TPM: BREAKING NEWS—12:27: PELOSI NAMES VAN HOLLEN, CLYBURN AND BECERRA TO DEFICIT COMMITTE

Sorry for the all-caps headline, that's how TPM has it.

This does not bode well...

"nice" of Pelosi to give him cover, I guess... an 8/12 decision should be easier to sell to the "little people".

And as far as I know, he's done nothing but right by us. I don't know much about Clyburn or Becerra, but Van Hollen being on the committee gives me hope.

and by appointing Clyburn and Baucus...we've given them *at least* two.

The others don't matter so long as they got the votes THEY need.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x617879#617890

Their position:
“But to finish the job, the next steps toward such a bargain must involve tough choices on both sides – Republicans must be willing to throw out their pledges and support an increase in revenues; Democrats must tell their core supporters that the only way to save entitlements like Medicare and Social Security is to reform them. Both options must be on the table immediately, and neither side should view their absence in the current deal as an opportunity to declare them off-limits. A grand bargain is the only way for the United States to avoid a downgrade, get our fiscal house in order and protect crucial investments so that we can secure long-term growth. It will be difficult. But in the coming months, Congress must decide if we are to be a AAA or a AA nation.

which may or may not mean anything of substance on this issue.

He's also part of the House Democratic leadership, which has been pretty good on entitlement spending, and he was chosen by Nancy Pelosi, who promised to appoint representatives who would stand strong on protecting Medicare and Social Security. He also has a very liberal voting record.

But Clyburn shouldn't even have to be explained. Its pretty common knowledge that he is squarely on the progressive side of things and hit voting record has reflected that.

http://progressivepunch.org/members.htm?member=NY5&search=selectScore&chamber=House&zip=&x=46&y=7

Clyburn is #96.....there are 96 members of the house more progressive than he is.

The people to worry about in a committee seeking a bipartisan compromise are the people like Max Baucus, who are substantially more centrist than the Democrats generally, and probably far more willing to compromise in the face of Republican intransigence. Pelosi was never going to pick three ardent Progressive Caucus members.

that complaining about good not being perfect doesn't strike me as a very good use of energy.

Especially given that in a negotiating situation like this one, it shouldn't make any difference. The final result will be a bipartisan compromise, which means it should be centrist. The risk is that conservative Democrats will concede too much and make it decidedly right-of-center, with substantial entitlement cuts and no revenue, not that liberal Democrats who aren't quite as liberal as other Democrats will fail to bring about a miracle and return the People's Budget.

"Democrats must tell their core supporters" as if it's only the core supporters of Democrats who are fighting Medicare & SS reform. Poll after poll strongly shows a large MAJORITY of Americans do not WANT Medicare & SS reform. It's political suicide for any party in power who attempts to do that. I assure you it will be the Democrats who are blamed when it happens...because it will happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x617879#617897

And membership in the black caucus does not mean anything with regards to political stances. A lot of them are corporate sellouts, and some of them are progressives.

This news just hit, but I think I'm right on that.

That Pelosi has always been horrible and nobodyon the left likes her. The right adores her though, don't they? That tells the story, I think.

with these picks is beyond me.

;)

He seems to have a pretty good overall liberal record at "ontheiissues" (see below) but he is definitely open to means testing for SS (see below) and possibly (but it's less clear) other reforms such as the chained CPI SS cola cut , as I recall his comments a few weeks back when Pelosi was "shocked" that that entitlements had been put on the bargaining table.

re: Chained CPI SS cola adjustments-- "I certainly wouldn't walk away from that kind of discussion"

What’s In A Name? Dems Support Social Security Benefit Cut — By Calling It Something Else
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/whats-in-a-name-dems-support-social-security-benefit-cut----by-calling-it-something-else.php

re:means testing and other possible reform

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrKIVByDmYA&feature=player_embedded#at=59

http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2011/08/09/clyburn-downgrade-based-on-politics/

http://www.starkreports.com/2010/05/28/james-clyburn-vat-not-being-considered-social-security-should-be-means-tested/

http://ontheissues.org/House/James_Clyburn.htm

and/or Medicare?

If you trust Congress to look out for the interests of working people and the elderly your support for Social Security and Medicare
"means testing" might make some sense.

However, they are looking out for Wall Street and corporate America, not us!

Do you think that "the rich" will implement a form of means testing where the poor will get less benefits than the rich? Do you actually believe that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1442301&mesg_id=1445721

Means Testing For Social Security
http://www.businessinsider.com/means-testing-for-social-security-2011-3

Don't Means Test Social Security
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/29/dont-means-test-social-security-lets-not-kill-the-golden-goose-

Means-Testing No Answer for Social Security
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/means-testing-no-answer-for-social-security/

Apart from the primary fact that social security doesn't have a place in deficit reduction economics to begin with.

(eta - third link)

is not much $ to be made from means testing SS. And also I think that means testing can be more relevant fro Medicare rather than SS. I am nto saying it's the greatest idea, and the devil can definitaly be in the details (how much is too much and may result in benfit cuts?). But the idea that somebody like Warrren Buffet "needs" SS, it's just that he has to pay more throughout his life, or that the fact that the same hypothetical Buffet lookalike getting a benfit he does not need will make somebody like me and millions others that need feel better about it because it's more equalitarian.

along with the financial one, as well, in arguing against tinkering with its fundamental universal nature (ie Republicans wanting to be able to start reframing and treating it as yet another means-tested "welfare program", when it isn't.) Just IMHO.

We have better ways, like raising income taxes on the rich.

Why shouldn't Warren Buffett be able to retire on the same terms as everyone else? He should pay more taxes his entire life, yes, but that's not the same thing.

as it's been said often enough. I'm actually more interested in where he would stand on across the board raising the retirement age and other Third Way type proposals and I haven't seen him take a particular certain stand, for or against, in these months of debate.

Offer is limited to those too poor to make additional "sacrifices".

7 votes are required for passage out of 12 which would send the legislation to both Houses of Congress for a quick majority up and down vote without amendments, hearings or debate.

Is that right?

The only question is which Democratic Senator(s) on the committee will go along (with Obama's urging of course)with whatever "compromise" legislation Republican members of the committee propose.

All 3 Democratic House members can vote against the Republican proposal for the record but that won't stop it.

I'm really glad he was chosen. :)

He voted 'no' on the deal.

Since this committee will have the power to act above the authority of congress and force congress to act on legislation without debate, or to alter the terms of legislation with amendments that they have to act on, will the outcome bill(s) be legal, or maybe it's past the point of caring about whether anything our government does is constitutional, maybe it even doesn't matter anymore?