It's with good reason that Washington is renowned for its partisanship, but sometimes Republicans and Democrats actually work together on worthwhile proposals. That may be happening on the entitlement front.
Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg--the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee--have introduced legislation to force Congress to vote on a proposal to fix the nation's unsustainable entitlement programs:
The leaders of the Senate Budget Committee unveiled legislation Tuesday that would require the next Congress to address the long-term budget strain associated with Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.
The bill would create a 16-member task force that would make recommendations by Dec. 9, 2008, on how to address soaring costs of programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The bill calls for the recommendations to be introduced as legislation in the 111th Congress, and both chambers would have to consider it soon after that Congress convenes in January 2009. Debate would be limited, and the proposal could not be amended. It would require a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers to pass.
Conventional wisdom has held that Congress won't tackle entitlements until they are forced to; that they will be forced to create a blue-ribbon panel of experts to deflect blame for the political pain; and that it will require significant support from both Republicans and Democrats to pass. This proposal is an attempt to meet all three conditions. (A summary is available here.)
The bill balances the membership of the panel between Republicans and Democrats. It requires that the majority of the panel consist of sitting Members of Congress (which hurts the effort to push responsibility to some panel of experts, but also ensures that Congress will have 'buy-in' on any ultimate recommendations). It creates a fast-track for consideration of the panel proposal, which Congress cannot avoid. It requires a supermajority to pass the package, ensuring bipartisan support. (I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the constitutionality of such proposals has been questioned in the past.)
That said, there are no guarantees of action. The panel could always fail to produce a recommendation--in which case nothing would happen. However, it creates a strong mechanism for both parties to 'jump together.' And the mechanism that has existed so far--waiting for some president's second term and then hoping all the stars align properly--hasn't led to a solution. This combines ideas that have worked in the trade debate and on base closures to force action on another difficult issue.
And if America elects a candidate who's running on a platform that includes making tough choices about our fiscal future, it will enhance the chances that the federal government acts, rather than allowing programs such as Medicare and Social Security to run off the fiscal cliff.
