We have found El Dorado, the magical city of true bipartisanship. When it comes to the Conrad-Gregg proposal to “establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States,” we can (almost) just take all 100 senators’ names, throw them in bag, and pick them out at random. The amendment won 53 votes, but failed to meet the 60-vote threshold. Most liberals (at least, those not up for reelection) voted against it. Most conservatives voted against it, too. Here’s why, from George Will:
Substantively, the task force would be a means of conscripting Republican participation in huge tax increases. There are precedents. The 1983 Greenspan Commission that “fixed” Social Security permanently (permanence is not what it used to be) involved large and immediate tax increases and small and delayed trims to benefits.
On the liberal side the objection is that it is anticipated that any such commission would recommend steep cuts in Social Security benefits without any corresponding cuts in Defense spending.
A few ‘no’ votes (like Sen. Byrd’s) were probably more about protecting the prerogatives of the Senate, as the Commission’s recommendations would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote without any amendments.
On the ‘yes’ side of things are people who rightly believe that Congress is incapable of making the hard choices needed to restore some sense of fiscal sanity and avoid an epic failure of our society.
There isn’t an obvious correct side to this debate, but I will say that cutting Defense spending should be the first item on the docket for any commission looking to save our bacon.
Yes, defense should be first to be cut, but once again: solving the health care crisis solves the “deficit problem.”
It would suit Obama better to frame the debate that way than talk about these meaningless commissions and spending freezes.
Um, no.
Health care reform would have helped very marginally.
We’re screwed, and the Senate just punted. Most progressives are happy, and I would have voted ‘no,’ too, but reluctantly.
I mean real health care reform.
Take a look at the situation.
We live in sad times.
It shouldn’t be politically controversial to suggest that having hiring Americans to put up solar panels and insulate homes is a better idea than hiring them to police the streets of Baghdad.
.
U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S.
Analysis of FY 2010 Defense Appropriations Conference Agreement (HR 3326)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“cutting Defense spending should be the first item on the docket.”
And the first item on the blogger docket should be to quit calling it Defense. The military hasn’t defended us against anything much in half a century. It’s pretty hard to argue against “defense” spending. It’s pretty easy to argue against “military waste”.
I’ll just note that, in our discourse, war-machine spending (since “defense” spending is rightly derided) is never, ever discussed as wasteful. Sure, social programs can be wasteful, poorly managed, even fraudulent at times. But the war-machine is pure as the driven snow. And is always works, even when it fails, because victory is always a surge away.
We tried to escape the veal pen by climbing through the overton window, but we got a slap in the face from Rahm, and fell – under the bus!! Wake up sheeple. We’re bending over for President Olympia Snowe. Nobody could have anticipated that the left would drown in meaningless in-group cliches. It’s like lucy with the football, what Digby says.
Another commission, who cares — when have they ever been good for anything? The real concern here is the signal that Obama has STILL not figured out that “bipartisanship” is not a value in itself, but an excuse to do nothing. He still wants to be a shepherd instead of a warrior, when the times demand a warrior. I’m finding myself starting to dread the SOTU.
I’m not even going to watch it. I’ve had enough of his bullshit. If he gets honest and formally changes his party affiliation, I’ll hear it on the news in the morning.
Sending fewer (cough) pallets of cash into a war zone might help things a bit.
Is it Bipartisan for a majority of Senators from both sides to vote down a proposal for a bipartisan Commission? It seems that both parties are against Bipartisanship. Well at least they agree on something. Down with Bipartisanship! Let the battle resume. It’s so much more fun and keeps the bases riled and the dollars rolling in. You can’t have a game without opposing sides – unless its some wussy “pass the parcel” type game. Real men fight to win!
It was cloture that got voted down. They don’t want their names on the merits of the bill. It’s no-win.
If they vote yes, it’s a confession that they don’t want to govern.
If they vote no, it’s advocating for deficits.
So they ducked, but ducked in a bipartisan way. Only enough votes crossed each way to confuse the blame.
Damn it’s good to see comity return to the Senate.
Comity: Senators’ propensity to cover each others’ asses when they are likely to get in a crack. For example, see pay increases in deficit control bills.
Do you actually know what liberal/progressive means?
Curious. I used to think you did but, time passes, things change.