Republican Budget reform proposal gives Bush power to axe any program

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

This is a very, very important issue which is about to be voted on. Essentially, these Sunset Commissions would hand the President the power to unilaterally axe any program he wants. It gets worse when you consider it further - say Republicans want to roll back environmental regulations. They could say to Democrats "Either you vote to roll back these regulations or we're just going to eliminate the EPA entirely." Here's a link to a paper by James Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whom just gave testimony this morning before the House Committee on Government Reform: http://www.cbpp.org/6-16-06bud.htm

Quote:

The leadership of the House of Representatives has said that the House will soon consider legislation to establish a “sunset commission.” The Bush Administration and several House members — including Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) — each have offered proposals to create such a commission. In the Senate, Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH) has also put forward such a proposal.

--snip--

The leading sunset commission proposals have been promoted by their sponsors as “good government” reforms to increase efficiency and reduce waste. Examination of these proposals shows, however, that they have a darker side. Under the various sunset commission proposals, extensive program terminations and reductions could be rammed through Congress via the use of extraordinary procedures. Far-reaching changes could be developed by a sunset commission and moved through Congress on a purely partisan basis, without any support at any stage of the process from a single member of the minority party and with minority-party members of Congress prohibited even from offering amendments at any stage of Congressional consideration. In some versions of the sunset commission proposal, agencies and programs could be abolished even if Congress declines to pass the legislation containing the commission’s changes.
--snip--
*

The commission established under these proposals would likely have a distinct partisan (and ideological) slant. Under all four of the leading sunset-commission proposals, either all or a sizable majority of the commission members would be appointed by Republican leaders. (They would be appointed either by the President or by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate.) This is highly significant, because under these proposals, only a simple majority of the commission would be needed for the commission to pass its recommendations. Thus, the commission’s recommendations could be developed and approved on a strictly partisan basis.

*

The problems caused by the partisan way in which of the commission could conduct its business would then be exacerbated by another critical feature of all four proposals — the sunset commission proposals all include a mechanism to allow agencies and programs to be eliminated, regardless of whether legislation to accomplish that could be enacted through the regular legislative process. Three of the four proposals (the President’s plan,<1> the Tiahrt bill — H.R. 2470 — and the Gregg plan — S. 3521) would require that the commission’s recommendation be considered with no amendments allowed either in committee or on the House or Senate floors. The normal Congressional steps that can be used to try to develop consensus — committee mark-ups and the offering and consideration of amendments — would be dispensed with. As a result, a series of far-reaching recommendations entailing sharp program eliminations and cuts could be developed in the commission on a purely partisan basis and brought to a vote on the House floor, with the minority party barred even from offering amendments.

*

The other leading sunset-commission bill (Rep. Brady’s, H.R. 3282) would use the regular legislative procedures, but would require that every federal agency be automatically abolished one year after the sunset commission completed its review of the agency, unless new legislation to reauthorize the agency was enacted within this one-year window. (The President’s proposal includes a similar provision, in addition to fast-track consideration of the commission’s proposals.) That would enable Members of Congress who sought to kill various programs or agencies to try to achieve that result by blocking legislation to reauthorize the program within the one-year period. Alternatively, the President could kill programs or agencies simply by vetoing legislation to reauthorize them and having his veto sustained by one-third of either the House or the Senate. In this manner, programs and agencies could be killed even if they enjoyed broad public support, and legislation to eliminate the program or agency could not possibly pass.

[marmar]

1. A huge issue that's not getting nearly enough attention...

Are we going to abdicate all power to the king?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It's ridiculous how under the radar this issue is flying.

Especially since nearly every organization in DC hates this thing (mine included). You'd think more attention would be paid to this highly unconstitutional proposal (which is maybe WHY it's under the radar - because it's so unlikely to survive SCOTUS, but who knows with the new justices).

[TygrBright]

3. Question: Would they want CLINTON to have this power?

Or ANY Democrat, for that matter?

::loses it::

WTF ARE THESE IDIOTS THINKING?!?!?!??

::Wanders off to take a Prozac or somepin'::

outragedly,
Bright

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Honestly, think about what the committee does.

It doesn't start programs - it just ends them. And quite frankly, Republicans don't really have any sacred cows outside of the military - and there's no way we'd get away with cutting military. Plus, think about all the cuts Bush could make over the next two years. That's so much damage that it'd be worth the risk.