On to the Committee

America's deficit problem now passes to a new super committee of Congress, which could lead to an honest attempt to craft an evenhanded solution — or more political dillydallying.

The country has endured plenty of committees and commissions over the years. From the Grace Commission of the 1980s to the Simpson-Bowles Commission last year, one common theme, unfortunately, has been a lack of teeth. Great ideas. No way — or will — to implement them.

This time could be different, if the parties want it to be.

The 12-member committee will be equally divided between the House and Senate and between Republicans and Democrats. Its charge: cutting another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit. An initial round of cuts of about $917 billion over the next 10 years will come first.

The committee can act by majority vote, and it will be able to bypass congressional rules and send its proposals directly to the Senate and House floors. Those proposals would have to be voted on by members of Congress. They could not be amended and could pass by a simple majority. That's a lot of power to do good work — if the committee members choose to use that power.

But it will require compromise. If Republicans and Democrats place only the most die-hard members of their caucuses on this new creation, it's unlikely that the committee will agree to anything. If it fails to reach agreement, a series of automatic cuts will take effect — half from the defense budget. Unfortunately, this incentive for action is weakened by the fact that the new debt-ceiling law shields programs for the poor and Social Security and limits cuts to Medicare.

Theoretically, the super committee could consider all options.

We think an open-minded analysis of the problem will lead committee members to the same solutions reached by the deficit-reduction commission, chaired by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former aide to President Bill Clinton Erskine Bowles. Simpson-Bowles provides a good road map for the new committee.

Simpson-Bowles would have trimmed $4 trillion from the budget over a decade through both tax increases and spending cuts. It would have eliminated or cut such tax breaks as the child tax credit and the deduction for mortgage interest and health insurance. And it recommended tax reform — lower rates with fewer carve-outs.

President Barack Obama ran away from the plan almost as soon as it was introduced. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, declined to sign on, though he said at the time that he liked much of what the commission accomplished. Both should have shown more leadership. Obama, in particular, should have embraced the Simpson-Bowles report; it might have saved him a few headaches this week.

If the new committee is to accomplish long-lasting reductions in the nation's deficit, it needs to consider both sides of the ledger — revenue and costs. And it needs to tackle the biggest drivers of the deficit: entitlements.

All of this needs to be done with great care. The economy remains terribly fragile — as Wall Street seems to have realized, judging from this week's performance by the stock market. The nation needs to get its deficit addiction under control, but cutting too much too soon could be just as harmful as doing nothing.

Above all, congressional leaders need to find the right people from both parties to form this new committee — legislators committed to compromise for the good of all.

REPRINTED FROM THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINAL

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM