My Home About Me

Congressman John Dingell (D-Mi) has introduced a bill to deny salary to Social Security Administration Deputy Commissioner Andrew Biggs. Dingell said on the House floor,

The President appointed a fellow by the name of Biggs by a recess appointment, and he was made Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. His name is Andrew Biggs. He has had his appointment opposed by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman said this, "because his support for the failed idea of privatization would reopen a settled debate about the future of Social Security reform."

The amendment simply says no money may be spent on his salary until he has been confirmed; a simple, sensible, decent and proper protection for our retirees.

But Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, refused to even hold hearings on Biggs' nomination. I get it -- we can't pay him until he's confirmed. But the Democrats won't even consider his confirmation. Which is to say that the Democrats deny the entire concept of recess appointments.

It's not about confirmation anyway. It's about Social Security reform. Biggs believes in private accounts, the Democrats don't. Why should that disqualify Biggs, any more than anybody else with a view about policy? Aren't deputy commissioners and others responsible for government programs supposed to have views? Peter Orszag certainly has strong opinions about Social Security reform -- so shall we cut off his salary as the Democrat-appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office, a role with direct oversight responsibilities for Social Security?

bailout   Basic Materials SPDR (XLB)   bond trading   bond yields   capitulation   climactic   commodities   credit crisis   credit crunch   Currency ETFs   day trading   Deron Wagner   DJIA chart   economic data   Emini's Nas 100   emini's S&P 500   emini's S&P 500e   ETFs (exchange trade funds)   ETFs (exchange traded funds)   Gold Miners ETF (GDX)