Re: I have gone a step further and become a member of a budget commission

Outstanding! Thank you for contributing your time, intellect and insights to that commission. Three thumbs up! (two just wouldn’t suffice)

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2010/01/bipartisan-policy-center-launches-debt-reduction-task-force

Re: The warning label idea. I mean it purely in the sense of a communications strategy (is there a more positive equivalent?). Budget forecasts always have tons of asterisks and footnotes (some of which you will see flipping through the summary tables), but those are easily overlooked and quickly forgotten.

In this case, the administration put out budget numbers that don’t include what is arguably its most important budget proposal. That’s a major nuisance, communications-wise. I think it’s interesting that one way they chose to deal with is an unmissable positive-warning label. (Which probably won’t help them that much. Numbers always manage to dissociate themselves from their accompanying words and caveats. But it was a good try.)

I’m glad to see you refer to the commission as “a step in the right direction”. I have long advocated a commission, and I would rather see a presidential commission than no commission at all (I would have much preferred a Congressional, statutory commission that would guarantee a vote on any recommendation, either up-or-down or with fiscally neutral amendments, and that would be comprised with a number of non-politician, respected and trusted “wise men” along with members of Congress, and without too large a supermajority requirement for reaching a recommendation).

It is critical that Reid and Pelosi (and any other key Congressional figures) state — a priori — publicly and unconditionally that they will bring any commission recommendation to a vote. Conrad claims he has written assurances from Reid and Pelosi http://dmarron.com/2010/01/28/the-debt-limit-is-a-tax-on-the-majority/#comment-1780 . He should make these supposed assurances public, and Obama should press them to announce their commitment publicly and long before the point at which the commission may be ready to present a recommendation (ideally even before the commission begins its work).

Not that the following matters, but I’m just curious. Re: “I think of this as a warning label because it’s trying to warn readers that the official deficit forecasts are too pessimistic”, maybe I’m not getting your meaning, but I think of warning labels as indicating that some stated expectation may be too optimistic, not too pessimistic. If someone tells me he expects my results to be X, I wouldn’t call it a “warning” if he then adds “but your results could be better“. What am I missing?