As noted by a commenter on Stan's post, the SAFE Commission struck out as an amendment in committee to a financial services appropriations bill.  Here's how CongressDaily reported it.  Stan was certainly on the money, when he anticipated a reaction that the Congress would not want to outsource its duties (presumably to contine the status quo in which they are simply not being done by anyone):

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey blasted the idea because the commission would be able to force appropriators to implement a solution that they would have no hand in creating and might not be workable.

Pete is right to say that deficit hawks should unite, but I don't know if the SAFE Act is enough.  It calls for a commission to address:

1. the unsustainable imbalance between long-term federal spending commitments and projected revenues;
2. increases in net national savings to provide for domestic investment and economic growth;
3. the implications of foreign ownership of federally issued debt instruments; and
4. revision of the budget process to place greater emphasis on long-term fiscal issues.

I agree that within a generation, the cost of our long-term entitlement programs will push our fiscal situation into very dire straits.  Our long-term problems will have become short-term problems because we let our current window of opportunity to resolve them close.  But the language in the bill does not mention, and the SAFE Commission would only tangentially have anything to say about, the fact that we cannot bring ourselves to balance the on-budget (or non-OASDHI) deficit to zero.  And until we do that, or unless the SAFE Commission is explicitly empowered to address that in addition to the long-term entitlements, I think that meaningful reform of long-term entitlements is dead in the water politically.

Higher mlitary spending or more Blackwaters are on the way. That's the inevitable conclusion from today's "Budget Battles" on nationaljournal.com.

Here's the key point: the increased use of expensive contractors was inevitable given the federal budget politics that encouraged the White House and Capitol Hill to underestimate the military threat to the United States and the forces needed to deal with it so that  lower costs could be projected.

You have to wonder if it's the same person at the White House?

Years after the administration displayed the "mission accomplished" banner behind the president as he spoke on an aircraft carrier about how hostilities in Iraq were over, the president spoke yesterday in Arkansas in front of a banner saying "fiscal responsibility."

Has anyone else noticed that new OMB Director Jim Nussle is no where to be found?

Think about this.  It's the last week of the fiscal year, no fiscal 2008 appropriations have yet been enacted, Congress has to pass an increase in the debt ceiling by next Monday, and Alan Greenspan has been everywhere the past week saying terrible things about the Bush budget and economic plan.

And Jim Nussle hasn't been seen or heard from.

Will new OMB Director Jim Nussle ever be heard from again?

That's the question I I try to answer in this week's "Budget Battles" column on nationaljournal.com. 

There's little doubt that Nussle's preference is to get out there and score points for the White Houset.  He is combative, partisan, and likes to mix it up.  (Remember, this is the representative who made a speech on the House floor with a bag over his head to criticize the Democratic leadership. )

This is a surprise that could reverberate for months.

It now seems almost inevitable that, regardless of who is elected president and which politicla party controls Congress, federal spending and borrowing will have to increase substantially in the coming years. My guess is that a 25 percent real increase over current levels -- about $125 billion -- is coming.