Breaking: Senate says no to bipartisan deficit commission

posted at 1:15 pm on January 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

A little dash of cold water on Barack Obama’s plans to recast himself as a deficit hawk, or a way to allow him to scold Congress tomorrow night?

The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea.

Obama endorsed the idea after being pressed by moderate Democrats. The proposal was an amendment to a $1.9 trillion hike in the government’s ability to borrow to finance its operations.

There were two levels of dishonesty in this plan.  First, the government is spending too much money now.  The only reason to wait until after the election was to protect incumbents from taking action now, when it counts.

I’ve discussed the second level of dishonesty here already, but it’s worth repeating.  We don’t need bipartisan commissions from Congress to resolve budget problems.  The voters of the United States elects 535 people to a bipartisan committee that meets every two years to address that very issue.  In fact, Congress’ first task under the Constitution, Article I Section 8, is to approve a budget for the federal government.  We elect Representatives and Senators to do this with full accountability to their constituents.

The formation of a bipartisan commission is just a dodge to get around accountability, and the timing makes it even more craven.  Instead of hiding behind the skirts of a BRAC-like commission, the 535 people already on Capitol Hill need to do the job we sent them to do, rather than spend their time taking junkets to Copenhagen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

McCain voted “nay”. He’s either putting on a great performance as a conservative leading up to Election Day or he’s truly seen the error of his maverick ways.

Either way, I’m glad the Senate(most of it anyway) told Obama to go stick it. If he wants to raise taxes, be a man and raise them and deal with political fallout. Or at the very least let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and try to BS your way out of that. No hiding behind some anonymous commission though.

Doughboy on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

what will Obama even TALK ABOUT tomorrow night???
The Saints vs. Colts Superbowl?

portlandon on January 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Blue Dogs to wear paper eco-friendly reusuable bags over their heads.

WashJeff on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

It’s interesting to me that the bi-partisanship failed. I think that’s what people will actually take note about.

AnninCA on January 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I really don’t think “people” will be too upset that Congress isn’t going to hold meetings about cutting spending, while they refuse to, you know, actually cut spending.

Rational Thought on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

“Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

At the conclusion of this first year of this new era, we must all now pause to examine the state of our union. America, the state of the union is bad. And, American citizens, it is your fault… ”

And from there, the litany of the transgressions of the citizenry is recited. ‘Cuz we just ain’t ready fo’ The One.

Yet.

Thank God.

Doorgunner on January 26, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Doughboy on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

choice #1…if not for the election, he probably would have joined his buddy graham…

cmsinaz on January 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM

McCain voted “nay”. He’s either putting on a great performance as a conservative leading up to Election Day or he’s truly seen the error of his maverick ways.

Doughboy on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

McCain has a good voting history with spending issues. I would not say his no vote is election related.

WashJeff on January 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM

It’s interesting to me that the bi-partisanship failed. I think that’s what people will actually take note about.

AnninCA on January 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Bi-partisanship is what it’s really all about it, isn’t it Ann?

As long as everybody gets along, it doesn’t matter what happens.

BTW, Germany and Japan were bi-partisan in their efforts at one time…hell, they even had some help from the tea-bagging Italians for a while.

BobMbx on January 26, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Well he can say, “I won a Nobel Prize b/c they really wanted me to have it and I really wanted me to have it. So I accepted it on behalf of the people that want me to be the most awesome president of all time and b/c I believe I AM the awesomest president of all time. You see, there are those here that disagree w/this undisputed fact and all I have to say to them is, I WON b/c I’m awesome and you are all so lucky to have me, especially all you Democrats in red states b/c unlike ’94, you have ME, ME, ME!”

JAM on January 26, 2010 at 1:53 PM

It’s interesting to me that the bi-partisanship failed. I think that’s what people will actually take note about.

AnninCA on January 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM

The yeas and nays were both bi-partisan.

WashJeff on January 26, 2010 at 1:53 PM

These guys are to the point of pulling keywords out of a hat. “Bipartisan” “Deficit” and “Commission” were selected over “Justice” “Equality” “Fairness” and “Panel”—-

they’re simply throwing jello against the wall and seeing what will stick. They’re not even making it look like their trying, this administration is completely rudderless when it comes to substantiating some legislative agenda.

ted c on January 26, 2010 at 1:53 PM

what will Obama even TALK ABOUT tomorrow night???

portlandon on January 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Relax, he has a good imagination – he can make up a lot of stuff. Like how he earned that B+.

Daggett on January 26, 2010 at 1:54 PM

or he’s truly seen the error of his maverick ways.

Doughboy on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM
//
Good luck on that ever happening.

ohiobabe on January 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Let’s see. 38 Ds and 15 Rs voted Aye, while 22 Ds and 25 Rs voted against.

Looks like Dingy is starting to smell like a rotting lame duck.

TXUS on January 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I hope Joe Wilson holds up two fingers tomorrow night, “Make it a double Mr. President?” will be the message.

ted c on January 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Bond voted yes? WTF?

JAM on January 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I would really like to hear Cornyn’s reason for the yea vote. Even king RINO voted against it.

farright on January 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Ed!

Right on the mark! The public should hold them accountable to the task for which we put them there.

Exactimundo!

Danzo on January 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

It’s interesting to me that the bi-partisanship failed. I think that’s what people will actually take note about.

AnninCA on January 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Are you F’ing kidding us?

I know you’re convinced those of us in flyover country are dolts, but, Lucy, we’re going to pass on your latest place-kick offer.

Doorgunner on January 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Here’s the roll call…

SouthernGent on January 26, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Anyone else notice Kirk from Mass is still voting?

Marybeth on January 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

It’s interesting to me that the bi-partisanship failed. I think that’s what people will actually take note about.

AnninCA on January 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM

To a liberal, bi-partisanship means Republicans and Democrats working together to pass the Democrat’s agenda.

MarkTheGreat on January 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Tackle deficits that he willingly, with prior knowledge and malice aforethought, created. Just rich.

spmat on January 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM

So we have a bunch of Dems eager to commit political suicide voting for Obamacare, Cap & Tax, etc…but no one wants to risk their neck to reduce the deficit? Typical.

frode on January 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

IMO:
Suprise Nays: McCain, Snowe, Spector, Stabenow.
Disapppointing Yeahs: Bond, Chambliss, Cornyn.

Chewy the Lab on January 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Anyone else notice Kirk from Mass is still voting?

Marybeth on January 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

I thought he got to keep voting until Mass certified the election results and Brown is seated. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember reading.

Johnnyreb on January 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Why is Kirk still voting and why hasn’t Brown been seated? Massachusetts has an elected Senator, and it isn’t Kirk.

reallyfive on January 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM

It’s interesting to me that the bi-partisanship failed. I think that’s what people will actually take note about.

AnninCA on January 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM

COMPLETELY WRONG. There was bipartisanship in defeating this. Just as there was bi-partisanship AGAINST the Porkulus. There has been lots of bi-partisanship and all of it was against the affirmative action president.

jukin on January 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM

See, they can work together.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM

We are all part of the deficit commission…my next vote is in November.

d1carter on January 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM

So…The Senate in a bipartisan way decided the government shouldn’t tackle the deficit? Am I reading this right? Or is it just the idea of a committee is a bad one when, as Ed rightly postulates, Congress as whole should get on the ball and do the job?

Time to replace the entire House and much of the Senate as we can, come November. If there’s a party of ‘no’ in this country, it’s those 535 members pontificating from the Capitol building.

Liam on January 26, 2010 at 2:03 PM

I really don’t think “people” will be too upset that Congress isn’t going to hold meetings about cutting spending, while they refuse to, you know, actually cut spending.

Rational Thought on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

The way the commission was designed, tax increases were much more likely than spending cuts.

MarkTheGreat on January 26, 2010 at 2:03 PM

what will Obama even TALK ABOUT tomorrow night???
The Saints vs. Colts Superbowl?

portlandon on January 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM

+ icing three Somali pirates;
+ masterfully killing that pesky fly;
+ ditching the BCS for a playoff system;
+ his picks for the upcoming NCAA tournament brackets;
+ explaining how jobs “created or saved” figures are obtained;
+ for the first time reveal the names of the other 7 states;
+ lead the Dhims in a spirited chant of “We blame Bush! We blame Bush! We blame Bush!”

ya2daup on January 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Obama won’t have any trouble with the State of the Union Speech. It will run sort of like this:
- Saved GM by bailout.
- Saved the UAW by giving them GM over the rich fat cat legitimate creditor’s objections
- Created or saved 300 million jobs.
- Jump started the economy with Cash for Clunkers
- Saved a ship from piracy off the coast of Somalia
- Saved the entire banking system with my skillful spending of TARP funds
- Got all the banks to pay all the money back. (But don’t ask about the details).
- Took over control of all banks so that those fat cats can’t get the bonuses they proposed.
- Saved the housing industry with the mortgage supplementation program
- Made quick and quality decision on Afghanistan.
- Stopped flow of information from terrorist detainees…by ending waterboarding and calling it torture.
- Made America safer by re-erecting the wall between the FBI and CIA.
- Made the whole world love America by apologizing for you Americans every chance I got.
- Got the first Global Warming Treaty agreed to in Copenhagen.
- etc.
Now he will say how he is on the side of debt reduction and middle class tax reduction! All with a straight face!!!
Tha man doesn’t need to have any facts supporting his assertions. He just lies, and the Lame Stream just keeps going along. (NO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS!)

Christian Conservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM

It’s been a while since I emailed you, Saxby, old pal….new message headed your way, Big Daddy!

atlgal on January 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM

There’s BI-partisanship, and there’s NON-partisanship. Too often, the former term is used when the latter is more appropriate.

DOOF on January 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM

HotAir Liar Choir
yoda – alto

yoda on January 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM

jukin on January 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I think Ann was referring to the sexual orientation of those who voted: the prefix “bi-” derails her every time.

ya2daup on January 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM

As soon as anything like this got started the Communists would just use it somehow as a club to beat Republicans with.

I wouldn’t touch this with your ten-foot pole.

Akzed on January 26, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts

Cuts?
I wish, but I kind of doubt that. Did he mean hikes?

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 2:08 PM

I found it interesting that he only got 53 votes…

dogsoldier on January 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Thank you. Mr. Speaker thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests and fellow citizens:

Today marks my first State of the Union address to you, a constitutional duty as old as our republic itself.

Sure life sucks, but you’ve got ME!

joedoe on January 26, 2010 at 2:12 PM

How to reduce the deficit a whole lot in 3 easy steps:

1. Dump ObamaCare, which will eliminate lots of spending NOW for “benefits” people wouldn’t see for 3 years.

2. Apply any TARP money paid back by banks to already-approved government spending, thereby reducing this year’s deficit.

3. Repeal the Porkulus bill, and apply any unspent money to already-approved government spending.

This would result in less Government borrowing THIS year, which means less interest payments on the national debt next year and for years to come, and would have absolutely NO detrimental effects on the economy.

Steve Z on January 26, 2010 at 2:14 PM

I think it is interesting that his two farces, so far this week, do not have the support he is obviously counting on. Can a POTUS be a lame duck at the end of his first year?

ORconservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM

The speech will air at 8:00, right? I hope so – Mark Levin does a running commentary during his speeches, but not even Mark made the last one palatable enough for me to suffer through it.

darwin-t on January 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Lame Duck? After November he will probably become a Republican, known as the Great Right Hope!

joedoe on January 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Mark Steyn just had a caller who suggested the Republicans just burst out in laughter when he lies. Good suggestion, it would enrage the thin-skinned one and knock him off message like hecklers do.

OmahaConservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I’m surprised the president didn’t change the time of the speech to pre-empt another Glenn Beck show.

cannonball on January 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM

“… it would enrage the thin-skinned one …”

Make that light thin-skinned minus a particular dialect.

joedoe on January 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM

How to reduce the deficit a whole lot in 3 easy steps:

1. Dump ObamaCare, which will eliminate lots of spending NOW for “benefits” people wouldn’t see for 3 years.

2. Apply any TARP money paid back by banks to already-approved government spending, thereby reducing this year’s deficit.

3. Repeal the Porkulus bill, and apply any unspent money to already-approved government spending.

This would result in less Government borrowing THIS year, which means less interest payments on the national debt next year and for years to come, and would have absolutely NO detrimental effects on the economy.

Steve Z on January 26, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Or, how about this…?

1. Dump the Health Control thing entirely. At the same time, break down the Federal regulatory barriers that keep so many Citizens from affording medical insurance. Allow for competition among the various insurers, so people can pick and choose what they can afford. It might not be perfect, but at least some doors can be opened. When the train comes in, everybody rides.

2. Return any TARP money repaid by the banks to the US Treasury, where it belongs. And get on Obowmao’s case for his Administration’s refusal to accept pay backs. There was a stink over the billion dollar bailout of Chrysler, but Iacocca repaid every cent in a few short years. That was saving jobs in a true sense, and Iacocca owned up in full. Why not let those banks repay? Where is that a bad thing?

3. Repeal Porkulus. Any unspent money goes back to the Treasury, where it belongs.

4. Return any unspent funds we made from loans, then have Congress get on the ball to pay what else the United States owes.

5. Cut spending across the board except for national defense; we’re in a war whether some believe it or not. The Dems are always saying we need to make sacrifices. So, too, must those on the public teat. No more lining up for ‘Obama money’.

6. Work from there.

Just some ideas. Not that anyone in Congress will do this. And that includes both major political parties and a lot of ‘progressives’

Liam on January 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Mark Steyn just had a caller who suggested the Republicans just burst out in laughter when he lies. Good suggestion, it would enrage the thin-skinned one and knock him off message like hecklers do.

OmahaConservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM
//
Oh,I wish they would have the gonads to do this or something to throw him off but alas there are still some who don’t want to be called racists.

ohiobabe on January 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

known as the Great Right Hope!

joedoe on January 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM

//
That’s cute:)

ohiobabe on January 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

OmahaConservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Heard it and think it is an excellent idea. Some will say that is is inappropriate behavior, blah, blah, blah. But I think the voters of this nation want to see a response from the GOP which indicates they get it. Because the media behemoths will not allow their responses and ideas out, but will give an ear to “Ellie Light” and gang, I say pretend this is Britain and get your snicker/laughter/noise making selves on!

They can snicker, clear their throats, and rustle papers around to make some noise, but it is time to demonstrate there are some people in Washington who do not favor the destruction of this nation. That is not disrespectful but to some a form of patriotism.

freeus on January 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

freeus on January 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

I love watching parliament sessions in Britain. I have literally watched lawmakers roll in the aisles laughing hysterically, holding their sides.

OmahaConservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Obamas Has Proposed 23 New Different Taxes

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-you-ready-for-17-new-taxes-2010-1

The ‘spending freeze is just political cover for Obama to implement his real strategy…raising our taxes across the board.

Don’t support the ‘spending freeze’..it’s a false flag op.

DrW on January 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I hope Joe Wilson holds up two fingers tomorrow night, “Make it a double Mr. President?” will be the message.

ted c on January 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I hope he holds up one finger! You guess which one? :)

Dire Straits on January 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM

McCain voted “nay”. He’s either putting on a great performance as a conservative leading up to Election Day or he’s truly seen the error of his maverick ways.

Either way, I’m glad the Senate(most of it anyway) told Obama to go stick it. If he wants to raise taxes, be a man and raise them and deal with political fallout. Or at the very least let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and try to BS your way out of that. No hiding behind some anonymous commission though.

Doughboy on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

He’s putting on a show. He does this everytime.

True_King on January 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

OmahaConservative on January 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

If they even snickered, Nancy’s shaking voice, whispering about Nazis and racists lynch mobs would be amped up to “Warp Volume.”

Chewy the Lab on January 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Why focus on McCain? His time is past. Same with Gingrich.

Republicans haven’t represented me for more than twenty years. Have they done better for you than they have me? McCain ‘works’ with the Dems, which adds to the MSM reason to ask any new Republican-elect, “What will you do to work with the Democrats?”

The MSM asked that even when the Dems were a Congressional minority. And the Republicans all but needed new psychotropics to answer in the ‘acceptable’ way.

I’m conservative. But I’m no Republican.

Liam on January 26, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Michigan is run by a governor who hides behind these type of committies for every politically dangerous decision. She has used the panels/commissions/committies as an effective tool to keep herself in office. My fellow Michiganders have voted this moron in twice even when it was apparent that she was driving Michigan straignt towards the cliff with her foot on the accelerator.

stoutj734 on January 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

This bill was just a ploy so the Anointed One could have something, anything, to say in the SOTU address.

Dhuka on January 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

McCain voted “nay”. He’s either putting on a great performance as a conservative leading up to Election Day or he’s truly seen the error of his maverick ways.

Doughboy on January 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

He is just trying to get re-elected. In 2007/2008 he was Obama lite (not referring to melanin level).

barnone on January 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Backfire bullet dodged.

The GOP should step up and make a very public, real, spending freeze proposal.

Speakup on January 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Liam on January 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Add on
7. Pass a national Right to Work Law and disallow union salary negotiations for government employment by pegging peg all salaries for public service employment to those of equivalent private sector jobs.

Annar on January 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Eliminate the superfluous “peg” in my last post. Sorry.

Annar on January 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Just in case it hasn’t been noticed, O said he now can’t promise tax hikes won’t involve those making less then $250,000 per year. In other words, we are all going to get hit with hikes.
“YOU LIE!” is exactly right when it comes to the Precedent.

elclynn on January 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2