TPM: Why Now? Very interesting reactions from debt commission members.

[flpoljunkie]

Why Now?
David Kurtz | November 10, 2010, 1:59PM

We're in the process now of trying to get a better understanding of what Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson are up to exactly in releasing this draft of recommendations for spending cuts and tax hikes. Here's what we do know:

The commission's final recommendations aren't due until December 1. The commission can basically recommend whatever it wants, but if 14 of the 18 commissioners agree with the recommendations, then Congress has agreed to take them up. So that's basically the key charge of the commission co-chairs: create enough of a consensus plan that 14 commissioners can support it. Without that, the recommendations become just another report gathering dust on a shelf.

So today Bowles and Simpson unveiled their proposal to the commission in a closed meeting. To paraphrase, the reactions of commissioners leaving the meeting ranged from 'over my dead body' to 'like hell we are.' Bowles and Simpson followed up the private commission meeting with a public press conference. We'll have more on that soon.

As I said, it's all a little murky still but it appears that the co-chairs are laying down their markers to get the ball rolling on negotiating among the commissioners a series of final recommendations that will achieve a consensus. The commission has been at work now for months, but the real work will be over the next 3 weeks as they try to hammer out some kind of agreement amongst themselves. This appears to be the opening salvo in that effort.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/why_now_2.php#more?ref=fpblg

[ProSense]

1. Here's one theory

<...>

Bowles and Simpson could be trying to muscle through their preferences, or they could be laying groundwork for a "compromise," less draconian set of proposals from the full commission by making this looks awful so that whatever the larger group comes up with is by comparison acceptable. Who knows for sure. But if there are massive tax cuts for the wealthy and pain for the rest of us in the final proposal, it should be DOA.

link

[flpoljunkie]

3. Massive tax cuts for top 1% and corporations is insane if they're sincere about our federal debt.

[ProSense]

5. It's completely insane

but it's Third-Way thinking, which Bowles embraces.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. While cutting VA benefits

of all things. Co-pays for Veterans, tax cuts for the rich.

[Kdillard]

2. That seems to be the only explanation that makes sense. It will be interesting to see what or if any

agreement can be reached so that Congress can hear it.

[flpoljunkie]

4. To go to Congress for vote the panel must get 14 of 18 votes for final recommendations. A high bar.

[Kdillard]

6. Yeah but it should be fun watching the Dem bashing on DU.

[ProSense]

8. Ezra Klein

The fiscal commission reports -- sort of

<...>

The fiscal commission is not going to manage to get 14 of its 18 members to agree on a plan to balance the budget, as was the original intent. That means, among other things, that it isn't assured a vote in Congress. But it doesn't have any intention of going quietly into the night. Today, the commission's co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, are releasing their chairman's mark.

What's the chairman's mark, exactly? In Congress, the chairman's mark is somewhere between a discussion document and a piece of legislation that the chairman of a committee releases to give the members a sense of where his or her thinking is. This seems to be much the same: It's a full plan to balance the budget, but it doesn't have the votes of the commission's members, much less the force of law or congressional process, behind it.

<...>

Should be DOA.