-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
February 1, 2013 | 18 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
The Congressional Spectator
Reconciliation Is Back
And just in time, giving the Bipartisan Committee a unique Social Security opportunity.
When August’s debt limit deal created the bipartisan deficit-reduction committee, it also created one of the most powerful legislative tools Washington has ever seen — subject to neither amendment nor filibuster.
To say this would make it easy to reform Social Security would be naïve. Still, it would be an oversight not to recognize the unprecedented opportunity this presents.
The 12-member bipartisan congressional committee faces a tough job: achieving a deficit-reduction of “at least $1.5 trillion” in 2012-2021 in addition to the $917 billion in annual spending savings already mandated separately.
The deal’s bipartisan congressional deficit reduction committee and its accompanying legislation closely tracks procedures in Washington’s normal budget process, as laid out in the 1974 Budget Act. One aspect of that earlier legislation in particular stands out: reconciliation.
Under reconciliation, committees are assigned deficit-reduction targets and the resulting legislation is protected — almost exactly as in the case of today’s bipartisan committee and its legislative product. Reconciliation is therefore among Congress’s most powerful legislative tools. There are expedited rules for its consideration and the Senate needs just a simple majority vote (filibusters are prohibited) to pass it — just like the bipartisan committee’s product.
However, in two crucial aspects, the bipartisan committee’s mandate is more powerful. Under reconciliation, amendments are still allowed and Social Security cannot be touched: “[I]t shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill… that contains recommendations with respect to… Social Security…”
While Congress’s most powerful existing deficit reduction tool can’t reform Social Security, no such limitation exists on the bipartisan committee’s untouchable product. Unlike any other legislation, the committee’s product could reform Social Security with simple majority votes in both bodies.
That Social Security is in need of reform is without question. As the Congressional Budget Office points out, last year’s Social Security spending equaled 4.9 percent of GDP and will grow to 6.1 percent in 2035. In 2037, its trust funds will be depleted. To make ends meet, it requires an immediate and continuing 1.6 percentage point increase in the payroll tax or a 19 percent reduction in benefits in 2038.
The bipartisan committee’s short timeline for decision-making makes long debates difficult. However, unlike other programs, Social Security’s inherent problems — basically, pay-as-you-go dependency unmasked by deteriorating demographics — are quite clear.
Earlier this year, CBO published a book of deficit reduction options containing six proposals that would save Social Security $652.3 billion over 2012-2021 — roughly half of the committee’s mandate. Nor did CBO leave out those who believe additional revenues are the route for deficit reduction: CBO also included two Social Security options for increasing revenues by $552.7 billion during 2012-2021.
The committee therefore could still have its debate over spending cuts versus revenue increases, but in a more meaningful context of serious and specific program reform.
Unquestionably Social Security needs reform. The bipartisan committee presents an unequalled opportunity for doing so and Social Security’s long-known reform options meet the committee’s time constraints for decision-making.
By tackling entitlements — particularly the oldest program — rather than the continued pursuit of annually-appropriated spending, it would immediately show Washington meant business.
Finally, it would also prove that deficit reduction is not just a temporary exercise, but a permanent policy change toward fiscal sustainability. Social Security reform’s deficit reduction in the first decade, while sizeable, would be dwarfed over the long-term — when Washington’s deficit is projected to be even worse.
Congress’s bipartisan deficit reduction committee has the means for reform and Social Security has the need. The only question is whether Washington has the will.
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Shamus| 10.3.11 @ 7:37AM
This committee will do nothing. Automatic cuts will then take effect a year from now. These are quite modest, so they will have little real impact. The largest is to defense, but it's only a 3% cut. Congress uses phony accounting schemes in an attempt to mislead the public, and this brings rise to claims that a 3% cut is really a 10% cut, but this is merely an example of how dishonest our government has become.
Melvin| 10.3.11 @ 7:39AM
The problem with us is that many of us are cynical. How do we expect those that got us into this fiscal mess to begin with straighten it out.
Congress and the Senate no longer have any credibility with the American people. I'm sorry Crony-Capitalism is just too strong for those Congressmen and Senators. They'll line their pockets, as well as they're buddies(family, friends, lobbyists, special interests, etcetera, etcetera) .
Another warning bell, is this creation of a Commission that falls outside the Constitution, and it's supposed checks and balances. I fear this bastardization of the Constitution will only weaken Congress's and the Senate's adherence to it.
Shamus| 10.3.11 @ 8:35AM
Your comments about crony capitalism and institutional capture are insightful. However, I'm unclear about how this violates the Constitution. Congress is allowed to set its own internal rules, and this structure differs but slightly from the conference committees routinely used to modify legislation. Both houses would still have to vote on the final product before it became law.
Melvin| 10.3.11 @ 9:01AM
I guess I should have phrased that part of the post more as a question.
I have such a rabid distrust of those individuals on Capital Hill, I would not put it past them to partially circumvent the Constitution.
Melvin| 10.3.11 @ 9:15AM
Not enough coffee on my previous posts. My strong leaning of the Constitutionality of this, "Tribunal," OK Commission is, that the negotiations that are conducted in secret. It all goes back to Nancy Pelosi's comment of, "We have to vote on it to know whats in it."
This double secret crap from this White House, Congress, and the Senate has bit us in the ass before and it will again, and the only difference is, it will cost our children more.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.3.11 @ 8:28AM
Is this even Constitutional? Why do we have 535 Representatives, when 12 are really all we need?
Shouldn't ALL OF THEM be handling this? Is this a Government Of, For, and Bye The People? Or is it just for those Represented by these 12?
I mean, are the other guys TOO BUSY?
We have a serious problem, here. We have a buncha people who REFUSE to do their jobs. With one eye on the next Election, all the time, they'd rather hand off their responsibilities to the guy in the Mail Room, rather than risk getting a single potential Voter's panties in a knot.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and the other REAL MEN, who risked their Lives, their Properties, and their Sacred Honours, to give us the Greatest Country, the world has ever known.
Every Rep and Senator needs to be TERM LIMITED by US. They get 2 Terms, and then We The People need to demand a Primary Challenger, and put that person, in.
In the words of Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
These Sons of Bitches have got to go.
Phil DeGraves| 10.4.11 @ 10:31AM
TLP, I couldn't agree with you more. These SOB's have to go, but I would take it a step further. Think of this in terms of efficient market theory. What is it that makes for an efficient market? Market participants. The more participants, each making individual decisions, the more efficient the market. In this light, does it make sense to have a mere 535 people plus one president making decisions for a population of 310 million? NO WAY! I think the time has come to seriously consider calling for a constitutional convention for the express purpose of declawing and defanging congress, if not disbanding the federal legislature altogether. Every state has a legislature and the states can manage their own affairs. A federal legislature is a redundancy and an anachronism. At the very least. take away ALL of their power, via constitutional amendment, to legislate in matters os econimic and social policy. Let the sole porpose of the congress be to advise the president on foreign relations. The state that the US finds itself in today has only one primary cause: the federal government itself, and in particulat, the legislature of the federal government. Let's get rid of it.
Anthony| 10.3.11 @ 9:20AM
This is truly theatre of the absurd. Twelve hack pols, dealing with a crisis they created, where the U.S. was on a hourly debt crisis countdown by the morons in the MSM.
Ah, but then summer recess came for these clowns, Obozo in Martha's Vinyard, no need to rush here, and now back to the business of crisis.
Oh, but Obozo's "pass this bill now" budget buster is out there, with Harry Reid and the Ds who won't pass it. Reconcile that!!!
Timothy has said it all, "these Sons of Bitches have got to go". And if they won't go willlingly, we need to help them along!!!!
Paul Bot| 10.3.11 @ 10:01AM
Ron Paul Ron Paul...Cain was for TARP...Liberty Freedom Constitution...Romney RINO Romney RINO...Ron Paul Ron Paul...Jefferson was a tyrant...Only Ron Paul can save America...Perry is for open-borders...Ron Paul Ron Paul a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Liberty Freedom and the Constitution...Cain is a Stepin' Fetchit...Israel owns America...9/11 was an inside job...Ron Paul Ron Paul...Vote for Ron Paul or you hate Liberty Freedom and the Constitution...Don't call me names you low-life scum-sucking Israel-Firster...Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul...fish-sticks...Mrs. Paul...Ron Paul...Pope Paul...Opus Dei Bilderberg conspiracy...damn Jews...Ron Paul Ron Paul...Ron Paul...Ron Paul.
I win the debate.
Israel Firster| 10.3.11 @ 10:06AM
We must stop Ron Paul.
He's too American.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 10:04AM
" ( Dr. Ron ) Paul told co-host Carl Quintanilla a super committee’s solution to a congressional impasse could be challenged in court because it takes away duties the Constitution spells out for Congress to perform.
“Well, I would challenge it in the courts and say that is not a constitutional function,” Rep. Paul said. “There’s no authority to have a super Congress who takes over for what the House and Senate are supposed to do.”
According to Paul, the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the option of performing in a way that’s devoid of committee or subcommittee actions.
“Oh, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it,” Paul continued. “Where does it say that we can set up a program like this and then give the — and then pop something back into the House and Senate and say you have a vote, you can’t take it to a subcommittee or full committee.
“You can’t negotiate it and you don’t know what’s going on there. So no, that is not what was set up by the Constitution. That was so far removed from what was intended that it almost becomes a silly notion.”
Beau Blotz| 10.3.11 @ 1:55PM
Ron Paul is still a kook.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 3:44PM
You're Still An Israel Firster Propagandist.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
john| 10.3.11 @ 4:10PM
You must be a liberal. When unable to debate in an intellectual manner, you resort to name calling aimed at people, organizations, cutures, races, ethnicities or religions. It's a take off of one of the three pillars of liberalism; abortion, redistribution of weath, and identity politics. I never hear a conservative or a Republican calling others names. Intellectual weakness is the hallmark of liberalism.
Drunken Sailor| 10.3.11 @ 4:55PM
Are you talking to Beau (Kook) or Clint (Israel Firster Propagandist) ?
john| 10.3.11 @ 5:27PM
Both of them are name callers. Personal attacks are no subsitute for defending your ideas.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 5:59PM
You don't know me, John.
I'm a Pro-Life Catholic Registered Republican Capitalist & A Real Conservative Member of The Tea Party Patriots.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
I voted for Bush '41 & '43 , Our Tea Party Senator Pat Toomey & protest voted a write in vote for my brother-in-law against The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain.
Tell us about McCain-Finegold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Liebberman, Gang of 14, Opposing bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003, TARP, Hobbitts.
You're Up Sport.
Von Mises Jr.| 10.3.11 @ 10:10AM
The budget in 2005 was $2.4 trillion with a $318 billion deficit. Today we have spending of $3.7 trillion and deficits in the $1.6 trillion range.
Spending has increased by over 50% since Pelosi and Reid took control of the Congress. Annual deficits have increased by 500% under Obama.
Social Security must be fixed, but this is a diversion. It is like getting a haircut when you are dying of brain cancer.
russel| 10.3.11 @ 10:34AM
Yes , you can count me cynical . The GOPhers have lost all credibility ( excluding Tea Partiers ) and still relinquish their jobs in favor of good standing in the community of DC . Look at what the first rule of business was when this commitee convened - the socialists' propose tax hikes . They got more money , dope -roped us into this commitee supposedly to reign in debt and now will try to dupe us again into more of their fondest wishes . A Cat toying with a mouse .
P.Smith| 10.3.11 @ 11:32AM
"In 2037, its trust funds will be depleted..."
By trust fund do you mean all the IOUs in the “Lock Box”/filing cabinet? That’s money that will never been seen again.
Ron| 10.3.11 @ 2:06PM
9 years to allegedly reduce the budget? By the 12 knuckleheads on this supposed committee?
Are they kidding? Since when do 12 people get to decide what happens to the budget that far into the future? IIRC, nothing one Congress (even this budgetary "star chamber") does is binding on another...
Valley Forge Tea Party Patriot| 10.3.11 @ 2:11PM
It has been brought to our attention that someone on this forum is posing as a member of our organization, and attempting to link our organization, and the Tea Party movement as a whole, to Ron Paul.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While there are many things to admire about Dr. Paul, his service to our nation, and his political positions, and that some of our members are supporters of Ron Paul (indeed, various individual members of our organization support all of the GOP candidates) our organization has not endorsed any particular candidate at this time.
Additionally, it has also been brought to our attention that certain individuals, while posing as members and/or representatives of Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots, have regularly made offensive and derogatory remarks about individuals and religious/ethnic affiliations. In that regard, Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots would like to go on record and officially condemn this type of behavior as it is not representative of our organization, our goals, or our individual members.
Please continue to notify us about any future incidents similar to the ones that have been described. We take the reputation of our organization very seriously, and would like to protect it.
Sincerely,
Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots
http://www.meetup.com/VFP-TeaParty09/
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 3:49PM
The Valley Forge Patriots' Organizer Dave Adamski Says You're A Damned Liar.
Show Up At Tomorrow Night's Meeting & Dave & I Will Get Up In Your Grill & Call You A Liar To Your Ugly Mug,You Creepy Fixated Bastard.
You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 6:09PM
By the way Creepy Fixated Bastard, regarding the discussion about Dr.Michael Behe !
You wrote,
Dr.Reich, "If so, I recommend you read "Darwin's Black Box", by the decidely non-religious biochem PhD Michael Behe"
Do Your Homework,Pseudo-Intellect Elitist Wannabe,Anti-Catholic Dr.Wrong.
" To a question from host Melinda Penkava about how his ideas differ from creationism, ( Dr. Michael )Behe disingenuously answered, "Well, now to tell you the truth, I'm not real knowledgeable about creationism. I'm a Roman Catholic." Behe used his "I am a Roman Catholic" mantra more than once to divest himself of the creationist label."
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 6:13PM
Even That Smart Mouthed Critical Lib Broad now knows Dr.Michael Behe is a Catholic.
Pat| 10.3.11 @ 2:22PM
Even uttering magic words like “Bipartisan” or “Blue ribbon committee” can’t alter the mechanics of a Ponzi scheme, it would be like a government committee trying to change the temperature at which water freezes. You keep a Ponzi scheme going by bringing in fresh money up until the inevitable bust occurs, or “game over” as some might characterize it. So, fresh money equals tax increases and no matter how a bipartisan committee perfumes the pig, our national Ponzi scheme, the one we refer to as Social Security, requires an ever increasing supply of fresh money.
Ponzi scheme mechanics also require you to “stiff the existing investors” so that the fresh money comes in faster than the existing money goes out. And, therefore, our national Ponzi scheme requires we must cut Social Security benefits. Don’t cut benefits too much or too quickly, old geezers are convinced they are “entitled” to their lifetime’s worth of contributions, so you’re forced to stick it to our younger workers as long as possible.
The young enjoy robust health and optimistic dispositions which, for those reasons alone, means they are less likely to band together and retaliate when you screw them over. Old folks are physically weak, labor under diminished health but are very stubborn about getting what they see as theirs. Consequently, cutting their benefits to a fiscally sustainable level would unleash a horde of protesting seniors, maybe even gestate a new national political party – the Prune Juice Party?
A Nazi Germany might choose to solve its Ponzi problem permanently by first solving the underlying problem. But this isn’t Nazi Germany so there will be no 21st century versions of Kent State with National Guardsmen bashing the heads of gray haired protestors or “accidentally” discharging their weapons into a crowd of senior citizens. And, at the end of the day, water still freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and our national Ponzi scheme still operates under the same principles as before – and will continue to do so despite how this latest bipartisan committee cleverly spins the ugly truth.
POST American| 10.3.11 @ 10:55PM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
---Still more empty compromise from
the empty and the compromised.
It's the Globalism USURY----EUGENICS and RED China sellout and TREASON OP dummies!
Accept NO sideshows and DIS---tractions.
Michael| 10.5.11 @ 6:12PM
How do you even have a conversation with people who think a cut in the increase in year over year spending is reducing federal spending?
Even the private sector plays budget games but when the boss says your budget is x% less than last year, not x% less than you wanted to spend, you adjust your priorities.