While this would be the most prudent and rational course of action, I am highly pessimistic that it will happen. I think we're more likely to find a leprechaun riding a unicorn at the end of a rainbow, than for anyone in our government's leadership to concisely agree on these recommendations and try to see them passed.

Each side will circle the wagons around the parts they support and the report will be forgotten in a few months.

When did I become a cynic?

Well Brutus, your skepticism is justified. We haven't seen much of anything beneficial come out of DC in quite some time.

But we're at the point that action is required. No longer can the problems be ignored. Either we Americans control the fiscal problems we have today, or they control us tomorrow. It's our choice. A lot of people got elected last week to confront these very problems. If they won't do it, we'll vote in another batch of them in two years and try again.

I agree with you entirely. It's time to put up or shut up.

Although I feel there should be some kind of penalty, beyond losing their jobs, for these politicians if they don't get anything accomplished by the next election.... I think a firing squad is too drastic. Maybe we can seize and then sell, at auction, all of their possessions in order to pay down the deficit.... Well as much fun as that would be.

JoAnna:

now we should expect Obama to get behind his Commissions' recommendations and work for their passage. We can also expect that the Republican leadership will stand by and promote the Commission's report.

What planet are you on? There is no way that either party will have the political courage to do any of this stuff. Commissions are established to avoid responsibility, not to change policy. The recommendations will remain exactly that: recommendations.

Kinda like the 9/11 commission; established to avoid responsibility. 9/11 was an inside job, still no PROOF that Muslims were flying those planes.

Really? could you maybe take the foil hat off?

Some observations:

1. This is NOT the recommendation of the Commission. It is a "trial balloon" floated by the two chairmen and is unlikely to be adopted as-is by the 14 Commission votes necessary to constitute adoption.

2. There is a method to the madness here: By taking the most conservative possible line in this "trial balloon," the two chairmen have set the debating agenda. Many of the proposals will not end up in the Commission's final report, but it will certainly skew right.

3. The chairmen have essentially set the stage of expectations. Many on the right will believe that this sort of program, or if they are more realistic, a portion of it, will eventually come to pass. However, that is highly unlikely in the case of some key provisions.

For example, this proposal introduces "means tests" into Social Security benefits. Since the program's creation, "means tests" have been proffered and refused, because it changes the fundamental basis of Social Security. As operated now, it is an egalitarian, across-the-board program in which eligible recipients base their returns on years of participation and wage contributions to the program. It actually operates more like a mutual insurance annuity than almost anything else. "Means tests" may have a chance in the 112th Congress, at least in the House, but it is far less likely to survive the Senate.

Raising the top limit on Social Security taxes is probably possible. Raising the retirement age above 67 at present looks debatable - that will depend on when the older retirement age kicks in. If it is applied across the board to all under-67 current enrollees in Social Security, then that will be a losing proposition. If it apples to enrollees now under age 55 or 50, there's at least a shot at passing the change.

Eliminating appropriate cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) by reducing them is not an idea whose time has, or will, come. People dependent upon Social Security for their retirement income already live effectively at or below the poverty line. Keeping pace with inflation is vital to their survival. The proposal's use of a "hardship" clause is another form of "means tests."

Cleraly, some of these proposals are so trivial, they were obviously included as negotiating points to be sacrificed for other goals - the increase in Smithsonian fees, for example, and the student loan proposal.

The mortgage loan interest deduction proposal may survive in a sense. Loans below a certain amount, say, $175,000 just for a talking point, could continue to receive full deductions. Above that amount a progressively-diminishing deduction might result, with homes costing more than perhaps $350,000 or $500,00 dropping off the list entirely. That would mirror the progressive marginal tax rate on incomes, where the rate on a share of income increases at particular threshholds. Given the very low interest rates on the market now, there would be an incentive for many mortgage holders to refinance at a low fixed rate and hang on to that property to minimize tax effects.

As for reduction in Federal wages and benefits, there may be partial acceptance. Almost certainly one such reform will be capping benefits to government employees known as "double dippers" (or more - some even manage to qualify as triple dippers). It is unlikely that, below some of the top levels of the government step-and-ladder schedule of pay and increases, there will be too much cutting on wages. Bonuses, on the other hand, look to be extremely vulnerable.

What is not in this trial balloon is also interesting. One significant way to cut costs would be to allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical suppliers. That is not proposed here. Nor is there any attention to some parts of Health Insurance Reform that might in fact be reformed. And as well, there is no attention whatsoever to changing aspects of health care delivery that since the 1980's have significantly driven up costs (and profits of providers) without improving in any means the quality of care or scope of services. Such reforms now would generate massive savings throughout the economy as well as for the government.

Brutus: The tinfoil hat argument doesn't change the facts. There has never been any proof provided to the public that Muslims were flying the planes on 9/11/2001. Alleged evidence, maybe, certainly no proof.

I feel like I've entered an alternate universe where I agree with the conservatives. There is a lot I don't like about this report, but it needs to be done.

Notbuying this: Here, here!

Alert: Yes, Give tax breaks to the rich, which will cost Americans trillions of dollars, and then cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it, should be an abomination to the people. I do not believe Pres. Obama will sign off on this insult, Nancy Pelosi has alredy spoken with a resounding No! We cannot keep taxing the people to death, while the wealthy and big business do not pay their fair share due to tax cuts, tax breaks, tax shelters, etc. Until we replace Greed, with the prinicpals of sharing, we will be unalbe to solve our problems. Greed and tax cuts for the rich is not the answer -- it is the problem!

Wake-up Call: The soon to be Speaker, John Boehener, is the man who recently campagined for an Ohio Congressional Candidate who dresses up as a Nazi on the weekends! You know the Nazi uniform that stands for separatism, white power, kill off all Jews! This is who the U.S. Speaker of the House Palls around with -- God Help This Country!

Well, you have taken an interesting direction. In fact, the President originally called for a Congressionally-mandated Commission similar to those created to propose military base closings and reductions in past years. The idea was that whatever the mandated Commission proposed would then be reported as legislative action to Congress, which could only either entirely accept or entirely reject the Commission's proposals.

That was extremely courageous of the President to propose.

However, Congress chose not to pass such a mandate, in part out of concern that they would yield their authority to to an un-elected panel, and partly because an all-or-nothing standard was too much when considering actions of this magnitude.

So the President proceeded on his own to make sure that the Commission still was created and had full freedom to propose anything. Again, that was quite courageous, since he risked putting himself in an embarrassing position and in a political vise that could be very painful.

I think your your outrage and condemnation are misplaced.

I don't think my condemnation and outrage are misplaced. The President asked for the Job and the people voted him in based on his promises. Members of congress asked for their jobs and the people voted them in. Then they all lied and hid behind closed doors and blamed each other for the woes that they caused. Then the President appoints a commission so he and members of congress can say "we didn't do it, the commission did." Further it takes 14 of 18 yes votes for the report to be forwarded to congress for action. If the President and congress are not going to do their jobs then we have to find people that will and elect them to office. One more point as I stated above the report was held up until after the election, thereby making it nothing but political posturing, and still would like to know how much this commission cost the taxpayers.

Given the results of the election, this proposal is far from political posturing. Also, you are factually in error: This is NOT, as I observed above your post, the Commission's proposal. It is a trial balloon floated by the two chairmen to guage public response and set the table for delibarations and ultimate action by the Commission. This is not a report which was delayed until after the election, since it is an action taken independently by the chairmen.

I understand that this is only a draft of the proposal that the whole commission will vote on. My whole point is there was no need for a commission in the first place. The President and congress has failed to take responsibility for reducing the deficit and are only looking for political cover. Everyone knows, and some of the recommendations are very good, nothing will come of this commission.

Warren Buffett explained that his secretary was paying a much higher tax percent than he was. I believe he said she was paying 23 percent and that he was paying 7 percent.

This is an old and tired argument. Mr. Buffett makes about $100,000 a year as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. His income on investments (dividends and capital gains/losses) are undisclosed. If he offset his gains with carry over losses, his actual taxable income could be quite minimal (see Alexi Giannoulias for an example of how losses wipe out tax liability -and easily accessed example because it's relatively recent news).

Mr. Buffett can write any size check to the government he wants to if he thinks he's not paying enough in taxes.

Maybe if Warren Buffet paid his secretary more, she would pay less in taxes.

Regarding spending $140 million for a $250,000 a year job: Yes really. What's up with that? And what does that tell you?

It is only an old and tired argument because we haven't fixed the problem, for a long time of extended debate.

If he paid his secretary more, maybe she would pay a smaller percentage rate on her taxes. She would very likely pay more in taxes.

buffet can afford (as many wealthy can) to hire accountants to minimize his tax liability, the secretary probably can't unless she receives this as a perk of working for warren. The other side of the coin is that if buffet dies after Jan 1 2011 just think of the estate taxes his heirs would have to pay. Or if he chooses to liquidate his assets, think of those tax payouts!

Would you beleive that she has an outstanding public commitment to the voters of california?? She did rather freely re-distribute her wealth to those willing to give something back in return for it. For that matter why does jay leno have so many vehicles? Because he can!

Nothing that tax reform couldn't cure. For individuals keep the dependants & standard deductions, morgage deduction and have a medical deduction. Have a short list of optional deductions that the filer can only chose one of.

richard - try this link and be happy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40111748