US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm cautious about point F, as it is the first mention I have seen of any hint of long term entitlement reform. When did that come up

Oh, who knows, maybe it got mentioned at some point.

President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

That discussion will begin next month, Obama said, when he convenes a "fiscal responsibility summit" before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.

"What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further," he said. "We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's."

Maybe some leftist liberal columnist talked about it at some point.

It's possible some RINOs might have signed on in the hopes of advancing entitlement reform under Obama, too.

In months to come, Gregg will be worth celebrating. He is one of the smart guys on Capitol Hill, especially when it comes to fiscal policy. And he provides Obama with a third strong Republican Cabinet member, joining Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Ray LaHood at Transportation. [...]

Moreover, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader of the Senate, told the National Press Club that a bipartisan deal on entitlements is something he thinks can and should happen in this Congress.

Obama said the same thing when he visited The Washington Post just before the inauguration, and now he has in Gregg someone who can help him lobby Congress to move that project forward.

-edit-

As for point (F), which got your gander up, I have no idea if the narrative you offer is legit. It's the one House Republicans are selling, but they would do, wouldn't they? They can't very well go after the new Prez with the 70% approval, so they would logically make a stink about the Congressional leaders with rather lower numbers. Hey, maybe that's exactly how it really happened, in which case they are very lucky that it just happens to be the most fortuitous way of positioning themselves. Frankly, I have a feeling that if the House Republicans had any intent of working with the new Prez, they could have made it happen.