Excellent topic. Joe Joyce (Wellesley College econ dept.) will be in Beijing, China to attend and present at an econ conference so may have first hand comments, but that is a month from now. Might make for a good several post?
This bill would set up a new ‘commission’ to come up with a plan to fix Social Security. The commission would be made up of:
1 shall be appointed by the President;
3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
3 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate; and
3 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
This configuration would make the President’s one vote the deciding vote. Interesting…..
In the Bill there is a provision for $2m of expenses, but there is also a provisions for ‘gifts’ to the commission. Gifts?? This opens the door for folks on all sides of the debate to try to steer the outcome. I thought the ‘gifts’ was an interesting feature – probably a bad one. The language:
(GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND DEVISES.—The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of services or property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts, bequests, or devises of money and proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts, bequests, or devises shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be available for disbursement upon order of the Commission.
” I was wrong about Peter Beinart being right about being wrong. He’s just wrong.
by digby
Oh good lord. When I look like a fool, I really look like a fool. Just the other day I wrote a nice piece about Peter Beinert being someone worth listening to on Iraq because unlike others, he had repented for being wrong and learned some valuable lessons.
Uhm, I spoke too soon:
Yes, the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, seeing its architects return to prime time to smugly slam President Obama while taking no responsibility for their own, far greater, failures is infuriating.
But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster. Since the president took office, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has grown ever more tyrannical and ever more sectarian, driving his country’s Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchers—including those within his own administration—have warned that unless the United States pushed hard for inclusive government, the country would slide back into civil war. Yet the White House has been so eager to put Iraq in America’s rearview mirror that, publicly at least, it has given Maliki an almost-free pass. Until now, when it may be too late.
Read on to find out how the Obama administration was supposed to perform magic tricks on the head of a pin to prevent this from happening. They didn’t “push hard” against the government to allow troops to stay beyond the Bush administration’s residual forces agreement expiration. He quotes his fellow memebers of the wrong about everything caucus Kenneth “Gathering Storm” Pollack saying that the administration “sent the wrong message” saying “the United States under the new Obama administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road…. [This] undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state and the civil war.”
For crying out loud. The assumption that the US could have done anything to prevent this short of keeping a large military presence in the country at huge expense to America in blood and treasure is nonsense. That they could have done it by “sending messages” and “pushing harder” is delusional.The sad reality is that we broke Humpty Dumpty and all the presidents horses and all the president’s men can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.”
Well I reviewed the Bill that Krasting referenced and it is every bit the abortion I imagined.
First the President’s one vote is not the determiner. Because any proposal has to have the approval of 9 of the 13 Commissioners. Meaning that either Congressional Party has a potential lock on the action, but which given the general uniformity of Republicans for a all benefit cut based ‘solution’ as contrasted with the openness of all to many Dems for a ‘compromise’ of a combination of benefit cuts and PERHAPS some revenue enhancements, we are just being set up for the same shenanigans we saw with Bush’s quite similar CSSS of 2001, with the only possible path forwards predertermined by the structure.
And the procedure once (or better if) the Commission makes a recommendation has all the small d democracy of your typical endorsement of legislation’suggested’ by the old Soviet Politburo to the Supreme Soviet. The Committees of jurisdiction are given only three legislative days to Report out the Bill, otherwise it just gets reported by an automatic process, and the Bill is not subject to Amendments.
There is more detail to this, in particular a provision that establishes restrictions on procedure for both Houses followed by an exemption for that procedure for the House. Which seems a little one way. But not worth pursuing because the whole thing is to this point a total joke. Not least because it grants full powers to select Commissioners to current Leaders Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, and McConnell who along with Obama might as well be the Five Most Wanted Criminals among the Tea Party faction. Who we might well remember had an early rallying cry of “Keep Government Hands Off My Social Security and Medicare”. At this point does anyone think the Republican Base is going to trust Boehner and McConnell to protect their interests on ANYTHING? And for that matter most Social Security advocates are a little leery of Obama and Reid in this particular regard.
This Commission idea is going nowhere and would most likely deadlock just like Bowles-Simpson did. Republicans are just not going to go along with any deal that can be cast as “raising taxes” And Dems are not suicidal enough to go along with a bill totally based on benefit cuts. If there is ever going to be any kind of action on Social Security it will have to come out of the regular Congressional process of hearings and markups and yes compromise. It won’t come through this kind of top down take or leave it no amendment process.
I’m curious about AB commenter’s thoughts on the ExIm Bank. Stay or go?
Hi LJ.
Excellent topic. Joe Joyce (Wellesley College econ dept.) will be in Beijing, China to attend and present at an econ conference so may have first hand comments, but that is a month from now. Might make for a good several post?
Any thoughts on H.R 4786??
This bill would set up a new ‘commission’ to come up with a plan to fix Social Security. The commission would be made up of:
1 shall be appointed by the President;
3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
3 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate; and
3 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
This configuration would make the President’s one vote the deciding vote. Interesting…..
In the Bill there is a provision for $2m of expenses, but there is also a provisions for ‘gifts’ to the commission. Gifts?? This opens the door for folks on all sides of the debate to try to steer the outcome. I thought the ‘gifts’ was an interesting feature – probably a bad one. The language:
(GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND DEVISES.—The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of services or property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts, bequests, or devises of money and proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts, bequests, or devises shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be available for disbursement upon order of the Commission.
A link to the Bill:
https://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr4786/BILLS-113hr4786ih.pdf
” I was wrong about Peter Beinart being right about being wrong. He’s just wrong.
by digby
Oh good lord. When I look like a fool, I really look like a fool. Just the other day I wrote a nice piece about Peter Beinert being someone worth listening to on Iraq because unlike others, he had repented for being wrong and learned some valuable lessons.
Uhm, I spoke too soon:
Yes, the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, seeing its architects return to prime time to smugly slam President Obama while taking no responsibility for their own, far greater, failures is infuriating.
But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster. Since the president took office, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has grown ever more tyrannical and ever more sectarian, driving his country’s Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchers—including those within his own administration—have warned that unless the United States pushed hard for inclusive government, the country would slide back into civil war. Yet the White House has been so eager to put Iraq in America’s rearview mirror that, publicly at least, it has given Maliki an almost-free pass. Until now, when it may be too late.
Read on to find out how the Obama administration was supposed to perform magic tricks on the head of a pin to prevent this from happening. They didn’t “push hard” against the government to allow troops to stay beyond the Bush administration’s residual forces agreement expiration. He quotes his fellow memebers of the wrong about everything caucus Kenneth “Gathering Storm” Pollack saying that the administration “sent the wrong message” saying “the United States under the new Obama administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road…. [This] undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state and the civil war.”
For crying out loud. The assumption that the US could have done anything to prevent this short of keeping a large military presence in the country at huge expense to America in blood and treasure is nonsense. That they could have done it by “sending messages” and “pushing harder” is delusional.The sad reality is that we broke Humpty Dumpty and all the presidents horses and all the president’s men can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/my-mea-culpa-i-was-wrong-about-peter.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Gotta love the inane idea that Obama could change Iraq by “sending messages” and “pushing harder”.
Strangely enough, many apply that same idea to healthcare reform, stimulus, etc.
Well I reviewed the Bill that Krasting referenced and it is every bit the abortion I imagined.
First the President’s one vote is not the determiner. Because any proposal has to have the approval of 9 of the 13 Commissioners. Meaning that either Congressional Party has a potential lock on the action, but which given the general uniformity of Republicans for a all benefit cut based ‘solution’ as contrasted with the openness of all to many Dems for a ‘compromise’ of a combination of benefit cuts and PERHAPS some revenue enhancements, we are just being set up for the same shenanigans we saw with Bush’s quite similar CSSS of 2001, with the only possible path forwards predertermined by the structure.
And the procedure once (or better if) the Commission makes a recommendation has all the small d democracy of your typical endorsement of legislation’suggested’ by the old Soviet Politburo to the Supreme Soviet. The Committees of jurisdiction are given only three legislative days to Report out the Bill, otherwise it just gets reported by an automatic process, and the Bill is not subject to Amendments.
There is more detail to this, in particular a provision that establishes restrictions on procedure for both Houses followed by an exemption for that procedure for the House. Which seems a little one way. But not worth pursuing because the whole thing is to this point a total joke. Not least because it grants full powers to select Commissioners to current Leaders Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, and McConnell who along with Obama might as well be the Five Most Wanted Criminals among the Tea Party faction. Who we might well remember had an early rallying cry of “Keep Government Hands Off My Social Security and Medicare”. At this point does anyone think the Republican Base is going to trust Boehner and McConnell to protect their interests on ANYTHING? And for that matter most Social Security advocates are a little leery of Obama and Reid in this particular regard.
This Commission idea is going nowhere and would most likely deadlock just like Bowles-Simpson did. Republicans are just not going to go along with any deal that can be cast as “raising taxes” And Dems are not suicidal enough to go along with a bill totally based on benefit cuts. If there is ever going to be any kind of action on Social Security it will have to come out of the regular Congressional process of hearings and markups and yes compromise. It won’t come through this kind of top down take or leave it no amendment process.