And who that is paying attention thinks the WH is opposed to all of this?

While apparently some Dems are making I-could-never-vote-for-this kinds of noise, there are way too many making we-have-to-have-the-conversation-and-this-will-give-us-a-starting-point noise.  And I haven't heard Obama stop talking about having to "do something" about deficits - nor have I heard him acknowledge that Social Security is not part of the federal budget.

On the Proposal Released by Co-Chairs of the Fiscal Commission

Our nation is facing two challenges: the need to create jobs and address our budget deficit. Any viable proposal from the President's Fiscal Commission must strengthen our economy, but it must do so in a fair way, focusing on how we can effectively promote economic growth.

This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America's middle class families-under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.

..The foxnews.com headline is "Obama Debt Panel Eyes Cutting Social Security, Home Deduction."

tell you what.  if this is his approach to this I officially part ways with BTD in his opinion that no democrat will primary Obama from the left in 2012.

In a sense, the Chairs did us all a favor. Their suggestions hit everyone. My personal laughing favorite: Cutting expensive federal contractors (trans. as the boys/girls of the lobbyists and other big money interests) both in the civilian and military areas. There are a number of military projects that are specifically slated to be cut; and, what about the proposal to cut a 1/3 of forces in Europe and Asia; or the VA service charge increase? Or, for the midwest politicians, what about the proposal to trim $3Billion in farm subsidies yearly? Or, what about deleting tax credits, etc. not just for the middle class...but also for the wealthy?  Oh my, it is all there. And more.

Maybe this is good. (1) It will either cause such noise and gasps from all sides that it will have no chance OR (2) It will cause the loudest cutters to face publicly some of the projects and goodies that have been sacrosanct for them OR (3) When everyone looks around and realizes the range of the suggested axe, the reality becomes to mutter and make pronouncements and then walk away or there may actually be some near consensus reductions.

I have a penchant for cliches. Cultures the world over find sayings and cliches very useful shorthand for reality.  In a raucous conversation about the Chairs' outlined proposals today, we liked these 3 sayings: 1. "When push comes to shove..." lets see what happens. 2. "You can't have your cake and eat it too" (special note to Repubs in the House) 3. "Who's ox is being gored" (special note to almost every group.)

sadly, it's a fact. as a common example:

many senior citizens resent the fact that some of their SS income may be subject to tax. after all, they already paid income taxes on it when they first earned it, why should they get taxed on it again? seems like a fair question, doesn't it? and it is, if you know nothing about FICA (AKA: social security), which most people do.

FICA has, since its inception, been a dual liability: half paid by the employee, half paid by the employer. the half paid by the employer is a tax (and GAAP) deduction for them, and not considered taxable income to the employee. interestingly, most people not in the accounting (or congress) business don't realize this, they think only the employee is paying all the FICA taxes. hence, their anger that they might pay even more income taxes, upon receipt of SS income payments.