Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

Why? Seems like a reflection of Congress's love affair with pork barrel spending.
What say you?

The Senate Tuesday rejected a plan to create a tough, powerful commission to recommend ways of slashing the federal debt, but the close vote made it clear that tackling the problem is an urgent priority.

"We are on an utterly unsustainable course," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "Trying what we've been doing is a proven failure."

Though the vote to approve the commission plan was 53 to 46, it failed because under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed for passage.

But the majority — which included a rare bipartisan coalition of 37 Democrats and 16 Republicans — of the plan championed by Conrad and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., sent a signal that lawmakers from both parties want to move quickly to curb spending.

Click to expand...

Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed - article url

Interestingly, only 16 republicans voted for this. I think it is time for republicans to give up their claim of fiscal conservatism.

Redress said:

Interestingly, only 16 republicans voted for this. I think it is time for republicans to give up their claim of fiscal conservatism.

Click to expand...

I realized that too :shock:....I must be missing something.

Redress said:

Interestingly, only 16 republicans voted for this. I think it is time for republicans to give up their claim of fiscal conservatism.

Click to expand...

agreed...time to put up or shut up....would have definitely thought this would have gotten more repubs

Structural changes in the formulation of laws are required, not band-aids.

A line-item veto amendment would give the President the power to slash pork, for example.

Restricting federal law to Constitutionally allowed issues is another. This doesn't require special amendments or commissions, this requires the opposition party to point out when a law violates the Constitution and it requires the people to pay attention. Imagine that, expecting Americans to start paying attention to their government once again. Clearly that idea is far too complicated and won't work, right?

What I find interesting is more democrats than republicans voted for this measure. I thought one of republican's main goals was to reduce spending.

Edit: Someone beat me to this observation.

Before judging why many Republicans voted no I would like to research their reasons for doing so. Who knows, maybe this specific bill wasn't going to accomplish what it sought out to do. If these same Democrats truly cared about the budget they'd stop voting for legislation like the stimulus and other massive spending bills.

digsbe said:

Before judging why many Republicans voted no I would like to research their reasons for doing so. Who knows, maybe this specific bill wasn't going to accomplish what it sought out to do. If these same Democrats truly cared about the budget they'd stop voting for legislation like the stimulus and other massive spending bills.

Click to expand...

Interesting. SO you want to give republicans the benefit of the doubt, but criticize Obama's motives when he proposes something to reduce to growth of the deficit...

Redress said:

Interestingly, only 16 republicans voted for this. I think it is time for republicans to give up their claim of fiscal conservatism.

Click to expand...

Agreeing with the principle doesn't mean you have to agree with every single proposal that purports to advance that principle. The split down the middle by both parties indicates that there was more than just politics at play
The Senate voted Tuesday on creating an 18 member commission, 10 Democrats and eight Republicans, who would have considered all the sensitive subjects Congress and the White House have been reluctant to touch — notably Social Security and Medicare cuts and higher taxes.

If 14 members agreed on a plan, in a vote that would come after the Nov. 2 midterm elections, it would be submitted to Congress, which would have to vote by Dec. 23. A three-fifths majority of each House would have been needed for passage.

But congressional leaders were skittish — they didn't want their power diluted, and they didn't want to make the difficult choice of cutting popular retirement and health care programs or raising t axes.

"Two things most define a senator. Senators can amend legislation, even with different subjects, and senators can debate legislation, sometimes at length. The Conrad-Gregg proposal curtails both of those defining powers," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Click to expand...

This part was also amusing, in a sad way:

Spurred by Baucus, the Senate voted 97 to 0 to exempt Social Security from the expedited decision-making process, a decision likely to make it more difficult for any future deficit-reduction task force to cut Social Security.

Baucus; plea just before the vote illustrated why it would be so hard to cut the program, citing "hard-working Americans" who rely on the program. "Why in the world would we cut Social Security?" Baucus asked. "Show American seniors we're taking action to protect them."

Click to expand...

It reminds me of nothing so much as this:

[ame="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_live_poll_allows_pundits_to"]New Live Poll Allows Pundits To Pander To Viewers In Real Time | The Onion - America's Finest News Source[/ame]

I too, I find it interesting that more democrats vote yes for this bill then republicans.

randel said:

agreed...time to put up or shut up....would have definitely thought this would have gotten more repubs

Click to expand...

An extra-legislative commission to veto their pork?

That's going to step on toes in both parties, and it has doubtful constitutionality.

Does the Commission wait until a bill is written and ready to submit to the Executive before coming down and excising portions of the bill? Then it would have to go through some kind of reconciliation process again, or it would be protested as an infringement on the Executive Branch, to name two issues with it.

Would the Commission have the power to override committee decisions before a bill is sent to the floor of the House or Senate? How could that work?

Would this commission have the power to interfere with amendments introduced on the floor?

I don't see where giving a minority of Senators or Congressment this kind of power is wise, when we already can't trust the bastards to obey the same laws they impose on us.

Does this Commission just make "recommendations"? What's the point in that, if there's no authority to enact them? Private watch-dog groups already do this.

RightinNYC said:

Agreeing with the principle doesn't mean you have to agree with every single proposal that purports to advance that principle. The split down the middle by both parties indicates that there was more than just politics at play

Click to expand...

Except that this is some of the first real efforts in years to control the deficit, and over half the republicans where against it. At least over half of democrats supported doing something about the deficit. When republicans controlled the WH and congress, we got zero deficit reduction. This whole concept of trying to excuse things by saying you just disagree with this is old and played out. Republicans have done exactly nothing to control the deficit.

Spurred by Baucus, the Senate voted 97 to 0 to exempt Social Security from the expedited decision-making process, a decision likely to make it more difficult for any future deficit-reduction task force to cut Social Security.

Click to expand...

In light of this little nugget, I am curious to see why 26 republicans voted against the idea. I wonder if they will say that it would be ineffective when they pretty much unanimously voted to keep social security off the chopping block.

RyrineaHaruno said:

I too, I find it interesting that more democrats vote yes for this bill then republicans.

Click to expand...

Means only one thing:

That the Democrats see ways to aggrandize their power via this commission.

It's what Democrats DO.

Redress said:

Except that this is some of the first real efforts in years to control the deficit, and over half the republicans where against it. At least over half of democrats supported doing something about the deficit. When republicans controlled the WH and congress, we got zero deficit reduction. This whole concept of trying to excuse things by saying you just disagree with this is old and played out. Republicans have done exactly nothing to control the deficit.

Click to expand...

And 22 democrats voted against it, so I think it's clear that it's not a partisan thing.

Again, the fact that they didn't support this proposal is not evidence that they don't support fiscal responsibility. If Obama proposed to cut the deficit by seizing the assets of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, would opposing that mean that someone was against fiscal responsibility, or would it simply mean that they think that's a bad way to cut the deficit?

When this panel would have a majority of Democrats and would be in charge of crafting a proposal that would have to face an up or down vote, if I were a Republican in the Senate, I'd be a bit wary as well.

It's not like there's anything stopping them from making the same cuts even without this commission.

RightinNYC said:

And 22 democrats voted against it, so I think it's clear that it's not a partisan thing.

Click to expand...

We have finally found something that both Dems and Repubs can agree on: pork.

it's a POWER grab

the white house recommends that both houses create this commission of 10 D's and 8 R's which has the power to FORCE floor votes on issues it deems dear

12 of the 18 will be picked by reid, pelosi, mcconnell and boehner

SIX ARE SELECTED BY THE PREZ

there ya go

he's a loser, his fingers are resented, his careful "recommendations" are rebuffed

the composition of the commission ensured it's approach would always lean to tax hikes over spending cuts

republicans were all over the sunday talks---construct a committee that only can cut and we're tickled pink

so now the plastic populist will on cue threaten his executive order

but that, according to mtp's david gregory, is non binding

oh well, party on

SOTU tomorrow

WHICH obama will we see?

aren't you EXCITED to MEET him?

Republican Opposition to Obama Plan for Deficit Panel - NYTimes.com

Oh well good riddance to fiscal responsibility window dressing.

If the U.S Senate or Congress wants to balance the budget, they could cut subsidies to farmers, auto industry, the defence industry, etc. Get rid of the department of education, department of energy, etc, etc. Tell the Army, Airforce and Navy, that they need to co-ordinate the their research programs better, and stop wasting millions on any new concept, without first establishing whether the technology is necessary or required.

I'm sure I could go on, and that plenty of other people would have ideas as to how to cut U.S government debt. But unlike a commission, that would require politicians to grow balls, and to stop pandering to the every whim of their electorate or special interest lobby group.

Anyway, I must get back to praising der Leader........

maybe we should start in chicago

Methinks the republican votes against this are because too many Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) are NOT fiscal conservatives, however much it may be considered part of Republican Party credo by some.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Means only one thing:

That the Democrats see ways to aggrandize their power via this commission.

It's what Democrats DO.

Click to expand...

:roll:
So if you're unwilling to even allow a commission to TALK about ways to reduce the federal deficit, how in the hell do you expect it to actually get done? I'm not talking about in Scarecrow's Fantasyland where all of the senators who have been voting for social programs for years suddenly vote to cut their budget to $0. I'm talking about in the real world.

Do you actually care about reducing the deficit, or do you just care about braying about how things would be in your ideal world?

RightinNYC said:

Again, the fact that they didn't support this proposal is not evidence that they don't support fiscal responsibility. If Obama proposed to cut the deficit by seizing the assets of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, would opposing that mean that someone was against fiscal responsibility, or would it simply mean that they think that's a bad way to cut the deficit?

Click to expand...

The latter. The difference is that that would be a specific deficit-cutting measure, whereas these senators opposed a commission to investigate specific deficit-cutting measures. Last I checked, there were only two ways (which the government can control) to reduce the deficit: Raise taxes or cut spending. If they are unwilling to allow a commission to even TALK about that, it logically follows that they consider a deficit to be a lesser evil than either of those other two things. That's certainly a defensible position during a recession, but in the longer term (which is what this commission is focusing on, if I understood it correctly) it's grossly irresponsible.

RightinNYC said:

When this panel would have a majority of Democrats and would be in charge of crafting a proposal that would have to face an up or down vote, if I were a Republican in the Senate, I'd be a bit wary as well.

Click to expand...

Why? You could vote it down if you don't like it.

RightinNYC said:

It's not like there's anything stopping them from making the same cuts even without this commission.

Click to expand...

So what would be the problem with the commission? Sometimes an outside perspective is helpful.

an outside perspective?

from 12 senators picked by the leaders and 6 by the white house?

LOL!

maybe we could ask the 23 dems who KILLED OBAMA's LATEST MEASURE

you might find an outsider among em

but i don't think so

Snippets from Politico:

Despite grim new deficit estimates, the Senate rejected efforts Tuesday to create a bipartisan commission empowered to force up-and-down votes in Congress on long-term steps to relieve the mounting debt facing the nation.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a good idea. It appears those who voted against it were unwilling to vote on the tough spending cuts or tax raises that would be in the proposal, and also preferred to let the problem fester:

Not only Obama but also Scott Brown, the newly elected Massachusetts senator and Republican hero, had supported the commission idea, sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and his ranking Republican, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg. But old-guard elements in both parties resisted, and it was ultimately doomed because top Republicans feared it would help Democrats extricate themselves from a difficult debt-ceiling bill.

...

“For it to win, the president will have to more,” Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said. “I think he’ll have to produce a Democratic majority in favor of it, and if he does, I think there will be a significant number of Republican votes to go with it.”

“The president’s the agenda setter. The debt’s the issue. And if this is his proposal he needs to produce the votes to pass it.”

In fact, a majority of Democrats did back the measure including most of the party’s top leaders. But there was a fatal undercurrent of opposition from top chairmen of tax writing and appropriations committees, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made little effort to temper this campaign led by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Read more: Senate rejects deficit commission - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

The common denominator is not a political party, it is length of term in office, the "old guard", who instead of being a deficit hawk would prefer to not touch third rails and risk the backlash.

It's time for some new blood who are deficit hawks and not panderers for votes.

Incidentally, it's a great sign Scott Brown voted in favor of the commission.

This describes the commission in a little more detail:

Under the Conrad-Gregg proposal, an 18-member commission would be formed with eight Republicans and eight Democrats appointed from Congress by leaders of the two parties. The Obama administration would appoint two members.

The commission would draw up prescriptions for reducing the nation’s long-term debt. They could recommend raising taxes or cutting spending on entitlement programs like Social Security or Medicare, or a combination of both. The group’s recommendations would be released after the 2010 mid-term elections and Congress would have to vote them up or down by Dec. 23, 2010. The package could not be amended or filibustered, and in both the House and Senate a three-fifths vote would be needed for passage.

Click to expand...

Senator Evan Bayh — Senator for Indiana: News - In The News

the stupid president got his skinny ass slapped all over washington today, on every front, and usually by members of his own party

1. the bipartisan graham/talent commission, offshoot of the 9-11 commision, gave him an F on "stopping the spread of wmd's"

the eminent panelists reported that the administration's woeful handling of the h1n1 vaccine bodes very poorly for the govt's ability to deal with a germ or bio attack

2. obama's debt commission, flip side of his Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, centerpiece of his post massachusetts agenda, was KILLED ON THE FLOOR

3. prominent party members wrote to holder demanding to know exactly who moved mutallab before civil authorities, why security wasn't even consulted, and insisting that the wannabe bomber be returned to military milieu

4. the president's spending freeze which, after the instant death of his bank tax became the newest focus of his brand new domestic policy, was subject to immediate resistance from senators harkin, sanders, inouye, leahy, sherrod brown, cardin, kerry, murray and stabenow

a peach as low hanging as a spending freeze rendered beyond reach BY HIS OWN PARTY

ON THE EVE OF SOTU!

unbelievable

i've never seen anything like it

obama's post massachusetts reaction has been a catastrophe

it was best encapsuled by gibbs on fns, who said of MA---"more people voted to express their support of barack obama than to oppose him"

the stupidest press secty went on to "hope scott brown doesn't misread the electorate" the way those do who actually thought the pickup driving populist WON

Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Two Senate Democrats want KSM trial out of NYC - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com

Obama Spending Freeze Lands on Hill with Thud - The Note