Gregg Decries Obama Deficit Commission Plan That's As Equally Useless As His Own

Yesterday, I mentioned that the Obama administration has nominally embraced the concept of creating a special blue-ribbon commission on deficit reduction. Since then, one of the leading proponents of such a commission -- Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) -- has been busy describing his opposition to Obama's proposal:

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a sponsor with [Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) of legislation to create a budget commission by law, called a presidentially appointed panel "a fraud" designed to do little more than give Democrats political cover.

"It's a fraud among anyone interested in fiscal responsibility to claim an executive order could structure something that would actually lead to action," Gregg said.

Of course, it's a fraud for anyone interested in fiscal responsibility to claim that the measure put forth by Gregg and Conrad could structure something that would lead to action, as well.

The only difference between the two proposals is cosmetic. Gregg wants an 18-member commission composed of eight Democratic lawmakers, eight Republican lawmakers and two representatives from the Obama administration. To get an idea out of the commission and before Congress, it would need 14 members to agree on anything, which is impossible. On the other hand, President Barack Obama has proposed a commission composed of six Democratic lawmakers, six Republican lawmakers and six members picked by the Obama administration (two of which would have to be Republican). To get an idea out of the commission and before Congress, they would need 14 to agree on anything, which is also impossible.

Over at Wonk Room, Pat Garofalo observes:

This is pretty amusing coming from Gregg, whose "precedent for success" in this matter is the 1983 Greenspan Commission. According to Gregg, the Greenspan Commission was "the catalyst that drove the process" behind that year's fix for Social Security. But the Greenspan Commission was created by executive order.

Gregg is a good example of what CAP's Michael Linden is calling "deficit peacocks": lawmakers who "like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget." For instance, while Gregg is criticizing those he deems not sufficiently "interested in fiscal responsibility," he's voting to cut taxes for the heirs of multimillionaires. As the Atlantic's Derek Thompson put it, "if you want to hear politicians croon utter nonsense about the debt with their fingers crossed behind their backs, please listen to Sen. Judd Gregg."

Let's remember, with amusement, that at one point Obama wanted Gregg to be his Commerce Secretary!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[MadeandBakedintheUSA]

05:01 PM on 01/21/2010

Masachusetts wanted ROMNEY CARE IMPROVED

The SENATE bill does not cut it

GOP NEVER acknowledged in 2008, Americans VOTED for OBAMA and his POLICIES put forward in Campaign-

They NEVER NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT!

SLOW DOWN JAN 2009
SLOW DOWN FEB 2009
SLOW DOWN MAR 2009
SLOW DOWN APR 2009
SLOW DOWN MAY 2009
SLOW DOWN JUN 2009
SLOW DOWN JUL 2009
SLOW DOWN AUG 2009
SLOW DOWN SEP 2009
SLOW DOWN OCT 2009
SLOW DOWN NOV 2009
SLOW DOWN DEC 2009

Recall what GOP did to Al Gore and Lieberman when they ran on the 'LOCK BOX' for Social Security?

Recall what GOP did to Senator Kerry during his campaign in 2004?

I Do!

Sen. Kerry was screaming about jobs- and the Squeeze on the Middle Class-

Recall what those GOP'ers did Senator?

I do!

Now- They are screaming for their JOBS and Social Security Senator!

WSJ/Murdoch: Dumb it Down Mr. President!

We got a lot of STUPID to entertain!

TOO LAZY to learn!

WSJ/Murdoch: Dumb it Down Mr. President!

[sabela]

03:49 PM on 01/21/2010

Pretty soon Webster is going to change the definition of hypocrisy to hypocrisy=see republican.

[IncludeMeOut]

02:48 PM on 01/21/2010

Anyone looking closely at this will see Pete Petersons hand all over it. A billionair who is spending lots of money to lobby for reductions in social security and medicare. At first he was going to be on the comission, but Obama realized the end game and distanced himself from him. When we talk about entitlements, how about the tax rates paid by CEOs and people on wall street for unearned income. Thats 15% folks, compared to 28% on middle class families. First, we need to look at the tax structures in place that favor these people. Enact progressive taxation, raise the FICA tax to hit people with incomes in quadruple digits, and do not raid the lockbox. Social security has a 3 trillion dollar surplus, except that it has ben raided over the last 8 years. Lets talk about the war funding and profiteering going on, and the overwhelming money being poured down the pentagon rathole-then talk to me about deficits.

[BigShotBob]

02:16 PM on 01/21/2010

What a waste of time BOTH measures would be. How about this: a blue ribbon commission comprised of (1) 12 people who have never held or ran for any political office whatsoever, never attended an Ivy League school, have an annual household income of less than $100,000, and have voted in the last 4 consecutive national elections, and (2) 2 CPA's from firms with less than 10 people. In other words, normal people with some sense who happen to be politically aware.

[devildog09]

01:44 PM on 01/21/2010

How about if we just vote every bum out of office who won't commit to some agreed deficit reduction plan? Like balanced budget in 4 years. We are rapidly approaching the point where entitlements and interest on the debt will consume the federal budget.

[RealProgressNow]

01:06 PM on 01/21/2010

Look, I won't deny the possibility of 14 members getting together and maybe, possibly (or impossibly) determining something that needs to be done. It's an admirable goal, the likelihood of which is not entirely bonkers. Entirely.

It's the part where they have to get it before Congress for a vote. That's when this idea becomes useless.

[mamala4]

12:49 PM on 01/21/2010

Has ANY republican EVER said anything positive about this administration? NEVER have NEVER will!

[devildog09]

01:19 PM on 01/21/2010

Scott Brown said some very nice things about him in his acceptance speech. Bill O'Reilly does all the time. Need a couple hundred more examples? Fact of the matter is that, as the OPPOSITION PARTY, most of what is said will be negative. That's why they're called the opposition, and the dems did the same thing when Bush was president. But to say that no republican ever says anything positive about the administration is factually incorrect.

[mamala4]

02:06 PM on 01/21/2010

name one...all I heard coming out of Brown's mouth was his offering his daughters....pretty shady.

[imusintheevening]

12:43 PM on 01/21/2010

Your own chart shows that 83% of contributions to the deficit were Tax cuts and Defense related spending, so the least crucial to cut is demographically driven entitlements.

[imusintheevening]

12:44 PM on 01/21/2010

reply to:

JDShipley I'm a Fan of JDShipley I'm a fan of this user 10 fans permalink

Everyone in Congress and the White House are deficit peacocks. Who is willing to make the toughest decisions? Cutting defense spending? Curbing unsustainable, demographically driven entitlement growth? Raising taxes? Think George H.W. Bush on that last one.

The following chart is coincident but questions the neocon Reagan Revolution theories that cutting taxes would raise revenue driven from economic growth. Didn't happen.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=692

[JimR]

12:23 PM on 01/21/2010

Which commission structure would be more effective at creating the illusion that Congress is doing something about the deficit? I think we need to set up another commission to look into this.

[JDShipley]

12:14 PM on 01/21/2010

Everyone in Congress and the White House are deficit peacocks. Who is willing to make the toughest decisions? Cutting defense spending? Curbing unsustainable, demographically driven entitlement growth? Raising taxes? Think George H.W. Bush on that last one.

The following chart is coincident but questions the neocon Reagan Revolution theories that cutting taxes would raise revenue driven from economic growth. Didn't happen.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=692