(photo: Photo Phiend via Flickr)

Late last night, the House passed their continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of Fiscal Year 2011, which cuts over $60 billion from the discretionary budget over the next seven months, and includes a host of ideological measures. The final vote was 235-189, mostly along party lines, although three Republicans – Jeff Flake, John Campbell and Walter Jones – voted no. Flake and Campbell wanted bigger cuts. Not one Democrat crossed over to vote for the bill.

The Senate is just not going to accept that House measure, which makes deep cuts across government but particularly to programs favored by Democrats, without working their will on it. So House Democrats are attempting to extend the current operating continuing resolution until March 31, to give more time for negotiation between the House and Senate and avoid a government shutdown. Funding would continue at current levels, which is essentially FY 2010 levels, through the month of March, under the plan. Of course, this would mean that any cuts would be spread over a six-month period, from March 31 to September 30, instead of seven months. That will increase their impact marginally in those six months. The entire Democratic Leadership and the ranking member on Appropriations, Norm Dicks, will co-sponsor the bill. Here’s Nancy Pelosi:

In light of the hundreds of amendments to the Continuing Resolution, the President’s Day week-long recess and the need for the House to establish priorities and reconcile this legislation with the Senate by March 4, we are proposing a short-term extension of the current CR until March 31. This legislation will allow Congress to complete work on FY 2011 appropriations without punishing the American people by denying them vital services.

This bill would continue the freeze in government spending contained in the current CR. In order to give Congress time to finish the legislation and avoid the calamitous effect of a government shutdown on the American people, I am hopeful Republican leaders will agree to a short term extension of the freeze as we work to pass a bill the President can sign into law for the remainder of 2011.

This is the kind of short-term CR that John Boehner ruled out this week. Realistically, if he wants to avoid a government shutdown it’s the only option. With the one-week recess, Congress will have five working days on a bill which affects all levels of government. It includes 400 legislative issues inside it, all of which Senate Democrats want out. It’s just not going to be possible to get all that ironed out in five working days.

Republicans quickly dismissed the short-term CR idea. So they can take the blame for shutting down the government, which is likely to happen in two weeks.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD7)

Nancy Pelosi announced some ranking memberships for the 112th Congress last night, and most of them were holdovers. But the Oversight Committee was a wildcard. Would the ranking membership go to Carolyn Maloney, next in line for the position and backed by outgoing ranking member Ed Towns? Or would Elijah Cummings, currently third in line, get the nod? Turns out that the Policy and Steering Committee picked Cummings over Maloney, and so did the caucus.

Rep. Elijah Cummings has been elected the top Democrat on the House’s principle investigative panel.

The Baltimore Democrat can now look forward to two years of combat with incoming chairman Darrell Issa, the California Republican who has pledged wide-ranging investigations of the Obama administration when the GOP takes control of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in January.

In seeking to become ranking member, or leader of the committee minority, Cummings had said he would not allow the oversight committee “to tie the hands of our President and federal workforce, preventing them from fulfilling their duties to protect and serve the American people.”

Cummings has the potential to be a worthy adversary to Darrell Issa. But the way in which the leadership went about this was pretty ham-fisted. First, they clearly pushed out Ed Towns, as he acknowledged in a letter to Pelosi. He said that “I decided to withdraw my candidacy following a conversation with you when you made it clear that I did not have your support.”

Then, the leadership upends the seniority system to get Cummings into the position, seemingly balancing the desires of the Congressional Black Caucus, who wanted Towns replaced with another member. This leapfrogs Carolyn Maloney, who had the support of many women’s groups and the entire New York delegation.

This is not to say I don’t think Cummings will do a good job. I was pleased to see him state the main issues of the Oversight Committee, including how they must “continue to seek the causes and solutions of our economic downturn” and “attempt to stem the tide of fraudulent foreclosures in America.” And the seniority system shouldn’t necessarily be the way that the caucus picks its leaders on the various committees. But Maloney definitely got a raw deal here. Ultimately, the full caucus made the call, but the view of the leadership was unmistakable.

Maloney will, I’m assuming, retain the ranking membership on the Joint Economic Commitee.

The distribution of that money was heavily favored towards male candidates, however. On average, incumbent male candidates received 61% more than their female counterparts.

Average expenditure on female challengers: $1,165,945
Average expenditure on male challengers: $1,507,118
Male challengers received an average of $341,173 or 20.55% more than women

Average expenditure on female incumbents: $521,938
Average expenditure on a male incumbents: $845,134
Men incumbents received an average of $323,196 or 61% more than women

Three female candidates who lost their election bids — Melissa Bean, Suzanne Kosmas and Carol Shea-Porter — received no help in the form of independent expenditure money from the DCCC.

Of the six consulting firms chosen by the DCCC, races represented by Ralston-Lapp received more media buy money than any other:

John Lapp, of Ralston-Lapp, former Executive Director of the DCCC under Rahm Emanuel, was the senior adviser for the IE Committee this year. His firm was also one of the six firms chosen by the DCCC for the lucrative independent expenditure media contracts. Several candidates have confirmed that they were told by Chris Van Hollen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that Lapp was responsible for decisions about where the DCCC’s $65 million in independent expenditure money was distributed.

Earlier this year, Nancy Pelosi chose Steve Israel over Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to lead the DCCC. Wasserman-Schultz had seniority, but Israel is a close ally of Lapp. Both Lapp and John Vogel, current DCCC Executive Director, worked on Israel’s first congressional campaign in 2000.

Yesterday’s headline in Politico: “Wasserman-Schultz Rise Stalls Out”

Democratic leadership also supported Adam Smith over Loretta Sanchez to be ranking member of the Armed Services Committee yesterday, because Smith had seniority. But today leadership, who have always vigorously defended the seniority system for committee heads, completely abandoned it when Steny Hoyer himself nominated Elijah Cummings over Carolyn Maloney to head the Oversight Committee.

Last week Sander Levin beat out Richard Neal for the top spot on Ways & Means because he had seniority and had raised more money for the DCCC. But Wasserman-Schultz raised more money than Israel, and Maloney raised more money than Cummings.

Women members of Congress contribute significantly to the DCCC’s coffers. But they don’t appear to be getting much for their money.

Full chart here

Nancy Pelosi

Democratic members of the House, led by Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, were near unanimous in warning Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week not to bring the Obama-GOP plan for a vote without the support of the caucus.

Speaker Pelosi said she wouldn’t bring the bill “in its current form” to the floor of the House, but that leaves room to add sweeteners to buy off individual members while doing nothing to change the deeply unfair underpinnings of this bill.

It’s Nancy Pelosi’s obligation to refuse to bring major legislation like this up for a vote unless a majority of the Democratic caucus supports the bill, as she already agreed not to do. If a majority of Democrats won’t vote for the Obama-GOP tax plan, Speaker Pelosi must not bring it to the floor for a vote. So let’s find out where Democrats stand.

We’re organizing an EMERGENCY whip count to call Democratic Members of Congress and find out where they stand on the Obama-GOP tax plan. FDL Activists have already reported more than 400 calls since Monday. Here’s a script to use when you call; a list of Democratic members of Congress and a form to report your call are below.

Hi, this is [YOUR NAME].

I’m calling about the Obama-GOP tax plan. Does Rep. [LAST NAME] support Speaker Pelosi if she brings the tax plan to the floor against the will of a majority of the Democratic caucus?

Last week the Democratic caucus stood together in near unanimous opposition to the Obama-GOP tax plan, and Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t bring it to the floor.

I want to find out exactly where Rep. [LAST NAME] stands.

Please tell Rep. [LAST NAME] has my support if HE/SHE opposes this giveaway to the rich.

Thank you for your time.

(photo: talkradionews)

Nancy Pelosi dug her heels in last night and told her caucus that the President wants no extension of the Bush tax cuts beyond the $250,000 threshold. She’s also signaled that she’ll put it up for a vote on the suspension calendar, which means Republicans can’t make amendments or the motion to recommit. But it also means she’ll have to get 290 votes in order to pass it, and there’s no way she can bring enough Republicans on board to do that.

So it’s a purely symbolic vote that will fail. But she’s asking members to take it anyway, because she says that’s what the President wants.

Well if that’s what the President wants, then maybe he should stop sending mixed messages on the subject. Because he has said repeatedly he is “open” to extending all the Bush tax cuts, making the distinction that he’ll only do it temporarily.

Moreover, the Senate has already pretty much decided that they can’t pass the tax cuts at the $250,000 threshold, according to Sam Stein in yesterday in the Huffington Post. So they too will hold a “symbolic” vote, and then get down to dealing:

“A lot of people want to have that contrast vote, to make it clear what we stand for,” said one Senior Democratic aide. “So we take that middle-class vote first, then we look to a compromise and see what’s in the grab bag.”

What’s in the grab bag could end up being the key towards passage. Democrats may be willing to give in to Republican demands that the rates for the wealthy be extended (at least temporarily) but not without getting some legislative goodies in return. On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) iterated a deal that has long been discussed in private — in exchange for giving in on the upper rates, Republicans would drop opposition to prolonging emergency unemployment benefits and other tax credits.

“Make it clear what we stand for.” Well if the President was out in front of this, making the case for only extending the tax cuts for the middle class by using the bully pulpit, that would be one thing.

But he’s not. So what this amounts to is a sop for the base, a kabuki effort that nobody in the press will take seriously. But they’ll be able to make the argument that they “tried.”

It’s hard to see how setting up a situation where you depend on Republican support for something they have absolutely no problem voting against is considered “fighting” for what you believe in. Hell, most of the ConservaDems won’t even get on board. The Republicans know it, and they’re already working it in the press:

Looks like we’re going to party like it’s 2006 again.

What would a real fight look like? [cont'd.] Well, rather than watch Dick Durbin give up on all the tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment insurance, figure out what you actually can get support for and put up a bill that would be tough for Republicans to actually oppose. Chuck Schumer’s idea to raise the threshold to a million dollars appears to have support, per Sam Stein:

There is no bag of bargained goodies let alone talks to begin putting together such a package for the purposes of getting a tax cut deal done. The more advanced negotiations, indeed, have centered on the idea of raising the threshold of who would see a tax increase should rates expire. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in particular has argued that the party should change the baseline for income that would be taxed from $250,000 to $1 million dollars. He was joined, in a little-noticed comment over Thanksgiving, by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a notable centrist vote who previously said he wouldn’t back any tax increase.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, extending all the Bush tax cuts beyond the $250,000 threshold would cost $38 billion in the first year. Of that $38 billion, $32.7 billion would go to those making over $1 million per year. Which means Schumer’s plan, if successful, would still keep the bulk of those cuts from expiring, and the burden would be on those making more than $1 million per year — which, as the JCT report notes, applies to only 315,000 families in the country.

Durbin is right to try and attach an extension of unemployment benefits. There are 800,000 people whose benefits ran out in November, and another 2 million will expire in December. That actually makes a really clear distinction between what the Republicans want and what the Democrats want — if the Republicans hold out for 315,000 families making over $1 million a year, it’s clear that they will be choosing them over 2.8 million unemployed.

I don’t know if even that could pass, but according to Sam Stein’s article, nobody has tried to figure out what they can get through with a month to go. Instead, they’re trying to eat up the clock with meaningless votes that make Bernie Sanders happy, which also keeps them from having to take up everything else they’ve promised to vote on during the lame duck session — including DADT and the DREAM Act.

Moreover, Pelosi’s kabuki is forcing members of the caucus to take a “loyalty” vote that will be used against them in the next election by Republican opponents. They’ll be painted as people who voted to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 per year (families making $250,000). That’s prime donor territory for most candidates. And for what? For a bill that simply guarantees the Republicans get the chance to pass all the tax cuts in the new year…and take all the credit for doing so.

There are people hurting out there. They need help — or as much help as Congress can muster in its final days of the session. Yet the House caucus is consumed with whether or not to censure Charlie Rangel.

Really?

Nancy Pelosi forced her caucus to walk the plank over Cap and Trade. She forced them to walk the plank again over health care — lying to them and telling them their poll numbers would go up once the health care bill passed (which she and her Deputy, Chris Van Hollen, knew from internal polling was not true).

What happened to this Nancy Pelosi, from December 2009?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately told her politically vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.

If there’s going to be a true fight for the expiration of the tax cuts, it should start at the top, with the generals. But even as the halls of the House office buildings fill up with moving boxes and 63 Democrats prepare to head home, Pelosi is once again targeting her caucus members and firing on them, forcing them onto the battle field in a futile fight they can’t possibly hope to win.

I guess we’re going for Paths of Glory III.

Meanwhile, 2.8 million people slip off the rolls of the official “unemployed” into that murky territory of those who have “stopped looking for jobs” — as far as government statisticians are concerned, anyway.

This isn’t leadership. It’s complete abdication of any sense of responsibility toward those you are elected to serve. Now is not the time for political theater. It’s time to get in there, roll up your sleeves and get the best deal you can to help the greatest number of people. Time to play serious hard politics, not put on some cheap performance before you exit stage left.

Well, maybe that’s what everyone really wants — an extension of all the Bush tax cuts. They could hardly do a better job of teeing the Republicans up if they tried. Pelosi is orchestrating a guaranteed failure that leaves the GOP free to do whatever they want come January.

What a horrible, horrible coda to the tenure of the first woman Speaker of the House that would be. But that’s where we’re headed.

Driven by the urgency of creating jobs & protecting #hcr, #wsr, Social Security & Medicare, I am running for Dem Leader.

Not everyone in the caucus will support her, obviously. We already have Heath Shuler thinking he can win a Minority Leader race, Jim Matheson has called on her to step down from leadership, and Oklahoma’s Dan Boren followed suit today. But this represents an extreme minority of the 187 member-plus Democratic caucus. I’d be shocked if she didn’t have the numbers well in hand to lead the caucus again.

Given the alternatives, in my view it’s good news. We’ll see what Steny Hoyer has to say about this.

UPDATE: Keep in mind that for the most part, Pelosi never brought anything up for a vote in the House unless she knew she would succeed. I assume we have the same dynamic here.

Jonathan Capehart, continuing his one-sided cozying up to the Obama White House and its access demands on journamalists, is shocked — shocked! — that the Log Cabin Republicans support a Republican candidate for Congress. The LCRs’ success in court getting Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell overturned makes them a juicy target for Capehart, who is an Obama apologist par excellence, especially if it’s his buddy Valerie Jarrett who is under attack by caustic comments on blogs like, um, this one.

Let’s face it. The Log Cabin Republicans, whose DADT suit was initially designed to embarrass the George W Bush Administration but has now splattered mid-term controversy all over Team Obama, are an irritant to Capehart’s White House buddies. Is there anything the helpful toady Capehart can do to disillusion those who might be tempted to salute the Log Cabin lads for their judicial success?

Why yes there is! Just look what Capehart has found! The Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed for Congress — a Republican!

Then, on Monday the organization threw its support behind Mike Fitzpatrick, the Republican in a close race against Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the Iraq War vet who masterfully guided the repeal bill to passage. They did this despite Fitzpatrick’s opposition to Murphy’s bill — and despite the organization’s own extensive efforts to secure passage of Murphy’s amendment. And another thing: I always thought Republicans were opposed to judges “legislating” from the bench. Don’t ask don’t tell is an act of Congress and it will take an act of Congress to get rid of it.

So, Jonathan is shocked that an organization whose name ends in REPUBLICAN would endorse a REPUBLICAN for office in Pennsylvania. So shocked, if fact, that he types it up in the Washington Post, seeming to loyally provide ammunition against a group who has embarrassed the President.

But what of Congressman Patrick Murphy? Couldn’t LBGT activists honestly oppose his re-election, especially if he’s of the other party than the one they inhabit?

Patrick Murphy bowed to the White House’s request that he severely limit his DADT repeal amendment — even though he had the votes to pass it in its original version. If ‘masterfully guided the repeal bill to passage’ includes watering it down unnecessarily at White House request, okay — sure. This is the point where the Pentagon got to put their study, their recommendation, and their report into the mix. This fouled up real repeal and put the sham repeal on track to passage in the House of Representatives:

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.) submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee Tuesday using language that was agreed upon during a meeting at the White House Monday.

Only one person who participated in that meeting has identified himself—Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

The Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers United, a gay veterans group, also had at least one representative at the meeting, but neither organization would identify who that was.

The White House declined to identify or confirm any participants, but at least one source familiar with the meeting said it included White House of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s deputy Jim Messina. That source provided the information only on the condition of anonymity.

CNN reported that “top congressional Democrats” also participated in the meeting. A press release from SLDN indicated that DOD officials helped craft the amendment.

But on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday night, Murphy took credit for the language, evening calling it the “Murphy Amendment.”

The amendment calls for repeal to take place only after two things occur: 1) the Secretary of Defense receives the implementation report he has asked for by December 1, and 2) “The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating” that three additional things have been accomplished. Those three things are: 1) that the three men have “considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action,” 2) the DOD has “prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise” repeal, and 3) that the implementation of those policies and regulations is “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”

So. Maybe the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to support Patrick Murphy’s opponent wasn’t simply because he was a Republican Congressman, defeated by Murphy in the 2006 Democratic wave. Maybe it’s not simply because they, too, are Republicans, just like their endorsee in this race. Maybe the Log Cabin Republicans see Murphy as someone who derailed real repeal, who ceded control of a legislative process to the White House and the Pentagon, and who talks like an ally but — at the point LGBT servicemembers needed a hero — acted like a collaborator?

LGBT Americans need support for our goals in both parties — but we don’t need advocates who give in just when victory is at hand. Viewing Patrick Murphy’s actions that way doesn’t require a partisan lens, but it does require removing the rose-colored glasses Jonathan Capehart wears as he types up another screed against people who embarrassed Team Obama.

Jonathan Capehart needs to face reality: he’s made a lifestyle choice to defend Team Obama at every turn. But now, that lifestyle choice has forced him to criticize Republicans for endorsing a Republican who opposes a Democrat who may very well have sold out real DADT repeal. Capehart should examine his lifestyle choice, because it’s not one a real journalist would make.

It’s personality over principle. It’s a reflexive, and absurd, attack on an Obama antagonist without seriously evaluating why a Republican group that favors immediate and full repeal of DADT might oppose Patrick Murphy.

(photo: davidciani)

Speaker Pelosi pointed to three studies showing that the plan for Social Security preferred by Republicans – both privatization and progressive price indexing, a feature that the deficit commission has reportedly toyed with – would slash benefits for middle-income retirees.

The Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), took on both privatization and progressive price indexing, finding not only wild swings in benefits depending on the stock market, but that PPI would result in benefit cuts for those with average lifetime income.

Progressive-price indexing would adjust middle-income earners’ wage histories based on a mix of changes in prices and wages, and would adjust higher-income earners’ wage histories based on changes in prices, eroding the current relationship between workers’ contributions to Social Security and the benefits received in retirement income. Because prices typically grow slower than wages, this change would result in steep reductions for middle-income retirees, and even steeper reductions for retirees with higher earnings.

Although benefit cuts would be smaller for middle-income retirees, progressive price indexing would undoubtedly have a larger impact on the economic well-being of middle-class retirees who depend on Social Security for more than three-fourths of their income, compared to high-income retirees who depend on Social Security for only one-quarter of their income [...]

Benefit cuts from progressive price indexing would grow deeper overtime. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a new retiree in 2050 with average earnings would receive benefits 17 percent lower than under current law. By 2080, a new retiree with average earnings would receive a 28 percent reduction in defined benefits.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, mentioned above, also saw steep benefit reductions under the Ryan Roadmap privatization plan, along with increases in the retirement age.

But the most interesting response came from the independent chief actuary of Social Security, requested by Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who oversees Social Security in the House. As he says, the results showed even bigger benefit cuts for the middle class. [cont'd.]

Under progressive price indexing, the chief actuary says, benefits for middle income workers would be cut up to 42% for an individual born in 2015, and up to 25% for one born in 1985. Increasing the retirement age slashes benefits up to 20% across the board. And cutting the cost of living adjustment, or otherwise tweaking it, reduces benefits gradually but consistently over time.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about how easy it would be to cut Social Security in order to save it,” said Chairman Pomeroy. “I asked the experts to analyze the proposals being made because I felt that much of this discussion lacked substantive information. The truth is that none of the cuts being proposed are easy on anyone and in fact, all of them will hurt middle class seniors and their retirement security. I don’t think the average American worker could afford to lose 30 percent of their Social Security, which is what would happen under the Republican proposal. That’s not what I’d call ‘saving’ Social Security.” [...]

“The new analysis reveals that these proposals result in benefits cuts ranging from ten percent to as high as 50 percent,” continued Pomeroy. “As I talk to seniors today about stretching their Social Security benefits with no cost of living adjustment in sight, they would not agree with describing cuts of this magnitude as ‘modest’.”

Dick Durbin told MSNBC that it’s become “extremely difficult” to find any consensus on the cat food commission. I’m sure this pressure from the House leaders makes it even harder.

But I have to think Pelosi is none too happy about Democratic candidates, receiving money from Democratic campaign sources, touting their intentions to vote against her for Speaker:

Or this one from Jim Marshall, which opens with the kind of lame parody of hippie San Franciscans you’d expect out of a Sarah Palin fever dream:

(h/t Digby)

The Speaker can talk all she wants about how this doesn’t bother her, but regardless of that, it has a lasting impact in the country. You have a very loud segment of a national political party going out of their way to denigrate the leaders of that party. Some people think this makes the Democratic tent bigger and more able to gain majorities, but last I checked, Republicans held Congress for 12 years and are poised to return to that majority after just a four-year respite. The only difference in 2006 and 2008 was awful performance from George W. Bush and a leader of the DNC who actually stood for something. This strategy of self-flagellation only seems to show up when Democrats are sure to lose. In fact, you could see the two circumstances as intimately connected.

Marshall, keep in mind, is proudly accepting funding from the Chamber of Commerce, the organization at the top of the news over using the same account for campaign spending that they use to collect money from foreign companies. So he’s undermining Democratic themes in addition to its leaders.

I guess I just don’t know what Marshall or Bright gets out of the exchange. They don’t vote very often with Democrats, they don’t seem too happy about being associated with Democrats. They have to tell their district every two years that they can’t stand themselves for being Democrats.

Why are they Democrats?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

An interesting report from Ryan Grim:

Nancy Pelosi will be prepared to beat back a run on Social Security or Medicare if the deficit commission recommends cuts to the popular entitlement program following the November election. 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.

Oh? While this is true, it’s mainly an artifact of the fact that the Ways and Means Committee chairmanship was up in the air, with Charlie Rangel at the helm, at the time that Pelosi made her selections. Sander Levin is the chairman now. Pelosi picked the budget committee chair, Spratt, which was in line with the selection of Kent Conrad by the Senate. But I’d gather the only reason the Ways and Means chair wasn’t represented is that nobody knew who it would be at the time.

In addition, how does this jibe with the non-binding resolution that the recommendations of the cat food commission get a vote on the House floor if they pass the Senate? Is Pelosi, or rather her aides, suggesting that she would deny that vote and just refer the recommendations to committee, allowing them to die quietly?

That’s unclear. But certainly this statement from Pelosi has value:

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.” [...]

“How can you say to seniors, ‘You’re going to have to work longer.’ Now, mind you, it’s okay for me to work to 70–no heavy lifting, no outdoor work. But it’s not okay for laborers to work to 70. It’s all relative. But you’re going to [be forced to] work to 70, no matter what, so we can give a tax cut to the richest people in America? Something is missing in this picture, and if they tried to do that I think it would get a very negative response,” she said.

“Let’s hope they’re thinking in a more fair way about how to go forward. I have no idea,” said Pelosi. “I do know I have confidence in the people I named to the commission.”

While I don’t totally buy the “stacked the deck” premise, I do think it’s valuable that Pelosi wouldn’t give a vote of confidence to anyone on the commission but who she appointed, and that she savaged the idea of raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. In the end, that could play a role when the vote-counting begins.