The Senate has rejected a proposed commission intended to force Congress to curb its debt habit. Backers of a fiscal commission were quick to point out that the measure, while falling short of the required 60 votes, did receive 53 of the Senate's 100 votes (46 senators voted against the measure and one senator did not vote).
The commission was put forth as an amendment to legislation (H J Res 45) that would increase the nation's debt ceiling to $14.294 trillion. The amendment –– sponsored by Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and committee ranking Republican Judd Gregg (N.H.) –– would have created a debt panel and established a fast-track process for putting its recommendations on the floor for a vote.
The Conrad-Gregg proposal faced powerful opposition across the political spectrum and from some of the most powerful lobbying groups. On the right, Americans for Tax Reform promised to keep tabs on the votes on the proposal, which it described as a path to "a guaranteed tax increase." On the left, were groups more traditionally oriented toward Democrats, including large labor unions, which chided lawmakers for their consideration of putting potential changes to Social Security and Medicare on a fast track.
The defeat is far from the end of the drive for a special process to overhaul U.S. finances, Conrad said. President Obama has put forth the idea of an executive order commission, as the Conrad-Gregg proposal faced steep odds. That proposal is still alive and remains an option, should Congress fail to enact a legislated debt commission.
The original plan was for a presidential commission, but Conrad and Gregg pointed out that such a body would lack the authority needed to curb the annual U.S. budget deficit. Their alternative would have created the commission by law and given it the authority to propose concrete proposals for reducing the deficit. Those proposals then would be submitted to both Houses of Congress for an up-or-down vote on each, with no amendments permitted.
The overall idea is to force Congress to deal with a problem which members clearly do not want to touch. Generally speaking, Republicans oppose the commission because they fear it would lead to tax increases, while Democrats oppose the idea because they believe it will lead to spending cuts in current programs. Clearly, both approaches are needed since neither by itself can produce anything approaching balance.
