"Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security"

Useful article for reference with brief profiles of commission members.
Since I've heard the least about these members, decided to include their profiles in this post.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/meet-the-16-men-and-two-women-who-could-determine-the-fate-of-social-security.php

Last week former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chairs the White House's fiscal commission, drew a storm of criticism for comparing Social Security to a "cow with 310 million tits." But Titgate isn't really about language. It's about both Simpson himself -- who has long viewed Social Security as a bloated program for spoiled old people -- and about the commission as a whole. Comprised of nine tax-averse Republicans and nine Democrats, many of whom have expressed support for Social Security changes in the past, the commission will almost certainly be biased toward benefit cuts, and away from raising taxes, when it presents its report on December 1. Below, the cast of characters who will be making the calls.

~~~

Rivlin is an economist with a long history in government and a propensity to call herself a budget hawk. She was the first director of the Congressional Budget Office, served as President Clinton's budget director, and later as a governor of the Fed. She has publicly argued that Social Security benefits should be cut and means tested.


Andy Stern
Until very recently, Stern served as president of the Service Employees International Union. His appointment to the fiscal commission drew the ire of the business community, and initially heartened progressives. But he has argued, à la Bowles and others on the commission, that part of the Social Security trust fund be invested in the stock market. This idea is distinct from the much more controversial plan to let people divert their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, but it's not without risk-averse critics.


David Cote
Cote is a Republican and the CEO of defense contractor Honeywell. He helped sell the stimulus bill to the business community at the beginning of last year (perhaps explaining his appointment to the commission). But though his views on entitlements specifically aren't known, he has, according to commission sources, advocated cutting service member benefits to avoid other defense budget cuts that would harm contractors...like Honeywell.


Ann Fudge
Fudge has spent most of her career as a business leader. She led a major division of Kraft Foods, and retired as the chairman and CEO of advertising giant Young & Rubicam in 2006. Fudge was born in Washington, DC, but has no professional experience in government. She was an Obama fundraiser and is a member of the board of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Abolish this sham commission.

:puke:

"THE DEMOCRATS

John Spratt

Spratt is the top budget guy in the House and a self-described budget hawk. Spratt epitomizes the "all options on the table" ethos of the fiscal commission, and has for a long time. He has in the past advocated for supplementing Social Security with a private savings plan and capping. He has opposed hard entitlement caps, though in the 1990s advocated a plan that would have forced Congress to vote on a Presidential entitlement plan if entitlement spending passed a certain threshold.



Xavier Becerra

Becerra is the vice-chairman of the House Democratic conference. He serves on both the Budget and Ways and Means Committees, and is a liberal. He's one of the few people on the commission without a history of at least entertaining changes to Social Security.


Jan Schakowsky

The Illinois Democrat has a close relationship with President Obama. But she's the only member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the commission, and a foe to those who propose entitlement cuts. In the 111th Congress, she led the CPC's health care task force, and in that role was one of the leaders for the unsuccessful fight for a public option. She continues to argue that so-called deficit hawks who favor major spending cuts could instead save billions of dollars by supporting a public health insurance option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates.


Kent Conrad

Conrad is one of the only people in Washington -- let alone on the fiscal commission -- whose rhetoric about the country's looming fiscal crisis closely matches his voting record. He opposed the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq. During the fight over health care reform he was instrumental in ensuring that the legislation contain cost saving financing measures, though he largely opposed the public option. Recently, he has suggested a brief extension of the Bush tax cuts across the board, but argues that shortly after the economy recovers, the government will have to do a great deal to bring outlays and revenues into balance, including tax increases and spending cuts.

Max Baucus

In 2001, Baucus voted for the first round of Bush tax cuts. He even stood behind the president at the signing ceremony. He was also instrumental in the creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit -- an unfunded entitlement. Now he's chairman of the Finance Committee, but before the Democrats recaptured the Senate, he entertained the idea of negotiating with the Bush White House on Social Security cuts. It took Minority Leader Harry Reid's intercession to put the kibosh on the whole scheme.


Dick Durbin

The Majority Whip is easily the most progressive senator on the fiscal commission, and one of its most progressive members overall. But he raised eyebrows in April when he admonished "bleeding heart liberals" to be open to the idea of scaling back entitlement programs in order to reduce future deficits. He's not the man you'd expect to turn to Social Security as the first-best way to cut federal spending. But for the commission to agree on a program, 14 of 18 members must agree, and Durbin's statement cast some doubt on whether he'd willingly be the fifth vote to stymie their recommendations strictly on progressive grounds."

"for the commission to agree on a program, 14 of 18 members must agree,"


I think it's helpful to learn about past and current proposals and views from these members regarding Social Security.

Here's a good companion piece:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_republicans_on_the_deficit.html
"The Republicans on the deficit commission are more conservative than the Democrats are liberal"


I probably won't be able to return to this thread until tonight.

:hi:

Yikes. :yoiks:

1) Saturate the Media with the meme that something MUST be done to "Reduce the Deficit" or there will be a catastrophe, and strongly imply that Social Security is one of the BIG causes for the deficit.

2)Remove Pentagon/Military Spending from any discussion of cuts,
and insist that anyone who even talks about cuts to Military Spending are crazy, drug addled extremists.

3)Give all the "Centrist Democrats" plenty of time to get out public statements that they support Social Security, and would never vote to reduce benefits.

4)Form an "Independent Bi-Partisan Commission" that meets in secret to design a "Comprehensive Package" of ways to Reduce the Deficit. This package will be lengthy and complicated, and it WILL contain reductions to Social Security benefits. The package will also contain a few crumbs that ARE good for the economy. These crumbs will be minor in scale compared to the structural changes to Social Security.

The "Commission Recommendations" will also contain some scam that opens the door for Wall Street to have access to Social Security funds. For cover, the package will contain some easily avoidable "regulations" that will appear to restrict how Wall Street can use the Social Security Funds, but these "regulations" are NOT there to actually REGULATE; they are there to provide cover.


5)The Marketing and Message Control will be Up and Running when the contents of the package is revealed. The Media will be saturated with pieces that highlight and overemphasize the few good crumbs, and catastrophizing the effects of not immediately passing "The Comprehensive Package".
(SEE: TARP)


6)The Progressive Caucus opposition WILL be marginalized (again), and the full force of the White House, the DLC, DNC, and their Corporate Marketing & Messaging apparatus will be used to brand any "Democratic" opposition as "traitors", "with the Republicans", "against Wall Street Regulation", "against the American People", "against Saving Social Security" or "Opposed to Saving our Children".
There will be a saturation of anecdotal testimony highlighting how certain crumbs will "Save our Family", therefore the whole package MUST pass.
The Mighty Wurlitzer will be turned UP to FULL BLAST.
Any and ALL opposition from The Left WILL be Shouted Down and Demonized.
(SEE: HCR)

7)The Republican Party will play their assigned part in the Kabuki, and oppose the whole thing as "Tax and Spend Democrats" or "Big Government". It doesn't matter that their position makes no sense. It only matters that they oppose it so the illusion of a difference is maintained.

8)The "Commission Recommendations" will be brought to Congress to be voted on as a "complete comprehensive package", Up or Down vote, during the panic immediately following the Democratic Losses in November 2010.
No honest debate will be allowed.
No discussion of amending the package or deleting some elements will be allowed.
Democrats will NOT be "voting to cut Social Security".
They will be voting FOR "Saving the Economy", or "Protecting our Children (from the deficit)".

9) The Complete Comprehensive Package of Commission Recommendations WILL pass with a Party Line vote, or one or two Republican defectors if necessary to maintain the illusion of a Hard Fight.
No Democrat will have to admit that they voted to Cut Social Security.
Instead, they voted FOR a Reform Package that Saved the Economy.


10) The politicians will flock to the cameras with statements like this:
"I am on record as supporting Social Security, and of course I would have liked to NOT cut benefits, but we had to do something."

"This is "historic" reform legislation, look at all the good (crumbs) we got!"

"The Social Security Cuts were just a tiny sliver of the whole package."

"We couldn't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

"This is the best we could do under the circumstances because we didn't have the votes.

"This is a Step Forward."

"Today, we saved our children from a crushing deficit."

"We needed to get something done NOW. We will Fix it Later.



Sound familiar?
It should.

If you think I'm a little over the top in my assessment,
take a look at Chris Van Hollen's (weasel, MD) performance when asked a direct question on voting to cut Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4#

Again,
No Democrat will be voting to "Cut Social Security".
They WILL be voting FOR "Comprehensive Historic Reform that Saves our Children."

THAT is WHY this diabolical Commission and "The Comprehensive Package" is so necessary.


They are coming.
"By their works you will know them."

>>THis is HOW "they" will cut Social Security:
>>Posted by bvar22

I think you're exactly right. We expect a "fight" etc when what we will be give is a show.

I don't think you're over the top at all. In fact, I'd take one series a step farther in terms of spin.

Under number 10, I would add:
"We had to act to save Social Security by making slight changes.'

How about people get mad enough to hunt these people down and kill them ...no SS for old people is a death sentence! Threaten my life will ya?

They're not there by accident but by the design of the Obama administration.

There were other choices that could have been made.

I've posted before that it would make more sense for a commission dealing with fiscal issues to be comprised of economists such as Krugman and Galbraith. Other posters pointed out that it would be even better for this to have been conducted completely transparently by Congress debating on the floor and having to pass and be held accountable for their votes.