Here's further indication that the catfood commission may end up just being deadlocked in its efforts. On the Republican side, we know that they are refusing to consider tax increases and are, in fact, demanding more tax breaks for the wealthy.
On the Dem side, some pre-planning by Nancy Pelosi could prevent any agreement on Social Security cuts, plans that also indicate--if staffers involved with the commission are to be believed--any cuts to Social Security would die in the House.
The House Speaker deliberately avoided appointing House chairmen with jurisdiction over Social Security and Medicare to President Obama's commission, House staffers involved with the commission tell HuffPost, so that she could retain the option to sidetrack the panel's recommendations.
Pelosi appointed Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), Rep. Jan Schakowski (D-Ill.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). Becerra is a member of Pelosi's leadership and a close ally. Schakowsky is also a progressive ally of Pelosi's.
If the commission recommends cuts to Social Security or Medicare, the Speaker would have the option of referring the recommendations to the Ways and Means Committee. None of the chairs of the committees or subcommittees with jurisdiction over Social Security or Medicare are on the deficit panel....
Pelosi, in an interview Tuesday with HuffPost said that if the commission tried to balance the budget by raising the Social Security retirement age "it would get a very negative response."
Pelosi said that there was no chance that Social Security would be cut during the lame-duck session. "No. Here's the thing. It's really important to make this distinction," she said. "There are two things happening here: We have a big deficit, so people say, 'Well, we're going to change Social Security to help the deficit.' They have nothing to do with each other directly."
Those are strong, and encouraging, words from the Speaker that could hasten the dead-locking of the commission. Republican intransigence on tax increases meeting Dem intransigence on Social Security could actually end up forcing Congress to deal with fiscal policy-making out in the open, where we could see what they were doing. Which is how it should be.