Deficit Commission: Gregg, Conrad Explain How It Will Pointlessly Spend Money

On this morning's edition of... well, Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep had Senators Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on, pimping their insane idea to solve the nation's budget deficit by outsourcing the responsibility for doing so to a certain-to-be-dysfunctional special commission, that would require super-majorities at every turn to enact its own recommendations.

Listening in, I had all my standard objections to their process, which seems to imagine that the problems of looming deficits are so great and so serious that fierce urgency demands we make it harder to solve them. Inskeep did a better job than most at heaping skepticism on this whole idea.

Naturally, Conrad and Gregg offered up something new about their proposal that is flat-out idiotic:

INSKEEP: So, just so I understand your proposal, a special group of Senators, Representatives, and some representatives of the administration, they go away, and they come back with a package of presumably politically dangerous or painful budget cuts or tax increases or whatever they come up with, a handful of proposals and Congress is going to have to vote that up or down. [Ed. Note: Again, NOT UP OR DOWN. Sixty percent supermajorities are required in both the House and the Senate.] If your plan is approved, that's what would have to happen.

GREGG: There's one other element here. This group would do a lot of public outreach and would also have an advisory group that would have all the different folks with alleged vested interests in these questions, especially in the entitlement side and on the tax policy side. Public outreach is a very important part of this effort.

So, let me get this straight. A "very important part" of this super-important commission, tasked with reducing the spending of taxpayer dollars, will be to spend taxpayer dollars mounting a P.R. campaign, supporting their efforts? And this is supposed to make sense to anybody?

Oh, and by the way, "an advisory group that would have all the different folks with alleged vested interests in these questions" is a fancy way of saying that the members of this commission will be heavily exposed to all sorts of lobbyists.

I tell you, this idea just keeps getting better and better!

LISTEN:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[spokanelaw]

10:39 PM on 01/21/2010

Remember Clinton and the other New Democrats gave us NAFTA, unregulated derivatives, and deregulated banks.
Now that we are not going to address the Nation's fiscal problems by insurance reform and providing health care for all, the fiscal issues are more pressing. This should give usMORE LEVERAGE and not be a reason to roll over for the special interests.
No Democrat should supports this proposal before we have insurance reform and an opportunity to evaluate its fiscal impact.

[msgirlintn]

04:40 AM on 01/13/2010

This idea just keeps getting worse . First, I don't trust Conrad or Gregg. Second, if they would end these wars, that would go a long way on cutting spending. Gregg is one of those Repubs that is so eager to spend money when the Repubs are in charge, but as soon as the Dems are in charge they have to worry about the deficit. Somebody needs to remind him that Clinton had a surplus that Bush turned into the deficit. Now Obama is having to spend money to get us out of the recession the Repubs put us in. How about the Dem Senators just do their jobs and stop listening to Repubs and stop setting up commissions on everything.

[Changeizgood]

11:40 PM on 01/20/2010

Biparitcian approach = I'll cover your lobbyist on Wall St for the privatization, and you cover mine.

Get out of our business if you can't deal fairly. This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHERE ALL ARE TREATED EQUAL UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS LAND.

NO more expansions or damn tzars. Use the programs or departments already there and fire the ar$3z that don't work for OUR interest. Congress and Senate it is your job, and those paychecks had better be earned.

So far, you are barking up the wrong tree and so out of touch with where America is. The President must have thought he had smarter people in congress and senate. What he found was they are just slicksters trying to moonlight with lobbyist, while passing laws on NOT for the people.

I wouldn't do that if I WAS YOU.

I would do the PEOPLE'S MANDATE THAT YOU CAME IN ON AND WATCH THE REACTION AS THEY HELP TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH WHAT WE NEED IN HEALTHCARE, JOBS, AND WALL ST BANKSTERS.

Do your damn job or resign and WE have another special election. If you don't want to do it, then just resign or retire. Give US time to put someone in there that will work FOR THE VOTERS OF THIS COUNTRY, NOT JUST THE VOTING BLOCKS.

[oldpol2]

12:45 AM on 01/13/2010

Dear editor! A super majority is not required unless there is a fillibuster. Otherwise a simple majority will do. I think the funniest part of this suggestion is the supporters of small government are supporting another government boondogle simply to win political points and give their corporate supporters (lobbiests) a say in the government. AGAIN, sounds like Cheneys energy policies.

[AllYourReligionRSilly2us]

12:44 AM on 01/13/2010

Bad, bad idea. The commission should be composed of independent (i.e., unelected) people (academics, business people, various others - people with track records). Keep the lobbyists away. Then our illustrious congresspeople can vote Yay or Nay on the package, like on the base closing plan.

[Corners]

11:17 AM on 01/16/2010

Need to keep all the revolving door people out also. There are soooo man former staffers and former congress they almost always make it rigged from the get go. Just look at whos on that panel to reign in the financial sector. Its all rigged to make it look like they are doing something when these commissions will just make it easier to cover up the mess our congress handed the taxpayers.

[Higgs Boson]

08:52 PM on 01/12/2010

Actually , if you look at the charts on wickapedia , the government had revenues of 2.7 Trillion for 2009. If we would just go back to 2006 spending levels then we would balance revenues vs. expendatures ..... doesnt sound so hard.........

[Higgs Boson]

08:43 PM on 01/12/2010

There is no way to balance this budget without tax increases and spending cuts. The budget for 2009 was 1.5 TRILLION in debt and 2010 will be about the same. It would take cutting over 40% of the government , which is impossible.

[Tags]

08:14 PM on 01/12/2010

Jason, you keep hitting home run after home run.

I just hope that ten years down the road we don't find out you've been taking steroids.

[Dbos]

06:33 PM on 01/12/2010

Congress = bad ideas.

[JSquercia]

08:31 PM on 01/12/2010

A two thirds majority is it . Sounds frighteningly like California's infamous Proposition 13 which as one article recently decries has made California Ungovernable .