I wrote yesterday about the reckless attempt on the part of a number of Senators to refuse to raise the federal debt ceiling unless they get a commission to recommend ways to cut entitlement programs that would receive an up or down vote in Congress without amendments. These are the same Senators who routinely use the filibuster and use the power of the minority for legislation they don’t like, but when it comes to destroying the social safety net, they suddenly become “majority rule” types. I support ending the filibuster altogether, but taking legislating out of the hands of legislators is an anti-democratic practice in service to a radical ratcheting down of government services for the needy just to enrich the wealthy.

This talk has continued to grow louder today, and Kent Conrad added a new wrinkle. Most of the programs discussed by these fiscal scolds, which would need to be cut to “bend the cost curve”, relate to health care – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (funny how the largest expenditure in the federal budget by a wide margin – the military – never gets into that conversation). Conrad added today that this kind of commission proposal, if unsuccessful in getting attached to the debt ceiling legislation, could get forced into the health care bill.

And Conrad signaled that he may likewise have run out of patience with the status quo, suggesting that if Democratic leaders refuse to couple a vote on a bipartisan fiscal task force of some kind with the debt limit increase, he would seek to attach a commission proposal to other crucial legislation.

“There are other vehicles,” Conrad said Tuesday, “including healthcare.”

I could absolutely see Conrad, Bayh or one of the other ConservaDems demand the commission’s inclusion in exchange for their vote. It would probably attract a bunch of the House Democrats worried about the debt. In conference, the “grand bargain” could be struck – keeping a public option and even ditching the Stupak amendment, but adding this commission to break apart the social safety net with an up-or-down vote.

It would be a difficult rhetorical play for Republicans, who have decided to endlessly demagogue the health care bill based on what they claim to be $400 billions in cuts to Medicare. One of their front groups, 60 Plus (I wrote extensively about them here), just initiated a seven-figure ad campaign highlighting Democrats who voted to “cut Medicare.” For them to then back a proposal that would mandate real cuts to Medicare after spending months wrapped in phony sanctimony about it would be nonsensical. But consistency is not really their strong suit, nor do they seem to care about it.

By contrast, Democrats are nominally trying to expand the social safety net in the health care legislation. Combining it with a commission to take lawmaking out of their hands only when it comes to entitlements would be insane. But I wouldn’t put it past the Pain Caucus.