Deficit Plan Sort of Wins, Sort of Loses

President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission has finally voted* on the plan produced by its co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson–and the result was something of a non-victory. Eleven of the panel’s 18 members voted in favor of the plan,  meaning it earned the majority that traditionally constitutes a win. But under the executive order establishing the commission in February, a supermajority of 14 votes was required to formally submit the plan for Congressional action. And that didn’t happen, thanks to opposition from commission members on the left and right.

So there are two ways you can look at this outcome. One is that failing to win a supermajority is clearly a disappointment, and means that Congress won’t feel strong pressure to take action on the plan. Another is that winning a majority wasn’t an obvious outcome, and is certainly better than the embarrassment–and sense of futility–that would come with not winning a majority. Ezra Klein, for one, thinks the vote–and some encouraging words even from the plan’s opponents–good enough to give the plan credibility if Obama wants to run with it. (One option would be to build some of its elements into his 2011 budget proposal.) Look for Obama’s take when he returns from Afghanistan.

One thing the commission clearly did accomplish was to focus attention on the medium-to-long term debt threat and ways of mitigating it. That was the basis for Bowles’s claim, at a press conference earlier this week, that the panel had achieved “victory” regardless of the final tally. Of course, not everyone agrees on the importance of having that conversation right now, especially with the economy still bleeding on the emergency-room floor. Now that the panel is folding up its tent, we’ll see whether Obama and leaders in Congress agree.

*For reasons unclear, “[t]here was no formal roll call,” the panel’s spokesman says by email, but “members all explained their vote.”

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • Paul-no not that one

    “[t]here was no formal roll call”
    .
    National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to the American people : Grow up and have the courage to face these difficult times.
    .
    Put our names on the official record? Oh no.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    This becomes a very interesting moment of truth for Obama and progressives. The President is now off the hook on the Social Security cutting proposals. He can completely ignore them. Or he can take them up. What he chooses will be very important to me in 2012.

  • bobcn1

    There is no reason to cut Social Security because Social Security is not in trouble.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/02/104596/dont-fall-for-the-campaign-to.html

    Those who want to reduce Social Security benefits are primarily interested in raiding a system that is funded so that those funds can be directed elsewhere. Typically those same people consider it fair to raise the retirement age of poor people to an unattainable level. But, of course, restoring tax levels on the wealthy to what they were 10 years ago would be unfair.

  • mikew67

    Sorry Alan – same failed, voodoo Reagaonmics all over. Cut lots of entitlements workers earned, so that your ultra-wealthy benefactors can get another tax cut.

    Which created no lasting jobs when we did it in 1981 and 2001. Duh.

    Balkingpoints / www

blog comments powered by Disqus