I never thought about it this way. This author seems to be ok with this, but I am not. Just some interesting comments.
The proposed escape seems at first so drearily familiar and demonstrably ineffective that it's hardly worth discussing: a bipartisan commission. But what would distinguish this commission from its many predecessors is that Congress would have to vote on its recommendations. The political theory is that, presented with a bipartisan package that cannot be amended, most politicians would do what they believe (privately) ought to be done rather than allow pressure groups, including retirees, to paralyze the process.
Damn those retirees, what do they know?
There is precedent for this approach. Since 1988, Congress has allowed more than 600 military bases and facilities to be closed or streamlined using a similar arrangement. An independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) evaluates the Pentagon's proposed closings and listens to objections.
With the president's approval, it then submits its own list, which goes into effect unless vetoed by both houses of Congress. This process provides members of Congress bipartisan "cover" and prevents amendments from weakening the package.Two prominent proposals would adapt this approach to the budget. The first, offered by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N. D., and Judd Gregg, R-N. H., the chairman and ranking member of the Budget committee, would create a 16-member commission, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. All eight Democrats would be from Congress, as would six Republicans. The administration would have two members, including the secretary of the treasury.
Conrad's notion is that the impasse is political and only practicing politicians -- people with "skin in the game" -- can craft a compromise that can be sold to their peers. The commission would report in December 2008. Twelve of its 16 members would have to support the plan, with congressional passage needing 60 percent approval (60 senators, 261 representatives). These requirements, Conrad and Gregg argue, would ensure bipartisan support.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/a_bipartisan_commission_with_t.htmlKind of forcing out those who express concern.
They are already planning to do what they want with it. And they do not care what we think.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1609So they are doing it for a reason.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
