Something Special for Christmas
J. Randolph Evans
Column No. 1093 (11/4/11)

So, here are the two dates to mark on the calendar:  November 23, 2011
(the day before Thanksgiving) and December 23, 2011 (two days before
Christmas).  What makes these dates special?

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 is the deadline for the so-called
Congressional 'super-committee' (actually named the Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction) to issue its recommendations for at
least $1.5 trillion in federal deficit reductions over the next ten
years.

Friday, December 23, 2011 is the deadline for both Houses of the United
States Congress to vote on the super-committee's recommendations.
Neither date will be a 'fun' day for anyone.

The compromise that produced this super-committee process was the
product of the debt-ceiling crisis just three months ago.  Basically,
the federal government reached its borrowing limit and House Republicans
refused to increase the federal debt limit without significant spending
cuts.  The resulting 'compromise' was the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Just days later, the United States' credit rating was downgraded anyway.

(Experts say this super-committee model looks a lot like the Base
Realignment and Closure process when the Congress effectively punted its
role in making the hard choices for military base closures.  Yet, this
super-committee has power that dwarfs the closure of individual military
bases around the country.)

For a country that has prided itself on the de-concentration of power,
the super-committee is actually a frightening concentration of power.
Twelve members of Congress (six Senators and six Representatives)
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans effectively get to
decide whether taxes are raised (and how much); which (if any)
entitlement programs get reformed (and how); whether defense spending is
cut (and how much); and everything else associated with the funding and
operation of the federal government.

Rather than 435 Representatives and 100 Senators doing their job (as
contemplated by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution),
all of the taxing and spending power of the Congress has been
effectively concentrated into twelve people who were picked but not
elected to serve on the super-committee.

Of course, super-committees with such enormous power are referenced
nowhere in the United States Constitution.  The founding fathers who
feared the concentration of power more than anything else must be
rolling over in their graves.

The United States Constitution actually does lay out a process for the
operation of the government, starting with a provision that "all bills
for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" -
not a super-committee.  But, this compromise process is not much for
Constitutional protocol.

In fact, other than a token tipping of the hat to a 'vote,' the
recommendations from the super-committee are not even subject to any of
the normal protections associated with a democratic process.  For
example, while the House and the Senate vote on the super-committee's
recommendations under the compromise, it is only on a 'take it or leave
it' basis.

In the House of Representatives, this means that the recommendations are
not subject to amendments (no matter how valid the amendment) or the
'majority of the majority' procedural maneuver to prevent bad
legislation from reaching a final vote.  In the Senate, the legislation
is not subject to filibuster.  This means limited debate with a simple
majority vote.

Dissent is effectively stripped of any ability to make a difference.
Instead, a simple majority, not subject to any procedural protections
for the minority, can now impose some of the most important and
significant changes (good or bad) in U.S. history to the defense,
security, taxes, and entitlements of the American people.

Even then, the majority only gets two options: yes or no to the
super-committee's recommendations.  But, the 'no' is not without serious
consequence.  Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, if the
super-committee fails to agree on recommendations, or the full Congress
fails to pass it, then really bad things happen.

The compromise contains a "trigger mechanism" that, in the absence of
action by the Congress and the President, would automatically impose
$1.2 trillion in spending cuts.

In the abstract, this does not sound so bad.  But, the automatic
spending cuts are not intended to be a real solution.  Instead, they are
intended to be punitive - serving as a huge stick to force the Congress
to accept the super-committee's recommendations.  The automatic trigger
mechanism imposes an arbitrary 50/50 split of the $1.2 trillion in
spending cuts between national security and domestic spending - not
including the big entitlement programs like Social Security.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the rather Draconian nature of the
compromise, it actually does little to solve either the federal deficit
(spending over revenue each year) or the federal debt (accumulated
deficits year after year). With over $14 trillion in federal debt, and
continuing federal deficits, the proposed cuts are drops in the bucket.

Now, doesn't all this make Thanksgiving and Christmas special this year?