Many in Both Parties Want a Window Into the Deficit Reduction Panel’s Work

[alp227]

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — On one crucial point, a powerful Congressional committee seeking ways to reduce the federal budget deficit has managed to produce a rare bipartisan consensus: Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives in and out of Congress say the panel is doing too much of its work in secret.

Moreover, they say, the secrecy could make it more difficult for the 12-member panel to win acceptance for its recommendations from the public and from other members of Congress.

Far from apologizing for their secrecy, members of the committee say it shows they are making progress toward a possible agreement, establishing trust among themselves without public posturing or partisan sniping. And there is a view among some in Congress that such politically charged bargains can be struck only behind closed doors, where members can talk freely, insulated from the special interests that could swoop in to try to kill elements of an agreement.

The panel, which has six remaining weeks to hash out a plan to reduce future deficits by at least $1.2 trillion, operates in an insular world. It has held two public hearings, one on spending and one on taxes, but has not taken testimony from the public.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/politics/deficit-reduction-panel-is-criticized-for-its-secrecy.html?pagewanted=all

---

Representatives Dave Camp, left, Xavier Becerra and Senator John Kerry leave a meeting. (Philip Scott Andrews/The New York Times)

[No Elephants]

1. That and a window into its Constitutional foundation.

This is almost straight off the DLC's website, except the DLC wanted a Super "Sunset" Commission appointed by the President to whose recommendations Congress could only say yea or nay, no amendment.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254871&kaid=85&subid=65

The function of the Super "Sunset" Commission was cutting federal costs by killing off programs Congress had previously passed and the President had signed that had, in the eyes of the Commission, ceased to be desirable.

That was tried with the Cat Food Commission, but Congress would not okay the "yea or nay only" bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

That, of course, would have been unconstitutional--Presidential appointees putting ultimata to representatives elected by voters.

Then again, necons loves them some Unitary Executive--and some subversion of the Constitution. And the DLC was formed around Presidential elections (ostensibly, anyway). Much easier to control one person than over 600, I guess.

Lord knows, voters can't be trusted to decide who makes decisions on their dime.

:sarcasm:

I guess that is why Harry Reid was so careful to emphasize from the jump that the President was going to have absolutely nothing to do with choosing the members of the Committee--and I took Reid at his word.

Not sure about the Constitutionality of this version, though. I do know that the "yea or nay, no amendment" bit is unprecedented in U.S. history.

Question: If this Super Committee is very like the Sunset Commission proposed by the DLC, who likely put the Super Committee on the table during the debt ceiling debacle, Democrats or Republicans?

Was it the same person who, according to Rep. John Conyers, had previously put cuts to Medicare and Social Security on the table?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000282/-Conyers-spills-the-beans-on-Obama-call-for-WH-protests

[chill_wind]

8. Reid likes to take the credit for the super committee proposal

but which certainly doesn't rule out third party suggestions (WH)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/15/994892/-White-House-working-with-Reid,-McConnell-on-Plan-B-for-debt%C2%A0ceiling%C2%A0deal


"Everyone knows that a joint committee was my proposal. I'm glad that Senator McConnell has put his arms around this. I hope that we can get something done.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/174989-senate-poised-to-pass-debt-deal-despite-criticism

[No Elephants]

9. Reid is either lying or is unaware that he is plagiarizing from the DLC.

As stated, the DLC is reswponsible for the "yea or nay" model, and the Simpson Blowles Commissionwas the first attempt to implement that DLC suggestion.
However, regardless of who suggested it, everyone seems to be behind, don't they?

Joint Committees are rare, but there have been joint committees a couple of times in the past. That in itself, however, does not mean a joint committee is constitutional.

I think the link in my post to the January 2009 article on the DLC website proves where the idea originated.

The concept of a joint Committee is not mentioned in the Constitution, unless you consider it part of the rulemaking power of each House. However, the Constitution does seem to assume that each House will operate independently of the other. Nonetheless, there has been a joint committee in the past, albeit very rarely.

As stated in my prior post, however, the combination of "yaa or nay"--totally unprecedented-- as to recommendations from a joint committee brings this into a really unusual realm.

However, adding the Presidential appointment aspect, as the DLC wanted and Obama attempted with the Simpson Bowles Commission, definitely took it over a Constitutional line, IMO.

The DLC's takeover and division of the Democrat Party upsets me, but the DLC's recommending something that violates the Constitution does not upset me. The DLC is not an elected official, it takes no oath regarding the Constitution, and does not pretend to have either Constitutional fealty or Constitutional expertise.

That the President and former constitutional law lecturer attempted to implement that suggestion with the Simpson Bowles Commission, however, is disconcerting, as is this unprecedented and Constitutionally cloudy Super Committee.

Bad precedent and either unconstitutional or a very slippery slope, IMO.

[chill_wind]

13. Not disputing any of that, in fact.

What's clear is Dems' authoring of this approach to cuts, and now that they've signed on, it's going to be hard, as you suggest, to "unsign" when future gopfascist White Houses or majorities want to keep running with this model. :-(

[red dog 1]

2. Bi-partisan consensus?......That is rare!

[woo me with science]

7. Bipartisan consensus becomes easier when you have two corporate parties. nt

[JDPriestly]

3. Becerra, my Congressman, is great, but he is in the minority.

[sofa king]

4. Try my crystal ball instead.

It doesn't matter what tail-chasing the deficit reduction committee performs. The Republicans will, through their usual delay and sabotage, ensure that no real decision is reached.

And that's just fine with the President, because he's already set it up so that if his own goals are not advanced by the committee, he can kill the final decision and revert the process back to the cuts he already nailed Congress to the wall with.

Once that happens, $500 billion will be flensed from the Department of Defense, in an election year, without a single Democratic vote in favor of it, and the Republicans will be the ones to take the blame, reduction in campaign funding, and electoral hit for it.

[No Elephants]

10. Are you saying that, if this bipartisan, ballyhooed Super Committee, which is

modeled after the president's cat food commission (Replies 1 and 9), makes recommendations that pass both Houses of Congress in the form of a bill, one house being controlled by Republicans and the other house controlled by Democrats, the President will veto the bill?

After he's traveled around the country complaining about gridlock and obstructionism on the part of Republicans?

During Presidential election season?

How likely is that, really?

If I have correctly understood what you are implying, I recommend returning that crystal ball.

I'm no doctor, but IMO, your crystal ball may be suffering from a bad case of far-fetched three dimensional chess unreality.

[sofa king]

12. Actually no, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that thanks to the Republicans, no real decision will be reached. And when it isn't, the President wins.

Edit: Okay, I see what you're saying now. You're saying that after laying a delicate trap months in the making and months more in execution, the President will toss it in the trash if Congress actually agrees on something which reverses the President's own goals. 'Cause he's all bipartisan and shit, and it would be electoral suicide not to cave in and agree to something less than he could get with a simple veto. Yeah.

[Scuba]

5. Blatantly unconstitutional. Disenfranchises most Americans. n/t

[No Elephants]

11. Tries to, anyway.

In theory, the Senate and the House can both vote "nay" on the recommendations, then, if they wish propose bills that pick and choose among the recommendations.

But, this is still very bad precedent, as I stated in my Reply 9.

[plumbob]

6. The NERVE! Wanting to see what the government is doing?

Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here. We have always been at war...