Why did the President form the Catfood Commission?

[Little Star]

A walk down memory lane.

1) In September 2008 Obama made fun of commissions.

2) In January 2010 Senate rejects plan to create a deficit commission.

3) In February 2010 President Obama (by executive order) established his deficit commission.

Today my daughter told me that the senate had already rejected to form a deficit commission and then the President created his. I either didn't remember that or maybe I just missed it totally. However,after looking up these facts, my question is:
Why would he, by executive order, form this commission when the senate had already rejected the idea?

Below is where I gathered my information.
******************************************************************

Sept. 17, 2008

During a campaign appearance in Grand Junction, Colorado (the Wall Street meltdown had just taken place) Barack Obama said:

Snip~"John McCain's big solution to the crisis we're facing is -- get ready for this -- a commission," Obama told the crowd. "~snip

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/01/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-use-presidential-commissions/


January 26, 2010

Senate rejects Gregg’s ill-conceived plan to create a deficit commission.
Snip~
In recent weeks, the country’s financial debt has been in national headlines, and policymakers have been debating ways to eventually close the $1.4 trillion budget deficit. One such solution to the national debt has been proposed by “deficit peacock” Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who wants to create a commission “charged with crafting ways to reduce the country’s long-term deficits.” This afternoon, the Senate voted on Gregg’s commission, and it failed to attain the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster ~Snip
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/26/senate-rejects-deficit-commission/


April 27, 2010

Why do we need a debt commission?
Snip~
President Obama established the 18-member bipartisan commission by executive order in February and handed it a weighty task: come up with ways to slash the country’s skyrocketing debt. ~Snip
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/jan-june10/debt_04-27.html

[MadHound]

1. To provide some modicum of political cover for what he wants to do anyway

He was in control of the appointments of this commission, and if he wasn't thinking about cutting SS, or didn't want to touch SS, why would he appoint a man as chair of that commission whose lifelong mission has been to destroy SS.

[lob1]

2. Unfortunately, I believe you're right on.

[saigon68]

30. Yes Correct

And the Cat Food seniors are about to eat isn't something good like "Fancy Feast"

[leftstreet]

3. +1

[Little Star]

4. That is what I was thinking...

Why else form it especially when congress had already refused?

[NobodyHere]

20. It's simple

The nation is about 14 trillion dollars in debt and has a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Obama realizes that isn't good for the long term health of our nation.

I remember this was something that we use to blast Bush about around here.

However it's probably all a moot point since I don't see congress passing the reforms anytime soon, as the spending cuts and/or tax increases will cost many of them their jobs.

[MadHound]

22. I don't dispute that we're in deep debt, and that said debt is bad for our economy and country,

In fact if you would do a search on my posts around here, you would find that I make that very same point fairly often.

However it is the way we're going about reducing that debt that is key. Instead of continuing to balance the budget on the back of the workers and middle class, why not simply cut defense, which is hugely overbloated, and cut the numerous tax loopholes that the rich and corporate take advantage of? If you take these two actions, we can easily reduce our debt, fund needed programs for the poor, and not drive the middle class into the ground.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blindpig]

7. Here ya go...

[Individualist]

8. +1

[jtown1123]

9. Very true. A wolf in sheeps clothing.

[dana_b]

10. I believe you are right n/t

[MrsCorleone]

11. He appointed six. McConnell appointed 3, Boehner appointed 3, Reid appointed 3,

and Pelosi appointed 3.

[PBS Poll-435]

14. Don't crush the dreams of some folks here. Obama appointed them ALL!!!

Oh wait.... :yoiks:

[MrsCorleone]

17. Whoops!

My very bad. Perhaps, I've said too much. Forgot that this was sockdrawerunderground.com. :hi:

[democracy1st]

31. Meet Obama's Deficit Commission Appointee David Cote - the Most Dangerous Man in America

http://www.truth-out.org/obama-catfood-commissioner-threatens-small-town-with-nuclear-annihilation62852

[Recursion]

16. Shhhh

We don't want to contradict the DU narrative...

[MrsCorleone]

19. ...

:hi:

[MadHound]

21. You're correct, so you ought to also know that it was Obama who appointed Simpson,

The man I was referring to in my original post. Again, why would Obama appoint such a well known advocate of cutting SS unless his own thought process was going in that direction as well?

[awoke_in_2003]

28. don't confuse them with facts. nt

[democracy1st]

32. Liz Fowler: Former VP of Wellpoint & a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus

After serving as a VP for Wellpoint, the largest private health insurer, Fowler served as a chief health counsel for Senator Max Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee. There, she played a key role in drafting the health insurance bill that not only made single payer dead before arrival, but also put the first and last nail in the coffin of the so-called public option.

http://www.pdaillinois.org/site/content/obama%E2%80%99s-appointments-leave-progressives-hard-job-november


"implementation of the massive health insurance bill just enacted by the Congress will be overseen by a former high-level executive of the nation's largest private health insurer." Greenwald continues, "Fowler is the very embodiment of the sleazy Revolving Door and lobbyist-dominated politics which candidate Barack Obama endlessly vowed to subvert."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/15/fowler/index.html

[Raine]

33. EXACTLY on point! nt

:mad:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. It's anybody's guess, really

until he comes out and explains it all, I guess we won't really know for sure. My guess is that he wanted to be the one appointing such a commission instead of (possibly anticipating losses in the midterms) leaving it to the Republicans to force such a commission (that they created) on him. :shrug:

Also, I'm not sure that he's necessarily opposed to the idea of a commissions per se (and there's certainly nothing really wrong with them).

[Recursion]

6. GOP called for one and then blocked it in the Senate

Obama announced his creating one by executive order basically as a way to embarrass them; he was actually doing what they talked about doing and then blocked.

[Little Star]

15. I don't think that is completely accurate.

Here is a link to that senate vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00005

It looks like a lot of Dems voted nay also. I didn't actually count them but it looks like it went down because of both Dems and Repugs.

[mikelgb]

12. Because I want chicken I want liver, Obama, Obama please deliver!

[PBS Poll-435]

13. To buy some time for the economy to recover.

To show that gridlock is alive and well.

To look like he is working on the deficit and the debt.

[Nite Owl]

18. We aren't supposed to remember

what he said during the campaign. This is the new Obama who came into being right after the election in '08.

[mmonk]

23. Because he is a conservative.

It is the only answer that makes sense.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Individualist]

25. because he's a New Democrat

[awoke_in_2003]

29. I love the label "new democrat"...

much more civil than saying "fucking asshole"

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Yeesh

The deficit is unsustainable. We can disagree on ways to reduce it, but that is indisputable. I'm not sure why progressives and others are pretending that this isn't the case. One of Clinton's most brilliant accomplishments was eliminating a seemingly intractable deficit.

We can't have budget deficits running at 7, 8, 10% of GDP forever. It's simply impossible. Something has to be done.

Now, on to the other points:

1) Obama joking about McCain's commission - This is a non-point. Obama was joking that McCain wanted to form a commission to deal with that specific, acute crisis. Commissions in themselves are not bad. They are useful for dealing with long-term problems that require in-depth study. They are particularly bad at dealing with acute and emergency situations that require immediate action. That's why McCain's idea to form a commission as the economy collapsed in the fall of 2008 was silly, even ludicrous.

2) The Senate Rejected a Commission - Wow. By filibuster, the Senate rejected something. So that makes it bad? Shall we go through the list that makes a mockery of your underlying assumption here. Plenty of people in the Senate are clearly averse to dealing with hard facts. We need to implement some combination of tax increases and service cuts to reduce the deficit, which is, as I said, unsustainable. So, what shall we do? Should it be all tax increases and cuts to things like the military budget? Should it be cuts to social services? Which of these things can you get 41 Senators to stand up on the floor and argue for? There's your answer. The Senate couldn't do what needed to done, so they not only fobbed it off on the Commission, but even fobbed the Commission off on the President.

3) Obama Appointed the Commission by Executive Order - Well, yes, since the Senate couldn't. So what?

Should the deficit be handled in some way other than by appointing a Commission to study it and make recommendations? Perhaps. What have you got?

Are the Commission's recommendations acceptable to me? Some are, most aren't. I come in pretty far to the "Increase top marginal tax rates and slash defense spending to something approximating other industrialized nations" side of the debate.

But something MUST be done on deficits, and the sooner progressives stop kidding themselves about that, the more they can enter the debate like grown ups rather than whining, blindered brats.

[inna]

35. "whining, blindered brats." lol, project much? while bashing progressives?

too much bs in one post to even take it seriously. fail, try harder next time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. You can't respond, because you don't know what you're talking about

But feel free to tell me how the deficit is sustainable.

The sad thing is that you failed without even trying.

[inna]

42. no, you don't know what you're talking about, you're just repeating propaganda falsehoods.

unlike you, I'm very well aware of the reality, causes and historical/economical dynamics behind the deficit issue and current deficit hysteria. I am on the side with pretty much every single (honest) economist on this issue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Then

make your fucking case.

[inna]

46. LOL, it's not "my fucking case", it's the reality behind the issue.

It's like making "my fucking case" that the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun.

If you're serious about this issue though, I'll be happy to post references. Dude, I'm a scientist. I believe in data, propaganda does nothing for me. People behind this "Commission" are class warriors and charlatans with known self-serving agenda.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Make your argument

[inna]

48. will post references for you tonight. lots for you to learn there. you're welcome.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. I'll thank you when you show some

thoughtfulness.

[MadHound]

37. I agree that our debt is too large, I've stated that many times in many posts.

But the fact of the matter is that cutting that debt doesn't mean we have to attack the middle class and poor.

You want to lower the debt, well, that's easy. First, let all the Bush tax cuts expire, every single one. Then close all the tax loopholes for the rich and corporate(including those for offshoring personal wealth). Finally, cut defense spending, preferably in half. We spend more on our military than next twenty eight countries combined.

No need to cut SS or Medicare, no need to end the mortgage interest deduction, no need to balance the budget on the back of the working and middle class.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. As I said

We can have productive debates about the means and manner by which we reduce the deficit, and I lean way towards your position on that. Increase top marginal rates, and hell, increase all tax rates. This nonsense about not increasing taxes in a recession is just that: nonsense. We have yet to see positive evidence of economic growth spurred by tax cuts; it just isn't there. So, yes, agreed. Indeed, nothing in my post disagrees with what you've just written, and several points are already in absolute agreement, specifically: "Are the Commission's recommendations acceptable to me? Some are, most aren't. I come in pretty far to the 'Increase top marginal tax rates and slash defense spending to something approximating other industrialized nations' side of the debate."

The outcomes of the Commission are not good. But to attack Obama for forming it is silly. We need action on the deficit, period. This was one way to spur action. Are there other ways? Of course. I'm still waiting to hear about those.

[MadHound]

40. The problem with the commission is that it isn't seriously considering ways to cut the debt

In a manner that makes up for how, and who, that debt benefited. That debt wasn't run up taking care of the poor, working and middle class. That debt was run up in order to make the rich even richer.

But the commission was, from the get-go, designed to reduce the debt by taking it out of the hides of the poor, working and middle classes. And Obama knew this, hell, look at the people he appointed.

Yes, there are other ways, I gave you my list above, and frankly I think it is the most just way of reducing the debt. After all, the debt was run up in order to pay for outrageous military spending and to further the interests of the wealthy. It is they who should have to pay for the bulk of reducing the debt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Well, we agree on some points and disagree on others

First, I agree that the short-term deficits were produced by the Bush tax cuts and the wars. There's really no question about that. If we look back at the debates in the Congress that happened before the Bush tax cuts were passed, we see that everyone who projected disastrous deficits was correct, and all the rosy assumptions of those arguing that the tax cuts would spur growth have been proven utterly false. These people will generally point to the war and 9/11 as the "cause" of their failed philosophy and false projections, but we also know that war costs were not included in the deficit calculations until Obama forced that to happen when he took office: the deficit was running at $400-$600 billion without the war costs being added! (By the way, I think this move was one of the most intellectually honest moves of Obama's presidency; he took on the negativity of the massively increased deficit calculation in order to provide people with an honest assessment of our books, another move he's been given little credit for. So, if the short-term deficit was mainly caused by the tax cuts and war costs, then clearly the tax cuts must go away, and the military budget must be massively reduced. Absolutely agree 100%, as I've noted.

That said, I think there are intellectually honest ways of assessing the long-term deficits that address cherished social programs. I understand the argument that says these are completely solvent and lock-boxed and all that, but it's simply the case that systems invented for smaller populations with lower life expectancies and health care costs require money to be scaled up. Modern industrial (and post-industrial) societies are expensive. Very expensive. I certainly don't advocate doing away with such programs, but some modification may be required. Again, my preference would be to ramp up the top marginal rates on the wealthiest citizens. That's a no-brainer, in fact. But I wouldn't be against means-testing if that produced significant savings (i.e., if you're sitting on an estate of $100 million, you don't need a monthly check for $1500). There are ways to have this debate honestly and in good faith. I hope we can all move in that direction, as the vitriolic and ideological responses are not helpful, and we're dealing with an actual problem. I have a four year-old and an almost two year old. The America they grow up in will be either positive or completely degraded based on the way we handle the deficit. It's important stuff. But we have to separate the short-term causes and the long-term causes in an open and honest way, and avoid falling back on old saws rather than doing honest analysis.

As for "stacking" the Commission to wage war on the poor and middle class, I certainly see how the results and commissioner profiles could lead to such a judgment. I don't, however, agree that there's sufficient evidence to make it. It's just as likely that the commissioners were appointed for their long-standing grappling with these issues, and because they might be able to avoid those old saws. Do I like Alan Simpson? No. I think he's wrong, most of the time, in his approach. Do I think he's an expert on deficits? Well, yes. His answers for addressing the problem are incorrect, but I think he has as keen an understanding of the problem as anyone. We have to make careful judgments in these regards.

[MadHound]

44. If you are being intellectually honest in saying that Simpson is an expert on deficits,

Then you're a deluded fool. Sorry to be that harsh, but Simpson is not an expert on deficits, he is an expert on driving the working and middle class into the ground. His legislative experience was in immigration, but his favorite rant is that the poor and middle class have too much spent on them, which leaves less for the wealthy to suck up. Calling him an expert on deficits is like calling Attila the Hun on expert on surgery.

And again, what is wrong with closing all those tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporate? What is wrong with dramatically cutting back defense? If you do those two actions there, combined with letting all the tax cuts expire, then you don't have to worry about SS or Medicare.

Sorry, but it sounds like you want to reduce the debt by screwing the poor, working and middle class. Sorry, I can't go there. The ones who have benefited most from this obscene debt over the past thirty years have been the rich and the corporate, while real world income for the rest of us has declined. It is past time for the rich and corporate to pay their fair share, to pay for what they owe. Let's not move that burden onto the backs of the poor, working and middle class. We've paid far too much as it is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. Well

I guess there goes any hope for an interesting discussion.

Cheers.

[TexasObserver]

34. Yet another bad idea he adopted by having terrible advisers.

His advisers should have told him "Mr. President, if our unemployment numbers don't come down by fall, we're losing control of congress, so JOB creation is your only worry for the next 10 months."

That's what they should have told him. Instead, someone said "show them you're going to do something about the deficit - get out front before they make it a campaign issue."

Once again, the president chose poorly picking issues and strategy.

His inability to understand that the GOP was never going to meet him in the middle on anything has led him down this primrose path.

[mdmc]

38. GOP envy

[ctaylors6]

49. List of members appointed to committee:

By Obama:
1. Co-Chair: Alan Simpson of Wyoming
2. Co-Chair: Erskine Bowles, former Clinton chief of staff
3. Ann Fudge, president of Young and Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006
4. David Cote, the Republican chairman of Honeywell International
5. Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution economist
6. Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603707.html >

By GOP (Boehner/McConnell):
1. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), senior Republican on the House Budget Committee
2. Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), ranking GOP member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee
3. Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, former head of the conservative Republican Study Committee
4. Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee
5. Sen. Michael D. Crapo (Idaho), a member of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee
6. Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031204287.html >

By Dems (Reid/Pelosi):
1. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
2. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
3. Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
4. Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)
5. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)
6. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill)