So much has happened this week that this story about the president reaching a deal with congressional leaders over a fiscal commission got little attention. The president's plan differs greatly from the Conrad-Gregg proposal I wrote about in the magazine this week.
Keith Hennessey is here to tell us how:
The Conrad-Gregg task force bill is trying to delegate control to change the law. The rumored Administration proposal is trying to provide an excuse while they duck a hard policy issue in an election year. A commission that is trying to actually make changes to law must be credibly balanced and it must have formal authority to bind policymakers. The Conrad-Gregg proposal has both. The rumored Administration proposal has neither.
The most important differences are these: the president's plan would seek only to reduce the deficit by 2015, whereas the Conrad-Gregg commission would look at long-term fiscal imbalances; there would be twice as many Democrats as Republicans on the Obama commission, whereas there would be only two more Democrats than Republicans on Conrad-Gregg; the Obama commission has no fast-track authority to force an up-or-down vote, whereas Conrad-Gregg does.
The problem with Conrad-Gregg has been that it does not have the support of 60 Senators. It likely never will, now that Obama has reached a separate deal with Pelosi and Reid (Kent Conrad was reportedly involved in the negotiations as well). Instead, Obama probably will announce his new commission, created by executive order, during his State of the Union Address on January 27.
So there will be a fiscal commission--but, because it does not include a fast-track process, its recommendations will in all likelihood never come to a vote. Which is one reason Judd Gregg opposes the Obama plan. It's all smoke and mirrors.