Deficit Commission Wins a Majority, Fails Its Charter -- And Still Might Succeed

[^_^ 5,021]

Despite winning a 11-7 majority approval for its bold plan to reduce debt, the president's deficit commission fell three votes short of the super-majority required to send the plan to Congress.

You can think of the final vote tally as three 5-1 votes inside the 18-member panel, which was made up of six presidential appointees, six senators and six House representatives. Five of the six non-elected appointees voted for the plan; five of the six Democratic and Republican senators voted for it; and, five of the six Democratic and Republican House representatives voted against it.

Among elected representatives, the final tally was an even 6-6.

To their credit, senators by and large showed surprising judiciousness in their approach to the plan. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn gave a clear-eyed speech about the need to sacrifice ideology in order to make a downpayment on our future. Despite his stiff resistance to tax increases, he agreed to support a plan that would have raised effective tax rates dramatically on the top one percent while slashing the top quintile's Social Security checks by up to 20 percent in 2050. Democratic Sen. ####### Durbin said despite the proposal's controversial cuts to Social Security, he still supported the overall vision.

In the House, the only representative to support the proposal was also the only representative not seeking reelection in two years because of a November loss: Rep. John Spratt Jr. (Perhaps, if you know what it looks like when short-term election cycles run against long-term national priorities, here is your snapshot.)

Most baffling, perhaps, was GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's insistence that the plan did not go far enough to reform health care. The commission's proposal incorporated Ryan's premium support idea by using the federal workforce as a guinea pig for more aggressive health care reforms. In addition, it doubled down on the Affordable Care Act's delivery system tweaks and and limited health care cost growth to GDP-plus-one-percent after 2020 -- essentially forcing the government to cap Medicare and Medicaid payments. Still, Ryan insisted that without declawing Obama's health care law or moving to a voucher system more aggressively, he could not support the plan.

Ultimately, the deficit commission was both a success and a failure. It succeeded in putting deficit reduction center stage and managing to get half its elected representatives to vote for a plan that combined liberal and conservative policies that could be Kryptonite for any reelection campaign. It also succeeded, almost incredibly, in getting a classic liberal, ####### Durbin, and a classic conservative, Tom Coburn, to join hands on a plan to effective reform the entire budget. In an age where a $20 billion unemployment benefits bill gets stuck in Congress, the idea that a $4 trillion bill of pain could receive majority support in the commission is an achievement.

And yet, as a matter of technicality, the commission failed. There will be no bill sent to Congress. There will be no vote to restore sanity to the budge ... or will there?

Fourteen Democrats have now signed a letter asking Congress and the White House to move forward on a real law to reduce the deficit. Rep. Ryan and Sen. Crapo said they would like to incorporate some of the commission's ideas in their own legislation.

"I think we've changed the conversation with this bipartisan vote" a senior commission official told me. "It's no longer a question of whether whether we need to do deficit reduction or not. Now it's all about how do we do this."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/deficit-commission-wins-a-majority-fails-its-charter-and-still-might-succeed/67457/

[mawilson 2,133]

What a bunch of pussiеs.

[alienlovechild 75]

It's a step in the right direction.

The tone in Washington has gone from how any spending is going drive the economy to making some hard choices to make improve the economy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

(Perhaps, if you know what it looks like when short-term election cycles run against long-term national priorities, here is your snapshot.)

Bingo.

[scandal 951]

It's a step in the right direction.

The tone in Washington has gone from how any spending is going drive the economy to making some hard choices to make improve the economy.

I think you're right. So does David Brooks, apparently.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/brooksmarcus_12-03.html

DAVID BROOKS: I do think it has had an important effect. Obviously, it is not going to go in effect any time soon, but it's had an effect in a number of ways.

It has expanded everybody's time horizons. So people are taking a look at the debt problem over more than just five years. Second, it has had a huge effect on tax reform debate. They really put some serious tax reform -- it sort of looks a little like 1986. And that debate has spread.

And I think that could come more quickly than people think. There is a serious debate inside the White House about trying to do some tax reform. There are some serious moves inside the Congress. So that I think was really given a boost.

And then, finally, the cuts that were suggested are the sort of thing we are going to have to do, and actually a little less than we are probably going to have to do. And so the whole debate, I think, in Washington has changed. Whether it will lead to quick legislation, no. But there has been a shift.