We have found El Dorado, the magical city of true bipartisanship. When it comes to the Conrad-Gregg proposal to “establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States,” we can (almost) just take all 100 senators’ names, throw them in bag, and pick them out at random. The amendment won 53 votes, but failed to meet the 60-vote threshold. Most liberals (at least, those not up for reelection) voted against it. Most conservatives voted against it, too. Here’s why, from George Will:
Substantively, the task force would be a means of conscripting Republican participation in huge tax increases. There are precedents. The 1983 Greenspan Commission that “fixed” Social Security permanently (permanence is not what it used to be) involved large and immediate tax increases and small and delayed trims to benefits.
On the liberal side the objection is that it is anticipated that any such commission would recommend steep cuts in Social Security benefits without any corresponding cuts in Defense spending.
A few ‘no’ votes (like Sen. Byrd’s) were probably more about protecting the prerogatives of the Senate, as the Commission’s recommendations would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote without any amendments.
On the ‘yes’ side of things are people who rightly believe that Congress is incapable of making the hard choices needed to restore some sense of fiscal sanity and avoid an epic failure of our society.
There isn’t an obvious correct side to this debate, but I will say that cutting Defense spending should be the first item on the docket for any commission looking to save our bacon.
