Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
WASHINGTON – Getting Congress to do its fiscal job is the equivalent of making a child sit at the kitchen table until all his broccoli is eaten.
Sen. Evan Bayh doesn’t describe it precisely like that. But the idea of creating a commission and forcing Congress to accept or reject all its recommendations has as much drama on Capitol Hill as the reluctant broccoli-eater at the family dinner table.
Bayh calls it “institutional insurrection.”
He and others say that people whose jobs are often dependent on the favors they do for people or groups don’t have the willpower to say no. In this case, we’re talking about members of Congress whose re-elections hinge on the whims of voters, making lawmakers too susceptible to the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately concerns of blocs of voters.
What it takes to cut through this, Bayh and others say, is a commission whose list of spending cuts and tax increases would have to be supported or rejected in toto without being picked apart with amendments, side deals and other aspects of the way Congress copes with difficult issues.
According to Sen. Joe Lieberman: “We have to start saying ‘no.’ As an institution, we are incapable of it.”
The reasons to say “yes” to more conservative government spending are legion, Bayh and others say: a $1.4 trillion deficit; indebtedness to foreign governments; and the financial burden on future generations.
But the reasons not to say “no” are endless: two expensive wars; millions of Americans without health insurance; pressure to reduce taxes; highways and bridges that need repair; promises to veterans; and promises to retirees.
Ceding tough decisions to another group – but keeping veto power – is how Congress has dealt with another political hot potato: which domestic military bases to close.
Recognizing that no member of Congress would probably vote to eliminate a military base – and the jobs that go with it – in his or her state, Congress decided to set up a commission of experts to examine all U.S. bases and recommend which to cut. The proposals were presented to Congress for a yes-or-no vote without any possibility of amendments to remove a particular base from the closure list.
There have been several rounds of base closure commissions. Each time, the commission traveled around the country, examined bases, listened to the locals, reviewed the Pentagon’s preferences and then presented a list to Congress. Each time, individual members of Congress groused, but the list was approved. No lawmaker with special clout was able to exempt his or her state’s base from the list.
Most people would conclude that the base-closure commission was a success. Many think the success could be replicated on a broader basis. But the idea may die over a squabble that seems silly but isn’t: Who would make up the commission? Should members of Congress sit on it?
The base closure commission had former members of Congress but no sitting member. It just made sense to not include someone who would have an inside connection that could benefit one state’s bases. Besides, the commissioners worked pretty much full time during the process.
Everything else aside, making a budget commission full of incumbent members of Congress would guarantee skimpy attendance at meetings. That would guarantee no final recommendations.
And what about the Constitution? It gives Congress the right and responsibility to control the public purse. If the commission’s recommendations of spending cuts and tax increases have to be approved or rejected in one lump, is Congress abdicating its constitutional mandate?
As appealing as a base-closure-commission-style budget commission is, the constitutionality of it must be solid.
What about the White House? Would the president – any president – support a group of unelected people making decisions that would certainly affect the administration’s top priorities or “no taxes” campaign promise?
Congress will tie itself up in knots over the composition of the commission and the futzing over its constitutionality. But those concerns would be easy to resolve compared with the intractable issue at the heart of the budget commission discussion.
The base closure commissions succeeded because there was consensus in Washington that the number of domestic military bases had to be reduced. The only debate was which ones.
There is no such agreement on what programs to cut, what taxes to raise. Do we limit Medicare? Ensure access to health care for all? Pack up in Afghanistan and Iraq and come home? Tax high-income Social Security recipients? Turn over all highway upkeep to states?
If Congress could resolve those questions in broad categories, a budget commission could no doubt produce good work.
But if Congress could agree on the underlying framework, there would be no need for a commission.
