Error of Commission
20 January
The Wall Street Journal reports:
White House and congressional leaders reached a tentative deal aimed at establishing a bipartisan commission to tackle the soaring federal budget deficit, in what is likely to be a central element of President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget, people familiar with the talks said.
Meeting Tuesday night at the White House, Vice President Joe Biden, White House budget director Peter Orszag and Democratic leaders agreed the commission would report back at the end of 2010 with a path to bring this year’s projected $1.4 trillion deficit from about 10% of gross domestic product to 3% by 2015.
The commission would also submit recommendations on taxes and spending on entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. House and Senate Democratic leaders promised the recommendations would be submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote after the midterm elections this year, these people said.
The 18-member commission will include six people appointed by congressional Democrats, six appointed by congressional Republicans and six appointed by the president. Of the president’s six, two will be Republicans and four will be Democrats.
Under the deal, the commission will be created by an executive order and laid out in the fiscal 2011 budget that Mr. Obama will submit to Congress Feb. 1.
Republican leaders weren’t part of the talks, and the panel can work only if GOP leaders select members to serve on it.
Let us assume this reporting is accurate. I will compare the rumored Administration proposal to the Conrad/Gregg legislative proposal, the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) is Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) is the Ranking Republican Member of that committee.
I will highlight important differences in red.
|
Administration |
Conrad-Gregg bill |
|
| Created by |
President |
Congress & President |
| Created through |
Executive Order |
new law |
| Goal |
short-term |
long-term |
|
reduce deficit to 3% by 2015 |
significantly improve the long-term fiscal imbalance |
|
| Scope |
taxes & entitlements |
taxes & spending |
| Membership | ||
| How many members? |
18 |
18 |
| Who serves? |
?? |
current Members of Congress, SecTreas + 1 other Admin. |
| Partisan balance |
12 appointed by D’s, 6 by R’s |
10 appointed by D’s, 8 by R’s |
| Chair structure |
? |
bipartisan co-chairs |
| Executive Director |
? |
chosen jointly by co-chairs |
| Voting |
14 of 18 to make recommendations |
14 of 18 to make recommendations |
| Reporting date |
In 2010 after Election Day |
Nov. 15, 2010 |
| Fast-track process |
None. |
limits Congressional rules to mandate up-or-down House & Senate votes by Dec. 23rd. 3/5 of House & Senate required to pass. |
In my experience, there are four reasons to create a commission:
- You want to learn or investigate something: 9-11 Commission, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
- You want to create an external credible body of “wise men” to produce consensus recommendations to build broader political support for politically painful policy changes: 1982 Social Security Commission.
- Elected officials want to give themselves political cover to implement painful policy changes, by delegating control of the details to someone else: Base Realignment Commission (BRAC).
- You want to duck an issue for a while and you need an excuse.
The Conrad-Gregg task force bill is trying to delegate control to change the law. The rumored Administration proposal is trying to provide an excuse while they duck a hard policy issue in an election year.
A commission that is trying to actually make changes to law must be credibly balanced and it must have formal authority to bind policymakers. The Conrad-Gregg proposal has both. The rumored Administration proposal has neither.
I am torn on whether to support the Conrad-Gregg proposal. I instinctively don’t like it. I fear that this structure would lead to huge tax increases. I lean against Congress delegating their authority, and generally abide by the maxim that “the problem isn’t the process, the problem is the problem.” But I do feel comfortable saying that Conrad-Gregg is an intellectually honest and credible commission proposal, albeit one that might lead to a policy outcome that I would hate. If you are going to create a commission like this, then this is the most balanced proposal I have seen so far.
In contrast, the rumored Administration proposal is not credible.
- The President’s commission would duplicate his budget proposal from last year. The goal of the rumored new Presidential commission would be to reduce the federal budget deficit to 3% by 2015. But last year the President budget included specific policy proposals to hit that same goal! The President’s budget, proposed February 26, 2009, claimed to reduce the budget deficit to 3.0% by 2015 (Table S-1). (CBO says it misses this mark and would result in a 2015 deficit of 4.3%, but I’m focusing now on the Administration’s claim.) The Mid-Session Review, published August 25, 2009, falls back to only trying to reduce the deficit to 3.9% by 2015 (Table S-1). So the President would now propose a 12-6 commission to meet a goal that he argued his budget met 11 months ago with specific proposals?!? That makes no sense.
- The President’s commission would address the wrong timeframe. The commission’s goal is to focus on the next six years, rather than the even bigger long-term fiscal problem. Since I arrived in Washington in 1994 there has been a consensus that the hard fiscal policy problem is the long-term one, not the short-term one.
- The President’s commission would have a predetermined outcome. Since The President, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid would appoint two-thirds of the members, and there appears to be no supermajority requirement, it’s easy to predict the final recommendations: huge tax increases, and only trivial entitlement spending reductions. Republican appointees would have no leverage and would be easily ignored. Update: 14 of 18 members are needed to approve recommendations.
- The President’s commission does not create any binding fast-track process. Leader Reid cannot unilaterally bind 100 Senators to an up-or-down vote and no amendments. Even if a commission were to produce unanimous recommendations, Republicans should fear that a Democratic Senate majority would use those recommendations as a starting point, substitute even more tax increases for whatever spending cuts are in the recommendations, and then pass the bill. Scott Brown’s election as the 41st vote has little effect on this dynamic, since the changes would probably happen in committee. Any commission created by Executive Order has this weakness: it cannot bind Congress. Only Congress can tie itself to the mast.
The President’s commission does have a political advantage. If the press treats it as credible, he may get away with substituting it for real short-term policy proposals in his budget, and with completely ducking the even more important long-run fiscal policy debate. I am just guessing here, but if the upcoming President’s budget contains a large amount of deficit reduction and labels it “deficit reduction from bipartisan commission recommendations,” then we will have confirmed the commission’s true purpose. Look for the magic asterisk in the budget proposal.
The press should also ask the Administration if the commission’s mandate would allow it to recommend repealing all or part of (1) the stimulus, and (2) a potential new health care law. Whether or not the commission proposes such changes, are they allowable within the commission’s mandate?
Yes, CBO scores the health care bill as deficit neutral (with huge caveats), but enactment of that law would make future deficit reduction efforts much harder because the bill would use some of the easiest and biggest Medicare savings proposals to offset new government spending. If the Administration’s answer is, “No, the commission can propose changes to everything except the spending and tax changes we have implemented over the past year,” then it reinforces the true nature of this proposal.
If you’re concerned about the deficit, the place to start is by not creating a new trillion dollar entitlement program.
(photo credit: PSU punts by acaben)
Related Posts
(best matches are listed first)- ObamaCare vs. the Fiscal Responsibility Commission
- What is the goal of the President’s Fiscal Commission?
- The President repeats an important math error
- CBO kills the President’s Medicare commission proposal
- Fishy statements about health care reform
- My opening statement at today’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission meeting
- The Administration’s flawed health care argument threatens their fiscal policy strategy
- The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
I would find both proposals a little more honest if the reporting dates were October 15, and the Congressional votes were next January.
A 3/5 vote is required to pass the Conrad-Gregg bill to create the commission (and the process), or to pass the proposals of the commission? I would be happier if a supermajority were required to pass the proposals.
I am sick to death of commissions and prefer we never see one again. First, we elect people to office because we think they have the judgment, wisdom and ideas to tackle problems. It's bad enough too many decision are passed on to Secretaries and Under-Secretaries to make decisions. To further outsource their responsibility to another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for solutions, usually the most important matters that should be handled more than any by elected officials, is ridiculous.
Furthermore, and maybe more importantly, commissions have been granted this unwarranted reputation of being above question and debate. Take for instance the 9/11 Commission. While many if not most of their recommendations might have been excellent changes, their findings have been accepted as the absolute truth and anyone who does not implement their findings, whether it be Bush or Obama, is repudiated as recklessly ignoring their magnanimous recommendations. Why? There is nothing inherently special about commissions that we accept their recommendations without question.
Spare us another asinine commission!
Keith – As usual, this is an excellent analysis. My bias is to force these guys to do their job and not provide political cover for the huge tax increase and expanded entitlements the liberals want.
I think the analysis is spot on as well. I've been having quite the debate over this on another blog. The net of the debate is I rather doubt any commission will come up with a solution because politicians are simply too divided over the question of what and how much government should be doing.
I also object, on principle, to the notion that the commission will be packed with sitting representatives, rehashing the same tired arguments they have rehashed in committee settings over the past decade. A commission filled with regular citizens of some sort would, I think, be better than one stuffed with politicians.
Were we to have a commission, I think it will fail unless we deal with some of the very difficult questions facing us directly rather than burying them in a budget discussion. An an example, do we want to continue to provide benefits to people on the basis of age alone? Is is appropriate to use government to force the less well off to provide benefits to the more well off? Is it appropriate to simplify our approach to education in such a way as to largely eliminate either the Federal or the State role in the process?
The answers to these questions have substantial budget implications but addressing them by addressing the budget ignores the real question to be addressed and makes it highly unlikely that any recommendations will result in a coherent and lasting set of solutions.
Keith,
FYI, harsh critique of your post by Stan Collender at http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collend...
It's quite ironic that Stan would post a critique of someone else's post with his point-for-point counter-arguments throughout, given his own apparent recent history. I have (or had been) a long-time CG&G reader and commenter (ever since Andrew Samwick joined them; I had followed and commented on Andrew's Vox Baby). Yet, since a few weeks ago when I vigorously (but civilly) challenged the arguments that Stan (and Bruce Bartlett) had been presenting regarding such a commission, Stan has apparently been blocking or discarding my comments rather than posting them, with the surprising exception of one of the comments I submitted yesterday on a different thread. I have continued to submit comments all along. Those submitted over the past few weeks as “Brooks” (my handle) were not posted, but those submitted under a different name (handle) and email address WERE posted EXCEPT the one that expressed a view contrary to Stan’s on the commission topic — THAT comment was NOT posted. I also asked one other commenter on another blog (a fiscal conservative whose comments are always civil, relevant, and thoughtful) if he had had the same thing happen to him on CG&G and he confirmed that indeed it had. I have inquired numerous times over the last few weeks, starting with their tech guy to see if there was a tech or process problem, then inquiring repeatedly with Stan (very diplomatically) and with others at CG&G asking them to ask Stan (at least one did, and informed me that Stan did not reply), and I can’t even get a simple “yes” or “no” as to whether or not he/they have been blocking/discarding my comments. Perhaps the fact that he/they finally posted one of my comments yesterday (I’m still waiting to see if they post two others submitted yesterday that haven’t shown up yet) is a sign that Stan has reconsidered his apparent practice of blocking/discarding comments containing challenges/refutations of his arguments and views, but I’ll have to see what happens. (By the way, I’m assuming that, if the blocking/discarding of opposing arguments and views has been occurring, as appears likely, that it was Stan’s doing or at least done with Stan’s agreement, since Bruce is a relative newcomer as a CG&G contributor and it would take a lot of chutzpah to initiate such an extremely lame practice on his own).
Anyway, one would think that one who dishes out critiques of others' argumentation on political policy matters should be able to take the same, but apparently one would be wrong. I know it's quite common for moderators of ideological echo chamber blogs to ban/block/delete comments and commenters who challenge arguments related to cherished assumptions/conclusions of that ideological "side", and it's extremely lame wherever it occurs, but I didn't expect to encounter it on a blog like CG&G that has contributors with diverse views.
Brooks, I don't know who deleted your comments or why. My policy is only to delete comments that are either spam or use offensive language such as ethnic slurs.
Bruce,
Thanks for your reply. Can you please ask Stan if he has done so? He hasn't responded to my emails, nor (apparently) to Troy's. I would think he could at least take literally two seconds to respond "yes" or "no".
Bruce,
Thanks for your reply. Can you please ask Stan if he has done so? He hasn't responded to my emails, nor (apparently) to Troy's. I would think he could at least take literally two seconds to respond "yes" or "no".
(I'm just repeating this comment because, per some default settings, sometimes replies are hidden until actively opened and thus could be missed. Sorry for the repetition; just wan to make sure Bruce sees my request.)
Keith,
The problem with all these commissions is that they reduce all discussion to political mindless allegience to their party. America takes a back seat and, even your site, is 90% slanted towards your political culture subtle as you are sometimes. Either side cannot be right or wrong all the time.
With today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance, politics is now reduced to having corporations and unions control the country. With enough money anyone has a significant edge and sure as the sun will rise the average American’s voice will become dimmer and dimmer. Members of Congress will have to pander to the large institutions even more than in the past as they are concerned with re-election more than issues (for the most part.)
The composition of commissions is unimportant if the members are simply ideological in their analysis.
(Brooks and Bruce should settle their problems somewhere else.)
Unless or until the internet and social networks are compromised, I could give a rat's patootie about corporate or union ads. I'd rather know who's behind the ad than have to sift thru a PACs organizatonal info to figure it out. As SCOTUS indicated, part of our 1st Amendment rights is the right to determine the truth for ourselves. Part of the Scott Brown phenomenon was his ability to campaign directly and nationally and thereby bypassing the traditional channels. So, in a word (OK, two), screw 'em.
Re: Unless or until the internet and social networks are compromised, I could give a rat's patootie about corporate or union ads.
Interesting argument (yes, I'm being sarcastic). Ever hear of the "net-neutrality" issue? It's essentially a political issue to be decided at various times by politicians, politicians who are influenced by corporate political spending that could easily mean a few heavy hitters who would benefit from a lack of net neutrality getting/keeping candidates on their side in office via massive political spending, and getting the legislation they want (or blocking legislation they don't want). Would you not then consider the internet "compromised"?
Hence my caveat. However, I'd be more afraid of the government with it's 'we know best' mentality than private corporations.
If we really want to deal with the problem at its source, let's get rid of the tax code and the departments I listed below.
While corporations may know better how to run their corporation I am not sanguine about their social conscience or ability to act outide their narrow field of interest. Mind you, it certainly isn't a given that politicians can do any better. As long as a member of congress gets all kinds of perks and retirement and health care for life simply for serving one term we will have people selling themselves to the highest bidder. The accolade "public servant" is a misnomer. They are living on the public payroll but serving the special interests. All bills should be voted on without any pork so that we the people know exactly what is happening. And so on and so forth…. All in Congress should not be painted with this brush but the with the majority the paint never dries.
I guess you're missing my point. If A makes B more/highly likely and A is, by nature, hard to reverse, you can't feel at all secure about the constraint implied by your caveat. Once you allow overwhelming influence of large corporations on our political process, putting up a roadblock to particular policies and taking away that power could become quite difficult or impossible. Although I certainly do not wish to imply any comparison as a matter of degree or clarity of evil, just as an analogy of the kind of dynamic to which I refer, there is the famous poem referring to the step-by-step increases in persecution by the Nazis:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
How about a citizen commission? Here are my recommendations:
Eliminate Department of Education entirely, and most of Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Labor, and HUD.