An idea about the House-Senate deficit panel that both Reid and Boehner endorse

[Torie]

The fear is that the panel will gridlock, and back we are at square zero whenever. How about, if they cannot agree, then each party gets to pick 50% of the cuts, with a provision that you cannot count as a cut spending saved from winding down the twin wars as currently projected by the Obama administration's time tables, since that is already baked into the cake? In other words, no phony cuts!

 That way, we know we will not have another redux of the raising the debt ceiling circus before the election.  Which should make the Dems happy, no, since avoiding a redux, and another series of votes on this, with all the political attention attending it,  seems to be their major concern these days? 

Just a thought.  I am trying to think of ways out of the box. Light a candle rather than just curse the darkness.

[Torie]

It's impossible to put into legislation language that precludes phony cuts Grumps?  How pessimistic of you! 

[Torie]

It's impossible to put into legislation language that precludes phony cuts Grumps?  How pessimistic of you! 

It's almost impossible to pass legislation to preclude phony cuts.

Scratch pessimistic and insert realistic

"Almost" eh?  That is the time when you hire a really good and creative lawyer Grumps, to find the daylight attending the qualify adjective.

[Torie]

Yes, out of one box and, subsequently, into another. All this doesn't circumvent the veto pen which, if the present debate is any indication, the President will likely use on any substantial gutting of entitlements from the GOP's 50%. Yes, I know that Obama was about to agree to changes in eligibility, some means-testing and COLA fixes in his 'Grand Bargain' with Boehner but most of those adjustments were cosmetic, at best, and they were the GOP's attempt at 'compromise'. Imagine what they would do if they had free reign over their 50%!

It is still an admirable attempt at getting out of this mess. One question: can projected interest savings be included in the mix? That's not really a direct "cut" but it's still factored in by both the Blue's and Red's plans.

Reductions in interest costs count. That is a real cash flow savings. Obama won't veto it. If he did, he would own the partial government shutdown.  One thing we know about Obama - he hates to have his fingerprints on much, without a lot of political cover. Soaring gauzy rhetoric is more his thing.  Heck, he is going to sign at this point whatever hits his desk, no matter what is in it, including apparently the Boehner bill, which he has been careful to avoid saying he would veto - for good political reasons.   

[Torie]

In tandem with this, we need to get going with tax reform - now. Yes, now. Hopefully someday, the Dems will get the memo that if they want to Pubbies to sign off on revenue increases, that is the only way to get there.  And on that one, team Boehner is going to have to jettison the Tea Party, because getting anywhere near what they are proposing means slashing the level of the entitlement state in a way that would be political suicide.  At the end of the day, public opinion matters. Someone needs to tell the Tea Party that.

[Torie]

That's about 50% revenue raisers in a way that Pubbies would not like and 50% spending cuts.  Er no. No! That is even more than Obama is asking for. No!

No, it needs to be about 2/3 spending cuts, and 1/3 revenue raisers that Pubbies would like - at a minimum. Either that, or the Dems need to take back the House, hold POTUS and the Senate, and get rid of filibusters. Come to think of that, why didn't they do all of that in January, 2009?  How time flies.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When Boehner and Obama were chatting about tax reform, now off the table, which is and of itself just so damning in so many ways, about our governance, they agreed to precisely that! And it is entirely appropriate, because the chained CPI is a more accurate measure of what it really costs to maintain one's standard of living, and thus more neutral. Thus it is just so sensible and obvious, but it died, because we are dysfunctional, and have deficits in far more than just money matters.