When I first heard this report:
WASHINGTON — The Senate’s No. 2 Democrat Dick Durbin said Wednesday that he’s preparing a plan to create a commission to study Social Security’s fiscal problems and send a proposed solution to Congress for guaranteed votes in both House and Senate.
Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin says he’s got bipartisan backing for the idea, which is patterned after President Barack Obama’s 2010 deficit commission.
I wondered whether he meant:
- A bipartisan commission that would come up with an agreement that would readily be accepted by both houses of Congress or
- A way of kicking the can down the road for a while, producing a meaningless report, and being, basically, forgotten about?
It’s so hard to tell these days. Our political language has changed so much.
I must be further down the road of cynicism because there’s no wondering in my mind. You could start another list post with all of the meaningless activities that are now proposedby our politicians to show that they are “serious” about addressing problems, and the creation of bipartisan commisions would top the list.
I think that appointing political fundraisers as “tsars” (they used to make them ambassadors) tops that.
Have to go with B. With politicians I never, ever assume positive intentions.
I’ll go with A because Durbin has been saying that he’s been working to gather a bi-partisan consensus in the Senate to pass a version of Simpson-Bowles and he thought he was getting close. I imagine Dubin thinks that he (on the left) and Tom Coburn (on the right) could agree to a compromise, but that he can’t get votes from a lot of members of both parties without the assurance that it will pass the House. There is little upside for politicians to make a difficult vote that doesn’t actually succeed. Mostly downside.
Tsars are definitely high on the list. And presidential advisory boards. And photo ops. And legislation that is based on emotion rather than evidence of efficacy.
On the bright side, Ford was ridiculed for WIN buttons and Carter was criticized for symbolic gestures like turning down the WH thermostat, so maybe public reaction can have an effect when the posturing goes too far. The problem now though is that there seems to be no actual governance beneath the veneer.
They can’t just ask the actuaries at the SSA? Isn’t that the job of the actuaries, to know this kind of stuff?
@ PD- I think you accurately state why these commissions have become a thing. It’s not about studying the issue, it’s about studying the politics of the issue and how to give political cover to those on each side who will have to make difficult votes.
But I think the gig is up and everyone knows that those difficult votes are now not even possible to get. So instaead of a commission being a serious vehicle for negotiations, they are a time wasting and face saving sham. I think the guys who form and sit on these committees are just looking for their own form of political cover, so that they can say they at least tried to find the compromise. Too bad the other guys coldn’t get the votes together.
@Cstanley, I’m probably biased towards Durbin, but most Illinoisians are; he gets more votes than Obama among us. I tend to think his failures are not from earnestness or want of trying.
While Dick Durbin seems to be one of the more reasonable democrats around these days, I tend to follow the likes of Dr. Ben Carson as he evolves into more of a political national figure, rather than just an outstanding pediatric neurosurgeon. Listening to his speeches, IMO, offers examples of what it must be like to have an honest, non-partisan politician leader on the podium — something we have not had in my lifetime.
Carson comes from a real background of obstacles, rising above it through a determined single Mom and developing his own sense of self. He has grown to be a man of moral substance, non-partisan critical thinking, and humbleness with a mixture of humor and strength of his convictions.
In this interview, with the Daily Caller, there is a cross hatch of diversified perspectives in how he would handle different issues — views that offer surprising policy positions, for someone who spoke at CPAC and probably has already been labeled a diehard right winger by the left.
For one thing, he says he wrote President Bush to not invade Afghanistan or Iraq. Carson felt more could be done by simply saying to the ME that we were going to be energy independent in 10 years. Looking at the history of Afghanistan he saw how futile it would be to become entangled with and try to negotiate through all their tribalism feuds. So, seeking disengagement from energy dependence he felt was a more justified and workable action — one causing future financial hardship for the ME, without taking blood and treasure from us. Hmmm, not a bad idea.
With immigration, he thinks we should be looking at Canada and how they handle these matters. Having a well formulated guest worker program would solve many of our conflicts — having access to labor without all the illegal crossings and hiding in the shadows hardships.
As for Affirmative Action, Carson sought to have something not tying ethnicity to it, called “Compassionate
Action,” whereas, the neediest would be served in having a hand-up, versus just looking at the color of one’s skin, which syncs in with MLK’s concept of equality — content of character vs color of skin.
Although, Carson is a self-described Independent, he once was a strident democrat. What changed all that was the following:
These are but snippets of his ideas. IMO, though, they not only make a lot of sense, but aren’t bogged down by the rancor of party divisiveness and derision. If we could just cut out the grief of polarized ideas, just think how much progress could be made!
Congressional rules require that a majority of the majority vote for any bill. How will Durbin get a bill than can pass in the Senate through the House?
Steve