iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Sam Stein
GET UPDATES FROM Sam:

Kent Conrad Told President Obama Not To Publicly Support Bowles-Simpson

Posted: 04/ 8/2012 10:45 am Updated: 04/ 8/2012 2:06 pm

Obama Conrad Bowles

WASHINGTON -- Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on Sunday that he urged President Obama not to publicly support a much-touted bipartisan debt-reduction plan out of fear that it would produce reflexive Republican opposition.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Conrad beat back criticism of his party's approach to fiscal matters, saying it was inaccurate to accuse Congressional Democrats of not having passed a budget or not having adopted a serious approach to reducing the debt. Pressed as to why the president sat on the sidelines when the so-called Bowles-Simpson proposal was introduced, the North Dakota Democrat noted that proposal never would have seen the light of day had the White House not created the fiscal commission in the first place.

He then revealed that he personally advised Obama not to back Bowles-Simpson -- which achieves trillions of dollars of debt reduction through a mix of spending cuts, tough entitlement reforms, and tax reforms -- out of fear that it would have been politically counter-productive.

"He asked me for my advice," recalled Conrad. "I told him, 'Look, if you embrace the totality of Bowles-Simpson what will happen is the Republicans in the House will automatically be against it. You need to make the case for why it's necessary, but you need those of us in Congress to work it out.'"

Conrad's statement pulls back the curtain a bit on the often heated debt-reduction politics that took place over the course of 2010 and 2011. The senator not only served on the fiscal commission -- which was led by former Senator Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles -- he cast a yes vote on its final proposal. That he would encourage his own party's president to do the opposite is telling.

But the advice also appears to have been sage. When the president did publicly embrace a separate bipartisan debt-reduction deal in the late summer of 2011, the immediate reaction among the deal's backers was that he had committed a political misstep. As The Washington Post recently reported, Republicans took the president's support as a cue to oppose the so-called Gang of Six proposal.

In lauding the plan quickly, Obama hoped to harness the enthusiasm for it on behalf of his own talks. But his appearance that day caused more problems by increasing suspicions among conservatives about the group’s framework -- and boosting their distrust of any bipartisan dealmaking.

Coburn, a staunch conservative and the only member of his party who openly acknowledged the need for higher taxes to balance the budget, had developed a close personal bond with Obama dating to their shared opposition to federal budget earmarks when both were senators. But Coburn was “shocked,” he said later, when he saw Obama’s remarks that day on television. His effusive praise for the Gang of Six, Coburn believed, was a tactical mistake that revealed Obama’s inexperience in the ways of Washington. It signaled to skittish conservatives that a tax hike was on the way.

Obama’s announcement, Coburn said in an interview, “absolutely killed anything we were doing with the Republicans.”


FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on Sunday that he urged President Obama not to publicly support a much-touted bipartisan debt-reduction plan out of fear...
WASHINGTON -- Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on Sunday that he urged President Obama not to publicly support a much-touted bipartisan debt-reduction plan out of fear...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,454
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Randolph Greer
I am a Poet .
03:28 AM on 04/10/2012
We must all recognize that Obama was still a novice in Washington when he was elected President. Obama really did not understand that the conservative Republicans hated him as much as they did. It is the same lesson that every black person needs to learn about racists. Obama grew up in places where he was accepted as himself and not looked upon as the "OTHER." So, he had to learn on the job. When he finally came to understand that they were not playing political games, he changed course and confronted them. He has been rising in the polls ever since. He is now fighting for the majority of us instead of negotiating with terrorists. And the people can see that. They may not agree with everything Obama does. But they know he is not driven by hatred . And in 2012, that is all he needs to be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nettwench
Dedicated Truther!
10:11 AM on 05/28/2012
So every time the Republicans say that the president has not "presented" them with a budget for the last three years they are LYING LYING LYING!! It makes me so angry that they continue this farce. The Simpson-Bowles plan is a bi-partisan plan, the kind of compromise that used to receive no such opposition. It has cuts, but it also has revenue, which is the ONLY possible way a deficit-reducing budget can work. The Republicans don't really care about reducing the deficit - one look at Ryan's budget told us that! Huge increases for defense, that even the Pentagon said were excessive??? We are ENDING the war in Afghanistan, and defense costs should be going down, not up! And the failure to include closing ANY tax loopholes is ridiculous!

Republicans are for BILLIONS of dollars of corporate welfare for the oil industry, which is the most profitable industry IN THE WORLD. They voted for 4 Billions dollars of taxpayer-funded giveaways to the oil industry just a couple of months ago, which the president opposed. That' s what they call looking out for the taxpayers, and being serious about the deficit. it's so obvious they're not, and Romney has stated that he both loves Ryan's budget, and that he knows that too-austere cuts will put the country into a recession. These positions are CONTRADICTORY!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nettwench
Dedicated Truther!
10:11 AM on 05/28/2012
The president cannot be seen to PUBLICLY support anything, without there being an immediate knee-jerk coalition of Republican congressmen vehemently opposing him. This has been going on since he took office. I have read this over and over again, so it's not just one person's opinion.

Despite this, he is constantly criticized for not "working with the other side," and "not presenting a budget." This is just right-wing spin, repeated endlessly by Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, and McConnell, and the Faux news channel 24/7. Don't believe a word of it!

The problem with our country right now is not the size of government, but the LACK OF REVENUE. The upper-class and corporations have not been paying their fair share, and the deficit cannot be reduced without raising revenue. Trickle down is a myth, and saying that reducing taxes on business will create jobs is a myth. Consumer demand creates jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Rae Overholt
roverho2
10:55 AM on 05/28/2012
The GOP knows this and they are lying to their middleclass trolls that will never see another decent job wage under the GOP. The GOP is "the hunger games" and these fools see the top 1 percent gain more wealth and not take one hit from this economy and do not question THAT?????
photo
tmm77625
The winner is the one who stops first
01:25 PM on 04/09/2012
"He asked me for my advice," recalled Conrad. "I told him, 'Look, if you embrace the totality of Bowles-Simpson what will happen is the Republicans in the House will automatically be against it."

So? When it came out, the Dems controlled the House. This is more BS from the left. The Dems didn't like Bowles-Simpson from the moment it came out. Now, they want to try to blame the GOP? Yeah, OK. You could get health care through, but not that? Right, we believe you - NOT!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mikala
01:33 PM on 04/09/2012
I realize from your picture where your head is at but the Bowles-Simpson report wasn't issued until Dec 2010, after the midterm.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TeeSC
02:01 PM on 04/09/2012
Don't confuse them with facts.
photo
tmm77625
The winner is the one who stops first
02:02 PM on 04/09/2012
I realize from your naivete that you forget there was so much leaked about what was being considered before even the draft came out (in November) that the Dems could easily have acted on any of it. I also realize that you don't understand that even the Commission never formally endorsed it's own "plan." Furthermore, I realize you cannot handle the fact that the majority of the proposals were DOA as far as the Dems were concerned - a major reason Obama would never have "embraced" it anyway. If you really think the Obama or the Dems would support:

1: cutting the federal work force by 10%
2: eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction
3: eliminating the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefit
4: reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies
5: increasing the retirement and and social security tax rates
6: reduction of the corporate tax rate

then I'll take some of whatever you're smoking.

BTW - what I said was accurate - the Dems controlled the house in Dec 2010. Most of those ideas above have been around for years, anyone paying attention at the time know that in particular the mortgage and employer benefits tax deductions were being considered. and the Dems could have been voted upon those prior to the midterms. Oh, and, no particular reason they couldn't have voted in December, either. After all, that's when they passed the 2010 Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmericanDoughboy
Equal Justice Under Law
10:41 AM on 04/09/2012
Horse-feathers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8
10:29 AM on 04/09/2012
If Obama came out in support of the Law of Gravity the GOOP would be opposed. They are so blinded with hate that a Black man beat them that they have lost all sense of reality. As long as Repub candidates praise ignorance, an oligarchy of the wealthy, and marginalization of whomever they don't like for whatever reason, the country will suffer. But, then again, I seriously doubt that they give a tinker's damn about either the country and its people.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
10:43 AM on 04/09/2012
Ya know, your comment would have been better without the race card nonsense.

Even without Obams's open support, Republicans (and Dems) overwhelmingly rejected S-B. The Dems had something to prove here and they blew it. Had all Dems voted for S-B, the vote would have been 206-206. What better campaign tool that athe GOP rejecting a budget deal by a tiebreaker.

Then again, Dems couldn't even cast a single vote for the budget of their own prez. Seems like Dems, themselves, "praise ignorance, an oligarchy of the wealthy, and marginalization of whomever they don't like." Perhaps you "seriously doubt that they give a tinker's damn about either the country and its people"?

Then again, why would you feel the same way about Dems when they do the same thing as the GOP. That wouldn't be hypocritical.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Rae Overholt
roverho2
01:06 PM on 04/09/2012
Spare me when the truth hurts okay. You do have a party who have mixed views on the President's race so just deal with it and start telling the truth! Not once did your party ever want anything but to get Obama out of office. Many of Obama's policies were from the GOP before they decided not to like them or even engage in them when Obama took office. You wonder why the GOP is not trusted? You think we all are fooled and do not remember that? Willard, Newt, and Ricky all saying hateful things trying to out do each other like never before and the people will not remember this? That the GOP was so focused on making Obama a one term President they let the T-Party/Palin in their sites and in elected office in the name of the hard right? Obama will be re-elected in 2012!
photo
tmm77625
The winner is the one who stops first
01:26 PM on 04/09/2012
Yes, because Lord knows you cannot disagree with a person of color unless you're a racist. What a lovely racist thing for you to say.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
02:24 PM on 04/09/2012
(wagging finger in face) And don't you forget it!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bocababs
10:00 AM on 04/09/2012
Because Kent Conrad.....a total Insider, knew at that time what Obama did not know.....that the Republicans were NEVER going to raise taxes of any kind, via any plan, by anyone...no matter how smart the people are who put the plan together.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nettwench
Dedicated Truther!
10:32 AM on 05/28/2012
All of their lovely little pledges to Grover Norquist NOT to raise taxes is proof enough of that!

Why are the Republicans putting a promise to an un-elected, think-tank pundit ahead of their oath of office, and their own constituents?

Why are the Republicans putting a pledge to oppose and stonewall the president, in service to the ideology of party and political tactics, ahead of the welfare of the citizens of this country??

We have seen them do this AGAIN and AGAIN! The debt limit was the most egregious, un-spinnable example of it. And Boehner's constant whining that the president won't "work" with them is more egregious lying, because THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF WORKING WITH HIM!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeHoll53
I am a writer and reader of the news
09:51 AM on 04/09/2012
When members of Congress announce that one of their top priorities is ensuring that Barack Obama be a one-term president, they stop being national legislators and become partisan operatives. Paying then from the federal treasury makes no sense when they fail to do the people's business. Once elected, they have a moral obligation to govern. Some of these guys have abdicated their responsibilities at the people's expense.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
10:46 AM on 04/09/2012
Replace "Barack Obama" with "George Bush" in your comment and you just described 2001-2004. Did you voice the same opinion then?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MontanaBanana
I've had it trying to reason with the GOP
11:37 AM on 04/09/2012
The GOP was in control of both houses of Congress from 2000-2004. It was a dictatorship during those years, with Cheney telling Bush what to do and the congress went along with everything. Thank god those days are over and we are starting to get our democracy back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeHoll53
I am a writer and reader of the news
08:18 PM on 04/09/2012
Let's see... No Child Left Behind; Creation of the Department of Homeland Security; The Patriot Act; declarations of war on iraq and Afghanistan; TARP; add tghem all together and there are stong indications that Bush got substantial support for his signature programs. Substituting Bush 43 for Barack Obama has little relevance to the realities of 2009-2012.
09:43 AM on 04/09/2012
If you support Simpson Bowles, please sign and pass around this petition

http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-and-senate-use-the-simpson-bowles-report-to-address-the-federal-deficit-issue
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
10:48 AM on 04/09/2012
Shhhhhhhhhhh .... don't say anything ...... already defeated .......... do you really think anyone wants the "I was against it before I was for it" label?
09:02 AM on 04/09/2012
It dosen't make any differance,the GOPers are so ingulfed with makeing him a one term president,all they would have said no.no .
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
10:49 AM on 04/09/2012
Well, it doesn't appear to be working, does it.
08:47 AM on 04/09/2012
I suggest Senator Conrad made the poor choice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SETexasLib
TryingToBeGood,ButRelyingOnMercy
09:04 AM on 04/09/2012
I do not read either position as being poor choices. The president has always wanted to be able to work with the other side of the aisle to solve problems. It is something for which the left has criticized him. Even if the election of the tea party made it unproductive, it is something in him that I admire.

Prehaps Senator Conrad's analysis was a little more accurate. He understood that the make up of the repub party at that time was not one that would respond to overtures for cooperation.
10:05 AM on 04/09/2012
The debt comminsion and the debt 'deal' are too flawed to consider.

Knowing that, President Obama made an astute political judgement, knowing the Republcians would run for the hills.
11:31 AM on 04/09/2012
I understand your point of view, as well.

Thanks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Too Handsome
Conservatives work, liberals are the entertainment
08:43 AM on 04/09/2012
This proves one more time that democRATs do not give a whit about anything but saving their own political hides.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SETexasLib
TryingToBeGood,ButRelyingOnMercy
09:08 AM on 04/09/2012
Conservatives are working feverously to destroy the fabric of American society. If it is not turned around this election cycle, it may be too late to return to a society that benefits all of our people without very radical steps.
10:50 AM on 04/09/2012
Did you read the article? Conrad gave the President advice based on what he wisely already knew, that the GOP would give their usual knee-jerk reaction to be against ANYTHING this President is for. This has nothing to do with saving one's "political hide". It has to do with reality and the current mentality in Washington with the GOP. Democrats are working to save this economy and for the welfare of all citizens; this is the exact opposite of the current GOP. Read it again without your blinding bias.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pj-smith
no comment
08:42 AM on 04/09/2012
throw the bums out..all of them. every incumbent.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rosie2
Rosie outlook
10:04 AM on 04/09/2012
Teapubs mostly did in 2010 and look what we ended up with... WORSE!!!
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
10:58 AM on 04/09/2012
No they didn't. 2010 wasn't even close to a complete turnover of congress. They cannot just see one side go down. 412 Representatives and ~33 Senators gone. That's how you send a message. They have to see that no one, no party is safe. When the people feel unrepresented, they clean house.

Not likely, but I can dream, can't I?
10:53 AM on 04/09/2012
Wrong thinking! Learn about each candidate, what they stand for, and what they have tried to accomplish. The mentality you are showing is what got us into this mess in 2010. We lost many good, hard-working legislators on both the Federal and state levels that year, just because of the same thinking you are promoting again. Remember the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Royce09
Freedom is not Free, cost = Blood of our Military
08:41 AM on 04/09/2012
i dont trust obama when it comes to protecting social security and medicare even for the people who are alreadying getting it today , muchless for the people who will get it in the future. I trust the republicans even LESS if that is possible.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
10:59 AM on 04/09/2012
LOL! Quite the quandry.
08:26 AM on 04/09/2012
IN MY OPINION, OBAMA NEVER LIKED THE PLAN AND KNEW IF HE EMBRACED IT THE REPUBLICANS WOULD BE AGAINST IT, HE PLAYED THEM AGAIN.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SETexasLib
TryingToBeGood,ButRelyingOnMercy
09:09 AM on 04/09/2012
Loud and wrong.
photo
Le Roi Sans Sa Reine
Do what you love, love what you do!
11:02 AM on 04/09/2012
He played his own party too; they voted against it as well -- overwhelmingly. It stood a chance of passing it Dems had united since at least SOME Republicans voted for it.

Can you imagine operating on a budget? I can't remember the last time we did that .... Oh yeah, it was Obama's first record deficit ... not that he was solely to blame (chill out liberals)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SETexasLib
TryingToBeGood,ButRelyingOnMercy
11:40 AM on 04/09/2012
It is impossible to enact a realistic budget until the House is cleared of all of the obstructionists TPers. Anyone who has signed a pledge to disregard on of the major factors that must be considered by the budgetary process is not a serious player.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainObvvious
Calling me a liberal is a compliment!
08:19 AM on 04/09/2012
Its the absolute truth.

If Obama backs it the GOP is against it. That's how the country is run now. The GOP isn't about American prosperity, they are about beating Obama. If a great piece of legislation is on the table they will support it only if Obama doesn't.

They are afraid of their base. They have fabricated this false Obama and if they show they are siding with his ideas, that according to their narrative must be a "socialist big government job killed" then they are putting themselves in with him.

That and if Obama supports it and it passes it is a win for the President and they can't have that.
08:17 AM on 04/09/2012
Bipartisan? ROFLMAO
There is no bipartisanship or transparency or hop & change.
Just socialism, spending and social/moral re-engineering.
Worst president since Jimmy Carter.
08:43 AM on 04/09/2012
"hop" along now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Easyrawlins1
10:22 AM on 04/09/2012
Do you know what socialism is? Do you or any member of your family benefit from social security or medicare? Do you use any public services( police, fire, sanitation,)? Has your food been inspected? Did you ever attend a public school? Have you eaten any products containing corn? I thought so. Socialist!
02:11 PM on 04/09/2012
Yes, and apparently you don't.
Services for common good end before the government controls healthcare, auto industry and banks. It also ends before government controls churches and morals.