Comments for There Was No Bowles-Simpson Commission Report at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 33 out of 20 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 25 May 2013 05:36:45 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15146 The report is NOT "exclusively the report of the co-chairs," so now you are misrepresenting it. The truth is that the report is the report of 11 of the 18 members -- a 60+% majority. It may not have reached the 14 votes necessary to have Reid and Pelosi agree to bring it to the floor for an up or down vote. But to say "there was no Bowles-Simpson Commission report" is simply false. Plus, what is to say that a majority report can't be an "official" report. It's official, it just didn't reach the number of votes necessary to go before the President and the Congress. But even if you want to say that the report is not an "official" report from the commission -- so what? That doesn't somehow nullify its existence. Is it crazy to believe that a report which received a 60+% majority from a blue ribbon commission is important to the public discourse whether or not it reached the ridiculous 14/18 votes required for it to be brought to the floor? And is it so crazy to then attribute that report to the commission that voted on it with a majority? I think you're reaching. - Roger Sat, 03 Mar 2012 04:45:10 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15106 Pardon the forced nature of the pun, but it does comport with the spirit of the most recent research on the right's war on the world in which they (we) live in. I may be taking liberty with Chris Mooney's work by putting the right's and their enablers' affirmative disregard for the inarguable facts of the President's fiscal commission into his framework describing "educated" idiots, but I think not. Echoing the case atrios has made (repeatedly) regarding MF Global's theft of over $1BB in client funds, the conditions and facts of the "Simpson-Bowles" Commission are anything but complex. Al & Er failed, as Dean clearly notes, to get the number votes their precious a-democratic panel's charter required for their pet preferences to be considered the commission's work product and official recommendations. Also, as other noted, Ezra Klein is among those who has decided to push this nonsense. As such, his analytical "batting average" continues to plummet toward the "Mendoza line" - which in baseball is the fast-track to involuntary career reinvention but which among the commentariat amounts to "clusters" on the medal of irrelevance marking in-group conformity among pundits. I guess they act as Mooney's research describes by believing in, as pundits, the bizarre moral equivalence that if they're all wrong then none of them are wrong. Teaser on Mooney[url] http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/the_republican_brain:_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality/?page=entire[/url] - William Hurley Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:46:58 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15093 Charley James: "Moreover, the article missed another major point: Federal debt as a percent of GDP has been shrinking under Pres. Obama, in part because the Affordable Care Act is starting to come into operation." Sorry, but every statistic coming out of D.C. about "GDP" or "Unemployment figures" or "Economic growth" is just plain hogwash when even briefly examined.....cursory looks find intentional "flaws"....so you'll excuse me if I ask you to prove that assertion. it's not that I wish to state Obama is the first to do so....but he certainly acts way to self-righteous and above reproach while dangling on Wall Street strings. - farang Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:08:02 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15087 okay folks, one more time, the rules of the commission were that a report had to be approved by 14 of 18 commissioners. This is like criminal jury that must produce a unanimous verdict. There was no report that had the support of 14 of 18 commissioners, therefore there was no commission report. This is like a jury where 9, 10, or even 11 can vote to convict. If it is not unanimous, there is no verdict. Got it? - dean Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:26:33 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15082 Liberal: Spent 11 years there, working with a variety of folks at the staff level across different agencies. The politicians do muck it up, but there are plenty of competent and I do think dedicated folks in D.C., who get misused by the pols. E.g., several years ago economists (not the commission) at the CFTC came out with a report, actually a research paper, attempting to publish etc., showing that as a multitude of other studies have shown, speculative trading per se cannot be blamed for high futures prices, in this case oil and gas prices. Then change of administration. Doesn't fit with priors. Economists sacked. New report, much more in line with priors of new administration. Probably directed by attorneys. Sigh. Dean: Of course there is a book with some numbers on it but this represents claims on federal income taxes or debt. That's what I said above, and what Krugman has pointed out, merely a construct, used by Roosevelt as a way of passing SS (AKA welfare for the aged) with the Republicans in 1930s. It is interesting to do this accounting to dedicate future income taxes/debt in this way, as is also supposedly done for the "highway fund" and medicare. Plus it can lead to fear (oh no! the fund is going broke!) Balderdash. We could probably also create a "defense fund" to dedicate some income taxes to defense. Or education. Etc. But this fund is fraudulent in that it can be used to claim that these 'bonds' (my investment, I "paid in") are going to somehow turn into cash like a caterpillar turns into a butterfly. They are "dedicated" claims against future income taxes or deficits...Most importantly, the SS liabilities exist with or without the fund, and bottom line is that regular income taxes will ultimately pay SS checks, since we are passing the paygo part of the actuarial reality, much quicker now with the payroll tax cut. That's why it is actually good that Obama has delinked SS from the payroll tax, and just to really nail it, progressive economists are now referring to SS as welfare rather than a defined benefit. That makes it easier to means test medicare and SS, certainly progressives would go for that, due to the increasing concentration on income/wealth inequality. There should be no doubt now that that reduction in the payroll tax is permanent, for it is the only way to reduce "taxes" on the 50% who pay no regular income tax, other than to increase Friedman's negative income tax, the EITC. - pete Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:38:26 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15081 [b]Dean[/b] wrote, [quote]You can find this in the SS trustees reports, the CBO reports and dozens of other government documents.[/quote] How can that be? Presumably staffers are the ones who actually wrote those reports. And pete is an ex-staffer. And all staffers have sincere, honest, pristine beliefs that are not to be called into question by others. So how could they ever conflict? /snark - liberal Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:36:58 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15080 [b]TomInPortland[/b] wrote, [quote]Only liberals would agree to this.[/quote] The people behind those decisions aren't liberals. Obama, for one, is a centrist. - liberal Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:24:21 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15079 [b]pete[/b] quoted, [quote]"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner ...[/quote] LOL! So I'm supposed to be swayed by what [i]Geithner[/i] says? pete, do you enjoy making yourself look like a blithering idiot? - liberal Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:19:19 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15078 [b]pete[/b] wrote, [quote]There are plenty of folks working pretty hard and, sorry Liberal, sincerely in DC, for various commissions,...[/quote] Sorry, pete, if you're either so ignorant or disingenuous as to claim that the SS Trust Fund is stocked with monopoly money, then you yourself have shown that "staffers" can't be trusted. Talk about an "own goal"... - liberal Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:13:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15077 The Moment of Truth: [u]Report[/u] of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform: [url]http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf[/url] A majority of the commission voted for the thing. It even has the White House seal on the front cover! Speaking of the White House, [u]they[/u] too refer to it as the Fiscal Commission Report. From the 2012 Budget: [i]"The Fiscal Commission’s [u]report[/u] opened a debate on many of these topics, such as tax reform and Social Security. The President hopes to build on the work they did to create space to discuss these issues, and begin a process of reform that results in putting the Nation on sound fiscal footing, creating the conditions for long-term economic growth, and doing both in a way that remains true to our most deeply-held values."[/i] (Notice above that, again, Obama is using his hand-picked anti-Social-Security commission as an excuse to continue his assault on Social Security! Shame!) So while the White House and its flacks might want to pretend that Simpson-Bowles didn't exist, now that election time is here and the 99% are finally realizing how badly they're getting crushed, it certainly did exist in all of its dark majesty. It's true that they didn't have enough commissioner votes to have their report automatically be subjected to a vote in Congress, but that's different than what the article claims. So, I request that either you alter this post, or add a post to similarly call out the White House as liars. Thanks. - Manny Goldstein Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:12:36 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15075 [b]pete[/b] wrote, [quote]There are plenty of folks working pretty hard and, sorry Liberal, sincerely in DC, for various commissions, and I simply think the Tea Party/Occupy/Anti-DC rhetoric really goes too far.[/quote] Your claim about sincerity has no evidence behind it. - liberal Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:08:35 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15067 I never see anyone pointing out the aspect of the Bowles-Simpson Commission that I find most offensive. Namely in 2008 the Democrats chalked up amazing victories at the polls leading to them holding the Executive branch and comfortable numerical majorities of both houses. Had it been the Repulicans that achieved this feat they would have declared it another American Revolution and loudly demanded that the Democrats honor the clear judgement of the people and stand aside, playing no role in producing legislation. What did Obama do? On the fundamental question of future government spending he puts together an equal number of (UNELECTED) Republicans and Democrats in order to be fair, to decide this question. What the hell was the election for if not to decide who gets to make these decisions. Imagine the Miami Heat agreeing to have some of their players play for the competition in order to make an upcoming game against a weaker opponent more fair. Only liberals would agree to this. The big secret is the Democrats agree to bi-partisanship because most of them are to the right of their constituencies so they do not really want to win. Obama needed an excuse to fail to be FDR. Simpson-Bowles was that excuse. He is not FDR, he is a Friedmanite to the core. - TomInPortland Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:01:30 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15066 Sorry Pete, there is absolutely a SS trust fund, which has over $2.5 trillion worth of U.S. government bonds. You can find this in the SS trustees reports, the CBO reports and dozens of other government documents. As they say, this can't be repeated enough times since folks like Peter Peterson are spending billions to deny this reality. - dean Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:34:33 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15065 "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday explained why President Obama never fully embraced the 2010 report of his fiscal commission, headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles. Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts." http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson - pete Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:08:22 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15064 BTW, there seems to be some confusion, I was not on this commission, that was in a past life, but having been there I believe strongly that there should be a distinction between the work of the troops and the idiot generals. There are plenty of folks working pretty hard and, sorry Liberal, sincerely in DC, for various commissions, and I simply think the Tea Party/Occupy/Anti-DC rhetoric really goes too far. Knowledge is slippery, and we should take advantage of all research, not be constrained by epistemological closure. Liberal talk these days is that retirees are on the government dole. SS is, as Krugman has opined, a pay as you go system, not investment/insurance as Dean and Co. like to fabricate. This sick Enron- (oops a Krugman favorite) type thinking that there is a trust fund is a fraud which cannot be exposed enough. - pete Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:03:39 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15063 There's a reason for agencies to label certain reports as staff reports. Most often, they are for internal consumption. If Pete is still working as a congressional staffer, he likely would or should be PO for having no pay raise for two years. On top of that, the recent payroll tax break for one year will increase Pete's retirement contribution (I could be wrong that was what I heard) as well as all other Federal workers' retirement contribution for LIFE - not for one year. Staffer would likely have more things to complain about than the use of their staff reports. - james Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:54:55 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15062 [b]John Q[/b] wrote, [quote]As there was no official Bowles-Simpson report, shouldn't hers be given equal weight with the other unofficial recommendation[/quote] LOL. Try telling that to "pete". - liberal Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:52:06 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15061 [b]pete[/b] wrote, [quote]Cutting the payroll tax does lead the way to what should have been obvious, that is ultimately SS is funded with regular income taxes (or debt).[/quote] Oh. I guess my SS contributions are monopoly money, then? The stupid, it burns... - liberal Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:46:49 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15060 Ezra Klein does the same thing fairly frequently and did again so today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reason-the-white-house-didnt-embrace-simpson-bowles/2011/08/25/gIQAq1j2dR_blog.html - eRobin Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:45:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/there-was-no-bowles-simpson-commission-report#comment-15059 What a ridiculous nit-pick. President Obama plucked these two idiots from the nether regions in which they resided and put them in a position of influence in his administration. We can tell ourselves that isn't the case, but saying it isn't so doesn't make it so. And if you think Obama was shocked and amazed at what Simpson and Bowles came up with, that he never imagined his two hand-picked commitee heads would go in that direction, I have a nice shiny bridge to sell you. - TK421 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:57:39 +0100