This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) is certainly a guy who knows his way around Capitol Hill. But sometimes he seems to get a little lost, and just hopes nobody notices.

Obama’s fiscal commission, on which Conrad served, concluded last year that the retirement age for Social Security eligibility must be raised to 68 and then to 69. Conrad backed the final report, as did Durbin and conservative Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).


Conrad is negotiating with Durbin, Coburn and Crapo about bringing the commission proposal to the Senate floor as legislation.

Yeah, here's the thing about that. There is no commission proposal, and it didn't "conclude" anything.

Joan McCarter has already explained this quite clearly:

The president's bipartisan fiscal commission, more commonly known among the non-austerity crowd as the catfood commission, failed. The recommendations it made were not official. It failed to garner the required 14 of 18 supporting votes, and thus did not have an official vote.

Which it couldn't have had anyway, not officially, because it didn't meet its deadline. There is absolutely no reason for the administration to follow the recommendation of the commission. Because they failed and never produced any. That's the inconvenient fact which DC--politicians and media alike--continue to ignore.

This is -- or ought to be -- as plain as day. And yet, the Beltway press won't let go.

I can understand why the members of the commission who need what looks like official cover for their plans to cling to it. But there's no reason for the "objective" press to say there was a commission report when there wasn't one.

Conrad, you may remember, was a stickler for the rules when the issue was reconciliation and the health care bill. Which is, of course, as it should be. And it's equally obvious that Senator Conrad is entitled to put forth his failed proposals as a bill, just as he would be with an idea that actually had popular support.

But I think it's fair to say that he would never countenance someone saying that a certain bill was a reconciliation bill even though it wasn't. He'd absolutely object to that, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that reconciliation bills are entitled by statute to a certain procedural deference on the Senate floor. While that's not necessarily the case for whatever it is he's hoping to salvage from the failed commission, it's certainly true that he's seeking to attach to it an importance it does not have, does not deserve, and failed to earn under the procedure he agreed to.

Senator Conrad can certainly draw inspiration from any source he likes, and can submit any proposed legislation he wants to. But he shouldn't be able to pretend his proposals are something they're not. And The Village has no business helping him do so. They're ideas that he -- a retiring Senator -- personally likes, and nothing more.

There is no commission report. There was no "conclusion" reached.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.