On Deficit Commission, Think Bigger Not Smaller

Max Baucus has a well-put slam on the Conrad-Greg Deficit Commission proposal:

If the Chairman and Ranking Republican Member of the Budget Committee are in such broad agreement on their goals, why don’t they just skip the commission and go straight to their recommendation? That is exactly why Congress created the budget resolution and the reconciliation bill.

I’ve given Baucus a hard time about a lot of stuff over the years, but to his credit he is the primarily author of a health reform bill that, unlike this Conrad-Gregg proposal, actually would improve the nation’s long-term fiscal position. Meanwhile, I think it’s pretty clear that the reason Conrad and Gregg don’t just go do it themselves is that they have no real intention of reducing the deficit. After all, as Baucus points out, if they wanted to, the two of them could get together to write a bipartisan deficit-reducing reconciliation bill that would need only 50 votes to pass the Senate. That’s what you do if you want to get things done. The Conrad-Gregg Commission, by contrast, would formulate proposals that require supermajorities in both houses of congress. In other words, it would make deficit reduction harder rather than easier.

But I think the crucial thing here is that this proposal shouldn’t just die, letting Conrad and Gregg pretend that they had some brilliant anti-deficit plan and now nothing can be done since mean ol’ liberals killed their idea.

What’s needed is a proposal for a serious commission to tackle the problem in a serious way. For one thing, it needs a target—not just a lower deficit, but a steadily shrinking debt-to-GDP ratio. And it needs a serious mandate—to achieve a plan balanced between tax and spending measures. And going outside the regular congressional order needs to serve some purpose—exemption from the filibuster. I think a bill to create a statutory commission with that mandate would be a perfectly reasonable idea. I’m also fairly certain it’s a bill that can’t get 60 votes in the Senate—no Republicans will vote for tax hikes, and plenty of Democrats won’t either unless Republicans go along. But in part for that reason I think it’s something progressive members ought to push. There’s an urgent need to dramatize that the most important reason the fiscal situation is bad is the conservative movement’s unrelenting hostility to tax increases, the second most important most important reason the fiscal situation is bad is the conservative movement’s political power, and the third most important reason the fiscal situation is bad is the emergence of the supermajority senate.

Liberals shouldn’t let ourselves get painted into the corner as the people who don’t want to tackle the long-term deficit. The correct posture is unlimited willingness to tackle this issue as long as leading conservatives will agree to a fair split between tax and spending measures, and totally unwillingness to unilaterally gut retirement security in order to free up money for the next GOP tax cut binge.