Fiscal commission begins, but to what end?

Theoretically, the commission could raise your taxes significantly or
fundamentally alter Social Security, the most popular federal program known to
man. The commission has a portfolio infinitely larger than even a Goldman hedge
fund manager does, yet its opening meeting slipped largely under the radar
(Sen. Tom Coburn’s, R-Okla., seat was empty for most of the meeting while he
grilled Goldman execs).

After the extraordinarily contentious debate surrounding healthcare, it seems
highly unlikely that 14 of the 18 members will agree on a plan and Congress
will approve that plan, which will have to be larger in scope than even the
Affordability Care Act. Further, a debt package will have almost none of the
benefits of health reform. Perhaps most tellingly, despite the magnitude of the
commission’s mission, it will not hold a single field hearing to solicit input
from the broader American public; it is penny-unwise and dollar-foolish.

If you are wondering how we ended up with this commission, you probably need to
start with billionaire former Lehman Brothers CEO Pete Peterson. Peterson has
spent a billion dollars preparing for a week like this: a presidential
commission focused on the deficit and a daylong star-studded summit sponsored
by his foundation. If Peterson and the starve-the-beast conservatives could
have it their way, government spending on social insurance programs would be
reduced until the debt was wiped clean. Peterson has spent his fortune trying
to convince America that our deficit is primarily due to the spending on our
social insurance programs.

Despite all the cash he has spent, it appears Peterson and the other fiscal
hawks have lost the argument. Panelists on the Peterson foundation morning
panel exposed just how regressive the reduced-spending approach is. Bob
Greenstein at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities cut through the
cut-entitlement argument with ease and clarity, pointing out how miniscule the
long-term fiscal shortfall of Social Security is compared to the overall size
of the economy. As inequality continues to widen in America, it seems
incomprehensible that voters will assent to a solution that further erodes
middle-class economic security.

The views expressed in this blog do not represent the views or opinions of Generations United.