The Protean President just executed another step in his post-Massachusetts shift from cool intellectual to hot populist. And a key element of the program is to co-opt the Republicans, who have thus far been politically successful by obstructing the Democratic legislative program.

If the message of Massachusetts turns out to be that Americans are sick and tired of both Democrats and Republicans, it might be smart for Obama to turn away from his own party and try to lure Congressional Republicans off the sidelines. This could even have the result of moving some legislation.

But Republicans shouldn’t fall for the ploy. Obama’s promise of a post-partisan government was a sugar-coated pack of lies, easily swallowed by the credulous and the hopeful. Obama has ruled in as partisan a manner as any Democrat before him. Bipartisanship to him means just what it means to Reid and Pelosi: a way of enacting the Democratic agenda while being able to blame Republicans for whatever turns out to be unpopular.

The latest piece of this program is a proposal by Obama to set up a commission to study deficit-reduction policies. Congress would be *required* to vote on the recommendations of such a commission, and for that reason the plan will require 60 votes in the Senate.

During the Presidential election campaign, one occasionally heard talk of a bipartisan “grand compromise” to solve the structural deficit problem. The idea was that Republicans would agree to vast and broad new taxes, while Democrats would agree to insignificant reductions in Social Security benefits.

This of course is “bipartisanship” at its finest. Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get the shaft from the voters for both sides of the compromise. This would be the inevitable result of such an agreement, because as the party in power, Democrats control the agenda and the spin cycle.

There is certainly some merit to a commission independent of Congress to study how to fix the government’s deficit problem. After a year of at times bizarre debate on healthcare (a debate that was substantially conducted only by Democrats in conflict among themselves), it’s not credible that Congress could come up with anything good regarding deficit reduction.

But the President would have the most to say about who sits on the commission and how it will do its work. Republicans would be fools to acquiesce to a vote on whatever emerges from this process. They would end up being committed to vote on something that almost assuredly won’t serve their priorities.

I’ve said many times that America inevitably faces far higher taxes over the next decade or more. It’s not going to be politically possible to reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits in any significant way. And everyone agrees that Obama’s trillion-plus dollar annual deficits are simply unsustainable.

Republicans should be in favor of higher, broad-based taxes, such as a VAT and an increase in the payroll tax rate. In exchange for those, I would be willing to accept a higher top marginal income tax rate for high earners.

It’s not enough to redistribute more of America’s income to our senior citizens. Republicans must also insist on fundamental improvements for business: MUCH lower taxes on capital and business income; MUCH less regulation of non-financial businesses, especially export-focused ones; and a guarantee that labor unions will be stopped in their attempts to organize more of the private sector. (Let the unions have the public sector. They can’t be stopped there, anyway.)

But if Republicans agree to vote on the proposals of an Obama-dominated commission, they’ll get none of what is really needed to reduce America’s deficit problem without putting the economy on a long, slow decline. They’ll be left having to vote “no” on a range of government-expanding taxes without the slightest guarantee that the deficits will even fall.

After all, Congress has never been known to save money. Raise taxes and spending will rise, as surely as day follows night.

Finally, the timing of Obama’s proposed commission is very fishy, and seems almost calculated to inflame the post-Massachusetts sentiment that the fix is in. Any commission would not start its work until AFTER the election this November. Hmm, wouldn’t want to recommend anything that would require Democrats to cast a difficult vote, now would we?

As the State of the Union approaches, it’s time to ask: Mr. Obama, what are you waiting for? If you’re serious about attacking the deficit problem, do something about it yourself. Appoint an executive commission, without a commitment for a Congressional vote. You can do that tonight while you’re checking to see what Keith Olbermann has to say about you.

Put some really good, smart people on it. And if you like what they come up with, then man up, go to the Hill, put your own credibility on the line, and start selling it. Now THAT would be a change.