Washington, D.C. — On the very same day this week when the Congressional Budget Office warned that the succession of previously unimaginable trillion-dollar-and-more budget deficits could inflict ruin on the United States, the Senate faced a moment of truth.
For the first time, a truly bipartisan proposal aimed at averting such a calamity came to a vote. By 53 to 46, the senators approved the measure officially described as a bill for “responsible fiscal action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the federal government of the United States, and to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans.”
Of course, this being the 21st-century Senate, it meant defeat because of a failure to command the 60-vote supermajority the opposition now always requires.
As President Obama delivered his first formal State of the Union address, the reigning journalistic cliche described the “angry, frustrated electorate” he confronts. If you want to know where this anger should really be directed, look at the Tuesday Senate roll call and focus on the 22 Democrats, 23 Republicans and one independent who combined to scuttle what one sponsor has called “the last, best hope” to avert a catastrophe.
These are the men and women who placed politics above the long-term needs of the country and rewarded their own narrow constituencies, rather than serving the national interest.
The measure the Senate debated and defeated came out of the anxiety experienced by its own budget committee. The chairman, Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and the senior Republican and former chairman, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, had seen deficit spending explode as the previous administration refused to raise taxes to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the expansion of Medicare and other domestic programs.
Two years ago, Conrad and Gregg agreed that with Congress gridlocked, the best hope was to create a commission of small size but large scope — empowered to examine without limits everything on the spending and revenue side of government. If 14 of its 18 members, chosen by the leaders of both parties in Congress and by the president, could agree on a recommendation, it would go without delay — and without amendment — to the House and Senate for a vote.
Passage would be subject to a double bipartisan test: First in the commission itself, where neither party would “control” more than 10 votes, and then in Congress, where majorities of 60 percent would be required in both House and Senate — all still subject to presidential veto.
Despite all these procedural safeguards, leaders on both sides balked. It took a delegation from Capitol Hill, meeting with Vice President Joe Biden, to persuade him to implore President Obama to lend his support — which he did only last Saturday as part of his newly discovered passion for reducing some government spending.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained adamantly opposed, right up to the end. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his deputy, Jon Kyl, both rejected it. This encouraged special-interest lobbies from all sides to pressure individual senators to vote no.
It was a curious coalition, with the liberal blog Daily Kos and organized labor urging Democrats to “protect Social Security and Medicare” from any changes, while anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and big parts of business warned Republicans not to countenance anything that might conceivably lead to higher taxes.
Conrad told me the names of six Republicans who had once supported the bill but ended by voting no. Gregg, in a separate interview, confirmed the list, saying, “We couldn’t hold them against the pressure.”
I hope this vote is remembered in November.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
The commission proposed by these two senators most likely fails constitutionality as our constitution states that it is Congress' responsibility, not a commission, to levy taxes. I, for one, do not want some diminuative commission deciding whether or not I have my taxes raised. I want my elected officials to shoulder that burden so that if I disagree with them I can, as is my right, vote against them in the next election. Would I be able to exercise this right versus this commission? Hardly.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Let me understand this, we want to have a score of unelected and unaccountable individuals produce a document affecting trillions of dollars a year and that document can not be amended by anyone but must be accepted/rejected as is.
If we are going to be ruled by an oligarchy, why not just amend the constitution and get rid of the troubling notion of representative government. We all know the people are fickle and uninformed and must therefore be ruled by their betters. We could save a lot of money that way – get rid of elections, campaigning – in fact politics. How about a king?
Just who is it that is pushing this nonsense?
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
from the editorial:
- recommendations "would go without delay — and without amendment — to the House and Senate for a vote."
- "where majorities of 60 percent would be required in both House and Senate — all still subject to presidential veto."
oligarchy?
elected officials can't be held accountable?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
weeslicket (Anonymous) says…
from the editorial:
- recommendations “would go without delay — and without amendment — to the House and Senate for a vote.”
- “where majorities of 60 percent would be required in both House and Senate — all still subject to presidential veto.”
oligarchy?
elected officials can't be held accountable?
Absolutely - Using a commission to avoid responsibility by creating a false dilemma of up or down is exactly that! I support a commission making recommendations to the nation but not an oligarchy dictating to all of us. The result will not have the support of the nation if it is a take it or leave it notion – or it will fail despite many useful recommendations. Why do we keep coming up with solutions that bypass the people?
diplomacy205 (anonymous) says…
It sounds just like Stalin's Supreme Soviet. Why doesn't everyone support this?
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
"I support a commission making recommendations to the nation..."
yes, commission. yes, recommendations.
"...but not an oligarchy dictating to all of us."
still a fail on oligarchy (not ALL power is vested in this committee).
"...or it will fail despite many useful recommendations."
sadly, this is the status quo of our elected leadership, who seem unable to lead and who are unwilling to compromise.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
weeslicket (Anonymous) says…
Maybe you are the one unwilling to compromise??
The American People are composed of many different beliefs on who should do what to whom. To a reasonable degree, the Congress reflects that. The notion that one group should be able to dictate to another was a specific focus of our founding fathers - they protected the rights of political minorities.
I am not happy with our Congress either but my solution is compromise not dictatorship (I exaggerate a bit here). I have to give and you have to give. Neither of us will probably like the outcome but we will accept it.
The last year had not been one of compromise. Inviting one or two members of the minority party to join a one party solution to a major national problem is not compromise. Believe it or not, the Republicans have an approach to health care reform (for what it is worth) - we just do not hear much about it.
Compromise means you do not win and I do not win. In the resulting results we may all win.
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
"I have to give and you have to give. Neither of us will probably like the outcome but we will accept it."
"Compromise means you do not win and I do not win. In the resulting results we may all win."
careful readers will acknowledge that i have made these same statements repeatedly.
so we are in agreement on all of that.
i am mainly disagreeing with your use of the word "oligarchy" to describe this possible solution.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
weeslicket (Anonymous) says…
I know. I accept your clarification. That said, I have been around long enought to watch many of these, They do act like an oligarchy. How do we get a neutral group to determine what to do when nobody else can? Sure we get it passed. With up or down votes the weak get had - everybody else is made whole the next year. No real gain- you can't beat the system you have to use it!
We need to do whatever we do out where we all can do what we are entitled to do - petition our leaders.
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
"How do we get a neutral group to determine what to do when nobody else can?"
wish i had the answer for that.