President Obama commissioned former Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles to come up with a deficit reduction plan. When they delivered their plan, Obama ignored them and proceeded to rack up about $5 trillion in new debt for the nation.
One might expect that the president’s actions could come up in the presidential debates this fall. But if several Democrats get their way, no questions about Simpson-Bowles will be asked.
In the original letter, Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman, (I-Conn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) asked the debate commission to devote “specific and extensive attention to the question of how the candidates would get our nation’s fiscal house in order during the first debate dedicated to domestic policy.”
“Specifically, we request that you ask the presidential candidates which of the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform they would adopt as part of their plan to reduce the deficit,” they wrote.
But that caused Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) to cry foul, writing in their own letter to the debate commission on Tuesday that although the Simpson-Bowles commission’s plan “may contain proposals helpful to our recovery…to hold it out as the only pathway to fiscal responsibility and economic success is foolish and wrong.”
“We urge the [Debate] Commission to fight any effort to unnecessarily narrow such an important debate by placing disproportionate attention on one set of proposals over another,” they wrote, adding that such a question would “cheapen the debate” and “thwart the candidates’ ability to explain alternative proposals.”
I know that this is a political question, but can we just be honest here and say that the request to put Simpson-Bowles out of bounds is ridiculous and unworthy of being taken seriously? Can we note that the three Democrats — Honda, Nadler and Schakowsky — are doing nothing more or less than protecting the Incompetent in Chief from his own miserable and very obvious failure?
The Romney campaign should, behind the scenes at first and then publicly if necessary, play hardball here. It should demand that the Debate Commission openly reject the Democrats’ request. Otherwise, the debate has been rigged and the Romney campaign should say so.
The debates have already been effectively rigged, with the choice of moderators. If the candidates want to discuss Simpson-Bowles they are going to have to bring it up themselves in response to any questions about federal spending and reducing the deficit.
“Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything!”
So does that mean no questions can be asked about the ‘Ryan Plan’ either?? I don’t think so….
I hope the RNC does not agree to this.
– doo doo.
“…by placing disproportionate attention on one set of proposals over another.”
What other proposals are there? The Obama budgets that were shot down unanimously? The various budgets that Harry Reid has killed without debate?
The premise of this article is inherent flawed:
“When they delivered their plan, Obama ignored them and proceeded to rack up about $5 trillion in new debt for the nation.”
The deficit commission did not produce a recommended plan. They failed to achieve consensus and so made no recommendation.
The joint-report that was produced and is often referenced as the recommendations did not meet the vote requirements, and so therefore, it is just that – one of many plans created but not approved by the commission.
Secondly, Pres. Obama did not rack up $5 trillion in new debt – CONGRESS did. Congress sets taxation and revenue levels, and directs all spending. This is the spending package mandated by Congress.
The Romney campaign has already gotten itself into a bind by not aggressively pursuing that the debate moderators represent a broader diversity of political views. (diversity of ideas and opinions is no vice, diversity of ethnicity and gender is no virtue) But it is still not too late for the Romney campaign to voice its displeasure that all of the moderators are Democrats and thus the debates will have a inherent bias in favor of liberal issues.
So of course the Romney campaign should insist that Simpson-Bowles plan be brought up so long as both candidates are also allowed to discuss counter proposals. While there are more than one plan to balance the budget, that doesn’t mean that the candidates shouldn’t discuss the merits of one of the plans.
But it is still not too late for the Romney campaign to voice its displeasure that all of the moderators are Democrats and…
Voicing displeasure won’t change anything.
The way to get results is to warn the producers of the event that there will no participation if certain demands are not met, and if that fails, follow through and dump ‘em.
If the Dems succeed in getting their cheat, Romney and Ryan should bring up Simpson-Bowles anyway, if only as a passing reference… but one that strikes to the heart of what it actually is.
Exactly. They can easily bring Simpson-Bowles into the conversation in any number of ways when addressing the budget, entitlements, the debt, etc. Any subject that includes a $ is fair game.
And by all means, let’s also have a debate on the “other” proposals out there such as both plans submitted by the Communist in Chief that went down to unanimous defeat without garnering even a democrat vote; or perhaps the proposals from 2009, 2010 and 2011 that we’re still waiting for from the Senate democrats; in direct violation of the law, by the way.
I don’t often agree with democrats but in this case, they’re right on the money (pun intended). Bring on the debates.