible.

Radical reprioritization? Forget about it.

These political impossibilities make this nation as we know vanishing from the face of the earth in our lifetimes a very real possibility.

The military cuts (none / 0) (#30)
by observed on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:28:54 PM EST

are politically impossible