A commission to ponder health care? You must be joking. Obama has one year to get a universal coverage reform through. After that it will be too late as congressmen will be running scared for election. Just do it.

There may be some marginal advantage in tinkering with Social Security to kill the doomsday talking points, by pre-committing to the adjustments that may become actuarially necessary. It's pointless as rational policy, as you will have plenty of time to fix any imbalances that do emerge.

Doesn't this raise a bunch of issues of inter-agency relationships under the Obama Administration? Bush pushed the unitary executive theory HARD, and while it deservedly took on some pretty terrible connotations, it DID have the advantage of prescribing a pretty defined set of (admittedly terrible) policies.

It's not clear yet what Obama's position on interagency relationships is. At least some of his policy changes at OMB, etc... seem to indicate more autonomy for the agencies. That's mostly a good thing, but not when you've got a rogue Secretary.

My point is that if Obama is pursuing a more decentralized bureaucracy, having Orszag and the rest on the side of the angels may not be enough to limit Gregg's damage.

Of course all that said, it's not clear to me how much independent power the Secretary of Commerce independently has over Medicare or the other entitlements. But the whole mix of a decentralized bureaucracy and a department head who isn't hugely committed to the fundamental mission of his department is a little scary.

James Wimberley: There may be some marginal advantage in tinkering with Social Security to kill the doomsday talking points

No, there isn't. If God himself were to personally guarantee Social Security, it wouldn't give the talking heads more than 5 minutes pause. They have always been immune to facts and rational argument, so why would a few more tweaks change that?

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a place on the intertubes where, for some modest annual fee, you could learn the definitive account of why certain persons or certain policies were approved by the President?

I've tried to imagine what the discussion was that led to Gregg's appointment, and my imagination fails me.

I tried out these thoughts:

- Obama wanted another GOP cabinet member [doesn't explain why Gregg, instead of someone with more pliable views and history.]

- Changes the Senate's hard line conservative equation [Gregg isn't an Inhoff-type, so doesn't compute]

- He has good ideas [tell me one!]

- He's a team player [FAIL: negotiating a GOP replacement and recusing himself on the stimulus bill is not team playing]

- They couldn't think of someone acceptable to both Dems and GOP [not even Colin Powell? or someone?]

This choice of Gregg doesn't pass my minimal level of rationalization in a political sense, or any test relating to the candidate's fitness by experience for the position.

So, what's the REAL reason Obama chose Gregg?

Wait, Obama appoints Solis because she is a good fit with his own ideas and goals but appoints Gregg despite Gregg being diametrically opposed to Obama's ideology and intentions? And Gregg accepts the position even though he will be laughably marginalized, despite Obama's words to the contrary? And this is good aanalysis?

Obama is a tax cutting/program cutting/supply side Neo-Reaganite. He will slash entitlements. Deal.

It's actually a little unclear to me why becoming the Commerce Secretary is any sort of step up from being a US Senator.

I mean look at what Commerce actually does. Does Judd Gregg really care about any of this stuff? NOAA? The Census? The DTV transition? The Dept's work on global trade, intellectual property, and telecom might be a little more relevant to his interests, but I don't see entitlement reform being a traditional part of Commerce's mission.

Of course plopping Richardson into the role may have indicated that Obama intends (or intended) to expand the department's role. I would certainly hope that, given Gregg's ideological untrustworthiness, any of those plans are on hold at least.

I mean look at what Commerce actually does. Does Judd Gregg really care about any of this stuff?

I don't like an archconservative having his grubby little figures anywhere near the BLS

Give me control of the data, the information, and I can control most everything.

Alex: you may well be right. Better scrub the whole panel idea.

One thing about Gregg that may have caught Obama's eye was his support for drug reimportation from Canada as a way to address ballooning medical costs.

I don't like a lot of Gregg's positions, but on this one issue, I have to give him credit. I think he understands that we need to be more creative.

What is inherently wrong with the path of health care spending on that graph (except for the three colors - there should be a shift on the far left to a single color for "Universal Health Care")? If we get 2% growth in per capita GDP, the economy will have roughly quadrupled by 2082. And for a lot of things, I don't need any more of it, no matter how much richer I get. I have enough food. Enough clothes. Too many toys.

The question with health care is, do medical advances mean we actually get more for the extra we spend. Because if my piece of the pie is four times as big in 2082, I'll gladly turn over half of it to keep my 114-year-old body going.

I don't like an archconservative having his grubby little figures anywhere near the BLS

As the page you link to makes perfectly clear, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is part of the Department of Labor.

Then let's try the BEA instead

Actually, there WILL be more 85-year-olds in the future, both in number and in percentage, compared to other ages. It's the Baby Boomers, who will begin being 85 by year 2031 and will continue for 18 more years. It IS the 85-year-olds that currently cost Medicare and the health industry a ton of money, not the 65-year-olds. So,they "are" a problem, but we have time and we need not panic. This is a predictable "problem."