Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Reveal Navigation

Against Supercommittee Transparency Against Supercommittee Transparency Against Supercommittee Transparency Against Supercommittee Tr...

share
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Not a member? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

Congress / COMMENTARY

Against Supercommittee Transparency

(AFP/Getty Images)

August 11, 2011

This week, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders began appointing the members of the so-called super committee -- the latest blue-ribbon panel assigned to tackle the deficit problem, this one created by the recent debt-ceiling legislation. Even before the appointments were announced, there was plenty of chest-bumping from both sides, Republicans vowing never to consider tax increases and Democrats swearing to protect entitlement programs. So it's hard enough to believe that the super committee will manage to strike any kind of agreement.



Latest Politics Posts:
Loading feed...

But if there's one thing that could worsen the odds, it's the suddenly popular notion that the committee's deliberations ought to be thrown open to the public. "[F]rom the conversations I've had with the other leaders of both parties, I can tell you there's a strong commitment to having open hearings and a public process," House Speaker John Boehner told his members on Monday.

 

That's an absolutely terrible idea.

The committee's charge is to come up with $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by November. It isn't hard to guess what sorts of ideas they'll consider because countless commissions have examined the problem and come up with a familiar list: cutting or eliminating big tax expenditures such as the mortgage-interest deduction and the myriad special-interest provisions in the tax code; cutting (reforming, if you prefer) Medicare and Social Security, possibly through means-testing and raising the eligibility age; cutting defense spending; and, of course, raising taxes, especially on the wealthy. And many more.

In fact, any reasonably intelligent high school student assigned the same task could draw on these earlier reports and probably produce a list not dissimilar to what the super committee might recommend (and do so with a lot less preening and drama). So the calls for transparency aren't grounded in any fear that the negotiators will hit upon some radical or dangerous new idea.

What's driving them is special-interest pressure. The current (and expensive) tax loopholes didn't get there by accident. Most got there as a direct result of lobbying on behalf of assorted powerful interests. That's what usually shapes the tax code. And that's why reforming it is so hard--by definition, you're working against these same powerful forces.

Anyone who genuinely cares about the deficit ought to welcome the idea of private negotiations, because these are far more likely to yield a positive result by creating a venue for candid exchange and limiting the input of the forces that ordinarily shape the tax code. It's the special interests that have the greatest investment in transparency, because that would allow them to pressure the negotiators and poison the political atmosphere in advance of any deal.

Get us in your feed.
 
Comments
comments powered by Disqus