Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > March > 05 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Boehner needs Voinovich help on debt
Let’s check back in on the Dayton area’s guy in national leadership, Rep. John Boehner, chief of House Republicans. And Sen. George Voinovich.
For several years, Voinovich has pushed this enormous idea: Appoint a bipartisan commission to make recommendations on the nation’s long-term debt issues. Those issues are monumental, and neither a Republican nor Democratic Congress — or a Republican or Democratic president — has confronted them.
This commission would make recommendations about taxes and about the big entitlement programs that are the heart of the spending problem. Congress would be required to either accept or reject the recommendations as a package.
(Allowing Congress to amend the package is universally seen as going back to square one, as willing nothing to be done.)
In January, a majority of senators supported the idea. But, the Senate being that bastion of democracy, it failed. It needed support from 60 percent. (It got 62 percent of the Democrats and 40 percent of the Republicans.)
Voinovich was angry at Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell for reneging on his past support and at President Barack Obama for not pushing the idea hard enough or early enough. Obama left the impression he wasn’t that into the issue.
Then, in his State of the Union speech — after a lengthy meeting with Voinovich — Obama announced that he’d create the commission himself. Unfortunately, though, his commission can’t have the enforcement mechanism, the requirement of an up or down vote. It can only recommend.
Voinovich would still like to see the commission-with-teeth idea revived in Congress. Enter Boehner. There was some uncertainty about whether he’d even participate in the presidential commission. But he has agreed to make his share of appointments. Good. To have refused would have broken records for partisanship.
But, of course, he couldn’t go along without trashing the president. He trashed him for his budget policies. He questioned whether the commission would have a genuinely bipartisan staff. He insisted that its meetings be before cameras and be announced early.
He also called for moving up the deadline for the commission report to Oct. 1, from Dec. 1, so that its proposals can be part of the 2010 political campaign, rather than presented to a lame-duck Congress for action. (Truth is, some promoters of the commission like the idea of a lame-duck, post-election Congress; it would be politically freer to infuriate.)
One news outlet characterized Boehner as “dissing” the commission. But by the prevailing standards of Washington, he was restrained.
But if, indeed, Boehner is worried about a presidential commission, a solution beckons. How about taking up the Voinovich cause: a congressional commission?
Boehner hammers the president over the head incessantly about the national debt, portraying it as a grave, immediate threat to the nation and everybody in it. But he knows that the presidency will be in Democratic hands for three years.
So what could possibly address his concerns about the debt better than a mandated bipartisan solution? The Republicans are complaining about being ignored. Suddenly they’d be given power.
If Boehner pushed for a commission with teeth, he’d be taking up the president on his call for bipartisanship. The president could hardly oppose him.
As a political bonus, Boehner would get the fun of putting the Democrats on the spot and driving a wedge between them, given that some do and some don’t support a congressional commission.
Of course, that division exists among Republicans, too. And congressional leaders don’t love dividing their own supporters. Therein lies the crunch.
But, at some stage, both parties have to get realistic about the political realities surrounding the debt, about what’s doable and what isn’t. It’s either compromise or nothing.
Even the creation of a commission with teeth isn’t a magic answer. The commission could fail to reach agreement on dramatic changes. Indeed, congressional leaders could almost guarantee that by appointing hardline conservatives and liberals.
But if you sat down, say, George Voinovich with Joe Lieberman (another sponsor of the commission-with-teeth plan), they could likely work something out.
It might include something that would irritate Boehner’s conservative, tax-obsessed base. But, given that there’s no way he can get the government to confront the deficit his way (if, indeed, he has a way), he has to decide if he prefers the possibility of doing nothing. Maybe the debt problem isn’t that big a deal, after all, but, instead, just something that’s fun to talk about.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Locals in national affairs, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, National government
Comments
By Anon
March 5, 2010 11:44 AM | Link to this
Dear Martin, Loathe as I am to agree with a DDN editorial, I have to admit that the establishment of a congressional commission to solve the problems with the growing entitlement programs and national debt is a great idea, as long as certain conditions are met. First, Congress must be required to accept or decline the recommendations as a package, as you noted. Second, the commission must have an even number of delegates. Third, each party must be equally represented. This will guarantee that no one party can control the outcome, the solution will be truly bi-partisan, and thus, will most likely ensure that everyone is working to find a solution. Otherwise, this will simply end up being another way for the Democrats to impose their will on the country.
By scoobydo
March 5, 2010 12:15 PM | Link to this
Boehner is so full of it, his hypocrisy is legendary. If he really worried about spending money, just where was he and all the rest of the faux deficit chicken hawks during the previous pres drunken spending spree? At lest Voinovich has been on this before 20Jan2009, unlike the come lately Tanman Boehner. All this deficit crap would be a lot more believable if they had even made a peep from 2002-2009. I guess all these GOPers were like Rip Van Winkle
By gjg
March 5, 2010 12:54 PM | Link to this
GOP leadership’s lack of support for this commission demonstrates that they really don’t care about the deficit, they just want to obstruct the Democratic (and democratically elected) government.
By TRS
March 5, 2010 4:35 PM | Link to this
The commission idea has merit but this this WH is only looking for political cover. Does anyone really believe any commission would get to the real heart of the issue which is spending? If if they did, want’s the chance of Congress acting on it, particularly when many popular programs would be on the block. Currently, something like 84% of the budget is committed leaving little room to roam. Likely are proposals for substantial tax increases for all and this would give this Prez cover to do what he promised he would not do - raise taxes on the middle class. Heaven forbid he not keep another promise! One can just hear it now via the teleprompter - “gee, I really didn’t want to do this but the commission said I have to”. Recently, Krugman wrote complaining about how the Republicans tried to “starve the beast of gvmt” in hopes of getting spending cuts. We now have the Dems trying to feed it in order to get tax hikes. Again, we hear the “oh yea, well Bush spent”. Does that give the current group of liberal/progressives the go ahead to spend at 2-3X the pace as Bush? If you really wanted to argue the point, Dems seem to believe gvmt can tax and spend the country into prosperity and Bush was only putting into practice their economic theories. So how’s that work for ya?
By Mike R
March 5, 2010 8:05 PM | Link to this
Martin, you know who I am—As you know, I use my real name and real email address. You are a smart man, but most times your thoughts are clouded in your ideology and it appears this is the case again. You have used semantics to appear neutral in this editorial. Well done. However, appearing “neutral” isn’t your motive for this piece—it is to draw in unaware fiscally minded readers—readers you so desperately need for survival. For one, you failed to mention Sen. Brown in this commentary—He too is “Dayton area’s guy in national leadership.” Your words—not mine. By the way, how is his effort to stop Money from the first stimulus bill going to Chinese firms going? Maybe next time he’s in town you’ll represent your subscribers and ask some tough questions the majority of Daytonians would like answered—Like, “Have you or will you read the bill and understand the bill before voting? Maybe if he read last year’s stimulus bill he would have known U.S. tax payer monies could go to China or any other foreign firm. Anyhow, you’re 3rd paragraph may show a glimpse of your hand…as you wrote, “This commission would make recommendations about taxes…” Now, are we to take seriously a person of your persuasion believes in LOWER TAXES? From reading and studying your writings I don’t think you are for a lower tax rate. And, for full disclosure, what’s your stand on newspapers becoming “non-profit” in the tax code? I understand there’s a push by some in the “organization” to become Non-profit. If that is true, it is safe to assume you would be for higher taxes since you would be shielded from any tax…Marty, you also “forgot” to mention that the President has stacked the deck in this commission. Oh, by the way, what is your definition of “Bi-partisan?” Mine and most other people in the Miami Valley (potential DDN readers) would be equally 50-50. What is yours?? Obama’s commission is an 18 member panel..6 picked by the Democrats in the House and Senate and 6 picked by the Republicans in the House and Senate. Gee, Martin, I wonder where the other 6 in this “Bi-Partisan” commission will be coming from? I’ll save you the time Marty…Obama picks them and he has picked some of the most Anti-Capitalists—Socialists around. I know, you would’ve liked to have mentioned that but, like many of your “journalists” you’re limited to space and have a deadline to meet. -Mike
By Confused...
March 5, 2010 10:09 PM | Link to this
Anon: After reading all this I sort of agree with Mike R. My understanding is this is a Presidential commission and not a congressional commission. I agree with you about a congressional commission, but I think it’s a done deal. Mr. Obama sets the commish without teeth but will make recommendations. I don’t think I want that.
By TRS
March 5, 2010 11:26 PM | Link to this
You may want to look at some of the members the President has appointed, specifically Andy Stern. Catch Michelle Malkin’s piece on the blog about the SEIU and its finances. Pretty ugly….and this guy is to advice about financial matters?
By Concerned
March 6, 2010 5:35 AM | Link to this
I want to know why Voinovich struck a deal with Harry Reid to vote on reauthorization of the transportation bill this year rather than wait till next year as favored by many in Congress and the administration. Why now?
By Kurt
March 6, 2010 8:29 AM | Link to this
Folks, getting rid of the 16th amendment, and passing the fair tax, and drill and refine our own oil would cause our economy to skyrocket, but socialist like Marty, cant stand the thought of freedom and liberty.
By ron ponder
March 7, 2010 12:11 PM | Link to this
boehner is a hypocrite and is more interested in being a leader of our narrow-minded republican party than a leader for our country.
By voter
March 9, 2010 11:19 AM | Link to this
Boehner just voted against legislation giving tax cuts to small businesses and to businesses hiring unemployed workers. If you have a small business or you don’t have a job, remember how Boehner voted against you when you are voting in Novemeber.
By Samll Biz Owner
March 12, 2010 9:55 AM | Link to this
That’s funny, “voter.” As a small business owner, and one who offers health insurance, I wasn’t going to hire someone based on this joke of a tax credit. Even If I highered a low-skilled person at minimium wage my costs would be over $20K/year. So, why would I hire someone that will cost me over $20K to get a $5,000 tax credit?? As you can see, the math simply doesn’t add up!