Kent Conrad is trying to sell his Social Security/Medicare cutting commission idea to the White House, and they seem to be listening, to a degree. To briefly recap:

Senators from both parties on Tuesday put new pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to turn the power to trim entitlement benefits over to an independent commission. Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.... Among [the panels] chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an "unsustainable" $63 trillion in 2083. The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending.

Conrad and his new bipartisan "gang" which includes Evan Bayh, Diane Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, and Mark Warner want to cede essential power over to this commission for writing tax law by creating a new permanent Senate rule, that any legislation created by it would be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended. Note that none of this gang is demanding that critical legislation like healthcare reform not be subject to cloture rules.

Here's the bad news:

Top White House officials, including budget director Peter Orszag, met Tuesday with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad to discuss establishing such a commission, which has been pushed by Mr. Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, and his Republican counterpart on the committee, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Senior congressional officials said the idea was gaining traction. Two officials said the White House was likely to make its own proposal for a panel, which could have less power than the proposed Conrad-Gregg commission. White House aides said no final decision had been made. The idea is to bring Republicans and Democrats together to make tough decisions about how to cut costs or raise revenue in areas including Social Security, Medicare and taxes. For the White House, establishing a commission would show that the Obama administration is serious about tackling the deficit while postponing any real moves until after the 2010 elections.

Hopefully the White House's iteration of this commission, should they insist on it's necessity, will have far less power than the one Conrad and Gregg envision. These Senators know that cutting Social Security and Medicare is political suicide (and how much would Gregg and Republicans love to have a Democratic president and Congress commit that hari-kari?) and want the cover of having an independent commission making them do it. That the "idea is to bring Republicans and Democrats together to make tough decisions about how to cut costs or raise revenue" when we have a body to do that, called Congress, is particularly galling. That's what we elected them to do--make those decisions on our behalf. And if we don't like their decisions, we hire somebody else for the job. Conrad's commission would be unelected, unanswerable to the American people.

The other Congressional body isn't keen on this idea.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) and senior Democrats such as House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin have vociferously opposed delegating tough decisions to outside panels or commissions.

Pelosi is receiving strong support from Campaign for America's Future, which along with a large group of progressive organizations, is organizing to oppose this panel. From the statement they are sending to Reid, Pelosi, and Obama:

We write in strong opposition to proposals to create an entitlements or deficit-reduction commission that would override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate. Those supporting this circumvention of the normal process have stated openly the desire to avoid political accountability. Americans -- seniors, women, working families, people with disabilities, young adults, children, people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others -- expect their elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching legislation. Any deficit reduction measures should be carried out in a responsible manner, providing a fairer tax system and strengthening -- rather than slashing -- Social Security, Medicare and other programs that are vital to the middle class. And as unemployment continues to grow, we need a real debate about how to balance the need for economic recovery and productive public investment with the goal of long-term budget responsibility. The American people are likely to view any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive investment.

This fight could reach the boiling point soon, as Conrad and his gang are holding the threat of killing legislation to raise the debt ceiling--must pass legislation before the end of the year, or American defaults on its debts--to get their commission. These "fiscal conservatives" are in a game of chicken--unleash potential economic catastrophe by allowing the the US to default--in order to reach their end goal of slashing Social Security and Medicare. Pelosi needs to hold her ground, and be joined by Reid and Obama, to put an end to this undemocratic and dangerous proposal.