Obama Picks Romney Aide Who Knocked His Social Security Plan for Social Security Board

[Newsjock]

Source: Time

President Barack Obama announced Monday that he is nominating Lanhee Chen, Mitt Romney’s former top policy adviser, to the Social Security Advisory Board.

The independent and bipartisan board advises the president, Congress and the Commissioner of Social Security on the program, but does not have any decision-making authority. Chen, who served as the Romney campaign’s policy director and is a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, was deeply critical of the president’s management of federal entitlement programs during the campaign.

“On retirement programs, the President’s plan is laughable,” Chen wrote in a memo to reporters two weeks before election day.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/30/obama-picks-romney-aide-who-knocked-his-social-security-plan-for-social-security-board/

[MannyGoldstein]

1. What happened? Simpson and Bowles were too Liberal?

Holy @#$%.

It's a sickness with this one.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. See post #7

[Carnage251]

22. It had to be a republican

It is a "bipartisan board"

[merrily]

48. Not exactly. Not technically, anyway.

The limitation is that the appointee cannot be of the same political party as the President, meaning, in this case, not a Democrat. The appointee could be of any other party. However, good luck with confirmation if he or she is not a Republican.

Moreover, it did not have to be this Republican. Just like the guy that Obama appointed to the Postal Commission did not have to be the Republican who helped write the bill that has been destroying the U.S. Postal Service.

[DocMac]

58. Bullshit!!

[merrily]

64. Really? Here's what the statute says.

Structure and Membership of the Board

(c)(1) The Board shall be composed of 7 members who shall be appointed as follows:
(A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than 2 of such members shall be from the same political party.
(B) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Finance.
(C) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
(2) The members shall be chosen on the basis of their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment, and shall be individuals who are, by reason of their education, experience, and attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of members of the Board.

[Enthusiast]

88. No shit, Manny.

I share your position.

[NealK]

91. Me too.

[Eddie Haskell]

2. WTF?!!!

[SunSeeker]

47. See post #7. This is a misleading OP.

This was McConnell's pick because it was to replace a Republican in a bipartisan board. Obama had no choice.

[merrily]

49. When Bush had to appoint someone, did Harry Reid get to choose?

[SunSeeker]

55. It depends. Appoint someone to what?

This is not a Supreme Court appointment, this is a non-binding bipartisan advisory board.

[merrily]

57. Geebus. Obviously, I meant in a situation like the one being discussed on this thread.

[SunSeeker]

65. Yes. The practice goes back to the civil war.

See post #15.

[merrily]

68. So? They were not shutting down government then. Please see Replies 56 and 62.

[SunSeeker]

73. It's stupid to ignore rules while telling Republicans they should follow them.

In the past, CRs and debt ceilings were raised without payment of a ransom. We are telling the Republicans to follow those rules. It would be hypocritical and stupid for us to start ignoring rules, especially over something like a nonbinding advisory board.

[RandiFan1290]

83. pubicons don't need advisory boards

They tell the "democrats" what they want and they get it.

[reddread]

90. Clarence Thomas was a choice

Thank goodness Joe voted against that rascal.

[Scuba]

93. Who are the other members of this board? Which two were nominated by the President?

What are their backgrounds?

[tblue]

106. The article says Obama is nominating this man.

Is that not true? I understand what the law says, no need to rehash that. I just want to be clear about this point, and it seems like you're in the know.

Is this not Pres. O's nomination? If the Speaker gets to choose, as the law says, why is everyone calling this McConnell's pick? Did the President also nominate/appoint a strong liberal for this panel, when the choice was his?

[SunSeeker]

113. Read post #15. nt

[villager]

4. Careful -- the apologist brigade is already out in force saying what a great GOP pick this is,

how Obama's hands are tied, how it wasn't really his choice...

et al...

[Carnage251]

18. The truthists say that It had to be a republican

It its a bipartisan board, there are slots for republicans and democrats kinda like the National Labor Relations Board.

[villager]

28. Well, it would appear that of the 3 Presidential picks one does have to be from a different party

But that doesn't mean it has to be a guy who calls the President's own plans "laughable."

Some of the truthists claim this is McConnell's pick, though the Senate gets its own two picks.

So again, why would Obama go along with this particular guy?

[SunSeeker]

51. Because Obama is not a dictator.

Those are the rules. This is a bipartisan board. McCONNELL picks the Republican replacements. What Republican HASN'T said rude shit about Obama? "Laughable" is pretty tame compared to what he has been called. Plus, this is just an advisory board. Why would Obama waste his energy and political capital fighting this rule when there are much more important battles on his plate right now?

[villager]

63. I agree it's not the most important battle. One blog makes this an extra Senate pick.

But the Senate already gets two picks.

So did the White House defer its third pick -- from the opposite party -- to McConnell?

Perhaps that's so, but coming on the heels of Obama appointing another Mittens apparatchik to political office -- the FEC -- and given all the intent and turmoil around Social Security, it's pretty lousy "optics," nonetheless.

[SunSeeker]

66. That blog is wrong. Obama had no choice in the matter.

See post #15.

[villager]

70. So, two blogs (NY Times and Time) are wrong, but only the blog favorable to your view

--which quotes a White House spokesperson (but nobody else) -- is correct?

[SunSeeker]

74. Yes. And grantcart was citing the applicable law, not a blog. nt

[villager]

76. "Yes" because... of what, exactly?

I mean, what's the other citation, besides the White House spokesperson?

I was citing that same applicable law as Grantcart. It says nothing about Mitch McConnell. Only that the White House gets three appointments, from two different parties.

[SunSeeker]

115. See post #7 and 71. nt

[villager]

116. No, going all "blue linky" doesn't actually answer the question

You're just punting it in a roundabout way.

Yes, we can refer to other posts referring to the WP blog post, but that's exactly where my questions come from: What other source besides the White House spokesperson?

And how does this jibe with precedent for the other Presidential picks?

[merrily]

50. Please see Reply 48.

[intaglio]

79. Please see replies #72 and #77 n/t

[bobGandolf]

125. Who are the truthists?

Never heard of them before. Are they some kind of cult?

Uh oh, wait a second....do they have any connection to the apologist brigade?

[treestar]

96. How dare anyone disagree

and we'll preemptively call them apologists.

This has to be an R pick. There is no R the ODS brigade would not find a problem with.

[alarimer]

5. Really?

Every time I say I'm through with Obama, he does something even worse. Where are the defenders? What do they have to say about this?

[SunSeeker]

67. No, not really. See post #15. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Meow.

Tastes like Catfood.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=IyEM9tkzFeniDM&tbnid=qGRAqYjrVC41CM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weetzies.com%2Fcat-questions%2Fwhat-should-cats-eat%2F&ei=ZxVKUp3EFKb12wWqx4DICA&bvm=bv.53371865,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNFwDMJQK4IMvTvxJw0YCWAWlbeIOw&ust=1380673249936657

[grantcart]

7. Too bad you didn't post the WP story and explain the actual facts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/30/obama-to-nominate-former-romney-adviser-chen-to-administration-post/

But that's not quite the full story. The board is independent and its membership is bipartisan. Although the president nominates members, the nominees alternate between the political parties. This vacancy was for a Republican member, a White House aide explained, and Chen was actually the pick of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

For bipartisan boards we pick our reps they pick theirs.

Has worked that way for over a hundred years.

Look at all the people that will go into a panic over it.

[Amonester]

9. Stop trying to explain how this broken system doesn't work...

Bad Obama is a dictator who always calls all the shots himself, by himself, and for himself, did you not know?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. They say ODS doesn't exist around these parts. LOL!!

[rhett o rick]

10. Are you saying that the President didnt have a choice in the matter? nm

[Amonester]

12. Can you not read the explanation of how this broken *bipartisan* system works since

more that 100 years?

Do you also think the President is a secret dictator?

[rhett o rick]

21. Wow. You seem hostile. I simply asked a question. Is the President obliged to nominate who

McConnell says? We need to play fair when the asshole republicans are trying to blackmail us into cutting the ACA. Maybe the President could hold the nomination hostage? Just an idea.

Why the hostility?

[Amonester]

26. I understand your anger, but this is the broken *bipartisan* system that is in place

since more than 100 years, and in this instance, the President (ANY President) Does.Not.Have.The.Autority. to refuse turtleman's pick.

That's how the broken system works. And the President does not have the authority to change that broken system all by himself.

Be angered at the broken system the President can't change, no matter how angering it can be, not at the President himself.

Then I'll understand.

[marble falls]

41. She wasn't angry, you were.

[NealK]

82. I totally agree with you.

[Enthusiast]

89. Me too.

[tblue]

105. Me too.

[tammywammy]

13. Obama had to nominate a republican and deferred to the leading republican Senator

Makes sense to me. The board has no decision making authority.

[grantcart]

15. The President had absolutely no choice in the matter.

And when Boehner nominates a Democrat for the board (as he is required to do) he will get the name from Pelosi.

http://www.ssab.gov/AbouttheBoard/AuthorizingStatute.aspx

(c)(1) The Board shall be composed of 7 members who shall be appointed as follows:
(A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than 2 of such members shall be from the same political party.
(B) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Finance.
(C) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
(2) The members shall be chosen on the basis of their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment, and shall be individuals who are, by reason of their education, experience, and attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of members of the Board.

We choose our guys and we let them choose their guys. Been working like that on these boards since the Civil War.

Three different people pick people for the board and each of them has to pick someone from the other party.

The President gets to pick the tie breaker.

This was not the tie breaker but filling the Republican slot that was left empty.

We choose our guys, they choose theirs.

[Amonester]

25. tut...tut...*Bad* Obama defender ;)

Jumping on this thread to defend him (for some who can't read and understand what is written).

[Cha]

30. Winner of the thread.. I figured it was something like this.. thanks grant! nm

[marble falls]

42. A bit over the top. Cha's just said that now she understands the choice( I didn't either ....

until Comment #7 explained it) its not so troubling to her. Its not so troubling to me, now. And shouldn't be to you either. The system seems a bit goofy to me but it isn't as if the President has any say about it.

[rhett o rick]

95. Maybe a bit over the top, but seems to me like some here would defend

Pres Obama if he privatized SS. The Pres has made some terrible appointments. I understand the explanation but seems to me like he is trying to be fair with terrorists. I will withdraw my earlier comment.

[marble falls]

98. I'm with you on that. There is also no doubt that there are some here that would support ...

the President blindly if (IF) he were to suggest privatizing SS. I also have no doubts: the President would never ever suggest such a thing.

We all need to tone it down and give each other a chance to explain ourselves. We're beginning to sound as angry as the Teabillies do. And this is not a time to let anger trip ourselves up.

[rhett o rick]

101. I agree. nm

[joshcryer]

33. apologist!

[Cha]

45. Yeah, "Winner" of the thread because it's loaded with FACTS instead

of Whine. Thanks again, grant.

[SunSeeker]

46. Thank you, grantcart. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. We don't do "Civics" here at the new DU.

[merrily]

56. With the Republicans holding the shutdown hostage, he could have

broken with tradition.

When is it the Republican's turn to get their hands slapped for something?

[grantcart]

59. sigh

a) Its not tradition, its a federal law as explained at the link:

President Clinton signed the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 into law on August 15, 1994 (P.L. 103-296).

PUBLIC LAW 103-296, as amended
SEC. 103. SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD.
Section 703 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 903)
is amended to read as follows:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD

Establishment of Board

SEC. 703. (a) There shall be established a Social Security Advisory Board (in this section referred to as the 'Board').

b) If one side were to do it then the other side would feel free to do the same next time and I don't want Republicans choosing our reps.

[merrily]

62. No, having McConnell pick is not the law. It's a tradition.

I know the law. The law does not even require a Republican.

Structure and Membership of the Board

(c)(1) The Board shall be composed of 7 members who shall be appointed as follows:
(A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than 2 of such members shall be from the same political party.
(B) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Finance.
(C) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
(2) The members shall be chosen on the basis of their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment, and shall be individuals who are, by reason of their education, experience, and attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of members of the Board.

[grantcart]

71. The composition of the board and the designation of the party representatives

is explained in detail.

You are correct that Mr. McConnell's name is actually not listed in the legislation. For the Speaker's and Majority leader it can designate "ranking minority member" because that is a fixed position within the structure.

They can't do that with the President because the ranking minority member equivalent might be a Senator or Congressperson depending if they are the same party or differeing parties. To avoid needless and listing every possible permutation they didn't define who the 'ranking minority member' was but it is obvious that is the intention and currently McConnell is the "ranking minority member" in the party opposed to the President.

Now if you are going for the most obtuse possible observation why don't you extend your logic and state that the name "Republican" isn't listed and only tradition requires him to pick a Republican, why didn't he pick a member from the "Green Party" instead.

This is for a bipartisan board that has no voting or legal power at all. It is simply a way for the party structures to remain "in the loop" on key areas so they can appoint technocrats who are more familiar with the actual working than the elected representatives who are usually not experts in the particular field. It has been going on for decades with no real problems or conflicts of any kind.

What this shows is just how deep the animus against the President is by a few "so called" Democrats who will search out any possible excuse to make a wild criticism against the President without any regard how reckless the charge, how it lacks foundation or historical context. The only thing that matters is to fluff some possible arcane bizarre charge against the President.

You may now proceed with that task M/M Merrily.

[merrily]

72. Keep your condescension to yourself.

Since you think you can read my mind, reply to your own post.

[intaglio]

77. Considering you are spending your time denying what is law

rather than admitting you have it wrong, I think grant's explanation was justified.

BTW explaining facts to someone is not condescension.

[snooper2]

104. It's okay to admit you were wrong, it's actually a sign of strength not weakness

Give it a shot!

[marble falls]

117. I don't see the insult and I don't think he meant one. I also think he got his facts right...

But I also agree with you: It seems useless and stupid.

[grantcart]

120. Its not condescension but a repulsion to those who will use any thin reed

any pretense to invent faux outrage against the President.


Some folks didn't understand the context which is understandable. You on the other hand continue to double down on a non existing pretense.

And as long as you continue this particular line of absurdity everyone who reads the thread can read your mind.

[marble falls]

118. Thanks for the facts and the law. I have to admit it made me angry with the President on the ....

face of the story. But your explanations were interesting and educating. Thank you very much. Shame some of us here get by with skimming and then snarking.

[lonestarnot]

100. Yeah I figured must be this.

[JoePhilly]

14. Freak out first, read later.

Or not at all.

Apparently Obama is going to cut SS (again).

[davidpdx]

34. Yep, knee-jerk hits DU once again

With an emphasis on the latter part of the word.

[rhett o rick]

40. Well, hard to tell. He did appoint Penny Pritzker. nm

[JoePhilly]

84. The Combustible Hair Club ...

will scream bloody murder first, before doing anything else.

Its not hard to tell.

[Carnage251]

20. Be careful truth seems to be lost in the internet

[pacalo]

32. Thank you, grantcart.

[LanternWaste]

111. Crap. I'll have to find something else to stomp my feet over in a petulant manner.

Crap. I'll have to find something else to stomp my feet over in a most petulant and uniformed manner.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Probably the most knowledgeable guy available he could tap to develop "magnanimous" cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

[SunSeeker]

69. Raise your hand if you are easily snowed by a misleading OP.

See post #15.

[tammywammy]

11. The board has "no decision making authority.".

Three positions are nominated by the President (with advise & consent of the Senate) and no more than two members can be from the same party.

(A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than 2 of such members shall be from the same political party.
http://www.ssab.gov/AbouttheBoard/AuthorizingStatute.aspx

[olddad56]

16. I hate it when Obama looks like a stealth Republican.

[tammywammy]

19. He's just following the law by appointing a republican to fill the republican spot. n/t

[merrily]

52. Please see Reply 48.

[intaglio]

78. Please see replies #72 and #77 n/t

[Carnage251]

24. I hate it when people don't know what an "independent and bipartisan board" is

[merrily]

54. Technically, it's not bipartisan.

Composition of the board cannot be all from the same party as the President, but this country has about thirty political parties.

[marble falls]

43. Specially when the same type situations didn't make anyone claim Clinton and Carter were ....

"stealth Republicans".

[Doctor_J]

97. You don't think Clinton was called a DINO?

Yeah, Obama is the only Dem politician ever picked on for being too conservative.

[marble falls]

103. You mean because FISA and the deregulation of the banks and NSA e-mail and phone intercepts?

I don't think he was a DINO. I think he was truly bipartisan in a way that Reagan was only reputed to be and he somehow missed the possibility of how abused and misused it would become. Actually FISA got started in Carter's term.

[grasswire]

23. worked for Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher -- as did Kenneth Starr, Theodore Olsen

The law firm is a repository of FIXERS for conservatism.

I'll bet he's a member of the Federalist Society, too.

[mpcamb]

27. Seems to me there are 6 people too many on the board...

6 useless salary expenses if their votes are redundant or perhaps, pointless!
Save a buck and fire 6/7 of the board.
The government is US!
Why can't we run it in a sensible manor?

[Scuba]

29. ...

Thanks to DUer RC for this sad graphic.

[heaven05]

35. This is not

the truth. Quit hating.

[blkmusclmachine]

36. Who is Obama?

[SunSeeker]

60. He is our President. Get used to it already.

And read post 17. The OP is misleading. This was not "Obama's pick." It was McConnell's pick.

[NealK]

92. What's a McConnell pick?

[SunSeeker]

114. See post #7 and 71. nt

[NealK]

124. Lol!

None of those posts explain what a McConnell pick is. Are you humor impaired?

[SunSeeker]

126. Understandably, I did not realize you were trying to make a funny.

Sorry for making the mistake that you were serious. Won't make that mistake again.

Giggle on.

[NealK]

127. Thank you for confirming that you're such a clueless borefest.

[SunSeeker]

128. Right back atcha. nt

[NealK]

129. Oooh, I'm so sorry about your fragile ego.

[sarcasmo]

37. self delete

[marble falls]

44. Won't that interfere with his Presidency? (as if), insert sarcasmicon here.

[jsr]

38. Great. More Third Way bullshit.

[JDPriestly]

61. This is Obama at his worst. Makes me ashamed of him.

[SunSeeker]

75. You should be ashamed of the OP. Read post #15. nt

[JDPriestly]

107. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[intaglio]

80. Please see grantcart's replies #72 and #77

also many other replies that point our that the law required a pick given by McConnell.

[JDPriestly]

108. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[JoePhilly]

85. You might want to read the article.

[JDPriestly]

109. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[MrMickeysMom]

81. I'm glad we're all doing some reading after the OP...

This may be the first thread in a while that I've seen referring to so many internal thread posts.

Maybe my brain is slipping from tonight's insomnia upon seeing this thread, but it would appear that Mr. Obama was reaching to populate the advisory Board to appease that piece of shite we call the Turtle, and thus a chess move is but a minor move considering the grand scheme of things Republicans like to fuck up.

Of course, where Social Security is concerned, this is one of the greatest legacies from previous administrations which has had its trust fund illegally raided and which (along with Medicare) should be allowed to manifest to "Medicare for All" and "leave SS alone"... therefore, we should have nothing but the very best minds advising over it. So, does this allow that?

Is this nomination part of that process? How might it effect the gun powder Turtle no doubt is packing for "entitlement reform"?

Personally, I'd like to make some Turtle soup, but I'd like to know more about what these cheese eating bastards of the Republican Party plan to do to erase every good piece of legislation ever coming out of past Democratic administrations. Is this somehow key to doing that? Too many "chess moves"?

Social Security and Medicare works... and THAT, we all can all agree on!

[Zynx]

86. It's REQUIRED BY LAW that there be Republican members.

The panel has always had both Republicans and Democrats. It's required:

"http://www.ssab.gov/AbouttheBoard/AuthorizingStatute.aspx

Structure and Membership of the Board
(c)(1) The Board shall be composed of 7 members who shall be appointed as follows:
(A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than 2 of such members shall be from the same political party.
(B) 2 members (each member from a different political party) shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate with the advice of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Finance."

Calm down.

[7962]

87. My God, listen to yourselves! Like a bunch of whining children, save for a few.

Even getting a comment HIDDEN that fits NONE of the criteria for hiding a post. I mean, come ON people. Its hard to believe the bitterness in some of these posts. But then I guess it shouldnt be that hard to believe since you see it more and more here every day. You cant even crack a joke without offending somebody. Its seems as thought the people who scream "tolerance" are often the LEAST tolerant.
Get a grip folks, this is not the end of the world, its how the political system works regardless of WHO is President.

[NealK]

102. I totally agree.

Those BOG people remind me of kids in kindergarten. What a mess this thread is. Tsk, tsk.

[Sunlei]

94. I think experienced people who give Congress, President others ADVICE is a good thing.

It's not right to totally exclude people based on a big fat R sign over their head.


yes, exclude and ignore nutcases/dangerous haters like palin, rush L. but for gods sake our Gov doesn't have an endless pool of experienced professionals to draw from.

[lonestarnot]

99. Just what the fuck is this about. What the hell!

[indepat]

110. Appointments like this will leave an indelible mark BHO's legacy by indisputably telling the public

where he stood in the political spectrum.

[grantcart]

112. too bad you didn't actually read the articles in the thread.

The poster just above you jumped to the same conclusion you did and after reading the actual facts had a different opinion.

[indepat]

121. Oops! I goofed, but there have been so many going back to Simpson and Bowles, it has become so easy

to jump the gun.

[grantcart]

123. NP

[msanthrope]

119. No....posts like this will indelibly prove that you didn't read the thread. nt

[indepat]

122. Ouch!